New Masters Thesis on the Divine Council

[maklelan]

I just ran across a new masters thesis entitled "GOD AMONG THE GODS: AN ANALYSIS OF THE FUNCTION OF YAHWEH IN THE DIVINE COUNCIL OF DEUTERONOMY 32 AND PSALM 82. It's from the Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary. I haven't read it yet, but it concludes that reading Yhwh and El as separate deities in Deuteronomy 32:8 and Psalm 82 neglects the rest of the Bible's theology, and thus should be rejected.

[Zakuska]

I just ran across a new masters thesis entitled "GOD AMONG THE GODS: AN ANALYSIS OF THE FUNCTION OF YAHWEH IN THE DIVINE COUNCIL OF DEUTERONOMY 32 AND PSALM 82. It's from the Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary. I haven't read it yet, but it concludes that reading Yhwh and El as separate deities in Deuteronomy 32:8 and Psalm 82 neglects the rest of the Bible's theology, and thus should be rejected.

I noticed one problem right off the bat.

The divine council was just one image common in the ancient Near East and used by the Hebrew writers to express their understanding of the cosmos. They used common terms from their environment to express their understanding of the divine realm and it seems likely they borrowed terms and imagery from their neighbors as illustrated by the use of elohim.196

So in other words, hebrew authors where inspired by their pagan neighbors instead of the holy spirit.

[Ron Beron]

I just ran across a new masters thesis entitled "GOD AMONG THE GODS: AN ANALYSIS OF THE FUNCTION OF YAHWEH IN THE DIVINE COUNCIL OF DEUTERONOMY 32 AND PSALM 82. It's from the Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary. I haven't read it yet, but it concludes that reading Yhwh and El as separate deities in Deuteronomy 32:8 and Psalm 82 neglects the rest of the Bible's theology, and thus should be rejected.

Why am I not surprised that this came from Liberty Baptist? Nonetheless, an interesting criticism of the topic and a good bibliography.

[Zakuska]

The Purpose

The conclusions of the scholars who examine the biblical texts referring to the divine council is that it is obvious Israel?s religious expressions found in the Hebrew Scriptures is not the intolerant monotheism found later in the religion. Instead, scholars use the divine council parallels in the Ugaritic texts and Hebrew texts to prove that the biblical religion was no different from the Canaanite religion. The question is whether or not there is a valid argument for these claims. Does the Hebrew Scriptures allow for Ugaritic parallelism? Is Yahweh the only supreme deity in the Hebrew Scriptures or is there another? To answer these questions, this thesis will examine how scholars on both sides of the argument understand the function of Yahweh in two primary texts proposed to have divine council imagery: Deuteronomy 32:8-9 and Psalm 82.

So in other words... this thesis is a glorified book report, on a couple of narrowly chosen verses.

Of course the Hebrew Bible speaks of another diety called YHWH Gen 19:24

[mfbukowski]

I just ran across a new masters thesis entitled "GOD AMONG THE GODS: AN ANALYSIS OF THE FUNCTION OF YAHWEH IN THE DIVINE COUNCIL OF DEUTERONOMY 32 AND PSALM 82. It's from the Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary. I haven't read it yet, but it concludes that reading Yhwh and El as separate deities in Deuteronomy 32:8 and Psalm 82 neglects the rest of the Bible's theology, and thus should be rejected.

Good thing Copernicus didn't take that approach.

"The notion that the earth goes around the sun neglects the rest of the Bible's theology, and thus should be rejected."

What's the point of the study in the first place?

Slightly question-begging. But I have not yet read it either.

[USU78]

Wait a minute . . . I thought the Bible was a singular text, breathed by G-d, perfect, and G-d's Word made flesh . . . sort of . . .

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Ah Liberty, brings back the momories. Would you expect them to acknowledge that there was indeed a divine counsel of Gods? Not because it runs counter to their theology. Funny that, they almost admit it in their conclusion.

"Deuteronomy 32:8 and Psalm 82 neglects the rest of the Bible's theology, and thus should be rejected."

I know that Liberty is a " the bible is inerrant" believing school as Jerry Falwell taught his congregation this.

Is this proof that the inerrant bible doctrine is false?

[maklelan]

Ah Liberty, brings back the momories. Would you expect them to acknowledge that there was indeed a divine counsel of Gods? Not because it runs counter to their theology. Funny that, they almost admit it in their conclusion.

"Deuteronomy 32:8 and Psalm 82 neglects the rest of the Bible's theology, and thus should be rejected."

I know that Liberty is a " the bible is inerrant" believing school as Jerry Falwell taught his congregation this.

Is this proof that the inerrant bible doctrine is false?

Here are a couple paragraphs from the thesis:

Psalm 82 is intricately connected to the divine council debate and Deuteronomy 32. The attempt to separate El and Yahweh and present Yahweh as a subordinate member of the elohim is incoherent with greater biblical theology. The Hebrew Scriptures clearly present Yahweh as the sovereign over the cosmos and by association, the sovereign of the nations. The consensus view which attempts to use Psalm 82 as proof text for Israel?s ancient polytheism is not contextually founded. The psalm only names one deity and the other deities are never given names or fully defined.

Although this psalm is cited as proof of Israel?s struggle between polytheism and monotheism, the psalm seems to present a stronger argument for monotheism. The psalmist, understanding ancient Near Eastern cosmology, develops the psalm to condemn the pagan deities in light of the injustice experienced in the cultures around him. The psalm could be seen as a poetic expression of a theological truth. Yahweh is not only the patron deity of Israel (Deut. 32:9) he is also the only deity for the nations (Ps. 24; 82:.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Here are a couple paragraphs from the thesis:

Why do I constantly hear that we need to have names for these other gods, for them to be real?

The psalm only names one deity and the other deities are never given names or fully defined.

[maklelan]

Why do I constantly hear that we need to have names for these other gods, for them to be real?

The author neglected the injunction in Exod 23:13 in the process:

And you shall keep all things which I tell you, and you shall not make mention of the names of other gods, nor shall they be heard in your mouth.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The author neglected the injunction in Exod 23:13 in the process:

Ha, that is a good one.

[mfbukowski]

The author neglected the injunction in Exod 23:13 in the process:

Wow. That is significant!

(Bump)

[urroner]

Why are the posts all bolded?

[LeSellers]

Why are the posts all bolded?

I don't know, but it could be that Zakusta forgot to put in a bold terminate tag in his quotation in message #4.

Lehi

[maklelan]

Why are the posts all bolded?

I have no idea, but it's pretty annoying. By the way, I'm preparing a more detailed response to the thesis on my blog. As soon as I finish reading the thesis I should have it all up.

[urroner]

I have no idea, but it's pretty annoying. By the way, I'm preparing a more detailed response to the thesis on my blog. As soon as I finish reading the thesis I should have it all up.

I wonder if the author of the thesis can read any of the ancient languages or if he is depending completely upon others' interpretations of ancient texts.

[Zakuska]

I wonder if the author of the thesis can read any of the ancient languages or if he is depending completely upon others' interpretations of ancient texts.

Sounds to me like he's doing some damage control using selected experts that support his theology.

[urroner]

Sounds to me like he's doing some damage control using selected experts that support his theology.

Did he include any experts who didn't support his theology and if he did, did he treat their ideas seriously or did he, more or less, just summarily dismiss them?

[maklelan]

Did he include any experts who didn't support his theology and if he did, did he treat their ideas seriously or did he, more or less, just summarily dismiss them?

From what I've read so far he presents opposing ideas and gives them a rather thin treatment before dismissing them in favor of other scholars who have argued against them. I'll go into much more detail in my blog post, though.

[urroner]

From what I've read so far he presents opposing ideas and gives them a rather thin treatment before dismissing them in favor of other scholars who have argued against them. I'll go into much more detail in my blog post, though.

I await with worms in my mouth ("baited" breath).

[maklelan]

See my review of this thesis here.

[Ron Beron]

Did he include any experts who didn't support his theology and if he did, did he treat their ideas seriously or did he, more or less, just summarily dismiss them?

Either he was padding his bibliography or ignoring the content altogether he included some fairly persuasive authors who would negate his conclusions such as Smith, etc.