Deuteronomy 32:8

[Estro Felino]

Hello...guys.
I wanted to analyze one of the most debated passages from the OT by philologists and Biblists.
Deuteronomy 32:8
8 When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.


1)To begin with...most Churches adopted the Masoretic Text as source for their translations.
But the Masoretic Text is not the most ancient source of the OT. The Dead Sea scrolls are. Aka Qumran scrolls. Which were written in the first century BC and differ from the Masoretic Text in so many passages, considering that the most ancient source of the MT is the Codex Leningradensis (11th century).
Here from the Qumran fragments, Deuteronomy passage:
When the Most High gave to the Nations their inheritance,
when he separated the children of men,
He set the bounds of the Peoples
according to the number of the children of God. (Elohim)
Source:Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls - 4Q37 Deuteronomy

As you can see...it doesn't say the children of Israel. It does say the children of God...and in this case it makes sense, because it implies God had children and maybe Yahweh (who had Jacob\Israel as Nation) was one of them


2)The Septuagint was the translation or better the Greek version of the Tanakh translated by the Jews of Alexandria in the II century BC. The most ancient source of is the Codex Vaticanus (4th century AD).
Here the passage from the Septuagint followed by my translation:

ὅτε διεμέριζεν ὁ ῞Υψιστος ἔθνη, ὡς διέσπειρεν υἱοὺς ᾿Αδάμ, ἔστησεν ὅρια ἐθνῶν κατὰ ἀριθμὸν ἀγγέλων Θεοῦ,

When the Most High divided the Nations, by spreading the children of Adam, he established the borders of the Nations according to the number of the angels (messengers) of God.
As you can see...it doesn't say "children of God" but " angels of God", as if the angels (Malakhim) were God's children and not simple messengers of God. Or probably it did refer to the children of God, as the Qumran Deuteronomy says.



3)The Vulgate was written by Jerome in the fourth century AD. The most ancient source is the Codex Amiatinus, from the 7th century AD. Since Jerome went to Judaea to translate the OT from Hebrew to Latin he had access to the Masoretic Text of the 4th century AD. And in fact they match:
The passage from the Vulgate

Quando dividebat Altissimus gentes,
quando separabat filios Adam,
constituit terminos populorum
juxta numerum filiorum Israël.

So...what do you think? What does this passage really mean?

 

[Wandering Monk]

Jewish commentaries on this passage which go back many centuries have the first reading 'according to the sons of Israel.'

They say that the 70 nations of the world correlate with the 70 descendants of Jacob that went down into Egypt during the famine in Genesis. The number 70 is not necessarily literal, but metaphorical. Other passages say that God gave the commandments at Sinai in 70 languages so that all the world could hear them in their own tongue.

 

[Estro Felino]

I do believe that three are the conclusions that I can reach by reading all the aforementioned versions:
1) That the Most High and Yahweh are two different persons.
2) That the First divides the Nations according to a certain number of people. His children, apparently.
3) That Yahweh is one of these people and he receives the task to rule over Jacob's people. Aka Israel.

 

[Brickjectivity]

So...what do you think? What does this passage really mean?

Why aren't the translators so concerned about this bit? I have an explanation which satisfies me. Assume 'God' is not so well defined. For example the emphasis in Jewish scripture is on justice, and I can read the word 'God' there as 'Justice'. I can do that, because its a flexible word. Now the question becomes "Is it sons of justice or angels of justice or messengers of justice?" You can see now using this example why the translators didn't see such a problem with some flexibility in using 'Angels' or 'Messengers' or 'Sons'. I suggest the problem is pinning the definition of 'God'.

 

[Estro Felino]

Why aren't the translators so concerned about this bit? I have an explanation which satisfies me. Assume 'God' is not so well defined. For example the emphasis in Jewish scripture is on justice, and I can read the word 'God' there as 'Justice'. I can do that, because its a flexible word. Now the question becomes "Is it sons of justice or angels of justice or messengers of justice?" You can see now using this example why the translators didn't see such a problem with some flexibility in using 'Angels' or 'Messengers' or 'Sons'. I suggest the problem is pinning the definition of 'God'.

Exactly. God is the keyword.

 

[dybmh]

But the Masoretic Text is not the most ancient source of the OT. The Dead Sea scrolls are.

The dead sea scrolls were likely written by the essenes who had their own unique version of Judaism. Therefore it would make sense that their written text would be slightly different.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Bart Ehrman makes an interesting point. Older documents have less control on copying so they are not automatically more accurate.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Bart Ehrman makes an interesting point. Older documents have less control on copying so they are not automatically more accurate.

They probably do have less control on copying but still some control, since they are copies. The copy still will make sense to the copyist. These three different styles all made sense to their copyists...probably.

I don't know what Bart Ehrman would say in this particular situation. He writes a lot of books. I've handled 2: How Jesus Became God and Misquoting Jesus. Last I heard his position was at Chapel Hill in NC, but I don't remember his background. He's going to have certain gravitational drifts depending on which book. If he's writing Misquoting Jesus then he's going to say something like "Older documents have less control on copying," because it relates to his subject. It may not mean that they are fast and loose with copying in this case.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I do believe that three are the conclusions that I can reach by reading all the aforementioned versions:
1) That the Most High and Yahweh are two different persons.
2) That the First divides the Nations according to a certain number of people. His children, apparently.
3) That Yahweh is one of these people and he receives the task to rule over Jacob's people. Aka Israel.

The gift of inkblot theology; the capacity to discover what one wants to see with zero justification.

 

[Tumah]

Hello...guys.
I wanted to analyze one of the most debated passages from the OT by philologists and Biblists.
Deuteronomy 32:8
8 When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.


1)To begin with...most Churches adopted the Masoretic Text as source for their translations.
But the Masoretic Text is not the most ancient source of the OT. The Dead Sea scrolls are. Aka Qumran scrolls. Which were written in the first century BC and differ from the Masoretic Text in so many passages, considering that the most ancient source of the MT is the Codex Leningradensis (9th century).
Here from the Qumran fragments, Deuteronomy passage:
When the Most High gave to the Nations their inheritance,
when he separated the children of men,
He set the bounds of the Peoples
according to the number of the children of God. (Elohim)
Source:Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls - 4Q37 Deuteronomy

As you can see...it doesn't say the children of Israel. It does say the children of God...and in this case it makes sense, because it implies God had children and maybe Yahweh (who had Jacob\Israel as Nation) was one of them

Maybe if you have some idea that this passage was a completely separate section that a redactor added to the book, that might make sense.

In context, Israel is that land that was inherited by the Jewish nation and that's the subject here. Off hand, I can't think of any other land that's said to be inherited by another nation. So I believe this is poetically referring to the dividing of the land of Israel by tribe.

Also, some of the other verses in the song are a little difficult to resolve with a pantheon. According to the claim, this verse finds it acceptable to state that this Most High god gave birth to a bunch of gods among them, the G-d of Israel. But later on in the song, it calls other gods "not-gods" as if it's not acceptable to relate to them as gods. And towards the end it says, "I am He and there is no god with Me", again, as though we can't refer to those others as gods. I think we would have expected something elevating the G-d of Israel among the other gods in this verse, to make it more consistent with what it says later in the song.

2)The Septuagint was the translation or better the Greek version of the Tanakh translated by the Jews of Alexandria in the II century BC. The most ancient source of is the Codex Vaticanus (4th century AD).
Here the passage from the Septuagint followed by my translation:

When the Most High divided the Nations, by spreading the children of Adam, he established the borders of the Nations according to the number of the angels (messengers) of God.
As you can see...it doesn't say "children of God" but " angels of God", as if the angels (Malakhim) were God's children and not simple messengers of God. Or probably it did refer to the children of God, as the Qumran Deuteronomy says.

I would say that the Codex Vaticanus believes itself to be in agreement with the DSS. The phrase "children of G-d" is traditionally understood to mean angels (among other things). It looks like that's how the authors of the Codex Vaticanus understood the phrase as well.

 

[Estro Felino]

In context, Israel is that land that was inherited by the Jewish nation and that's the subject here. Off hand, I can't think of any other land that's said to be inherited by another nation. So I believe this is poetically referring to the dividing of the land of Israel by tribe.

From what I have read in the LXX, Israel is referred as Nation. Which was divided into 12 tribes.
Other Nations are Moab, Edom, Aram, Ammon...etc...
So I think there is a difference between Nation and tribe.

 

[Tumah]

From what I have read in the LXX, Israel is referred as Nation. Which was divided into 12 tribes.
Other Nations are Moab, Edom, Aram, Ammon...etc...
So I think there is a difference between Nation and tribe.

Right, but this is a poem so we don't need to take every word literally. There's no other land that's described as an inheritance from G-d to the nation occupying it, or as being portioned off by G-d to them, besides Israel. In fact, in the list you gave here, Moab, Edom and Ammon were all removed from their lands permanently.

So that's why I think the words "nations" and "man" is just poetic license for the nation of Israel.

 

[Estro Felino]

Right, but this is a poem so we don't need to take every word literally. There's no other land that's described as an inheritance from G-d to the nation occupying it, or as being portioned off by G-d to them, besides Israel. In fact, in the list you gave here, Moab, Edom and Ammon were all removed from their lands permanently.

So that's why I think the words "nations" and "man" is just poetic license for the nation of Israel.

Yes...it is poetic license, But the historicity of the Bible is a given. For example the Mesha Stele confirms all the historical struggle between Moab and Israel.

PS: I am glad you and I both get up early. Have a nice day @Tumah

 

[firedragon]

Bart Ehrman makes an interesting point. Older documents have less control on copying so they are not automatically more accurate.

Which book is that?

 

[Wandering Monk]

Which book is that?

I believe it was Misquoting Jesus.

 

[firedragon]

Hello...guys.
I wanted to analyze one of the most debated passages from the OT by philologists and Biblists.
Deuteronomy 32:8
8 When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.


1)To begin with...most Churches adopted the Masoretic Text as source for their translations.
But the Masoretic Text is not the most ancient source of the OT. The Dead Sea scrolls are. Aka Qumran scrolls. Which were written in the first century BC and differ from the Masoretic Text in so many passages, considering that the most ancient source of the MT is the Codex Leningradensis (11th century).
Here from the Qumran fragments, Deuteronomy passage:
When the Most High gave to the Nations their inheritance,
when he separated the children of men,
He set the bounds of the Peoples
according to the number of the children of God. (Elohim)
Source:Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls - 4Q37 Deuteronomy

As you can see...it doesn't say the children of Israel. It does say the children of God...and in this case it makes sense, because it implies God had children and maybe Yahweh (who had Jacob\Israel as Nation) was one of them


2)The Septuagint was the translation or better the Greek version of the Tanakh translated by the Jews of Alexandria in the II century BC. The most ancient source of is the Codex Vaticanus (4th century AD).
Here the passage from the Septuagint followed by my translation:

When the Most High divided the Nations, by spreading the children of Adam, he established the borders of the Nations according to the number of the angels (messengers) of God.
As you can see...it doesn't say "children of God" but " angels of God", as if the angels (Malakhim) were God's children and not simple messengers of God. Or probably it did refer to the children of God, as the Qumran Deuteronomy says.



3)The Vulgate was written by Jerome in the fourth century AD. The most ancient source is the Codex Amiatinus, from the 7th century AD. Since Jerome went to Judaea to translate the OT from Hebrew to Latin he had access to the Masoretic Text of the 4th century AD. And in fact they match:
The passage from the Vulgate



So...what do you think? What does this passage really mean?

Great thread.

So, in Genesis when these so called "Sons of God" or bene Elohim have relations with "Daughters of Men", does it really refer to angels? The DSS you referred to says "children of God" right? In that case, its the same phraseology. Do both refer to angels?

Thinking of Job, the reference children of God seems to refer to angels because the children of God came in front of YHWH and then, Hasathan also comes. Its got to be an unnatural situation in this case because even satan is involved. Yet as I know, satan does not exist by that phrase in any other book but Job and Zecharaiah. Thus, the generalisation based on this analogy between Job and Genesis does not seem like a good way to analyse this although job is one of the rare citations for the phrase.

Nevertheless, could not this "sons of God" be simply "pious people who do Gods bidding" like the New Testament state?

 

[firedragon]

I believe it was Misquoting Jesus.

As I remember, he glorifies the older manuscripts in that book. He speaks of printers who did not go looking for older and better manuscripts but printed the same text with minor mistakes. This is when he was explaining how corruption could enter a book that is being reproduced.

But I could be missing something.

 

[Estro Felino]

Great thread.

So, in Genesis when these so called "Sons of God" or bene Elohim have relations with "Daughters of Men", does it really refer to angels? The DSS you referred to says "children of God" right? In that case, its the same phraseology. Do both refer to angels?

Thinking of Job, the reference children of God seems to refer to angels because the children of God came in front of YHWH and then, Hasathan also comes. Its got to be an unnatural situation in this case because even satan is involved. Yet as I know, satan does not exist by that phrase in any other book but Job and Zecharaiah. Thus, the generalisation based on this analogy between Job and Genesis does not seem like a good way to analyse this although job is one of the rare citations for the phrase.

Nevertheless, could not this "sons of God" be simply "pious people who do Gods bidding" like the New Testament state?

Angelology is really interesting because all the monotheistic religions believe in these superior beings.
I do agree with you.

 

[Hawkins]

So...what do you think? What does this passage really mean?

Moses was talking about how God's people inherit lands in accordance to what God has planned ahead. The land of the Jews is thus divided into 12 which matches the number of sons of Jacob.

Red See Scrolls are a library of the Essene. Legit copy belongs to the Pharisees strictly governed through the Great Sanhedrin. Only scribes appointed by the Great Sanhedrin (subsequently the Pharisees as Sadducees only care about the first 5 books) can legitimately produce the copies of Scriptures. This will exclude the Essenes. LXX is not even a controlled copy. It all boils down to how accurate each publisher when making copies onto animal skins. In the end, LXX produced by one publisher may differ from another. Unlike the Great Sanhedrin, they have a strict process in verifying their produced copies.

Masoretic Text is adapted because those who make the texts are very serious makers. It's ok if their original copies are with a Pharisaic origin. The Jews reckoned them more likely either they originated from a Pharisaic source or a rabbi source. If they are from a Pharisaic source then they had an accurate start up. If the source is from the rabbis then they may not be as accurate as what the Great Sanhedrin originally kept.

In summary, the most accurate copy is supposedly from a legit Pharisaic source. Dead Sea Scrolls are of a Essene origin, not Pharisaic. LXX is not even a controlled copy. Masoretic Text on the other hand, is very much seriously produced. It can be accurate if it is with a Pharisaic origin. It may not be accurate enough to start with if it's not with a Pharisaic origin.

In the end, it is a book of God. So it is by God's will that it is so.