0
Rob Bowman, on 31 July 2010 - 08:57 AM, said:
How Deuteronomy 4:19 and 17:3, which do not use the expression "sons of God," can preclude anything about the meaning of "sons of God" in another text, is beyond me.
Deut 4:19 is a direct reference to Deut 32:8. Do you disagree?
Rob Bowman, on 31 July 2010 - 08:57 AM, said:
And your argument assumes a false dichotomy: either they must be gods or humans. Those are not necessarily exhaustive categories.
Please support this notion. As far as I'm aware, the Hebrew Bible presents two classes of beings. Humans beings and divine beings. Can you show a reference to some other class?
Rob Bowman, on 31 July 2010 - 08:57 AM, said:
I'm paying close attention now, and I still see that what you appeared, at least, to be saying is that the rhetoric of "no other" was "used...to refer to the nations, which obviously do exist."
No, I was referring primarily to the rhetoric of irrelevance and incomparability, but as I showed, the rhetoric of "no other" is appealed to in Isaiah and Zephaniah.
Rob Bowman, on 31 July 2010 - 08:57 AM, said:
I don't know what that can mean unless it means that Deuteronomy supposedly speaks of "no other nation(s)," presumably in context no other nations besides Israel.
The "no other" rhetoric is used in Isaiah and Zephaniah, and it actually refers to no other nations besides Babylon, Moab, and Nineveh. I said nothing about no other nation besides Israel.
Rob Bowman, on 31 July 2010 - 08:57 AM, said:
Now, if you want to say that this isn't what you meant, fine, but to say I wasn't paying attention is inaccurate. I was following your argument as closely as I could.
Fair enough. I apologize.
Rob Bowman, on 31 July 2010 - 08:57 AM, said:
To be more precise, Deuteronomy 32:21 says that if the Israelites go after that which is not a god, he will punish them with that which is not a people, "a foolish nation." Whatever this means precisely, it is a disparaging reference to enemies that don't deserve the designation "people."
Don't deserve that designation? I don't find that statement anywhere in the text, inferred or otherwise. Rather, it's just saying they're irrelevant. Unfortunately, however, for that rhetoric, Assyria was more powerful than Israel. So was Babylon. So was Persia. So was Rome. So was Greece. If you claim the author is saying those peoples don't deserve the designation "people," you cut the legs out from your own argument, since they are, ontologically, people.
Rob Bowman, on 31 July 2010 - 08:57 AM, said:
I don't see how this helps your position. I agree that there are other supernatural beings that people worshiped as gods, but to apply the analogy here, they didn't deserve that designation.
You see how my view does derive from the text after all?!
You see how my view does derive from the text after all?!
No.
Rob Bowman, on 31 July 2010 - 08:57 AM, said:
I didn't deny that divine council imagery is in the cultural background of the language used in these texts. I said that these texts do not explicitly refer to gods. I don't think the author of Deuteronomy intended for us to understand heaven and earth as the names of deities.
Based on what (besides your presupposition that they don't recognize other deities)? They very clearly recognize the sun, moon, and host of heaven as deities. What does Job 38:7 think of the morning stars? They are shouting for joy at the foundation of the earth and they are put parallel to the sons of God. 1 Kgs 22:19 has all the host of heaven standing around Yhwh seated on his throne.
Rob Bowman, on 31 July 2010 - 08:57 AM, said:
Deuteronomy states that YHWH is God in both heaven and earth and that there is no other (4:39).
Babylon, Moab, and Nineveh say there is no other besides them. We've been through what this rhetoric means already. We've also been through the hermeneutic circle you're stuck in by prioritizing in your hierarchy of interpretation your putative monotheistic statements over other non-monotheistic statements. Why must Deut 4:29 govern the interpretation of Deut 32:8 instead of the other way around? Because you're imposing your theology upon the Hebrew Bible.
Rob Bowman, on 31 July 2010 - 08:57 AM, said:
Both heaven and earth belong to YHWH (10:14). Calling on heaven and earth is perfectly understandable as a figurative way of calling on the inhabitants of both heaven and earth to be witnesses.
Quite a coincidence, then, that this figurative language happens to be the exact way that all the other nations surrounding Israel called upon their gods to judge. In light of the fact that the stars and host of heaven are repeatedly represented as deities serving Yhwh, and in light of the fact that the Hebrew Bible is replete with divine council imagery associated with the literary conventions of those surrounding nations, I cannot see how one can possibly assert that your figurative reading (that has no support anywhere in the Hebrew Bible) is the best reading.
Rob Bowman, on 31 July 2010 - 08:57 AM, said:
The figurative language may derive from divine council imagery, but this doesn't mean Deuteronomy is teaching that heaven and earth are gods.
Every shred of evidence from the text points in that direction. All you can do is hold up a small handful of verses that you think preclude monolatry (even though you argue for it elsewhere) and ignore the fact that they can be rhetorically reconciled with my position with the greatest of ease, and in a manner that is consistent with numerous other Northwest Semitic literary conventions. You also have to ignore the fact that your position has no support in the text, and must draw upon modern dogmas.
Rob Bowman, on 31 July 2010 - 08:57 AM, said:
Nor do I think you would agree with such a conclusion.
Again, I'm not worried about how it squares with my personal convictions. I'm worried about how it squares with what the Israelites believed.
Rob Bowman, on 31 July 2010 - 08:57 AM, said:
The rest of your post goes over old ground, and I'm satisfied that the approach I've described here addresses those points as well.
I'm not.
