Sons of Israel or Sons of God - Deuteronomy 32
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 мар 2020
- Does your Bible say sons of Israel or sons of God in Deuteronomy 32:8? Let's take a deep dive into the history of this important text, the text and manuscript variants. The history behind it is quite fascinating.
We will explore the Masoretic text, the Vulgate and the Septuagint as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls. Is there anything this can teach us about the differences between translations?
Well done brother.
Sorry but the context shows that Israel didn't even exist yet. How could it refer to Sons of Israel when there were no Sons of Israel yet? This is the beginning of de-spiritualizing the Scriptures yo make all references to Spiritual Beings non-existant by reinterpreting them as human.
Yes, I agree. The de-spiritualizing comment is spot on.
You are correct Matthew....the context must be followed...for example the terms "nations" is plural...relating to world wide...many divisions, borders...all plural...sons of God
refers to the same understanding of what is written in Genisis 6 going forward throughout the Old Testament...Then in verse 9 it describes the LORD'S portion..which is
Jacob(ISREAL)
Good stuff! thank you very much! Of course I am here because of Micheal Heiser.
Nice video, Deuteronomy 32:43 is another example of tampering with the masoretic text to hide "dangerous" ideas.
Paul quotes this from the Septuagint in Hebrews 1:6 to show Jesus is God and worthy of worship.
The new english translation Full Notes Edition(NET) has (heavenly assembly) and in the notes they give the different interpretations and went with using (heavenly assembly).
Wonderful video Dan. I'm glad you tackled this tough section of scripture. I really liked to see the Hebrew and the different manuscripts. Wondering about the differences in my Bible translations were what really got me started in studying Hebrew. It's such a rich and fulfilling journey. The explanation at the end of "why" this problem exists was really helpful. Thanks for your passion!
"Sons of Israel" makes more sense in the context. Yahweh divided the nations in order to have adequate space for the children of Israel to habitate. As Wesley says, "32 Gen 11:1 - 9. When he separated - Divided them in their languages and habitations according to their families. He set the bounds - That is, he disposed of the several lands and limits of the people so as to reserve a sufficient place for the great numbers of the people of Israel. And therefore he so guided the hearts of several people, that the posterity of Canaan, which was accursed of God, and devoted to ruin, should be seated in that country which God intended for the children of Israel, that so when their iniquities were ripe, they might be rooted out, and the Israelites come in their stead." (Wesley's Notes)
"Sons of God" appears to be a change made in some Hebrew texts and in the LXX to conform to the later Jewish idea of God giving each nation a guardian angel, as angels are sometimes called "sons of God". Righteous human servants of Yahweh are also called "sons of God", like the descendants of Seth in Genesis 6.
While the DSS and LXX agree on "sons of God", they may not be separate transmission streams; the Masoretic text and Samaritan Pentateuch say "sons of Israel" and are two separate textual traditions. The evidence is split, but "sons of Israel" makes more sense in context.
I respectfully disagree. It is assumsed Moses is speaking to the children of Israel about the days of old, but he's speaking to the children of israel prior to them going into the promised land and so they have no land that is divided according to the sons of israel, but if we look back at the time that Moses wants the children to remember, there definitely is no israel their either. In the tower of Babel moment there is a nations list and Israel is not one of them, in fact, that tower of Babel moment was prior to God calling even Abraham. Jacob isn't born yet to change his name to Israel.
It's a much better translation for sons of God, since this phrase shows up earlier in Genesis and in Job and there's scholarship around early judaism being heavily influenced by canaanite tradtions and how this "yahweh" had a wife and was synonymous with Baal and that there was a Jewish polytheism early on... a polytheism that I'm sure Moses in this moment might be condemning OR reminding them that the Most High EL gave an inheritance to another god Yahweh who then takes Israel/Jacob as his portion thereby making Israel the "chosen people" and the covennat relationship with Israel that Yahweh seems to not have with Brazil or Japan or Russia etc etc if you get my drift. Why would a god of the entire universe only choose one people if he is not willing that none should perish but that all come to repentance? Perhaps Moses is giving us the answer in Deut 32. Thank you for reading.
@@johnniemack2440 I agree with you. It seems like sons of God is more likely to me. I'm trying to get more information on the other patron gods in the Bible. Are they also from the Canaanite pantheon?
Moses was writing about the nations from the times of Babel, Israel was not yet.
So are to say that all instances of the phrase of "sons of God" in the Old Testament are to be interpreted as Sons of Israel? Sons of God show up in Genesis who then mate with the daughters of men, we see it also in Job where the sons of God "present themselves" to God and the devil is with them.
There is scholarship suggesting that the roots of judaism has polytheistic roots due to the polytheism abraham comes from and the impact of canaanite people. It's not off base to suggest culture mixing, we can see this in christianity where the birth of the Savior is mixed with a fat guy in a flying sleigh and the death and resurrection of the savior mixed with bunny rabbits and "east" eggs.
If we do interpret Deut. 32 as sons of israel then we must also conclude that the "days of old" Moses is referring to is somehow retroactively prophetic, that even though the tower of Babel is pre-Abraham, God forknew that in time he fixed the borders according to the tribes of Jacob even though as Moses is speaking those lands hadn't been divided yet. I think it's ok to find the nuance and the problems in scripture and for monotheists like us, reading such a passage is a problem.
Same thing in gods eyes
"Oldest Hebrew texts have Sons of God".
False! One of the older texts is the Samaritan Pentateuch, it's based off of Paleo Hebrew manuscripts. It reads "children of Israel"
Good point. I admit, I have not considered Samaritan Pentateuch. I will need to explore what it can bring to the table in this case. Do you have any reference articles on the topic?
Your theory is incorrect and sons of God DOES change the meaning of the text completely. If you let the scriptures interpret themselves. We get the 70 "sons" of Israel given to us in the text itself
Exodus 1:5 And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls: for Joseph was in Egypt already.
Israel is correct sons of God is incorrect.
Thanks for your opinion. I just want to clarify two things:
- Sons of God vs. Sons of Israel is not my theory or opinion. You are of course free to disagree, but you are not disagreeing with me but with - for example - the translators of ESV, NRSV and number of other contemporary translations that picked this textual variant as the more likely (not the mention the guys at Qumran). Then there is a bunch of translations (even modern ones) that picked the other variant. I was merely presenting the problem.
- I think it indeed alters the meaning of the text significantly. I did not say that it does not. That was stated in the context of the theory of how the text got altered. Which, I admit, is just that. A theory (although not mine), because we have no way of knowing exactly how these two significantly distinct variants came to existence.
@@bible24 We do know how these two variants came into being :) One was through a sect that held a very high view of angels (even though sons of God are not angels). Angels which is in the Greek septuagint is simply an incorrect answer to whatwhat was believed to be a problem (Israel did not exist at the time of the division of the nations) Someone tried to correct it....incorrectly.
@@followintruthlj2865 Ok, you are free to keep your opinion. I just wanted to point out that you called something "my theory" that was not mine.
The rest can be hardly argued with when you say "we know" about things like that one variant came into being through a sect that "held a very high view of angels" and the LXX translators that predated them by quite a bit used "ἀγγέλων θεοῦ" because they gave "simply an incorrect answer to what was believed to be a problem".
@@bible24 um..at 7.30 you state that there are two possible reasons ..this is your opinion. At 8.28 you state if OUR theory is correct ....maybe you are not referring to the theory of the two of you maybe our means others....you even state that the change DOESNT change the meaning..which it does. You are very clearly suggesting that the correct reading is sons of God and it was changed....by the way the LXX has ANGELS of God not sons as you stated.
@@followintruthlj2865 sons of God is the right term also why did YAHUAH divide the nations amongst the sons of israel when at that time israel did not exist?Further more in psalms 82 you see YAHUAH passing judgment on these sons of God that he alotted the nations to in Dueteronomy 32:8.Psalms 82 won't make sense without understanding Dueteronomy 32:8.
why didn’t you mention where Elton gave Yahweh israel as his portion. Why didn’t you mention that judaism started if as polytheism