David Bokovoy Posted March 2, 2009 Posted March 2, 2009 Looking for a little Evangelical help. For several years I have been engaged in an effort at tracing the the origins of the interpretive tradition that suggests that the Hebrew word 'elohim or "gods" can refer to judges within the Bible. I feel that I have a strong historical understanding of the issue, but would now like to expand my awareness of its impact.Since this is an interpretive tradition frequently adopted by Evangelical readers of the Bible, I was hoping participants in the board could suggest some online resources where I might find arguments in support of the position. peace and joy,--DB
William the Conqueror Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 Looking for a little Evangelical help. For several years I have been engaged in an effort at tracing the the origins of the interpretive tradition that suggests that the Hebrew word 'elohim or "gods" can refer to judges within the Bible. I feel that I have a strong historical understanding of the issue, but would now like to expand my awareness of its impact.Since this is an interpretive tradition frequently adopted by Evangelical readers of the Bible, I was hoping participants in the board could suggest some online resources where I might find arguments in support of the position. peace and joy,--DBI can only give you what I remember on the Psalms 82 debate between James White and William Hamblin in 1998. I read it on Shields over four years ago. I remember White answering Hamblin on that subject by saying that before 1971 evangelical scholars had pretty much been uniform in attributing the elohim to human judges. Only in the last several decades have EV scholars (some that is) equated them to Divine Beings. If you read the commentaries of Calvin, Matthew Henry, Luther, and probably Wesley I would imagine ( I could be wrong) that they all concur with human judges. You might review the 1998 debate (emails) to brush up on this.
Chris Smith Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 Hi David,I checked out my Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture volume and did not find that particular interpretation. I'm guessing it has medieval or Reformation origins. Crosswalk.com's Bible Study Tools include a lot of old, nineteenth-century commentaries that might shed some light. E-Sword has quite a few of them, too. Both of these link you to the relevant portions of commentaries directly from the verse you're interested in, so they're easy to use.Best,-Chris
David Bokovoy Posted March 3, 2009 Author Posted March 3, 2009 Hi David,I checked out my Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture volume and did not find that particular interpretation. I'm guessing it has medieval or Reformation origins. Crosswalk.com's Bible Study Tools include a lot of old, nineteenth-century commentaries that might shed some light. E-Sword has quite a few of them, too. Both of these link you to the relevant portions of commentaries directly from the verse you're interested in, so they're easy to use.Best,-ChrisSincere thanks, Chris and William! Had not considered these ideas. best,--DB
Bill Hamblin Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 My understanding is that it starts with Targum Onkelos.Rashi's commentary also interprets elohim as judges in some key passages, so it is fundamentally a Jewish idea to begin with.Here's the result of a quick survey of commentaries:Calvin (16th century) = judges ****son (1655) = judges Matthew Henry (18th century) = judges Keil & Delitzsch (1880s?) = judges Nealle and Littledale (1887) = gives both Briggs (1907) = judges Spurgeon (1918) = judges Soncino (1945) = judges (Rashi) or celestial beings (Ibn Ezra) Interpreters (1955) = leans to celestial beings, but is uncertain Beacon (1967) = judges Eerdmans (1970) = judges Broadman (1971) = celestial beings New Century (1972) = celestial beings Anchor (1970s?) = celestial beings Cambridge (1977) = celestial beings Kraus (1978) = celestial beings New Jerome (1990) = celestial beings Word (1990) = celestial beingsExpositors (Zondervan, 1991) = celestial beings Interpretation (1994) = celestial beings New Interpreters (1996) = celestial beings Goulden, Psalms of Asaph, (1996) = celestial beingsNo commentary I found published after 1970 interprets elohim as judges. (But then, I certainly didn't look at them all.
3DOP Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 Hi David Bokovoy,I am Catholic, not Evagelical.But I hold that elohim refers to earthly judges some of the times. They are responsible for upholding God's law and as such it is correct that the word be translated "gods", rather than judges, that the people may know (especially in Israel) that their rulers are placed there with God's authority and as His direct representatives to the people, they are truly partners with God in this task, and sons of the Most High. But woe be unto the gods/judges, and sons of the Most High, if they should betray their sacred trust as is explained in the 81st Psalm (Psalm 82 for Mormons). For there it is explained what happens if they accept bribes, or fail to protect widows, orphans, and the poor. If this task as outlined in the Psalm seems compatible with a non-earthly assembly of counsellors according to LDS understanding, it also seems compatible with the concept of earthly magistrates, although as I said I prefer by far that elohim be translated gods in order that the relationship between God and His earthly judges be more clearly understood. One of the earliest references in Scripture which seems to me even clearer that the elohim are possibly human magistrates on earth, and gods, is found in this text which has to do with the bonded servant who desires to renounce his liberty and remain under the authority of a good master: His master shall bring him to the gods, and he shall be set to the door and the posts, and he shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall be his servant for ever.---Exodus 21:6, Douay-Rheims Catholic translation (translation theirs, emphasis mine)In at least these two places, Ps. 81, and Ex. 21, it seems plausible to me that "the gods" could be earthly authorities, who are so-called because they have in partnership with God the Most High, responsibility to enact just laws, and take council together to help see that God's good will and moral order should be done on earth as it is in heaven. Respectfully,3DOP
David Bokovoy Posted March 3, 2009 Author Posted March 3, 2009 My understanding is that it starts with Targum Onkelos.Rashi's commentary also interprets elohim as judges in some key passages, so it is fundamentally a Jewish idea to begin with.Here's the result of a quick survey of commentaries:Calvin (16th century) = judges ****son (1655) = judges Matthew Henry (18th century) = judges Keil & Delitzsch (1880s?) = judges Nealle and Littledale (1887) = gives both Briggs (1907) = judges Spurgeon (1918) = judges Soncino (1945) = judges (Rashi) or celestial beings (Ibn Ezra) Interpreters (1955) = leans to celestial beings, but is uncertain Beacon (1967) = judges Eerdmans (1970) = judges Broadman (1971) = celestial beings New Century (1972) = celestial beings Anchor (1970s?) = celestial beings Cambridge (1977) = celestial beings Kraus (1978) = celestial beings New Jerome (1990) = celestial beings Word (1990) = celestial beingsExpositors (Zondervan, 1991) = celestial beings Interpretation (1994) = celestial beings New Interpreters (1996) = celestial beings Goulden, Psalms of Asaph, (1996) = celestial beingsNo commentary I found published after 1970 interprets elohim as judges. (But then, I certainly didn't look at them all.Wow! Thanks so much Bill. That really is fascinating. I have a hard time imagining any commentary after 1970 making the argument. Don't know if you're aware of it, but a couple of years ago, an MA student named Timothy Edwards studying at the Hebrew University wrote a thesis exploring the early Rabbinic/Jewish commentary on Psalm 82. You'll have to check it out when you're in Jerusalem.Hi David Bokovoy,I am Catholic, not Evagelical.But I hold that elohim refers to earthly judges some of the times. They are responsible for upholding God's law and as such it is correct that the word be translated "gods", rather than judges, that the people may know (especially in Israel) that their rulers are placed there with God's authority and as His direct representatives to the people, they are truly partners with God in this task, and sons of the Most High. But woe be unto the gods/judges, and sons of the Most High, if they should betray their sacred trust as is explained in the 81st Psalm (Psalm 82 for Mormons). For there it is explained what happens if they accept bribes, or fail to protect widows, orphans, and the poor. If this task as outlined in the Psalm seems compatible with a non-earthly assembly of counsellors according to LDS understanding, it also seems compatible with the concept of earthly magistrates, although as I said I prefer by far that elohim be translated gods in order that the relationship between God and His earthly judges be more clearly understood. One of the earliest references in Scripture which seems to me even clearer that the elohim are possibly human magistrates on earth, and gods, is found in this text which has to do with the bonded servant who desires to renounce his liberty and remain under the authority of a good master: ---Exodus 21:6, Douay-Rheims Catholic translation (translation theirs, emphasis mine)In at least these two places, Ps. 81, and Ex. 21, it seems plausible to me that "the gods" could be earthly authorities, who are so-called because they have in partnership with God the Most High, responsibility to enact just laws, and take council together to help see that God's good will and moral order should be done on earth as it is in heaven. Respectfully,3DOPThanks for the Catholic reference, 3DOP. I appreciate your view.--DB
BCSpace Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 Strong's Concordance with Hebrew and Greek Lexicon will show the two possibilities; human judges or divine gods.Regarding Ps 82:6 however, the context is obviously divine gods as John 10:32-36 doesn't make any sense otherwise.
Chris Smith Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 To expand on what I said earlier, most of the church fathers cited in the Ancient Christian Commentary volume seemed to interpret the gods of Psalm 82 as humans who by grace are given the title of gods. They are not referred to as "judges," however. My understanding of the evangelical interpretation is that the "judges" of the Psalm are assumed to be wicked, no? And called "gods" in a perhaps tongue-in-cheek way? The Fathers cited in ACC seem to assume that these are genuine children of God who are legitimately deified, at least to some degree.Best,-Chris
urroner Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 To expand on what I said earlier, most of the church fathers cited in the Ancient Christian Commentary volume seemed to interpret the gods of Psalm 82 as humans who by grace are given the title of gods. They are not referred to as "judges," however. My understanding of the evangelical interpretation is that the "judges" of the Psalm are assumed to be wicked, no? And called "gods" in a perhaps tongue-in-cheek way? The Fathers cited in ACC seem to assume that these are genuine children of God who are legitimately deified, at least to some degree.Best,-ChrisChris, these "legitimately deified" children, are they mortal or immortal, because if they were mortal, then it still wouldn't make any sense.
Chris Smith Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 Chris, these "legitimately deified" children, are they mortal or immortal, because if they were mortal, then it still wouldn't make any sense.Did you mean to say that if they were "immortal" it wouldn't make any sense? (Since Ps. 82 says they will "die like men", I mean?)My impression is that most of the Fathers cited were referring to living human beings who are called "gods" and will be united with God in the afterlife.
urroner Posted March 4, 2009 Posted March 4, 2009 Did you mean to say that if they were "immortal" it wouldn't make any sense? (Since Ps. 82 says they will "die like men", I mean?)My impression is that most of the Fathers cited were referring to living human beings who are called "gods" and will be united with God in the afterlife.My bad.What did the writer of the Psalm mean when he wrote "gods?" I'm not trying to argue with you.
Chris Smith Posted March 4, 2009 Posted March 4, 2009 My bad.What did the writer of the Psalm mean when he wrote "gods?" I'm not trying to argue with you.I suspect it's a proclamation of judgment against the gods of Canaan, the 70 sons of El. But I'm not an expert and I haven't read David's or Heiser's essays on this, so I'm not a good person to ask.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.