"Son of God" -- some background

by Narkissos 16 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Kenneson

  Did anyone notice how the New World Translation in Deut. 32:8 translates it "sons of Adam" rather than "sons of God"? Yet the angels are described in the NWT as sons of the (true) God in Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:77 It seems to me that angels were considered gods by the nation of Israel, yet subordinate to Yahweh at this time period (Deut. 4:19). Yet, Ps. 82:7 is apparently a turning point, where they are stripped of their divine status. Is this when Israel becomes monotheistic?

  Also, their are examples of people like Micah who made a carved image of God, which was taken over by the Danites (see Judges 17:1-5 and 18:20-24, 30-31) in spite of the Mosaic Law's prohibition in Ex.20:4-5 So, yes, there are definitely traces of idolatry as well. What, therefore, do you think caused a turnaround, where the people no longer make idols, no longer worship angels?

  One more question. In the numerous passages that speak of the God of gods, does this mean that the people believed in other gods but worshipped only one? Would that make them henotheistic rather than monotheistic?
• 

  Leolaia

  Did anyone notice how the New World Translation in Deut. 32:8 translates it "sons of Adam" rather than "sons of God"?

  Actually, the rendering is with the MT as "sons of Israel", as the passage reads: " When the Most High gave the nations an inheritance, w hen he parted the sons of Adam from one another, h e proceeded to fix the boundary of the peoples w ith regard for the number of the sons of Israel". The phrase "sons of Adam" is just an expression for "humanity" (cf. the same expression as "son of man" as "human").

  In the numerous passages that speak of the God of gods, does this mean that the people believed in other gods but worshipped only one? Would that make them henotheistic rather than monotheistic?

  Monolatrous practice certainly falls into the henotheistic category if the existence of other gods is not denied. I would think that the recategorization of gods as angels is an accommodation to monotheism rather than representing henotheism; thus the older practice of worshipping gods became recast as worshipping the One God through angelic intercessors.

  Titles like "God of gods" may not be out of place in polytheism if they refer to the chief god of the pantheon, but I'm not sure...
• 

  Kenneson

  Thanks Leo. I see. The NWT renders it sons of Israel; I was confusing the first part "sons of Adam" with "sons of God." So why do you suppose they used "sons of Israel" instead of "sons of God"? Israel wasn't the only nation in existence.
• 

  Narkissos

  Kenneson,

  "Sons of Israel" is the masoretic (MT) reading; "angels of God" is the Septuagint (LXX) reading. They are symmetrical attempts at avoiding the embarrassing "sons of El".

  Interestingly, the tradition of a definite number (70) of nations (originally ascribed to an equal number of gods, later angels) is attested in both Canaanite and Biblical literature (Genesis 10, 70 names). And guess how many are the "sons of Israel" in the TM of Genesis 46:27; Exodus 1:5; Deuteronomy 10:22?
• 

  gumby

  So.......I take it I'm just supposed to throw my bible in the trash then cuz you guys are saying it ain't what it appears?

  *runs away and hooks up with a dirty prostitute*

  Gumby
• 

  LittleToe

  Gumby:

  *runs away and hooks up with a dirty prostitute*

  I've got your number. I'm gonna tell your honeybun you said that about her. Ya wont be laughing so much when she skelps yer ass, now, will ya!!!
  
• 

  Leolaia

  Kenneson....The bny-yshr'l of the MT text also corresponds to the huión Israél "sons of Israel" of Aquila and Symmachus, tho Codex 85 of Aquila has huión theou "sons of God", and the LXX has angelón theou "angels of God", and the Cat. Niceph. has angelous "angels". The Hebrew text at Qumran has "sons of God", which is almost certainly original.

  There are also whole passages of this chapter missing in the MT. For instance, v. 43 in the Hebrew 4QDeuteronomy text reads: "Rejoice, O heavens, together with him, and bow down to him all you gods". Again, the changes in the MT are aimed at expunging these polytheistic or henotheistic overtones. The reference to the heavens is also original, because it resumes the reference to heavens and earth in v. 1 as witnesses to the divine lawsuit. In Hittite and West Semitic texts, "heavens and earth" were commonly invoked in legal proceedings as witnesses, and they were believed to be the "ancient gods", e.g. the first generation of gods (cf. Uranus and Gaia in Hesiod's Theogony). The reference to the heavens "listening" (an anthropomorphic act) is intact in v. 1 in the MT, but the reference to the heavens "rejoicing" is altered in v. 43 (perhaps because listening is passive, while rejoicing is more active and animate?). The Qumran text is supported by the LXX (ouranoi hama autó "heavens with him"), while the MT is supported by Aquila and Theodotion. The second clause "bow down to him all you gods" is also missing entirely in the MT. The Qumran Hebrew text is supported by the LXX (proskunésatóan autó pantes angeloi theoi "Let all God's angels worship him") and Hebrews 1:6, which apparently relies on an independent version of the text (tho it may be a harmonization with Psalm 97:7 LXX). Finally, the LXX alone preserves a third clause missing in all other versions: "Let all the sons of God (huioi theou) strengthen themselves in him".