B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

DEUTERONOMY 32:8-9

The Dead Sea scrolls’ version of these quotes says the borders of peoples were set according to the number of the sons of G-d or gods, but the Masoretic version says according to the number of the sons of Israel.

DEUTERONOMY 32:8-9
MASORETIC TEXT
USUAL TRANSLATION

"When the Most High (G-d) gave nations inheritances (hiphal infinitive), when He divided the sons of mankind (or a man) (adam), He set borders of peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel, because the portion (noun) of the L-rd is His people, Jacob is the lot (the portion) of His inheritance."

DEUTERONOMY 32:8-9
MASORETIC TEXT
ALTERNATIVE TRANSLATIONS

"When the Most High (G-d) gave nations inheritances (hiphil infinitive), when He divided the sons of mankind (or a man) (adam), He set borders of peoples to (for) the number of the sons of Israel, because the L-rd divided (verb) His people, Jacob, the lot (the portion) of His inheritance."

Or: "When the most high of nations (Israel) will give inheritances (will cause to inherit) (hiphil verb), when He (he) (G-d or Israel) will divide the sons of mankind (or a man), He (he) (G-d or Israel) will be caused to set up borders of peoples to (for) the number of the sons of Israel, because the L-rd divided (verb) His people, Jacob, the portion of His inheritance."

Or: "When the most high of nations (Israel) was inherited (will be inherited) (niphal infinitive), when He (he) (G-d or Israel) will divide the sons of mankind (or a man) (adam), He (he) (G-d or Israel) will be caused to set up borders of peoples to (for) the number of the sons of Israel, because the L-rd divided (verb) His people, Jacob, the portion of His inheritance."

The quote sounds like G-d set the number of the borders of all of the peoples on earth to match the number of the sons of Israel, but I think the quote is only referring to the borders of the children of Israel. G-d divided the sons of Israel, who was also called Jacob, into twelve tribes that had their own territories. The tribes were called "peoples" in GENESIS 28:3 and GENESIS 48:4 which say that Jacob will become an “assembly of peoples.”
The word "adam" can mean "a man" or "mankind". Some examples where it is used for a single man are LEVITICUS 1:2, NUMBERS 19:14, NEHEMIAH 2:10, ZECHARIAH 13:5, and ECCLESIASTES 11:8.

Instead of saying "because the portion of the L-rd is His people", maybe it says "because the L-rd divided His people." Doesn't it make more sense this way?

Israel is called the most high of nations in DEUTERONOMY 26:19 and in DEUTERONOMY 28:1. Instead of saying "the Most High" referring to G-d, it could say "the most high of nations" referring to Israel.

Kenneth Greifer

According to the way I read the grammar and vocabulary (from the masoretic):

When the Most High gave to the goyim for a possession (hiphil) (goyim always refer to peoples outside of Israel)
when He divided up the sons of Adam (maybe a reference to the memory of the Babel incident) because the verb here is quite strong (break in pieces) like the babel where the Adam's descendants had their Unity broken into pieces.
He established the borders/inheritance of lands that the various languages would possess
On account of the number of the sons of Israel (which God foreknew would inherit and possess) therefore God was in control of the peoples and where they established their leaders and governments
And why did He do this? Because the Lord Himself had an inheritance that He wanted to claim and that were the sons of Jacob, who are Israel

There were thirteen tribes ok, but Levi had no inheritance (just nit picking but I know what you mean)

Also there is no indication in this part of the song that alludes to God dividing the tribes, it is all seen from a more global perspective methinks.

Kind regards
chris

Kenneth Greifer wrote:DEUTERONOMY 32:8-9

The Dead Sea scrolls’ version of these quotes says the borders of peoples were set according to the number of the sons of G-d or gods, but the Masoretic version says according to the number of the sons of Israel.

That DSS scrap has only 3.5 words on it, …

Kenneth Greifer wrote:DEUTERONOMY 32:8-9
MASORETIC TEXT
USUAL TRANSLATION

"When the Most High (G-d) gave nations inheritances (hiphal infinitive), when He divided the sons of mankind (or a man) (adam), He set borders of peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel, because the portion (noun) of the L-rd is His people, Jacob is the lot (the portion) of His inheritance."

The verb הנחל is a Hophal, “cause to be taken as possession”. From the context, this is a reference to the nations who were in the land of Canaan that were possessed by Israel when they invaded under Joshua and took over.

Kenneth Greifer wrote:Kenneth Greifer

Karl W. Randolph.

Karl,

I had a different translation using the hophal form of the verb, but I thought this was an infinitive and I thought hophal did not have an infinitive. That is what I read somewhere.

Most of the time when you give your opinions, you just give a grammatical explanation, but it would be easier to understand if you would actually write out your own translation. I have no idea what your translation of this quote is.

Also, I am not sure if there is a difference between "to be caused to possess" and "to cause to be possessed."

Kenneth Greifer

Kenneth Greifer wrote:Karl,

I had a different translation using the hophal form of the verb, but I thought this was an infinitive and I thought hophal did not have an infinitive. That is what I read somewhere.

According to the standard grammars, you are right, the hophal doesn’t have an infinitive. But then they say that the niphal has two infinitives, one of which is spelled the same as here.

But the standard grammars are wrong in saying that the conjugations refer to tense, when they don’t, so could they be wrong here too?

Kenneth Greifer wrote:Most of the time when you give your opinions, you just give a grammatical explanation, but it would be easier to understand if you would actually write out your own translation. I have no idea what your translation of this quote is.

Like all poetry, this is not the easiest to understand. When we look at the context of the preceding and following verses, the subject is Israel.

“In the Highest One’s causing the nations to be possessed in his causing the sons of man to separate, he set up the regions of the peoples according to the numbers of the sons of Israel. For YHWH apportioned his people, Jacob who is his possession.”

From the context, not all the nations of the earth are meant, rather just that which pertained to Israel.

Kenneth Greifer wrote:Also, I am not sure if there is a difference between "to be caused to possess" and "to cause to be possessed."

The difference is that in the first case, the subject still possesses, in the second the subject is possessed. In the first case, the one who causes the possession is not the subject of the verb.

Is the passive (hophal) used for both cases? It appears that might be the case.

Kenneth Greifer wrote:Kenneth Greifer

I hope this helps.

Karl W. Randolph.

Karl,

Your translation sounds a lot like what I said because I don't think it says the "because the portion of the L-rd is His people", but "because the L-rd divided His people." Just the beginning is a little different because I didn't want to use the hophal as an infinitive because I read that you are not supposed to. It sounds like you don't think it can mean "to divide", but "to apportion."

Are we actually agreeing on something?

Kenneth Greifer

kwrandolph wrote: But the standard grammars are wrong in saying that the conjugations refer to tense, when they don’t, so could they be wrong here too?

Could you provide examples of standard grammars that claim the conjugations refer to tense?

Kenneth Greifer wrote:Karl,

Your translation sounds a lot like what I said because I don't think it says the "because the portion of the L-rd is His people", but "because the L-rd divided His people." Just the beginning is a little different because I didn't want to use the hophal as an infinitive because I read that you are not supposed to. It sounds like you don't think it can mean "to divide", but "to apportion."

Are we actually agreeing on something?

Kenneth Greifer

Kenneth, (Verse 9) the above would make sense if there was no particle כי . This establishes a reason for the previous speech, the second half of verse 9 strengthening the first half confirming the idea of portion, (which by the way is a sort of dividing and fits in with the central meaning of this verb which is to smooth out). Divided makes no sense, God did not divide His people, the idea that the 12 tribes is what is referred to here is highly unlikely especially since Moses would have had no idea at that time that the tribes would be allotted different parts of Canaan. Besides, scriptures everywhere confirm also that Israel is His inheritance.
Kind regards

What is also interesting to note is the idea that God established the borders in relation to Israel's inheritance. Since the fall of Rome in 420 AD thereabouts Europe wa a very fluid mixture of constantly shifting borders and peoples. However it is interesting to realise that the most ancient of peoples, (Assyrians, Persians, Egyptians have more or less retained fixed borders since the beginning of known history, dspsite having been conquered, invaded and going out to conquer. I think this is interesting.

Chris,

It makes sense your way and my way. That's why the answer is not obvious.

Kenneth Greifer

Ken M. Penner wrote:

kwrandolph wrote: But the standard grammars are wrong in saying that the conjugations refer to tense, when they don’t, so could they be wrong here too?

Could you provide examples of standard grammars that claim the conjugations refer to tense?

Whoops, I’m showing my age. When I studied Hebrew in college, the standard textbook was Weinstein and the grammar he taught was common for that day. The idea that the conjugation may be according to aspect instead of tense was then just getting traction.

That standard is also visible in books such as Davidson’s Analytical Lexicon, where the conjugations were listed according to tense.

Mea culpa I haven’t kept up with the latest books. What I notice is that people still reference grammars from my time and earlier, which did list conjugations according to tense.

Karl W. Randolph.