Loomis

That section is great. Do you understand what’s going on there?

It never really said, children of Israel. It originally said sons of El, but the Masoretes changed it sometime around 1000 AD. The reason they changed it is because the original reading portrayed Yahweh as one of El’s seventy sons.

Read it again: Keep in mind that the “Most High” is El, and that “Jacob” is a nation.
Do you see what I mean?

El is dividing all of humanity into nations, and each nation gets a son to guard over it. El assigns Yahweh to guard the nation of Jacob (Israel).

I know this might seem weird if you haven’t heard about it before -but it isn’t some little weird theory I coughed up: It is the consensus of modern secular bible scholars.

diana

Hi, Loomis. Strong's renders it as you spake. How...interesting. Thanks for the insight.

d

diana

I haven't heard of this one, Gerard, but I'm interested to hear more. Have you tried consulting blueletterbible.org? You can do a search on LORD then check to see what (to the best of our knowledge) the original said. (Click the "C" to the left of the verse in question, and you'll get the translation layout.)

d

Loomis

The Evil One is right. Gerard is thinking of the Documentary Hypothesis - but he’s all confused.

Here’s some links for the Documentary Hypothesis:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_tora1.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

http://www.encyclopedia4u.com/d/docu...ypothesis.html

Loomis

I think blueletterbible.org is okay. I go there for Strong's Concordance too. But there is something you should know about Strong's Concordance: It is only based on the Masoretic Text - and we are certain that the Masoretic Text has problems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_Text

For example, this link is for Deuteronomy 32:8. Is says that Deuteronomy 32:8 says “children of Israel” but Strong's Concordance is wrong - because the Masoretic Text is wrong.

Deuteronomy 32:8 should read, “sons of El” not “children of Israel.” There is very little disagreement about this among scholars - but the ramifications are profound. In a nutshell the original text said that God had a dad.

gstafleu

Evil One, Loomis: Yes, the documentary theory is what my confused mind was trying to come up with, thanks for helping out.Thanks for those links Loomis, they were very enlightening.

Gerard Stafleu

diana

My RSV reads thus:

When the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries fo the peoples according to the number of the gods; the Lord's own portion was his people, Jacob his allotted share.

Footnote says: Most High (Hebrew Elyon) is an appellation generally expressing the Lord's universal sovereignty; here and occasionally elsewhere (Isa 14.14; Ps 82) it denotes the executive of the divine assembly, comprising subordinate gods (literally, "sons of God" as in Job 1.6; 2.1; Pss 29.1; 89.5-7).

This version says its corrections are "based on the ancient versions (translations into Greek, Aramaic, Syriac, and Latin), which were made prior to the time of the work of the Masoretes and which therefore may reflect earlier forms of the Hebrew text.

"...Occasionally it is evident that the text has suffered in transmission and that none of the versions provides a satisfactory restoration. Here we can only follow the best judgement of competent scholars as to the most porbable reconstruction of the original text."

Intriguing writeup at Wiki. Thanks for the link.

d

Loomis

The RSV was “compiled and translated” by Believers for Believers. What do you think they are going to say?



When the Masoretes changed “sons of El” to “children of Israel” they were not making an honest mistake. They new exacly what they were doing. They were lying.

They also made changes to verse 43 for the same reason: to hide the polytheistic roots of their god. There is even a well known Christian bible scholar named Michael Heiser who concedes that the Masoretes changed Deut 32 because they thought it was polytheistic.

diana

What an interesting reaction. I thought the NRSV (My apologies, I do use the latest one) was darn close to the point you just made, actually. (Even the "Lord" part, which the translators explain carefully up front always reflects YHWH in the original text.) Their reasons are as follows (from xxix, "To the Reader"):

"(1) The word "Jehovah" does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew. (2) The use of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there were other gods from whom the true God had to be distinguished, began to be discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church." (YHWH, naturally, is considered "too sacred to be pronounced," which would preclude its use.)

Here's the interesting bit: the blurb I quoted from the footnote for the passage we're discussing clearly says that "Most High (Elyon)...here and occasionally elsewhere (Isa 14.14; Ps 82)...denotes the executive of the divine assembly, comprising subordinate gods." If Jews maintain that there is only one God, how do they explain passages like this?

As far as finding an accurate version, you (of course) make a very good point. Where do you find one that is not by believers for believers? I've sincerely been looking for one for years, so if you have any tips, I'd be grateful.

Meanwhile, though...I think you're possibly blasting a translation that is, damning or not, as consistent as it can be to available ancient documents. The footnotes explain the similarities of Biblical stories to ancient myths, for example. It points out its own inconsistencies. It is a translation by the Society of Biblical Literature, comprised of scholars from all Abrahamic faiths. I have no way of knowing how faithful any and all are to their respective belief systems, of course. However, all of those who contributed to this version are educated enough to realize that true scholarship does not depend upon the conclusion one wishes to reach, but upon the evidence available--and the text and footnotes support that idea.

d

angela2

Deuteronomy 32:8 may be related to this passage:
1 Kings 22:19
Then Micaiah said, "Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, with all the host of heaven standing beside him to the right and to the left of him.

I don't find any of this shocking. But then I don't take scripture literally. And it wouldn't surprise me if the concept of monotheism developed gradually.