Loomis

Here is Psalm 82 from NetBibleâ„¢

I would like to change a few things.

First; in the traditional translation the speaker (the one who holds judgement) is a singular elohim. I would like to change this so that the speaker (the one who holds judgement) is El, the most high god of the Hebrew/ Canaanite/ Ugarit pantheon.

Second; in the traditional translation the ones being judged (the ones who show favoritism to the wicked) are … well … I guess … some folks think they are angels , while other folks think they are kings , while other folks think they are false/ evil/ pagan gods.

In any case, I would like to change this so that the ones being judged (the ones who show favoritism to the wicked) are plural elohim. Specifically some of El’s 70 sons – like Milcom, Chemosh, Yahweh, Quos, Shactar, Baal, Shalim, etc.

Finally, I’d like to tweak the ending so that the quotation extends from the end of verse 7 to the end of verse 8. This eliminates the mysterious little guy who just pops in from nowhere and says, “Rise up, O God, and execute judgment on the earth!
For you own all the nations."

Here’s my twisted and distorted atheist translation:

I like my translation better because:

1) We can clearly identify who is accused of showing favoritism to the wicked.

2) We don’t have to stretch the rules and pretend the word elohim is somehow singular.

3) We no longer need the little mysterious guy to pop in at the end, because in my version El is still addressing the elohim (plural) and telling them to get out of heaven, go down to earth, and start judging. (This, then, would also agree with Deuteronomy 32:8-9, were it is also said that the sons of El inherit nations)

So my question is this:

What literary rules, or grammatical rules, or other rules, do I have to break or suspend in order for my translation to withstand scrutiny?

Sheshbazzar

You did not supply verse divisions, however it is evident by looking at the Hebrew text that the word "el" only occurs one time within these two verses whereas your "version" (not properly a "translation") would attempt to insert it three times.
Given the great care and reverence that has been expended through the ages to preserve the text, particularly in relation to those terms referring to the Deity, it is highly unlikely that your new 'version' would garner support from any respected scholar.
Now that is not to say that there are not gullible dupes and uneducated persons who would buy it hook line and sinker, or unethical 'scholars' who would gladly employ such a distorted 'version' to further their own agendas.
I'd say it just comes down to what you are trying to accomplish with your life.

Loomis

Hi Sheshbazzar! I was hoping that you would respond. I suspect that Joe Wallack (that funny and charismatic Columbo guy) is sitting on the sidelines too.

Three?

I only count two. The first El is already in there.

Isn't it?

Yea, I inserted two Els for clarity because I wanted to emphasize who is doing the talking. As I understand it that is the difference between a translation and a transliteration.

Here are verses 1 and 2 again from NetBibleâ„¢
As far as I understand it, all those little words like “he� aren’t really in the Hebrew at all. Is that your understanding too?

As far as I understand it, the speaker in these verses “he� is ambiguous because “he� can be El or (if you are willing to suspend certain rules that dictate that elohim is plural) the elohim (God).

Isn’t that correct?

So in consideration of your astute observation, let me refine verses 1 and 2 of my translation:
How's that?

Better?

It doesn’t really effect anything I said earlier does it?
Now that my "version" (not properly a "translation") no longer inserts El two times please let us know what you think.

Also, what do I have to do to make my “version� a proper translation?

I disagree. The reason my new 'version' would not garner support from any alleged ‘respected scholar’ would not be because great care and reverence was expended through the ages to preserve the text; but because great care and reverence was expended through the ages to promote the idea that Yahweh Sabaoth was a real god who flew on the backs of cherubs and blew smoke out his frightening nostrils.

I suspect that if you had anything more substantial to offer, you would have offered it here.

What do you think about my ending?

Do you like the way I moved the closing quote out to the very end so that El is the one who converts his sons to humans to execute judgment on the earth?

Btw, are you a “Christian basher?�

Look at GJohn 10:34-36. It looks to me like the author GJohn 10 and I agree about this “closing quote� issue, because GJohn 10’s Jesus character is claiming to be one of El’s sons who was sent to execute judgment on the earth. He appears to be claiming that he is Yahweh incarnate.

But I suppose you would rather blame this on Philo. :notworthy

Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

- Loomis

ichabod crane

Hi Loomis. I don't have any axe to grind here, and I certainly think we are seeing the Ugaritic divine council here. However, your translations of verse 1 and verse 8 are, unfortunately, plain wrong.

For verse 1: The reason is the verb nitzav, which is a nif'al participle masculine singular. You have assumed that (a) 'elohim is plural and (b) that it is the subject of the participle nitzav. But that is grammatically impossible. A singular participle, if it is functioning as a verb and has a subject, must have a singular subject: that is, as far as I am aware, an inviolable rule of Hebrew grammar. Either (a) or (b) or both are false.

For verse 8: Same problem. This time the verb is qumah, which is qal imperative masculine singular (with a paragogic heh attached). But you've assumed that (a) 'elohim is plural and (b) that it is the subject of the verb. Again, you're in breach of an unbreachable rule of Hebrew grammar.

Let me give an example in English. You could say "they are here", and you could say "he is here", but you could not say "they is here" or "he are here". This is because, unlike most verbs in English, "is" requires a singular subject and "are" requires a plural subject. In Hebrew, however, all verbs are like that. I suspect you've overlooked this because you are a native English speaker, and hence are not used to verbs having number with respect to their subject. All languages are not alike, my friend!

Since 'elohim, like various other nouns that are plural in form (e.g. mayim, shamayim) can clearly either be singular or plural, a point which can be proved from numerous other instances, I don't see what the big deal is anyway. There's no need to set aside grammar to make it always plural. The fact that the divine council is in view can be proved from context, the wider OT, and comparison with Ugaritic texts.

Sheshbazzar

I have no doubt at all as to how confused you are; I'll rephrase my statement;
....it is evident by looking at the Hebrew text that the word "el" only occurs one time within these two verses whereas your "version"(not properly a "translation") would attempt to use it three times.
You are perhaps aware that 'NetBible' renders this verse in a somewhat different manner than the KJV or most other versions?
perhaps you just didn't notice that I did not use a capital E in this "el"?
My translation, version and interpretation of this verse is consistent with that which has been understood to be its meaning and interpretation by believers for thousands of years.
"Elohim presides in the great assembly, among elohim He gives judgment."
I think you are as confused as ever, first, you really ought to take the time to learn to read Hebrew so that you can begin to understand how the words are used and interpreted in context, rather than proclaiming yourself a translator while revealing your ignorance; we discussed your lack of Hebrew proficiency here before haven't we? Do you want your ignorance to again be revealed as clearly as it was in that thread?
If you want to become a real Bible translator, <edit> take the time to really learn what you are talking about.

Loomis

Excellent post! Thanks a lot. This is exactly the type of feedback I was looking for. I’m glad I asked. I hope you don’t mind if I double-check your comments, but for now it looks like you know what you are typing about.

So lets assume you are correct. I still have three issues.

Issue #1:

The ones who “show favoritism to the wicked� are not identified. The author is assuming that we will know who he is talking about.

Right?

So do we take that to mean he is talking about Baal, Quos, Shactar, Shalim, etc? Why else would the author make that assumsion? (Of course since it is fiction, I guess it can mean anything or nothing.)

Issue #2:

Psalm 82:8 says the elohim will inherit the nations. This suggests that a time existed where the elohim was not in possession of the nations. So the whole Psalm seems to be telling the story of how and why that change took place.

Right?

Who was in posssion at the beginning of the Psalm? And who was in possesion at the end?

How does that compare to Deuteronomy 32:7-9?

Isn’t some sort of reconciliation in order?

Any thoughts?

Issue #3:

Where does Yahweh fit in to all of this?

I see three possibilities:

A) The author didn’t know what a Yahweh was.

B) The author thought that Yahweh was the singular, judging, elohim.

C) The author thought that Yahweh was one of the sons of the Most High who were sent to earth.

Any thoughts?

I guess I am just mentally jacking off.

I am testing a hypothesis that says that the author of GJohn 10 saw his Jesus character as Yahweh incarnate, and that Yahweh was a son of El who was turned into a human and sent to earth according to Psalm 82.

Any thoughts?

ichabod crane

I would take the statement in verse 2 as being 'Elohim's (singular) address to the 'Elohim (plural); his judgement of them. When the English reads "how long will you judge unjustly", the word "you" is plural (the verb is Qal imperfect 2nd masculine plural), and the only possible plural this could relate to is the 'Elohim plural at the end of verse 1.

You are probably correct that these 'Elohim are Ba'al, Shactar, etc. But that would have to be based on broader arguments I think; here the divine council is being judged, if we want to know the origins of the divine council, we have to have a broader view.

No, 'Elohim in verse 8 is singular, for the reasons I mentioned in my last post, it is the subject of a singular verb. In fact, this is reinforced by the rest of the verse, because when the English reads "you shall inherit the nations", the word "you" is 'atah, which is masculine singular. Similarly, the verb for inherit is Qal imperfect 2nd masculine singular, meaning one individual will do the inheriting. So there are three clearcut indications that 'Elohim here is singular.

The idea of 'Elohim (singular) inheriting the nations is tied up with Israelite nationalism and their view that they would eventually rule over all the earth. It is an eschatological hope. But here it is undoubtedly connected with the judgement of the rest of the 'elohim in the divine council; 'Elohim (singular) will judge all the other 'elohim (plural), will defeat them so that they will die like mortals, and since the nations of the earth had been portioned out to them (Deut 32:7-9), 'Elohim (singular) now gets to inherit their portion and rule all the nations. There is the idea of a heavenly/earthly correspondence: if only the Israelite god could defeat all the other gods in heaven, then the Israelites on earth would defeat all the other earthly nations. For instance, if 'Elohim defeats Ba'al and kills him, then the nation that was aportioned out to Ba'al will come under the dominion of 'Elohim and his nation, Israel. The outcome of war in heaven determines the outcome of war on earth.

And I agree with you that all of this is extremely interesting.