|
Alpha & Omega Ministries
During the April 1998 LDS General
Conference James White made his regular conference appearance. On
Sunday evening he appeared on the radio talk shows of Van Hale
and Richard Hopkins. During the course of Van Hale's show, Dr. William Hamblin
called in to question James about his interpretation of Ps. 82. Because of
the limitations of being able to fully discuss the issue on the radio, Dr. Hamblin wrote to James to discuss the matter
further. With Dr. Hamblin's permission their correspondence follows.
(Note:
This series of e-mails
between James White and Dr. William Hamblin, which appears here on SHIELDS,
contains
correspondence which James White refuses to place on his web site. James
claims he wants to record to speak for itself, yet he has
the record on his web site saying that this part of correspondence is
"irrelevant." Apparently he believes that of deciding for themselves. The
portion of correspondence that does not appear on the A&O web site can be
accessed from our A&O main page as Letters
Sixty-One through Seventy-Five.
Letters One through Ten
Letter One
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 02:27 EDT
From: "William J. Hamblin" <william_hamblin@byu.edu>
Subject: Some Questions.
To: James White <orthopodeo@aomin.org> Jim,
In light of our discussion on the radio Sunday night, I'd like to
see your interpretation of Psalms 82. The following is my
translation, upon which you may comment as you like. I am attempting to be as
literal as possible.
1 Elohim stands/presides in the council/assembly ('adat) of El
In the midst of the elohim he governs/passes judgement/enacts laws:
I note that you have claimed the Bible never mentions a council of
the gods. It certainly seems that this is exactly what is being described here.
(see, further, E. T. Mullen. The Assembly of the Gods Harvard Semitic Monographs
24 (1980)). I pose to you the following question, to which I will give what seems to
me to be the obvious answer. What is the council of El? It is a group of
gods/elohim. Who are these elohim, in the midst of whom elohim stands? They are (in
v. 6) the sons of Elyon. How is the first elohim different from the second elohim?
He presides in the council. He is the ruler of the other elohim. Why
does the Hebrew use precisely the same word to describe them? Because they are the same.
Then, in verses 2-4, the first elohim gives judgement, condemning
the wickedness and unrighteous judgements given by the other elohim. It continues in
verse five.
5 Without knowledge or understanding They wander in darkness
[while] all the foundations of the earth are shaken
6 I said: "Elohim you are, Even the sons of 'Elyon [the
Most High], all of you. Yet like Man [adam] you die And like one of the sharim
[rulers/archangels] you fall."
Notice here that the elohim/gods are precisely the same as the sons
of 'Elyon. The bene elohim/bene 'elyon are thus, in fact, simply elohim/gods.
Notice, too that these gods/sons of God become like men, and die. They become
humans. (Of course, this passage is quoted in John 10:34 by
Jesus; it is discussed from and LDS Christian perspective by Daniel Peterson, in "Psalm
82 and John 10 as Witnesses to the Divine Nature of Humankind" forthcoming in a
few months.
From an LDS Christian perspective, this all makes perfect sense,
since the the sons of God are, just as described here, celestial beings who become human
(like Adam), fall, and die. (In the NT, Christ allows these sons of God to become
immortal again, and become like Christ, joint heirs, and one with the Father, but that is
another discussion.)
From an evangelical perspective this must all seem like gibberish.
I'd like to know how you explain it.
William J. Hamblin Associate
Professor of History
323 KMB
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602-4446
801-378-6469
wh4@email.byu.edu
FAX 801-378-5784 |
Letter Two
From: James White <orthopodeo@aomin.org>
To: <william_hamblin@byu.edu
Date: Wednesday April 8, 1998 4:02 PM
Subject: Some Questions At 02:27 PM 4/8/98 EDT, you wrote:
>Dear Jim,
>In light of our discussion on the radio Sunday night (I was the
last
>caller on Van's show), I'd like to see your interpretation of Psalm
>82. The following is my translation, upon which you may
>comment as you like. I am attempting to be as literal as possible.
Thanks for writing, and I'm very sorry you didn't identify yourself
when you called in. As soon as I saw the textual material in the BHS on Dt. 32, I
recalled reading an article on the subject about four years ago. It still amazes me
that someone could believe Yahweh is someone other than the Most High. Deut. 32:12 makes it plain. But note just a few examples:
Genesis 14:22 Abram said to the king of Sodom, "I have
sworn to the LORD God Most High, possessor of heaven and earth,
Psalm 7:17 I will give thanks to the LORD according to His
righteousness And will sing praise to the name of the LORD Most High.
Psalm 9:1 {For the choir director; on Muth-labben. A Psalm of
David.} I will give thanks to the LORD with all my heart; I will tell of all Your wonders.
2 I will be glad and exult in You; I will sing praise to Your name, O Most
High.
Psalm 21:7 For the king trusts in the LORD, And through the
loving kindness of the Most High he will not be shaken.
etc. and etc. A verse-by-verse exegesis of Deuteronomy 32 is
*completely* disrupted by the insertion of some "other" God into the text, as
you suggested on the program.
First, I provide the comments I made on the passage in Is the
Mormon My Brother?, pp. 156-158:
It is at this point that the Lord quotes from Psalm 82:6, which
contains the important words, "I said you are gods." But when we go back
to the passage from which this is taken (and surely the Jewish leaders would have known
the context themselves), we find an important truth:
God takes His stand in His own congregation; He judges in the midst
of the rulers. How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked?
Vindicate the weak and fatherless; do justice to the afflicted and destitute. Rescue
the weak and needy; deliver them out of the hand of the wicked. They do not know nor
do they understand; they walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are
shaken. I said, "You are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High."
(Psalm 82:1-6)
Here we have the key to the passage, for this is a psalm of judgment
against the rulers of Israel. God takes his stand in His own congregation, that
being His own people, Israel. He judges in the midst of the "rulers."
The Hebrew term here is "elohim," which could be translated
"gods." The NASB however, recognizes that the context indicates who is
being discussed, for the next verse reads, "How long will you judge unjustly and show
partiality to the wicked." Who judges unjustly and shows partiality? Human
judges, of course, human rulers amongst the people. Hence, the NASB rendering of
"elohim" as "rulers." It is important to recognize the use of
the term elohim in verse 1, for the very same term appears in verse 6, and is what lies
behind Jesus' citation in John 10:34. Before moving on in the text, it should be
noted that even at this point recognizing that this passage is talking about unjust human
rulers removes this passage from the realm of possible passages to cite in support of a
plurality of gods, and certainly, Jesus was not, by citing this passage, calling His
accusers true divine beings. When we get to verse six, we find that God has placed
the judges of Israel in a position of being "gods" amongst the people.
They were entrusted with the application of God's law. God calls them to
vindicate the weak and fatherless and to do justice to the afflicted and destitute (v. 3).
This is their task, their duty. But they are failing that duty. They are
not acting as proper, godly judges. Verse six, then, begins the pronouncement of
judgment. Jesus only cites the beginning of the judgment--which was enough to make
His point. But since many today do not immediately know the context the way the Jews
did, we need to point it out. The rest of the phrase Jesus quotes is this:
"Nevertheless you will die like men and fall like any one of the princes."
Such is hardly the terminology one would use of divine and exalted beings! And
this explains the use of the present tense verb "You are gods" in John 10:34.
Jesus is saying His accusers are, right then, the judges condemned in Psalm 82.
And what kind of judges were they? Unrighteous judges, who were judging
unjustly. Jesus was calling His accusers false judges, and they well knew it.
I *thought* I had requested that a copy of the book be sent to you
at BYU. Did you not receive a copy? I *know* one was sent to Dan Peterson.
Now, on to your own comments:
>1 Elohim stands/presides in the council/assembly
('adat) of El
>In the midst of the elohim he governs/passes judgement/enacts
>laws:
In context, I would say shaphat is here clearly in reference to an
act of judgment.
>I note that you have claimed the Bible never mentions a council
of
>the gods.
In the context presented by Joseph Smith and Mormonism, I would
repeat the statement.
>It certainly seems that this is exactly what is being described
>here.
>(see, further, E. T. Mullen. The Assembly of the Gods Harvard
>Semitic Monographs
24 (1980)).
Or, the passage is saying that Yahweh, as the one who established
the judges of Israel, judges amongst those judges.
>I pose to you the following question, to which I will give what
>seems to me to be the obvious answer. What is the council of
>El? It is a group of gods/elohim.
Given the context (which you skipped), I would say it is the judges
of Israel. This can be confirmed by looking at the use of edah in such passages as Numbers 26:9, 31:16, Joshua 22:17, and
Psalms 1:5.
>Who are these elohim, in the midst of whom elohim stands?
They
>are (in v. 6) the sons of Elyon.
Again, if you would allow the context to stand as a unit, the answer
to the question is without question:
Psalm 82:2 How long will you judge unjustly And show
partiality to the wicked?
Psalm 82:3 Vindicate the weak and fatherless; Do justice to the afflicted and
destitute.
Psalm 82:4 Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked.
Psalm 82:5 They do not know nor do they understand; They walk about in darkness; All the
foundations of the earth are shaken.
Psalm 82:6 I said, "You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High.
Psalm 82:7 "Nevertheless you will die like men And fall like any one of the
princes."
Psalm 82:8 Arise, O God, judge the earth! For it is You who possesses all the
nations.
Yahweh is judging the elohim. What is the content of the
judgment? Verses 2 through 7. In verse 2, God brings the charge: unjust
judging and partiality to the wicked. You say that this judgment comes upon
"(some of?) the other elohim." Yet, the very verses you skip over
demonstrate that these are plainly HUMAN matters. The unjust judgment and partiality
toward the wicked are HUMAN actions:
Deuteronomy 1:17 'You shall not show partiality [note the
phraseology used here, Dr. Hamblin] in judgment; you shall hear the small and the great
alike. You shall not fear man, for the judgment is God's. The case that is too
hard for you, you shall bring to me, and I will hear it.'
Proverbs 18:5 To show partiality to the wicked is not good,
Nor to thrust aside the righteous in judgment.
The judges are commanded to vindicate the weak and fatherless and to
do justice to the afflicted and destitute:
Exodus 22:22 "You shall not afflict any widow or orphan.
Job 29:12 Because I delivered the poor who cried for help, And
the orphan who had no helper.
Zechariah 7:10 and do not oppress the widow or the orphan, the
stranger or the poor; and do not devise evil in your hearts against one another.'
These elohim are doing just the opposite. Just how, Dr.
Hamblin, do you substantiate the idea that gods other than the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit
(in the LDS viewpoint) are somehow held responsible for passing juridicial sentences in
Israelite society? Just how are these "gods" supposed to vindicate or do
justice on this earth? How are they to rescue the week and needy, or deliver them
from the hand of the wicked ones? I wasn't aware these other "gods" were
involved in this world so as to be judged by God as having failed their task. Isn't
it the common belief of Mormons that 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 *does* refer to other divine
beings, but that for US there is but one God, and we don't have "dealings" with
these others?
Be that as it may, a fair, contextual exegesis, then, closes the
door upon the rather strange (from my view) constructs placed upon the passage by those
who absolutely *must* find some way of turning the text of the Old Testament into a
polytheistic text. The meaning---if the text is allowed to speak for itself---is
rather plain.
>How is the first elohim different from the second
elohim?
He
>presides in the council. He is the ruler of the other elohim.
The first Elohim is used with a singular verb, nazav, while the
second is used with cherev, "in the midst of," which indicates plurality.
>Why does the Hebrew use precisely the same word to describe
>them? Because they are the same.
Actually, because the Hebrew normally uses the term Elohim of God
(do you embrace the distinction between Yahweh and Elohim introduced by the First
Presidency?), and the context defines the nature and function of the plural use of elohim
in regards to the giving of judgment amongst the people. This is an established use
of the term:
Exodus 22:8 "If the thief is not caught, then the owner
of the house shall appear before the judges [Hebrew: ha'elohim], to determine whether he
laid his hands on his neighbor's property.
Exodus 22:9 "For every breach of trust, whether it is for
ox, for donkey, for sheep, for clothing, or for any lost thing about which one says, 'This
is it,' the case of both parties shall come before the judges; he whom the judges condemn
shall pay double to his neighbor.
>Then, in verses 2-4, the first elohim gives
judgement,
condemning
>the wickedness and unrighteous judgements given by (some of?)
>the other elohim. It continues in verse five.
>5 Without knowledge or understanding
>They wander in darkness
>[while] all the foundations of the earth are shaken
This would refer to the general degradation and destruction brought
upon a culture by unrighteous judges---a result, sadly, we can see all around us in our
own nation this day. I am sure you would not disagree with at least that assertion.
>6 I said: "Elohim you are,
>Even the sons of 'Elyon [the Most High], all of you.
>Yet like Man [adam] you die
>And like one of the sharim [rulers/archangels] you fall."
No reason for the translation rulers/archangels----given the
judicial/political context already established above, the translation "princes"
is just fine.
And, as I established above, the OT identifies YHWH as Elyon.
>Notice here that the elohim/gods are precisely the same as the
>sons of 'Elyon.
Yes, the shophtey are given a highly exalted position amongst the
people of Israel.
>The bene elohim/bene 'elyon are thus, in fact, simply
elohim/gods.
Rulers, yes. Judges, as clearly established above.
>Notice, too that these gods/sons of God become like men, and
>die.
Of course, there is nothing in the text even remotely indicating
"become like men and die." They *are* men, and God is simply reminding
them that though they have been given an exalted place of rulership amongst His people,
they are mere mortals, and will face His judgment. As rulers, they had become
infatuated with their authority (another sad reality we can see all around us), and had
failed to do their duty. God reminds them that despite their exalted position, they
are mortal, and shall die as all men die.
>They become humans. (Of course, this passage is quoted in John
>10:34 by Jesus; it is discussed from and LDS Christian perspective
>by Daniel Peterson, in "Psalm 82 and John 10 as Witnesses to
>the Divine Nature of Humankind" forthcoming in a few months.)
Hopefully the proposed publication will not engage in the same kind
of unwarranted leap that is presented here---there is nothing in the text that says
"they become humans."
>From an LDS Christian perspective, this all makes perfect sense,
>since the sons of God are, just as described here, celestial beings
>who become human (like Adam), fall, and die. (In the NT, Christ
>allows these sons of God to become immortal again, and become
>like Christ, joint heirs, and one with the Father, but that is another
> discussion.)
From the simple perspective of the passage, there is nothing that
even begins to suggest or intimate anything about these elohim "becoming human."
By ignoring verses 3 through 5, and the constant use of the terms included therein,
you have completely misinterpreted the passage, capping this off with the insertion of a
completely foreign concept of "becoming humans" here at the end. No
meaningful connection with the text, however, is provided.
>From your evangelical perspective this psalm must all seem like
>gibberish.
>I'd like to know how you explain it.
I can assure you, Dr. Hamblin, this Psalm is anything but gibberish
to anyone who does not embrace a plurality of gods, and who allows the text to speak for
itself.
>Sincerley,
>
>William J. Hamblin
>Associate Professor of History
>323 KMB >Brigham Young University
>Provo, UT 84602-4446
>
>801-378-6469
>wh4@email.byu.edu
>FAX 801-378-5784
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^ James White ** Orthopodeo@aomin.org ^
^ Sola Scriptura: A Fundamental Truth ^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Clement said to the Corinthians, "Be eager to engage in battle,
brothers, and to be zealous concerning the matters that pertain to salvation. You
have searched the Holy Scriptures, which are true, which were given by the Holy Spirit,
and you know that nothing unrighteous or counterfeit has been written in them." (45) |
Letter Three
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 16:20
From: "William J. Hamblin" <william_hamblin@byu.edu>
Subject: Jesus the son of the Judge
To: James White <orthopodeo@aomin.org> Jim,
YOU WRITE
Jesus only cites the beginning of the judgment-which was enough to make His point.
But since many today do not immediately know the context the way the Jews did, we need to
point it out. The rest of the phrase Jesus quotes is this: "Nevertheless
you will die like men and fall like any one of the princes." Such is hardly the
terminology one would use of divine and exalted beings! And this explains the use of
the present tense verb "You are gods" in John 10:34. Jesus is saying His
accusers are, right then, the judges condemned in Psalm 82. And what kind of judges
were they? Unrighteous judges, who were judging unjustly. Jesus was calling
His accusers false judges, and they well knew it.
HAMBLIN
I will not be able to read your entire response carefully until tonight. It's final
paper time, so it may be a few days before I respond completely. In a first brief
overview, your response is most disappointing. You don't get it.
However, just in passing. It seems to me that I believe Jesus
is making a serious argument instead of mere Clintonesque spin-doctoring. If so, he
cannot be claiming that it is not blasphemy for him to say he is the Son of God, because
the Jews use the term elohim to refer to judges. This argument would be simply
mendacious. Jesus is not condemning the Jews as unrighteous judges in John 10, he is
saying that it is not blasphemy to call a him the son of god. This can only be a
realistic argument if, in fact, the passage in Psalms is claiming exactly that. That
humans are elohim/gods. Not that humans are elohim/judges.
William J. Hamblin
Associate Professor of History
323 KMB
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602-4446
801-378-6469
wh4@email.byu.edu
FAX 801-378-5784 |
Letter Four (at this point Paul
Owen is invited into the conversation by James White. Paul's response to a letter
sent by James and cc:ed to Dr. Hamblin follows:)
From: Paul OWEN <9753633@bute.sms.ed.ac.uk>
To: James White <orthopodeo@aomin.org>
Cc: wh4@email.byu.edu <wh4@email.byu.edu>
Date: Thursday, April 09, 1998 4:06 AM
Subject: Re: Hamblin on Psalm 82 Dear James,
Thanks for sharing the interaction with Hamblin. I am sorry that you decided not to
come back on AR-vent. I think you might want to reconsider that decision, because it
is a great place to hash out ideas and give and receive criticism in the context of
Christian apologetics. But you have to decide that for yourself. Before
commenting on Hamblin, I would like to clarify a couple of things. First of all, and
this may be nitpicking, I don't think that I ever said Beckwith and Parrish have responded
to FARMS. Blake Ostler and David Paulsen
are not connected with FARMS in any official way, although Ostler occasionally does book
reviews. Something that I have noticed in our interactions is that you tend to use
the FARMS label as a grab bag for Mormon scholarship. The fact of the matter is,
while FARMS is producing some formidable scholarly LDS apologetic, there is a lot of LDS
literature out there which needs critique that is produced by non-FARMS scholars (e.g. S.
Kent Brown, Stephen Robinson, C. Wilfred Griggs, Truman Madsen, John Lundquist). But
the fact remains that FARMS has yet to receive any substantial published refutations.
Secondly, I keep sensing in our discussions that you have the
impression that I don't think anything that anybody (other than Carl and myself) has
written is worth a tinker's damn. That isn't quite accurate. The Tanners have
responded quite capably to the FARMS reviews of their book, The Black Hole in the Book
of Mormon (I think I got the title right. I don't have it on me.), in the
volumes of Answering Mormon Scholars. But that is hardly enough.
Furthermore, I noted that you had some very good criticisms of Robinson, Ricks and
Peterson in your recent book. Plus you are the first person I have seen who has
offered any discussion of Keith Norman's dissertation. (Although you didn't mention
that Norman is LDS, and I think you quoted him a bit one-sidedly. Norman's Mormon
disposition comes out more clearly in other places.) And I would also like to say,
just for the record, that Carl and I are not insisting that someone write a 900 page
scholarly tome with 10,000 footnotes. Something about the same quality as your book on
Roman Catholicism would be nice to see, at least for a start.
As for Hamblin, I have long since noticed, and I have mentioned this
to Dan Peterson, that some LDS writers (like Hamblin and Peterson) are fond of using
liberal OT scholarship when it comes to the matter of the divine names. Based on
certain form-critical and tradition-historical judgments, many OT scholars believe Elohim
and Yahweh were originally two separate Gods, who have now been blended together in the
deuteronomistic revision of the Hebrew Bible. Furthermore, it is commonly believed
that Israelite religion evolved from an initially polytheistic faith to the monotheism of
the post AD 70 rabbinic period. Many believe that even in the New Testament period,
Israelite religion was still in flux with respect to monotheism. Well, some Mormons
have latched onto these conclusions, because they seem to favor LDS theology in certain
ways. But there are a ton of problems with this view. The whole hypothesis of
a deuteronomistic reform of the Hebrew scriptures and religion is by no means uncontested.
And it requires one to see the present form of the Hebrew Bible as essentially
corrupt. The original polytheism of primitive Israelite religion has been lost, and
the originally distinct personalities of Elohim and Yahweh can only be recovered by
tendentious and frankly circular form-crtitical readings of the pre-history of many
pertinent OT texts. The book of Deuteronomy itself, with its many statements of
blatant monotheism, must be seen as a departure from the earlier and supposedly preferable
stage of Israelite faith. But the Book of Mormon
itself, clearly attributes Mosaic authorship to all five books of the Pentateuch, whereas
the deuteronomistic hypothesis places the writing of Deuteronomy after the exile, and
hence too late to have been in Laban's brass plates.
So it seems to me that the Mormons are damaging their own case by
using the works of liberal OT scholars in this matter. This is especially seen in
the work of Margaret Barker, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God.
Many Mormons love to cite Barker's views, but without the deuteronomistic revision
of OT history upon which her views are built, the whole edifice collapses. If people
like Hamblin and Peterson and Tvedtnes want to continue to use this sort of scholarship,
they need to frankly admit the implications which this has upon the reliability of the Old
Testament, not to mention the Book of Mormon.
As for the particular texts in question, I would side with Hamblin
in some of the particulars, and would side with you in the general conclusions. With
regard to Deuteronomy 32:8, the reading, 'According to the number
of the sons of God' as opposed to 'sons of Israel,' is supported by the LXX and an early
Qumran fragment. I do tend to think that this verse indicates that different nations
were assigned different angelic princes to watch over them (cf. Dan. 10:13). What
does this indicate about the LORD described in 32:9? It is
possible that LORD here is functioning as a title for the Angel of the LORD. As you
know, there is some fluctuation in the Old Testament between the LORD and the Angel of the
LORD, and many have argued that this figure is the pre-incarnate Christ. (Calvin has
a good discussion of these passages in the Institutes.) But I think it is
more likely that the point of 32:9 is that whereas the other nations have been 'handed
over' as it were, to various angelic princes, Yahweh (i.e. the Most High) has chosen
Israel especially for himself. This seems to be more in keeping with verses 10ff.
But it should be noted that Daniel 12:1 indicates that
Michael has been given some special authority over Israel, and some have tried to identify
Michael with the Angel of the LORD. And as you know, Joseph Smith had some
interesting ideas about Michael as well. As for Psalm 82, it seems to me that there
is a conflation here of an earthly as well as heavenly setting. 82:1 does seem to plainly
point to God and the heavenly host (the elohim, a word with a rather broad semantic range,
as I am sure you know). Verse 6 also seems likely to have a background dealing with
God's judgment upon angelic beings. But this mythology is being used in a setting
dealing with injustice in the earthly congregation in the context of the psalm, as you
correctly point out, and Hamblin seems unwilling to acknowledge. This also has a
bearing upon Jesus' application of the psalm in John 10, as you correctly point out.
At any rate, it is not suprising to me that the mythology (I don't mean 'myth' as in
'fairy tale') of the heavenly court is conflated with the context of the earthly
congregation, since there is evidence from the Qumran literature (e.g. Songs of the
Sabbath Sacrifice), and other Jewish texts that the heavenly and earthly realms joined
together in the worship of the community.
Anyways, those are my thoughts James. Feel free to send back
any comments you might have. I am also sending a copy of this to Hamblin, and maybe
he can throw in his 2 cents worth. Take care.
Sincerely,
Paul |
Letter Five
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 13:06:30 -0600
From: "William J. Hamblin" <william_hamblin@byu.edu>
Subject: Paul's letter
To: James White <orthopodeo@aomin.org>
Cc: Paul OWEN <9753633@bute.sms.ed.ac.uk> Dear Paul and
James
PAUL
Thanks for sharing the interaction with Hamblin. I am sorry that you decided not to
come back on AR-vent. I think you might want to reconsider that decision, because it
is a great place to hash out ideas and give and receive criticism in the context of
Christian apologetics.
BILL
What is AR-vent?
PAUL
But you have to decide that for yourself. Before commenting on Hamblin, I would like
to clarify a couple of things. First of all, and this may be nitpicking, I don't think
that I ever said Beckwith and Parrish have responded to FARMS. Blake Ostler and David
Paulsen are not connected with FARMS in any official way, although Ostler occasionally
does book reviews. Something that I have noticed in our interactions is that you
tend to use the FARMS label as a grab bag for Mormon scholarship. The fact of the
matter is, while FARMS is producing some formidable scholarly LDS apologetic, there is a
lot of LDS literature out there which needs critique that is produced by non-FARMS
scholars (e.g. S. Kent Brown, Stephen Robinson, C. Wilfred Griggs, Truman Madsen, John
Lundquist).
BILL
This is a very important point.
1- FARMS does not officially speak for the LDS Church. It is a consortium of
scholars, organized to facilitate research on Mormonism and antiquity.
2- There is no official FARMS position, beyond affirming the divinity of Christ and the
historicity of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith's
visions.
3- Many scholars publish with FARMS. When they do so, they publish their own views.
My statements here represent my position, not that of FARMS or the LDS Church.
PAUL
But the fact remains that FARMS has yet to receive any substantial published refutations.
BILL
Quite true!
PAUL
The Tanners have responded quite capably to the FARMS reviews of their book, The Black
Hole in the Book of Mormon (I think I got the title right. I don't have it on
me.), in the volumes of Answering Mormon Scholars. But that is hardly enough.
BILL
I, of course, disagree about the substantive value of the Tanners' response. And
furthermore, their "response" (such as it is), has itself received a response.
And further-furthermore, there are a large number of
reviews of the Tanners which have been completely ignored.
PAUL
Plus you are the first person I have seen who has offered any discussion of Keith Norman's
dissertation. (Although you didn't mention that Norman is LDS, and I think you
quoted him a bit one-sidedly. Norman's Mormon disposition comes out more clearly in
other places.)
BILL
Or that Norman's overall conclusions are that ancient Christian ideas parallel those of
LDS Christians, as is clear in his Sunstone summary of his dissertation.
PAUL
As for Hamblin, I have long since noticed, and I have mentioned this to Dan Peterson, that
some LDS writers (like Hamblin and Peterson) are fond of using liberal OT scholarship when
it comes to the matter of the divine names. . . . Well, some Mormons have latched onto
these conclusions, because they seem to favor LDS theology in certain ways. But
there are a ton of problems with this view. The whole hypothesis of a
deuteronomistic reform of the Hebrew scriptures and religion is by no means uncontested.
And it requires one to see the present form of the Hebrew Bible as essentially
corrupt. The original polytheism of primitive Israelite religion has been lost, and
the originally distinct personalities of Elohim and Yahweh can only be recovered by
tendentious and frankly circular form-crtitical readings of the pre-history of many
pertinent OT texts. The book of Deuteronomy itself, with its many statements of
blatant monotheism, must be seen as a departure from the earlier and supposedly preferable
stage of Israelite faith. But the Book of Mormon
itself, clearly attributes Mosaic authorship to all five books of the Pentateuch, whereas
the deuteronomistic hypothesis places the writing of Deuteronomy after the exile, and
hence too late to have been in Laban's brass plates.
BILL
This is a bit of an oversimplification and a misrepresentation at a number of points.
1- Although the documentary hypothesis is disputed (what in Biblical studies isn't), that
the OT has a wide range of textual and editorial modifications is unequivocal. Why
and how these occurred is hotly disputed. Thus to argue the text has been
modified/edited is not to accept all aspects of the documentary hypotheses.
2- I agree that there are many "tendentious and frankly circular form-critical
readings of the pre-history of many pertinent OT texts." (On the other hand,
James' exposition of Ps 82 is just as "tendentious and frankly circular" as
those of the form-critics.) However, the significant evidence is
archaeological–the Ugaritica, and the "Yahweh and his Ashera" inscription,
for example. Furthermore, there are a wide range of OT texts which are quite
incomprehensible when read in the light of Rabbinic concepts of monotheism, or those of
post-Nicaean Christians (again, Ps 82 is a good example–I will return to James'
comments over the weekend, time permitting). For example, the names of many of the
Canaanite gods are precisely the same as those attributed to God in the OT: e.g. Yahweh is
equated with Ba'al in several OT texts. The point here is not that these means the
gods were necessarily the same, but the issue requires more than the facile dismissals
that I have seen in evangelical circles. (By the way, do either Paul or James know
of any evangelical studies which try to interpret this data?)
3- Paul writes: "the Book of Mormon itself,
clearly attributes Mosaic authorship to all five books of the Pentateuch." This is
actually not so clear. 1) This may simply be a reflection of the understanding held
by Nephi at 600 BC, and may not reflect the actual history of the texts. 2) It is
not clear that the texts Nephi attributes to Moses are the same that we now have in the
Pentateuch. 3) It is not clear that the content of the books Nephi attributes to
Moses are precisely the same as the contents of the present Pentateuch.
4- Paul writes: "the deuteronomistic hypothesis places the writing of Deuteronomy
after the exile." There are a wide range of dates and theorys. Some
scholars associate Deuteronomy with the text discovered in the temple in pre-exilic times.
PAUL
So it seems to me that the Mormons are damaging their own case by using the works of
liberal OT scholars in this matter. This is especially seen in the work of Margaret
Barker, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God. Many Mormons love to
cite Barker's views, but without the deuteronomistic revision of OT history upon which her
views are built, the whole edifice collapses. If people like Hamblin and Peterson
and Tvedtnes want to continue to use this sort of scholarship, they need to frankly admit
the implications which this has upon the reliability of the Old Testament, not to mention
the Book of Mormon.
BILL
1- Accepting part of the conclusions of Barker or others does not necessitate accepting
all of the conclusions, nor all of the assumptions. Thus, one can accept certain
textual or historical interpretations of a liberal scholar without rejecting the existence
of God. When a liberal scholar says "there were no miracles" you can reject this
assertion as based on the liberal's denial of the existence of God. However, when a
liberal scholar says, "this text has various inconsistencies" it is important to
examine the issues, evidence and arguments. The point is, although many liberal
scholars associate a great deal of secular or agnostic presuppositions and assumptions in
their arguments, it is often possible to make the same arguments, but based on a different
set of theistic presuppositions.
PAUL
As for the particular texts in question, I would side with Hamblin in some of the
particulars, and would side with you in the general conclusions. With regard to
Deuteronomy 32:8, the reading, 'According to the number of the sons of God' as opposed to
'sons of Israel,' is supported by the LXX and an early Qumran fragment. I do tend to
think that this verse indicates that different nations were assigned different angelic
princes to watch over them (cf. Dan. 10:13).
BILL
Here is a classic example. The new interpretation of this passage is based on new
archaeological discoveries, not on documentary hypotheses. It can't be dismissed as
a circular argument.
I will fold the rest of Paul's comments into my forthcoming response
to James. As is usual in these matters, the discussion is already losing focus and
getting out of hand. The real question is, are the bene elyon gods. Ps 82 clearly
says yes: "Ye are gods, even the sons of Elyon." As I will attempt to
demonstrate in a future post, nothing James has said demonstrates otherwise.
William J. Hamblin
Associate Professor of History
323 KMB
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602-4446
801-378-6469
wh4@email.byu.edu
FAX 801-378-5784 |
Letter Six
From: James White <orthopodeo@aomin.org>
To: William J. Hamblin <william_hamblin@byu.edu>
Date: Thursday, April 9, 1998 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: Jesus the son of the Judge At 04:20 PM 4/8/98
-0600, you wrote:
>YOU WRITE
>Jesus only cites the beginning of the judgment-which was enough
>to make His point. But since many today do not immediately
>know the context the way the Jews did, we need to point it out.
>The rest of the phrase Jesus quotes is this: "Nevertheless you will
>die like men and fall like any one of the princes." Such is hardly
>the terminology one would use of divine and
exalted beings! And
>this explains the use of the present tense verb "You are
gods" in
>John 10:34. Jesus is saying His accusers are, right then, the
> judges condemned in Psalm 82. And what kind of judges were
>they? Unrighteous judges, who were judging unjustly. Jesus was
>calling His accusers false judges, and they well knew it.
>HAMBLIN
>I will not be able to read your entire response carefully until
>tonight.
>It's final paper time, so it may be a few days before I respond
>completely. In a first brief overview, your response is most
>disappointing. You don't get it.
I'll assume that "you don't get it" is equal to "you
don't agree with me." As to who has presented a solidly biblical exegesis of
the passage, well, again, I'll leave that to others to judge.
>However, just in passing. It seems to me that I believe
Jesus is
>making a serious argument instead of mere Clintonesque
>spin-doctoring. If so, he cannot be claiming that it is not
>blasphemy for him to say he is the Son of God, because the Jews
>use the term elohim to refer to judges. This argument would be
>simply mendacious. Jesus is not condemning the Jews as
>unrighteous judges in John 10, he is saying that it is not
>blasphemy to call a him the son of god. This can only be a
>realistic argument if, in fact, the passage in Psalms is claiming
>exactly that. That humans are elohim/gods. Not that humans are
>elohim/judges.
That's what I don't get? That the Jews who wish to stone the
Son of God are, in fact, gods? I see.
Well, I am looking forward to seeing Dr. Peterson's
paper/book/article on Psalm 82. You called it "forthcoming." Just
how "forth" is it to "coming"? :-)
I asked Paul Owen to respond to what I wrote. He said he'd
send you his comments. I find them, well, very interesting. Revealing as well,
in fact.
James>>>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^ James White ** Orthopodeo@aomin.org ^
^ Sola Scriptura: A Fundamental Truth ^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Recte Ambulamus ad Veritatem Evangelli |
Letter Seven
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 16:46:21 -0600
From: "William J. Hamblin" <william_hamblin@byu.edu>
Subject: You still don't get it
To: James White <orthopodeo@aomin.org>
Cc: Paul OWEN <9753633@bute.sms.ed.ac.uk> >HAMBLIN
>I will not be able to read your entire response carefully until
>tonight.
>It's final paper time, so it may be a few days before I respond
>completely. In a first brief overview, your response is most
>disappointing. You don't get it.
JAMES
I'll assume that "you don't get it" is equal to "you don't agree with
me." As to who has presented a solidly biblical exegesis of the passage, well,
again, I'll leave that to others to judge.
BILL
No, James, I mean you don't get it. I don't expect you to agree with me.
Quite
the opposite. But I do hope that you will be able to understand my arguments, and
deal with those arguments. Your response, at this point, has demonstrated that
"you don't get it."
William J. Hamblin
Associate Professor of History
323 KMB
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602-4446
801-378-6469
wh4@email.byu.edu
FAX 801-378-5784 |
Letter Eight
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 16:59:37 -0600
From: "William J. Hamblin" <william_hamblin@byu.edu>
Subject: Who are the sons of god?
To: James White <orthopodeo@aomin.org>
Cc: Paul OWEN <9753633@bute.sms.ed.ac.uk> JAMES
That's what I don't get? That the Jews who wish to stone the Son of God are, in
fact, gods? I see.
BILL
Once again, you are not taking the issues seriously.
Here is the relevant text of John 10
30 I and my Father are one.
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of
those works do ye stone me?
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?
Who is the scripture calling gods? He "unto whom the word
of God came" = the psalmist, or prophets in general.
At any rate it is clearly not the Jews who are going to stone Jesus
that are being discussed, but the person to whom the Psalm was revealed.
So, once
again, the text seems to be saying that humans can be called elohim in some sense.
If not, then Jesus is using semantic equivocation, using the term
elohim/theos in once sense when applying it to himself, but in another sense when trying
to justify his statement to the Jews.
And none of Jesus' discussion or justification has the slightest
thing to do with judges, does it?
William J. Hamblin
Associate Professor of History
323 KMB
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602-4446
801-378-6469
wh4@email.byu.edu
FAX 801-378-5784 |
Letter Nine
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 17:02:37 -0600
From: "William J. Hamblin" <william_hamblin@byu.edu>
Subject: Dan's paper
To: James White <orthopodeo@aomin.org>
Cc: Paul OWEN <9753633@bute.sms.ed.ac.uk> JAMES
Well, I am looking forward to seeing Dr. Peterson's paper/book/article on Psalm 82.
You called it "forthcoming." Just how "forth" is it to
"coming"? :-)
BILL
I'm not sure. I understand that it will be early next year (Jan/Feb 1999).
Dan's paper is finished, but the book it will be in is behind several others on the
production schedule. Perhaps, if you ask real nice, he might give you an advanced
copy. His email is Daniel_Peterson@byu.edu
William J. Hamblin
Associate Professor of History
323 KMB
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602-4446
801-378-6469
wh4@email.byu.edu
FAX 801-378-5784 |
Letter Ten
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 11:04:53 -0600
From: "William J. Hamblin" <william_hamblin@byu.edu>
Subject: bene elyon are elohim
To: James White <orthopodeo@aomin.org>
Cc: Paul OWEN <9753633@bute.sms.ed.ac.uk> Dear James
(and Paul),
JAMES
It still amazes me that someone could believe Yahweh is someone other than the Most High.
Deut. 32:12 makes it plain. [BILL: It does?] But note just a few
examples: [Cites: Genesis 14:22; Psalm 7:17; Psalm 9:1; Psalm 21:7] A
verse-by-verse exegesis of Deuteronomy 32 is *completely* disrupted by the insertion of
some "other" God into the text, as you suggested on the program.
BILL
I should explain my comments on the radio. I was trying to read the Hebrew text,
listen to you, and think of what I was going to say simultaneously. I therefore
mispoke. (Radio shows are not a very helpful venue for discussing technical issues
like this.) I realized shortly thereafter that my statement on this matter had been
confused, but by then the topic had shifted, so I decided to drop it.
At any rate, my position is as follows.
1- I am, of course, aware that Yahweh is called Elyon in some passages in the OT.
That does not necessarily demonstrate that Elyon and Yahweh must be understood as
referring to same figure in Deut. 32:8-9. You, of course, are interpreting from
evangelical presuppositions, and insist that the theology of all verses in the Bible must
be absolutely consistent with all others. But to argue that, since Yahweh and Elyon
are equated with some texts, he therefore must be equated with Elyon in all texts, is, of
course, blatant circular reasoning. I believe there was historical development
("line upon line") in the Biblical text and theology, and that, in fact, the OT
understanding of God is quite different from the NT (as the rabbis would insist).
You cannot find the Nicene Trinity clearly described in the OT any more clearly than
you can find the LDS Godhead--so the argument of your book in that regard cuts both ways.
Be that as it may, I certainly grant that it is possible to interpret this passage
as saying that Elyon divided the nations among the bene elohim, and that Elyon/Yahweh's
portion was Israel, and I believe I said so on the radio. (As Paul noted, this
interpretation, however, conflicts with the biblical notion that Israel was Michael's
portion, not Yahweh's, but that's another matter.)
2- The fact that you are "amaze[d] . . . that someone could believe Yahweh [in Deut
32] is someone other than the Most High" tells us more about you than the argument,
since many very intelligent interpreters of the text see it in precisely those terms.
I can provide a bibliography if you are unaware of such studies. The point is,
then, that the text, like many others, is ambiguous, and can be interpreted in several
ways.
3- If, as you claim, Deut 32 is attempting to say that Elyon took Israel as his portion,
it does so in a very ambiguous and confusing way, which is precisely why latter editors
changed the text from bene elohim to bene Yisrael. If the text so unambiguously says
what you claim, why did later editors feel compelled to expunge the offending line,
thereby removing the possibility of reading the text as Elyon giving Yahweh a portion?
The text was clearly understood by enough early readers as saying something along
those lines that the editors felt compelled to change the text. Furthermore, why would God
inerrantly inspire a text in such a dreadfully ambiguous manner?
4- I should note also that, interestingly enough, to the best of my knowledge the phrase
bene Yahweh never occurs in the OT. (Do you know of any?) If so, it is
interesting to ask why? Why are there bene elim, bene ha-elohim, bene elohim and
bene elyon, but--if all of these are simple equivalents for Yahweh--there are no bene
Yahweh?
But this was not my real argument. The radio discussion was
sidetracked in a number of directions simultaneously (as usual), preventing a coherent
discussion. The issue I originally tried to raise was, who are the bene
elohim/elyon? This needs to be discussed in the context of the NT use of
elyon/hypsistos (LXX Greek for elyon), which we never got to on the radio. In the NT
Christ is called the son of elyon/hypsistos (Lk 1:32, 1:35,
8:28, Mk 5:7), but is never himself called hypsistos (all
other passages: Lk 1:76; Acts 7:28,
16:7, Heb 7:1). Hypsistos is thus, by accident or
intention, a unique title for the Father in the NT. The final interesting passage is
Lk 6:35, which reads that the followers of Christ should
"love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your
reward will be great, and you will be the sons of the Most High (huioi hypsistou)."
Notice, then, that in the NT Christ is the son of hypsistos, and so are the
followers of Christ. This parallels Mt 5:9, where the "peacemakers . . . shall
be called the sons of God." I'm sure you are aware of the many other passages
where the saved become sons of God. We can discuss them if you'd like.
Notice, then, what the combination of these texts, with a literal
reading of Ps 82, implies the following:
Christ is the son of the Most High
his true followers can become the sons of the Most High
Christ is the son of God
his true followers can become the sons of God
Ps 82:6 The sons of the Most High are gods/elohim
When Christ quoted "ye are gods" from Ps. 82:6, he was--in typical rabbinic
fashion--giving a scriptural reference. Today we would say, "Read Ps 82:6," but,
since such a reference system had not been developed at the time of Christ, the ancients
would simply quote the first line of the passage they were referencing. Christ
expected his listeners to know the scripture, and to consider the entire passage, not
simply the one line. Christ was certainly aware that the very next phrase of the
text he was citing to justify his claim to being the Son of God, explicitly equates the
sons of the Most High/bene elyon/huioi hypsistou with the elohim/gods.
Which is, of
course, precisely what he was claiming: that he, as the Son of God, was one with the
Father, i.e. he was elohim/theos. This is precisely what the Jews understood him as
saying. There was no ambiguity or confusion. There was no condemnation of
anyone as unrighteous judges. Everyone understood the argument and its implications.
To me the issue and argument are crystal clear, and all the nonsense about elohim =
judges completely distorts the text of Jn 10, and destroys the thrust of Christ's
argument. If we are to take the scripture seriously, we must conclude that sons of
the Most High/bene elyon/huioi hypsistou are elohim/gods, and that the true followers of
Christ can become sons of the Most High/bene elyon/huioi hypsistou, or in other words,
elohim/gods. And this, of course, is the LDS Christian position.
Now, you may not like this theology, and you don't have to agree
with it. You may perform all the exegetical acrobatics you wish to try to make the
text say something else. But this is the literal sense of the text, and the only
interpretation in which Christ's argument in John 10 makes logical sense. So, though
I readily grant you the right to disagree, I can't see how you can claim the LDS position
on this matter is unbiblical or non-Christian, or that you are letting the text speak for
itself, while I am somehow distorting it.
I won't cite your entire lengthy argument on the judges = elohim,
but will make a few comments. You have a heavy burden of proof to sustain.
1- There is a perfectly good Hebrew word for judge (shaphat). If Ps 82 meant to
condemn wicked judges, why in the world didn't God inerrantly inspire the psalmist to use
the word for judge? Why all this language about elohim, the council of el, and the
bene elyon?
2- Your claim that humans have judging functions as described in Ps 82 is quite correct.
I presume, however, that you are also aware that God is the supreme judge, and
judgement, is, in fact, ultimately a divine rather than human function, and that mortals
will participate in rendering divine judgement at the final judgement (e.g. Mt 19:28, Lk 22:29).
3- I quite concur that mortals are condemned for rendering unjust judgement. This
does not demonstrate that elohim can be used as a term to mean judges.
4- I challenge you show me anywhere else in the OT or NT, where the term elohim
unequivocally means judge? You attempted to do so as follows:
JAMES
Actually, because the Hebrew normally uses the term Elohim of God (do you embrace the
distinction between Yahweh and Elohim introduced by the First Presidency?), [BILL:
Yes I do, but it cannot be clearly found in the OT, although I believe it can be
sustained from the NT, but that is a different matter.] and the context defines the
nature and function of the plural use of elohim in regards to the giving of judgment
amongst the people. This is an established use of the term:
[Cite: Exodus 22:8; Exodus 22:9]
BILL
(You should also have added Exodus 21:6, which in the KJV
and some other translations says the same type of thing.)
I'm sorry, but you will simply have to do better than that. Note, first, that these
passages do not say that elohim are shaphat. Note, second, that there is not a
reason in the world to translate elohim in these three passages as judges. The LXX
has theos/god in all three cases, the Vulgate deus, and the NRSV God. Though the NIV
uses "judges", it offers the alternative "God" in a footnote.
In fact, the reason ha-elohim is occasionally translated as judges in these three passages
is because of the Targum Onkelos, and similar documents. The problem seems to be
that the rabbis didn't like the literal implications of the phrase ha-elohim = the gods,
and so simply changed it in translation to fit their theology, (precisely as you are
doing). At any rate, the text makes perfectly good sense when read literally.
The plaintiffs in a legal case are to appear before God, who will manifest the truth
of the case through an unspecified form of revelation or divination. There is no
cogent reason, indeed, no reason at all, to translate elohim here as judges.
So, to conclude, if you want your claim that the word elohim in Ps
82 refers to human judges, I challenge you to show any passage in the OT where elohim is
used in such a manner. Not in translation, please, but based on an exegesis of the
original Hebrew.
I suspect you have derived your interpretation, either directly or
indirectly, from Calvin's commentary on Ps 82. The history of the judge-elohim
exegesis, however, seems to be older. I have not tracked down the issue fully, but
my suspicion is that the tradition of understanding Ps 82 as referring to judges
originated with the early rabbis, and may have been, in fact, an attempt to undermine the
Christian apologists' claims that the passage demonstrated the scriptural basis for
Christ's claim to divinity by offering this alternative explanation to the plain meaning
of the text. At any rate, it is clear that the earliest Christian writers who
discuss this passage concurs with my interpretation, and mention nothing about
"judges."
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 124
And when I saw that they were perturbed because I said that we are the sons of God, I
anticipated their questioning, and said, "Listen, sirs, how the Holy Ghost speaks of
this people, saying that they are all sons of the Highest; and how this very Christ will
be present in their assembly, rendering judgment to all men. The words are spoken by
David, and are, according to your version of them, thus: ‘God standeth in the
congregation of gods; He judgeth among the gods. How long do ye judge unjustly, and
accept the persons of the wicked? Judge for the orphan and the poor, and do justice
to the humble and needy. Deliver the needy, and save the poor out of the hand of the
wicked. They know not, neither have they understood; they walk on in darkness: all
the foundations of the earth shall be shaken. I said, Ye are gods, and are all
children of the Most High. But ye die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
Arise, O God! judge the earth, for Thou shalt inherit all nations.' But
in the version of the Seventy it is written, ‘Behold, ye die like men, and fall like
one of the princes, in order to manifest the disobedience of men, — I mean of Adam
and Eve, — and the fall of one of the princes, i.e., of him who was called the
serpent, who fell with a great overthrow, because he deceived Eve. But as my
discourse is not intended to touch on this point, but to prove to you that the Holy Ghost
reproaches men because they were made like God, free from suffering and death, provided
that they kept His commandments, and were deemed deserving of the name of His sons, and
yet they, becoming like Adam and Eve, work out death for themselves; let the
interpretation of the Psalm be held just as you wish, yet thereby it is demonstrated that
all men are deemed worthy of becoming "gods," and of having power to become sons
of the Highest; and shall be each by himself judged and condemned like Adam and Eve.
Now I have proved at length that Christ is called God.
Irenaeus 3.6
And again: "God stood in the congregation of the gods, He judges among the
gods." He [here] refers to the Father and the Son, and those who have received
the adoption; but these are the Church. For she is the synagogue of God, which God
— that is, the Son Himself — has gathered by Himself. Of whom He again
speaks: "The God of gods, the Lord hath spoken, and hath called the earth."
Who is meant by God? He of whom He has said, "God shall come openly, our
God, and shall not keep silence; " that is, the Son, who came manifested to men who
said, "I have openly appeared to those who seek Me not." But of what gods
[does he speak]? [Of those] to whom He says, "I have said, Ye are gods, and all
sons of the Most High." To those, no doubt, who have received the grace of the
"adoption, by which we cry, Abba Father."
The rich irony here is that I am in agreement with the early
Christians on this matter, while you are following an interpretation which seems to have
been developed by rabbinic enemies of the Christian apologists, with whom I am agreeing!
JAMES
I *thought* I had requested that a copy of the book be sent to you at BYU. Did you not
receive a copy? I *know* one was sent to Dan Peterson.
BILL
Yes, I got it. Thanks.
JAMES
>I note that you have claimed the Bible never mentions a council of the gods.
In the context presented by Joseph Smith and Mormonism, I would repeat the statement.
BILL
LDS Christians say there is a council of gods/elohim. The OT says there is a council
of gods/elohim. Evangelicals say there is not a council of gods/elohim. Which
position is most consistent with the OT?
JAMES
>What is the council of El? It is a group of gods/elohim. Given the context
(which you skipped), I would say it is the judges of Israel. This can be confirmed
by looking at the use of edah in such passages as Numbers 26:9, 31:16, Joshua 22:17, and
Psalm 1:5.
BILL
Simply because the term edah/council/assembly is used to refer to human councils, does not
mean that the edah of El in the midst of the elohim is a human council/assembly.
JAMES
>Notice, too that these gods/sons of God become like men, and die.
Of course, there is nothing in the text even remotely indicating
"become like men and die." They *are* men, and God is simply reminding
them that though they have been given an exalted place of rulership amongst His people,
they are mere mortals, and will face His judgment. As rulers, they had become
infatuated with their authority (another sad reality we can see all around us), and had
failed to do their duty. God reminds them that despite their exalted position, they
are mortal, and shall die as all men die.
BILL
You are quite correct I overstated the case. Let me phrase my interpretation more
carefully. The elohim in the council of el are condemned by God for their
wickedness. Though they are elohim, and thereby should be immortal, they are
nonetheless condemned to die "like men." You are correct that the text is
not explicitly stating that they "become men." However, it does state that
(normally immortal) elohim will die like (normally mortal) men, which perhaps could be
taken to imply some type of transition or "fall," as is mentioned in the next
line. This, of course, is how Justin understood the text.
JAMES
I can assure you, Dr. Hamblin, this Psalm is anything but gibberish to anyone who does not
embrace a plurality of gods, and who allows the text to speak for itself.
BILL
Your claims that you are "allow[ing] the text to speak for itself" demonstrates
a lack of exegetical sophistication on your part. The text never "speaks for
itself." All texts require interpretation to be understood.
You
interpret, I interpret. We both do so based on a limited knowledge, and a set of
unprovable assumptions and paradigms. But a text can never simply "speak for
itself." Furthermore, your claim is simply absurd. It is quite clear that
I am interpreting the texts based on the literal sense of the words and phrases (although
even this is not letting the text speak for itself"), while you are making
unwarranted transformations.
William J. Hamblin
Associate Professor of History
323 KMB
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602-4446
801-378-6469
wh4@email.byu.edu
FAX 801-378-5784 |
|
