The Sons Of God And The Daughters Of Men - from MDD

[_moksha]

Except we hate Gudbranddalingers.

Can't even find that word on Google. They do have some pics of Brangelina however.

[Guest]

The sons of God are the son of El. El, the pagan father god of Canaan and later Israel, had 70 sons, all minor gods, each with the task of ruling over a nation on the earth. These gods had sex with mortal women and created the giants - that's what the Bible's saying, not the fluff that's in the manual. It'd be nice if the church hired academics to write their manuals instead of amateur theologians. They wouldn't be filled with these kinds of errors.

Sorry, hayseed, but sons of God in Genesis 6 most likely refers to angels.

No, it doesn't. The reason is angels hadn't been invented yet, as such - that was what later believers did with the Canaanite pantheon - the sons of El.

[_Buffalo]

That is false.

"In Israel's early traditions, God was perceived as administering the cosmos with a retinue of divine assistants. The members of this divine council were identified generally as "*sons of God" and "morning stars" (Job 1.6; 38.7), "gods" (Ps. 82) or the host of heaven" (Neh. 9.6; cf. Rev 1.20), and they functioned as God's vicegerents and administrators in a hierarchical bureaucracy over the world (Deut. 32.8 [LXX]; cf. 4.19; 29.26). Where Israel's polytheistic neighbors perceived these beings as simply a part of the pantheon, the Bible depicts them as subordinate and in no way comparable to the God of Israel..." (Samuel A. Meier. "Angels." Oxford Companion to the Bible.)

I know you would like to use the Hebrew Scriptures to try to prop up your manifestly fraudulent religion but it just ain't happenin'. You'll only be able to impress rubes like Buffalo.

"In the postexilic period, with the development of explicit monotheism, these divine beings—the 'sons of God' who were members of the divine council—were in effect demoted to what are now known as 'angels', understood as beings created by God, but immortal and thus superior to humans."

[Coogan, Michael D.; A Brief Introduction to the Old Testament (Oxford University Press, 2009)]

[_Milesius]

and I believe many scholars place locate Job in that gap.

So? Job distinguishes quite clearly between the sons of God and the angels.

Then you should not have any problem pointing out exactly where in Job such a distinction is made.

[_Milesius]

That is false.

"In Israel's early traditions, God was perceived as administering the cosmos with a retinue of divine assistants. The members of this divine council were identified generally as "*sons of God" and "morning stars" (Job 1.6; 38.7), "gods" (Ps. 82) or the host of heaven" (Neh. 9.6; cf. Rev 1.20), and they functioned as God's vicegerents and administrators in a hierarchical bureaucracy over the world (Deut. 32.8 [LXX]; cf. 4.19; 29.26). Where Israel's polytheistic neighbors perceived these beings as simply a part of the pantheon, the Bible depicts them as subordinate and in no way comparable to the God of Israel..." (Samuel A. Meier. "Angels." Oxford Companion to the Bible.)

I know you would like to use the Hebrew Scriptures to try to prop up your manifestly fraudulent religion but it just ain't happenin'. You'll only be able to impress rubes like Buffalo.

"In the postexilic period, with the development of explicit monotheism, these divine beings—the 'sons of God' who were members of the divine council—were in effect demoted to what are now known as 'angels', understood as beings created by God, but immortal and thus superior to humans."

[Coogan, Michael D.; A Brief Introduction to the Old Testament (Oxford University Press, 2009)]

That's quaint, hayseed. It doesn't quiet substantiate the tired nonsense you are trying to peddle, though. Here is what Michael Heiser wrote on his blog in response to maklelan:

For those interested, Dan McClellan has posted a response on his blog to my thoughts on his SBL paper of last year. You can all go read it in full. I’m taking a few moments here to add “rejoinder thoughts” to his most recent post.

1. On this note in response to my contention that we cannot know what ALL Israelites believed about Yahweh and other gods, we read: “The Taanach cult stand; the 1000+ Jerusalem pillar figurines; the his and her cult stands, incense altars, and standing stones at Megiddo room 2081 and the Arad temple; and the numerous biblical references to the ubiquity of Asherah worship among the Israelite monarchs and laity point in the same direction.”

I don’t think this undoes or even addresses my point — that we are neither omniscient nor can we claim what was going on in *all* Israelite heads. These data actually prove nothing, other than that they exist and that they point to polytheistic beliefs on the part of some Israelites. But all Israelites? Nope. A list of data tells us nothing about what every Israelite believed, including biblical writers. For the latter we need the Hebrew Bible to have any shot at understanding that. And by the way, pillar figurines (maybe a couple exceptions here, not sure) don’t come with texts telling us what their users or viewers were thinking when using or viewing them. Same goes for cult stands and incense altars and standing stones. They are MUTE. It is modern scholars that propose (and presuppose) what these things meant on some sort of imagined religious thinking continuum. It is this sort of data piling that the mainstream regularly employs but which I find so unpersuasive. Don’t give me your guess at what these objects meant to Israelites. Show me texts, please. And there aren’t many of those that have substantial content; they are usually dedicatory. But even if there were a thousand, that doesn’t tell us what is in the head of *every* Israelite. Scholars who use a psychologizing hermeneutic really have little more than their imaginations to go on. It’s just not possible to think their thoughts after them. Even with texts that’s hard (and also not completely possible), but without texts to these archaeological data, it’s hopelessly speculative.

One last note. Dan’s response sort of reads like he’s trying to rebut me on a point I’m not making. I never said (and I think I was quite clear on this) that Israelite religion was never polytheistic. I’ve said repeatedly that some, perhaps even most, Israelites worshipped other gods — and so I don’t know what Dan is trying to convince his readers of in the material he listed. My contention is that I don’t see evidence that the biblical writers approved of polytheism or that what I’m calling orthodox Yahwism (biblical Yahwism) at one time approved of worshiping other deities (polytheism) and then transitioned to a rejection of such practices. Dan’s list of data don’t make a case against what I’m asserting at all. And that was my point in the original response. All the data do are to show that polytheism was extant, not who was doing it or how many were doing it.

2. Daniel’s discussion on Deut 32:6-7 and 32:8-9 depends entirely on his guess (and that’s all it is) that the writer of 6-7 didn’t compose 8-9 (i.e., the pairings had separate authors). He has to say this to make his view work, but there’s no way to actually prove it. I was expecting this, as it’s his only logical retreat. But this is yet another example of assuming what he is trying to prove. He needs to make this chronological and content separation, so he assumes separate writers.

The rest of his discussion on this area doesn’t matter. Yes, we know there was a deity El predating Israelite settlement. So what. More psychologizing ahead. Here’s the logic chain:

a. A deity named El exited prior to Israelite settlement.
b. Israelites called their deity El (among other names of course).
c. Deut 32 mentions El and El imagery in several places.

All that’s easy and obvious. Now the good part. Here’s what we’re asked to believe on the basis of the above.

a. Israel’s El was this same pre-Israelite El. I ask, how would we know that? It’s an assumption. An given that all the Canaanite languages used the term for deity, are they all thinking about the same El in a given text? How would we know that isn’t the case? What is the litmus test for knowing when the same or different Els are floating around in someone’s head?
b. The writer(s) of Deut 32 wrote at different times in connection with their (evolving) views of this same El. Again, how do we know that? What is it — besides our preconception that it is so — that tells us this? It’s a *belief* and nothing more.

We simply cannot psychologize the writers like this and call it factual knowledge. As soon as we think we can get inside the heads of a writer dead for millennia on the basis of data *external* to the biblical text (which is our best shot at knowing what a biblical writer would think), we have gone over board.

3. Exodus 6:3 isn’t as tidy as Dan makes it (and again, the academy). He needs to look up Francis Andersen’s work on the sentence in biblical Hebrew for how the syntax of this verse could be translated — 180 degrees from the consensus opinion, too. I’m not saying that Andersen’s view must be correct. I’m saying it’s very unwise to bank so much on Exod 6:3 when it is far from that clear. But Andersen’s work gets little attention. I wonder why? Could it be that the consensus has already made up their mind and his proposal muddies the waters?

4. So now we can tell contemporary time from a ki particle? How tight is the time window? Five minutes? A week? A month? A year? Dan, grammar and syntax just aren’t this precise, and you know it. We both know commentators disagree on this, too.

5. Yes – it’s all El language — but who is it applied to in vv. 6-7? Who’s the referent? Yahweh — he’s there by name.

6. Is there a single text where the scrolls equate elim with angels? Where are the texts where that equation is made? Where the terms are overlapped or are in apposition to one another? If you know of some, I’d love to see them. It actually doesn’t mar my thesis in any way, since I have a different take on how “angelic terms” should be understood. I’d just like to see some. I’ve located just under 200 references to plural elim / elohim in the scrolls thus far, and have yet to find a passage that defines the plural term by “angel” terms.

7. Why didn’t these Qumran writers feel the need to de-deify these many elohim? I think that’s easy. It is we moderns who are guilty of mis-defining what an elohim is. I believe many Israelites had no need to “de-deify” them; they didn’t give it a second thought, since they distinguished them already, because elohim was a “place of residence” term, not an ontological one. Many Jews (and many Israelites — at all periods) would likewise have felt no tension here with their devotion to YHWH. But moderns certainly seem to need this de-deifying.

Here’s a perhaps silly illustration of what I want a modern scholar in this field to convince me of. Let’s say we took one of the biblical writers and we told him he was going to view a line-up of elohim (kind of like criminal line-ups where witnesses make an identification). Our writer sees YHWH, then one of the sons of God from Psalm 82, then a demon from Deut 32:17, then the spirit of his deceased grandma (a la 1 Sam 28:13), and (just for good measure) an angel. All of them were elohim to the biblical writer. Now here’s the question we ask our witness: Would you agree that all those characters are the same? That is, do they all have the same powers or attributes, have the same spiritual status, are all equally deserving of worship?

Sorry, unless our Israelite is a buffoon, the answer isn’t going to be yes. He’d think we were nuts. He is going to say YHWH is different and incomparable. Long-dead Grandma Rivka ain’t at the same level as any of the others, and Israelites knew it. She wasn’t the next YHWH or divine council “deity of the month” nominee.

My point (again) is that it is nonsense to say that plural elohim in the biblical writer’s worldview means polytheism. If you can’t prove to me the biblical writer would see all these elohim as ontologically on par, or “worship interchangeable,” then you can’t prove to me that it’s really polytheism. If it’s true polytheism they’d all have an official cult and there would be no reason to deny them that cult. Again, I’m not going to commit the offense I’m criticizing and say all Israelites parsed this well or even cared. My point is that many could and did distinguish elohim, understanding that “elohim” was a term applied to a range of very different entities that did not share a specific set of attributes. Since today we do equate “g-o-d” to certain attributes, we can’t seem to swallow this. But that’s too bad. We ought to, since the alternative is to impose our view on the ancients and then act like we can reconstruct their religious views. I don’t think so.

[_maklelan]

That's quaint, hayseed. It doesn't quiet substantiate the tired nonsense you are trying to peddle, though. Here is what Michael Heiser wrote on his blog in response to maklelan:

I've responded elsewhere to Michael's position. He and I presented back to back papers on this topic at the Northwest Pacific regional meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. Find someone who attended and ask who got the better of the exchange. I would also point out that Michael acknowledges that mine is the consensus position. Lastly, I would point out that this is, again, nothing more than an appeal to authority.

[_Milesius]

I would also point out that Michael acknowledges that mine is the consensus position.

That means nothing to me. There are plenty of consensus positions in Biblical scholarship that are built on foundations of sand. (Dating John to the late first century and Q come immediately to mind.)

Lastly, I would point out that this is, again, nothing more than an appeal to authority.

No, it is not. I did not write "Michael Heiser, PhD says maklelan is wrong, so he is." I posted his argument against you, which I think is the winning argument.

[_maklelan]

Then you should not have any problem pointing out exactly where in Job such a distinction is made.

The first distinction is found in the disparate designations "sons of God" and "angels." The two are nowhere identified prior to the Hellenistic period, and based on their usage in the Hebrew Bible and in cognate literature, the two served entirely distinct functions (obedient messenger/errand boys vs. partially autonomous mid-level administrators). The motifs in Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7

The word malak only appears three times total in Job (1:14; 4:18; 33:23), and in only one instance is "angel" certain (4:18). In that instance, the word is simply placed parallel to "servant." There's nothing that indicates any kind of identification with the entities of 1:6; 2:1; 38:7 (whose functions are very much parallel to those of cognate literature).

[_Dad of a Mormon]

And by the way, pillar figurines (maybe a couple exceptions here, not sure) don’t come with texts telling us what their users or viewers were thinking when using or viewing them. Same goes for cult stands and incense altars and standing stones. They are MUTE. It is modern scholars that propose (and presuppose) what these things meant on some sort of imagined religious thinking continuum.

I couldn't disagree more, especially the bold portion. These cultural artifacts are critically important in assessing how ancient Israelites practiced and understood their religion, equally important as the textual evidence.

And this seemed to be the gist of his argument: giving all sorts of rationalizations why only textual evidence should be considered, and if that isn't enough, why textual evidence has been badly misinterpreted by scholars because they have ignored this or that paper.

[_maklelan]

That means nothing to me.

Completely untrue. The only arguments you've provided so far have been appeals to authority.

There are plenty of consensus positions in Biblical scholarship that are built on foundations of sand. (Dating John to the late first century and Q come immediately to mind.)

Can you support the obvious a priori assumption that this particular consensus is "built on foundations of sand?" I've provided an argument already that you've not at all engaged, so the burden of proof is very clearly resting squarely on your shoulders.

No, it is not. I did not write "Michael Heiser, PhD says maklelan is wrong, so he is." I posted his argument against you, which I think is the winning argument.

Then I give my rebuttal in following. You may then explain exactly what it is about my argument you find lacking. I'll begin with the comments I posted on his blog:

Thanks for the prompt response, Michael. I will have to sit down with it later, but a couple thoughts stuck in my head as I finished reading. First, I don’t think I’ve ever run across the notion that polytheism exclusively means deities can be interchangeably worshipped. There are numerous texts from Egypt to Mesopotamia that use rhetoric of incomparability perfectly analogous to the biblical version to describe a national deity or a high god over and against other deities of the pantheon, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone argue that that indicates they were not polytheistic.

Second, I thought I was pretty clear on agreeing with you that I didn’t think there was anything related to polytheism taking place in the Hebrew Bible. On those last three points you made I only disagreed about the degree of antiquity of Yahweh’s species uniqueness, but I still don’t think that means polytheism.

Next, regarding his first point, I don't believe he fully responded to my point about no indication prior to the Deuteronomistic literature that Asherah was ever denigrated. One cannot retroject a principle back in time beyond its first attestation in the historical record, especially when what is in the record flatly contradicts the principle.

Regarding his second point, Deut 32:8 begins reported speech (v. 7 ends, "and they will say to you: . . ."), and that means a literary layer. The fact that I can't prove anything is not really relevant. None of what we're discussing is provable. It's all a matter of probability, and in this case, the text itself indicates vv. 8–14 is reported speech that has come down from antiquity. There is no real reason to doubt that there is a literary layer here that was reinterpreted by the author of Deut 32:6–7. Michael's comments about my argument in favor of a separate El and Yahweh don't really engage my actual argument. His characterization of my main points entirely misses the mark. The notion that one deity with the personal name El should first be assumed to be distinct from another deity with the personal name El is methodologically weak. That they share a provenance is the most parsimonious assumption. The fact that the literary motifs associated with the two Els are also parallel strengthens that assumption. It is the assumption that they were distinct that requires evidentiary support, and in this case there is none. The name Yahweh comes late on the scene and has a provenance that is clearly different from the name and history of El.

Regarding his third point, there's little reason to assume Exod 6:3 means anything other than what it says. The grammar can be tweaked and twisted to force it to say something different, but given the absence of the name Yahweh from the E source, there's really no reason to. The plain reading fits the wider evidentiary context much better.

Regarding his fourth point, I said nothing about time. I mentioned a contemporary concern. The textual change from wayyehi to ki changes the conjunction to disjunctive, which makes it easier to avoid reading Yahweh as one of the sons of God.

Point 5 doesn't conflict with anything I said. I agree that the author of the rest of Deut 32 identified Yahweh with El.

Regarding point 6, yes, there are two. 4Q180 recasts the sons of God from Gen 6:2, 4 as Azazel and his angels. The Targum of Job at Qumran also changes "sons of God" at Job 38:7 to "angels of God." Lastly, the terms "gods," "holy ones," "angels," "watchers," etc., are used interchangeably at Qumran. Michael acknowledged as much in Spokane. When I asked how he responded to the two texts above, he stated that they were simply manifesting peripheral diversity. I did not ask because I didn't want to dominate the discussion time, but the are actually no instances where the angels and the gods are specifically distinguished at Qumran. The weight of the evidence clearly favors the identification of the angels and the gods at Qumran.

I don't really have significant disagreements with the last point, at least not that are relevant to our discussion.

If you're not basing your argument exclusively on an appeal to authority, then you should be able to directly engage my comments and explain why Michael's concerns are weightier than mine.