Psalm 82 Article

[Dan McClellan]

5 hours ago, Islander said:

Agreed. I believe that Hebrew scholars have not been able to successfully make heads or tails of that passage. The notion that it relates to pagan deities or even Jewish leaders strikes me as a stretch. Again, renditions in modern translations (even literal translations), verse 6 is not posed as a question. The rendition of :’ā·ḵên  [אָ֭כֵן] as "No!" in verse 7 is also a stretch and clearly changes the meaning of the passage. Most recent translations (I only referenced three readily available editions) from BHS (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia) agrees with the view I proposed. Just my thoughts. For most it remains a very enigmatic portion of the scriptures. The discussions are always quite interesting. 

translation from the

I discuss how to make both heads and tails of verses 6 and 7 in the Journal of Biblical Literature article I mentioned previously. If you message me an email address I'd be happy to send you a copy of the article. 

[Robert F. Smith]

19 hours ago, Islander said:

Agreed. I believe that Hebrew scholars have not been able to successfully make heads or tails of that passage. The notion that it relates to pagan deities or even Jewish leaders strikes me as a stretch. Again, renditions in modern translations (even literal translations), verse 6 is not posed as a question. The rendition of :’ā·ḵên  [אָ֭כֵן] as "No!" in verse 7 is also a stretch and clearly changes the meaning of the passage. Most recent translations (I only referenced three readily available editions) from BHS (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia) agrees with the view I proposed. Just my thoughts. For most it remains a very enigmatic portion of the scriptures. The discussions are always quite interesting. 

One immediately thinks of Isa 14:12, in the midst of a poetic put-down of the King of Babylon, because it too uses divine titlature to show that, despite his divine hubris, he will be brought down to Sheol.  He is compared to Lucifer, which is not a transliterated Hebrew word but rather is the Latin interpretation of the Hebrew hêylēl ben šāḥar "Bright-One, son of Dawn"[1] = LXX Greek Heosphoros = Latin Lucifer “the Shining One; Lightbringer (Son of the Morning [Venus])” (Isaiah 14:12) = Devil.[2]   Helel is the name or title of a well-known Canaanite god of the Dawn, probably equivalent to Ugaritic hll, and Babylonian elil, "shining-one."[3]   This is the approach the New Jerusalem Bible takes in its footnote.     

---

[1] BHS compares Hebrew heylāl “crescent moon”;

[2] LDS “Bible Dictionary,” 726.

[3] S. Langdon in The Mythology of All Races: Semitic, V:145; Chicago Asssyrian Dictionary, I:1, pp. 348-349, elilu, alilu, "brilliant one, brave one, warrior," an epithet of kings.

NJB has (Isa 14:12-15 ǁ 2 Ne 24)

How did you come to fall from the heavens,
Daystar, son of Dawn?
How did you come to be thrown to the ground,
conqueror of nations?
You who used to think to yourself:
I shall scale the heavens;
higher than the stars of God
I shall set my throne.
I shall sit on the Mount of Assembly
far away to the north.
I shall climb high above the clouds,
I shall rival the Most High.
Now you have been flung down to Sheol,
into the depths of the abyss!

As in Psalm 82, these are men who think themselves gods.

Quote

translation from the

Finish this thought?

Edited March 26, 2020 by Robert F. Smith

[Islander]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

One immediately thinks of Isa 14:12, in the midst of a poetic put-down of the King of Babylon, because it too uses divine titlature to show that, despite his divine hubris, he will be brought down to Sheol.  He is compared to Lucifer, which is not a transliterated Hebrew word but rather is the Latin interpretation of the Hebrew hêylēl ben šāḥar "Bright-One, son of Dawn"[1] = LXX Greek Heosphoros = Latin Lucifer “the Shining One; Lightbringer (Son of the Morning [Venus])” (Isaiah 14:12) = Devil.[2]   Helel is the name or title of a well-known Canaanite god of the Dawn, probably equivalent to Ugaritic hll, and Babylonian elil, "shining-one."[3]   This is the approach the New Jerusalem Bible takes in its footnote.     

---

[1] HALOT compares Hebrew heylāl “crescent moon”;

[2] LDS “Bible Dictionary,” 726.

[3] S. Langdon in The Mythology of All Races: Semitic, V:145; Chicago Asssyrian Dictionary, I:1, pp. 348-349, elilu, alilu, "brilliant one, brave one, warrior," an epithet of kings.

NJB has (Isa 14:12-15 ǁ 2 Ne 24)

How did you come to fall from the heavens,
Daystar, son of Dawn?
How did you come to be thrown to the ground,
conqueror of nations?
You who used to think to yourself:
I shall scale the heavens;
higher than the stars of God
I shall set my throne.
I shall sit on the Mount of Assembly
far away to the north.
I shall climb high above the clouds,
I shall rival the Most High.
Now you have been flung down to Sheol,
into the depths of the abyss!

As in Psalm 82, these are men who think themselves gods.

Finish this thought?

The allegorical illustration here is rather direct. Isaiah is pointing to the fact that an angelic being, previously created by and for the service of the Most High, fell from grace because of arrogance. So as indeed happen to the king of Babylon  as the text detailed in Dan. 4. I think Psalm 82 has multifaceted perspectives with greater complexities and implications. McClellan's article (cited above) is extremely exhaustive and detailed on the subject. However, the word "elohim" is used some 2000 plus instances in the OT in reference to a variety of subjects. Psalm 82 is on category of its own, I believe. And the fact that there is such heterogeneity of opinion attests to that.

Although the biblical texts are not necessarily my area of scholarship, I suggest that an approach that fails to fully attempt to ascertain how the ancient Hebrews though, interpreted and understood their own linguistic and theological milieu, will fail to produce a clear and accurate interpretation of the passage.  LDS theology offers a perspective on this very subject that has been, more or less, ignored by scholarship. It offers, in my opinion, a pretty cogent argument to the interpretation of Psalm 82. Others, like M. Heiser for example, present an expanded view and definition of "elohim" that should be taken into consideration given the rigor and depth of his research. 

I'm running out thoughts, by the way (lol). 

[Dan McClellan]

7 minutes ago, Islander said:

The allegorical illustration here is rather direct. Isaiah is pointing to the fact that an angelic being, previously created by and for the service of the Most High, fell from grace because of arrogance. So as indeed happen to the king of Babylon  as the text detailed in Dan. 4. I think Psalm 82 has multifaceted perspectives with greater complexities and implications. McClellan's article (cited above) is extremely exhaustive and detailed on the subject. However, the word "elohim" is used some 2000 plus instances in the OT in reference to a variety of subjects. Psalm 82 is on category of its own, I believe. And the fact that there is such heterogeneity of opinion attests to that.

Although the biblical texts are not necessarily my area of scholarship, I suggest that an approach that fails to fully attempt to ascertain how the ancient Hebrews though, interpreted and understood their own linguistic and theological milieu, will fail to produce a clear and accurate interpretation of the passage.  LDS theology offers a perspective on this very subject that has been, more or less, ignored by scholarship. It offers, in my opinion, a pretty cogent argument to the interpretation of Psalm 82. Others, like M. Heiser for example, present an expanded view and definition of "elohim" that should be taken into consideration given the rigor and depth of his research. 

I'm running out thoughts, by the way (lol). 

If it's of interest to you, my second master's thesis (available here) uses cognitive linguistics to try to better understand how ancient Hebrews thought, interpreted, and understood their own linguistic and theological milieu. 

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Islander said:

........................, the word "elohim" is used some 2000 plus instances in the OT in reference to a variety of subjects. Psalm 82 is on category of its own, I believe. And the fact that there is such heterogeneity of opinion attests to that.

..................................... I suggest that an approach that fails to fully attempt to ascertain how the ancient Hebrews though, interpreted and understood their own linguistic and theological milieu, will fail to produce a clear and accurate interpretation of the passage.  LDS theology offers a perspective on this very subject that has been, more or less, ignored by scholarship. It offers, in my opinion, a pretty cogent argument to the interpretation of Psalm 82. Others, like M. Heiser for example, present an expanded view and definition of "elohim" that should be taken into consideration given the rigor and depth of his research. ...................................

 

5 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

If it's of interest to you, my second master's thesis (available here) uses cognitive linguistics to try to better understand how ancient Hebrews thought, interpreted, and understood their own linguistic and theological milieu. 

Nearly 50 years ago, I spent a lot of time at the Claremont Grad School's Institute for Antiquity and Christianity (IAC) talking with the crew of grad students led by Prof Loren Fisher who were working on the Ras Shamra Parallels Project -- which was eventually published in three volumes.  I realized then just how important, even central, Ugaritic studies would be for an understanding of the Hebrew Bible and of ancient Israel.  Fully realizing this, and seeing it as a threat, Jewish scholar Milton Himmelfarb began to rail against it -- he was especially condemnatory of the translation of Psalms for Anchor Bible by Father Mitchell Dahood, S.J. (Dahood was very catholic in his advice to Jack Welch on "Chiasmus in Ugaritic," which was published in Ugarit Forschungen on Dahood's recommendation).  Since then, a great deal more has been learned, and it is very clear that Israelite cult contains much which is part and parcel of Ugaritic/Canaanite cult.  Robert F. Smith, “Ugaritic Precursors to Israelite Cult,” Scribd.org , Sept 2017, online at https://www.scribd.com/document/358400446/Ugaritic-Precursors-to-Israelite-Cult#user-util-view-profile

Edited March 26, 2020 by Robert F. Smith

[Dan McClellan]

29 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

Nearly 50 years ago, I spent a lot of time at the Claremont Grad School's Institute for Antiquity and Christianity (IAC) talking with the crew of grad students led by Prof Loren Fisher who were working on the Ras Shamra Parallels Project -- which was eventually published in three volumes.  I realized then just how important, even central, Ugaritic studies would be for an understanding of the Hebrew Bible and of ancient Israel.  Fully realizing this, and seeing it as a threat, Jewish scholar Milton Himmelfarb began to rail against it -- he was especially condemnatory of the translation of Psalms for Anchor Bible by Father Mitchell Dahood, S.J. (Dahood was very catholic in his advice to Jack Welch on "Chiasmus in Ugaritic," which was published in Ugarit Forschungen on Dahood's recommendation).  Since then, a great deal more has been learned, and it is very clear that Israelite cult contains much which is part and parcel of Ugaritic/Canaanite cult.  Robert F. Smith, “Ugaritic Precursors to Israelite Cult,” Scribd.org , Sept 2017, online at https://www.scribd.com/document/358400446/Ugaritic-Precursors-to-Israelite-Cult#user-util-view-profile

Thanks for that, Robert. It's very much the consensus view now that Israelite ideologies are a direct outgrowth of broader Southwest Asian ideologies. I'll take a look at your paper! 

[Anakin7]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

Nearly 50 years ago, I spent a lot of time at the Claremont Grad School's Institute for Antiquity and Christianity (IAC) talking with the crew of grad students led by Prof Loren Fisher who were working on the Ras Shamra Parallels Project -- which was eventually published in three volumes.  I realized then just how important, even central, Ugaritic studies would be for an understanding of the Hebrew Bible and of ancient Israel.  Fully realizing this, and seeing it as a threat, Jewish scholar Milton Himmelfarb began to rail against it -- he was especially condemnatory of the translation of Psalms for Anchor Bible by Father Mitchell Dahood, S.J. (Dahood was very catholic in his advice to Jack Welch on "Chiasmus in Ugaritic," which was published in Ugarit Forschungen on Dahood's recommendation).  Since then, a great deal more has been learned, and it is very clear that Israelite cult contains much which is part and parcel of Ugaritic/Canaanite cult.  Robert F. Smith, “Ugaritic Precursors to Israelite Cult,” Scribd.org , Sept 2017, online at https://www.scribd.com/document/358400446/Ugaritic-Precursors-to-Israelite-Cult#user-util-view-profile

    Robert wow !, I was about 12 years old then. I was and am currently living in Pomona California. in the 1990s - 2008 I was hanging out at the Claremont School of theology doing independent research to help me get through the anti LDS material I was receiving. I sent my research to Dan Peterson and Bill Hamblin at F.A.R.M.S which they used in there book " Offenders For A Word,  How Anti Mormons Play Word Games To Attack The Latter Day Saints". They mention me in the Book as one who provided information. Did you live local at that time ?. The Atonement it Is The Central Doctrine, Washing My Garment In His Blood, In His Eternal Debt/Grace. He Died To Make Man Holy.

Edited March 26, 2020 by Anakin7

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Anakin7 said:

    Robert wow !, I was about 12 years old then. I was and am currently living in Pomona California. in the 1990s - 2008 I was hanging out at the Claremont School of theology doing independent research to help me get through the anti LDS material I was receiving. I sent my research to Dan Peterson and Bill Hamblin at F.A.R.M.S which they used in there book " Offenders For A Word,  How Anti Mormons Play Word Games To Attack The Latter Day Saints". They mention me in the Book as one who provided information. Did you live local at that time ?. The Atonement it Is The Central Doctrine, Washing My Garment In His Blood, In His Eternal Debt/Grace. He Died To Make Man Holy.

Yes, I lived nearby in the early 1970s, and spent a lot of time in the various Claremont Colleges libraries, when I wasn't doing Tang Soo Do (Moo Doo Kwan) in Pomona..  Hugh Nibley taught at the Claremont Colleges as a young PhD, before going into the 101st Airborne Division as a Master Sgt (WW II)..

[mfbukowski]

On 3/25/2020 at 4:02 AM, Dan McClellan said:

I discuss how to make both heads and tails of verses 6 and 7 in the Journal of Biblical Literature article I mentioned previously. If you message me an email address I'd be happy to send you a copy of the article. 

Working my way through the article- fascinating stuff.  Have not finished yet so I am not sure if you point this out, but in I believe verse 5 the speaker (Yahweh?) parallels the words of Jesus on the cross in a "family resemblance" of meaning (I loved that Wittgenstein reference!!) in saying essentially "Forgive them for they know not what they do".

As I said I am not sure you bring that up- but it is another evidence for what I believe your conclusion is going to be- I tend to put the cart before the horse but I think that is where you are going...

 

Edited March 26, 2020 by mfbukowski
quoted wrong verse

[Anakin7]

19 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, I lived nearby in the early 1970s, and spent a lot of time in the various Claremont Colleges libraries, when I wasn't doing Tang Soo Do (Moo Doo Kwan) in Pomona..  Hugh Nibley taught at the Claremont Colleges as a young PhD, before going into the 101st Airborne Division as a Master Sgt (WW II)..

    My parents that raised me [ I am adopted ] came out to Pomona 1n 1960 . My father that raised me was in WW2 [ Was wounded in his shoulder by an enemy bullet and was given a Purple Heart by President Eisenhower] and afterward worked for General Dynamics in Pomona from the early 60s till the middle late 70s.

[Robert F. Smith]

16 minutes ago, Anakin7 said:

    My parents that raised me [ I am adopted ] came out to Pomona 1n 1960 . My father that raised me was in WW2 [ Was wounded in his shoulder by an enemy bullet and was given a Purple Heart by President Eisenhower] and afterward worked for General Dynamics in Pomona from the early 60s till the middle late 70s.

So members of your family and I likely passed each other going up and down Holt Blvd., and especially stopping at the A&W Root Beer place half way between Ontario and Pomona.  There was even an ice skating rink nearby where I tried to do figure skating.

[theplains]

On 3/14/2020 at 8:53 PM, Dan McClellan said:

Thanks for the mention! It may interest you to know I've since published another article on Psalm 82 in one of the bigger biblical studies journals. 

"These references are also almost exclusively mediated by quotations of John 10 and Jesus’s defense
of his claim to divinity."

How would your interpretation change if you consider Jesus may not have been defending his claim
to divinity but was rather giving a stinging rebuke to his audience?

[Anakin7]

23 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So members of your family and I likely passed each other going up and down Holt Blvd., and especially stopping at the A&W Root Beer place half way between Ontario and Pomona.  There was even an ice skating rink nearby where I tried to do figure skating.

    Possibly !,  We went to that A&W Root Beer establishment on occasion. I played broom Hockey at that skating rink for events for our young adult program from church. My Father Bowled at The Bowling Alley there on Holt ave in Montclair.  Ever do any shopping or cruise through Pomona ?.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Anakin7 said:

    Possibly !,  We went to that A&W Root Beer establishment on occasion. I played broom Hockey at that skating rink for events for our young adult program from church. My Father Bowled at The Bowling Alley there on Holt ave in Montclair.  Ever do any shopping or cruise through Pomona ?.

Frequently.  It's a small world.

[RevTestament]

On 3/24/2020 at 10:51 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

That was not my rendering, but rather that of the New Jerusalem Bible:

6 I had thought, "Are you gods (ʼĔlōhîm),

    are all of you sons of the Most High (bĕnē ˁElîyôn)?" [Jn 10:34]

7 No! you will die as human beings do,

    as one man, princes, you will fall.'

Sorry, Robert, in Yeshua's mouth, that interpretation fails. He uses it like it is written in our KJV - that the Hebrews are called Elohim. In my estimation Yeshua's words/defense makes no sense otherwise - and to make the English interpretation of the Hebrew wrong, you have to make the Greek in John wrong as well.

[Dan McClellan]

On 3/27/2020 at 10:23 AM, theplains said:

"These references are also almost exclusively mediated by quotations of John 10 and Jesus’s defense
of his claim to divinity."

How would your interpretation change if you consider Jesus may not have been defending his claim
to divinity but was rather giving a stinging rebuke to his audience?

I don't think that makes much sense, as it would be a significant departure from John's rhetoric about Jesus' relationship to God as well as from the consistent way the gospels betray the Jewish accusations as hypocritical or self-defeating. 

[Dan McClellan]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Sorry, Robert, in Yeshua's mouth, that interpretation fails. He uses it like it is written in our KJV - that the Hebrews are called Elohim. In my estimation Yeshua's words/defense makes no sense otherwise - and to make the English interpretation of the Hebrew wrong, you have to make the Greek in John wrong as well.

Well, that presupposes univocality, which is a presupposition without a rational basis. Jesus is reinterpreting the psalm according to then-contemporary readings, as I discuss in the paper that is linked to at the beginning of the thread.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Sorry, Robert, in Yeshua's mouth, that interpretation fails. He uses it like it is written in our KJV - that the Hebrews are called Elohim. In my estimation Yeshua's words/defense makes no sense otherwise - and to make the English interpretation of the Hebrew wrong, you have to make the Greek in John wrong as well.

In John 10:30 Jesus has just identified himself as part of the Gottheit (godhead).  Of course he said it in Aramaic, not Greek.  The Johannine Gospel is in Greek, and biblical quotations are in the Jewish Septuagint Greek form only because that is the language of the early Christians who are receiving it -- for whom the Gospel was written.

In any case, some of those listening to him properly take his claim as blasphemy and want to stone him on the spot.  However, Jesus is a rabbi and uses the rabbinic mode of reasoning kal vahomer (a fortiori) in quoting Ps 82 to them in Hebrew.  These are learned men to whom he is speaking, and they know very well that the Hebrew Bible often refers to earthly judges as 'elohim, and Jesus is holding them to their own understanding of that and other passages.  He is shaming them for ignoring actual usage in Holy Writ, even though it sidesteps and begs the main question -- of Jesus' actual divinity -- leaving them flustered and befuddled.  They will soon get the Romans to do their dirty work for them in any case, thus avoiding the issue of interpretation of biblical texts.

[RevTestament]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In John 10:30 Jesus has just identified himself as part of the Gottheit (godhead).  Of course he said it in Aramaic, not Greek.  The Johannine Gospel is in Greek, and biblical quotations are in the Jewish Septuagint Greek form only because that is the language of the early Christians who are receiving it -- for whom the Gospel was written.

Bringing up the Septuagint is a good point ... for me. Thanks. Yeah according to it our KJV of the Hebrew text is correct... see https://biblehub.com/sep/psalms/82.htm

Quote

In any case, some of those listening to him properly take his claim as blasphemy and want to stone him on the spot.  However, Jesus is a rabbi and uses the rabbinic mode of reasoning kal vahomer (a fortiori) in quoting Ps 82 to them in Hebrew.  These are learned men to whom he is speaking, and they know very well that the Hebrew Bible often refers to earthly judges as 'elohim, and Jesus is holding them to their own understanding of that and other passages.  He is shaming them for ignoring actual usage in Holy Writ, even though it sidesteps and begs the main question -- of Jesus' actual divinity -- leaving them flustered and befuddled. 

I don't think His point is to shame them. It is to teach them out of their own law which He co-wrote for them as YHWH Elohim. The fact they are shamed is ancillary.

Edited March 29, 2020 by RevTestament

[RevTestament]

On 3/15/2020 at 10:26 AM, caspianrex said:

As I read your article, Dan, I'm struck by the fact that אלהים is rendered in the LXX as θεοι, rather than αγγελοι, as it often is in other psalms (I'm thinking of Psalm 8, off the top of my head). It seems the nuances among "heavenly beings," or what have you, was far more complex in Hebrew (and the Greek Septuagint) than English often allows. I hope to share a few more thoughts once I've finished your article.

You bring up a point that I believe I have somewhat sadly had to navigate for most of my life... that is that scripture has been skewed by those who interpret it. Going back to the original Hebrew is I believe the best we can do to get an accurate idea of what was being said. Sometimes, the Septuagint is helpful in this effort to glean the original meaning, but I personally do not favor it. Your point shows an example. Sometime Elohim becomes angels in the hands of the translators of the Septuagint. Whereas in the Hebrew, it it clear that messengers/angels are Malakim. So why the inconsistency in the Septuagint? To me it is obvious that the later Jews who translated into the Septuagint were influenced by their strong monotheistic views from the time of the diaspora. 

So while I point the finger at them, I also point a finger at trinitarians who did not want to face the truth of what they were translating and sometimes hide it. So in the KJV Elim sometimes is translated as gods and sometimes as "the mighty" when it is indisputably referring to YHWH Elohim - "gods" is used when it is referring to other than YHWH Elohim. I believe the Hebrew titles for God reveal more than a reference to a single being trinitarians call God.  In fact I believe the English translations serve to hide the true nature of God revealed in Hebrew scripture. I am sure I do not need to tell you that the Hebrew has 4 different words for God:
singular                   plural

El                             Elim

Eloah                       Elohim

These all get translated as singular God in various parts of English scripture. Then there are the various titles use such as 

El Shaddai

El Gibbor

El Elyon or the Most High El/Power.

I believe these titles get confused in the Creeds and in Trinitarianism. Yeshua referred to the Father as greater than I for a reason. Luke calls Yeshua the son of the Most High. Scripture never refers to Yeshua as El Elyon or the Most High El/God. Because that is not His title. I pose to you that His title was El Shaddai, and that He says as much in John. This will certainly  invite debate from others on this forum... The Septuagint only serves to muddy the waters because it conflates El Gibbor for El Shaddai by translating El Shaddai as The Almighty Theos. 

Well, I am sure I have done enough to stir up the hornets nest... and hopefully provide some food for thought.

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, RevTestament said:

.............................

Well, I am sure I have done enough to stir up the hornets nest... and hopefully provide some food for thought.

The other major problem is that the Septuaginta are translating the Hebrew Vorlage in Egypt (which is lost), which differs from the Babylonian Vorlage -- which has come to us through many twists and turns as the Massoretic Text.  This is especially noticeable when the Qumran versions of some Hebrew biblical texts agree with the LXX and against the MT.  In the Book of Mormon, the Isaiah quotations, for example, sometimes follow the Qumran and LXX text and go against the KJV MT version.  Just what we should expect the Brass Plates to do.

Edited March 29, 2020 by Robert F. Smith

[theplains]

On 3/28/2020 at 3:08 PM, Dan McClellan said:

I don't think that makes much sense, as it would be a significant departure from John's rhetoric about Jesus' relationship to God as well as from the consistent way the gospels betray the Jewish accusations as hypocritical or self-defeating. 

If the Jews understood Psalm 82:6 as being a reference to people who were not Deities, why did
they want to kill Jesus despite this reference in John?  I believe he was trying to get them to admit
that Jesus was not claiming to be the wicked gods (human judges) like those who he was speaking
to were but rather he was claiming much more.  If you read the context of that chapter in Psalms, it
is a pronouncement of judgment on the rulers (the judges; i.e. those in authority) and this is why
Jesus is pronouncing judgment on his audience in John's passage.   

This explanation makes sense to me if one looks at the deeper meaning Christ was trying to convey.

[marineland]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

If the Jews understood Psalm 82:6 as being a reference to people who were not Deities, why did
they want to kill Jesus despite this reference in John?  I believe he was trying to get them to admit
that Jesus was not claiming to be the wicked gods (human judges) like those who he was speaking
to were but rather he was claiming much more.  If you read the context of that chapter in Psalms, it
is a pronouncement of judgment on the rulers (the judges; i.e. those in authority) and this is why
Jesus is pronouncing judgment on his audience in John's passage.   

This explanation makes sense to me if one looks at the deeper meaning Christ was trying to convey.

Thanks. I can use that explanation whenever I speak with JWs.

[Dan McClellan]

10 hours ago, theplains said:

If the Jews understood Psalm 82:6 as being a reference to people who were not Deities, why did
they want to kill Jesus despite this reference in John?  I believe he was trying to get them to admit
that Jesus was not claiming to be the wicked gods (human judges) like those who he was speaking
to were but rather he was claiming much more.  If you read the context of that chapter in Psalms, it
is a pronouncement of judgment on the rulers (the judges; i.e. those in authority) and this is why
Jesus is pronouncing judgment on his audience in John's passage.   

This explanation makes sense to me if one looks at the deeper meaning Christ was trying to convey.

During the time of Christ, they appear to have read the text as a reference to the Israelites being divinized by the reception of the law, so it was about deities. They still wanted to kill him because they were hypocrites. There is no basis for the suggestion that Psalm 82 is about rulers. Elohim never means that. 

[InCognitus]

21 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

During the time of Christ, they appear to have read the text as a reference to the Israelites being divinized by the reception of the law, so it was about deities. They still wanted to kill him because they were hypocrites. There is no basis for the suggestion that Psalm 82 is about rulers. Elohim never means that. 

And as you mention briefly in your Interpreter article, this reading of the text also shaped the early Christian notion of divinization or theopoiesis.  After reading your article I tried to hunt down all the references to the "ye are gods" phrase from Psalm 82 in the pre-Nicene early Christian writings, and I found several discussions on the text, all of which had to do with humans becoming "gods".   And many of them reference Psalm 82 while explaining that Christians are the sons of God, which similar to how Jesus used the text when he was saying he is the Son of God in John 10.

Like this one from Justin Martyr:

Quote

Chapter CXXIV.

Christians are the sons of God.

And when I saw that they were perturbed because I said that we are the sons of God, I anticipated their questioning, and said, “Listen, sirs, how the Holy Ghost speaks of this people, saying that they are all sons of the Highest; and how this very Christ will be present in their assembly, rendering judgment to all men. The words are spoken by David, and are, according to your version of them, thus: God standeth in the congregation of gods; He judgeth among the gods. How long do ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Judge for the orphan and the poor, and do justice to the humble and needy. Deliver the needy, and save the poor out of the hand of the wicked. They know not, neither have they understood; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth shall be shaken. I said, Ye are gods, and are all children of the Most High. But ye die like men, and fall like one of the princes. Arise, O God! judge the earth, for Thou shalt inherit all nations.’ But in the version of the Seventy it is written, Behold, ye die like men, and fall like one of the princes,’ in order to manifest the disobedience of men,—I mean of Adam and Eve,—and the fall of one of the princes, i.e., of him who was called the serpent, who fell with a great overthrow, because he deceived Eve. But as my discourse is not intended to touch on this point, but to prove to you that the Holy Ghost reproaches men because they were made like God, free from suffering and death, provided that they kept His commandments, and were deemed deserving of the name of His sons, and yet they, becoming like Adam and Eve, work out death for themselves; let the interpretation of the Psalm be held just as you wish, yet thereby it is demonstrated that all men are deemed worthy of becoming “gods,” and of having power to become sons of the Highest; and shall be each by himself judged and condemned like Adam and Eve. Now I have proved at length that Christ is called God.    

Justin Martyr—Dialogue with Trypho Ch. 124

And of course Irenaeus has a lot to say on this topic, but here's one example:

Quote

And again: “God stood in the congregation of the gods, He judges among the gods.” He [here] refers to the Father and the Son, and those who have received the adoption; but these are the Church. For she is the synagogue of God, which God—that is, the Son Himself—has gathered by Himself. Of whom He again speaks: “The God of gods, the Lord hath spoken, and hath called the earth.” Who is meant by God? He of whom He has said, “God shall come openly, our God, and shall not keep silence;” that is, the Son, who came manifested to men who said, “I have openly appeared to those who seek Me not.” But of what gods [does he speak]? [Of those] to whom He says, “I have said, Ye are gods, and all sons of the Most High.” To those, no doubt, who have received the grace of the “adoption, by which we cry, Abba Father.”   (Irenæus—Against Heresies—Book III Ch. 6)

See also:  Against Heresies (Book IV, Chapter 38), Against Heresies (Book IV, Chapter 39)

There are several others from different authors.  All very interesting stuff.