Deuteronomy 32:8-9

   One of the passages of scripture which is at the very heart of the whole Nephilim Conspiracy is this key passage in Deuteronomy, which is translated differently in various versions:

“⁸When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, When He separated the sons of mankind, He set the boundaries of the peoples According to the number of the sons of Israel. ⁹For the LORD’S portion is His people; Jacob is the allotment of His inheritance.” (NASB)

“⁸When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when He divided the sons of man, He set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. ⁹But the LORD’s portion is His people, Jacob His allotted inheritance.” (BSB)

Interlinear:“When He divided their inheritance to   the Most High   the nations    when He separated the sons Adam   He set      the boundaries     of the peoples     according to the number of the sons of God”

Original Word: יִשְׂרָאֵל …Transliteration: Yisra’el …Definition: Israel … Meaning: Jisrael

Word Origin: Derived from the Hebrew root שָׂרָה (sarah, “to contend, to strive”) and אֵל (El, “God”), meaning “God contends” or “He struggles with God.”

Corresponding Greek / Hebrew Entries: – G2474: Ἰσραήλ (Israēl)

Usage: The name “Israel” is first given to Jacob after he wrestles with the angel of the Lord (Genesis 32:28). It signifies one who has struggled with God and humans and has prevailed. The term is used to refer to the descendants of Jacob, the nation of Israel, and the land promised to them by God.

            Interpretations of this key verse has given rise to what is known as the Deuteronomy 32 World view, which is a recent version of a very unorthodox system of Theology, developed mostly by a man named Michael Heiser. In 2007 he wrote: “after spending nearly a decade absorbed in study of the divine council, I feel more strongly than ever that there is not a single doctrine that is untouched by the subject.” (Michael S. Heiser, “You’ve Seen One Elohim,” p. 222 (239 Kindle)). In 2018 he stated, “Deuteronomy 32:8-9 is foundational for understanding the remainder of the Old Testament.” (Heiser, Angels, p. 45 (241 Kindle)).

The whole Deuteronomy 32 theology is premised on a revised translation of one key word in the 8^th verse of that chapter, which is Yisra’el (בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל), translated “sons of Israel” in most of our Bibles, based on the Masoretic text. Heiser claims that the Masoretes incorrectly transcribed that word, which was originally  בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִיל, translated “sons of God”.

Heiser admits that “Most English Bibles have ‘sons of Israel’ or something similar”, but then goes on to make the following assertion:  “Bible translators agree that ‘sons of God’ is the more original reading, but they usually place it in a footnote at Deuteronomy 32:8, not in the actual text.”

This is a false claim as for example the KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV and YLT (Young’s Literal Translation) and now UASV (Updated American Standard Version) render it “Israel” instead of “God”, and only the NKJV and NIV has such a footnote. Even In those 2 cases how reasonable is it to conclude that the translators went with the variant reading they did not believe was the more original reading, putting the preferred reading only in a footnote. Heiser alleges that the Masoretic text of “Deuteronomy 32:8 is a textbook example of how later scribes sometimes changed the biblical text in a misguided attempt to “protect” God’s reputation”. This inflammatory claim only reflects his own bias toward textual variations in the early manuscripts, which fit his preconceived theories. He cites the Septuagint (Greek translations of the Old Testament Hebrew text) to support his claim, ignoring the fact that there are the same variations in the various versions of the Septuagint, 3 of which agree with the Masoretic text giving the rendering of “sons of Israel” instead of the “sons of God”. The Septuagint manuscripts of Aquila (Codex X), Symmachus (also Codex X), and Theodotion also read “according to the number of the sons of Israel.” (https://christianpublishinghouse.co/2019/11/04/ottc-deuteronomy-328-was-it-the-sons-of-israel-or-the-sons-of-god-or-the-angels-of-god/ )

            Furthermore, other versions of the Septuagint (LXX) do not give Heiser’s preferred rendering but rather are rendered “the angels of God”, which is explained by Albert Barnes as based on “the Jewish notion that the nations of the earth are seventy in number (compare Genesis 10:1 note), and that each has its own guardian Angel”. Thus, as he does with scripture, Heiser is cherry picking which variant readings of early manuscripts he cites as evidence for his theoretical claims.

            He also cites the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) as supporting evidence for his theory. However, he does essentially the same thing with the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), selecting from among the many fragments found at Qumran the 4QDeut manuscript which rendering appears closer to “sons of God”. He then brings Ugaritic literature into the mix with the Hebrew text giving the following explanation.

“Literary and conceptual parallels discovered in the literature of Ugarit, however, have provided a more coherent explanation for the number seventy in Deuteronomy 32:8 and have furnished support for textual scholars who argue against the ‘sons of Israel’ reading. 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 seventy sons, thereby specifying the number of the “sons of El” (Ugaritic, bn il). An unmistakable linguistic parallel with the Hebrew text underlying the Septuagint reading was thus discovered, one that prompted many scholars to accept the Septuagintal reading on logical and philological grounds–God (El Elyon in Deut. 32:8) divided the earth according to the number of heavenly beings who existed from before the time of creation.”

            However, what he does not tell you is that he has picked the one Dead Sea scroll which agrees with his preconceived theory, featuring “sons of God” (Scroll 4Q37 dated 50AD[1]). It is only a fragment and only one of two which include this 8^th verse of Deuteronomy 32. The only recognizable words which do appear there are “gave … their inheritance … children of God”. An earlier version (Scroll 4Q45 dated 100-25 BC[2])  only actually has “when He separated”, and the translators (World English Bible) have provided “the children of Israel”, which agrees with the traditional Masoretic text:

      “Deuteronomy 32 from Scroll 4Q45 PaleoDeuteronomy^r

⁶ Is this the way you repay Yahweh, foolish and unwise people? Isn’t he your father who has bought you? He has made you and established you. ⁷ Remember the days of old. Consider the years of many generations. Ask your father, and he will show you; your elders, and they will tell you. ⁸ When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the children of men, he set the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the children of Israel. [..]”

Deuteronomy 32 from Scroll 4Q37 Deuteronomy ^j

⁷ Remember the days of old. Consider the years of many generations. Ask your father, and he will show you; your elders, and they will tell you. ⁸ When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the children of men, he set the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the children of Israel God[1]. [1] This reading matches the LXX.”

Note: words in Italics are not actually in the text of the fragments of the scrolls, but are provided by World English translators’

What would seem to be a questionable claim is that the later version of the DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls) featuring the word “Israel” crossed out and replaced with God, as in “children of God” is the original or the source from which the others came. Somewhat inconsistently, Edward Andrews from the source cited above,[3]makes the following statement:

“Another textual principle is the reading that the other reading(s) most likely came from is likely the original. This is the fundamental principle of textual criticism. The reading “sons of God” (בני אלהים) is the reading that the others came from.”

  However, a few paragraphs later he writes the following:

“Being as balanced as one can be, the choice of what was the original reading between sons of Israel and sons of God is no easy task. This is by far one of the most difficult passages I have had to make a determination as to what the original reading was. The original reading was “sons of Israel” (בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל), based on the stronger textual support, and other internal evidence mentioned below.”

   What he writes “below” that is as follows:

“Rather than stay with the fact that the one true God is all-powerful and all-knowing, with foreknowledge of every detail that was to come in reference to his people because he was miraculously stepping into history at times to get the desired outcome of his will and purposes, authors like Heiser, they have said, ‘He [God] set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel’ makes no sense; therefore the reading in the Dead Sea Scrolls must be the original reading. Instead of using Scripture to interpret Scripture, they chose to use the Ugaritic texts to interpret Scripture. Authors like Heiser, they have said, ‘He [God] set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel‘ makes no sense; therefore, we will skip over the inspired, the fully inerrant Scripture, of men moved along by the Holy Spirit and go to some human historical reason in our selection of what was the original reading, that is, what was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.”

            With respect to the claim about matching the LXX, he points out the following:

“While the Septuagint is the second most important tool after the original language texts for ascertaining the original words of the original Hebrew text, it is also true that the LXX translators took liberties at times, embellishing the text, deliberate changes, harmonizations, and completing of details. Even so, it should be noted that the Septuagint manuscript of Aquila (Codex X), Symmachus (also Codex X), and Theodotion also read ‘according to the number of the sons of Israel.’”

            The reality is that most versions of the LXX translate the Hebrew text as “angels” or “the angels of God”, to which Andrews alludes:

“Also, keep in mind that at Deuteronomy 32:8 the Septuagint manuscript of Aquila (Codex X), Symmachus (also Codex X), and Theodotion also read ‘according to the number of the sons of Israel.’ What we have at Deuteronomy 32:8 is the DSS altering ‘sons of Israel’ in the MT so as to read ‘sons of God’ in the DSS. Then, we have the LXX knowing that the phrase ‘sons of God’ refers to angels, so they alter the DSS ‘sons of God’ so as to read ‘angels of God’ in the LXX.” (ibid)

            A known fact is that the Masoretes were a very dedicated, trained, disciplined, scholars, scribes, who followed very stringent procedures to ensure the integrity of the copies they transcribed. Josh McDowell goes into excruciating detail in his book Evidence that Demands a Verdict, describing the tedious methods used to ensure no errors were introduced in that transcription process.

“The Masoretes were well disciplined and treated the text ‘with the greatest imaginable reverence and devised a complicated system of safeguards against scribal slips…

Sir Frederic Kenyon says …They numbered the verses, words, and letters of every book. They calculated the middle word and the middle letter of each. They enumerated verses which contained all the letters of the alphabet, or a certain number of them, and so on.” (Evidence, chap.4, 2C “The Masoretic Period (AD 500-900).”

            Unlike the reputation of the Septuagint translators and transcribers, there is reason to have more confidence in the traditional Masoretic text than other sources, such as the one fragment of one Dead Sea Scroll, which was a product of the Jewish sect known as the Essenes – to which more credence is given by men like Heiser, and that only to certain cherry-picked versions,

            However, having said all that, it is not all that critical as to whether this one passage is correctly rendered “sons of Israel” or “sons of God” (other than the damage it does to the current Bible readers confidence in the Bible as being the inspired Word of God) with respect to the truth about the whole matter. Nor does Heiser and others rest their case solely on this one deviant interpretation of this one key word in this one key passage. Instead, he makes at least 3 other connections which get him to his bigger picture view, referred to herein as the Nephilim Conspiracy. Those other passages are Psalms 82:1, Genesis 10, and Genesis 6:1-4. However, this same controversial key phrase, “sons of God”, is the lynch pin so to speak, which holds it all together. This whole theological system, a significant makeover of 2000+ years of traditional, orthodox conservative Protestant evangelical theology, is in essence premised on the interpretation of this one key word “elohim”, translated “god” or “gods”.

            This first key connection is Psalms 82:1, which Heiser says opened His eyes to a whole new understanding of virtually all of Theology. in 2007:

“after spending nearly a decade absorbed in study of the divine council, I feel more strongly than ever that there is not a single doctrine that is untouched by the subject.” (Michael S. Heiser, “You’ve Seen One Elohim,” p. 222) (239 Kindle)).

            This other key passage, and the controversy about its interpretation and meaning is addressed in the associated chapter, “Psalms 82”.

---

[1] https://dssenglishbible.com/scroll4Q37.htm

[2] https://dssenglishbible.com/scroll4Q45.htm

[3] https://christianpublishinghouse.co/2019/11/04/ottc-deuteronomy-328-was-it-the-sons-of-israel-or-the-sons-of-god-or-the-angels-of-god/