Sweeping the Polytheism of Ancient Israel Under the Rug

[RedFan]

The Torah is not a monotheistic manifesto. National gods were de riguer back then, albeit with the God of Israel being supreme over the pantheon. And I can't help but wonder whether this eventually became something of a Jewish embarrassment.

With few exceptions, almost all English translations of Deut. 32:8 follow the Masoretic Text in saying that God separated the nations “according to the number of the sons of Israel.” The much earlier Septuagint has “according to the number of the angels of God” (kata ἀριθμὸν ἀγγέλων θεοῦ), so translated in the NRSV. The Dead Sea Scrolls have “the number of the sons of god” (bĕnê ʾĕlōhîm), so translated in the ESV.

The phrase “sons of Israel” actually makes no sense in the context of the passage. My suspicion is that the Masoretes -- and probably other translators before them (the Vulgate has iuxta numerum filiorum Israhel) -- fudged the text in order to avoid any polytheistic overlay, even though that didn’t trouble the original author. (And they did it again in Deut. 32:43, omitting the second half of what the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the ESV and NRSV, record as "Rejoice with him, O heavens; bow down to him, all gods,")

Am I the only one who has a problem with this? Am I crazy for wanting to know what the original author said, not what the original author meant?

[I don’t often say this about the NLT, but its rendition of Deut. 32:8, with the phrase “according to the number in his heavenly court,” might actually be the best translation, closest to the original.]

 

[RedFan]

The Torah is not a monotheistic manifesto. National gods were de riguer back then, albeit with the God of Israel being supreme over the pantheon. And I can't help but wonder whether this eventually became something of a Jewish embarrassment.

With few exceptions, almost all English translations of Deut. 32:8 follow the Masoretic Text in saying that God separated the nations “according to the number of the sons of Israel.” The much earlier Septuagint has “according to the number of the angels of God” (kata ἀριθμὸν ἀγγέλων θεοῦ), so translated in the NRSV. The Dead Sea Scrolls have “the number of the sons of god” (bĕnê ʾĕlōhîm), so translated in the ESV.

The phrase “sons of Israel” actually makes no sense in the context of the passage. My suspicion is that the Masoretes fudged the text in order to avoid any polytheistic overlay, even though that didn’t trouble the original author. (And they did it again in Deut. 32:43, omitting the second half of what the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the ESV and NRSV, record as "Rejoice with him, O heavens; bow down to him, all gods,")

Am I the only one who has a problem with this? Am I crazy for wanting to know what the original author said, not what the original author meant?

[I don’t often say this about the NLT, but its rendition of Deut. 32:8, with the phrase “according to the number in his heavenly court,” might actually be the best translation, closest to the original.]

Further to the OP, Ex. 20:2-3 in the KJV is rendered “I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Saying “I am the Lord thy God,” rather than “I am the only God” as one would to a monotheist indicates how the ancient Israelites viewed their national God as one of many – and they would probably have understood "Thou shalt have no other gods before me” as consistent with “but thou mayest have as many gods as ye like after me.”

 

[MatthewG]

@RedFan ; thoughts? Would you consider gods a plenty from the start of Job? While Yahavah being God above all gods?

Ps 95:3 For the LORD (Yahavah) is the great God, the great King above all gods.

 

[RedFan]

@RedFan ; thoughts? Would you consider gods a plenty from the start of Job? While Yahavah being God above all gods?

Ps 95:3 For the LORD (Yahavah) is the great God, the great King above all gods.

Good question! I think Jewish monotheism took root in Israel after David, and thus after the Psalms, so Ps 95:3 (or for that matter, Ps 138:1) doesn't really surprise me. But from the start of Job? That's a tough one for me to answer.

 

[Jericho]

You might want to check out Dr. Michael S. Heiser's work on the divine council if you haven't already done so. Calling them gods is somewhat missleading. We view gods from a modern western lens, not from an ancient Near East perspective. Polytheism can be defined as more than one god who vies for power and has the same or similar powers and abilities with each other. That's not what this is. There are many elohim, angels, for example, but they are created beings and subservient to God, the supreme elohim. Only God is omnipotent and omniscient. These other elohim (gods) just exist on the same plane of reality as God and share some of His attributes. Though, to ancient people, they must have seemed like gods.

 

[St. SteVen]

Am I the only one who has a problem with this? Am I crazy for wanting to know what the original author said, not what the original author meant?

I certainly join you in your concern.
It seems that way too much of the Bible was interpreted with obvious doctrinal bias.
Like you, I would rather know EXACTLY what the writers said, instead of someone's whitewashed version of it.

So, what is your take on Deut. 32:8?

How many tribes are there in Israel?
- What is the number of the sons of Israel? (12) ???
- What is the number in his heavenly court? (12) ??? Polytheism.

--- COMPARE ---

New International Version
When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all mankind,
he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel.

New Living Translation
When the Most High assigned lands to the nations, when he divided up the human race,
he established the boundaries of the peoples according to the number in his heavenly court.

Is the Bible polytheistic? - Are there many gods, or only one?

We are all familiar with the first Commandment of the Ten given to Israel alone through Moses. “You shall have no other gods before [besides] me. - Exodus 20:3 NIV If there were other gods to have, that means there were other gods. Right? Therefore the Bible is making a polytheistic claim...

www.christianityboard.com

[

 

[RedFan]

I certainly join you in your concern.
It seems that way too much of the Bible was interpreted with obvious doctrinal bias.
Like you, I would rather know EXACTLY what the writers said, instead of someone's whitewashed version of it.

So, what is your take on Deut. 32:8?

How many tribes are there in Israel?
- What is the number of the sons of Israel? (12) ???
- What is the number in his heavenly court? (12) ??? Polytheism.

--- COMPARE ---

New International Version
When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all mankind,
he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel.

New Living Translation
When the Most High assigned lands to the nations, when he divided up the human race,
he established the boundaries of the peoples according to the number in his heavenly court.

Is the Bible polytheistic? - Are there many gods, or only one?

We are all familiar with the first Commandment of the Ten given to Israel alone through Moses. “You shall have no other gods before [besides] me. - Exodus 20:3 NIV If there were other gods to have, that means there were other gods. Right? Therefore the Bible is making a polytheistic claim...

www.christianityboard.com

[

I'm going with the New Living Translation on this one. It confirms the each-nation-gets-a-god theory. (a la Deut. 4:7)

 

[Wick Stick]

The Torah is not a monotheistic manifesto. National gods were de riguer back then, albeit with the God of Israel being supreme over the pantheon. And I can't help but wonder whether this eventually became something of a Jewish embarrassment.

With few exceptions, almost all English translations of Deut. 32:8 follow the Masoretic Text in saying that God separated the nations “according to the number of the sons of Israel.” The much earlier Septuagint has “according to the number of the angels of God” (kata ἀριθμὸν ἀγγέλων θεοῦ), so translated in the NRSV. The Dead Sea Scrolls have “the number of the sons of god” (bĕnê ʾĕlōhîm), so translated in the ESV.

The phrase “sons of Israel” actually makes no sense in the context of the passage. My suspicion is that the Masoretes -- and probably other translators before them (the Vulgate has iuxta numerum filiorum Israhel) -- fudged the text in order to avoid any polytheistic overlay, even though that didn’t trouble the original author. (And they did it again in Deut. 32:43, omitting the second half of what the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the ESV and NRSV, record as "Rejoice with him, O heavens; bow down to him, all gods,")

Am I the only one who has a problem with this? Am I crazy for wanting to know what the original author said, not what the original author meant?

[I don’t often say this about the NLT, but its rendition of Deut. 32:8, with the phrase “according to the number in his heavenly court,” might actually be the best translation, closest to the original.]

I've recently been reading Poems of Ancient Ugarit and something I've learned there is relevant here, but maybe a little theologically awkward.

"Son of God" is a Canaanite regnal title. The Canaanites envisioned the kings of their city-states as being sons of their high god - sons of El. When David proclaims:

Psalm 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

...he is invoking the same language the Canaanites used to crown their kings.

Also worth mentioning is that the Semitic word for kings (malek) and their word for angels (malaak) are virtually identical. Both are emissaries administering God's justice and judgment and delivering His messages.

 

[quietthinker]

Sweeping the Polytheism of Ancient Israel Under the Rug​

looks like it's coming out from under the rug now!

 

[St. SteVen]

Sweeping the Polytheism of Ancient Israel Under the Rug​

looks like it's coming out from under the rug now!

Christians WANT hell, so I'm going to give it to them! - LOL

[

 

[St. SteVen]

I'm going with the New Living Translation on this one. It confirms the each-nation-gets-a-god theory. (a la Deut. 4:7)

So, what is the number? 12 came to mind. But... ???

New International Version
When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all mankind,
he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel.

New Living Translation
When the Most High assigned lands to the nations, when he divided up the human race,
he established the boundaries of the peoples according to the number in his heavenly court.

[

 

[RedFan]

So, what is the number? 12 came to mind. But... ???

New International Version
When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all mankind,
he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel.

New Living Translation
When the Most High assigned lands to the nations, when he divided up the human race,
he established the boundaries of the peoples according to the number in his heavenly court.

[

Great question. I don't think we can limit it to twelve. There were more than twelve kingdoms in the region.

 

[St. SteVen]

Great question. I don't think we can limit it to twelve. There were more than twelve kingdoms in the region.

And it says "when he divided all mankind", which seems to be a global reference.
In a sense that happened with Noah's sons, or the languages at the Tower of Babel.
Many ways to slice that pie.

But the number of the sons of Israel was 12.
And the number in the heavenly court could include legions of angels in attendance.
Every tribe, tongue, and nation? How many?

New International Version
When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all mankind,
he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel.

New Living Translation
When the Most High assigned lands to the nations, when he divided up the human race,
he established the boundaries of the peoples according to the number in his heavenly court.

[

 

[Wick Stick]

Great question. I don't think we can limit it to twelve. There were more than twelve kingdoms in the region.

There's a list in Genesis 10.

 

[St. SteVen]

There's a list in Genesis 10.

And then in Genesis 11 God separated them by languages. (Babel)

[

 

[Wick Stick]

But the number of the sons of Israel was 12.

The math is unexpectedly difficult. 12 natural sons. 12 territories. But...

1 Reuben
2 Simeon
3 Levi
4 Judah
5 Dan
6 Naphtali
7 Gad
8 Asher
9 Issachar
10 Zebulun
11 Joseph
11 Benjamin
12 Manasseh
13 Ephraim

Joseph was adopted by Pharoah, which in Hebrew thinking makes him not-a-son-anymore. But Joseph's 2 sons were adopted by Jacob, which brings the total to 13. The Jews account for Ephraim and Manasseh as 'half-tribes' which fixes the math problem for number of sons (12) but screws up the math for the number of territories...

As to land, Levi and Simeon didn't receive a land grants (so 11 + 2 halves), but Manasseh received a double portion (if you double a half tribe does it count as 1 or 2?). Just to completely muddy the waters, Dan didn't conquer his allotted territory (-1?), instead settled in a location that wasn't part of his land grant (does that count?), and was then carried away from that location by the Assyrians before they came and destroyed the rest of the northern kingdom of Israel.

So that's... 10 1/2 tribes by land grant... seems wrong...

 

[St. SteVen]

So that's... 10 1/2 tribes by land grant... seems wrong...

Maybe there's a halfling in the number of the heavenly court?



[

 

[ProDeo]

It's Isaiah who finally speaks plain language -

Jes 45:5 - I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me,

Likely written 550 BC

 

[ScottA]

The Torah is not a monotheistic manifesto. National gods were de riguer back then, albeit with the God of Israel being supreme over the pantheon. And I can't help but wonder whether this eventually became something of a Jewish embarrassment.

With few exceptions, almost all English translations of Deut. 32:8 follow the Masoretic Text in saying that God separated the nations “according to the number of the sons of Israel.” The much earlier Septuagint has “according to the number of the angels of God” (kata ἀριθμὸν ἀγγέλων θεοῦ), so translated in the NRSV. The Dead Sea Scrolls have “the number of the sons of god” (bĕnê ʾĕlōhîm), so translated in the ESV.

The phrase “sons of Israel” actually makes no sense in the context of the passage. My suspicion is that the Masoretes -- and probably other translators before them (the Vulgate has iuxta numerum filiorum Israhel) -- fudged the text in order to avoid any polytheistic overlay, even though that didn’t trouble the original author. (And they did it again in Deut. 32:43, omitting the second half of what the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the ESV and NRSV, record as "Rejoice with him, O heavens; bow down to him, all gods,")

Am I the only one who has a problem with this? Am I crazy for wanting to know what the original author said, not what the original author meant?

[I don’t often say this about the NLT, but its rendition of Deut. 32:8, with the phrase “according to the number in his heavenly court,” might actually be the best translation, closest to the original.]

The problem with ALL translations, is they, as with all language, was/is "confused" by God, by an order not to be rescinded until just before the end.

One should not be troubled by it--no need to make yourself crazy, as it is all intentional. The only means of navigating the confusion...is "spiritual discernment."

 

[quietthinker]

The problem with ALL translations, is they, as with all language, was/is "confused" by God, by an order not to be rescinded until just before the end.

One should not be troubled by it--no need to make yourself crazy, as it is all intentional. The only means of navigating the confusion...is "spiritual discernment."

Is God then the author of confusion?.....hmmmm
1 Corinthians 14:33. 'For God is not the author of confusion......'