Journal of Hebrew Scriptures Article on Psalm 82

[maklelan]

I just received an email from the Journal of Hebrew Scriptures about a new article on Psalm 82 by David Frankel. I think many here will find it intriguing. Here's the abstract:

YHWH is usually understood to play two roles in Psalm 82: that of prosecutor of the gods (vv 2

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I just received an email from the Journal of Hebrew Scriptures about a new article on Psalm 82 by David Frankel. I think many here will find it intriguing. Here's the abstract:

Here's access directly to the article.

That is indeed interesting. Thanks.

This looks to have some theological consequences to some of our mainstream christian friends?

I enjoyed just the opening line.

It is a commonplace of biblical scholarship to affirm the mythological

character of Psalm 82. Most scholars by now agree that the

????? that come under divine judgment and are condemned to

death in this Psalm are not human leaders, or judges, but divine

beings, members of a divine council.1 In spite of this general consensus,

the extent to which the mythology reflected in the Psalm

[Zakuska]

That is indeed interesting. Thanks.

This looks to have some theological consequences to some of our mainstream christian friends?

I enjoyed just the opening line.

Come on now Mola... we all know that only Mormon Hacks who work for Farms and have a dog in the fight make such unfounded Bible interpretations!

p.3

Other scholars, in contrast, assign a higher degree of theological

heterodoxy (from the canonical point of view) to the Psalm.

These scholars have argued, in our view most cogently, that

YHWH is not depicted in Psalm 82 as the one who presides over

the divine assembly as head from the start.7 The assembly wherein

p.4

YHWH takes his stand in v 1 is not referred to as

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Come on now Mola... we all know that only Mormon Hacks who work for Farms and have a dog ion the fight make such unfounded Bible interpretations!

Of course. That means that this guy is really a mormon in hiding.

[Hick Preacher]

Come on now Mola... we all know that only Mormon Hacks who work for Farms and have a dog ion the fight make such unfounded Bible interpretations!

I like these expositions, but wonder how the people who take the time to research, argue and write these things are able to make a living doing so.

I do not think it is only mainstream Christians that have looked at Psalm 82 from a now outmoded way. Even James Talmage in writing Jesus the Christ and Articles of Faith commented that these 'gods' were human judges.

These 'gods' so far as I can tell (IMO) are second tier beings, who are above the tier of angels. And two tiers above mortal men. These are creature who were the sons of God. This ties in with Enoch's writings that have survived. These sons of God could be the Watchers of old--

Added--- In my view EL and YHWH in Psalm 82 are of a nature beyond our temporal sphere of existence and comprehension. If one considers EL to be a transcendent being, the both EL and YHWH share the same mind and being, yet also have an existence as being separate in the lower tiers or spheres of existence. This seems to play out in Judges 6 where Gideon encounters YHWH speaking from Heaven, and YHWH at the same time manifest in the flesh as the Angel of the Lord.

I am glad to see maklelan provide this link-

[Zakuska]

I like these expositions, but wonder how the people who take the time to research, argue and write these things are able to make a living doing so.

I do not think it is only mainstream Christians that have looked at Psalm 82 from a now outmoded way. Even James Talmage in writing Jesus the Christ and Articles of Faith commented that these 'gods' were human judges.

These 'gods' so far as I can tell (IMO) are second tier beings, who are above the tier of angels. And two tiers above mortal men. These are creature who were the sons of God. This ties in with Enoch's writings that have survived. These sons of God could be the Watchers of old--

Added--- In my view EL and YHWH in Psalm 82 are of a nature beyond our temporal sphere of existence and comprehension. If one considers EL to be a transcendent being, the both EL and YHWH share the same mind and being, yet also have an existence as being separate in the lower tiers or spheres of existence. This seems to play out in Judges 6 where Gideon encounters YHWH speaking from Heaven, and YHWH at the same time manifest in the flesh as the Angel of the Lord.

I am glad to see maklelan provide this link-

There are a number of places where two YHWHs are present in this form.

Gen. 19: 24

24 Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven;

[Hick Preacher]

There are a number of places where two YHWHs are present in this form.

Gen. 19: 24

24 Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven;

Yes there are two Jehovahs, yet there is One Jehovah. In human terms this is a contradiction BUT more than one sphere of existence is involved, one from the Earthly Sphere and one from the Sphere of Heaven.

In Deut 4:35, Judges 2:1-- there is a similar situation.

So Both the Angel of YHWH and YHWH appear in different forms at the same scene/even/time. YET both are identified as YHWH in other Passages.

These are the Two Jehovahs---one is visible, the other invisible, speaking from or out of another sphere of existence. This is the case when Jesus was baptized too-

Yet Psalm 83:18 declares there is One YHWH. The Scriptures reveal a pluralistic being, who manifests in various ways between the spheres of Heaven and Earth, and from one heavenly tier to another (as in Psalm 82). I am thinking that "EL" is this Almighty being of the highest sphere, but in lower tiers is YHWH, and can transcend several spheres or tiers at once and thus appears as more than one to us in our Earthly temporal sphere.

This could be why Paul wrote--

For their are lords many and many gods, but to us (in this sphere) there is one (visible) YHWH. To us He has directly in the flesh revealed Himself being Jesus Christ.

I know what you are thinking about my musings--

http://i962.photobucket.com/albums/ae101/sredinger_photos/AngryJesusSaywhat.jpg

[maklelan]

I like these expositions, but wonder how the people who take the time to research, argue and write these things are able to make a living doing so.

I do not think it is only mainstream Christians that have looked at Psalm 82 from a now outmoded way. Even James Talmage in writing Jesus the Christ and Articles of Faith commented that these 'gods' were human judges.

These 'gods' so far as I can tell (IMO) are second tier beings, who are above the tier of angels. And two tiers above mortal men. These are creature who were the sons of God. This ties in with Enoch's writings that have survived. These sons of God could be the Watchers of old--

The Watchers were thought to be angels. That's repeatedly stated through Enoch, Jubilees, and numerous other Hellenistic Era texts. They were not second tier deities. I happen to be speaking on just this topic at SBL in a couple weeks, by the way.

[maklelan]

Yes there are two Jehovahs, yet there is One Jehovah. In human terms this is a contradiction BUT more than one sphere of existence is involved, one from the Earthly Sphere and one from the Sphere of Heaven.

In Deut 4:35, Judges 2:1-- there is a similar situation.

So Both the Angel of YHWH and YHWH appear in different forms at the same scene/even/time. YET both are identified as YHWH in other Passages.

These are the Two Jehovahs---one is visible, the other invisible, speaking from or out of another sphere of existence. This is the case when Jesus was baptized too-

This sounds like Heiser's binitarian divine council. I'm not convinced by the textual evidence for this assertion, and I'm certainly not convinced by the kind of continuity you're asserting across the testaments.

[Zakuska]

This sounds like Heiser's binitarian divine council. I'm not convinced by the textual evidence for this assertion, and I'm certainly not convinced by the kind of continuity you're asserting across the testaments.

Especially when what it all boils down to is Jesus the vantrilaquist.

[Hick Preacher]

The Watchers were thought to be angels. That's repeatedly stated through Enoch, Jubilees, and numerous other Hellenistic Era texts. They were not second tier deities. I happen to be speaking on just this topic at SBL in a couple weeks, by the way.

Thanks Maklelan, It has been since 1986 that I read R.H. Charles' Enoch. I have my own confabulations on many of these details. I would like to read what you have researched and written. Jogging my memory (what is left) I think you are correct, and since you have done the recent reading on this topic. Yet Angels and sons of God were amalgamated and the tiers flattened in the Hellenistic Era written descriptions. I had discussed some of this by snail mail in around 1984 with Eugene Seaich who lived in Sandy back then, He provided me with permissions to republish his research up to that point on Mormonism and Ancient Texts.

That was back when I was LDS.

[Hick Preacher]

This sounds like Heiser's binitarian divine council. I'm not convinced by the textual evidence for this assertion, and I'm certainly not convinced by the kind of continuity you're asserting across the testaments.

I suppose Heiser has a different approach and world view with that approach.

Stepping back, the divine council of Heiser's explanation is globally similar to Joseph Smith's notion of the Grand council of the Gods.

One thing that makes the views different is a matter of perceived cosmology, and the ontology ascribed to each class of being at different tiers of the cosmic hierarchy.

Hopefully you will be able to make a living as academician, and advance at a good rate to advance general knowledge in this area and your other interests in this area.

[Hick Preacher]

Especially when what it all boils down to is Jesus the vantrilaquist.

The Father and the Son are distinct persons.

Communication between different personages is not ventriloquy.

I can imagine that when Joseph Smith saw two personages in the first vision that I may well have been seeing personages who by the perceptions of our Earthly sphere of existence could be called two beings. Yet he called them personages in the account. In some other sphere the two could be rightly called one being.

And according to Mormonism's standard works, different spheres of existence have different representations of truth. Technically speaking the official LDS first vision does not contradict Trinitarian thought. It all depends on the ontology of the being. A transcendent being, who is pluralistic can have several personages appear in one or even in different places at one time.

[Zakuska]

More of that Trinitarian double speak I see.

[WalkerW]

The article is great. I really like his discussion of Yahweh as advocate for the people and accuser of the wicked gods.

"[H]is voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of Jehovah, saying: I am the first and the last; I am he who liveth, I am he who was slain; I am your advocate with the Father." (D&C 110:3-4)

[Hick Preacher]

More of that Trinitarian double speak I see.

If Trinitarian then its triple speak.

[urroner]

If Trinitarian then its triple speak.

BTW, I have taken the article and reformatted it into a text/Word file which makes reading it a lot easier.

[Zakuska]

If Trinitarian then its triple speak.

Where does simple math become irrational?

Wait for it...

1+1+1 = 1

In the mind of a trinitarian.

[USU78]

Here I go again. This from the article:

This Psalm would seem to be another such instance, since it would have been much more natural to state

[Vance]

If Trinitarian then its triple speak.

[maklelan]

So's everyone is aware, I do have some issues with this article's main thesis, which I discuss on my blog here. While I appreciate his discussion of Yhwh and El's distinction, and especially his discussion of Daniel 7, I don't think positing El as the speaker in vv. 6-8 is necessarily correct.

[Zakuska]

Here I go again. This from the article:

This concept of "Standing" makes me think, of course, of the "Standing One" concept that Eisenman makes so much of . . . with its messianic implications (and the "Simon Magus" sideshow). The Master is the "Standing One," being our Advocate . . . just as the pre-existent Master as YHWH was our Advocate, Standing in the midst of the Council of El.

Wonderful stuff, mak.

Yes that it is...

Who is identified as the "Standing one"?

Rev 5

6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

El is sitting on the throne Judging. Christ the lamb is "standing" advocating for us.

[Robert F. Smith]

One might examine Isaiah 14 (2 Nephi 24) on a similar basis, looking for Canaanite parallels in which Baal and El are certainly different gods.

[Zakuska]

Irenaeus - Adv. Her. 3.6.1