LP675

I think your definition is too narrow. For example how can your definition be reconciled with the use of the word in Gen 31:30 (which seems to refer to an image or an idol). But for the purposes of this discussion lets accept it with my modification.

I re-read all of your posts addressed to me on the 82nd Psalm, and I could only find one post that explicitly referred to it and elaborated your objections (tell me if there were more). The relevant section was this:
Actually Psalm 82 has intrigued me for some time but I haven’t made it a priority to examine it in depth (and alas I still haven’t). Who these ‘gods’ are is a very interesting question. It is worth noting Dahood (and apparently a long string of citable fellows ‘since ‘Budde’s study in 1921’) translate v6 “I had thought, “You are gods, all of you sons of the Most High; Yet you shall die as men do, and fall as any prince�, meaning they were in fact not gods (although obviously many don’t like this interpretation because it seems to suggest Yahweh is stating a misconception he wrongly held). Others Interpret v6 “I once said “you are gods��, or “I said�, meaning now He is revoking a former decree (So the v 6 is recalling a former investment of divine authority to rule and execute judgment in his name, which is the position MARVIN E. TATE takes). It seems to me feasible on this reading to interpret those invested with the authority as either humans or supernatural beings (feel free to rebuke me on this point if you can be bothered).

Being Christian it seems I am obliged to interpret the passage in the light of John 10. And although it is possible to interpret those addressed as supernatural beings, it seems more natural to interpret those addressed as human beings (considering the use of ‘mere men’ and ‘to whom the word of God came’). I am sure you could care less about my opinion on the subject (or than of any Christian writer), but at the moment I happen to think those addressed as ‘gods’ are either judges of Israel, or Israel at the time of the handing down of the law (D.A. Carson seems to accept the latter).

But lets ignore my speculation so far on the passage and assume for the moment that the “gods� are supernatural beings (your reading). God is apparently the supreme leader / judge presiding over some sort of divine assembly of supernatural beings. These beings are referred to as gods. A god is simply a “a supernatural being which interacts with this world either favourably or unfavourably� and is worshiped. Lets (for arguments sake) say this passage assumes henotheism, and makes no differentiation between the nature of God and the other gods, and merely says he is the “big daddy�.

THEN all you have is the assertion that gods exist. It is “an unreflecting assumption of the existence of many gods�. The acceptance of a name for Israel’s own God “proves that men felt the need… to distinguish this God of theirs from the other gods whose existence must therefore have been assumed without question.’ (Both paraphrases Walther Eichrodt ‘Theology of the Old Testament’ ,SCM Press, p 221). There is no explicit articulation in the OT of the origins of these gods, and at best all you have are assumptions that the divine nature of God and the gods is the same (although this is just a concession I am making for the sake of the discussion). So what I am saying is all you have is the assumption that the gods and God are gods in the same sense, and according to your definition that is they are “supernatural beings� interacting in the world and requiring worship (i.e. “gods exist�).

Now as I have repeated stressed the NT further qualifies the nature and origins of these gods (they are created beings of the true God). It certainly doesn’t say no gods (“supernatural beings requiring worship�) exist, but it does say that these gods are not gods in the same sense that God is God. Because it qualifies the idea as to what these gods are, the assumption of henotheism is no longer able to be held by Christians, who are monotheistic. That is not to say the OT assertion “gods exist� is false or contradicted, it is merely acknowledging the further qualification that the gods do not share the nature or origin of the true God (despite the fact both God and gods can be said to be supernatural beings).


Now regarding your replies to my statement:
My point here wasn’t to say that they weren’t “gods� on the basis of these verses, but merely to say that later qualification of a term (in this case “gods�) is entirely valid and coherent.

So the existence of gods in the OT is not a problem for Christian theology, because as Paul says, “there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), yet for us there is but one God�

LP

LP675

Yeah I have to admit arguments like these relying on extra biblical material to prove something about biblical material tend not to be particularly compelling for me.

[edited to add- 'like these']

spin

What does the term son of the most high (BNY `LYWN) mean? Who is the most high in Ps 82?? Is it YHWH???


spin

spin

What does the term "like man/Adam" (K-'DM) in Ps 82:7 mean? Does it mean that they are man?? If so, why does the writer only say "like man"???


spin

DrJim

LP675:
The Hebrew Bible is a collection of very ancient and very foreign material. While it is true that too much may be read into it from other cultures, the comparative method is the only really reliable way of understanding this material in its own cultural setting. The Biblical theology, let alone its languages and literary conventions are probably closer to the thought of Israel's ancient neighbours than it is to our own. To read in view of modern theological claims and hermeneutics is to do just what you say is unconvincing: to read the biblical materials in view of what would be to the ancient Israelites, a very foreign culture and religion. However much one might claim to base their "biblical" faith on the text alone, without a grounding in the larger cultural contexts of the material production, the danger of anachronism is very high indeed.

I would agree that one should not reduce the Israelite religious literature to a generic "Canaanite" model, but equally so, one cannot reduce "Canaanite" religion to Babylonion, and so forth. Each is unique and yet all share a wealth of common ideas, images, motifs and so forth. To build an ideological wall around ancient Israel and the biblical material is hardly a foundation for a real analysis. It only serves to supplant real inquiry with anachronistic, uncritical assertions. Reading John 10 or Paul into the interpreation of Psalm 82 hardly says anything at all about the Psalmist's beliefs in a pantheon.

As far as Gen. 31:30, goes, it seems to me that it would be natural for a writer composing a speach by a character who venerates physical icons of a deity to have that character refer to his icons as "gods". If you read the Gen. story in terms of characterization and other literary factors, there is hardly any objection to Spin's definition to be found there. Gen. 31:30 can hardly be read as an essay on the "proper" use of the word "god". It is part of a literary text, and writers adapt words to their own purposes.

Now, why should we think the person who wrote Psalm 82 had Christian interpretations in mind when he wrote about "gods"? Can you prove he could stretch "gods" to mean PEOPLE and not deities without gross anachronism? Read against its wider cultural contexts, Ps 82 seems pretty darn henotheistic to me.

That the NT writers had a problem with that is totally besides the point.

Amlodhi

<chuckle>

Defense attorney:

"Your honor, I move for dismissal. We have the defendant's testimony and he says he didn't do it. I can see no compelling reason why we should bother to examine the relevant evidence."

Surely you didn't mean this.

Amlodhi

LP675

Good
You must of course understand that a Christian believes all scripture to be inspired, so if Jesus offers an interpretation I am obliged to understand it in that light. But you will note that for the sake of the argument I interpreted it as actual supernatural gods, and so in this case I didn’t argue John 10 said anything about the Psalmist’s belief in a pantheon.

My point exactly. The label “gods� is not exclusively used to refer to “Supernatural beings, who interact in the world and require worship�, in this case it seems to be an idol. But this point is not my major contention, and I (largely) accepted Spin’s definition.

I don’t think the writer had ‘Christian’ interpretations in mind when he wrote about ‘gods’, we both know that is nonsense. But as a Christian I believe Jesus understood this passage, and his comments seem to me to indicate they were people (although as I said, possibly it could be construed as actual ‘gods’ and still be compatible with John 10). I don’t think referring to people as ‘gods’ is a stretch at all. If you do what do you think Isaiah 9:6 means? But again, for the arguments sake I conceded it is henotheistic, and this is not my contention.

Note that for arguments sake I conceded all these things (definition of “gods�, henotheism, and supernatural beings in Psalm 82). Why not concisely answer my argument if there is a problem with it?

LP675

Obviously not (i.e. not your strained parody). I don’t think the argument, for example; “look, the OT obviously is polytheistic! Just examine this evidence from contemporary Canaanite religion!� is necessarily very compelling. It is interesting, and obviously my edit to add “like these� means I think extra biblical material is not irrelevant for our understanding of biblical material. Its just when I want to know what the Bible declares to be the case, the Bible is the best place to look, everything else you can accept or reject as being helpful or not in understanding what the OT texts themselves say.

LP675

Yep, the most high is Yahweh
Sons of the most high could mean a number of things. I am a son of the most high according to Luke 6:35. It is interesting to note Davidic kings were sometimes called sons of God (2 Samuel 7:14, Psalm 2:7). Those described in Genesis 6:2 are either supernatural beings or descendants of Seth (I have no doubt as to which way you interpret it). I am happy to accept for the sake of this argument these sons of God are ‘sons of God’ in the same sense used in Job 1:6 for example, referring to the heavenly host of supernatural beings presenting themselves in some sort of divine assembly. Whether supernatural or human beings, the fact they are ‘sons of God’ means God is their Father i.e. source, or creator (or similar). And as a note in passing(i.e. not part of my original argument in any way), it seems to me the OT explicitly teaches the heavenly host were created by him (Psalm 148:2).

“He said...
Walk like a man, talk like a man
Walk like a man, my son
No woman's worth crawlin' on the earth
So walk like a man, my son “
http://www.angelfire.com/ma2/Gem/walklikeaman.html (it’s a rad midi too aye?)

Do men die ‘like men’? Yes.
In Jeremiah 6:23, are the attacking hordes not ‘men’ attacking because they are described as being like men attacking?
If you really wanted to understand the rhetorical significance of the writer using the words ‘like men’, when the people to die are interpreted as actually being men, there are far more able people than I who can explain it who I am sure you have access to. If you want I can find and regurgitate their writings.

But both these points are not a response to the argument of my post! (i.e. I conceded for the sake of argument that the sons of God or ‘gods’ were supernatural beings).

GakuseiDon

Here is a (modern) Jewish perspective: http://www.outreachjudaism.org/claimgod.html
So "die like men" is entirely appropriate if the judges thought that they were somehow above men. They were gods to the poor and the helpless in a similar way to Moses being a god to Pharaoh.

The author of John obviously had the same idea given John 10.

Yep. Either way, your argument still stands.