Divine Council Not Involved In Creation

[Hamilton Porter]

The HarperCollins Study Bible (2009) says in regards to Gen. 1:26-28 "Let us...our image. The plural seems to the lesser deities of the divine assembly described in other Biblical texts. In the accomplishment of this divine utterance, however, God acts alone...The reference to the divine assembly seems to acknowledge its presence but discounts its active participation in creation."

I looked at Oxford and Eerdmans commentaries and found no challenges. Does any Latter-day Saint want to challenge this in a peer-reviewed venue? Perhaps, oh, I don't know, someone who has published peer-review on the divine council before? Someone who knows how the council is summoned to other activities such as witnessing, and can determine whether this act of creation involves the council? There's gotta be somebody who fits the bill.

[Nathair/|\]

Do you mean David Bokovoy or Maklelan?

[volgadon]

The HarperCollins Study Bible (2009) says in regards to Gen. 1:26-28 "Let us...our image. The plural seems to the lesser deities of the divine assembly described in other Biblical texts. In the accomplishment of this divine utterance, however, God acts alone...The reference to the divine assembly seems to acknowledge its presence but discounts its active participation in creation."

I looked at Oxford and Eerdmans commentaries and found no challenges. Does any Latter-day Saint want to challenge this in a peer-reviewed venue? Perhaps, oh, I don't know, someone who has published peer-review on the divine council before? Someone who knows how the council is summoned to other activities such as witnessing, and can determine whether this act of creation involves the council? There's gotta be somebody who fits the bill.

This should provide a different perspective. http://books.google.com/books?id=a8J06NLqRfIC&pg=PA100&dq=steven+fine+bezalel&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ojRFUdvoA8iFywHzn4CAAw&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=steven%20fine%20bezalel&f=false

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Man, I wish I wasn't dead broke; that book looks really cool, Volgadon.

This is a bit off-topic, but I was especially interested by this bit:

Moses' difficulty in constructing the vessels is based on another issue of Biblical exegesis. Anyone who has tried to draw or fabricate the Tabernacle artifacts based solely on the Biblical descriptions, as my students and I often-times try to do, knows that the Biblical text assumes that the reader can visualize the object described based on preexisting knowledge. These word pictures are in no way complete, but rather are schematic verbal renderings. The descriptions must have been clear to the original audience, who could visual the artifacts in terms of their own material culture(s). For later generations, however, this context was lost and the text became opaque. This opacity was acknowledged by the rabbis when they imagined that God needed to show Moses a fiery model of the menorah drawn by the Divine finger as a guide.

I'm a painter myself (see my sig for shameless self-promotion), and I've tried to draw the Tabernacle; it became clear to me that there was a lot going on that was left implied that I just wasn't getting, even in a good modern English translation like the Jewish Study Bible. I'd even extend this to other parts of the Bible, such as Ezekiel's Chariot Vision (which has also frustrated my attempts to diagram out) and the Book of Revelation -- or even other examples of ekphrasis in the ancient world, like the description of Achilles' Shield in the Iliad.

The point being, of course, that "there is none other people that understand the things which were spoken unto the Jews like unto them, save it be that they are taught after the manner of the things of the Jews", and there is a wealth of symbolic Creation imagery that we have to be careful about interpreting according to our modern categories of genre that we've imposed onto the ancient texts. The prime examples being the closely interweaving ties between construction of the Creation account, the Tabernacle in the Wilderness, and the Temple.

[Ron Beron]

For a bit of understanding the NET Bible has this to offer...

The plural form of the verb has been the subject of much discussion through the years, and not surprisingly several suggestions have been put forward. Many Christian theologians interpret it as an early hint of plurality within the Godhead, but this view imposes later trinitarian concepts on the ancient text. Some have suggested the plural verb indicates majesty, but the plural of majesty is not used with verbs. C. Westermann (Genesis, 1:145) argues for a plural of “deliberation” here, but his proposed examples of this use (Isa 6: do not actually support his theory. In Isa 6:8 the Lord speaks on behalf of his heavenly court. In its ancient Israelite context the plural is most naturally understood as referring to God and his heavenly court (see Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6; Gen 3:5 the serpent may refer to this group as “gods/divine beings.” See the note on the word “evil” in Job 38:7), but he himself is the one who does the actual creative work (v. 27). Of course, this view does assume that the members of the heavenly court possess the divine “image” in some way. Since the image is closely associated with rulership, perhaps they share the divine image in that they, together with God and under his royal authority, are the executive authority over the world.

While we tend to look at the creation of man from a Christian or Jewish perspective it is highly likely that its origins are more based on Mesopotamian motifs such as found in the Enuma Elish where the creator god asks the other attendant gods what should be created next.

Edited March 17, 2013 by Ron Beron

[maklelan]

The HarperCollins Study Bible (2009) says in regards to Gen. 1:26-28 "Let us...our image. The plural seems to the lesser deities of the divine assembly described in other Biblical texts. In the accomplishment of this divine utterance, however, God acts alone...The reference to the divine assembly seems to acknowledge its presence but discounts its active participation in creation."

I looked at Oxford and Eerdmans commentaries and found no challenges. Does any Latter-day Saint want to challenge this in a peer-reviewed venue? Perhaps, oh, I don't know, someone who has published peer-review on the divine council before? Someone who knows how the council is summoned to other activities such as witnessing, and can determine whether this act of creation involves the council? There's gotta be somebody who fits the bill.

Genesis 1 comes from the Priestly author, generally dated to the post-exilic period. By that time the role of the members of the divine council in creation had become diminished to the point of being onlookers, like in Job 38:7. P likely preserves an older tradition in vv. 26-28, and that older tradition probably had something about the role of the council. Dave might have additional thoughts on this.

Ron, I don't much care for the NET notes (see one concern of mine here). In a recent blog post I linked to a document I composed with a bit more discussion on the word elohim, including the motivation for the plural.

[Ron Beron]

Genesis 1 comes from the Priestly author, generally dated to the post-exilic period. By that time the role of the members of the divine council in creation had become diminished to the point of being onlookers, like in Job 38:7. P likely preserves an older tradition in vv. 26-28, and that older tradition probably had something about the role of the council. Dave might have additional thoughts on this.

Ron, I don't much care for the NET notes (see one concern of mine here). In a recent blog post I linked to a document I composed with a bit more discussion on the word elohim, including the motivation for the plural.

Thanks Dan. It is good to get a different opinion on these things.

[kenporay]

I understand the importance of peer reviewed science...dont quite get the point of peer reviwed faith statments. I know the peer of a physicst is another physicst. Is the peer of an evangelical pastor an immam or perhaps a mormon bishop?

[MormonMason]

Genesis 1 comes from the Priestly author...

I thought Genesis 1 came from the Elohist, as in Jahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomist, Priestly. When did that change? I admit I have been out of the loop for a bit but thought I would ask, anyway.

Never mind. I was the victim of faulty memory for a moment...

Edited March 18, 2013 by MormonMason

[Stone holm]

I understand the importance of peer reviewed science...dont quite get the point of peer reviwed faith statments. I know the peer of a physicst is another physicst. Is the peer of an evangelical pastor an immam or perhaps a mormon bishop?

Don't know but don't think most Bishops are up to the task, I know I'm not. Lol... They are talking scholars familiar with ancient texts here.

[Hamilton Porter]

Genesis 1 comes from the Priestly author, generally dated to the post-exilic period. By that time the role of the members of the divine council in creation had become diminished to the point of being onlookers, like in Job 38:7. P likely preserves an older tradition in vv. 26-28, and that older tradition probably had something about the role of the council. Dave might have additional thoughts on this.

Ron, I don't much care for the NET notes (see one concern of mine here). In a recent blog post I linked to a document I composed with a bit more discussion on the word elohim, including the motivation for the plural.

Why don't you punch it in a journal so it'll be on record? That would be great to apologetic value.

[Hamilton Porter]

For a bit of understanding the NET Bible has this to offer...

While we tend to look at the creation of man from a Christian or Jewish perspective it is highly likely that its origins are more based on Mesopotamian motifs such as found in the Enuma Elish where the creator god asks the other attendant gods what should be created next.

Peter Enns believes that the council was consulted on the creation.

Also, speaking of a divine court of some sort as in 1 Kings or Job is one thing. But Genesis 1:26 says something more: these beings are consulted at creation and share in God’s nature enough so that humankind would be made in their image and likeness. That is a much harder pill to swallow, both for the ancient interpreters and for us.

http://biologos.org/blog/genesis-creation-and-ancient-interpreters-who-is-us

[Ahab]

The HarperCollins Study Bible (2009) says in regards to Gen. 1:26-28 "Let us...our image. The plural seems to the lesser deities of the divine assembly described in other Biblical texts. In the accomplishment of this divine utterance, however, God acts alone...The reference to the divine assembly seems to acknowledge its presence but discounts its active participation in creation."

I looked at Oxford and Eerdmans commentaries and found no challenges. Does any Latter-day Saint want to challenge this in a peer-reviewed venue? Perhaps, oh, I don't know, someone who has published peer-review on the divine council before? Someone who knows how the council is summoned to other activities such as witnessing, and can determine whether this act of creation involves the council? There's gotta be somebody who fits the bill.

I'll challenge it by saying that despite what that person said our Lord has told us that several persons were involved and God, our Father, did not act alone.

You can now critique what I said if you wish but what I have said is still true regardless of what some other peer may say about it.

[tagriffy]

The HarperCollins Study Bible (2009) says in regards to Gen. 1:26-28 "Let us...our image. The plural seems to the lesser deities of the divine assembly described in other Biblical texts. In the accomplishment of this divine utterance, however, God acts alone...The reference to the divine assembly seems to acknowledge its presence but discounts its active participation in creation."

The assertion God ultimately acted alone probably comes from Gen. 1:27, "So God created humankind in his image ...." (NRSV). maklelan is probably right that there is an older tradition wherein the divine council had a more active role. The Priestly school diminished its role in the overall process of demythologizing their creation account. So as far as it goes, the HarperCollins comment is correct.

I looked at Oxford and Eerdmans commentaries and found no challenges. Does any Latter-day Saint want to challenge this in a peer-reviewed venue? Perhaps, oh, I don't know, someone who has published peer-review on the divine council before? Someone who knows how the council is summoned to other activities such as witnessing, and can determine whether this act of creation involves the council? There's gotta be somebody who fits the bill.

Why would we need to? Genesis is what Genesis is. There are already a number of works that discuss the divine council and it's possible role in creation. Modern revelation simply confirms it from a Mormon point of view.

Why don't you punch it in a journal so it'll be on record? That would be great to apologetic value.

Apologetic value for what?

[tagriffy]

I'll challenge it by saying that despite what that person said our Lord has told us that several persons were involved and God, our Father, did not act alone.

You can now critique what I said if you wish but what I have said is still true regardless of what some other peer may say about it.

That is pretty close to what I would say.

[Hamilton Porter]

I'll challenge it by saying that despite what that person said our Lord has told us that several persons were involved and God, our Father, did not act alone.

You can now critique what I said if you wish but what I have said is still true regardless of what some other peer may say about it.

The assertion God ultimately acted alone probably comes from Gen. 1:27, "So God created humankind in his image ...." (NRSV). maklelan is probably right that there is an older tradition wherein the divine council had a more active role. The Priestly school diminished its role in the overall process of demythologizing their creation account. So as far as it goes, the HarperCollins comment is correct.

Why would we need to? Genesis is what Genesis is. There are already a number of works that discuss the divine council and it's possible role in creation. Modern revelation simply confirms it from a Mormon point of view.

Apologetic value for what?

Ya gotta read Maklelan's words a little closer. 1:26-28 is from an older source that the priestly writer incorporated. The reason being, 1:26-28 is tricolon poetry while the rest of Gen 1:1-2:2 is prose. The older sources give the divine council a much more independent role.

[tagriffy]

Ya gotta read Maklelan's words a little closer. 1:26-28 is from an older source that the priestly writer incorporated. The reason being, 1:26-28 is tricolon poetry while the rest of Gen 1:1-2:2 is prose. The older sources give the divine council a much more independent role.

I'm not disputing that. What I am saying is that HarperCollins is correct viewing the final product of Genesis.

But that doesn't answer my questions of why we would need to dispute HarperCollins or the apologetic value of doing so.

[Hamilton Porter]

I'm not disputing that. What I am saying is that HarperCollins is correct viewing the final product of Genesis.

But that doesn't answer my questions of why we would need to dispute HarperCollins or the apologetic value of doing so.

Not really. HarperCollins is all about historical and source criticism. They point out source material and later redactions on every page. And it's a great resource, I highly recommend it!

You don't see the apologetic value of establishing that the council assisted in the creation?

[tagriffy]

Not really. HarperCollins is all about historical and source criticism. They point out source material and later redactions on every page. And it's a great resource, I highly recommend it!

You don't see the apologetic value of establishing that the council assisted in the creation?

Right now, I'm happy enough with my New Oxford Annotated Bible. It's also pretty much about historical and source criticism, though I still miss all the Bible commentaries I used to have.

But no, I really don't see the apologetic value of establishing the council assisted in creation. I have the book of Abraham for that. Let Genesis be Genesis.

[Stone holm]

Right now, I'm happy enough with my New Oxford Annotated Bible. It's also pretty much about historical and source criticism, though I still miss all the Bible commentaries I used to have.

But no, I really don't see the apologetic value of establishing the council assisted in creation. I have the book of Abraham for that. Let Genesis be Genesis.

Why would you want them to differ?

[Calm]

Why would you want them to differ?

Because having multiple views of creation leads to thinking about it and our relationship to God in different ways...always a good thing in my view (which is why I don't need or even want scripture to harmonize).

[tagriffy]

Why would you want them to differ?

For one thing, because it forces us to use our brains.

[Stone holm]

For one thing, because it forces us to use our brains.

But in general we don't encourage that kind of thing.

[tagriffy]

But in general we don't encourage that kind of thing.

If we don't, we should.

[Stone holm]

If we don't, we should.

No I think some have said very succinctly on this Board that it is better to be sock puppets