Judaica Petropolitana Scholarly Journal  
Judaica Petropolitana Judaica Petropolitana St Petersburg – Jerusalem
Judaica Petropolitana Judaica Petropolitana Judaica Petropolitana
Judaica Petropolitana


Online version:
ISSN 2542-1794

Printed version:
ISSN 2307-9053

This website is supported by Genesis Philanthropy Group charity program CAF Russia «Jewish Societies»

Issue Cover

Issue 1 (2013)


I. R. Tantlevskij.   The “Old New” Jewish Studies of St. Petersburg   Summary
I. R. Tantlevskij.   «Staronovaia» iudaika Sankt-Peterburga   

184 kB download pdf
Russian C. Aslanov.   Northwest Semitic Structural Influences on Archaic Greek: a Reassessment    Summary 230 kB download pdf
A. V. Nemirovskaya.   Further Considerations on Deuteronomy 32:5   Summary
A. V. Nemirovskaia. K interpretatsii bibleiskogo fragmenta Vtorozakonie 32:5
290 kB download pdf
R. V. Svetlov.   Biblical Tubal-Cain and Plato’s «Sophist»   Summary
R. V. Svetlov. Bibleiskii Tuval-Kain i platonovskii «Sofist»
Russian M. Pontoppidan.   Biblical Ethics and Plotinus   Summary 163 kB download pdf
D. V. Romashov.   Rabbinic Traditions about Alexandrians: Transition and Transformation   Summary
D. V. Romashov. Peredacha i transformatsiia ravvinisticheskikh traditsii ob aleksandriitsakh
356 kB download pdf
A. Bikard.   Elia Levita and Teofilo Folengo: Creativity and Linguistic Freedom within the Genre of Chivalric Romance in Italy (ca. 1500–1530)   Summary 207 kB download pdf
V. E. Kelner.  “High as Their Goals Might be, They are Not Our Goals” (M. М. Vinaver as an Antizionist)   Summary
V. E. Kel'ner. «Ikh tseli mogut byt' vysoki, no oni — ne nashi tseli» (M. M. Vinaver — antisionist)
215 kB download pdf
Russian D. E. Rozenson.   Isaac Babel: Cognitive Insider vs. Social Outsider as Seen through the Prism of His Writings and His 1920 Diary   Summary 230 kB download pdf
I. Dvorkin.   The Being and the Existing. Overcoming of Metaphysics in Cohen, Heidegger and Levinas   Summary
I. Dvorkin. Sushchii i sushchestvuiushchii. Preodolenie metafiziki u Kogena, Khaideggera i Levinasa
223 kB download pdf
V. V. Fedchenko.   English and Yiddish Versions of Itskhok Bashevis Zinger’s Novel “Enemies. A Love Story”   Summary
V. V. Fedchenko. Angliiskaia i idishskaia versii romana I. B. Zingera «Vragi. Istoriia odnoi liubvi»
180 kB download pdf
V. Chernin.   The Man Who Stood in the Breach in the Wall: Hebrew Language in Shimon Frug’s Poetry   Summary 163 kB download pdf
E. Bareket.   A Holy Community — the Terminology and Its Usage according to Genizah Letters of the 11th Century   Summary 174 kB download pdf
Hebrew U. Gershowitz.   Fourteenth Century Philosophical Commentary on the Sefer Ha-Bahir   Summary 185 kB download pdf
Previous article Article summary Next article

Adel V. Nemirovskaya
St. Petersburg State University, Assistant Professor, Ph.D.

Further Considerations on Deuteronomy 32:5

Download PDF
Download PDF (290kB)
Keywords: Deuteronomy 32:5, Song of Moses, Masoretic text, lectio difficilior, ancient Biblical versions, emendations, exegesis
Deut. 32 enjoyed a long history of research presented in detail by P. Sanders. Since then its various verses have been still under consideration elsewhere, mainly in terms of textual criticism based on divergent evidence of the ancient versions of the Bible, i.e. Samaritan Pentateuch, Greek, Latin and Aramaic (targumic) versions, non-masoretic biblical texts from Qumran. Deut. 32:5 is the prime example. It took decades of broadly accepted hypercriticism, including BHS’s apparatus, until BHQ changed the perspective to recognizing MT as the original lectio difficilior and the ancient versions as the result of facilitation and exegetical interpretation: MT “respected the difficult text, but reversed its meaning through the accentual pattern it superimposed, whereas the latter tried to make sense of the text through reversing its word order, and changing the verb to the plural”. Otherwise BHQ adheres to the common interpretation that sg of the verb implies here “His sons”, people of Israel, as its subject. This awkwardness of the verse could be disposed with the Lord treated as its subject. Whatever original accentuation might be, the only definite evidence is that of MT, obviously intended to provide a certain meaning. To be translated as it is, combined with my proposal, Deut 32:5 should be put this way: He messed up (against) Himself ?! No! His sons — their fault! (or, if it is an enclitic m then: His sons — this is the blemish!) The improbability of God’s making a mistake caused interpreters to shift the focus on the people and their entire responsibility.
Back to Contents
  All rights resevred
© 2013–2017 «Judaica Petropolitana» editorial board
Web-design: DK