Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Israelite "Sons Of God"

Bill Hamblin

By Bill Hamblin
in General Discussions

Recommended Posts

maklelan Experienced

maklelan

Posted
Posted

I've written an essay on the idea of "Sons of God" in the Hebrew Bible as deep background to the idea of deification. A pdf file can be accessed here:

http://hamblinofjerusalem.wordpress.com/2011/11/02/sons-of-god-as-the-other-gods/

Some quick comments:

- Regarding note 9, it is interesting to note that the equation of Yahweh and Elyon in Gen 14:22 is a late addition. The Syriac and Septuagint don't have Yahweh's name there, nor does Qumran's Genesis Apocryphon. It was likely added somewhere after the turn of the millennium.

- On note 10, hupsistos is also a common divine appellative in the Greco-Roman world. See Stephen Mitchell's article, "The Cult of Theos Hypsistos between Pagans, Jews, and Christians," in Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity.

- On biblical allusions to Deut 32:8 as the establishment of divine beings as stewards over the nations, see also Dan 10:13, where the divine beings are called "princes," with Michael being the "chief prince."

- On note 19, see also Michael Heiser's VT article "The Mythological Provenance of Isa. XIV 12-15: A Reconsideration of the Ugaritic Material" (described here).

- On note 22, the last publication is entitled "What is a God," not "What is God."

- It might be interesting to chart the development of the idea that the sons of God from Gen 6:2, 4 were not divine beings, but humans. All of Jewish literature understands them to be angels up to a point at which the suggestion arises that they are humans. This happened right around the turn of the millennium, and by the Rabbinic period you have the Rabbis pronouncing curses on anyone who translates "sons of God" literally. The same conflict probably arose around the same time in interpreting Ps 82, which is why John and all subsequent Jewish commentators understood it to refer to humans. I will be discussing this very issue in my SBL paper in the Latter-day Saints and the Bible session.

1
Ron Beron Mentor

Ron Beron

Posted
Posted

Thanks, Dan for the interesting sources. Looking at the prices of these texts makes me desire for an easier access to copyrighted material especially when it is out of date.

Bill Hamblin Mentor

Bill Hamblin

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Some quick comments:

- Regarding note 9, it is interesting to note that the equation of Yahweh and Elyon in Gen 14:22 is a late addition. The Syriac and Septuagint don't have Yahweh's name there, nor does Qumran's Genesis Apocryphon. It was likely added somewhere after the turn of the millennium.

- On note 10, hupsistos is also a common divine appellative in the Greco-Roman world. See Stephen Mitchell's article, "The Cult of Theos Hypsistos between Pagans, Jews, and Christians," in Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity.

- On biblical allusions to Deut 32:8 as the establishment of divine beings as stewards over the nations, see also Dan 10:13, where the divine beings are called "princes," with Michael being the "chief prince."

- On note 19, see also Michael Heiser's VT article "The Mythological Provenance of Isa. XIV 12-15: A Reconsideration of the Ugaritic Material" (described here).

- On note 22, the last publication is entitled "What is a God," not "What is God."

- It might be interesting to chart the development of the idea that the sons of God from Gen 6:2, 4 were not divine beings, but humans. All of Jewish literature understands them to be angels up to a point at which the suggestion arises that they are humans. This happened right around the turn of the millennium, and by the Rabbinic period you have the Rabbis pronouncing curses on anyone who translates "sons of God" literally. The same conflict probably arose around the same time in interpreting Ps 82, which is why John and all subsequent Jewish commentators understood it to refer to humans. I will be discussing this very issue in my SBL paper in the Latter-day Saints and the Bible session.

Great suggestions. Thanks a lot. I'll try to make your session at SBL.

kolipoki09 Community Regular

kolipoki09

Posted
Posted (edited)

Excellent article.

There is some more on the way Ps. 82, the watchers and the magistrates reading come together in this book. It shows how even judges was an ambiguous term.

http://books.google....epage&q&f=false

Agreed.

I might also add my two cents with Blake Ostler's critique of Michael Heiser's critique of Mormonism's use of Psalm 82:

"The Scriptural Argument for Yahweh's Kind Uniqueness" featured in Exploring Mormon Thought Volume 3: Of God and Gods, Greg Kofford Books, 2008, pgs. 280-289.

Edited by kolipoki09
maklelan Experienced

maklelan

Posted
Posted

I will be addressing a recent paper by Heiser on Psalm 82 in John 10 in my upcoming SBL paper. I anticipate Mike will be at my paper. He argues in his paper (which was presented at a regional SBL in Spokane last May) that John is not referring to humans, but specifically and exclusively to divine beings. You can find his paper here.

Bill Hamblin Mentor

Bill Hamblin

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I will be addressing a recent paper by Heiser on Psalm 82 in John 10 in my upcoming SBL paper. I anticipate Mike will be at my paper. He argues in his paper (which was presented at a regional SBL in Spokane last May) that John is not referring to humans, but specifically and exclusively to divine beings. You can find his paper here.

I plan to be there!

WalkerW Community Regular

WalkerW

Posted
Posted

Enjoyed the essay. Goes towards showing why the trishagion is an important part of Jewish deification.

Indeed, the rabbinic tradition sometimes went to the extreme of anthropomorphism: Not only did it make the notion of man's likeness to God as physical and detailed as possible (it included circumcision among the distinguishing marks of the Deity), but it took the likeness as proof of the potential perfection of man and taught that Adam before the fall and the righteous in the world to come realized this perfection and were rightly, therefore, to be worshipped by the angels: We read in Baba Batra 75b, "Rabba said R. Johanan, 'The righteous are destined to be called by the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, for it is said, "Everyone who is called by my name, him have I created, formed and made that he should also share my glory.""...R. Elazar said, 'The trishagion [i.e. Holy, Holy, Holy] will be said before the righteous as it is said before the Holy One, blessed be He.' In a later passage in the Tanhuma and in the condensation of Bereshit Rabbati this potential divinity and predicted worship are presented as the direct consequences of man's being in the image of God. So it is in the Latin life of Adam (13ff.), where, after Adam's creation, the angels are ordered to "worship the image of God." (Morton Smith, "The Image of God: Notes on the Hellenization of Judaism, with Especial Reference to Goodenough's Work on Jewish Symbols," in Studies in the Cult of Yahweh, Vol. 1: Studies in Historical Method, Ancient Israel, Ancient Judaism, ed. Shaye J.D. Cohen. Brill, 1996: pgs. 120-121)

1
volgadon Grand Master

volgadon

Posted
Posted

I always enjoy this quote. Being in the image of God definitely ties in to possessing his qualities, including holiness.

DispensatorMysteriorum Collaborator

DispensatorMysteriorum

Posted
Posted

What do you make of W. W. Phelps's statement that Joseph Smith was one of the "royal seventy" in the pre-existence insofar as it may relate to the 70 sons of elohim?

Surely, as one of the holy ones commissioned by his father among the royal seventy, when the high council of heaven set them apart to come down and “multiply and replenish this earth,” he was the “last,” and who knows but the “greatest,” for he declared —we knew not who he was! (See BYU Studies, 1983, Richard Van Wagoner and Steven C. Walker).
  • 1 year later...
Stone holm Grand Master

Stone holm

Posted
Posted

For the neophyte here, how did we migrate to the conclusion that the sons of God were Sethites?

Neophyte Rookie

Neophyte

Posted
Posted

For the neophyte here, how did we migrate to the conclusion that the sons of God were Sethites?

Don't bring me into this...lol

1
  • 2 months later...
Stone holm Grand Master

Stone holm

Posted
Posted

I've written an essay on the idea of "Sons of God" in the Hebrew Bible as deep background to the idea of deification. A pdf file can be accessed here:

http://hamblinofjerusalem.wordpress.com/2011/11/02/sons-of-god-as-the-other-gods/

So where did the idea that the Sons of God were Sethites come from

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...