SEARCH

At 04:17 PM 6/1/98 -0600, you wrote:

>>2) Complete correspondence?  What else do you want, all the 
>>little notes back and forth about where I'm traveling or the like?
>
>BILL
>No, I'm not talking about the chit-chat.  I'm talking about several
>substantive letters which I sent you which you have still refused to
>post.  You may recall, several letters ago, that I agreed to allow you to
>post my letters on your web page, with the following conditions:

Post what letters you think were a part of this discussion that have not been posted on our web page.

James>>>

Dear James,

>Post what letters you think were a part of this discussion that have not
>been posted on our web page.

Thanks for your kind offer to post the unposted letters I sent you.  The first attached as an html file.  It is letters 37 to 40 on the SHIELDS register.

I sent the following to James, with three letters attached which he has thus far failed to post.

James,

I am attaching html files for three more letters I sent you which you have not posted.  Please let me know if they are unreadable at your end, and I will send the file in whatever format you find most useful.

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

Dear James,

Issue 11:  Back to John 10 after all?
JAMES
These elohim are commanded to vindicate the weak and fatherless.  That is the role of the Israelite judge, the one "unto whom the word of God came"  (John 10:35)
These elohim are commanded to do justice to the afflicted and destitute.  That is the role of the Israelite judge, the one "unto whom the word of God came"  (John 10:35)
These elohim are commanded to rescue the week and needy.  That is the role of the Israelite judge, the one "unto whom the word of God came"  (John 10:35).
These elohim are commanded to deliver the weak and needy out of the hand of the wicked.  That is the role of the Israelite judge, the one "unto whom the word of God came"  (John 10:35).

BILL
I note, despite your earlier refusal, that you return to John 10.  Why is that if it is so irrelevant to the issue of Ps 82, as you have formerly claimed?  
You have not:
1-  demonstrated that those "unto whom the word of God came" are Israelite judges.  I have given an extensive exegesis of Jn 10, which you have ignored and refuse to deal with.  If you are going to now assert this claim, you should deal with the issue of the entire exegesis of Jn 10.
2-  Nowhere in Jn 10 is there mention of a "commanded to vindicate the weak and fatherless" or a command "to do justice to the afflicted and destitute" or "rescue the week and needy" or "deliver the weak and needy out of the hand of the wicked."  Rather, the discussion is about why Christ is not blaspheming when he calls himself God.  Perhaps you should reread my unanswered exegesis of Jn 10.  I'll send it to you again if you misplaced.  If you are going to start arguing from Jn 10 I believe you have the responsibility to deal with my detailed exegesis.

Issue 12:  Are humans the only judges?
JAMES
1.  The *exact* same terms are used of the elohim in Psalm 82 as of human judges.
2.  The term elohim is without question used of judges in Exodus 22.
3.  These elohim are subject to the judgment of God, and are said to be subject to death.  Therefore, given the context in which the elohim are charged with doing what the judges do and the realm in which they are charged with doing it (i.e., the earthly realm), there is nothing obscure about what leads me, and many others, to seeing these elohim as the judges of Israel.

BILL
I have already agreed with you that human judges are commanded to judge justly and condemned for judging unjustly.  This is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that only humans are judges, and that only they capable of judging unjustly.  The only way your argument makes logical sense is if you can demonstrate that only humans act as judges.  The fact that they sometimes act as judges is insufficient.  Your fallacy remains.  And I note, that the term "elohim" is *not* "without question" used for judges in Ex 22.  Most modern commentators and translations translate elohim as god or gods here.  As do the Septuagint and the Vulgate.  Your position may be correct, but it is not "without question."  Why, if Ex 22 is without question referring to judges, does the Hebrew text and ancient Christian translations call them gods?  You also claim that the "elohim are . . . subject to death."  No, they are punished with death for their injustice.  This is quite a different matter.  If they were merely human judges, why would a punishment of death be of any significance.  They are all going to die anyway.  But if they are immortal celestial beings, then the punishment of death is catastrophic, as in Is 14:15,19.

Issue 13:  Early Christian views.
BILL (old) [James has refused to deal with:]
7-  The fact that the earliest Christian exegetes (Justin and Irenaeus) agree with my [Bill's] position on the elohim of Ps 82 and John 10.  (I can list many others as well, if you want.)  Who is the first Christian exegete who agrees with your position?

JAMES
As I recall, I disputed your understanding of both, actually.  In fact, I don't recall any of them indicating they believed in a plurality of gods, nor did their interpretation of the passage indicate that they had, in fact, abandoned the heritage of God's people, that being monotheism.  Hence, your question is based upon merely your own assertion that their words are commensurate with your interpretation.  That has yet to be determined.

BILL
Must be another one of those bounced letters.  Could you please forward your full comments on these matters to me again.  Here are your only comments on this matter which I can recall:
JAMES:  Of course, neither passage from Justin or Irenaeus can logically be used to promote polytheism---though, of course, the context of patristic citations seems to suffer as badly at your hands as the context of Psalm 82.

BILL
1-  I did not say that Justin and Irenaeus "promote polytheism" or "believed in a plurality of gods."  Where did I claim this?  I said that their interpretation of Ps 82 was that the elohim are gods, not judges.  Why are you once again changing the subject and distorting the issue?  There is only one issue here:  did the earliest Christians interpret the elohim of Ps 82 as referring to judges or gods?  Here, to aid your memory, is what the passages say.  I am capitalizing those passage which require your attention and response.

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 [Christians], 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," [note the quotation marks were added by the translator, indicating his uneasiness with Justin's ideas about divinization] 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."

Note both of these interpretations understand the "gods" as literal, and neither understands "gods" as judges.  Where, in these passages, do Justin or Irenaeus refer to the gods of Ps 82 as judges?  (Note also, as a side issue, that both clearly teach the idea of human divinization.)  So the key questions remain unanswered by you:  why do the earliest Christians understand elohim as gods and not judges?  (I can provide you many more examples.)  And who is the first Christian who understands elohim as judges?

Issue 14: Swords in the Book of Mormon
JAMES
I made that comment over and over again while reading your attempt to come up with swords in the BoM, Dr. Hamblin.  But I didn't think that inserting such comments into any interaction would be overly helpful.

BILL
I should note that your article on swords has received a devastating response by Matt Roper "On Cynics and Swords," FARMS Review of Books, 9/1 (1997):146-158; see also Matt Roper, "Eyewitness descriptions of Mesoamerican Swords," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, 5/1 (1996):150-158.  Perhaps you should read it before drawing further attention to your article.

Issue 15: The Argument from authority?
JAMES
The overwhelming consensus of modern scholarship....a term I often encounter in the writings of the Jesus Seminar, and find it no more compelling there than I do here.  Of course, the "overwhelming consensus of modern scholarship" finds the BoM to be a work of 19th century fiction, too, but that hasn't seemed to stop you folks at FARMS from thinking otherwise.

BILL
Quite true.  However:
1-  I am not asserting that the consensus of modern scholarship = truth.  Only that it exists, and therefore your position is not self evident nor the plain meaning of the text.  I am not making the argument from authority.  The consensus of modern scholarship on this issue may be wrong.  However, if you claim it is, you have a responsibility to so demonstrate, not assert that it is self evident.  Merely to assert that you disagree is not an argument.  Maybe Mullen is wrong on the assembly of God issue.  If so, provide an article or book which disputes his findings.  Or do it yourself.
2-  It is also true that the consensus of most modern scholars rejects the Book of Mormon.  However, FARMS has published literally thousands of pages of argument and evidence explaining why that consensus is flawed.  We do not merely assert that we reject that consensus, as you do here.  We provide evidence and argumentation as to why the majority opinion is not conclusive.  If you wish to be taken seriously, you should do likewise.

Issue 16: Back to John 10 again
JAMES
The men who were about to stone Jesus were not gods, either, even though Jesus applied the words of Psalm 82:6 to them.  See the point?

BILL
(I notice you return again to Jn 10, even though you claim it is not helpful in understanding Ps. 82.)
You've got it wrong again.  Jesus is not applying the words of Ps 82:6 to the Jews of his time.  He is saying that in Ps 82, the beings to whom God was speaking were called gods.  If you are going to raise Jn 10 I think you should first read and respond to my detailed exegesis.

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

Dear James,

BILL
I have a few things to say about your concluding comments, which, for some unknown reason, you did not have the courtesy to forward to me.  I'm afraid that you are seriously distorting matters.

JAMES (introduction to correspondence)
In April of 1998, James White appeared on radio station KTKK in Salt Lake City, Utah.  One of the callers to the program was Dr. William Hamblin of Brigham Young University.  Dr. Hamblin did not identify himself when he called in,

BILL
In fact, I did fully identify myself to the radio show's producer, Steve Mayfield.  I understand, however, that it is the radio station's policy to identify the callers only by first name and city.  Thus, when they identified me as "Bill from Orem," it was the radio station's decision, not mine.  I was not trying to hide anything or trick you.  If I was, why would I have emailed you the next day fully identifying myself?

JAMES
but asked James White concerning the variant reading of Deuteronomy 32:8 in the Dead Sea Scrolls.  After James returned home, Dr. Hamblin contacted him by e-mail.  Below we provide the discussion that has ensued.

BILL
As I have repeatedly tried to clarify you, the actual subject I raised as the meaning of the phrase "sons of God" in the Bible.  The issue was not the DSS variant reading of Deut 32:8, but the fact that Deut 32:8 originally read bene elim, but was changed to bene Yisrael in the Masoretic, and aggelon theou in the LXX.  Thus, it was an interesting example of how the translators and transmitters of the OT have changed the theological meaning of the text.  It was just one item we discussed.

JAMES
The same material can be found at http://www.shields-research.org/

BILL
I strongly urge all interested in this correspondence (however few you may be), to consult the SHIELDS archive at this web address, since you have consistently refused to post several of my letters to you.

JAMES
The discussion ended May 29th, 1998, when Dr. Hamblin, in responding to the respectful use of the term "sir," indicated that it was his intention to "get to" James.  Given certain standards of civil behavior that James has always attempted to follow, the discussion was ended.

BILL
Come on, James, lighten up.  This feigned indignation is silly.  What I actually wrote was:

JAMES (old)
No, sir, it is the literal reading of the Psalm to keep it as one literary whole. . . . That, sir, is literal reading.
BILL (old)
I note that I have been "sir-ed."  How gratifying.  That must mean I am getting to you.

It is widely noted in certain circles that when you start getting mad, you have a tendency to pepper your criticisms with the ironic use of the word "sir."  The same is true of your correspondence with Midgley and Peterson.  For example.

But it strikes me, sir, that you are operating on a very strong double-standard.  
Yes, sir, you *do* need to read it again....many times.  
My faith is not defined by YOURs, sir.
I really don't have the inclination to play word games with you, sir.

In all of these examples the "sir" seem to be ironic.  They don't seem respective at all.  Note, also, that you never called me "sir" until you started getting offended.  I see your use of "sir" rather like that found in Romeo and Juliet Act 1, scene 1.

GREGORY
I will frown as I pass by, and let them take it as they list.
SAMPSON
Nay, as they dare.  I will bite my thumb at them; which is a disgrace to them, if they bear it.

Enter ABRAHAM and BALTHASAR

ABRAHAM
Do you bite your thumb at us, sir?

SAMPSON  I do bite my thumb, sir.  
ABRAHAM  Do you bite your thumb at us, sir?
SAMPSON [Aside to GREGORY] Is the law of our side, if I say ay?
GREGORY  No.
SAMPSON  No, sir, I do not bite my thumb at you, sir, but I bite my thumb, sir.
GREGORY  Do you quarrel, sir?
ABRAHAM  Quarrel sir! no, sir.
SAMPSON  If you do, sir, I am for you:  I serve as good a man as you.
ABRAHAM  No better.
SAMPSON  Well, sir.
GREGORY  Say 'better:' here comes one of my master's kinsmen.
SAMPSON  Yes, better, sir.
ABRAHAM  You lie.
SAMPSON  Draw, if you be men.  Gregory, remember thy swashing blow.  They fight

Perhaps I have misjudged you and you were sincerely trying to be respectful.  If so I apologize.

JAMES
Thus ends the conversation, for, obviously, there is no reason to continue it.  The reasons are rather clear:
1)  Dr. Hamblin now admits that it is his goal to "get to" me.  I do not engage in protracted correspondence with those who simply seek to "get to" me.  I engaged in this to edify others and defend God's truth.  Evidently Dr. Hamblin's motivations were different.

BILL
You are once again misrepresenting my position.  Where did I say my "goal" was "simply" to "get to" you?  What I said was:

JAMES (old)
No, sir, it is the literal reading of the Psalm to keep it as one literary whole. . . . That, sir, is literal reading.
BILL (old)
I note that I have been "sir-ed."  How gratifying.  That must mean I am getting to you.

What I meant by "getting to you" was simply that you are increasingly unable to respond rationally to my evidence and analysis, and are thus reacting emotionally.  "Getting to you" is a colloquialism for defeating your arguments.  This is the goal of a debate, isn't it?  Furthermore, my comment was simply a joke.  It was poking fun at your use of the ironic "sir" when you get mad.  We all have such personality quirks.  Lighten up.  Don't take yourself so seriously.  If you need an excuse to end this debate, I suppose moral indignation is as good as any.  However, if you will post all of my letters to you, instead of suppressing some of the evidence, perceptive readers will recognize that you cut off the discussion because you were unable to deal with the evidence and arguments.

JAMES
2)  The scholarly, contextually sound, textually-based exegesis from the commentary of Keil and Delitzsch was dismissed with prejudice simply due to the fact that it is 100 years old.

BILL
This is preposterous.  Here is what I wrote:

BILL (old)
Your presentation of the material from Keil and Delitzsch is interesting, but irrelevant.  I have never disputed that people have attempted to interpret Ps 82 as referring to judges.  Indeed, I sent you a list of many additional examples.  The problem is, that K&D are about a century old, and do not deal with the archaeological and textual evidence discovered in the past century.  What would be useful is to provide a modern source which deals with the Ugaritica, etc., while maintaining the elohim = judges interpretation.

BILL (new)
My concern was that K&D, because it was 100 years old, did not deal with the new textual and archaeological discoveries of the last century, many of which (like the Ugaritica), have direct bearing on the interpretation of Ps 82.  I did not dismiss K&D "simply due to the fact that it is 100 years old."

JAMES
The fact that Dr. Hamblin is entrenched in the use of non-believing, secularly-oriented standards in the examination of the OT text is beyond doubt demonstrated by this cavalier attitude, and since the glaring differences between the two positions have been fully explained in the preceding dialogue, there is no reason to repeat what has already been written.

BILL
What I am "entrenched" in is evidence and analysis.  I don't care if that comes from an atheist, a fundamentalist, or an LDS Christian.  So, yes, unlike you, I will examine the evidence and analysis presented by secular scholars.  Does that mean I accept their presuppositions?  Not at all.  My position is clear:  Reread my letters 5 & 14 on the SHIELDS web page (which you did not post to your site).  Here you are simply grotesquely misrepresenting my position.  Am I an unbeliever?  Is Tate (Word commentator on Psalms)?  Does the fact that unbelievers take the position that Ps 82 refers to gods rather than judges demonstrate that all those who see Ps 82 as referring to gods rather than judges are unbelievers?  What sophistry!  I sent you my position on this matter, to which you have not responded, and which you have refused to post on your web page.  Note, finally, that your position here is the classic ad hominem fallacy (not "insulting" but rejecting an argument because of some supposed moral flaw in the arguer).  You refuse to deal with the evidence and analysis of secular scholars, simply because they are secular scholars.  You have never once engaged any of the evidence and analysis of Mullen or Tate on this matter.

JAMES
3)  The meaning of the term "literal" is too obvious for comment.  Any person slightly familiar with exegetical issues knows that the "literal" meaning of a passage is the meaning of that passage as taken in its own context.  Dr. Hamblin continues to beg the question with his replies.

BILL
James, you are not going to win this one.  Give it up.  The "meaning of that passage as taken in its own context" is the contextual meaning, not the literal meaning.  Literal, according to Webster's, means "based on the actual words in their ordinary meaning; not figurative or symbolical," which is exactly what I have been saying.  If I were to say, "the king is a lion" the literal interpretation is that the king is, in fact, an actual lion.  The figurative or metaphorical interpretation is that the king is called a lion because he is "like" a lion.  He is brave, strong, fierce, etc.  Thus, if a passage says the sons of Elyon are elohim, the literal interpretation is that the sons of Elyon are, in fact, actual gods.  The figurative or metaphorical interpretation is that the sons of Elyon are called gods because they are "like" gods.  They render judgement on the wicked like God does.  Many passages in scripture are, in fact, intended to be figurative or metaphorical.  This may be the case in Ps 82.  Hebrew is a very metaphorical language.  I really can't understand your fixation on claiming that your interpretation must be the literal one.  What difference does it make?  Your metaphorical understanding of Ps. 82 may be correct.  But it simply is not the literal meaning.

JAMES
4)  Dr. Hamblin, at first, avoided clear attempts at generating emotional responses.  He has chosen to drop this approach, and now begins to introduce such emotionally laden terms as "anti-Mormon" and such purely ad-hominem attacks as "anti-Mormons change the subject" etc.  This simply continues the childish comments made earlier---comments that have no place in a scholarly dialogue on important issues regarding the text of Scripture.

BILL
You are the one fixated on two or three phrases in my vast correspondence which you emotionally (and incorrectly) view as ad hominem slights.  ( You may find some of my comments insulting, but they are not ad hominem: although I have argued (not asserted) that you are an anti-Mormon, I have never argued that your position must be rejected because you are an anti-Mormon).  If the "scholarly dialogue . . . regarding the text of Scripture" is as "important" as you claim it is, shouldn't you transcend your personal pique, and focus on the issues?  If I have offended you, I apologize (and remember, Christ said you should forgive me "until seventy times seven" Mt 18:22, Lk 17:4).  Shall we return to the issues?

JAMES
5)  Dr. Hamblin provides evidence of issues not in dispute, such as the long list of verses at the end.  No one disputes that God is the ultimate judge.  But it has become painfully obvious that Dr. Hamblin is incapable of dealing with the fatal flaw of his own exegesis: verses 3 and 4.  This is so plain that we need only point it out.  The elohim of Psalm 82 are judged as false judges for their failure to do what only human judges are commanded to do.  So that this thread does not end up falling under the "Nastigrams 'R Us" (which it will, eventually, do, as the temperature escalates with each round), we here end the dialogue, and leave it to the reader to determine who has dealt with all of Psalm 82 in its own context and who has not.

BILL
I have, in fact, responded to your exegesis of Ps 82 twice.  Once by citing Tate, which you have grotesquely misread, and once with a long posting of my own exegesis, which you completely ignored and have refused to post to your web page.  Since you refused to post my full exegesis of Ps 82, it may appear to your readers that I did not deal with all of Ps. 82 in its context.  Why are you unwilling to post my full discussion?  Did my message bounce?  I'm happy to send it again.

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

Dear james

BILL
I am astonished at your inability to understand the basic thrust of Tate's commentary, all the while proclaiming that "It is self evident that I [James] am correct."  Let me review the entire correspondence on this issue:

JAMES (old)
He [Tate] has to do what any commentator has to do: he cannot make any meaningful connection between "gods" and the obviously human act of doing justice, so, he focuses upon human judges (336, 340-341).

BILL (old)
He does not!  He mentions that humans judge unjustly, but the thrust of his argument is that "vv. 3-4 are composed of a set of commands to the gods" and "the contrast [between proper judgement] and the performance of the gods is evident; they have failed to do their duty" (p. 336).  On pages 340-41, he references your position, concluding "The interpretation [that Ps 82 refers to human judges] is not well grounded in the exegesis of the texts." (p. 341).  He concludes that "it [is] impossible to assume that the 'gods' (who are called 'sons of Elyon' in v. 6) could be human beings." (341).  Please try to get it right and read the texts clearly.  Although he mentions your position, he does so to refute it, not accept it!

JAMES (old)
Well thank you, again, Dr. Hamblin, for completely misrepresenting me, while quoting me at the same time.  I said that in discussing the condemnation of the elohim, he focuses upon human judges.  It is self evident that I am correct:

JAMES (quoting Tate)
"Their commission has been to provide judgment for those who lack the wealth and power to defend themselves in HUMAN SOCIETY (emphasis mine)....The imperative verb "judge" in 3a doubtless means "judge justly," but it seems to me that it may indicate the need for ELDERS, JUDGES, KINGS, AND OTHER LEADERS (emphasis mine) to actively *intervene* in the interest of powerless people who cannot defend their rights....Yahweh expects JUDGES AND LEADERS (emphasis mine) to protect the marginalized people IN SOCIETY (emphasis mine): the poor, the oppressed, and those without family support." (p. 336)

JAMES
Again, there is no meaningful way to apply these terms to your polytheistic deities, and as I said, Tate has no meaningful way to discuss the charges against them outside of human judges, elders, kings, etc.  In fact, you have not provided any meaningful application, even from LDS theology (which, as you undoubtedly admit, Tate would not find in the passage), as to how non-incarnate beings of any type can be held accountable by God for judging justly in the Israeli society.

BILL
Note that I do not believe in polytheistic deities.  This is your misrepresentation of my position. 
Since you perversely insist on misreading and misrepresenting Tate, I'll cite the entire passage in question for the edification of the readers (few though they may be) who do not have the benefit of having the text before them to see how you have wrenched Tate's ideas out of context.  I will now quote Tate fully, placing your miscontextualized extracts in all capitals.

TATE: "Vv 3-4 are composed of a set of commands to the gods, following the question in v. 2.  They must recall the commission of the gods, since it would make little sense to command them to do what they will no longer have the opportunity to do because of their sentence in v. 7.  THEIR COMMISSION HAS BEEN TO PROVIDE JUDGMENT FOR THOSE WHO LACK THE WEALTH AND POWER TO DEFEND THEMSELVES IN HUMAN SOCIETIES."

[BILL's comment: Note first that the antecedent of "their" is the gods, not human judges.  Tate, you, and I all agree that the unjust judgements are being passed UPON human beings.  However, your position is that the unjust judges are human beings.  Tate's position (with which I agree) is that judges are gods, passing unjust judgement on humans.  How does the fact that the unjust judgement is rendered UPON humans possibly indicate that Tate somehow supports you?  The fact that we all agree that the focus of the unjust judgements is human society is entirely irrelevant to the question of who is doing the judging: humans or gods.]

TATE continued: "The repetition of the words for poor and needy people in vv 3-4 is an effective poetic device: . . . "weak" -- "orphan" -- "humble" (or, "oppressed") -- "needy" -- "weak."  THE IMPERATIVE VERB "JUDGE" IN 3A DOUBTLESS MEANS "JUDGE JUSTLY," BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IT MAY INDICATE THE NEED FOR ELDERS, JUDGES, KINGS, AND OTHER LEADERS TO ACTIVELY INTERVENE IN THE INTEREST OF POWERLESS PEOPLE WHO CANNOT DEFEND THEIR RIGHTS.  V. 2 expresses the positive actions of the gods in giving advantage to the wicked, and v. 3 sets forth their failure to act on behalf of the needy.

[BILL's comment: taken out of context, the passage cited by you might seem to indicate that Tate is talking about human judges, but in context, he clearly identifies the elohim as "the gods."  These gods may work on earth through human agents (just as Yahweh does), but those ultimately responsible for the injustice described in Ps 82 are the gods.]

TATE continued: "YAHWEH EXPECTS JUDGES AND LEADERS TO PROTECT THE MARGINALIZED PEOPLE IN SOCIETY: THE POOR, THE OPPRESSED, AND THOSE WITHOUT FAMILY SUPPORT.  [Tate provides examples of righteous human judges, such as Job (Job 29:12-17) and Amos (Amos 5:10-12), then concludes:]  The contrast with the performance of the gods [in Ps 82] is evident; they have failed to do their duty."

BILL
Note, again, how you have taken this passage out of context.  Tate's point is that, according to the Bible, human judges are expected to act justly, and that the performance of the gods described in Ps 82 is in sad contrast to the performance of just human judges.

BILL
Let me cite several other passages which clearly demonstrate Tate's position:

"v 1 God is judging in the divine assembly
   v 2 Charge against the gods
     vv 3-4 Charge violated by the gods
       v 5 Result of the failure of the gods
     v 6 Proclamation of the gods' former status
   v 7 Sentence of judgement on the gods
v 8 prayer for God to rise and judge the earth" (334)
"Ps 82 opens abruptly . . . in the midst of a council, or assembly, of divine beings" (334)
"The 'gods' (elohim) are the divine beings who function as his [God's] counselors and agents." (335)
"v. 2 is both an indictment and a command that the gods cease judging unjustly" (336; Tate disagrees with a point of grammar here, but accepts the basic premise.)
"The scene is pictured as that of a divine assembly in which the great king [God] pronounces sentence on some of the gods who have failed in their duties." (335)
"vv. 3-4 are composed of a set of commands to the gods" (336)
"the contrast [between proper judgement] and the performance of the gods is evident; they have failed to do their duty" (336). \
"v. 5 describes the condition of the gods; it is part of their indictment" (336)
v. 5 is a "direct address to the condemned gods" (336)
"V. 5 makes it clear that the failure of the gods is not accidental or incidental" (337)
"as inherently faulty as the performance of the gods" (337)
"the psalm assumes that the gods are responsible for their grievous malpractice." (337)
"to take v 6 as the recall on the part of God of a particular moment in time when he had spoken a decree which established the duties of the gods" (337)
"V. 6 must recall God's appointment of the gods to their duties; the pronouncement by which they were 'invested with divine authority to execute judgment in His name" (338)
"The judgment on the gods in v 7 strips them of their divine status and condemns them to the 'human fate of death'" (338)
"The sentence of mortality and deposition from high rank in Ps 82 results form the simple failure of the gods to do their job of maintaining the welfare of the lowly and poor among human beings" (338-9)
"Gods are no longer gods when they must eventually fall and die like human beings" (339)
"The interpretation [that Ps 82 refers to human judges] is not well grounded in the exegesis of the texts." (p. 341).
"it [is] impossible to assume that the 'gods' (who are called 'sons of Elyon' in v. 6) could be human beings." (341)
"The gods as patrons of the various nations were responsible for the type of kings, judges, and officials they appointed and empowered; however, the gods, not even Yahweh, do not act directly.  Their will is administered by human agents, who are extensions of the divine presence in earthly affairs.  Thus the judgment of the gods is at the same time a judgment of their human agents" (341)

BILL
With this interesting statement, Tate undermines your basic position.  Just as I've said all along, all of your arguments about injustice of human judges can be correct, but it does not mean that Ps 82 condemns human judges.

You may wish to disagree with Tate.  
But please don't misrepresent him.  
Please quote him in context.  
And please provide evidence and analysis that he is mistaken, rather than just asserting it.

Tate gives a cogent explanation of how Ps 82 describes gods misjudging mankind, for which they are condemned by God.  Tate provides an explanation of how to contextually interpret Ps 82 as referring to divine judges.  After I presented this explanation you have repeatedly not only claimed that I did not present such an explanation, but that one could not be provided.

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

I am posting this as an appendix to the SHIELDS register.  I forward it to you for your information.

A Debater's guide to the Sophistry of James White:

Throughout my discussion with him, James White (hereafter abbreviated JW) has exhibited a remarkable tendency to engage in sophistic (not to say sophisticated) rhetorical tricks to obfuscate the issues.  I have cataloged a number of these techniques in hope that they might prove of some benefit to those who might debate Mr. White in the future.

•• Refusal to post all the information on his web page
At the beginning of our correspondence, I told JW:
It's fine with me if you post it [our correspondence] on your web page, as long as:
1-  you do not edit or cut my postings (except to eliminate the typical email duplications), and
2-  you include everything I write

Since that time JW has repeatedly refused to post some of my letters to him (see SHIELDS letters 37-40, which are not on James' site [also Letters 5 & 14]).  In the end, JW attacks me for not providing a contextual exegesis of Ps 82:3-4, by claiming "it has become painfully obvious that Dr. Hamblin is incapable of dealing" with those verses.  This can only be seen as mendacious, since I had sent him a lengthy letter explaining my exegesis, which JW refused to put on his web page!

•• Obfuscation by changing the issue
This is a standard White technique.  When I make a point X, James does not deny point X, but shifts the argument by claiming that the passage doesn't demonstrate Y.  Here a some classic examples:

1.  The original topic I raised was the meaning of the phrase "sons of God/the Most High.  We began with a discussion of the phrase Ps 82:6.  JW gave a lengthy exegesis of the passage which maintained that the elohim in Ps 82 had to refer to human judges rather than literal elohim.  I suggested we examine Christ's quotation and understanding of the passage in Jn 10, hoping that would clarify the meaning of elohim in Ps 82.  JW repeated refused to deal with the meaning of Jn 10, insisting that I was changing the subject from Ps 82.  Thus the debate degenerated into a squabble over what the topic of the debate was.  I repeatedly offered to debate whatever JW liked (e.g. "if you want to limit the discussion, at this point, to only Ps. 82, I'm perfectly willing."  Instead JW cut off the discussion.

2.  I noted that James claimed the Bible never mentions a council of the gods.  He replied: "in the context presented by Joseph Smith and Mormonism, I would repeat the statement."  Note what has happened.  James has tacitly admitted that there is a council of the Gods in the OT, and that his original claim was wrong.  He then asserts, with no evidence or analysis, that the divine council in the Bible (which he originally said didn't exist at all) is not the same as the divine council described by Joseph Smith.

3.  I noted that in Mt 5:9 and Lk 6:35 that human believers and followers of Christ are called sons of the Most High and sons of God.  JW replied:  "None of these, however, make men the offspring of an exalted man from another planet, and none of them even begin to suggest that the relationship of Father and Son is limited to a merely moral dimension."  But I never made either claim; indeed, I have no idea what he even means by the second, though it apparently relates to some misunderstanding he has about LDS doctrine.  Thus instead of arguing what "sons of God" means in the Bible, he obfuscates.

4.  I cited passages from Justin and Irenaeus to demonstrate that the earliest Christian exegetes on Ps 82 do not understand the term gods are referring to judges, but to gods.  JW's only response was to assert that "neither passage from Justin or Irenaeus can logically be used to promote polytheism."  But I never claimed they could.  That has nothing to do with the issue of judges vs. elohim in Ps 82.  I simply pointed out that the earliest Christians do *not* see Ps 82 as referring to judges, which is manifestly the case.

5.  I pointed out that "since the early 70s, *all* commentaries I found have interpreted this passage [Ps 82] as referring to celestial beings."  JW tacitly agreed, but rather than deal with the issues raised by these commentaries and interpretations, JW simply discussed the evils of what he perceives as "liberal scholarship."  All of his attacks on what he calls the "enthronement of unbelieving scholarship" may, in fact, be legitimate (though he merely asserted them), but that still leaves a great deal of evidence and argument that merits a response.  Again he shifts attention from the meaning of Ps 82 to the evils of "liberal scholars."

6.  I referred JW to Tate's exegesis of Ps 82 (in the Word Commentary series) as an example how the psalm is understood as referring to gods.  JW's response was that "he [Tate] is not, to my knowledge, asserting that these gods are offspring of an exalted man from another planet."  Again, I never claimed he did.  I simply said that Tate provides a line by line exegesis of the psalm from the perspective of one who sees the elohim as gods, something which JW repeatedly claimed could not be done.

7.  I referring JW to Mullen's Assembly of the Gods, which has important evidence and analysis which support the understanding of Ps 82 as referring to literal gods.  JW's only response was "I don't find such a meaningful addition to the discussion."  Of course, he didn't bother to read the book.

8.  I noted that the "overwhelming consensus of modern scholarship" agrees with my understanding of Ps 82.  JW did not dispute this point at all, but insisted that "overwhelming consensus of modern scholarship" disagreed with the LDS position on the Book of Mormon.  This is true, of course, and LDS scholars are actively addressing the issues raised by modern scholars (see FARMS web page), which is precisely what JW should do with the issue of Ps 82.

•• Whining: Obfuscation by indignation
Another form of obfuscation, at which JW is a master, is distraction by indignation.

1.  When I accused him of changing the topic because he couldn't respond to my arguments, JW insisted that I was being "rude" and "childish," even though in precisely the same passage he accused me of changing the topic claiming I couldn't respond to his argument.  Thus he attempted to change the debate into an argument over who was changing the topic.  Instead he should have simply responded to my arguments.

2.  JW claimed that my criticism of his failure to respond on certain issues, however justified, is an "antagonistic ad-hominem."  When I noted that JW had "conveniently ignored" some of my evidence and arguments, he replied that this was "another unnecessary ad-hominem comment," after which he promptly insisted that I had "chosen to ignore segments of my (JW's) replies to you (WH)."  Note that instead of either demonstrating either that he had in fact adequately responded, or actually responding, JW again obfuscated the issue by indignation.

3.  JW repeated "resents" all sorts of imagined slights.  That may, in fact, be his honest emotional reaction, but it hardly changes the substance of the issues.

4.  Instead of Ps 82, the issue becomes my character:  "your refusal to even acknowledge your own slip in behavior is truly reprehensible."  Even if true, what has this got to do with the meaning of Ps 82 or Jn 10?

5.  More indignation that I didn't identify myself on the radio.
JW: "I'm very sorry you didn't identify yourself when you called in" and that " Dr. Hamblin did not identify himself when he called in."  JW gives this as one of his five reasons for ending our correspondence.  In fact, I did fully identify myself to the radio show's producer, Steve Mayfield.  I understand, however, that it is the radio station's policy to identify the callers only by first name and city.  Thus, when they identified me as "Bill from Orem," it was the radio station's decision, not mine.  I was not trying to hide anything or trick JW.  If I was, why would I have emailed him the next day fully identifying myself?

6.  Indignation that I was teasing him about calling me "sir" and "getting to" him.  
JW wrote: "The discussion ended May 29th, 1998, when Dr. Hamblin, in responding to the respectful use of the term "sir," indicated that it was his intention to "get to" James.  Given certain standards of civil behavior that James has always attempted to follow, the discussion was ended."  This is JW's primary reason for ending the debate.

•• Self Evident
JW has propensity to claim that his position is "self evident" and "irrefutable" and the like, as if this somehow removes from him any burden of providing evidence and analysis.  Here are some examples I have culled from my debate with him:

"The meaning---if the text is allowed to speak for itself---is rather plain."
"allows the text to speak for itself"
"The text *can* speak for itself, and in this case, does so quite admirably."
"they are self-evident"
"I'll let such a comment stand as its own refutation."
"beyond dispute"
"so firmly established as to be beyond discussion"
"Anyone reading the context knows"
"There is no cogent reason to withhold utter amazement at such confident statements in the face of such obvious error."
"the record is plain"
"without question"
"the logic is irrefutable"
"I will allow the facts to refute your ipse dixit."
"Anyone familiar with them knows what I am referring to."
"I reject, completely, the assertion" (with no argument or evidence given)
"I reject your assertion" (with no argument or evidence given)
"it is self evident that I am correct"
"I don't find such a meaningful addition to the discussion. . . . It is meaningless."
"beyond doubt demonstrated"
"too obvious for comment"
"Any person slightly familiar with exegetical issues knows"
"This is so plain that we need only point it out."

This type of rhetoric is a rather transparent attempt to mask the fact that JW has not provided evidence and analysis.  Others who have debated JW have confirmed this same tendency in their experience.  When JW's position becomes untenable and he is unable to support it by argumentation, he begins to speak about his position being "self evident." However:
1-  Self evident means that a fact is obvious to any intelligent observer.  The fact that I disagree with JW (unless he wishes to argue that I am deranged, dishonest, or incredibly stupid) means that JW's position is--by definition--not self evident.
2-  In point of fact, JW's position on Ps 82 is the *minority* position.  Since most modern scholars disagree with JW's position, it is quite manifestly not self evident.
3-  When something is self evident it does not mean that it is impossible to provide evidence or analysis to support it.  Quite the contrary, it should be much easier to argue for a proposition that is self evident.  If JW's position is self evident, then mine must be manifestly false.  Thus, if his position is indeed irrefutable, it means it should be an extremely simple matter for JW to provide evidence and analysis to support this irrefutable position.

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,

You will no doubt be delighted to learn that, unless you have something further to say on the matter, I feel this discussion is finally closed.  I look forward to seeing your web page updated to include the complete correspondence.

Thank you for a delightful debate.

Sincerely,

Bill

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
I have no idea what is causing your confusion, Dr. Hamblin.  I have posted the letters that were exchanged between us on the topic of Psalm 82.  You sent me three letters, two of which were on a different topic (and to which I have not replied), and one that you wrote after I had already posted your final comments.  Hence:

BILL
You are confusing me James.
1- The topic is not Ps 82.  I initiated the conversation, and I know what the topics was: it was "Who are the sons of God?"
2- Your fixation on Ps 82 as the only thing we can discuss is in direct contradiction to your own web page, where you announce:

NEW! BYU Professor William Hamblin engages James White in a discussion of Psalm 82 and John 10.

Now, if the discussion is really on Ps 82 and Jn 10, why did you refuse to respond to my exegesis of John 10 on the grounds that it was "off topic"?

3- One of my three letters you claim are on a "different topic" was in direct response to an issue you raised about infallibility and consistency in scripture.  If those topics were relevant to your defense of your position, why is my response not relevant?
4- Who are you to declare what my final comments are?  I was not finished. You simply declared the discussion closed because you were unable to present a cogent response.  Then you refuse to allow me the right to reply to your nonsense?

JAMES
1) If you demand they be posted, it seems you believe that I have, for some reason, agreed to engage in unlimited e-mail debating with you, on any topic you so choose, for as long as you choose, for as nasty as you wish to get, and, further, I must post anything you send to me on any topic whatsoever on our web page.

BILL
This is preposterous.  I have told you that I have said what I have to say.  I really have no desire to exchange letters with you any further.  I simply want you to present a full and accurate account of the debate to your readers.

The initial agreement I made with you is that you could post my material on your web site only if you would agree to post all of my letters without change.

You did not object to that condition when I made it.

Either honor your commitment, or don't, but quit this ridiculous posturing.

JAMES
The address to the SHIELDS page is on our own.  If someone wants to read all the rabbit trails you might wish to present, no matter how interesting they may be, they can easily do so.  We prefer to keep the conversation limited to what we *said* we were going to discuss at the outset.

BILL
This arguing about the topic is preposterous!  Where did *we* say what we were going to discuss?  You have simply unilaterally declared what you will and will not discuss, and have unilaterally declared the debate finished before I had a full chance to reply.

At any rate, it is completely obvious that you refuse to post my letters because:

1- they make you look bad for attempting to suppress my arguments, and
2- you do not do well in the debate.

>BILL (old)
>I strongly urge all interested in this correspondence (however few you
>may be), to consult the SHIELDS archive at this web address, since
>you have consistently refused to post several of my letters to you.

JAMES
I have consistently refused to do no such thing.  Your demand that anything you write to me, on any topic, even if it is not related to the exegesis of Psalm 82, is unreasonable and ridiculous.

BILL
Obfuscation!  I am not demanding you put anything I write on any topic on your web page.  I am requesting that you honor your commitment to accurately and completely post my side of our debate.

JAMES
You may be on break and have all the time in the world, but *I* am not on break, and *I* do not have all the time in the world to indulge your desire to argue.  I have already put off a number of more important things, wrongly, just because you seem to think that I signed my name in blood to do some kind of electronic slug-fest with you.  I didn't.

BILL
Obfuscation!  The debate is over.  I do not wish to debate you any further.  I simply request that you honor your commitment to accurately and completely post my side of our debate.

At 01:48 PM 6/2/98 -0600, you wrote:

>You will no doubt be delighted to learn that, unless you have >something further to say on the matter, I feel this discussion is finally
>closed.  I look forward to seeing your web page updated to include the
>complete correspondence.

It has, of course, the complete correspondence that was on the topic discussed.  I will, however, make sure to point people to your "appendix" so that they can see the fulfillment of my own assertions regarding your "debating" style, and the real purposes for your initial correspondence.

>Thank you for a delightful debate.

Yes, it will be most useful on many fronts.

James>>>