Did Second Temple Judaism
Adopt Pagan Cosmologies?
By Jonathan Mitchell
Why Did the LXX Translate the Phrase
"Sons of God" as "Angelos"?
This brief essay will simply ask these questions, and then cite a few examples with the intent of stimulating investigation by our readers, so that they might come to their own conclusions. Our hope is that our readers will question traditional assumptions, by looking into the texts of canonical Scriptures, to see if there is textual evidence for these assumptions, and then compare other writings of Jewish authors, during the Second Temple period, with what we find in the OT.
Following the periods of the Babylonian exile of Judea, the Jews were living under the influence first of the Babylonian religion, and then under that of the Persians, and then under that of the Greek Empire, and lastly under the influences of the Roman Empire. Mixed in, during these successive periods of time, was the influence of the mystery religions of Egypt.
As time progressed, the Jewish writings of those periods became increasingly populated by "spiritual entities" commonly known, in English translations, as "angels" (a transliteration of the Greek word, "angelos"). It was during this time that certain high ranking "angels" were even given names (e.g., cf Gabriel and Michael, in the book of Daniel, written during this period). Along with this phenomenon, the spiritual realms (or, "heavens") became described in terms of human empires, with God presented as corresponding to the position of an earthly king, and then other spiritual entities being assigned into a hierarch that inhabited realms of the sky. This is a simplistic sketch, but great details can be found in books such as 1 Enoch.
With this overview in mind, let us consider the fact that both the Hebrew and the Greek words that are commonly rendered by the term "angel" actually mean "agent" or "messenger." We suggest that influences from the surrounding pagan cosmologies gave rise to the LXX rendering the Heb. phrase "bene ha elohim" (sons of God) by the plural of the Greek "angelos." For example, where the Heb. text of Job 1:6 and 2:1 read,
"sons of God,"
the LXX reads,
"angels of God."
Thus, mystical or other-worldly connotations became attached to the idea of "sons of God," and post-exile Jewish writings became a source of confusion regarding people living on earth, and those existing in the realm of spirit (or: heaven). We can observe that both "realms" (heaven and earth) have this term used concerning folks living in each of those realms.
Let us observe Deut. 32:8 in a few translations:
"When [the] Supreme gave [the] nations allotments, when He parted [the] sons of Adam, He set the boundaries of [the] peoples according to [the] number of [the] sons of El" (CVOT)
The bracketed definite pronouns correspond to italics in the CVOT, which means that the texts did not have these pronouns. This may, or may not, be significant, but I simply want to point this out.
The CVOT chose the Hebrew word for God, El, to represent the Qumran Hebrew text (4QDeutj), which corresponds to the LXX version, which uses the genitive form of "theos" (God). Now the KJV, following the Heb. Masoretic Text (MT) gives us the phrase:
"the sons of Israel."
The NRSV renders the last two phrases,
"according to the number of the gods."
The LXX gives us,
"according to the number of [the] agents of God (or: God's messengers;
A New English Translation of the Septuagint renders this,
"the number of divine sons").
So is the final phrase "sons of God," "the gods," "agents/messengers of God," or, "divine sons"? Confusing, right?
We observe that 32:8 begins a new passage. This verse starts by speaking of
"the sons of Adam"
and ends in speaking about
"the sons of God"
in 4QDeut text, but in the LXX,
"agents of God."
Now, since the Heb. MT reads
"the sons of Israel,"
in the last phrase of the verse, is it possible that for some of the translators or copyists, these three phrases were to some degree equivalent? It is possible to read "sons of Adam" as being parallel to "sons of Israel," in the MT. We suggest that the same is true of the LXX translation. There, the word for "peoples" (CVOT) corresponds to the plural of "ethnos" in the LXX, which can mean peoples, nations, ethnic multitudes, Gentiles, or people groups - such as the twelve tribes. You see, the next verse continues:
"and His people, Jacob, became the portion of [the] LORD (= Yahweh's part): Israel, a measured part of His inheritance" (vs. 9).
Next, vss. 10-15 recount the period of Israel's history from their wilderness journey, where Yahweh
"watched over His brood"
as an eagle
"yearns over his young"
(vs. 11), on up to the point that Israel
"forsook the God that made (created; formed; produced) him" (vs. 15).
We suggest that this whole passage, vss. 8-15, is speaking of Israel, who became Yahweh's firstborn (Ex. 4:22), and who was formed to be His agents in the Land, in a relationship of Parent to children.
Now when we come to Deut. 32:43, we are faced with more potential confusion.
"Rejoice, O heavens, together with Him" (4QDeutj; LXX), or,
"Rejoice, O nations, with His people" (MT; Samaritan Pent.).
Next clause:
"and bow down to Him all you gods" (4QDeutj).
"and bow down to Him all you sons of God" (4QDeutq; this clause is not in MT or SP)
"and let all agents of God and messengers from God [other MSS: sons of God] bow down to Him" (LXX, JM)
[note: this clause, above, is not in MT or SP]
Next clauses:
"for he will avenge the blood of His sons (4QDeutq; LXX; "His servants," MT; SP) and will render vengeance to His enemies, (4QDeutq and LXX add: and will recompense those who hate Him) and will atone (verb imperfect in 4QDeutq; verb perfect consecutive in MT & SP) for (LXX: and [the] LORD will progressively fully cleanse) the Land of His people (4QDeutq, SP; "His land, for, and of, His people," MT)."
[4QDeut readings are from The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, HarperSanFrancisco, 1999]
In 32:43,
we see that some scribes had the first clause addressing the "heavens," while others have it addressing the "nations."
The second clause (missing in the MT & SP) speaks of
"gods," "sons of God," and "agents/messengers of God,"
in these various texts. Observe that where the MT text addresses "the nations" in the first clause, the next clause is entirely absent from it.
We suggest that there is parallelism between the first and second clauses - in the 4Q and LXX texts:
"heavens"
corresponds to
"gods, sons of God and agents."
The final clauses speak of
"His sons," and "the Land of His people,"
and of God's act of atonement and cleansing.
It seems to us that this verse, like vss. 8-15, above, are all speaking to, and about, Israel - His firstborn, corporate son. Residents of the skies do not seem to fit these contexts.
To continue our investigation, we now move to Ps. 82:
1. God stood (or: takes a stand) within the midst of (or: in the sphere of, and centered in) a synagogue (or: congregation; assembly) of gods (or: a gathering together of an assembly composed of gods), and within [the] midst, He continues thoroughly dividing for examination, discerningly evaluating, and then making decisions concerning (fully judging) gods!
Our first proposition is that the phrase,
"congregation (Greek: sunagoge) of gods"
is a reference to Israel. God addresses Israel's leaders (gods), in the next verse...
2. "How long (or: Until when) do you folks continue deciding for (judging with) injustice (absence of what is right) and constantly receive (accept) faces (surface self-presentations or countenances; recognition of social positions or reputations of persons) of sinners (or: repeatedly show partiality to people whose ways of life are failures to hit the target)?
This rhetorical accusation is of the sort that was leveled against unjust leaders in Israel. Recall Deut. 1:17a,
"You shall not be biased in judgment. You shall hear the small as the great..." [cf 1 Sam. 16:7; Prov. 24:23; Isa. 1:23; Ezk. 34:1-22]
This was a part of the Law, which was given to Israel. Verses 3-4, below, are imperatives, given by God, of what they should do to correct their present ways of injustice....
6. I Myself said, "You folks are (exist being) gods, and all [are] sons of the Most High!
Now He addresses this assembly of gods, referenced in vs. 1, above. Recall Jn. 10:34-35, quoted above. These were folks,
"to whom God's Logos (the Word which was laid out from God) came,"
through Moses, and the prophets. God chose Israel, as a people group, to be His corporate son (Ex. 4:22). Therefore, they were metaphorically gods, as being children of God, a part of God's family. Dan Kaplan has pointed us to Ex. 7:1, where Yahweh says to Moses,
"See, I have made you a god to Pharaoh; and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet."
And even of Jesus, of Whom we read that His father was the Holy Spirit (Lu. 1:35), it was said in Heb. 1:5,
"For you see, to a certain one of the agents He once said (or: as an interrogative: in which one of the messengers - the folks having the message - did He once say?), 'You are my son: I have given birth to you today!' [Ps. 110:1; Acts 13:33; Rom. 1:4]
And again,
'I will continue being to and for him with a reference as (or: for) a Father, and he will continue being to and for Me with a reference as (or: for) a son.'(or: 'I will continually exist being in him, in the role as a Father, and he himself will exist being in Me, in the role as a son!')."
We suggest that this was a prophetic fulfillment of Ps. 2:7, speaking of birth and sonship in a metaphorical, figurative sense, as we see in 2 Sam. 7:14 and 1 Chron. 17:13.
[note: these comments on Ps. 82 are an excerpt from my post: Who Are the Gods of Ps. 82?]
Ps. 82:6 was quoted by Jesus, in Jn. 10:
34. Jesus judiciously replies to them, "Is it not standing written within your Law [other MSS: the Law; = the Torah] that 'I say, you people are (or: exist being) gods'? [Ps. 82:6]
35. "Since He said 'gods' [= elohim] to whom God's Logos (the Word which was laid out from God) came to be (or: toward whom the Idea and Blueprint, which is God, was birthed; toward whom God's message proceeded and was directed into existence)...
So therefore, we have Jesus' own interpretation of to whom the term "gods" should be applied, in Ps. 82:6. Paul adds strength to this, in Acts 17:
28. "For you see, within the midst of and in union with Him we continuously live (or, as a subjunctive: could be constantly living), and are constantly moved about and put into motion, and continue existing (experiencing Being). Even as certain of the poets down among you people have said, 'You see, we are also a family of the One (or: we even continuously exist being a RACE whose source is the One; or: we also are His SPECIES and offspring; we are even a FAMILY which is composed of the One and which is the One).' [a quote of Aratos and of Keleanthes; cf Eph. 3:15]
29. "Therefore, continuously and inherently subsisting from under a beginning, being God's family (a species of God; a race whose source is God; [the] kind of being having the qualities and characteristics of God; [the] offspring birthed from God)...
With these thoughts in mind, how are we to take the first clause of Ps. 86:8?
"There exists none like to You, among [the] gods..."
Here, we suggest that David's use of "gods," in this context, is a reference to the "idols," the "gods" of the nations (or: ethnic multitudes) to which he refers in the first part of vs. 9. Then, in vs. 10, he proclaims:
"Because You, Yourself [emphatic use of the personal pronoun], are Great, and are continuously producing wonders. You, Yourself are (continually exist being) The God, alone (or: the Only God) - the Great One!" (LXX, JM)
Next, we will consider Ps. 89:5-7 (LXX, JM):
In this passage, we suggest that the terms "heavens" and "clouds" are poetic ways of showing parallelism to the terms "sons" and "saints (etc.)." Recall the symbolism of "cloud" in 1 Thes. 4:17, Heb. 12:1, and Rev. 11:12.
With what we just observed in the correlation of 'ekkle si a' with a "council" of set-apart folks (Ps. 89, above), let us turn our attention to the "picture" of a council, of sorts, in the poetic imagery of Job 1:6 and 2:1. Here the MT has "the sons of God" coming together to present themselves before Yahweh, and "the accuser, or adversary, or opponent, (Heb., 'ha-satan')" also came among them. In 1:7, Yahweh asks for a report from the adversary,
"Where have you come from?"
He replies,
"From going to and fro on the Land (or: earth)."
In 2:2, Yahweh again asks the same question. In both cases, Yahweh follows up the adversary's report by asking,
"Have you considered my servant Job?"
The rest of the story is there for the reading. We mention it here, because the LXX changes two significant words in the narrative. It replaces "sons" with the term, "agents," and instead of the noun "adversary," it uses the term which means "one who thrusts, or casts, something through someone ('diabolos,' commonly rendered 'devil')." Now according to Prof. James L. Kugel, in a video series to college students (Pardes Institute, "1: The Very Beginning of Biblical Interpretation"), the Hebrew Bible had no devil in it. We have also noticed that there are no "demons" (a Hellenistic concept involving animism) in the canonical OT (MT). Thus we see the cultural lens of Hellenism affecting the text of the LXX.
The question is, why did the translators of the LXX make these changes? Now it is instructive to notice that in Job 1:14, we read that an "angelos" (here, obviously a "messenger" or "agent") came to Job and reported the first catastrophe which befell Job. Are we to suppose that at this period of time, and in a Hellenistic environment, the translators had come to equate the term "son" with the term "agent," in some contexts? We can only speculate. But comparing these passages in Job with what we have discussed, above, does it raise the possibility that the Hebrew authors considered the "sons" of Israel" as also being "sons of God," and that later authors came to conflate these terms with the term "agent," i.e., that Israel, as God's people, saw themselves as God's "agents" - both on earth, and also in the atmospheres, these latter ones possibly being folks who had been transferred (via death) into the "clouds"?
The Alexandrian MS of the LXX (Alexandria being the location of the LXX translating) has the word "agents of God," instead of the MT "sons of God," in Gen. 6:3. If our hypothesis is correct, that, by the time of the LXX, the terms had become, to some extent, synonymous in the minds of Second Temple Judaism, does this shed light on our understanding of that Gen. 6:3 event? Were the "sons of God" (MT), by the time of the writing of the Pentateuch, considered to be the people of Israel's ancestral line? By the time of Noah, were
"the daughters of the people (pl. of 'anthropos' in the LXX)"
referring to human beings that were not a direct lineage of the ancestral line that led from Adam to Jacob? For example, the woman whom Cain married, and then Cain's descendants, etc.? Was this why Abraham told his servant,
"I will make you swear by the Yahweh, God of heaven and earth, that you will not get a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I live, but will go to my country and to my kindred and get a wife for my son Isaac" (Gen. 24:3-4)?
Consider also Mal. 2:10-15, where vs. 11b states,
"For Judah had profaned the holy place of Yahweh, which he had loved, and hath taken to himself (literally: 'baaled') the daughter of a foreign god." (Rotherham)
And then vs. 15,
"Now was it not One [who] made [you] who had the residue of the spirit? What, then, of that One? He was seeking a godly seed (or: a seed of God)..." (Rotherham).
Or, reconstructed from 4QXIIa
,"[But not one has done so who has] a remnant [of the Spirit. And what did] this one seek? A [godly] seed..."
We trust that this investigation has given occasion for critical thinking. We are by no means questioning the reality of "agents and messengers" in the realm of the spirit. But does the traditional cosmology, which has come down to us, have a basis in the canonical Scriptures (when rightly translated), or a basis in pagan religions, such as in Persian Zoroastrianism?
Jonathan
Return To Jonathan Mitchell's Page