I posted this in another thread in times past. I thought the thread was gone, but I actually see it now and perhaps it should be merged with this one over on THIS forum or simply moved to this forum and be parallel to this one. Anyway, this was what I posted and while it was about a different passage of scripture, I think it sheds light on this subject. The other thread can be found
HERE
================================================== =====
The oldest Hebrew only bible the world knew of for centuries was the Masoretic Text (MT). It was put together around the latter 10th into the early 11th century. A Jewish scribal sect known as the Masorets put it together. By this time in Jewish history, the idea of monotheism had taken deep roots. Jews were fierce monotheists believing in one God who they believed to be the god of the entire universe while all others were non-existent. It was this canon of scriptures the King James Version used as its source over 500 years later, the same King James Version many people read today.
Well, as we know, in the 1940s, the world became acquainted with the Dead Sea Scrolls after their discovery. These scrolls were over 1000 years older than the Masoretic Text which means the Masoretic Text had to give seniority to these scrolls.
In the King James Version's reading of Deuteronomy 32:8 and 9 based on its source, the Masoretic Text, we read:
When the Most High divided their inheritance to the nations,
When He separated the sons of Adam,
He set the boundaries of the peoples
According to the number of the children of Israel.
For the LORD’s portion is His people;
Jacob is the place of His inheritance.
Now when we compare the same passage to the OLDER Dead Sea Scrolls, we read this via the Revised Standard Version (RSV) of the Bible:
When the Most High [El Elyon] gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. For the LORD's [Yahweh's] portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance. (brackets mine for clarification)
There is a world of difference between the two passages because of the portions I highlighted. Someone changed the wording. It appears it was intentional for obvious reasons since the former (The Dead Sea Scrolls) reading gives the impression the nations were divided amongst gods something later Jews living in the 10th century A.D would NOT believe.
"Sons of God" and "Children of Israel" do NOT mean the same thing in
this context. The idea that any human or group of humans were "sons of God" was a much later concept/belief. Furthermore, the passage in Deuteronomy 32:8-9 referred to the dividing of the nations in Genesis 10 and 11 and Israel was NOT one of the nations nor would it be a nation for at least over a thousand years later. How did the "Most High" divide the nations by a people (children of Israel) who were not yet in existence?
Furthermore, the idea that "Sons of God" referred to other gods/divinities was consistent in the entire region. The belief was that El/Anu (the supreme god) had 70 sons and to these sons were the nations granted to. Interestingly enough, according to the book of Genesis, there were a total of 70 nations that resulted in the division. Coincidence? 70 gods (sons of God), 70 nations.
Now why would Jews, sitting to write out and edit their ancient scriptures want to hide this fact by apparently deliberately changing the words "sons of God" to "children of Israel?" Ok, there is the possibility, based on later theology, that they thought sons of God simply meant God's people, Israel, but I don't think so because other passages are clear that "Sons of God" meant actual physical children of God or at best "Angels of God" (Jews by the time of the Babylonians hid the obvious by considering these "sons" as angels and not actual other gods to preserve the idea that there was only ONE God). They had to have known the passage was literal and thousands upon thousands of years later, the Jews as a people, had long past the stage of their earliest ancestors who actually believed other gods, responsible for other nations, actually existed. To maintain such an understanding was to undermine the singularity of God much in the same way Jews then or now CANNOT accept the notion that Jesus Christ was THE son of God or even equal with God. The change of wording then gave an entirely new meaning to the passage despite the inconsistency in logic it creates.
There is yet another reason why they would have wanted to change the wording. The Dead Sea Scrolls passage, when read correctly and carefully, also indicates that "The LORD" (translated as YHW or Yahweh) was actually a son of God (El Elyon or "The Most High") himself and he inherited or was allotted (inherited) Jacob (Israel). Yahweh is clearly a distinctively different character from the Most High and consistent with Jews of the Babylonian era over a thousand years earlier, there was an attempt to make it appear that Israel's god, Yahweh, was always one in the same with the Most High God.
There is one other thing that may shed some light on this. In 1928, a group of French archaeologists traveled to the ancient Canaanite city of Ugarit located in modern day Syria. They set their sights upon a tel (mound) known as Ras Shamra. In time they discovered tablets dating back to the time the Israelites emerged/arrived in the area. At this point Ugarit was at its peak. The tablets were written in a Semitic language very close to that of Hebrew. Their discovery helped biblical scholars to gain better interpretations and understandings of certain Old Testament passages.
One of these tablets, however, provided something interesting, shocking to some. Text
KTU 1.1 IV 14 says:
sm . bny . yw . ilt
Translated it says:
“The name of the son of god, Yahweh.”
Note the word "bny" compared to the Hebrew word "ben" which means "son."
Here in Ugarit, the god known as Yahweh was indeed known, but not as the supreme god of the universe and not even the top god in the regional pantheon of gods. Here he is clearly just another god, in fact, a son of the supreme god. This places Moses' words squarely within context and keeps the consistent with the regional beliefs of the day.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
