"The Dead Sea Scrolls"

 

I recently received a podcast entitled, "What apologists hope you will never find out". It was a critique of the scriptural texts found in the Dead Sea Scrolls as compared to the Masoretic text. We certainly don't want to defend the undefendable, if there is some deception going on I want to know what it is. 

As a Christian, I have an interest in the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and what light they can bring to my understanding of Scripture. So I decided to listen to the podcast and see what I might be missing. Their first criticism was the fact that certain Christian apologists seem to have exaggerated the importance of the scrolls. I won't spend time trying to defend what apologists may or may not have exaggerated, all such things are very subjective. 

A second criticism was concerning a variance in the text, which is something objective that does need to be looked at. One of the texts they referenced was Deuteronomy 32:8. They offered the rendering we have in the KJV of the Bible as compared to the rendering of the translation given from the Dead Sea Scrolls, 

Deuteronomy 32:8 KJV

(8)  When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. 

They then offered a translation of the text found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. 

Deuteronomy 32:8 Dead Sea Scroll

(8)  When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the sons of God.

You can see the textual variance in the last three words I have underlined. In pointing to this variant reading the host makes this observation stating, "the 'bane Elohim' [sons of God] there mentioned in Psalm 86, this is that Angelic Council of the Most High, where the Elohim, the gods sit around and they discuss things, look it up in Psalm 82."

That sounds quite profound and knowledgeable and their point is one says the children of Israel and the other sons of God. Which is it they ask? They are implying one is suggesting a human origin and the other a divine origin. If the point they are making were to be true, that is a very serious theological issue.  If you follow their path, however, you will not arrive at the truth of this apparent discrepancy. Variant reading is nothing new, we have known about them for a long time, so their clickbait statement that the apologist doesn't want you to know is misleading from the start. It is true many Christians are not aware of these variant readings, but it is not because the apologists don't want them to know, it is because they don't care to know.  With a little work most variant readings can be understood, I have already addressed a similar subject before in a previous blog, you can read it here (Contradictions)

Let us see if we can understand why there are two renderings of this verse and if it matters. First, the host of the program pulls a couple of passages out of context to construct a false dichotomy and makes it appear to be presented in scripture. Let's look at the passages he references along with his assertions and see if what he is presenting is in fact true.

Concerning "bane Elohim" which is the Hebrew usually translated as "sons of God" is said by the host to be mentioned in Psalm 86. Since he does not specify which verse he is talking about, I will assume he is referencing 86:8. 

 Psalms 86:8 KJV

(8)  Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works.

However, the phrase "bene elohim" does not appear in the text, only the word "Elohim" which is translated as "Among the gods". He then makes the assertion this phrase is referencing "that Angelic Council of the Most High, where the Elohim, the gods sit around and they discuss things," he then says to look it up in Psalm 82. His false dichotomy is established by connecting these two passages together, however, they have nothing to do with each other as they are talking about two completely different things. Here in Psalms 86, David is comparing the Lord, who is God alone to all the false gods of the nations, there is nothing in the entire Psalm about an Angelic Council of the Most High where the gods are sitting around. Such a dichotomy does not exist.

Let's take a look at his second scripture reference of Psalm 82, it will be best if we look at the whole Psalm.  

Psalms 82:1-8 KJV

(1)  A Psalm of Asaph. God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

(2)  How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.

(3)  Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.

(4)  Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.

(5)  They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

(6)  I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

(7)  But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

(8)  Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

According to the host, this is supposed to be talking about that congregation or council of angels he referenced in Psalm 86. However, as we can see, neither of these passages has anything to do with any such council. Psalm 86 references the false Gods of the other nations and this one is referencing the judges appointed among the congregation of Israel. In this Psalm, Asaph is speaking of God judging those who sit to judge Israel and judge unjustly. He is in their midst and will judge them. 

Their title "Elohim" establishes them as God's representatives and He will judge their unfaithfulness. This is common in the original languages. We find it in use in Exodus 21:6 KJV

(6)  Then his master shall bring him unto the judges[elohim]; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

You also find the word "Elohim" used in Exodus 22:8 KJV as judges of Israel.

Exodus 22:8 KJV

(8)  If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges[elohim], to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbor's goods.

This was a common usage of the word "Elohim" during the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls. We know this because, in the Gospel of John, Jesus understood this to be the meaning of these texts saying,  

John 10:33-36 KJV

(33)  The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

(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 notes on the Dead Sea Scrolls do say, "The reading םיהולא ינב, found in 4QDeut (4Q37), seems to link Genesis 10 to this polytheistic world view, and the LXX supports this reading. Were this the original, it is understandable why monotheistic scribes thought it necessary to modify the Hebrew text."

That is a possibility, after all, we are talking around 1,000 years between these Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic text. Meaning and language and the way we view words change over time and it is very possible by the time the Masoretic text came along the conditions associated with the phrase "bane Elohim" could have changed. However, that is all just conjecture on the part of scholars. The very word "Elohim" which is translated as "God" is in the plural sense all through the Bible, so if the monotheistic scribes were afraid of a polytheistic view, they had more problems than just in this text.

In John's account above in chapter 10, we can see Jesus understood Psalm 82:6 to be referencing the leaders of Israel and not some angelic council. That has been the common understanding in Christian theology, Matthew Henry (1662-1714) states concerning Deuteronomy 32:8, "Thus he set the bounds of that people with an eye to the designed number of the children of Israel, that they might have just as much as would serve their turn." - Matthew Henry.

John Gill (1697-1771) would state, ". . . the sense is, that such a country was measured out and bounded, as would be sufficient to hold the twelve tribes of Israel, when numerous, and their time came to inhabit it;" - John Gill

Albert Barnes (1798-1870) addresses the variant reading stating, "That is, while nations were being constituted under God’s providence, and the bounds of their habitation determined under His government (compare Act_17:26), He had even then in view the interests of His elect, and reserved a fitting inheritance “according to the number of the children of Israel;” i. e., proportionate to the wants of their population. Some texts of the Greek version have “according to the number of the Angels of God;” following apparently not a different reading, but the Jewish notion that the nations of the earth are seventy in number (compare Gen_10:1 note) and that each has its own guardian Angel (compare Ecclus. 17:17). This was possibly suggested by an apprehension that the literal rendering might prove invidious to the many Gentiles who would read the Greek version." - Albert Barnes 

The bottom line is the host of this podcast has made something out of nothing, and conjured up a story about angelic councils in the process using scriptures that we can clearly see above have nothing to do with angels. They have noted the Dead Sea Scrolls of Deuteronomy 32:8 end with the Hebrew words "bane Elohim" and the Masoretic text of Deuteronomy 32:8 end with the Hebrew word "Elohim". As they noted, the Dead Sea Scrolls are probably the more accurate reading of the original text, a thousand years later the word "bane" [son] got dropped. I can read the text either way and because of the context of scripture, I understand the meaning of both as being the same. When I read the phrase "sons of God" I judge the meaning in English by the context of scripture. I know when reading Deuteronomy 32:8 we are talking about earthly judges, not anglic councils. In Genesis 6 the same phrase is translated in our English Bibles.  

Genesis 6:2 KJV

(2)  That the sons of God [bane elohim] saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Here as in Deuteronomy 32:8, the meaning is not angels but men. Albert Barnes (1798-1870) comments on this verse saying, "The phrase “sons of God,” means an order of intelligent beings who “retain the purity of moral character” originally communicated, or subsequently restored, by their Creator. They are called the sons of God, because they have his spirit or disposition."

John Gill (1697-1771) would comment, ". . . this is to be understood of the posterity of Seth, who from the times of Enos, when then began to be called by the name of the Lord, Gen_4:25 had the title of the sons of God, in distinction from the children of men; these claimed the privilege of divine adoption, and professed to be born of God, and partakers of his grace, and pretended to worship him according to his will, so far as revealed to them, and to fear and serve and glorify him."

And  Matthew Henry (1662-1714) would comment, "The sons of God (that is, the professors of religion, who were called by the name of the Lord, and called upon that name), married the daughters of men, that is, those that were profane, and strangers to God and godliness."

So you can clearly see the host of the podcast is taking advantage of those who are not familiar with the reading of scripture and presenting the notion that Christian apologists are trying to ignore or cover up some kind of hidden errors and don't want you to find out. The fact that some Christian apologists have over-exaggerated certain facts concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls and were shone apologizing or admitting as much in video clips, which they displayed in such a way as to seemingly connect it with their angel council theory was very crafty. Sadly they will be very successful among most of their audience, even many professing Christians will be troubled by their presentation.  

Here in the case of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic text, the Great Isaiah Scroll generally conforms to the Masoretic or traditional version codified in medieval codices with all 66 chapters of the Hebrew version, in the same conventional order. At the same time, however, the two-thousand-year-old scroll contains alternative spellings, scribal errors, corrections, and most fundamentally, many variant readings. Strictly speaking, the number of textual variants is well over 2,600, ranging from a single letter, sometimes one or more words, to complete variant verses. The critics can take that number and have a hay day with it on the internet. However, those 2,600 variants are minor and amount to only 5% of the total text. 1QIsa is 95% identical to the Masoretic text. You can make a big deal out of "bena" missing in a verse from Deuteronomy, or you can be amazed that 95% of the text Isaiah identically matches the Masoretic text copied 1,000 years later! Do you want to know what the Book of Isaiah originally said? 95% of the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah is identical to the Masoretic, now that is impressive! The reliability that exists in the Biblical text is breathtaking when considering all the sources that have been preserved. The podcasters have a catchy title and some profound assertions, but they are straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel! The missing word they are so concerned about is an insignificant variant that does little to change the meaning of the text when considered in the context of scripture itself.

When we have time we will see what else they have come up with,

David