Peter T. Vogt, a conservative Protestant, and, at the time of writing, the Dean of Bethel Seminary, wrote the following about Deut 32:8, concluding that the original reading was probably "sons of God/gods" and not the MT "sons of Israel."
Text
Criticism in Action
Deuteronomy
32:8
Let’s take as an example Deuteronomy 32:8,
particularly the second half of that verse. The MT (represented in BHS) reads:
יַצֵּב גְּבֻלֹת עַמִּים
לְמִסְפַּר בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל
(“He
[Yahweh] established the borders of the people according to the numbers of the
sons of Israel”). However, there is a textual note indicating that the LXX,
DSS, and three other versions read either בְּנֵי אֵל (“sons
of God”) or בְּנֵי
אֵלִים
(“sons of gods”) instead of בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.
Which is the correct reading? Bearing in mind the
principles introduced above, we must first acknowledge that it is possible that
the MT is not the original reading. We then need to examine the internal
evidence in favor of each option.
The MT reading suggests that God (“Most High”)
allocated territory to the nations based on the number of Israelites. In one
sense, this presents a logical problem, as the Israelites presumably did not
exist when the territorial allocations were made, though it is certainly
consistent with the theology of Deuteronomy (and the Pentateuch as a whole) to
conclude that God knew how many Israelites there would ultimately be. But this
does seem an unlikely fit with the context of the chapter, in which Israel’s
election is shown to be grounded in the primeval
history, when God created all that is. The focus appears to be on the
allocation of territory to the nations, while noting the unique relationship
between Israel and Yahweh.
McConville notes that “the reading ‘sons of God’ … matches the theme of a
primeval election of Israel.” Thus, the variant reading seems a more likely fit
with the overall theme of the chapter.
In addition, the reading בְּנֵי אֵלִים (“sons
of God/gods”) helps set up the contrast between what God allocated to the
heavenly host, and the fact that he kept Israel for himself as his inheritance.
This is seen through the repetition of forms of נחל (“possess, possession, inheritance”) in
verses 8–9. The reading בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל would obscure this contrast. Internal
evidence thus favors the variant rendition.
Moreover, one can easily see why the Masoretes would alter the reading from בְּנֵי אֵלִים to בְּנֵי יִשׂרָאֵל, as the
former could suggest that the gods of the nations were, in fact, real. It is
less clear why the translators of the LXX, for example, would switch to that, if the MT reflects the
original. In this instance, the variant reading can explain the MT, but not the
other way around. The third principle thus further supports seeing the original
reading as בְּנֵי
אֵלִים.
In light of these considerations, the most likely
original reading of Deuteronomy 32:8 is בְּנֵי אֵלִים (“sons
of God”), not בְּנֵי
יִשְׂרָאֵל
(“sons of Israel”). Making well-founded text-critical decisions is vital in
understanding the author’s communicative intention. (Peter T. Vogt, Interpreting
the Pentateuch: An Exegetical Handbook [ed. David M. Howard Jr.; Handbooks
for Old Testament Exegesis; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Academic and
Professional, 2009], 95-96, emphasis in original)