The Septuagint vs Masoritic
THE ALEXANDRIAN SEPTUAGINT HISTORY
Barry Setterfield, March 2010
Early History
The Advent of Christianity
Akiba and Jamnia
The Dead Sea Scrolls
Textual Differences
The Ancient Chronology
Origen
The Arian Heresy
Athanasius
Thecla
Three Codices
And After
Conclusion
References
Early History
During the Persian period of dominance in the Mid-East, a significant Jewish community already lived in Egypt. "Papyri from Elephantine show an established Jewish community there as early as 495 BCE. After Alexander's conquest of the Persian Empire, Alexandria became the home to a large Greek-speaking Jewish population."1 By the 3rd century BC, the common language of the whole Mediterranean area was Koine Greek, sometimes called Alexandrian Greek or the Alexandrian dialect. It was the first or second language throughout the Greek Empire period and on into the time of Roman domination. Koine Greek was spoken by everyone from Egypt to India and throughout the Eastern Mediterranean and Near East. This common language persisted through many of the lands of the Roman Empire until it finally fell into disuse in Europe in the Middle Ages.2 Koine Greek was the language used by the Apostles, the Church Fathers and early Christians as they took the Gospel around the Empire and beyond.
So it was, in the 3rd century BC, that the large Greek-speaking Jewish populations in Egypt and the whole of the Eastern Mediterranean needed to have their Scriptures translated into the language that was in everyday use. Hebrew had become limited to the scholars and the well-educated. So, in synagogue services, a rough Greek translation was often given as the Hebrew Scriptures were read. A reliable Greek translation of the Scriptures was needed to facilitate understanding of Scripture in the synagogues. It was also needed for academic and lay discussions as well as for anyone who could read throughout the Empire.
In 289 B.C., Philadelphus became co-regent of the Ptolemaic Empire with his father, Ptolemy Soter. The Ptolemaic Empire was based in Alexandria, Egypt. In 285 Soter abdicated in favor of his 22 year old son, and died two years later at the age of 84.3 Towards the latter part of his reign, Soter had been very favorable towards the Jewish population. His son, Philadelphus, continued this policy by releasing many Jewish slaves, and placing some of them in responsible positions in the state as well as in the military.
Soter himself had been a scholar, and encouraged scholarship among the people. He gathered "men of learning" to his court. In addition, he invited the famous philosopher Strabo to tutor his son in Alexandria, while Euclid was one of the scholars whom he patronized.4 It was Ptolemy Soter who established the Great Library at Alexandria and personally appointed Demetrius Phalerius librarian, a man who had similar scholastic tendencies. Demetrius was commissioned to collect all available documents from around the world for the Library so that they could be available and consulted by anyone able to read.
It was a combination of Soter’s love of learning and his appreciation of the Jews that led him to consider the necessity of a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Due to Soter’s advancing age, Josephus, the Jewish historian tells us Demetrius approached the co-regent, Ptolemy Philadelphus, and discussed the proposal. Ptolemy agreed to finance the exercise.5 Ptolemy sent Andreas, the Captain of his Guard, and one of his close confidants, Aristeas, who had represented Jewish interests on a number of prior occasions, to Eleazar, the High Priest in Jerusalem. They came with gifts for the Temple and a request that Eleazar send scholars who were fluent in both Hebrew and Greek to do the translation. It was suggested that there should be six from each Tribe. However, Josephus specifically refers to only 70 scholars doing the translation. It is from this fact that the translation was called the Septuagint (Latin for seventy) and abbreviated to LXX (in Roman numerals).
The Hebrew Scriptures of that time comprised what we refer to today as the Old Testament. They were written on scrolls in a form of Hebrew often called Paleo-Hebrew, which was more like script; the square, modern characters came later. This translation was done, then, from Paleo-Hebrew to Koine Greek. Josephus tells us the translators were taken over the causeway from Alexandria to the Island of Pharos to a place specifically set aside for them to do the work.
We can date these events fairly accurately from the historical data. After the death of Soter, a palace intrigue developed in which Demetrius had played a part. As a result, Demetrius was sent into exile in the desert where he died from a snake bite around 282 BC. 6 Consequently, the arrangements and the start of the translation must have been made sometime between 289 and 283 BC when Philadelphus was ruling and Soter was still alive and supporting Demetrius. An extant Letter from Aristeas chronicled some of these events and mentioned that the "Law," that is the Pentateuch, had been translated by the 7th year of Philadelphus, which was 283 or 282 BC. 7 Indeed, the year 282 BC is a commonly accepted date for the completion of the Law.8 These dates therefore fit in with the death of Soter and the demise of Demetrius, and present a consistent set of facts. Philo of Alexandria also supports this account of events in his Life of Moses (2.25-44).
After that, the translation of the complete canon of Jewish Scripture was apparently finished in stages. It is possible that it was completed during the reign of Philadelphus, since he was involved in the initiation of the project. If so, this would mean it was completed before his death in 246 BC. Some view its completion as late as the 1st century BC. However, documents earlier than the 1st century suggest otherwise. "Around the middle of the second century [BC], Jewish historian, Eupolemos seems to have used a Greek version of Chronicles (Swete, Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 24-25). The Greek text of the Wisdom of Joshua ben Sira (also known as Sirach or Ecclesiasticus) dated about 132 BCE, contains a prologue that makes reference to a [Greek] translation of 'the law, the prophets, and the rest of the books.' " 9
These references suggest that the Greek canon of the Old Testament had been finalized, with copies made, distribution complete, and in general use by the middle of the 2nd century BC at the latest. This is supported by the fact that fragments of this Greek text include the John Rylands Papyrus 458, which dates from the 2nd century BC, and Papyrus Fouad 266 which originated about 100 BC.10 In addition other fragments of this Greek text include 2nd century BC fragments of Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Rahlfs nos. 801, 819, and 957), and 1st century BC fragments of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and the Minor Prophets (Rahlfs nos. 802, 803, 805, 848, 942, and 943).11 So the evidence for the existence of the LXX in the second and first centuries BC is fairly extensive.
The Advent of Christianity
The earliest Christians were Jewish converts. They accepted that Jesus of Nazareth was the long-awaited Messiah. As they spread the word about Him, they showed how the prophecies in their own Scriptures were fulfilled by Jesus -- often in ways no human could have controlled, such as the manner and place of His birth.
Throughout the first century A.D. as the Gospels, Acts, and the Epistles were written, all of them contain references to material in the Jewish Scriptures, and often include quotes. Paul, in particular, was extremely educated in the Jewish Scriptures, having been trained as a Pharisee, and his references and quotes are numerous throughout all his writings.
In addition, letters from Christian to Christian written in the first century, which are still in existence, quote freely from both the writings of what came to be called the New Testament as well as the Jewish Scriptures themselves.
These quotes and references match the ancient Septuagint exactly, but, for an interesting reason, do not match the form of the Old Testament we have now.
Akiba & Jamnia
Although the earliest Christians were Jewish converts, the spread of the Gospel through the Gentile regions soon resulted in the majority of Christians being Gentiles, or non-Jews. During this time there developed a great deal of animosity toward the Christian sect within the Jewish quarter. Paul himself, as Saul -- his previous name -- was very intent on wiping out the new Christian sect and keeping the worship of the true God pure. In the book of Acts, Luke records how Saul was converted and changed his name to Paul, becoming the Apostle to the Gentiles. However this was not a common occurrence to say the least, and the division between the Jews and Christians became heated and intense.
Toward the end of the first century A.D. there appeared on the scene a man named Bar Kokhba, who was determined to overthrow their Roman overlords by force. His personal charisma and abilities were such that he gathered a significant following, even to the extent that many Jews thought he was the long-awaited Messiah, who would conquer the world and rule from Jerusalem, as also prophecied in the Scriptures. At this same time, another man was coming to power, a rabbi named Akiba. He also desired power, and in a series of meetings referred to in later years as the Council of Jamnia, found a way to obtain it.
Since the Council of Jamnia is frequently claimed never to have existed, here are some historical facts. When Vespasian became Emperor, in fulfillment of a statement by Rabbi Yohannan ben Zakkai, this rabbi was given the imperial right to establish an Academy or Rabbinical School at Yavneh (Jamnia). Over a period of time, through a series of cunning manoeuvres, Rabbi Akiba gained control over the Academy. He had a passionate hatred of Jesus and he admired Bar Kokhba. He came with a purpose in mind: to give rabbinical Judaism complete control over every aspect of Jewish life. This process did not happen overnight. However, over a period of time, they were achieved by Akiba. This process is sometimes referred to as the Council of Jamnia.
This process is outlined in detail in Dan Gruber's book Rabbi Akiba's Messiah. He says
Akiba's opposition to the [Christians] led him to sponsor a new rabbinical Greek Bible and a rabbinical, colloquial Targum [commentary]. It also led him to alter Pharasaic tradition. In his efforts to bring Jewish life under rabbinic authority, Akiba was consistent and relentless. Sometimes Akiba intentionally held to certain doctrines just to contradict the beliefs of the [Christians], as he had done in his struggle against Gamaliel.... He put the oral law in writing to increase his leverage against the traditional rabbis...12
The new Greek translation was done by Akiba's pupil Aquila and was completed in 128 AD. We know that this was a Greek version of what is now called the Masoretic text. This means that the Masoretic text must have been Akiba's rabbinic version of the Hebrew Old Testament. All existing texts which were in accord with the LXX used by the Christians were then burnt. This is hinted at by Gruber's comment that "The Rabbis decreed that even a Tanakh scroll should be burned if it was written by a [Christian]. 'R. Nahman said: We have it on tradition that a scroll of the Law which has been written by a [Christian] should be burnt.' R. Akiba says: One burns the whole thing, because it was not written in holiness.'"13 Thus the process called the Council of Jamnia gave us the Hebrew Masoretic text in opposition to the paleo-Hebrew which gave us the LXX.
Rabbi Akiba and others at the Council of Jamnia denied that Jesus of Nazareth was the long-awaited Messiah. The Christians, however, had been using the Scriptures to prove that Jesus was the Savior, the Messiah. Thus, it was either the Council of Jamnia itself or a group related to or supported by them who literally re-wrote the ancient Scriptures. The most obvious thing they did was to write them in a more modern Hebrew type. The ancient, or Paleo-Hebrew was more like script and the modern Hebrew which they used was and is comprised of the square characters we see today. However, that was not all they did. They quietly changed a number of the prophecies used by the Christians so they would not appear to be fulfilled by Jesus, or at least not match what was being quoted in the Christian writings.14 They also, for a rather strange reason, chose to shorten the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11, effectively chopping off over 1300 years in total.
Professor S.H. Horn (Archaeology, Andrews University, Michigan) writes:
"However, the facts - that a unified [Hebrew] text suddenly became the standard at the end of the first century and that not one copy of a divergent text survived (except the Dead Sea scrolls that had already been hidden when Jamnia convened), indicate clearly that the Council of Jamnia must have taken action in this matter. Moreover, the fact that Aquila, one of Akiba's pupils, soon thereafter produced a new Greek translation that slavishly translated the [new] unified Hebrew text for the use of the Diaspora Jews gives credence to the idea that Akiba must have been a key influence in the standardization of the Hebrew text."15
In other words, the Masoretic text that is in common use today originated at the Council of Jamnia around 100 AD, and Aquila's Greek translation from Akiba's Masoretic was finalized about 128 AD.
By 100 A.D., when Akiba and the Council of Jamnia were altering the Old Testament Scriptures, the New Testament Gospels and letters had already been written. However we know from the letters written back and forth by the early church fathers that the quotes being used by them and referred to by them were from the ancient Septuagint and not from the Masoretic. It would take over 200 more years for the Masoretic text to be accepted by the church, as a result of a request Constantine made.
It is customary today to refer to any one of a number of translations from Hebrew to Greek as a "Septuagint" or "LXX." However, what is being traced here is the earliest Septuagint, originating in Alexandria almost 300 years before Christ. This is commonly known as the Alexandrian Septuagint.
The Dead Sea Scrolls
The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) provide us with more evidence. The DSS fall into two distinct groups: those written before 70 A.D. and those written after 100 A.D. The earlier DSS were written between 250 BC and 68 AD. At this time there were three distinct groups of Jewish leaders: the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes. The Essenes lived in the caves near Qumran, and had in their possession some of the ancient Scriptures. In addition to preserving these, they also copied some of the scrolls themselves between 150 BC and 68 AD.16
This first group of DSS contains at least 170 manuscripts from the 11 Qumran caves as well as Biblical fragments from Masada.17These all originated prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD by Titus and his armies. They include fragments of the Pentateuch and the book of Job in the pre-exilic, paleo-Hebrew text. Interestingly, the Sadducees only accepted the Torah of Moses and Job as canonical. Consequently, Professor Horn suggests that these paleo-Hebrew texts may perhaps represent the texts that the Sadducees used. The Samaritan Pentateuch is also in paleo-Hebrew and it has retained that style in the Samaritan community up until the present. It is important to note that the Samaritan Pentateuch closely very follows the ancient LXX text, with very few variations, those following some traditions held by the Samaritan community.
By the 2nd century AD the Pharisees became dominant with their Rabbis, and the Sadducees and Essenes had faded out of existence.18 It was at this time the second group of DSS appear to have been hidden. These manuscripts were found in the other desert caves in the Wadi Murabba'at, the Nahal Hever and the Nahal Se'elim. These second century manuscripts are practically identical with the Masoretic text.19
Horn compares the accuracy of the Alexandrian LXX with the Masoretic saying "In an article dealing with one of the Samuel scrolls from Qumran Cave 4, Frank Cross informed the scholarly world of new developments in our understanding of the pre-Masoretic text form. Cross showed that this particular manuscript agrees more with the Septuagintal than with the Masoretic text."20
Biblia Hebraica concludes from these and other facts: "Recent Aramaic findings among the Dead Sea Scrolls read most closely with the LXX, and not with the Masoretic text. ... This suggests that the older LXX may be more accurate than the newer Masoretic text which was given to Jerome." [When Jerome translated the Latin Vulgate, he was preparing to use the ancient LXX text. But his Jewish friends convinced him that the newer Masoretic Hebrew text was superior 21].
A more recent comment concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls is also relevant: In a review of some of this scholarship, Hershal Shanks notes that ”…many Hebrew texts [are available] that were the base text for Septuagintal translations…”. Further he notes that what "…texts like 4QSama show is that the Septuagintal translations are really quite reliable” and ”…gives new authority to the Greek translations against the Masoretic text”. Quoting Frank Moore Cross (a co-author of the book under review), Hershal continues ”We could scarcely hope to find closer agreement between the Old Greek [Septuagintal] tradition and 4QSama than actually is found in our fragments”.22 Modern scholarship on the DSS therefore supports the contention that the ancient LXX text is in accord with the original Hebrew Old Testament as it existed in the 1st and 2nd centuries BC and the early 1st century AD.
Textual Differences
Another reference to some difference between the Masoretic and LXX translations can be found on this site. As it says, "There are multiple internal variations between the LXX and the MT. The texts read differently in many places, giving a much more Christological tone to the LXX which was deliberately avoided when the Masoretes were putting together their anti-Christian canon. These differences in wording are the evidence that the Apostles were using the LXX. " There then follow some examples of differences in wording.
Another striking example occurs in Hebrews 1:6. There we read, "And again, when God brings his first begotten into the world He says: 'Let all the angels of God worship him'. " This is referenced as a quote from Deuteronomy 32:43 in both the ancient Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as in the footnotes of a number of modern translations. However, when you try to look it up in our modern translations (all of which are from the Masoretic), it does not exist in Deuteronomy 32. Our modern translations only read "Rejoice, O Gentiles with His people; for He will avenge the blood of His servants ... " It is in the ancient versions we find the words: "Rejoice you heavens with him, and let all the angels of God worship him; rejoice you Gentiles with his people, and let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him; for he will avenge the blood of his sons..." Thus the Masoretic text from Rabbi Akiba deletes a key passage pointing to the deity of Christ, a passage which the Apostles used in their presentation of the Gospel and which was part of their Old Testament.
Again in Hebrews 10:5, we find a difference. The writer quotes Psalm 40:6 from the ancient LXX. (Note that some Psalms in the LXX are numbered differently from the standard usage today. Thus Psalm 40 in our Bibles is actually Psalm 39 in the LXX). Hebrews quotes the Psalm, saying "Therefore, when He came into the world, He said: 'Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you have prepared for me'..." Again, we cannot find these words in the modern translations.The Masoretic text is contorted by Rabbi Akiba to omit these words in Psalm 40. They have been replaced with "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire; my ears you have opened..." Thus, any implication regarding the Incarnation was deleted. These are but two of the many examples of quotes used by writers of the New Testament which do not match what we read today in our Old Testaments.
Abegg et al. summarize the situation by saying:
"The Septuagint is important for several reasons. First, almost all the books it contains were translated from an earlier Hebrew or Aramaic form. ... This means that the Septuagint gives readers a window on an ancient Hebrew form of the Old Testament that is earlier than the time of Jesus. Second, the Septuagint sometimes offers striking evidence of different ancient forms of biblical books (for example, Jeremiah is about 13 percent shorter in the Greek than in the Masoretic Text) as well as different ancient readings in specific passages. Third, because the Septuagint was the Bible of Hellenistic Judaism, it offers important insights into how Greek-speaking Jews used and understood Scripture. Fourth, since the Septuagint is quoted in the New Testament and was used by early Christian authors, it constitutes the Bible of the early church and helps to explain early Christian exegesis of Scripture. ..."23
In addition, in the 1st century AD, both Josephus and Philo also quoted extensively from the ancient LXX text. This indicates that this text was in common use among the wider Jewish community in the Middle East in the 1st century AD. It is therefore beyond contention that the ancient Alexandrian LXX existed and was quoted in the 1st Century BC and was in common use in the 1st century AD, quite apart from the evidence we have in the New Testament.
The use of the ancient Septuagint in scholarly discourses as well as the use of the older chrono-genealogies up until the time of the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. offer strong evidence that this was the text used by the early church fathers. This is further substantiated by the fact that they rejected the newer, and shorter, genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 created by the Masoretic. The ancient LXX has a different chrono-genealogy in Genesis 5 and 11 to that of the Masoretic text. While the Masoretic chrono-genealogy gives the time of Creation around 4000 BC, the older LXX gives a significantly earlier date of close to 5500 BC. Josephus not only quoted the LXX, as Philo also did; he also specifically followed the LXX chrono-genealogies.
The Ancient Chronology
The material in this section is taken from A. Roberts and J. Donaldson, eds, "The Ante-Nicene Fathers," [10 vols. W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1994.]
Theophilus, the apologist and sixth Bishop of Antioch (AD 115-181) calculated that the world was 5698 years old by the time of the death of Marcus Aurelius in 180 AD. He says "All the years from the creation of the world amount to a total of 5698 years, and the odd months and days." [Theophilus to Autolychus 3.28]. Because of the extra "odd months and days," Theophilus allowed a margin of error of 200 years in his calculations [Theophilus to Autolychus 3.29]. The conclusion is that Theophilus was using the ancient LXX, not the new Masoretic that had just been finalized. The same can be said about the Old Testament used by Christian chronologist, Julius Africanus, who died about 240 AD. He had this to say: "The period ... to the advent of the Lord from Adam and the Creation is 5531 years." [Julius Africanus "Fragments of the Chronography," Frag. 18.4]. This chronology can only be derived from the ancient LXX which was obviously in existence and still in general use at that time, despite the availability of the new Masoretic text. It appears that the newer Masoretic text was ignored by the Church fathers and the LXX alone was held as valid.
There is another interesting piece of evidence from this time. There was a general belief in the idea of what some have called "The Earth's Great Week." This idea suggests that, as the Creation took 6 Days and the Lord rested on the 7th Day, so also there would be 6 Days of 1000 years each for human history, following which the Lord would return and rule mankind for a period of 1000 years, or the Millennium of rest found in Revelation 20. Since the ancient LXX text indicated the world was formed about 5500 BC, or perhaps a little earlier, there was the common feeling among many of the ante-Nicene Fathers that the 6000 years of human history were coming to a close, and that the Lord's Return to usher in the Millennium was indeed immanent. This idea was based entirely on the ancient LXX chrono-genealogies. The Masoretic chrono-genealogy did not support this concept at all since it had a much shorter time-scale back to Creation.
It is in this context that the comments of other Church Fathers in the period prior to the Council of Nicaea also indicate that they are using the ancient LXX text. Thus we have Justin Martyr who lived from about AD 100 to 165 supporting the LXX chronology in his "Dialogue with Trypho," 81. So did Irenaeus, who lived from about 120 to 202 AD, in his work "Against Heresies," 5.28.3. Hippolytus, the polemecist and Bishop of Rome, who died about 236 AD, held the same view and stated that 500 years "remain to make up the 6000." [Hippolytus, "Fragments from Commentaries - On Daniel" 2.4-6]. The "Treatises of Cyprian," 11.11 indicate that Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, who lived from about 200 to 258 AD, held the same chronology and hence was using the ancient LXX text. So did Commodian who died about 275 AD ["The Instructions of Commodianus," 80], along with Victorinus of Petau, who died about 304 AD [Victorinus, "On the Creation of the World"]. The 3rd century Bishop of Olympus was Methodius. He agreed with the conclusions of the "clever arithmeticians" like Theophilus and Julius Africanus and so accepted the LXX text as being canonical [Methodius, Fragment 9]. Finally, Lactantius, who died in 320 AD, just before the Council of Nicaea, concluded that "the last day of the extreme conclusion [of the 6000 years] is now drawing near." He went on to explain that, while small differences exist in the calculation "yet all the expectation does not exceed the limit of two hundred years." [Lactantius, "The Divine Institutes," 7.14 and 7.25].
As a result of this accumulation of evidence, it can be seen that the existence and persistent use of the ancient LXX can be traced from about 282 BC right through until 325 AD. Its common use is attested to by the quotations from it by the Jewish historian Eupolemos in the 2nd century BC and by the Dead Sea Scrolls from the 1st and 2nd centuries BC and 1st century AD. The Jewish writers Philo and Josephus also testify to its existence and use in the 1st century AD. From there, Christ, the Apostles, and the Church Fathers affirm its presence and validity right up until the period of the Council of Nicaea. It is around the time of this Council, and for some time after, that the next development takes place. The ancient LXX existed, then, as a generally available manuscript, but its existence became threatened by the orders of the Emperor Constantine in 331 AD. In order to understand the problem, and the historical background behind it, we need to examine the events of that time in a little more detail.
Origen
Origen was a third century scholar from Alexandria who later settled in Caesarea.
He was heavily influenced by Platonic and Gnostic thought. As a consequence his defense of the faith tended to sacrifice important teachings. He denied the historicity of critical sections of Scripture; he taught the preexistence of the soul and universalism (the belief that all will eventually be saved) and denied that Jesus was raised from the dead in a physical body. These positions were condemned as heretical by later church councils.24
Origen was interested in coordinating the different translations of Scripture in existence. By this time the Jews had moved away from the ancient Alexandrian LXX as well as their own old form of Hebrew writing, known as paleo-Hebrew. They had gravitated toward the Masoretic Scriptures, which had been formulated in an effort to discredit the use of Old Testament Scripture being used by the Christians to show those Scriptures prophesies were fulfilled by Jesus of Nazareth. Discussions between Jews and Christians had shown the ancient LXX and the newer Masoretic texts had some definite differences, especially in matters of Christology. Origen attempted to address the differences between them. By 250, he had completed his six-column comparison of Scripture versions, called the Hexapla.25
It is agreed that the six columns of Origen's Hexapla in order were 1). The Masoretic Hebrew text, 2). A transliteration of the Masoretic Hebrew into Greek, 3). The Greek version of the Masoretic text produced by Rabbi Akiba's pupil Aquila, 4). An overall precise Greek version of the Masoretic produced by Symmachus at the end of the 2nd century AD, 5). The ancient LXX Greek version, 6). Theodotion, who used the LXX but corrected it freely to conform it with the Masoretic text.26 Extant evidence shows that Origen made every effort to reconcile the different versions of Scripture present at his time. His goal was to produce an updated version of the ancient LXX, and in doing so, he changed parts to conform to the Masoretic..
The Arian Heresy
In 319 AD, the Arian controversy broke out and spread throughout the Eastern Mediterranean. Its origin is uncertain, although it may have started via Origen. But however it started, this theology denied the deity of Jesus. In 321AD, Arius -- after whom the heresy was named -- was denounced by the Synod of Alexandria for his denial of Jesus' deity. Arius went into Palestine under the protection of the historian Eusebius, who became the Bishop of Caesarea about 314 AD. He was also protected by another Eusebius, the Bishop of Nicomedia. It was here in Caesarea, which was now held by Eusebius as Bishop, that Origen's manuscript was still stored.
It must also be noted that Eusebius of Caesarea's' tutor had been Pamphilus, and together they had written the "Defense of Origen."27 Thus the works of Origen were viewed with favor by Eusebius and colored his theology.
It is against this background of the Arian heresy, that another event occurred which is important in the context of the ancient LXX. In 331 AD, 12 years since the Arian heresy broke out, the Emperor Constantine asked his friend and historian, Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, to make 50 copies of the Bible. Which version was he going to choose? Would it be the LXX which the church had used for over 300 years, or would he choose the newer Masoretic text, and if so, why?
The fifty copies were made from Origen's attempts to update the ancient LXX, bringing it in line with the Masoretic. The impetus for Eusebius to do this followed from his appreciation of Origen and the adherence of both of them to the heresy which did not accept Jesus as God. Interestingly, Rabbi Akiba, who had commissioned that same Masoretic text at the Council of Jamnia, had not accepted Jesus' claims either. (He supported Bar Kochba as Messiah instead.) Thus, the Masoretic from which our Old Testament translations come today, was the result of Akiba, Origen, and Eusebius, none of whom believed in the deity of Jesus Christ.
Athanasius
A key player in the drama from this time was Saint Athanasius, who was head of the Church in Alexandria, Egypt, from 327 to 373 AD. Another was Gregory, an important friend of Athanasius, who had been appointed Bishop of Nazianzen in Cappadocia (central Turkey) in 329 AD. Gregory was sometimes known as the "Trinitarian Theologian". Fifty years later, in 379 AD, Gregory was appointed Archbishop of Constantinople in 379 AD. He died on January 25th, 389 AD. To indicate the level of this friendship, we note that Gregory wrote about his close friend Athanasius (Orat., xxii. 9) that he was: fit "to keep on a level with common-place views yet also to soar high above the more aspiring, as accessible to all, slow to anger, quick in sympathy, pleasant in conversation, and still more pleasant in temper, effective alike in discourse and in action, assiduous in devotions, helpful to Christians of every class and age, a theologian with the speculative, a comforter of the afflicted, a staff to the aged, a guide of the young."28
Given this understanding of the character of Athanasius, and the support he received from Gregory, we now proceed to outline the problem that arose, and then the action that Athanasius took to provide a remedy.
There is no distinct evidence of the connection of Athanasius with the first contentions of Arius and his bishop, which ended in the exile of the former, and his entrance into Palestine under the protection of Eusebius the historian, who was bishop of Caesarea and subsequently of his namesake the bishop of Nicomedia. It can hardly be doubted, however, that Athanasius would be a cordial assistant of his friend and patron Alexander, and that the latter was strengthened in his theological position by the young enthusiastic student who had already expounded the nature of the divine Incarnation, and who seems about this time to have become archdeacon of Alexandria. At the Council of Nicaea, in the year 325, he appears prominently in connection with the dispute. He attended the council, not as one of its members (who were properly only bishops or delegates of bishops), but merely as the attendant of Alexander. In this capacity, however, he was apparently allowed to take part in its discussions, for Theodoret (i. 26) states that "he contended earnestly for the apostolic doctrines, and was applauded by their champions, while he earned the hostility of their opponents."29
A few months after the Council, Alexander, the old Patriarch of Alexandria, died and Athanasius was appointed Patriarch in his place. Thus Athanasius, who had confronted the two Eusebii and the Arian heresy head on, was now in a position of authority.
It would therefore come as no surprise if he requested that some new copies of the ancient LXX be made in order to preserve the purity of the version which the Church had used for three centuries. It may also have been necessary to replace the original manuscript of the ancient LXX that had been held there at Alexandria for over 500 years as it would have been deteriorating badly. There were undoubtedly a number of copies being used throughout the Christian world through those years, but the one in Alexandria may have been either the original or a direct copy of the original. This original Septuagint was now under the control of Athanasius and he had the power to command other copies be made. However resources were limited which meant that only one copy could be produced at a time. As the first copy was in the process of being produced, Eusebius received the request from the Emperor for 50 fully complete Bibles. This added an urgency to the task that Athanasius was undertaking. Since Constantine was ordering the full Bible to be copied, Athanasius then felt the pressure to do the same, so the New Testament would have to be copied in addition to the ancient LXX .
Arius himself was still living, and his friend Eusebius of Nicomedia rapidly regained influence over the Emperor Constantine. The result of this was a demand made by the Emperor that Arius should be re-admitted to communion. Athanasius stood firm, and refused to have any communion with the advocates of a "heresy that was fighting against Christ." In the summer of 335 AD, Athanasius was peremptorily ordered to appear at Tyre, where a council had been summoned to sit in judgment upon his conduct. The most conspicuous leaders of this Tyrian council were the two Eusebii. The council then condemned Athanasius and restored Arius to church communion. On the 6th November 335 AD, Athanasius was falsely charged by the Eusebii before Emperor Constantine, and was accordingly banished to Trier in the Rhineland. About two years later Constantine fell seriously ill and was baptized by Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, shortly before he died on 22 May 337 AD. Soon after that, Athanasius was able to return to Alexandria, which remained his base of operations throughout his life..
However, Constantine's son, the new Emperor Constantius II, was sympathetic to the Arian position and re-imposed the banishment in 338 AD. Athanasius remained at the center of a theological tug of war through five emperors, alternately being banished and then restored, then banished again. Regardles of his place of abode, however, his writings continued and some important works of his were circulated. In his 39th Festal Letter in spring of 367 AD he detailed the books of the Bible that were considered canonical. His listing was historically the first that is exactly the same as our Old and New Testaments today. It is the same as that of the Council of Laodicea in 364, but included Revelation, which they omitted. Shortly after, (about 370 AD), he instructed Marcellinus about the approach he might adopt to Psalms. After a very fruitful and eventful life, he died on the 2nd May 373 AD.30
Thecla
When Athanasius was ready to authorize a copy of the ancient LXX to be made, he needed someone he trusted entirely to supervise the transcription process; someone who supported his theology. If the documentation that has come down to us is reliable, there was one obvious choice, a woman called Thecla. According to the tradition of the Church at Alexandria, Thecla was a noble Egyptian lady who was the transcriber of the Codex Alexandrinus. This tradition indicates that the name "Thecla" had been written at the end of the first folio as a colophon. The first folio transcribed the LXX text from Genesis to 2 Chronicles. Thus it is stated that "According to the Arabic note on folio one, the Codex was written by Thecla, the martyr from Egypt, just after the Council of Nice in 325."31
As late as 1600 AD, the Codex was still held in Alexandria as part of the treasures of the church there. As a consequence, Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Alexandria in the early 1600's, had the Codex in his care as part of the Church treasures. In 1621 he was appointed as Patriarch of Constantinople, (in other words, the head Patriarch of the Greek Church), and he brought the Codex with him. He sent it as a present to James I of England who died before it could be presented. Sir Thomas Roe transferred the Codex to King Charles I who had indicated that he would accept it. Today it resides in the British Library.
Patriarch Lucar stated that the name of Thecla appeared in a subscription appended to the Codex, but it had been destroyed before his time. Sir Thomas Roe, who transferred the Codex to King Charles I, states in a letter dated 27th February 1627 that "The patriarch doth testify under his hand that it was written by the virgin Thecla, daughter of a famous Greek, called Abgierienos, who founded the monastery in Egypt upon Pharaos tower, a devout and learned maid, who was persecuted in Asia, and to whom Gregory Nazianzen hath written many epistles." Gregory Nazianzen addressed four epistles to Thecla.32
There are those who reject this story about Thecla for several reasons. First, there was a legendary female, Thecla, who was meant to have accompanied the Apostle Paul, who wrote an apocryphal book, "Acts of Paul and Thecla" and become one of the first martyrs. Many Christian girls were named Thecla after the martyr in this novel. This legendary Thecla is sometimes confused with Thecla the scribe, and the discrepant dates that result are used to discredit the report. Others question the validity on the basis of women being used as scribes. That is answered effectively in an article by Kim Haines-Eitzen, entitled "Girls trained in beautiful writing: Female Scribes in Roman Antiquity and Early Christianity." The abstract states:
"Embedded within Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History is a rather curious reference to female calligraphers (HE 6.23). This article seeks first to contextualize Eusebius' remarks by surveying the evidence--both literary and epigraphic--for female scribes in Greco-Roman antiquity and early Christianity. The appearances of women as amanuenses, notariae, and librariae in Latin literature and inscriptions are explored. The article then turns to the evidence for women copying texts in late-ancient Christian monasticism. The central proposal of the article--that some of our earliest Christian manuscripts may have been copied by women--offers a new dimension to the history of the textual transmission of early Christian writings."33
On this basis, the story of Thecla as a Christian monastic woman who copied an original text to give us the Codex fits the situation exactly. There is other indirect evidence of the truth of the story since it is correct historically about the monastery system itself in Egypt in that era. For example,
"... priories of what are today called nuns were already established long before Saints Anthony and Pachomius even began their work in AD 305. Indeed, it is women who are to be truly credited with the origin of the monastic vocation. Unlike monasteries in the West, the monasteries of Egypt and the surrounding area had no centralized orders; rather, each one was an autonomous unit. Many of the early monasteries in the East were founded and maintained by the rulers and nobility, others by groups of the citizenry wishing to have prayers said for themselves and their families." 34
There are four things to note here. First, the date is right as Thecla held her monastic vocation sometime after 325 AD when she began her work on the Codex. Second, the scenario is also typical of that era. Her father was a noble Grecian citizen who founded the monastery she worked in. It is also possible that he may have supplied at least part of the finance for the transcription process, as the cost of animal skins was an expensive part of the exercise. Third, Gregory Nazianzen's letters show she lived in the same time period as both he and Athanasius did. Fourth, her persecution in Asia may well have been the result of her holding the Trinitarian views of Athanasius and Gregory contrary to the prevailing atmosphere of Arianism in Asia generally at that time. So on all these counts the story is credible.
An additional note concerns the subscription of Thecla on the Codex being torn off. This was not unique for early Christian manuscripts in the Mid East because of the extermination of Christians and Christian documents in Egypt by Muslims. Because the story of Thecla was well-known in Egypt, the name of Thecla may have been torn off and destroyed so that the Codex itself might be saved. But the memory and the tradition were observed. This is credible since there are a number of leaves missing from the Codex. Other books of the early Christians in Egypt are similarly in disrepair.35
Three Codices
We have already seen that the Masoretic text has a different wording in Deuteronomy 32:43 and Psalm 40:6. In addition chapters 5 and 11 of Genesis have a much shortened chronology. Therefore, given these and the other variations, it is a simple matter to determine if the text of a Scripture version is following that of the ancient LXX used by the Apostles and Church fathers, or is following the Masoretic text which came about 400 years later. If the Bible text does not have the full chronology in Genesis 5 & 11, or the full rendering of Deuteronomy 32:43 or the correct wording for Psalm 40:6 (39:6), then it is not following the ancient text, but is from the changed Masoretic text.
It has been claimed by some that Codex Vaticanus, Codex Siniaticus and Codex Alexandrinus, all of which date from the 4th century AD, are the corrupted texts produced by Eusebius. A glance at them shows that they were not. They all have Psalm 40:6 (39:6) correctly rendered. In addition, Codex Vaticanus and Alexandrinus both have Deuteronomy 32:43 correctly worded, but that segment is missing from Siniaticus. Codex Alexandrinus has the full genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11, while those pages are missing from both Vaticanus and Siniaticus. Thus Codex Alexandrinus is the most complete copy of the ancient LXX that we have.
Text Psalm 40/39 Deut. 32:43 Genesis 5 and 11
Vaticanus yes yes no
Siniaticus yes no no
Alexandrinus yes yes yes
The fact that all three of these texts contain the ancient rendition of the Psalm 40 as it is referenced in the New Testament means that none of these texts were written to be in line with the Masoretic. There is the additional evidence in both the Vaticanus and the Alexandrinus that they were not produced from a Masoretic document as they both contain the ancient version of Deuteronomy 32:43.
There are several other reasons why none of these three versions could be the product of Eusebius. First, he was in control of the Caesarea scriptorium where the 50 copies of the Masoretic text were quickly produced for the Emperor. There would have been a degree of uniformity in the production of those versions. This is not found in these three Codices. For example, Alexandrinus only has two columns of writing per page, while Vaticanus has three and Siniaticus has four. Vaticanus has a more archaic style of writing than the other two. There is no ornamentation or capitals in the lettering in Vaticanus and Siniaticus, but there is in Alexandrinus. Vaticanus has no introduction to the Psalms which became standard around 325 AD, whereas Siniaticus and Alexandrinus do. Alternatively, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus both have very similar canons but they differ from that of Siniaticus and all three differ from each other in the order of books. Alexandrinus has major chapters with their titles; the others do not. Finally, the way that each of the three Codices are bound is entirely different.
All these factors argue against these volumes being the production of a scriptorium where some degree of standard practice would be used to fill the large order of an Emperor who was paying well. In view of the fact that there was a timely delivery on Constantine's order, the argument can be made that the scriptorium at Caesarea must have employed at least 50 scribes and a scribal dictator. This arrangement would be necessary as there was probably only one copy of the Hexapla at hand that was available for reproducing. Any other arrangement would be unworkable and time-consuming. This process is known to have been employed in later times when multiple copies were being made, so it is likely that this procedure was used on this unique occasion.36 Under these circumstances, the differences in the three Codices that were mentioned above definitely preclude them as being part of this joint production of 50 Bibles from the Caesarea scriptorium.
Second, there is a similarity of writing styles between Vaticanus and Siniaticus which have caused some to claim that the same hand has written parts of both codices. Others have stated that, "In addition, similar colophons appear at the end of some of the individual books." This suggests that these codices were probably written in the same scriptorium.37
Third, there is a time problem among the three texts.
•Vaticanus does not have the introduction to Psalms which came in around 325 AD, whereas Siniaticus and Alexandrinus do. Since this dates Vaticanus at about 325 AD or earlier, it must therefore pre-date Constantine's order in 331 AD.
•Siniaticus has some references to the church fathers in the marginal notes which did not apply after 360 AD, which means it had to be written sometime between 325 and 360 AD.
•Alexandrinus contains the order of books that was set by Athanasius in 367, which means Alexandrinus must have been transcribed after that date. Further, since it also includes the Letter to Marcellinus from Athanasius on Psalms, it must date from about 370 AD.
In other words, there is a spread of at least 45 years, and perhaps close to 50 years, in the production time of these three Codices. This would not have been an acceptable situation for Constantine.38
Therefore it seems that although these three Codices originated from the same scriptorium over a period of 50 years, the question becomes, "Which scriptorium, and why?" After producing the 50 copies of the Bible for the Emperor, it is unlikely that the scriptorium at Caesarea would be involved in the production of three rival versions which used a different text to that of the Hexapla. Indeed, Kenyon points out that there is not the slightest evidence for them to have been produced at either Caesarea or Constantinople.39 Furthermore, Kenyon, Gardthausen, Ropes and Jellicoe all conclude that at least some of the three were written in Egypt, probably at Alexandria.40 The evidence outlined above suggests that if one was produced at Alexandria, then probably all three were.
The question that remains is why should these Codices be produced in Alexandria from 325 to 370 AD? Recall what had just happened with the Arian controversy, the Eusebii and Athanasius in 321, and that Athanasius had just become the head of the Church in Alexandria in 327 AD. Arius and the Eusebii had probably been quoting Origen's Hexapla and the Masoretic text in support of their position that Jesus was not God. As a consequence, the righteous opposition of Athanasius to this "heresy that was fighting against Christ" would inevitably be directed against the Hexapla and the Masoretic version of the Old Testament.
And After
The comment about Muslim violence against Christians is true as well, but the following comment also reveals the time when this problem began to arise:
"The Christian face of Egypt started to change by the beginning of the second millennium A.D., when Copts, in addition to the "Gezya" tax, suffered from specific disabilities, some of which were serious and interfered with their freedom of worship. Slowly but steadily, by the end of the 12th century, the face of Egypt changed from a predominantly Christian to a predominantly Muslim country and the Coptic community occupied an inferior position and lived in some expectation of Muslim hostility, which periodically flared into violence."41
It would therefore be sometime during the 13th century or thereafter that the Christian name "Thecla" was removed from the end of the first folio in the Codex, whether by the Christians for the sake of safety for the Codex, or by the Muslims for vengeance. Other books would have been damaged about the same time, just as Patriarch Lucar of Alexandria stated.
Thus the evidence is that the original, ancient LXX, which remained in Alexandria for 500 years, was copied, at least in part, by Thecla at the behest of Athanasius. When Emperor Constantine ordered 50 copies of the complete Bible to be produced, Athanasius deemed it prudent to add a final folio with the New Testament to the ancient LXX text. In all, three copies were made over a period of 50 years, with one being kept at Alexandria. That Codex Alexandrinus was then taken from Alexandria to Constantinople by Patriarch Lucar in 1621 AD and presented as a gift to King Charles I in 1627. It now resides in the British Library. The other two Codices ended up in the Vatican Library in Rome and the Monastery at Mount Sinai.
Conclusion
These three Codices were all transcribed during the lifetime of Athanasius, and produced in Alexandria, which was a Trinitarian strong-hold against the Arian heresy of Origen and Eusebius that swept the Middle East. Athanasius fully held to the ancient LXX text of the Old Testament with its strong Christological emphasis. It has been stated that these three Codices "... are indeed the oldest surviving nearly-complete manuscripts of the Old Testament in any language; the oldest extant complete Hebrew texts date some 600 years later, from the first half of the 10th century. While there are differences between these three codices, scholarly consensus today holds that one LXX — that is, the original pre-Christian translation — underlies all three."42
It was in this way that the ancient Alexandrian Septuagint was preserved. As the Alexandrinus, it stands still today as the Scriptures used by our Lord, his Apostles in their letters, and the early church fathers. It shows where the Council of Jamnia altered the original text to produce the Masoretic, from which our Old Testaments today have been translated. It answers the questions which arise regarding references used in the New Testament which do not seem to appear in our Old Testaments. It also answers many other questions, including historical dating problems which plague those using the shortened chronologies of the Masoretic. Although none of our modern Bibles have lost the message of man's sin and God's remedy through Christ Jesus, the details in the ancient Alexandrian/Alexandrinus LXX are entirely consistent with the New Testament references and history. A study of the history of this codex shows that it is, indeed, the text translated by Hebrew scholars from paleo-Hebrew to Koine Greek almost 300 years before Christ.
References:
1. K.H. Jobes and M Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint, Baker Academic, 2000, p.34 return to text
2. Greek Language -- return to text
3. Ptolemy I Soter -- return to text
4. Ptolemy I Soter -- return to text
5. Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 12, chapter 2 return to text
6. Demetrius of Phalerum -- return to text
7. Josephus, op. cit return to text
8. The Septuagint Online -- return to text
9. Jobes and Silva op. cit., p.34 return to text
10. M. Abegg, P. Flint, and E. Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, T & T Clark Ltd., Scotland, 1999, p. xi return to text
11. Septuagint -- return to text
12. Gruber,Dan, Rabbi Akiba's Messiah: The Origins of Rabbinic Authority, Elijah Publishing, 1999, pp 153, 109 return to text
13. ibid. p. 157 return to text
14. The Torah -- return to text
15. S.H. Horn, “The Old Testament Text in Antiquity, Ministry, Nov. 1987 p.6 return to text
16. Abegg et al., op.cit., p.xiv-xv return to text
17. S.H. Horn, op.cit., pp.4-8 return to text
18. Abegg et al.,op.cit. p.xvi return to text
19. Horn op. cit. quoting Y. Aharoni, Israel Exploration Journal, 11 (1961), pp.22-23, and Yadin, Israel Exploration Journal, 11 (1961), p.40 return to text
20. Horn op. cit. p. 6-7, return to text
21. The Septuagint -- return to text
22. reference as given from the website: Hershal Shanks, 4QSama - The Difficult Life of a Dead Sea Scroll, Biblical Archaeology Review, Vol 33 No 3, May/June 2007, pp66-70 return to text
23. Abegg et al., op. cit., p.xiii return to text
24. Origen, Unorthodox Church Father -- return to text
25. Jobes and Silva. op. cit., p.48 return to text
26. Theodotian -- back to text
27. Suggs, Jack M., Eusebius' Text of John in the "Writings Against Marcellus" -- return to text
28. St. Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria -- return to text
29. St. Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria -- return to text
30. For more information on the life of Athanasius, see the wikipedia article, and the Orthodox Research Institute article -- return to text
31. OT Manuscript Series: #6 Codex Alexandrius -- The reference is given as F.H.A.Scrivener, "Six Lectures on the Text of the New Testament and the Ancient Manuscripts Which Contain It: Chiefly Addressed to Those Who Do Not Read Greek"(Cambridge, MA: Deighton, Bell, and Co., 1875), p. 50-51. return to text
32. Epp. 56, 57 and 222, 223 as quoted in "A Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects and Doctrines During the First Eight Centuries." Edited by William Smith, D.C. L., LL.D, and Henry Wace, D.D., Volume IV, N-Z, London: John Murray, Albemarle Street, 1887 -- return to text
33. Haines-Eitzen, Kim"Girls trained in beautiful writing: Female Scribes in Roman Antiquity and Early Christianity," Journal of Early Christian Studies 6:4, (Winter 1998), pp.629-646. return to text
34. A History of Christianity in Egypt -- return to text
35. Haines-Eitzen, Kim, "Guardians of Letters: Literacy, Power, and the Transmitters of Early Christian Literature", New York: Oxford University Press, 2000, p.50 -- return to text
36. For examples of this practice, see W.A. Elwell and P.W. Comfort in the Tyndale Bible Dictionary, Tyndale House Publishers Inc., 2001, p.185 return to text
37. See, for example, Codex Vaticanus Graece 1209, B/03 -- return to text
38. F. G.Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, (4th Edition), London 1939 pp 49-59, 91-92; B.M. Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Palaeography, Oxford University Press, (1991), p. 76. See also the Wikipedia articles here and here. return to text
39. Frederic G. Kenyon, "Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament", London, 1912, p. 83, as referenced by the wikipedia article on the Codex Vaticanus. -- return to text
40. see the Wikipedia article, "Codex Sinaiticus" -- return to text
41. The Christian Coptic Orthodox Church Of Egypt -- return to text
42. see the Wikipedia article on the Septuagint -- return to text
Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God
By Michael S. Heiser
Introduction
Moses' farewell song in Deuteronomy 32:1-43 is one of the more intriguing portions of Deuteronomy, and has received a good deal of attention among scholars, primarily for its poetic features, archaic orthography and morphology, and text-critical problems.1 Among the textual variants present in the Song of Moses, one in Deut. 32:8 stands out as particularly fascinating. The verse is rendered as follows in the NASB:
“When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of man, He set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel.”
Controversy over the text of this verse concerns the last phrase, “according to the number of the sons of Israel,” which reflects the reading of the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible (hereafter, MT), l)r#oy ynb. The MT reading is also reflected in several later revisions of the Septuagint (hereafter, LXX): a manuscript of Aquila (Codex X), Symmachus (also Codex X), and Theodotion.2 Most witnesses to the LXX in verse 8, however, read a1ggelw=n qeou= , which is interpretive.3 Several also read ui9w=n qeou= .4 Both of these Greek renderings presuppose a Hebrew text of either Myhl) ynb or
1 For an up-to-date overview of the scholarship on the Song of Moses, see Paul Sanders’s thorough treatment of Deuteronomy 32, The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996). See also F. M. Cross and D. N. Freedman, Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry, Biblical Resources Series (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997); W. F. Albright, “Some Remarks on the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy XXXII,” Vetus Testamentum 9 (1959): 339–46; and D. A. Robertson, Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry, Society of Biblical Literature: Dissertation Series 3 (Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1972).
2 Fridericus Field, ed., Origenis Hexaplorum, Tomus I : Prolegomena, Genesis-Esther (Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1964), 320, footnote 12.
3 This is the predominant reading in the LXX tradition and is nearly unanimous. See John William Wevers, ed., Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum, Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis Editum, vol. III,2: Deuteronomium (Go.-ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), 347 (hereafter, Go.-ttingen LXX); idem, Notes on the Greek Text of Deuteronomy, Society of Biblical Literature (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995, 513). Wevers refers to this majority reading as "clearly a later attempt to avoid any notion of lesser deities in favor of God's messengers" (Notes on the Greek Text of Deuteronomy, 513).
4 Septuaginta, 347 (hence the Go.-ttingen LXX has adopted this reading as the best, dispute fewer attestations).
2
Myl) ynb. These Hebrew phrases underlying a1ggelw=n qeou= and ui9w=n qeou= are attested in two manuscripts from Qumran,5 and by one (conflated) manuscript of Aquila.6
The debate over which text is to be preferred is more than a fraternal spat among textual critics. The notion that the nations of the world were geographically partitioned and owe their terrestrial identity to the sovereign God takes the reader back to the Table of Nations in Genesis 10-11, and two details there regarding God's apportionment of the earth that are important for the context of the textual debate in Deuteronomy 32:8. First, the Table of Nations catalogs seventy nations, but Israel is not included in the inventory.7 Second, the use of the same Hebrew root (drp) in both passages to describe the "separation" of humankind and the nations substantiates the long-recognized observation of scholars that Genesis 10-11 are the backdrop to the statement in Deut. 32:8.8 Israel alone is Yahweh’s portion and so is not numbered among the seventy other nations. The referent of the number seventy, the "sons of Israel" (in MT), initially seemed understandable enough, for both Gen 46:27 and Exo. 1:5 state that 70 members of Jacob's family went down to Egypt in the days of Joseph.9 Little thought was given, however, to the logic of the correlation: How is it that the number of the pagan nations was determined in relation to an entity (Israel) or individuals (Jacob and his household) that did not yet exist? Even if one contends that the correlation was in the mind of God
5 l) ynb is not an option for what was behind the LXX reading, as the Qumran support for Hebrew text underlying the unrevised LXX demonstrates. First, 4QDtq has spaces for additional letters following the l of its [ ]l) ynb. 4QDtj clearly reads Myhwl) ynb (Sanders, The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32, 156). See also Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 269.
6 Go.-ttingen LXX, 347; Origenis Hexaplorum, Tomus I : Prolegomena, Genesis-Esther , 320. The manuscript of Aquila is Codex 85.
7 As one scholar notes, "On investigation the reader is struck by a deliberate pattern in the selection of names for the Table. For example, of the sons of Japheth, who number seven, two are selected for further listing. From those two sons come seven grandsons, completing a selective list of fourteen names under Japheth. With Ham’s thirty descendants and Shem’s twenty-six, the grand total is seventy" (Allen P. Ross, "Studies in the Book of Genesis - Part 2: The Table of Nations in Genesis 10 - its Structure," BibSac vol 137: 548 (Oct-Dec 1980): 342). As Ross notes in a footnote, some scholars arrive at the number of 71 for the names, depending on how the counting is done. This author would agree with Ross and Cassuto, whom he quotes, that the accurate number is seventy (cf. Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: From Noah to Abraham, (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1964), 177–180.
8Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: From Noah to Abraham, 174–78; Albright, "Song of Moses," 343–44. Specifically, a Niphal form of drp is used in Gen. 10:5 (wdrpn) and the Hiphil occurs in Deut. 32:8 (wdyrphb).
9There is a textual debate on this passage in Exodus as well. Although space prohibits a thorough treatment of these texts, they do provide an example, in conjunction with Deut. 32:8, of what is truly the primary guiding principle in textual criticism: the reading that best explains the rise of the others is most likely original. Put another way, which reading has the strongest explanatory power? In the case of Gen. 46:27 and Exo. 1:5, LXX and Qumran disagree with MT together when they read that 75 people went to Egypt with Jacob. MT's 70 is most likely original here, because the number 75 is quite demonstrably a later "correction" of MT, since it incorporates five additional descendants from Ephraim and Manasseh. This example from 46:27 and Exo. 1:5 features the same textual alignment as with Deut. 32:8 (LXX and Qumran agree together against MT), but here MT is to be preferred. The point is that one cannot be biased in favor of either MT or LXX, but that the reading that best explains the rise of the others is the preferred reading, regardless of the text-type.
3
prior to Israel's existence and only recorded much later, what possible point would there be behind connecting the pagan Gentile nations numerically with the children of promise? On the other hand, what could possibly be meant by the textual option that created a correspondence between the number of the nations in Genesis 10-11 and heavenly beings?
Literary and conceptual parallels discovered in the literature of Ugarit, however, have provided a more coherent explanation for the number 70 in Deuteronomy 32:8 - and have furnished powerful ammunition to textual scholars who argued against the "sons of Israel" reading in MT. Ugaritic mythology plainly states that the head of its pantheon, El (who, like the God of the Bible, is also referred to as El Elyon, the "Most High") fathered 70 sons,10 thereby setting the number of the "sons of El" (Ugaritic, bn )il ). An unmistakable linguistic parallel with the Hebrew text underlying the LXX reading was thus discovered, one which prompted many scholars to accept the LXX reading on logical and philological grounds: God (El Elyon in Deut. 32:8) divided the earth according to the number of heavenly beings who already existed from the time of creation.11 The coherence of this explanation notwithstanding, some commentators resist the LXX reading, at least in part because they fear that an acceptance of the Myhl) /Myl) ynb (bny )lym / )lhym ) readings (both of which may be translated “sons of gods”) somehow requires assent to the notion that Yahweh is the author of polytheism. This apprehension thus prompts text-critical defenses of MT in Deuteronomy 32:8, such as that of David L. Stevens.12
This author contends that the choice of MT in Deuteronomy 32:8 is based on a misunderstanding of both the textual history of the Hebrew Bible and text-critical methodology, prejudiced evaluation of non-MT texts, and an unfounded concern that departure from the MT reading results in “Israelite polytheism.” The primary goal of the present article is to show that understanding "sons of God" as the correct reading in Deuteronomy 32:8 in no way requires one to view Israelite religion as polytheistic. Toward that end, some selected comments on the text-critical issues are necessary.
TEXTUAL CRITICISM AND THE "SONS OF GOD" IN DEUTERONOMY 32:8
A Word About Text-Critical Methodology
The textual evidence cited above presents a situation where one reading (that of LXX) is supported by very ancient manuscript evidence (notably Qumran), while the other (MT's reading) has a preponderance of the support, thereby creating an "oldest versus most" predicament. As in similar New Testament cases, the correct reading cannot be verified merely by counting manuscripts, but by weighing them. Hence it matters little that the LXX reading is "outnumbered," especially since the more numerous
10 Manfried Dietrich, Oswald Loretz, and Joaquin Sanmartin, eds., The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places, KTU: second, enlarged edition (Munster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1995), 18 (herafter = KTU). The reading in the article is from KTU 1.4:VI.46.
11 Job 38:7 informs us that the heavenly host was present at creation.
12 David E. Stevens, “Does Deuteronomy 32:8 Refer to ‘Sons of God’ or ‘Sons of Israel’?,” Bibliotheca Sacra 154 (April-June 1997): 139.
4
sources are all recent as manuscript evidence goes, and in fact are interdependent, not independent, witnesses. Additonally, the assumption of MT-superiority should have no place in the objective evaluation of variants in the Old Testament text. Naturally, it would be equally fallacious to presuppose the priority of the LXX. Very simply, no text should be assigned a priori superiority at any point in a text-critical investigation. Determination of the best reading must be based on internal considerations, not uncritical, external presumptions about divine guidance over the "correct" text.
Unfortunately, the notion of the presumed sanctity of MT still persists. The dictum that MT is to be preferred over all other traditions whenever it cannot be faulted linguistically or for its content, unless in isolated cases there is good reason for favoring another tradition, is all too enthusiastically echoed.13 This idea seems to suggest that whenever an MT reading could be accepted it should be accepted. Such an approach hardly does justice to non-MT readings that also could be acceptable on their own linguistic and contextual terms. Put another way, the above mantra never addresses why we must hold MT in such esteem. Where there are wide and significant textual divergencies between MT and the LXX, many textual studies have shown that the Qumran witnesses demonstrate the reliability of the transmission of the Hebrew text underlying the LXX.14 For example, it is well known that the MT of the books of Samuel is in poor condition in a number of places, suffering instances of significant haplography.15 The books of Kings are riddled with both short and lengthy pluses and minuses, transpositions, and chronological differences.16 Likewise, portions of the MT of Ezekiel, especially chapters 1 and 10, could serve as a veritable digest of textual corruptions.17 Lastly, the MT of the book of Jeremiah is fully one-sixthlonger than the text of the LXX.18 If the widely-followed principle of textual criticism that ectio brevior praeferenda est (“the shorter reading is to be preferred” – due to a scribe’s tendency to add rather than delete words) has any merit at all, the MT of Jeremiah would have to be considered an undeniably expansionistic text.
Prejudicial Evaluation of Texts Outside the MT Tradition
Judging by the survival in Old Testament textual criticism of a "textus receptus" approach like the one which once held sway in New Testament textual criticism, there has apparently been little thoughtful consideration as to how the MT came to be considered the “received text." Just because the MT was the received text of the medieval Masoretes does not prove it merits textual priority among today’s extant witnesses, or that it had textual priority in biblical times. The MT rose to prominence
13 Ernst Wurthwein, The Text of the Old Testament, translated by Peter R. Ackroyd (New York: MacMillan Company, 1957), 76–82.
14Use Ulrich on Samuel here.
15 P. Kyle McCarter, I Samuel, Anchor Bible, vol. 8 (New York: Doubleday, 1980); idem, Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 38.
16 Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 142.
17 Daniel Block, "Text and Emotion: A Study in the 'Corruptions' in Ezekiel's Inaugural Vision (Ezekiel 1:4-28)," CBQ 50 (July 1988): 418–442.
18 Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 320 ff.
5
only after centuries of textual diversity, and not, as noted above, by "intrinsic factors related to the textual transmission, but by political and socioreligious events and developments."19
The evidence from Qumran unquestionably testifies to a certifiable textual plurality among Jews in Palestine for the period between the third century B.C. and the first century A.D.20 Three independent texts of the Old Testament, the precursory forms of MT, the LXX, and the SP existed and are attested at Qumran without any evidence for the suppression of the non-MT texts. The mere fact that the Hebrew base for the LXX was found at Qumran as early as the third century B.C.and was not suppressed by the Qumranites demonstrates that this text was not confined to Egypt’s borders or considered inferior. As further proof of textual diversity, the Qumran material also contains "independent" or "unaligned" texts," which exhibit equal agreement and disagreement with the three major recognized textual traditions of MT, LXX, and the Samaritan Pentateuch.21 The Qumran fragments that support the LXX “sons of God” reading, 4QDeut j,n, are among the unaligned texts.22
Two points derive from this rehearsal of the textual plurality at Qumran. First, no evidence exists in the actual textual data that the Jews held a negative view of Hebrew texts not grouped among those which would later receive the appellation "Masoretic." Second, the undeniable textual diversity at Qumran argues against any suggestion that the Qumranites altered a text ultimately used by the LXX translators as their Vorlage. Besides the chronological and logistical difficulties of such an idea, the question remains: If the Qumran members were in the habit of altering texts to reflect allegedly strange angelic views or Gnostic tendencies, why did they leave so many texts within each of the major textual strains unaltered? Put another way, why did the inhabitants of Qumran allow so many passages of the Hebrew Bible which point to God’s uniqueness, omnipotence, and sole sovereignty to stay in the texts they deposited in the nearby caves? It hardly makes sense to sneak one alteration into Deuteronomy 32:8 while leaving hundreds of other “non dualistic” texts remain.
Evaluating the Internal Text-Critical Evidence for Deuteronomy 32:8
Two explanations might be offered by those who assume the priority of MT as to why Deuteronomy 32:8 reads “sons of God" in some manuscripts, including the Qumran material. One option is that this reading should simply be regarded as an intentional error
19 Tov, "Textual Criticism (OT)," 395, 407. Tov summarizes the historical situation as follows: "By the end of the 1st century A.D. the LXX had been accepted by Christianity and abandoned by Jews. Copies of the Samaritan Pentateuch were available, but in the meantime that sect had become an independent religion, so that their texts were considered Samaritan, not Jewish anymore. The Qumran sect, which had preserved a multitude of texts, did not exist after the destruction of the temple. Therefore the sole texts that existed in this period were the ones that were copied and distributed by the central group in Judaism . . . This situation gave rise to the wrong conclusion that the MT had 'ousted' the other texts."
20 Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 116–117. See also S. Talmon, "The Old Testament Text," in P.R. Ackroyd and C.F. Evans, eds., Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963): 159–199.
21 Ibid., 395, 402, 404, 406.
22 Tov, "Textual Criticism (OT)," 402.
6
reflecting the theological predilections of Qumran and the LXX translators. This theory has already been called into question. The other option would involve an unintentional origin for the variant. Specifically, it could be argued that accidental omission of the consonants r#oy from the word l)r#oy occured by parablepsis, leaving l) ynb in the text in the place of l)r#oy ynb.23 This explanation satisfies Stevens, for it “gives priority to the Masoretic text.”24 Exactly why the student of the text should strive to give MT priority is not explained. Nevertheless, the proposal is plausible, since parablepsis is a very common cause of textual corruption. This explanation is less than satisfactory for at least two reasons.
First, one could just as well argue that r#oy was added to the text. This is hardly a satisfying response, however, for it is as much of a speculation as the competing proposition. The real problem with the parablepsis proposal is that, while it accounts for the consonants l) in the text, it fails to adequately explain how the consonants Myhw- would have come to be added after l) to the text underlying the LXX reading. It is particularly significant in this regard that the texts from Qumran which support the LXX clearly do not read the consonants l) ynb as this explanation would postulate, for in one text, 4QDeutq , there are clearly additional spaces for additional consonants after the l of the word l). The other Dead Sea text which supports the LXX reading, 4QDeutj , certainly reads Myhl) ynb.25 By way of explanation, if all the witnesses to the “sons of God” variant read l) ynb, this explanation would carry more weight, for it would be very easy to argue that l) ynb was indeed the result of the loss of r#oy before an original l)r#oy ynb. However, when a Hebrew text reads Myhl) ynb as in the case of 4QDeutj, or [My]l) ynb as various scrolls scholars have filled in the lacunae of the 4QDeutq , one must explain the added consonants, since a word such as Myhl)r#oy is nonsensical. Advocates of such a parablepsis hypothesis would logically be forced to argue that the text in question not only suffered parablepsis, but that a scribe later deliberately inserted the extra letters after the parablepsis occurred. The unlikelihood of this intellectual retreat is manifest. Typically, scribes altered or deleted letters deliberately to “protect” God or to correct theology (such as with the tiqqune sopherim ).26 The occasions where scribes desired the reader to observe a different consonantal
23 Stevens (137-138) calls this omission homoioteleuton (a skip of the eye due to same or similar endings of words), but parablepsis is the more accurate term describing what Stevens believes occurred, the copyist's eye skipping from the yodh at the end of ynb to the aleph of l), thereby causing the alleged omission of consonants. The variant really would not have been caused by a similarity in word endings, but would actually be a kind of "mental parablepsis," due to the familiarity of the scribe with the phrases Myhl) ynb or Myl) ynb. What this requires is that the scribe would have written "ynb" and then, mentally expecting Myhl) or Myl) to follow, wrote "l)" instead of l)r#oy.
24 Ibid., 138.
25 Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 269.
26 Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 64–66. See also Carmel McCarthy, The Tiqqune Sopherim and Other Theological Corrections in the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1981): 211–214; and Ellis Brotzman, Old Testament Textual Criticism: A Practical Introduction (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994): 117–118.
7
text are well known, such as with the system of Kethiv-Qere or through suspended letters.27 There is no such Masoretic directive for Deuteronomy 32:8.
Second, and perhaps even more damaging to the proposed parablepsis explanation that an original "sons of Israel" was unintentionally corrupted to “sons of God” in Deuteronomy 32:8, is that there exists another text-critical problem in Deuteronomy 32 in which divine beings - "sons of Myhl) / Myl)" are the focus (v. 43)!28 Deuteronomy 32:43 reads differently in the MT, the LXX, and a Qumran text. Tigay has the three texts laid out in parallel in his commentary on Deuteronomy. The text is shown by Tigay in its literary structure of bicolons (note the references to “divinities” and “sons of the divine”):29
Masoretic Text 4QDeutq LXX
A1. O nations, rejoice His people O heavens, rejoice with Him O heavens, rejoice with Him
A2.. Bow to Him, all divinities Bow to Him, all sons of the divine
A3. O nations, rejoice with His people
A4. And let all angels of the divine
Strengthen themselves in Him.
B1. For He’ll avenge the blood of For He’ll avenge the blood of For He’ll avenge the blood of
B2. His servants, His sons, His sons, Be vengeful And wreak vengeance And wreak vengeance And wreak vengeance And recompense justice On His foes, on His foes, on His foes,
C1. Requite those who reject Him, Requite those who reject Him,
C2. And will And will And the Lord will Cleanse His people’s land. Cleanse His people’s land. Cleanse His people’s land.
Tigay asserts that the MT here is demonstrably incomplete when the structure of the text is analyzed and the resulting minuses are assessed.30 It is significant that the MT lacks a parallel colon in what should be the first pairing (or double pairing if one follows the LXX). Even more striking is the fact that this missing colon is the one in which reference is made to divine beings in the Qumran and LXX texts. In the Qumran and LXX texts, every colon has its partner. This argues strongly that the MT originally had a pairing of colons (a bicolon), a pairing that was deliberately eliminated to avoid the reference to other “divine beings."31 Tigay provides a well-reasoned explanation for the superfluous nature of the LXX’s extra bicolon (A3-A4) and some of the alternate wordings.32 What is significant in his argumentation is that while the other MT minuses
27 Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 57.
28The translation of the LXX used by Tigay could reflect Myl) instead of Myhl) since "divine" rather than "God" is chosen as the translation. If the former option was indeed the Vorlage reading, a translation of "divine ones" is more accurate.
29 Jeffrey H. Tigay, The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 516.
30 Ibid., 314, 516ff.
31 Ibid., 516.
32 Ibid., 516ff. 8 can be explained by haplography, the absence of the colon that would have made reference to divine beings cannot be so explained.33
What are the implications of this “parallel corruption”? For one, those who defend MT priority would have to argue for accidental changes in Deuteronomy 32:8 (the missing -r#oy) and 32:43 that produce false readings in favor of angelic beings in both cases, while simultaneously accounting for the full range of consonants in Myhl) in 4QDeutj . Such a coincidence is possible, but it stretches credulity to argue that the MT of Deuteronomy 32:8 and 43 best represents the original text when the exclusion of divine beings in 32:43 is so obviously a textual minus, and its conceptual parallel in 32:8 cannot coherently account for how the LXX reading for 32:8 may have arisen. It is far more likely both texts were intentionally altered in MT for the same reason: to eliminate a reference to divine beings in the name of expunging allegedly polytheistic language. It is inconceivable to suppose that a scribe would have done the reverse, altering an innocuous l)r#oy ynb to a potentially explosive Myhl) ynb. The LXX reading therefore sufficiently explains how the MT reading could have arisen, but the alternative fails this test.
DEUTERONOMY 32:8 IN LIGHT OF GOD'S DIVINE COUNCIL IN THE HEBREW BIBLE
Although some may fear that to adopt the reading of LXX amounts to embracing the notion that Yahweh is the author of polytheism, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, a proper understanding of the concept of the divine council in the Old Testament provides a decisive argument in favor of the LXX / Qumran reading.
It is no secret that the Old Testament often reflects literary and religious contact between Israel and her ancient near eastern neighbors. One example of such contact concerns a "divine council" or “divine assembly” presided over by a chief deity.34 A number of passages in the Hebrew Bible depict God presiding over a council of divine beings, and these passages often describe the divine council's membership and function with precise terminology utilized in ancient near eastern literature for the judicial oversight of their pantheons over the cosmos. Of particular interest to the study at hand are the Ugaritic texts, since that language bears such a close linguistic affinity to Biblical Hebrew.35
33 Ibid., 516ff.
34 The major work on the divine council is by E. Theodore Mullen, The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature, Harvard Semitic Monographs, no. 24 (Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1980). Related to Mullen’s work, but focusing on more specific aspects of the divine council are: Lowell K. Handy, Among the Host of Heaven: The Syro–Palestinian Pantheon as Bureaucracy (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1994), and Conrad L’Heureux, Rank among the Canaanite Gods: El, Ba(al, and the Repha)im, Harvard Semitic Monographs, no. 21 (Scholars Press, 1979).
35 Stanislav Segert, A Basic Grammar of the Ugaritic Language: With Selected Texts and Glossary (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), x, 13–15. The present study will focus on material from Ugarit, but the concepts delineated in the body of this paper can also be found throughout the literature of ancient Phoenicia, Mesopotamia, and Egypt.
9
The Divine Council in the Old Testament
One of the examples of the divine council assembled for deliberation in the Hebrew Bible is I Kings 22:19-23 (cf. II Chron. 18:18-22).36 I Kings 22:1-18 introduces the political alliance forged between Jehoshaphat of Judah and the king of Israel for invading Ramoth-Gilead, the rubber-stamping of the plan by four hundred prophets of Israel, and Jehoshaphat’s insistence on hearing from a true prophet of Yahweh concerning the matter. The king of Israel reveals that there is indeed a prophet of Yahweh, Micaiah ben Imlah, but that Micaiah never prophesies anything favorable concerning him. Micaiah is summoned, and at first he mockingly prophesies blessing for the invasion, but his duplicity is detected immediately by Jehoshaphat. This sets the stage for Micaiah’s genuine vision (emphasis mine):
19 Micaiah continued, "Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne with all the host of heaven standing around him on his right and on his left. 20 And the LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?' One suggested this, and another that. 21 Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the LORD and said, 'I will entice him.' 22 'By what means?' the LORD asked. 'I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,' he said. 'You will succeed in enticing him,' said the LORD. 'Go and do it.' 23 So now the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. The LORD has decreed disaster for you."
In a scene that resembles Ugaritic council scenes, Yahweh is pictured as the chief deity,37 enthroned among the members of His council before directly addressing its members, who “stand” (a technical term38) before Him.39 The question asked by Yahweh occurs in a form paralleled in Ugaritic literature and other passages involving Yahweh’s presence in the Hebrew Bible.40 The omniscient leader then approves the course of action He knows will be successful, and the messenger (the “spirit”41 here, but often a prophet) is commissioned. It is not that Yahweh is lacking ideas, or that the members of the council exercise any actual authority, but rather that the council only
36 Other than the two primary examples of the council in the Hebrew Bible offered in the body of this paper, see Job 1,2 and Zech. 3:1–8.
37 The chief deity and leader of the council at Ugarit was El. The Hebrew text makes it clear that El is Israel’s God as well (although the l)' of the Bible does not share his Ugaritic counterpart's behaviors; cf. l)'rF#o;yI yh'$l)v l)' - “El, the God of Israel”; Gen. 33:20), and that Yahweh is El (cf. Deut. 7:9; 10:17; II Sam. 22:31 [parallelism]; Ps. 85:9; Isa. 42:5; Jer. 32:8). The equation in the literature is also seen by virtue of the numerous epithets at Ugarit for the high god El that are used of Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible (see Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 44–76).
38 Mullen, The Divine Council, p. 207, 209–226. In this regard, it is interesting to note Isaiah 6:2 in the LXX, where the angelic beings in the passage stand before Yahweh, not above him as in MT.
39 Cf. KTU 1.16.V.9–28; Ugaritica V.2.I.2–4. See Mullen, The Divine Council, 205ff.
40 Cf. KTU 1.16.V.10–11, 14–15, 17–18, 20–21.
41 This is a common designation for Yahweh’s / the council’s messengers. See Mullen, The Divine Council, 206.
10
serves to “reemphasize and execute His decisions.”42 This is the same pattern as in the Ugaritic council texts.43 Micaiah in this instance is permitted to observe the deliberations of the divine “boardroom meeting” and thus pronounce with certainty “thus saith the LORD” as a messenger of the divine assembly.
A second example of the divine council in the Hebrew Bible is Psalm 82. Setting the Hebrew text44 in relation to the translation brings out the now familiar council language and the plurality of the Myhi$l)V in question:
1 God (Myhi$l)V) standeth in the congregation of the mighty (lae-td;[]B;); he judgeth among the gods (Myhi$l)V).
2 How long will ye judge (WjP.v.Ti) unjustly, and accept (Waf.Ti) the persons of the wicked? Selah.
3 Defend (Wjp.vi) the poor and fatherless: do justice (WqyDic.h;) to the afflicted and needy.
4 Deliver (WjL.P; ) the poor and needy: rid [them] (WlyCihi) out of the hand of the wicked.
5 They (the gods) know not (W[d.y" al), neither will they (the gods) understand (Wnybiy" al{w>); they (the gods) walk on (WkL'h;t.yI) in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
6 I have said, Ye [are] gods (~T,a; Myhi$l)V); and all of you [are] children of the most High (~k,L.Ku !Ayl.[, ynEb.W).
7 But ye shall die (!WtWmT.)45 like Adam,46 and fall (WlPoTi) like one of the Shining Ones.47
42 Ibid., 207.
43 Ibid., 206.
44 The text of MT is used here. As is noted in several of the studies cited subsequently, the only meaningful variant in the text is whether the first ~yhil{a/ should be replaced by hwhy. The choice makes no difference for the interpretation of the psalm.
45 The verb form here, !WtWmT. , is from the same root as used for the pronouncement on humankind in Gen. 2:17; 3:4. In the latter instance, the form is identical, save for defective spelling (!WtmuT.).
46 The Hebrew here is ~d'a'K. , and is usually translated "like men." Aside from the connection with the verb mentioned above in the ensuing discussion, the translation choice here is based on the work of Mullen (239-240) and Hugh Rowland Page, The Myth of Cosmic Rebellion: A Study of Its Reflexes in Ugaritic and Biblical Literature (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996), 158–164. Page's is the most thorough and up to date work comparing the passages in the Hebrew Bible that speak of a cosmic rebellion with those of Ugarit. The translation choice "Adam" reflects the connection that exists between (1) presence of the "Shining One" (Lucifer) in Isaiah 14:12–15 in the holy Mount - the Mount of the Assembly (the place where the council met) and the designation of Eden, the garden of God, as the Mount of Assembly in Ezekiel 28; and (2) the reference to a certain "Shining One" in Psalm 82:7 (see the preceding note on the verbal root for "you shall die," and the ensuing note below).
47 The Hebrew here is ~yriF'h; dx;a;k. , which is usually translated "like one of the princes," under the assumption that the noun MyrI#of2ha is related to the Akkadian s/arru, meaning "ruler, prince." This is the correct Akkadian cognate, but contrary to the assertion that the related verbal root s/araru most likely does not mean "rise in splendor" (in reference to the sun, and so "shine"), subsequent scholarship has
11
8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.
This psalm has generated much scholarly controversy.48 As many scholars who have tackled its contents have noted, the crux interpretum of the psalm is determining what Myhi$l)V means in verses 1b and 6a.49 How can God / Myhi$l)V be said to be standing in the council of God / lae in the midst of (a singular) God / Myhi$l)V ? It would seem obvious that the second Myhi$l)V (v. 1b) must be pluralized, but since this allegedly smacks of polytheism, many commentators have resisted the translation “gods.” Three major interpretations therefore exist for the Myhi$l)V of 1b and 6a: (1) they are Israelite rulers and judges; (2) they are the rulers and judges of the nations; (3) they are members of the divine council / divine beings. In reality, the latter two options are both correct, and must be combined for an accurate interpretation of the psalm.50
As Cyrus Gordon pointed out over sixty years ago, translating Myhi$l)V as “rulers” or “judges” is an option that lacks validity, and is an example of theologically “protecting” God.51 Since Gordon adequately chronicles the examples where Myhi$l)V is only speculatively translated as “rulers” or “judges,”52 and demonstrates in each example that such a translation choice is unnecessary, this paper will focus on features of the psalm that compel the conclusion that Myhi$l)V in v. 1b and 6a should be translated “gods” or, better, “divine beings.”53
demonstrated otherwise (see The Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon, ed. Jay P. Green (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1979), 977b and 978a; hereafter, BDB ). While there may be some question that the verbal form s/araru may not be used with "shine" as its meaning, the adjective form s/aru4ru certainly does mean "shining," as evidenced by its use to describe the planet Venus in astronomical texts (Page, 97, note 134) . Psalm 82:7 could therefore contain a substantive use of the cognate adjective (see also Mullen, The Divine Council, 239–240). The reference to a "Shining One" in 82:7 is paralleled by Isaiah 14:12-15 and Ezekiel 28:12-17, where divine beings are in view (or where tales of divine beings form the backdrop for these passages). Ezekiel 28:13-16 and Isaiah 14:12-15 provide an overt linguistic connection between Eden and the holy Mount of Assembly where the divine council at Ugarit and in the Hebrew Bible held its meetings (cf. the ensuing discussion of the vocabulary used at Ugarit and in the Hebrew Bible). The elohim of Psalm 82:7 will die like Adam and fall like one of the "shining ones" did (cf. esp. Ezek. 28:12-17 here). The point of the verse is that the divine beings judged in the Psalm will be (or were) stripped of immortality and cast from their high estate, just as Adam and that divine being who was punished in the same manner earlier had been. It should be pointed out that this argument from the cognates is not necessary for proving that the personages in Psalm 82 are divine beings, since r#of in its meaning of "prince" is used in Daniel to identify divine beings - those ~yhil{a/ who still rule the nations - and Michael, guardian of God's portion, Israel (Dan. 10:13, 20-21; 12:1; cp. Deut. 4:19; 32:8-9).
48 See Julian Morgenstern, “The Mythological Background of Psalm 82,” Hebrew Union College Annual XIV (1939): 29-98; W. S. Prinsloo, “Psalm 82: Once Again, Gods or Men?” Biblica 76:2 (1995), 219–228; and Lowell Handy, “Sounds, Words and Meanings in Psalm 82,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 47 (1990), 51–66.
49 Prinsloo, “Psalm 82: Once Again, Gods or Men?” 219.
50 Mullen, The Divine Council, 228, n. 195.
51 Cyrus Gordon, “ Myhl) in Its Reputed Meaning of Rulers, Judges,” Journal of Biblical Literature 54 (1935): 139–144.
52 For example, see BDB, 43a.
53 While this author agrees with Gordon that ~yhil{a/ need not (and should not) be translated “judges” or “rulers” in Psalm 82 and his other examples, he disagrees with Gordon’s conclusion that in at least two of
12
Several external considerations point to verses 1b and 6a as describing the divine council and its “divine beings.” First, the fact that the Myhi$l)V in 6a are called NwOyl;(e yn"b2; is a strong argument for their divine nature, because NwOyl;(e is a completely transparent title for deity, in both Hebrew and Ugaritic. The word refers only to God / El in the Bible and Ugaritic religious texts.54 The point here is that the divine character of the offspring of El in the Ugaritic texts is beyond question. That the same descriptive appellation for those offspring are used many times in the Hebrew Bible of nonhuman inhabitants of the heavens makes the translation “human judges” nonsensical55 and requires ignoring the comparative semitic philology. Second, the terms and themes in this psalm are present in Ugaritic literature. Elyo4n, princes, gods, are all present in the Ugaritic poem “the Gracious Gods,” and it is quite telling that the notion above in Psalm 82:7 of the Myhi$l)v “falling” like “one of the Shining Ones” is found “in a specific episode of Canaanite mythology, in which the fall of one of the bn s/rm ("sons of the shining ones") of the heavenly congregation was depicted.”56 Third, the fact that the psalm speaks of rendering justice to the poor and needy does not argue for human judges, since the council terminology from Sumer, Akkad, and Ugarit “referred originally to the political organ of a primitive democracy, a phenomenon which can be discerned in the pantheons of various non-Israelite cultures.”57 Lastly, verses such as Isaiah 24:21 (“In that day the LORD will punish the powers in the heavens above and the kings on the earth below”) clearly distinguish between the divine beings of Yahweh’s host and earthly rulers.
these instances (Exodus 21:6 and 22:6-7) one should understand the term as referring to household gods/idols. Gordon cites certain oath-taking examples in the Nuzi dialect of Akkadian in favor of his decision, but admits that other Akkadian parallels (e.g. Hammurabi’s Code) have a singular deity in view. This author would prefer to translate ~yhil{a/ in these texts (and others) as simply “God” or “gods,” and not “household gods/idols” or “judges.” That such an effort has been exerted to identify these beings as humans ought also to inform the reader that ~yhil{a/ in these texts (and especially Psalm 82) does not refer to mere angels (i.e., Myk)lm). The comparative semitic data make it clear that the members of the council had a higher status than these “messenger” beings.
54 Genesis 14:18ff. (God Most High). On the use of NwOyl;(eô€€¢at Ugarit as either an epithet of El or a “double name of a single god,” see Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 51. The word’s use in Genesis 14:18–22, especially along with the phrase “Creator of heaven and earth” (Cre)FwF MyIma#$F hnEqo ; 14:22) presents a firm linguistic appearance in the Hebrew text of one of Canaanite El’s titles (qanu )ars[). See Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 50–52.
55 See Gerald Cooke, “The Sons of (the) God(s),” Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 76 (1964): 34.
56 Ibid., 34.
57 Matitiahu Tsevat, “God and the Gods in Assembly,” Hebrew Union College Annual 40-41 (1969-1970), 127; Page, The Myth of Cosmic Rebellion, 158–164. In all these ancient religions, as well as the theology of the Hebrew Bible, the gods / God and their/ his council were supposed to render right judgment for the oppressed and the poor (see Mullen, The Divine Council, 231ff.; see esp. 233–38). The earth itself was founded on justice (Isa. 28:16ff.) and each member of the council had his own earthly responsibilities (Deut. 4:19 and 32:8-9, reading with LXX and Qumran). As Cyrus Gordon also notes, “The duty of rulers (gods and kings alike) is to protect the weak from the strong” (Cyrus Gordon, “History of Religion in Psalm 82,” in Biblical and Near Eastern Studies: Essays in Honor of William Sanford LaSor, ed. Gary A. Tuttle (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978), 129–31 (see esp. 130).
13
Internal features of Psalm 82 place the argument that Myhi$l)v in v. 1b and 6a are divine beings and not human judges beyond dispute. Two recent articles on Psalm 82 have produced a number of structural proofs in favor of divine beings rather than humans.58 Two observations will suffice here:
1. Psalm 82:1 has a chiastic structure that compels the understanding that the
second Myhi$l)V refers to divine, not human, beings:
+p2o#$;yI Myhi$l)V brEqEb2; l)'-tdA(Jb2a bc2fnI Myhi$l)V
a b b a
2 The particle Nk')F in verse 7 indicates “a strong antithetical relationship with v. 6.”59 The presence of yTir.m;a' introducing the clause prior to Nk')F has been demonstrated to require a translation of roughly “I had thought . . . but.”60 The contrast is, of course, between the speaker of verse 6, Yahweh (who in either view is the only one who has the authority to render the death sentence for these Myhi$l)V ) and the Myhi$l)V of verse 6a – the word being in parallel to NwOyl;(e yn"b2; . Consequently, interpreting the phrase “you shall die like Adam” to be referring to human judges would contradict the contrasts required by the syntax. It would also require ignoring the parallel here with the judgment on Adam and Eve. The point is not that the Myhi$l)V were put to death at the moment Yahweh judged them, but that they must die as a result of their actions (i.e., they would become mortal).61 Moreover, it is patently illogical. As Smick noted, “if they are going to die like mortals, they are not mortals.”62 The immortality of those suffering this judgment is clearly presupposed.63
The Divine Council and the Vocabulary of Biblical Hebrew
58 Prinsloo, “Psalm 82: Once Again, Gods or Men?” 222ff.; Handy, “Sounds, Words, and Meanings in Psalm 82,” 51-66. See also Mullen, The Divine Council, 226ff.
59 Prinsloo, “Psalm 82: Once Again, Gods or Men?” 226.
60 Morgenstern, 33.
61 Morgenstern, 73–74. This does not rule out the possibility, as some argue, that Adam and Eve possessed contingent immortality before the Fall. In that case, their punishment would involve removing that contingency (namely the tree of life from which they ate) which maintained their immortality. The effect would be the same – they were now fully mortal, and could not avoid death.
62 Elmer Smick, “Mythopoetic Language in the Psalms,” Westminster Theological Journal 44 (1982): 95.
63 It does no good to suggest that the ô€€¢Myhi$l)Vô€€¢in question are humans who thought themselves to be divine, for the text does not say this, and, more importantly, because it would put such words in the mouth of Yahweh (the verb is first singular, not second plural). Lastly, to object that it is impossible to conceive of gods dying like men in an attempt to argue for human beings as the Myhi$l)Vô€€¢ is to actually sound polytheistic in orientation, for the objection would be based on the assumption that the plural Myhi$l)V have the same qualitative essence (noncontingent immortality) as Yahweh. The point here is that if more than one being possessed noncontingent immortality, the result would be true polytheism. It is necessary to recognize a distinction between Deity (God) and divinity (god-likeness) as a solution for reconciling the plural Myhi$l)Vô€€¢and Israelite monotheism.
14
The texts above (and others) are all the more convincing once the Ugaritic terminology for the divine council is compared with the vocabulary of biblical Hebrew. Such a comparison yields both semantic congruences and exact philological equivalents.
Terminology for the Assembly64
The literature of Ugarit has a number of designations for the divine assembly/ council. The two most common at Ugarit are ph}r , with its related form mph}r , both meaning “congregation, assembly,”65 and dr ,66 meaning “generation, assemblage.”67 The phrases ph}r )ilm (“congregation of the gods”), mph}rt bn )ilm (“congregation of the sons of the gods”), and dr bn )il (“generation of the sons of El”) are quite common.68 None of these forms are used in the Hebrew Bible in terms of exact linguistic equivalence, though their conceptual equivalence will become clear.
A common appellation for the divine assembly at Ugarit is (dt )ilm (“assembly of the gods” 69), a phrase that corresponds exactly to the one in Psalm 82:1 (“the l)' tdA(jbA2 ; the “assembly of God”). Another biblical Hebrew term for the council that has an equivalent in Ugaritic is dwOs (“assembly”70). For example, in Jeremiah 23:18, 22 one reads:71
(18) But which of them has stood in the council (dwOsb2;) of the LORD to see or to hear his word? Who has listened and heard his word?
(22) But if they had stood in my council (ydiwOsb2;), they would have proclaimed my words to my people and would have turned them from their evil ways and from their evil deeds.
Reminiscent of this scene is Isaiah’s vision of Yahweh in Isaiah, where Isaiah, upon seeing Yahweh enthroned and ministered to by seraphim, hears Yahweh speak: “Who shall I send, and who will go for us?” The winged creatures in the chapter have undeniable parallels in the Ugaritic council scenes.72 In fact, visions or auditory
64 The fullest treatment of this topic occurs in Mullen, The Divine Council, 111–127.
65 Marjo Christina Annette Korpel, A Rift in the Clouds: Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions of the Divine (Munster: Ugarit Verlag, 1990), 269; Cyrus Gordon, Ugaritic Manual, Analecta Orientalia 35 (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1955), 312.
66 There is no Canaanite shift in Ugaritic, hence long “a” instead of an “o” vowel.
67 Gordon, Ugaritic Manual, 256.
68 For example, KTU 1.47:29; 1.148; 1.40:25; 1.65:3; 1.2 (cf. E. Theodore Mullen, “Divine Assembly,” in Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. II, ed. D. N. Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 214–215.
69 Gordon, Ugaritic Manual, 303. For example, see KTU 1.15:II.7,11
70 For example, see Psalm 55:14 (Heb. = 15; translated “throng” in NIV); Jer. 6:11 (“assembly” in KJV); Prov. 15:22 (“advisers” in NIV). For the Ugaritic, see KTU 1.20:I.4; Korpel, 271.
71 Note the translation “counsel” instead of “council” in the KJV here as another example of how the linguistic parallels with the ancient near eastern “council” terminology are missed.
72 Ibid., 207. Mullen argues that the winged creatures/ seraphim are council members, but elsewhere in his book Mullen notes that such fiery (cf. the root s[rp for the seraphim) messengers are mere emissaries to the council at Ugarit (140). The major study in regard to the hierarchicy of divine beings is that of Lowell
15
revelations of Yahweh and His divine council were viewed in the Hebrew Bible as an authentication of the veracity of the prophet’s message and status – a sort of test of true “propheticity.”73
Terminology for the Members of the Assembly74
Ugaritic regularly refers to heavenly beings as ph}r kkbm (the “congregation of the stars”75), language corresponding with rqe$b yb'k;wOk2 (“morning stars”; in parallelism with the “sons of God” in Job 38:7) and l)' yb'k;wOk (the “stars of God”; Isa. 14:13). Aside from the context of these references, each of which clearly points to personal beings, not astronomical phenomena, it is significant that in the entire ancient near eastern literary record, El is never identified with a heavenly body. Thus “the stars of El” points to created beings with divine status.76 The Hebrew Bible also uses My#$idoq: (“holy ones”) and twO)bfc; (“hosts”) for inhabitants of heaven, a term not utilized at Ugarit for the heavenly host.77 The “hosts” of Yahweh (twO)bFc; hwhy) constitutes an umbrella term which includes the variety of categories of nonhuman beings who serve God.78 In fact, one study has specifically linked the “host” of heaven, the divine council, and the Hebrew Bible’s portrait of Yahweh as a warrior.79
Handy (Among the Host of Heaven: The Syro-Palestinian Pantheon as Bureaucracy). Handy argues that the seraphim at Ugarit and in the Hebrew Bible are only messenger “gods” (a term appropriate only for a polytheistic context), had no independent personal volition, were clearly a sub-class (even in Jewish tradition), and were most likely the “security guards” of the heavenly throne room where the council met (151–56). They are thus only servants of the council membership and its head, not members. My own position is that the whole heavenly host constitutes the divine council (cf. I Kings 22:19) but that there was a strict hierarchical arrangement within the council.
73The foundational study for demonstrating that the divine council forms the background for the commissioning of the prophet was that of H. Wheeler Robinson, “The Council of Yahweh,” Journal of Theological Studies 45 (1944): 151–57. See also in this regard Christopher Seitz, “The Divine Council: Temporal Transition and New Prophecy in the Book of Isaiah,” Journal of Biblical Literature 109:2 (1990): 229–47; Frank M. Cross, “The Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 12 (1953): 274-277; Mullen, The Divine Council, 215ff.
74 The fullest discussion of this topic is found in Mullen, The Divine Council, 175–208. See also Korpel, A Rift in the Clouds, 269–99.
75 KTU 1.10:I.4.
76 Ulf Oldenburg, “Above the Stars of El: El in Ancient South Arabic Religion,” Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 82 (1970): 187-208 (cf. 197).
77 See Psalm 89:6-7 (Hebr.= 89:7-8); Zech 14:5; Job 5:1; 15:15 (Qere); Carol A. Newsom, “Angels,” Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. I, ed. D. N. Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992): 248. For example, see Psalm 89:9 (Eng. = 89:8); 103:21.
78 See Psalm 103:19-21; 148:1-5. However, several passages unambiguously include divine beings among the heavenly host. See also Isaiah 24:21 (“And it shall come to pass in that day, that the LORD shall punish the host of the high ones that are on high, [MwOrm2fb2a MwOrm2fhA )bfc;] and the kings of the earth upon the earth”) with other passages that describe divine beings that dwell in the “heights,” such as Isaiah 14:12–15.
79 Patrick D. Miller, “The Divine Council and the Prophetic Call to War,” Vetus Testamentum 18 (1968): 101-107.
16
The members of the assembly at Ugarit are unambiguously classified as)ilm (“gods”), bn )il (“sons of El”), and bn )ilm (“sons of the gods”).80 Specifically, in the Keret Epic, the Canaanite chief deity El sits at the head of the assembly and four times addresses its members as either )ilm (“gods”) or bny (“my sons”).81 Occurrences of these designations referring to heavenly beings in the Hebrew Bible are well known (see chart below). Both Ugaritic and Biblical Hebrew use ml)k (“messenger,” typically translated "angel") to denote heavenly beings of a lower order than the “sons of god” or “divine ones.” Just as at Ugarit and elsewhere, in the Hebrew Bible, the terms above (Myhi$l)v , MylI)" , or the Myhi$l)v yn"b2; ) and the Myki)Fl;mA are not to be equated. All these divine beings are members of Yahweh's council, but within that council a hierarchy exists.82 As Handy notes, at no point are the Myki)Fl;mA ever designated as either Myhi$l)v , MylI)" , or the Myhi$l)v yn"b2; in the Hebrew text.83 The practice of some English Bible translations to render all these terms alike as “angels” blurs the distinctions and obscures the textual testimony to the divine council. The lack of specificity inherent in the Greek New Testament vocabulary is also a problem with respect to discerning not only the levels of the divine council, but the council's presence itself.84
Terminology for the Meeting Place of the Assembly85
In Ugaritic mythology, El and his council met to govern the cosmos at the “sources of the two rivers,” in the “midst of the fountains of the double-deep,” and in the “domed tent” of El, located on the mountain of El, Mount S[apanu.86 This mountainous meeting place was also designated ph}r m(d, the place of the “assembled congregation,”87 and was associated with both physical and mythical peaks to the north of Ugarit.88 In like manner, Yahweh’s sanctuary is on a mountain (Mount Zion) which is located in the
80 In addition to the citations above containing references to the )ilm, see KTU 1.16; 1.15; 1.40:7–8, 42; cf. Mullen, “Divine Assembly,” 215.
81 See Mullen, “Divine Assembly” KTU 1.16.V.1-28 for El’s leadership in the council. On this topic in general, see Mullen, The Divine Council, 183ff.
82 Handy, Among the Host of Heaven, 151–59; Mullen, The Divine Council, 210ff.; Korpel, A Rift in the Clouds, 289ff. See KTU 1.2:I.11; 1.13:25. See Gen. 28:12 as one example of many in the Hebrew Bible.
83 Ibid., 158–59.
84 Part of the problem is that the Greek New Testament does not make a vocabulary distinction, having only a1ggeloj (which can have a heavenly denizen in mind or a mere human messenger). This problem is similar to that of the New Testament’s limited vocabulary for alcoholic beverages. Whereas the Old Testament has nearly a half dozen words for such beverages, the New Testament uses oi1noj.
85 The fullest treatments of this item occurs in Mullen, The Divine Council, 128–74, and Richard J. Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament, Harvard Semitic Monographs IV (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972), 34-176.
86 Frank M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), 36; Korpel, A Rift in the Clouds, 370; Clifford, Cosmic Mountain, 98-160. See KTU 1.4; 1.2:III; 1.3:V.5–7; 1.6:I 32–34; 1.101:2; 1.3:III.29
87 Korpel, A Rift in the Clouds, 269.
88 Clifford, Cosmic Mountain, 34-160.
17
“heights of the north,” the NwOpcf yt'k2;r:yA (Psalm 48:1-2).89 The “height of Zion” is a “well-watered garden” (Jer. 31:12; Isa. 33:20-22), and in Ezekiel 28:13-16, the terms “mountain of God” and “garden of God” (not to mention Eden) are paralleled. The mountain of Yahweh is also called the d('wOm rha (“mount of assembly”), again located in NwOpcf yt'k2;r:yA (the “heights of the north/S[aphon”; Isa. 14:13). The “domed tent,” of course, evokes the imagery of the Tent of Meeting and the Tabernacle.90
Summation
The terms above are not exhaustive, but are representative of the range of specific linguistic congruence between Ugarit religious literature and the Hebrew Bible relevant to the concept of the divine council. The data is summarized in transliteration below: 91
89 Additionally, Shadday may mean “mountain dweller.” See Korpel, A Rift in the Clouds, 581; Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 48–60.
90 Richard J. Clifford, “The Tent of El and the Israelite Tent of Meeting,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 33 (1971): 221–27.
91 Vocalization is, of course, supplied according to each language’s conventional scheme. The verses supplied are not exhaustive, but only representative.
18
Ugaritic
Hebrew Bible
Ugaritic alone
ph}r )ilm
"assembly of the gods"92
dr bn )il
“generation of the sons of El”
Ugaritic & Hebrew Bible
)ilm
“gods”
)elo4h
“gods” or “divine beings” or “godlike beings”; For example, see Job 41:25 (Heb. = 41:17); Psalm 58:5 (emended); 8:5 (Heb. = 8:6); 86:8; 97:7, 9; Exod. 15:11; Dan. 11:36
bn )il
“sons of the gods”
bene< )e4l
bene< )elo4h
bene< ha4)elo4h
Psalm 29:1; 89:6 (Heb. = 89:7); Gen. 6:2,4; Job 1:6; 2:1
bn )il
(dt bn )ilm
“sons of El”
“assembly of the sons of El”93
See above with refer
ence to bene< )e4l
(in case mem is enclitic)
(dt )ilm
(dt )il
“assembly of the gods”
“assembly of El”94
(adat )e4l
“assembly of God” - Ps. 82:1
s\d
“assembly”
so,d yhwh
so,d )elo,ah
“assembly of Yahweh” – Jer. 23:18; “assembly of God” – Job 15:8
ph}r kkbm
“congregation of the stars”
ko,k;ebe< bo4qer
ko,k;ebe< )e4l
“morning stars” (Job 38:7); “stars of God” (Isa. 14:13)
ph}r m(d
"congregation of the assembly"; “assembled congregation”95
har mo,(e4d
“mount of assembly” (Isa. 14:13)
(mount) S[pn
“Zaphon”; a mountain to the north96
yarkete, s[apho,n
“heights of the north” (Psa. 48:1-2)
Hebrew Bible alone
qedo4s\
“holy ones” ; Psalm 89:6-7 (Heb.= 89:7-8); Zech 14:5; Job 5:1; Job 15:15 (Qere)97
s[eba4)o,t
“hosts” Isa. 13:4; 24:21 e.g.
92 The mem on the end of )il
4ma may be enclitic, requiring a singular translation (“assembly of El”). Plural forms in reference to the council members occur in KTU 1.2.I. 18,20,22,23,24,26,27,29, and 34.
93 Cf. KTU 1.4.III.14.
94 Cf. KTU 1.15:II.7,11
95 Cf. KTU 1.2.I.
96 For a lengthy discussion of this terminology and its correspondences in biblical literature, see Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain, 34-176; idem., “Tent of El.”
97 Reading Zech. 14:5 with the LXX; see also Psa. 77:14; 93:5; Dan. 4:10,14,20.
19
Objections to the Reality of a Divine Council in the Old Testament
Some interpreters argue against the idea that the Myhi$l)v of Psalm 82:1b and 6a are divine beings by introducing the following texts:
Exodus 4:16 And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God (Myhi$l)V ).
Exodus 7:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god (Myhi$l)V ) to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
Since Moses is referred to as Myhi$l)V , so the argument goes, the Myhi$l)V of Psalm 82:1b and 6a should also be taken as referring to human beings. This amounts to “apples and oranges” reasoning, and misses the point of the terminology in the pertinent verses. While it is true that Moses can be an Myhi$l)V , how is it that we should use this fact wherever Myhi$l)V occurs and does not refer to Yahweh? Put another way, this argument says that since Myhi$l)V refers to a human being in these instances, it must in Psalm 82 – But why? As we have seen, the structural elements and parallelism of that Psalm argue against this conclusion, as does the logic of verse 6, as well as other passages that refer to plural Myhi$l)V.98 Denying the obvious in Psalm 82 accomplishes nothing toward ridding the Hebrew Bible of the existence of plural Myhi$l)v .
The reason Moses is called Myhi$l)V in Exodus 4:16 and 7:1 is that he is functioning in the manner of a member of God's council. Moses is not a mere messenger (he is not referred to as a K7)al;mA here). Unlike prophets such as Jeremiah and Isaiah, who receive a singular commissioning in the presence of Yahweh's council, Moses regularly spoke to Yahweh “face to face.” Moreover, his task went well beyond dispensing revelation; he was a governing mediator, effectively ruling Israel at God’s behest. It is this governing at God’s discretion which marks him as an Myhi$l)V , much in the same way that Israel’s king would be referred to as a “son of Myhi$l)V ,”99 terminology which needs no further comment. Whether it be before Pharaoh or his own people, Moses as Myhi$l)V refers to the display of true divine authority, with all its bestowed dominion and protection.
98 For example, Psalm 89:6-8 (“6 For who in the skies above can compare with the LORD? Who is like the LORD among the heavenly beings (Myli)' yn'b2;)? 7 In the council of the holy ones (My#$i$dq; dwOsb2;ô€€¢) God is greatly feared; he is more awesome than all who surround him. 8 O LORD God Almighty, who is like you? You are mighty, O LORD, and your faithfulness surrounds you”); Psalm 29:1-2 (“1 Ascribe to the LORD, O mighty ones (Myli)'), ascribe to the LORD glory and strength. 2 Ascribe to the LORD the glory due his name; worship the LORD in the splendor of his holiness”); and Isaiah 24:21, which clearly distinguishes human rulers from the council Myhi$l)v (“In that day the LORD will punish the powers in the heavens above and the kings on the earth below”). The point with the latter is, what powers are there in heaven besides Yahweh? The Myhi$l)v and the council are the only logical conclusion.
99 Psalm 2:7 and Psalm 110:3 (assuming that the LXX – cf. Psalm 109 – is the original reading).
20
Another common objection involves John 10:34-36, where Jesus quotes Psalm 82:100
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
The point of this objection is that Jesus, by this quotation, is saying in effect that “since Psalm 82 has men being called Myhi$l)v , then I can call myself the Son of God and claim equality with God.” The presumed reference in verse 35 to the Myhi$l)v being the recipients of the law (which would require they be human) supposedly confirms this exegesis. Unfortunately, this is a textbook example where New Testament scholars, lacking any knowledge of Ugaritic or other comparative semitic data, interpret the Hebrew text via the appeal to Jewish tradition,101 or appeal to the previous generation of New Testament scholars who wrote before the discovery of the Ugaritic materials. Several points need to be made regarding Jesus’ use of Psalm 82, for His hermeneutic amounts to a powerful testimony to His own deity.
First, the presumed (traditional) argument actually does nothing to advance Jesus’ claim for deity, laid down earlier in verse 30 (“I and my Father are one”), for it amounts to Jesus claiming “I can call myself the son of God just like other men had the title Myhi$l)v .” The point here is that the alleged humans in Psalm 82:1b and 6a were still men, despite their designation as Myhi$l)v . One wonders where the power is in such an equation. Was Jesus merely arguing for a non-ontological title? This is hardly what He was asserting. This is no more an argument for the deity of Jesus than one could make for the deity of Moses from Exodus 4:16 and 7:1, where he is called an Myhi$l)v . Second, it is important to observe that nowhere in the passage is the law actually mentioned. It is an assumption – and a flawed one at that – that the “word of God” in verse 35 is a reference to the reception of the Mosaic law. In fact, there is no reference to the law in all of Psalm 82. In reality the “word of God” that came to the Myhi$l)v in question refers to the judgment rendered against them by the speaker (Yahweh) of Psalm 82:7: “But ye
100 The MT and LXX agree in the verse quoted, and the quotation is exact.
101 By “Jewish tradition” I mean the rabbinic opinion (again to “protect” God) that )eloh
4m here refers to men. By way of examples of New Testament scholarship’s undiscriminating acceptance of this notion, see Jerome H. Neyrey, “ ‘I Said: You are Gods’: Psalm 82:6 and John 10,” Journal of Biblical Literature 108:4 (1989): 647-663 (esp. 653ff, where the author cites a variety of midrashic interpretations, and in turn considers John 10:34-36 as a midrash); W. Gary Phillips, “An Apologetic Study of John 10:34-36,” Bibliotheca Sacra 146 (Oct-Dec 1989): 405-419 ( Phillips fails to interact with scholarly literature on Psalm 82 or the divine council); and James S. Ackerman, “The Rabbinic Interpretation of Psalm 82 and the Gospel of John,” Harvard Theological Review 59 (1966): 186-191. Ackerman points out that the notion that the “gods” of Psalm 82 refer to human judges stems exclusively from rabbinic concerns for orthodoxy. Ackerman rejects the typical interpretation of human judges in favor of another midrashic interpretation – that “gods” refers to the Israelites who received the law. Other than the fact that the law is nowhere in view in Psalm 82, and that the New Testament tradition that the law was given via angelic beings creates a text-critical conundrum (see footnote 107 and this author’s paper which provides a solution to this), Ackerman’s thesis is based on the assumption that the rabbis who offer this solution took Psalm 82 out of context to do it – and that Jesus did the same (see p. 188).
21
shall die like Adam, and fall like one of the Shining Ones.”102 Even if this text did somehow refer to the giving of the law, it would point once again to the Myhi$l)v in Psalm 82:6 being divine beings, for there is a definite connection in the Old Testament between the giving of the law and Yahweh’s divine council:
Deuteronomy 33:2 (NIV) - He said, The Lord came from Sinai, and dawned over them from Seir; he shone forth from mount Paran. He came with myriads of holy ones from the south, from his mountain slopes.103
By his use of Psalm 82:6, Jesus was not arguing that he deserved a title shared by other mere mortals. He was reminding his Jewish adversaries of the existence of the other divine beings – the Myhi$l)v - in Yahweh’s divine council. Their own Scripture affirmed the notion that Yahweh was not the only Myhi$l)v . To be sure, He was superior, but the point being made was that it was fallacious on their part to assume that Yahweh did not have divine “offspring”. Moreover, by virtue of the context of this quotation, coming as it did on the heels of Jesus’ claim to be equal with the Father, Jesus was in effect saying, “My Father has many divine sons – Psalm 82:6 testifies to this. Yet I am unique with respect to the sons of God. I am in fact above them, and am qualitatively different from them as the monogenh/j son of God." Arguing that Psalm 82:6 refers to human judges robs Jesus of a very pointed claim to deity.
The final objection to the reality of the divine council and its Myhi$l)v are passages like those in Isaiah that denounce idols and forcefully contend there are no other gods besides Yahweh.104 In fact, such claims are also present in Deuteronomy 32 itself (verses 15-18, 21). Since the Scriptures do not contradict themselves, the presence of such passages, particularly when juxtaposed with references to divine beings in Deuteronomy 32:8-9 and 43, do not mitigate against the existence of the Myhi$l)v , but actually assumes their reality to make the point of the comparison. Nevertheless, how are these statements to be reconciled with the reality of the divine council?
It could simply be argued that what these passages assert is that there is no other Deity than Yahweh. He is the only true God; all the other Myhi$l)v have contingent existence and power, were created, and are not omnipotent nor omniscient. One could also argue that what is being proffered in such texts is not the notion that the other “gods” don’t exist, but merely that they are powerless to act. By definition this requires distinction. Without proof that the prophets recognized the reality of the divine council and had this distinction in mind, though, this answer would lack force. We have already
102 See footnote 47 for this translation.
103 The above text is that which many scholars presume to be the source of the New Testament notion that the law was delivered by angels (Acts 7:38,53; Gal. 3:19; Heb. 2:2). Unfortunately, there is no direct reference to the law here either, and the LXX version of the verse, while containing reference to the law, lacks mention of angelic beings! The problem with finding the Old Testament antecedent for this idea is complex, involving morphological, grammatical, and textual difficulties. This author knows of no evangelical text-critical solution in print, but has attempted one (Michael S. Heiser, “Mount Sinai Which is in Arabia,” unpublished paper read at the Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Orlando, FL, November 21, 1998).
104 Cf. Isaiah 40:18–20; 41:5–7; 44:9–20; 46:5–7.
22
noted the presence of the divine council in Jeremiah (23:18, 22). Fortunately, the book of Isaiah also has several passages that point to the divine council, one of which (like Deuteronomy 32) is actually located within a passage denouncing idols. We have already noted Isaiah 6 and 24:21, the latter of which makes clear the fact that there are powers in heaven besides Yahweh - but there are other texts as well.
For example, in Isaiah 40:12-26 the prophet mocks the idols and their feebleness in comparison to Yahweh, but then greets his readers with the following (emphasis mine):
25 "To whom will you compare me? Or who is my equal?" says the Holy One. 26 Lift your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one, and calls them each by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing.
The starry host which are named by Yahweh calls to remembrance the "stars of God" of Isaiah 14:13 and Deuteronomy 4:19 (see discussion below). Additionally, the phrases, "To whom will you compare me? Or who is my equal?" draw one's attention to the common, "Who is like Yahweh?" phraseology, so often used to compare the God of Israel directly to the divine beings of the pagan pantheons.105 It is indeed striking that, just after asking what heavenly being compares to Him, Yahweh answers His own question that He is the Creator of the other Myhi$l)v , and they are therefore subject to him and “line up at his command” – not one of them dare miss His roll call! It would be nonsensical to have Yahweh claim to have created and to command entities that do not in fact exist. The juxtaposition of passages like this one and the proclamation that there is only one true God demonstrates that the reality of a divine council of plural Myhi$l)v is in no way incompatible with monotheism, provided that it is articulated in ancient semitic terms.
By way of other instances of the divine council in Isaiah, there are a several passages where Yahweh issues commands in the plural imperative form to an unseen audience – an audience which is none other than His council.106 One familiar example is Isaiah 40:1-2:
1 Comfort, comfort (w@mxJnA w@mxJnA ) my people, says your God.
2 Speak (w@rb2;dA) tenderly to Jerusalem and cry (w2)r:qi) to her
Some have sought to interpret the above plural imperatives in ways that make “my people” a vocative, but this can be ruled out by several grammatical considerations.107 “My people” is instead the object of these imperatives. This conclusion is valid for more than strictly grammatical reasons, however. Yahweh issuing commands in the plural
105 Cf. Exod. 15:11; Deut. 33:26; I Kings 8:23; Psalm 89:7–8; 113:5, for example.
106 Frank M. Cross, “The Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah,” 274-277; Christopher R. Seitz, “The Divine Council: Temporal Transition and New Prophecy in the Book of Isaiah,” Journal of Biblical Literature 109:2 (1990): 229-247.
107 Seitz, pp. 229-230. See also John D. W. Watts, Isaiah 34-66, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 25 (Waco: Word Books, 1987), textual note 1.a, 77.
23
imperative is in fact a prevalent component of the divine council genre in the Hebrew Bible.108
The Divine Council as an Old Testament Theological Concept and Deuteronomy 32:8
Old Testament passages and comparative linguistic data show that the Hebrew Bible contains a concept of a divine assembly which is undeniably analogous to that at Ugarit (not to mention other ancient near eastern civilizations). Consequently, there is no theological need to opt for the MT "sons of Israel" reading over the "sons of God" reading attested in the LXX and 4QDeutq and 4QDeutj . In fact, the "sons of God" reading makes much better sense in light of the biblical history and the Old Testament theology, especially that of Deuteronomy. The same cannot be said for the MT reading. A brief overview of how well both readings "fit" into the scope of Old Testament theology will serve to illustrate this.
The Nations Given Up to the Fallen Divine Beings
As noted at the beginning of our discussion, accepting the MT in Deuteronomy 32:8 ("he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel") along with the correlation of that verse with Genesis 10-11 results in logical problems. As Tigay notes:
This reading raises a number of difficulties. Why would God base the number of nations on the number of Israelites? . . . Why would He have based the division on their number at the time they went to Egypt, an event not mentioned in the poem? In addition, verse 9, which states that God’s portion was Israel, implies a contrast: Israel was God’s share while the other peoples were somebody else’s share, but verse 8 fails to note whose share they were.109
In other words, it makes little sense for God to have based the number of geographical regions on the earth shortly after He dispersed the nations at Babel on the family size of Israel, especially since there was no Jewish race at the time. This problem is compounded (and so also the difficulty with accepting MT) when one considers Deuteronomy 32:9 in light of the MT reading. What logical correlation is the writer making when he says in verse 8 that God "set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel" and then makes the concluding observation in verse 9 that "for the LORD's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance"? Certainly the wording suggests a contrast between verses 8 and 9 - but what is contrastive about saying God divided the earth into seventy units since there were seventy sons of Israel and then adding that Israel was His own? Once the MT is abandoned, however, the piont of the contrast becomes dramatically clear.
The statement in Deuteronomy 32:9 that "the LORD's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance” (NIV) provides the key for understanding the contrast being set
108 Ibid., 232ff. See also Mullen, The Divine Council, 216–26.
109 Ibid., 302.
24
up between verse 8 and 9. Since verse nine clearly presents the nation Jacob/Israel asbeing taken (qlx) as an allotted inheritance (hlxn - note the wordplay on both counts with the Hiphil verb in verse 8) by the sovereign divine personage (Yahweh), the parallelism of MT’s verse 9 would require the “nations” of verse 8 be given as an inheritance as well.110 Hence the point of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 is not merely that God created seventy territorial units after Babel, but that each of these units was given as an inheritance. The question is, to whom were the nations given? This is left unstated in Deut. 32:8a, but 32:8b, the focus of our controversy, provides the answer. The parallel only makes sense if the original reading of 8b included a reference to other divine beings to whom the other nations could be given: the “sons of God.” The point of the Deut. 32:8-9 is that, sometime after God separated the people of the earth at Babel, and established where on the earth they were to be located, he assigned each of the 70 nations to the fallen sons of God (who were also 70 in number).111 After observing humanity's rebellion prior to the flood, and then again in the Babel incident, God decided to desist in His efforts to work directly with humanity. In an action reminiscent of Romans 1, God "gave humanity up" to their persistent resistance to obeying Him. God's new approach would be to create ex nihilo a unique nation to Himself (Israel), which nation He originates in the very next chapter of Genesis with the call of Abraham. Hence each pagan nation was overseen by a divine being of inferior status to Yahweh, but Israel would be tended to by the “God of gods” and “Lord of lords” (Deut. 10:17).
According to Deuteronomy 4:19, this "giving up" of the nations was a punitive act. Rather than electing them to a special relationship to Himself, God gave these nations up to the idolatry (of which babel was symptomatic) in which they willfully persisted. Consider the two passages in relation to one another:
Deut. 4:19 (RSV) - And beware lest you lift up your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and worship them and serve them, things which the LORD your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven.112
Deut. 32:8-9 (with LXX and DSS) – (8) When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the
110lxnhb in Deut. 32:8 is pointed as a Hiphil infinitive absolute, but should probably be understood as a defective spelling of the infinitive construct: lxin:hAb; (Sanders, The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32, 154). This is a minor consideration, for the real point is the relationship of the object of this Hiphil verbal form, the nations. As Paul Sanders notes (154), the Hiphil of the verb lxn can be “connected both with an accusativus personae (the inheriting person) or with an accusativus rei (the object inherited by this person). Those who embrace the MT reading for the verse would opt for the former, which would imply that the nations of the earth inherited a certain amount of property at God’s hand, namely their own lands. Hence the NIV’s translation, “When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance.” Those who agree with this author would see the latter syntactical choice as more sensible: that the nations themselves were given as an inheritance (rendered, “when the Most High gave the nations as an inheritance”). For examples of the latter choice found elsehwere, see Deut. 1:38; 3:28; 21:16; 31:7; Josh. 1:6; I Sam. 2:8; Zech. 8:12; and Prov. 8:21 for other examples.
111 Recall again that at Ugarit there were seventy sons of El (KTU 1.4:VI.46). I refer to the sons of God as "fallen" here in light of Genesis 6 as well as Deut. 4:19.
112 Noted the same verb in Deut. 4:19 as in 32:8, “allotted” (qlx).
25
peoples according to the number of the sons of God. (9) For the LORD's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance.
As Jeffrey Tigay notes in reference to these passages:
[These passages] seem to reflect a biblical view that . . . as punishment for man’s repeated spurning of His authority in primordial times (Gen. 3-11), God deprived mankind at large of true knowledge of Himself and ordained that it should worship idols and subordinate celestial beings . . . He selected Abraham and his descendants as the objects of His personal attention to create a model nation.113
The Divine Council and Israelite Monotheism
If other divine beings do not actually exist, texts like these below are completely eviscerated of meaning:
Psalm 89:6,7 - "For who in the skies above can compare with the LORD? Who is like the LORD among the sons of the gods (Myl) ynb)? In the council of the holy ones (My#dq-dwsb) God is greatly feared; he is more awesome than all who surround him."
Psalm 29:1 - “A psalm of David. Ascribe to the LORD, O sons of the gods (Myl) ynb), ascribe to the LORD glory and strength.”
How hollow it would be to have the psalmist extolling the greatness of God by comparing Him to beings which do not exist, and to in turn ask these fabricated divinities ascribe glory and strength to the Lord!
The Scripture writers did in fact assume the existence of these divine beings. But how can it be maintained that the Hebrew Bible espouses monotheism when its authors continued to use the terms Myhi$l)V and Myli)" and “the sons of” Myhi$l)V and Myli)" in reference to non-human figures? The solution to this apparent impasse is relatively simple, but requires an adjustment in both the way we define “GOD” and how we understand the data of the Hebrew Bible. Making such adaptations will clarify just how unique Israel’s religion was in its ancient near eastern context.
First, hesitation to embrace the details of the divine council stems from habitually viewing the Old Testament through western eyes. We as western Christians have been so conditioned by our own conception of the word “GOD” - a being that is omnipotent, self-existent, omniscient, omnipresent, and possessing ultimate creative power - that we
113 Jeffrey Tigay, JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1996): 435. The same idea contained in these verses also seems the point of Zephaniah 3:9 - "For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent." David was certainly familiar with this idea, as his incensed tone in I Sam. 26:19 indicates: "Now let my lord the king listen to his servant's words. If the LORD has incited you against me, then may he accept an offering. If, however, men have done it, may they be cursed before the LORD! They have now driven me from my share in the LORD's inheritance and have said, 'Go, serve other gods'."
26
assume the unreality of any entity referred to by the same word. Would the ancient semitic mind have defined "GOD" as we do, and then made the same assumption? We have already seen that even Isaiah, famous for his diatribes against pagan worship, uses language and imagery analogous to depictions of the divine council in other places of the Hebrew Bible and outside the Hebrew Bible. Isaiah simultaneously affirmed the existence of other divine beings and the one true deity of Israel. We must do the same.
Unfortunately, we have labeled the ancient near eastern religious systems “polytheistic," and have defined that term in such a way as to assert that the ancient Semites believed that all non-human entities bearing the label Myhi$l)V must have been omnipotent, self-existent, omniscient, omnipresent, and possessing ultimate creative power. Hence it is we who have concocted the notion that the ancients could not have understood the various Myhi$l)v as existing in a hierarchy where the attributes of the Myhi$l)v differed – and where the attributes we think of as defining deity were held by only one of the Myhi$l)v . To be sure, it was due to the gracious revelation of God to Israel through Moses that enabled them to sort this out – and we know they did sort it out precisely because of the internal and external evidence alluded to above.
The authors of the Hebrew Bible simultaneously affirm the existence of plural Myhi$l)v while asking in a number of places, “Who among the gods is like you, O LORD?,” precisely because they already knew that Yahweh was an Myhi$l)v , but only one Myhi$l)v was omnipotent, pre-existent, and omniscient.114 Put another way, Israelite religion providentially extended beyond the lexeme Myhi$l)v by virtue of Israel’s actual historical contact with Yahweh. It was no conundrum for the people of Israel to affirm that the word Myhi$l)v in their language described actual beings that Yahweh had created who were members of His council, while knowing that none of these Myhi$l)v were truly comparable to Yahweh. In fact, the Hebrew Bible could not deny the existence of other Myhi$l)v since Yahweh had created them! Their understanding of what defined deity (as opposed to divinity - "god-likeness") was derived from their experience of Yahweh’s power over all the other nations. Whereas other ancient near eastern religions showed only glimpses of the monotheistic idea, 115 Israel alone achieved consistency in the concept. To subsequently use our conception of God, which derives from reading the record of the exploits of Yahweh, against the ancient understanding of multiple Myhi$l)v to allegedly avoid a conclusion that would not have even entered the minds of the Israelites is illegitimate. There is no need to create wholly interpretive, camouflaged
114 Exodus 15:11. See also Ps. 86:8; 138:1
115 As discussions of the pantheons and the phenomenon of the divine council demonstrate, all ancient near eastern religions religions divided their gods into “non-council” and “council” groups, the latter forming the “upper tier” of those beings who inhabited the heavenly realms. The fact that there exists evidence in Mesopotamia for monotheistic ideology, and that at least one Egyptian “theology” presents one god as supreme creator of all the others testifies to the facts that we must not superimpose the exclusivity of the attributes of Yahweh to other Myhi$l)v , nor should we assume the ancients were incapable of the same distinction. With respect to Mesopotamia in this regard, see J. Hehn, Die Biblische und die babylonische Gottesidee (1913) and B. Baentsch, Altorientalischer und israelitischer Monotheismus (1906). For Egypt, I have in mind the Memphite theology.
27
translations,116 or to interpret Myhi$l)v as human “judges,” an approach that requires either paying lip service to an Old Testament hermeneutic that incorporates comparative philology or jettisons the analogous material altogether.
Second, it is hardly necessary to balk at affirming the reality of the divine council since the Hebrew Bible’s presentation of the concept may be genuinely distinguished from the pagan understanding. Aside from uncontradicted assertions that none of the Myhi$l)v were comparable to Yahweh, the description of the divine council in the Hebrew Bible departs from that of other ancient near eastern religions in several important ways.
For example, Yahweh is transparently depicted as the sole Deity credited with bringing all that exists into being. He was unassisted in His creative acts.117 None of the other divine beings rendered Him aid in this endeavour. The Hebrew Bible strips the Myhi$l)v of this deed, reserving credit for the creation for only Yahweh. An equally radical departure from the ancient pagan mind is the absence of any hint of theogony in the Old Testament. Yahweh produced the Myhi$l)v and everything else without a consort. Yahweh’s “fatherhood” of the Myhi$l)v can only be spoken of in formal terms. Lastly, the members of the council, contrary to ancient near eastern religions, cannot be viewed as genuine rivals to the Most High. Yahweh need not battle the divine beings to maintain His position as leader of the council and hence the cosmos. There are no mighty deeds ascribed to any other than Yahweh. The Myhi$l)v are obviously inferior. Yahweh is unchallenged and, in fact, unchallengeable.
Conclusion
The chief purpose of this article was to respond to the concern that accepting the LXX and Qumran evidence for the "sons of God" reading in Deuteronomy 32:8 requires seeing Israelite religion as polytheistic. In an effort to demonstrate that this conclusion is unfounded, two assertions were offered and defended: (1) the textual evidence favors the "sons of God" reading, particularly when common misunderstandings of text-critical history and methodology utilized to favor MT are corrected; and (2) the concept of the divine council, common to ancient semitic religion, is contained in the Hebrew Bible and constitutes the theological backdrop for Deuteronomy 32:8-9. In light of the evidence, there exists no textual or theological justification for preferring the MT reading. Deuteronomy 32:8 should read "sons of God," not "sons of Israel."
116 For example, see the NIV at Psalm 29:1 – “A psalm of David. Ascribe to the LORD, O mighty ones (Hebrew = Myli)' yn'b;), ascribe to the LORD glory and strength.”
117 As the plural cohortatives and pronouns (“let us make man in our image”) in Genesis 1:26-27 indicate, the creation of mankind is a decision of the council. It should be noted, however, that the following verb (“so God created . . .”) is singular, thereby informing us that only Yahweh/El did the creating – He merely announced His decision to the council and carried it out.
Guns, Lies and Forgeries: A Bible Story
By Robert E. Reis
Once upon a time there was a tribe living in the Middle East that had a collection of sacred texts written in Hebrew, Chaldean and Aramaic. It is the nature of sacred texts to be venerated and transmitted from generation to generation unaltered.
As time passed members of this tribe emigrated to areas where Hebrew and Aramaic and Chaldean were not spoken. A large community settled and prospered in the city of Alexandria in Egypt. Greek replaced their tribal language. They needed an accurate translation of their venerated documents into Greek.
Around 250 B.C. seventy rabbis translated the sacred texts into Greek. This translation was not a bootleg edition. The project was approved by the High Priest and the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. The Septuagint, the translation of the seventy, was an official document.
A Hebrew Bible exists today. It is used by Jews everywhere. It is called the Masoretic text. It was compiled around 700 A.D. It is almost one thousand years newer than the Septuagint. The rabbis who compiled the Masoretic text were not accountable to the High Priest in Jerusalem. There no longer was a High Priest. The rabbis who compiled the Masoretic text were not accountable to the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. There no longer was a Sanhedrin.
The Septuagint predates the first appearance of the Masoretic text by almost ten centuries. The Septuagint is based upon Hebrew texts at least twelve centuries older than the texts upon which the Masoretic version is based. .Yet, modern Christian translations of the Old Testament rely on the Masoretic Text, not the Septuagint.
Where is the problem?
Most of the quotations from the Old Testament in the New Testament used the Septuagint as their primary source. The integrity and truthfulness of the Septuagint is completely dependant on the Septuagint being a truthful translation. Discredit the Septuagint and there is no New Testament.
There was no controversy about the integrity of the Septuagint from 250 B.C. until 135 A. D.
What had happened to provoke dissatisfaction with the Septuagint among the Jews?
Annas and Caiphas and the Sanhedrin had rejected the messianic claims of Jesus. The New Testament documents had been written and were circulating by A.D. 70. The Jews knew that the credibility of the Christian Gospels depended on the credibility of the Septuagint. Something had to be done.
Around 95 A.D. Rabbi Akiva, who later proclaimed Bar Kochba as the messiah, hired a man named Aquila to translate a Hebrew to Greek version of the Old Testament that would undermine the messianic claims of Jesus found in the Septuagint. Some scholars believe that the Masoretic text was based in part on this tendentious translation by Aquila.
How is the Masoretic text different from the Septuagint?
Psalm 22:16 the word “pierced” has been replaced by “lion”.
Psalm 145: 13 omitted entirely.
Isaiah 53:11 the word “light” is omitted.
On 134 occasions the Tetragrammaton, the name of God, has been replaced by “Adonai”.
Psalm 151 was omitted entirely. (It is now omitted by almost all Christian Bibles!)
Exodus 1: The number 75 replaced by 70
Genesis 10:24 some generations removed.
Deuteronomy 32:8 “Angels Of Elohim” replaced with “children of Israel.”
Jeremiah 10 verses 6 and 7 have been added in the Masoretic.
Psalm 96:10 “Say among the nations, YHWH reigns from the wood” omitted.
Isaiah 19:18 “city of righteousness” changed to the “city of the sun” or in some versions “the city of destruction.”
The Masoretic scribes purposely and willfully rearranged the original chapter order in the prophetic Book of Daniel, so that the chapters make no sense chronologically.
Isaiah 61:1 “recovery of sight to the blind.”. Omitted.
In Psalm 40:6 “a body you have prepared for me” was replaced by “you opened my ears.”
Deuteronomy 32:43 ‘Let all the messengers of Elohim worship him.’” Omitted.
Genesis 4:8: “Let us go into the field” is omitted.
Deuteronomy 32:43. Moses’ song is shortened.
Isaiah 53 contains 10 spelling differences, 4 stylistic changes and 3 missing letters for light in verse 11, for a total of 17 differences.
Isaiah 7:14. “Virgin” replaced by “young woman.”
(When Aquila made his Greek translation of the Old Testament at the behest of Rabbi Akiva, he changed the Septuagint’s “virgin” into “young woman”. The Masoretic compilers may have followed his lead.)
The Masoretic text differs from the Septuagint in hundreds of places.
How do we know which text is accurate?
The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered just after World War II.
According to carbon dating, textual analysis, and handwriting analysis the documents were written at various times between the middle of the 2nd century BC and the 1st century AD. There are fragments from all of the books of the Hebrew Bible fragments except the Book of Esther and the Book of Nehemiah.
In addition an independent Aramaic translation of the Hebrew Bible exists, the Peshitta.
Control of the Dead Sea Scrolls was a military objective of Israelis. It was achieved by their victory in the Six Days War.
The publication of the scrolls slowed to a trickle.
After 1971, the international team even refused to allow the publication of photographs of the material. They excluded scholars who wanted to make independent evaluations.
The embargo was not broken until 1991.An addition to the Dead Sea Scrolls, scholars can use the Peshitta to decide between the Masoretic text and the Septuagint.
I have given examples above of some of the places the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Peshitta, and the Septuagint agree.
The Masoretic Text is part of a tradition that began with Rabbi Akiva. Rabbis rewrote the Jewish Bible to destroy the credibility of the New Testament.
The Hebrew versions of the Old Testament have been used to proclaim scores of “messiahs” . The Septuagint was only used once.
