Polytheism in Deuteronomy 32

Over at the Friendly Atheist forums, jar made the following comment:

quote:

---

jar in An interesting questions for Christians on the Friendly Atheist forums:

​

This is also related to the assertion that Deuteronomy 32 is describing some polytheistic or animist god when Deuteronomy is almost certainly from around 640-610BCE during the period of reform under King Josiah where the main direction was to oppose and even eradicate any animist or polytheist tendencies or texts.

---

This got me interested, so I decided to do some digging. I came across a paper online by Michael Heiser called Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God (PDF). According to Heiser:¹

quote:

---

M. Heiser in Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God:

​

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 ישר־) 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 אלהים 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. (p. 8)

---

Now, my NRSV uses the following wording for Deut. 32:8 & 43:

quote:

---

Deuteronomy 32:8 & 43 (NRSV):

​

When the Most High apportioned the nations,
   when he divided humankind,
he fixed the boundaries of the peoples
   according to the number of the gods;

​

Praise, O heavens, his people,
   worship him, all you gods!
For he will avenge the blood of his children,
   and take vengeance on his adversaries;
he will repay those who hate him,
   and cleanse the land for his people.

---

This translation certainly seems to favor the notion that Deuteronomy 32 mentions polytheism, but the footnotes (which can be read in the link) indicate an alternate reading: 'the Israelites' for verse 8 and the fact that the line is absent in the MT (as mentioned in the linked paper) of verse 43.Now, it would be a little off-topic to discuss this in more detail in the thread on the other forum. And since I know we've got some good resident Hebrew experts here at EvC, I figured we could have a discussion here about the possibility of polytheistic language in Deuteronomy 32.So, does the best and earliest available original text of Deuteronomy 32 really support a polytheistic reading?Jon
__________
¹ I had to reproduce the Hebrew and italics manually; I apologize for any misrepresentations of the original article.

---

Love your enemies!

Thread copied here from the Polytheism in Deuteronomy 32 thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

John, you touch on an important point related to Josiah, Judah, Israel (the People not the Nation) and the concepts of Gods at the time.Under Josiah's father, polytheism in the sense of allowing other Gods to be worshiped by Israelites of Judah had been allowed, even encouraged. Deuteronomy is a record of the reform period.What we see in Deuteronomy is the birth of a Monotheistic religion but not yet a monotheistic universe.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

So, are you saying that it is no more an acknowledgement of multiple gods than if any monotheist today were to discuss the Greek gods?That recognition of the fact of polytheism isn't the same as supporting it? Would this be the difference between worshipping only one God and declaring that there is only one God?Do you accept that the original text likely mentioned 'gods' as translated in the NRSV?Jon

---

Love your enemies!

What was happening at the time was the creation of "a Peoples God" based religion, not personal in the sense of the individual but of the people that identified themselves as Israelites in Judah. Remember at this time Israel the nation was considered as apostate.Josiah was purging "worship" within the Kingdom of Judah, that in that specific limited domain only Yahweh would be worshiped.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

potentially, yes! though if that's what the NRSV says, it's being a bit... idiomatic where it probably shouldn't. technically, it should say "sons of god" which might be idiomatically read as "other gods".but it's also a little tricky to say. the road from polytheism to monotheism is a rocky and complicated one. and we know that other gods had a foothold in judah until josiah (and, ahem, deuteronomy).edit: dear god that thread is full of fail. registering...Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

אָרַח

There are other references to the sons (plural) of Jehovah but one, exclusively being born/begotten of Jehovah's spirit, the multi-present Holy Spirit being Jesus, the christ/messiah. The clear implication is that all other sons were created creatures.In Job we learn that there are appointed times when these heavenly creatures were to check in with Jehovah from their sojourns. Interestingly, Satan appears with them at this appointed time. He has evidently not yet been deposed of his status for reasons only Jehovah knows.

quote:

---

Now it came to pass on the day when the sons of God came to present themselves before Jehovah, that Satan also came among them. 7 And Jehovah said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered Jehovah, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. 8 And Jehovah said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job? for there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and turneth away from evil.....Job 1:6

​

Genesis 6: 1-4: 1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born unto them,2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all that they chose.3 And Jehovah said, My spirit shall not strive with man for ever, for that he also is flesh: yet shall his days be a hundred and twenty years.4 The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them: the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.

​

John 3:16:For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.

---

ASV

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

so, it's actually not clear that the אלהים in בני אלהים is singular or refering to yahweh. there are several other possible readings, including:

• sons of gods
• "other gods"
• sons of kings

no, this is not clear at all. in fact, the council reading (supported by job, and the mythology of the surrounding nations such as ugarit) would lend some explanation to why god frequently speaks in plural. obviously, because he's counted among the sons of god.and technically, that's השטן, not שטן. there's a definite article on the front: "the satan" or "the adversary". it is not a name, it's a title, given to the son of god that serves as man's prosecutor.

---

אָרַח

Or tester of man but still a servant doing Yahweh's will.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

and under his authority -- he can't act without express permission. the book is actually sort of interesting if you take the trouble to read it.

---

אָרַח

Exactly.But of course, it is also unrelated to what was happening in Deuteronomy. That was the establishment of a State Religion.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Interesting. Could you tell me why 'sons of god' might idiomatically be 'other gods'? If the text says 'sons of god', then I'd take that as not being an indication of polytheism and would regard the NRSV translation as entirely inaccurate on that matter.However, I may be misunderstanding what the phrase 'sons of god' would have meant to the folk back in the day of Deuteronomy 32.Jon

---

Love your enemies!

in the same way that "sons of israel" means "israelite", "sons of god" might mean "gods". i don't personally hold to that idea. i'd regard it more as a poor choice for translation. it's one possible reading, but i don't think it's especially well justified. it's a long and complicated road from polytheism to monotheism, and the earliest biblical writings seem to portray a kind of denatured polytheism, in form of ridiculing or de-mythologizing other gods (genesis), yet also seem to adopt a council idea of lesser gods (job). i think it's a big jump from there to overt polytheism, as that's most certainly not the intention of the authors of the bible. there is, of course, a lot of debate on this very matter.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

אָרַח

I notice that they use several words for God in the song of 32. In v. 8, they refer to the 'Most High', who 'fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods/sons of gods'. Then, in v. 9, they say that '[YHWH]'s own portion was his people'. Again, my knowledge of Hebrew is nonexistent, but I almost see this as making reference to two separate gods: An all-powerful, supreme being known simply as 'Most High', and one of the His subordinates, YHWH, to whom He (the Most High) allotted the land and people of Israel.Then, of course, there are other references to God, notably 'Rock', which I cannot place in any interpretive framework. But in vv. 8—9, I feel I am seeing some sort of polytheism, perhaps even a hint of the notion that YHWH is not yet recognized as one-in-the-same with the Most High, but as one of His subordinates, being special only as the God of Israel. I take it, then, that you interpret 'sons of god' to mean 'people', i.e., God's creation? That does seem an almost more plausible interpretation, especially with the reference to YHWH's portion being people just one verse later and the mention of 'people' earlier in v. 8 ('he fixed the boundaries of the peoples').And then again, it could still mean 'gods', with the Most High dividing the people up according to the number of gods available to rule each of the individual groups.Jon

---

Love your enemies!

that's a common reading, yes, but is in my opinion probably mistaken. i think here that yahweh is almost certainly the "most high" god. there are two reasons behind this logic. the first is literary:

quote:

---

בְּהַנְחֵל עֶלְיוֹן גּוֹיִם
בְּהַפְרִידוֹ בְּנֵי אָדָם;
יַצֵּב גְּבֻלֹת עַמִּים
לְמִסְפַּר בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל

​

כִּי חֵלֶק יְהוָה, עַמּוֹ
יַעֲקֹב, חֶבֶל נַחֲלָתוֹ

​

When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance,
     when He separated the children of men,
He set the borders of the peoples
     according to the number of the children of [Israel].

​

For the portion of the LORD is His people
     Jacob the lot of His inheritance.

​

-- Deuteronomy 32:8,9

---

i see it as taking an "every other line" kind of structure, each line contrasting the one before it: "god" on A, "people" on B, so to speak. notice that the children of israel (as the masoretic says) or children of god fall on a B line. i think there's good reason to suspect that the god being talked about here is all the same god.the second reason is historical or socio-political. the goal of the deuteronomy scroll was to excise and de-legitimize other religious cults from judah, spurring on josiah's anti-idolatry campaign. it would most definitely not be placing the central deity of the yawhist cult as a subserviant, created god. rather, it would be placing that god as the first and foremost, ruling over every other god.i think it's right to think that this text reeks of polytheism, but wrong to jump to the conclusion that it supports it so directly. rather, it is a step on the path to monotheism. personally, i don't. however, this is actually also a plausible reading. for instance, we see several times in the tanakh where kings are called "sons of god" or even "gods" (the same word, elohim is used, but it is never translated that way in that context). however, i think that in the older texts, such as J and E, there is a clear connotation of divinity. for instance, genesis 6. it's possible to read that as entirely human, but i kind of think it's a stretch.i don't have a good solid argument here. can you tell? there's a lot of debate about who the "sons of god" are. perhaps, yes. and i think "kings" makes a whole lot more sense than either "peoples" or "children of israel".

---

אָרַח