SEARCH

James,

Just a note to let you know that the complete correspondence, entiteld "Letters to a Mormon Elder, the Uncensored Version" is now available on the SHIELDS webpage:

http://www.shields-research.org/NewItems.htm

Feel free to browse.  (Maybe you can just make a link from your page to this one.  It will save you from having to put all the texts in HTML.)

I still eagerly await your response to the many unanswered issues I raised.

William J. Hamblin
Associate Professor of History
323 KMB
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602-4446

801-378-6469
wh4@email.byu.edu
FAX 801-378-5784

At 01:39 PM 4/20/98 -0600, you wrote:
>
>James,
>
>Just a note to let you know that the complete correspondence, >entitled "Letters to a Mormon Elder, the Uncensored Version" is now
>available on the SHIELDS webpage:
>
>http://www.shields-research.org/NewItems.htm
>
>Feel free to browse.
>(Maybe you can just make a link from your page to this one.  It will
>save you from having to put all the texts in HTML.)

Since I haven't even had the time to respond to your first reply, why post something so soon?

BTW, Tvedtnes just wrote to me about some message he said you passed on to him from me.  I haven't the foggiest idea what you all are doing up there, but the message he quoted was not written by me.  I didn't even know what it in the world it was about.

>I still eagerly await your response to the many unanswered issues I
>raised.

I *think* I indicated to you that I am out of town, I am speaking every night for twelve days in a row, and doing a major debate against a Jesuit scholar tomorrow evening.  I'll be honest with you, Dr. Hamblin:  I don't think your exegesis is even semi-defensible, and the only reason I have not yet replied to your comments has nothing to do with "unanswered" issues.  The simple fact of the matter is one of our interpretations is based upon taking the text as a whole and allowing it to speak for itself---and one ignores the context.  If you will be patient, I will gladly demonstrate that.  But I have other duties at the moment, and will get to it when I can.

James>>>

-----Original Message-----
From: James White <orthopodeo@aomin.org>
To: William J. Hamblin <william_hamblin@byu.edu>
Date: Monday, April 20, 1998 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: Web Page

>Since I haven't even had the time to respond to your first reply, why
>post something so soon?

Actually, I didn't do it.  Stan Barker at SHIELDS did.  You'll have to ask him why.

>BTW, Tvedtnes just wrote to me about some message he said you
>passed on to him from me.  I haven't the foggiest idea what you all are
>doing up there, but the message he quoted was not written by me.  I
>didn't even know what it in the world it was about.

Send me the message from Tvedtnes and I'll try to figure it out.

JAMES
I *think* I indicated to you that I am out of town, I am speaking every night for twelve days in a row, and doing a major debate against a Jesuit scholar tomorrow evening.  I'll be honest with you, Dr. Hamblin:  I don't think your exegesis is even semi-defensible, and the only reason I have not yet replied to your comments has nothing to do with "unanswered" issues.  The simple fact of the matter is one of our interpretations is based upon taking the text as a whole and allowing it to speak for itself---and one ignores the context.  If you will be patient, I will gladly demonstrate that.  But I have other duties at the moment, and will get to it when I can.

BILL
Of course.  I didn't mean my comments as a criticism.  Simply that I eagerly await your response.  As I said, take all the time you wish.  I am, however, very dubious of your claims that you are "allowing [the text] to speak for itself."  I hope your response will be more substantive than this type of assertion.  But, feel free to take your time.

The nature of Scripture gives rise to its consistency.  God does not contradict Himself.  Hence, one can actually study the text of Scripture profitably---that is, since it is a consistent whole, one can determine its message, and apply what one learns.  Liberal theology has inevitably led to the death of the denominations in which it has found a home---they have become religious social clubs, many no longer believing God is active in this world, no longer believing in the resurrection, miracles, or anything else, for that matter.  But when one accepts the consistency of God's Word, one can then "hear" God speaking clearly---not in disparate and contradictory snippets, but in a symphonic unison of truth.

Now, I'd be willing to revise my view of the nature of Scripture if you could demonstrate to me that Jesus taught that the Bible is, in fact, nothing more than a heavily redacted collection of ancient Middle Eastern myths.  Having been exposed to a healthy dose of such scholarship in the past, I doubt there is too much "new" out there in defense of such an idea, but feel free to suggest whatever you'd like.

>But to argue that, since Yahweh and Elyon are equated with some
>texts, he therefore must be equated with Elyon in all texts, is, of
>course, blatant circular reasoning.

On a strictly logical basis, that statement is glaringly false.  If one's presupposition is that the text is inherently disjointed, of course----but if you begin with the presupposition that the text is unified, it is no more circular reasoning than assuming that any author is consistent in his own writings.  I truly doubt, Dr. Hamblin, that you would appreciate someone taking one of your books, chopping it up into odd-sized bits, and then beginning the process of "interpretation" by *assuming* that you will contradict yourself on every page, indeed, in almost every paragraph.  I would assume you appreciate it when people take the time to let you define your own terms, and give you the benefit of the doubt when it comes to what might appear to be contradictory in your statements.  It would, of course, be very, very easy to take even one of your articles and, by applying modern form critical methodology, make you appear to be completely inconsistent and absurd.

Therefore, it is not blatant circular reasoning, but simple contextual reading, that would bring me to say that Elyon is merely another term for Yahweh, and Yahweh is simply another name for Elohim.

In reality, *you* are the one reasoning circularly here.  You are assuming something (the *dis*unity of the text) and allowing that presupposition to determine your usage.  Yet, how do you prove disunity, since, of course, you cannot logically just presupose it?  Most often it is "proven" by pointing to these very types of issues!  Of course, only when it comes to studying the Bible can people get away with assuming such things.  No one "assumes" disunity in other ancient documents without being challenged on it---but when it comes to the Bible, it's considered a given anymore.

>I believe there was historical development ("line upon line")
>in the Biblical text and theology, and that, in fact, the OT >understanding of God is quite different from the NT (as the rabbis >would insist).

Historical development is fine, if that means progressive revelation; i.e., that God did not begin His revelation with item 50 on a list of truths about God, but with item 1, then item 2, etc., each building upon the other.  But, since you say that the OT "understanding of God is quite different from the NT," such would not be your meaning.  You could amend that to say "the OT revelation of God is not as complete as the NT" and no one would argue the fact.  There is, of course, one aspect that is completely the same in both:  Yahweh Elohim is the one true and eterna [sic] God, period.

>You cannot find the NicaeanTrinity clearly described in the OT any
>more clearly than you can find the LDS Godhead--so the argument of
>your book in that regard cuts both ways.

You seem to misunderstand the argument of my book.  I do not recall ever arguing that the Old Testament presents the fullness of the doctrine of the Trinity.  Could you direct me to the page where you think I make that claim?  In fact, my book is not about the doctrine of the Trinity.  It's about monotheism.  It's about the fundamental truth of the Bible that God is God, and is ontologically completely different than anything else, for He created everything else, and all things are dependent upon Him, while He is dependent upon nothing else.  And it contrasts this fundamental truth with the LDS assertion that God is an exalted man.  Hence, could you explain how the argument of my book "cuts both ways," since the argument of my book is that if you are not a monotheist, you are not a Christian?  Since I'm a monotheist, how does that argument work against me?

>Be that as it may, I certainly grant that it is possible to interpret this
>passage as saying that Elyon divided the nations among the bene
>elohim, and that Elyon/Yahweh's portion was Israel, and I believe I said
>so on the radio.  (As Paul noted, this interpretation, however, conflicts
>with the biblical notion that Israel was Michael's portion, not Yahweh's,
>but that's another matter.)

I do not have the tape with me, nor did I review it before I left Phoenix, but I do not have any recollection at all of your stating that the passage makes perfect sense seeing Yahweh as the Most High.  In fact, I recall the idea that Yahweh is the son of Elyon, a secondary god, who receives as his chelek but one of the nations so divided.  But, without the tape here, I will not pursue the issue.

As to Michael, I do not recall ever reading that Israel was given to Michael as chelek.  Where might this be found?

>2- The fact that you are "amaze[d] . . . that someone could believe
>Yahweh [in Deut 32] is someone other than the Most High" tells us
>more about you than the argument, since many very intelligent
>interpreters of the text see it in precisely those terms.  I can provide a
>bibliography if you are unaware of such studies.  The point is, then,
>that the text, like many others, is ambiguous, and can be interpreted in
>several ways.

Indeed, if one does not believe the Bible's own testimony to monotheism, one can find in its text pretty much anything one's heart could desire.  All the statement should tell you is that I continue to be amazed at the fulfillment of 2 Peter 3:15-16, issues of "intelligence" being completely irrelevant.  There are intelligent people who believe all sorts of silly things----indeed, the preaching of the cross is to them who are perishing foolishness.

>3- If, as you claim, Deut 32 is attempting to say that Elyon took Israel
>as his portion, it does so in a very ambiguous and confusing way,
>which is precisely why latter editors changed the text from bene elohim
>to bene Yisrael.

Assuming, of course, your own position and the textual reading you have chosen.  However, I cannot put a lot of stock in your statements regarding confusion, since you say you are confused as to how a Christian could understand Psalm 82 as well.  The passage certainly does not confuse me, anymore than the simple reading of Psalm 82 does.

>If the text so unambiguously says what you claim, why did later
>editors feel compelled to expunge the offending line, thereby removing
>the possibility of reading the text as Elyon giving Yahweh a portion? 
>The text was clearly understood by enough early readers as saying
>something along those lines that the editors felt compelled to change
>the text.

Could you provide the commentary of the alleged redactors that provides you with this certain information as to what they were thinking?

>Furthermore, why would God inerrantly inspire a text in such a >dreadfully ambiguous manner?

I'm sorry, but such an argument is so circular as to boggle the mind.  I don't believe the passage is the least bit amgibuous, nor do I believe many passages, all of which directly contradict LDS teaching, are ambiguous.

>4- I should note also that, interestingly enough, to the best of my
>knowledge the phrase bene Yahweh never occurs in the OT.  (Do you
>know of any?)  If so, it is interesting to ask why?  Why are there bene
>elim, bene ha-elohim, bene elohim and bene elyon, but--if all of these
>are simple equivalents for Yahweh--there are no bene Yahweh?

I didn't say they were simple equivalents, of course.  I said that Yahweh is Elohim and that there is only one true God in the Old Testament, such terms as Elyon likewise describing that one true God.  It is illogical to take that statement and then say that I am making Yahweh a "simple equivalent."  Yahweh is the covenant name of the maker of all things, including Israel.  As such, it is more specific than Elohim.

>The issue I originally tried to raise was, who are the bene
>elohim/elyon?  This needs to be discussed in the context of the
>NT use of elyon/hypsistos (LXX Greek for elyon), which we never
>got to on the radio.  In the NT Christ is called the son of
>elyon/hypsistos (Lk 1:32, 1:35, 8:28, Mk 5:7), but is never
>himself called hypsistos (all other passages: Lk 1:76; Acts 7:28,
>16:7, Heb 7:1).  Hypsistos is thus, by accident or intention, a
>unique title for the Father in the NT.

I do not believe in accidents in the text of the NT.  Be that as it may, since Elyon = Yahweh, and Yahweh is used of Father, Son, and Spirit (despite Van's protestations to the contrary), we find here more of the reason Christians refused to follow the path of polytheism but instead saw the truth of the Trinity.

>The final interesting passage is Lk 6:35, which reads that the
>followers of Christ should "love your >enemies, and do good, and
>lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and
>you will be the sons of the Most High (huioi hypsistou)."

NAB Luke 6:35 "But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men.

Adding the hoti clause surely indicates the context in which the phrase is being used, "FOR He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men."

>Notice, then, that in the NT Christ is the son of hypsistos, and so are
>the followers of Christ.

Surely Christ is the Son of the Most High in a unique manner, for no one could ever argue that the last passage you cited has any ontological meaning whatsoever.  To do so would require one to insist that Christ is only the Son of the Most High as He was kind to ungrateful and evil men, which makes no sense whatsoever.  Hence, the bare statement that men and Christ are alike huioi of the Most High is highly misleading at best.

>This parallels Mt 5:9, where the "peacemakers . . . shall be called the
>sons of God."  I'm sure you are aware of the many other passages
>where the saved become sons of God.  We can discuss them if you'd
>like.

Matthew 5:9 parallels Luke 6:35, and refers to believers being called children of God as they imitate His behavior and goodness.  None of these, however, make men the offspring of an exalted man from another planet, and none of them even begin to suggest that the relationship of Father and Son is limited to a merely moral dimension.

>Notice, then, what the combination of these texts, with a literal >reading of Ps 82, implies the following:

The literal reading of Psalm 82, as I demonstrated, has nothing to do with your assertions regarding it.

> Christ is the son of the Most High

Ontologically and Messianically.

> his true followers can become the sons of the Most High

In the moral sense of followers of imitators of His goodness.

> Christ is the son of God

Eternally the Son.

> his true followers can become the sons of God

By faith in Jesus Christ (John 1:12).

> Ps 82:6 The sons of the Most High are gods/elohim

As judges of the people of Israel, standing in His place, applying His law.

>When Christ quoted "ye are gods" from Ps. 82:6, he was--in typical
>rabbinic fashion--giving a scriptural reference.  Today we would say,
>"Read Ps 82:6," but, since such a reference system had not been
>developed at the time of Christ, the ancients would simply quote the
>first line of the passage they were referencing.  Christ expected his
>listeners to know the scripture, and to consider the entire passage, not
>simply the one line.

Most definitely....including the verses you have removed from consideration (3 & 4).

>Christ was certainly aware that the very next phrase of the text
>he was citing to justify his claim to being the Son of God,
>explicitly equates the sons of the Most High/bene elyon/huioi
>hypsistou with the elohim/gods.  Which is, of course, precisely
>what he was claiming: that he, as the Son of God, was one with
>the Father, i.e. he was elohim/theos.  This is precisely what the
>Jews understood him as saying.  There was no ambiguity or
>confusion.  There was no condemnation of anyone as
>unrighteous judges.  Everyone understood the argument and its
>implications.  To me the issue and argument are crystal clear,
>and all the nonsense about elohim = judges completely distorts
>the text of Jn 10, and destroys the thrust of Christ's argument.

Actually, allowing Psalm 82 to say what it says without removing entire sections that disagree with one's theories, fits perfectly in the Lord's use of the passage in John 10.  There is no problem with the Lord's citation of the passage whatsoever, and to miss His own reference to "those unto whom the word of God came" and His condemnation of them as false judges is to merely close one's eyes to the text.  Of course Jesus is claiming deity here...but that came from John 10:30, not from Psalm 82.  The citation of Psalm 82 brings condemnation upon them for accusing Him of blasphemy.

>If we are to take the scripture seriously, we must conclude that sons of
>the Most High/bene elyon/huioi hypsistou are elohim/gods, and that
>the true followers of Christ can become sons of the Most High/bene
>elyon/huioi hypsistou, or in other words, elohim/gods.  And this, of
>course, is the LDS Christian position.

As we have seen above, this is not taking Scripture seriously at all.  It is stringing together disparate passages, ignoring their contexts, ignoring dozens of passages that completely contradict the fundamental assumptions of the argument, and coming to a conclusion that is really only provided to you by your faith in Joseph Smith, not by any meaningful form of exegesis.

>Now, you may not like this theology, and you don't have to agree with
>it.  You may perform all the exegetical acrobatics you wish to try to
>make the text say something else.

The acrobatics are clearly being performed by yourself, Dr. Hamblin, not by me.

>But this is the literal sense of the text, and the only interpretation
>in which Christ's argument in John 10 makes logical sense.

That is completely untrue, and has been shown to be wishful thinking, not exegesis.

>So, though I readily grant you the right to disagree, I can't see
>how you can claim the LDS position on this matter is unbiblical
>or non-Christian, or that you are letting the text speak for itself,
>while I am somehow distorting it.

Since you have ignored the different uses of the phrases you string together, and have removed them form their contexts, the distortion is very, very clear.

>I won't cite your entire lengthy argument on the judges = elohim, but
>will make a few comments.

Since that was the substance of my response, I'm very disappointed that I have spent a week receiving notes about how I have failed to "answer" your points, when it is *my* points that are going unanswered.

>You have a heavy burden of proof to sustain.
>1- There is a perfectly good Hebrew word for judge (shaphat).  If Ps 82
>meant to condemn wicked judges, why in the world didn't God
>inerrantly inspire the psalmist to use the word for judge?  Why all this
>language about elohim, the council of el, and the bene elyon?

You are ignoring the passages I provided to you that use elohim clearly for judges.  Please respond to those passages I cited to you, including:

Exodus 22:8 "If the thief is not caught, then the owner of the house shall appear before the judges [Hebrew: ha'elohim], to determine whether he laid his hands on his neighbor's property.

>2- Your claim that humans have judging functions as described in Ps
>82 is quite correct.  I presume, however, that you are also aware that
>God is the supreme judge, and judgement, is, in fact, ultimately a
>divine rather than human function, and that mortals will participate in
>rendering divine judgement at the final judgement (e.g. Mt 19:28, Lk
>22:29).

Not relevant to the issue at hand, nor the plain usage at Exodus 22 or Psalm 82.

>3- I quite concur that mortals are condemned for rendering unjust
>judgement.  This does not demonstrate that elohim can be used as a
>term to mean judges.

Such usage is so firmly established as to be beyond discussion.

>4- I challenge you show me anywhere else in the OT or NT,
>where the term elohim unequivocally means judge?  You
>attempted to do so as follows:
>
>JAMES
>Actually, because the Hebrew normally uses the term Elohim of God
>(do you embrace the distinction between Yahweh and Elohim
>introduced by the First Presidency?), [BILL: Yes I do, but it cannot be
>clearly found in the OT, although I believe it can be sustained from the
>NT, but that is a different matter.]

It is a different matter....but it shows that LDS teachings are derived from LDS authority, not biblical exegesis.

>and the context defines the nature and function of the plural use
>of elohim in regards to the giving of judgment amongst the
>people.  This is an established use of the term:
>[Cite: Exodus 22:8; Exodus 22:9]
>
>BILL
>(You should also have added Exodus 21:6, which in the KJV and >some other translations says the same type of thing.)

Possibly, but that is not necessary.  The usage at Exodus 22 is plain enough.

>I'm sorry, but you will simply have to do better than that.  Note, first,
>that these passages do not say that elohim are shaphat.

Nor, of course, does it need to.  Anyone reading the context knows what is going on.  The elohim in Exodus 22:9 "condemn" (hiphil of rasha)---and any person familiar with the term knows its legal ramifications, and its connection with shaphat.  Note just one passage that again supports the exegesis I provided:

NAB Deuteronomy 1:17 'You shall not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small and the great alike.  You shall not fear man, for the judgment is God's.  The case that is too hard for you, you shall bring to me, and I will hear it.'
This is, of course, the positive of which Psalm 82:2-4 is the negative, even to the point of the condemnation of showing partiality.  Psalm 82 uses shaphat of the action of the elohim----and then, as I showed, limits this to human affairs.  You have completely ignored the entire section of my post that demonstrates this I believe beyond any reasonable doubt.  Since you seem to have lost this section, I repeat it here, and ask you to respond to it meaningfully:

Again, if you would allow the context to stand as a unit, the answer to the question is without question:

Psalm 82:2 How long will you judge unjustly And show partiality to the wicked?
Psalm 82:3 Vindicate the weak and fatherless; Do justice to the afflicted and destitute.
Psalm 82:4 Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked.
Psalm 82:5 They do not know nor do they understand; They walk about in darkness; All the foundations of the earth are shaken.
Psalm 82:6 I said, "You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High.
Psalm 82:7 "Nevertheless you will die like men And fall like any one of the princes."
Psalm 82:8 Arise, O God, judge the earth! For it is You who possesses all the nations.

Yahweh is judging the elohim.  What is the content of the judgment?  Verses 2 through 7.  In verse 2, God brings the charge: unjust judging and partiality to the wicked.  You say that this judgment comes upon "(some of?) the other elohim."  Yet, the very verses you skip over demonstrate that these are plainly HUMAN matters.  The unjust judgment and partiality toward the wicked are HUMAN actions:

Deuteronomy 1:17  'You shall not show partiality [note the phraseology used here, Dr. Hamblin] in judgment; you shall hear the small and the great alike.  You shall not fear man, for the judgment is God's.  The case that is too hard for you, you shall bring to me, and I will hear it.'

Proverbs 18:5  To show partiality to the wicked is not good, Nor to thrust aside the righteous in judgment.

The judges are commanded to vindicate the weak and fatherless and to do justice to the afflicted and destitute:

Exodus 22:22  "You shall not afflict any widow or orphan.

Job 29:12  Because I delivered the poor who cried for help, And the orphan who had no helper.

Zechariah 7:10  and do not oppress the widow or the orphan, the stranger or the poor; and do not devise evil in your hearts against one another.'

These elohim are doing just the opposite.  Just how, Dr. Hamblin, do you substantiate the idea that gods other than the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit (in the LDS viewpoint) are somehow held responsible for passing juridicial sentences in Israelite society?  Just how are these "gods" supposed to vindicate or do justice on this earth?  How are they to rescue the week and needy, or deliver them from the hand of the wicked ones?  I wasn't aware these other "gods" were involved in this world so as to be judged by God as having failed their task.  Isn't it the common belief of Mormons that 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 *does* refer to other divine beings, but that for US there is but one God, and we don't have "dealings" with these others?

Be that as it may, a fair, contextual exegesis, then, closes the door upon the rather strange (from my view) constructs placed upon the passage by those who absolutely *must* find some way of turning the text of the Old Testament into a polytheistic text.  The meaning---if the text is allowed to speak for itself---is rather plain.

>Note, second, that there is not a reason in the world to
> translate elohim in these three passages as judges.

There is every reason just re-cited as ignored by you in your response.

>In fact, the reason ha-elohim is occasionally translated as judges in
>these three passages is because of the Targum Onkelos, and similar
>documents.  The problem seems to be that the rabbis didn't like the
>literal implications of the phrase ha-elohim = the gods, and so simply
>changed it in translation to fit their theology, (precisely as you are
>doing).

Or, more logically, the context indicates otherwise.  A context you have yet to even attempt to address.

>At any rate, the text makes perfectly good sense when read literally.
>The plaintiffs in a legal case are to appear before God, who will
>manifest the truth of the case through an unspecified form of revelation
>or divination.  There is no cogent reason, indeed, no reason at all, to
>translate elohim here as judges.

There is no cogent reason to withhold utter amazement at such confident statements in the face of such obvious error.

>So, to conclude, if you want your claim that the word elohim in
>Ps 82 refers to human judges, I challenge you to show any
>passage in the OT where elohim is used in such a manner.  Not
>in translation, please, but based on an exegesis of the original
>Hebrew.

I have done so----Exodus 22 and Psalm 82 are so clear, and so compelling, that your unwillingness to see this is highly illustrative of what happens when one accepts an extra-biblical authority as the determining factor in one's "exegesis."

>I suspect you have derived your interpretation, either directly or
>indirectly, from Calvin's commentary on Ps 82.

Not in any way.  I've not read his comments.  My exegesis is derived from the text.

>The rich irony here is that I am in agreement with the early Christians
>on this matter, while you are following an interpretation which seems to
>have been developed by rabbinic enemies of the Christian apologists,
>with whom I am agreeing!

Of course, neither passage from Justin or Irenaeus can logically be used to promote polytheism---though, of course, the context of patristic citations seems to suffer as badly at your hands as the context of Psalm 82.
>
>>Notice, too that these gods/sons of God become like men, and >>die.
>
>Of course, there is nothing in the text even remotely indicating >"become like men and die."  They *are* men, and God is simply >reminding them that though they have been given an exalted place of
>rulership amongst His people, they are mere mortals, and will face His
>judgment.  As rulers, they had become infatuated with their authority
>(another sad reality we can see all around us), and had failed to do
>their duty.  God reminds them that despite their exalted position, they
>are mortal, and shall die as all men die.

>You are quite correct I overstated the case.  Let me phrase my
>interpretation more carefully.
>
>The elohim in the council of el are condemned by God for their >wickedness.  Though they are elohim, and thereby should be >immortal, they are nonetheless condemned to die "like men."
>You are correct that the text is not explicitly stating that they
>"become men."  However, it does state that (normally immortal)
>elohim will die like (normally mortal) men, which perhaps could
>be taken to imply some type of transition or "fall," as is
>mentioned in the next line.  This, of course, is how Justin
>understood the text.

Again, the eisegetical approach leads you to miss the most basic sence [sic] of the language.  These are human judges, and due to their immorality and false judgment, they are condemned by God.  The same is true in John 10: were the Jews who were about to stone Jesus elohim, Dr. Hamblin?  The verb is present tense---were they, at that time, elohim, or false judges about to stone Jesus having passed a false judgment upon Him?  Indeed, are YOU an elohim, Dr. Hamlbin? (Jeremiah 10:11).

>I can assure you, Dr. Hamblin, this Psalm is anything but gibberish to
>anyone who does not embrace a plurality of gods, and who allows the
>text to speak for itself.

>Your claims that you are "allow[ing] the text to speak for itself"
>demonstrates a lack of exegetical sophistication on your part.  The text
>never "speaks for itself."  All texts require interpretation to be
>understood.  You interpret, I interpret.  We both do so based on a
>limited knowledge, and a set of unprovable assumptions and
>paradigms.  But a text can never simply "speak for itself."

Words mean things, Dr. Hamblin.  The text *can* speak for itself, and in this case, does so quite admirably.  What I meant is clear in the context in which I used it: and your ability to remove words from their context has been established in this very, very long response.

>Furthermore, your claim is simply absurd.  It is quite clear that I am
>interpreting the texts based on the literal sense of the words and
>phrases (although even this is not letting the text speak for itself"),
>while you are making unwarranted transformations.

I will gladly let those who read this judge who is guilty of doing that, Dr. Hamblin.  I now await a meaningful response to the issue of the two verses in Psalm 82 that you have, thus far, completely ignored (3 & 4).

James>>>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^ James White ** Orthopodeo@aomin.org ^
^ Sola Scriptura: A Fundamental Truth ^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Today, all sorts of subjects are eagerly pursued; but the knowledge of God is neglected. . . yet to know God is man's chief end, and justifies his existence.  Even if a hundred lives were ours, this one aim would be sufficient for them all. ---John Calvin

BILL
Before I give you my contextual reading of Ps 82, let's see if we can resolve a much more straightforward problem.  Let's see if we can agree about the meaning of John 10.  If we can't achieve that, I suspect this entire enterprise is quite hopeless.  I believe we should start with John 10 since we can then use Jesus' reading of the passage as the key to understanding Ps 82.  Maybe I'm wrong, but humor me for now.  Your discussion John 10 leaves much unclear.  Here is your relevant statement:

JAMES
Actually, allowing Psalm 82 to say what it says [that it is a condemnation of human judges] without removing entire sections that disagree with one's theories, fits perfectly in the Lord's use of the passage in John 10.  There is no problem with the Lord's citation of the passage whatsoever, and to miss His own reference to "those unto whom the word of God came" and His condemnation of them as false judges is to merely close one's eyes to the text.  Of course Jesus is claiming deity here...but that came from John 10:30, not from Psalm 82.  The citation of Psalm 82 brings condemnation upon them for accusing Him of blasphemy.

BILL
I'm afraid I simply don't understand your interpretation.  There are too many hidden assumptions and too much rhetorical posturing, and not enough close attention to the text.  Let's move through the passage verse by verse and see if we can get a consensus on the meaning.  I'll cite the RSV.  I believe there are no significant ambiguities of translation here, but we can quibble about translation if you'd like.

24  So the Jews gathered round him and said to him, "How long will you keep us in suspense?  If you are the Christ, tell us plainly."

Jesus responds with a brief discourse on the works that he does, and that the Jews are not his sheep or they would "hear my voice" (27) i.e. understand and accept him as the Messiah.  Those who accept Jesus will have eternal life.  Jesus concludes saying that "I and the Father are one" (30).  The Jewish reaction to this claim culminates in Christ's citation of Ps 82.

31  The Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of these do you stone me?"

In OT stoning was punishment for the following offenses:  
  apostasy (Lev 20:2; Deut 13:11)
  worshiping other gods (Deut 17:2-7)
  child sacrifice to Molech (Lev 20:2-5)
  prophesying in the name of another god (Deut 13:1-5)
  blasphemy (Lev 24:14-16)
  sorcery/spirit divination (Lev 20:27)
  sabbath violation (Num 15:32-36)
  disobedience to parents (Deut 21:18-21)
  adultery (Deut 22:21-24)
Jesus is ironically asking for which of these offenses is he going to be stoned.  (Note, at various points in the NT, Jesus is accused of blasphemy, sabbath violation, and sorcery.)  The Jews clearly understood the ironic question:

33 The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we stone you but for blasphemy; because, you, being a man, make yourself God."  (I would translate this as "make yourself a god," since theon here as no definite article.  Jesus is not making himself *the God*, but *a god*.  But this issue is not really relevant to our current discussion.)

Are we agreed so far?  Quibbling aside, do you have any major objections to my exegesis to this point?  If not, then the crux of the matter is in 34-36.

34  a  Jesus answered them,
  b  "Is it not written in your law,
  c   'I said you are gods'?
35  a  If he called them gods
  b  to whom the word [logos] of God came
  c  (and scripture cannot be broken),
36  a  do you say of him
  b  whom the Father consecrated [hagiasen = made holy]
  c  and sent into the world,
  d  'You are blaspheming,'
  e  because I said, 'I am the Son of God.'"

So, lets go phrase by phrase and see what the passage means.

I think there will be no dispute over 35a-c.  Jesus is using "law" (nomos/torah) in its broader sense of the entire Hebrew Bible, rather than just the Pentateuch.  The passage, "I said 'you are gods'" is a quotation of Ps 82:6.  Are we agreed so far?

It would seem that the center of the debate is the phrase of 34a-b, "if he called them gods to whom the word of God came."  I think there are only three questions.  I will give them, and the possible answers as I understand the matter.  If you have other possible questions or answers, please feel free to offer them.

1.  Who is the "he" who is calling someone "gods?"  (Whoever "he" is, I think "he" is clearly the "I" of 35c = Ps 82:6.  Can we agree on that?)  The possible identifications I can think of are:  
  A.  God
  B.  David the psalmist
  C.  Some other unknown prophetic author of the psalms.  Within the context of Ps 82 (which we can debate in detail later), I personally think that the "I" of 35c and Ps 82:6 can only be God/elohim of 82:1.  Thus, God himself is speaking; he is saying to someone, "ye are gods."  Are we agreed on this, or is there some other possible interpretation?

2.  Who are the "them" who are being called gods?  (I suspect we can agree that "to whom" in 35b refers to the "them" in 35a, right?)  I believe that they are the elohim of the adat El (gods of the assembly of El/God) in 82:1.  I suspect you would even agree with this interpretation.  If I understand you correctly, you think that these elohim are metaphorically referring to unrighteous judges of the assembly of Israel.  I understand the text literally as referring to elohim/gods of the assembly of El.  There are several other possible interpretations:
  A.  The elohim of the adat El (my view)
  B.  The prophets of Israel in general, unto whom the word of God came
  C.  The people of Israel in general, unto whom the word of God came through the prophets
  D.  Any other suggestions?  
For you, if I have understood correctly, the elohim of Ps 82 are human judges.  For me, the elohim of Ps 82 are literally gods/celestial beings/bene elyon.  Have I identified the crux of our disagreement here?  (Let's not get off on a tangent now about how I have failed to contextualize Ps 82, etc. etc.  I have read your arguments, and I will return to them shortly.  For now, lets just try to identify the focus of our disagreement on John 10.  At this point, let's not debate the relative merits of our two interpretations, let's just try to clearly identify where we agree and disagree.)

3.  What, specifically, is the "word of God" which came to the "them" of question 2?  I will await your interpretation, but to me it is the phrase "ye are gods."  "I", God, said to "them" (elohim/judges [your view] or elohim/literal gods [my view]):  "ye are gods."  Therefore the "word" of God which came to "them" is the statement, "ye are elohim, even the bene elyon, all of you," etc.  Do you agree, or do you understand it differently?

We can now turn to John 10:36, which I'll give again:

36
  a  do you [Jews] say of him [Jesus]
  b  whom the Father consecrated [hagiasen = made holy]
  c  and sent into the world,
  d  'You are blaspheming,'
  e  because I [Jesus] said,
  f  'I am the Son of God.'

As I understand 36a:  "do you say of him = do you [Jews] say of him [Jesus]."  36b-c are thus parenthetical phrases which define "him"/Jesus, which, though very interesting from an LDS perspective, I don't feel have a bearing on our debate here.  If you feel otherwise, let me know.

In 36d, then, the Christ is saying that Jews are saying "you [Jesus] are blaspheming."  I feel that this is quite obvious, and is an allusion back to the express statement of the Jews to that effect in 33.  Are we agreed on this?

Thus, in light of all this, I read the argument of Jesus in 35-36 as follows:  Jesus in 30 says that "I and the Father are one." The Jews understand him as blaspheming, and prepare to stone him.  Jesus asks them why they are going to stone him. They reply, "because you, being a man, make yourself a god" (33).  Now I understand 34-36 as Jesus' defense of his claim to divinity.  He is arguing that his claim to be one with the Father is not blasphemy.  What is the argument?  As I understand it Jesus is saying that his claim to be one with the Father (i.e a claim to be theos) and the Son of God is not blasphemy, because in Ps 82:6 God calls others (whomever they might be) *precisely* both god and sons of god/elyon: "ye are gods, even the sons of the Most High, all of you."  Now I know that we disagree about who these others are, and, as noted above, I will return to that issue in a later letter.  But, no matter who they may, I think the argument being made by Jesus is clear.  Do you agree or not?

Now, if my understanding of Jesus' argument is correct, and if the word elohim in Ps 82 is merely a metaphorical usage for human judges as you claim, then Jesus' argument is sophistry.  He is saying that his claim to be god/son of god in the literal sense of the term is not blasphemous, because in Ps 82, human judges are metaphorically called gods.  This is blatant equivocation on Jesus' part.  A metaphorical usage in the Psalms cannot justify the literal usage by Jesus in John 10.  I am arguing that whomever Ps 82 might be referring to (and we can discuss the specifics later), they must be ontological gods in some meaningful sense of the word, or Jesus' defense of his claim of being ontologically god is mere sophistry.

You, apparently disagree with my understanding of Jesus' argument, and frankly I don't understand what in the world you are talking about.  You claim that "the citation of Psalm 82 brings condemnation [as unrighteous judges] upon them [the Jews] for accusing Him [Jesus] of blasphemy."  I'm sorry, but I simply don't see this anywhere in this passage.  Could you please provide a line by line exegesis, paralleling what I have done here, to explain why you think Jesus is condemning his accusers as unrighteous judges rather than defending himself against their charge of blasphemy?  Where, specifically have I gotten it wrong?  (And please, no more rhetorical posturing about how I am stripping everything from context and you are merely letting the text speak for itself.  Just evidence and analysis please.)

It seems to me there are only two other possible options for understanding Jesus here: 1- I am wrong, and Jesus is not trying to defend himself against the accusation of blasphemy, but is saying something else, [and every commentary I have read, liberal or conservative, thinks that Jesus is defending himself against the charge of blasphemy] or 2- Jesus really was using sophistic methods common to rabbinic hermeneutics.  I've seen many people argue #2, but I've never seen a published argument against #1.  If you have some bibliographic references on that subject, I'd like to see them.

A final note which is not really relevant to the Ps 82/Jn 10 debate.  Note that in Jn 10:36f Jesus says that he had said, "I am the Son of God."  In fact he does not explicitly say this in this argument, nor anywhere in the NT.  What he says, in verse 30 is "I and the Father are one."  This is somehow meant by Jesus to imply his sonship.  What do you make of that?

I personally don't think that 10:37-38 have any bearing on Jesus's argument here.  Jesus is simply offering a reason for the Jews to believe:  that Jesus does the works of the Father.  I don't see this as providing a further justification in Jesus's defense against the Jews' accusation of blasphemy.  If you understand it differently, please let me know.

This is how I understand this facet of our debate.  Once this is clarified, we can move on to Ps 82.

William J. Hamblin
Associate Professor of History
323 KMB
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602-4446

801-378-6469
wh4@email.byu.edu
FAX 801-378-5784

At 05:27 PM 4/27/98 -0600, you wrote:

>BILL
>Before I give you my contextual reading of Ps 82, let's see if we can
>resolve a much more straightforward problem.  Let's see if we can
>agree about the meaning of John 10.  If we can't achieve that, I suspect
>this entire enterprise is quite hopeless.  I believe we should start with
>John 10 since we can then use Jesus' reading of the passage as the
>key to understanding Ps 82.  Maybe I'm wrong, but humor me for now.

And later:

>This is how I understand this facet of our debate. Once this is >clarified, we can move on to Ps 82.

Yet, when you contacted me a few weeks ago, you did not ask about John 10----you gave me what you called a "straightforward" literal interpretation of Psalm 82, and asked me how I understood Psalm 82, not John 10.  I provided you with a literal, straightforward interpretation of *all* of Psalm 82 (including verses 3 and 4, which have always been missing from your interpretation of the passage), and thus far, you have not dealt with the heart of my response.  Now you seem to wish to shift away from your originally stated reasons for contacting me, that being the meaning of Psalm 82, onto John 10 and Jesus' disputation with the Jews.  However, Psalm 82 existed for hundreds of years prior to the Lord's use of a section of the passage in that debate.  Are you suggesting that we cannot determine the meaning of the passage without reference to John 10?  And if your purpose was to find out how Psalm 82 could make sense while embracing monotheism, why can't we deal with Psalm 82 itself?

So far my exegesis has been, in large part, ignored.  I have pointed out the meaning of verses 3 and 4, and you have completely failed to even begin to address this material.  I do not feel it would be worthwhile to allow you to skip past such material for reasons that have not even been stated.  You established the parameters:  what does Psalm 82 mean in its original context (you even mentioned translating the Hebrew).  When you are willing to address the response to your original comments, including *all* of those comments (i.e., verses 3 and 4), we can continue.  If not, I see no reason to engage in lengthy written correspondence when you can pick and choose what elements of my replies you will or will not deal with.  Such would be foolhardy on my part.

James>>>

Dear James,

JAMES
[W]hen you contacted me a few weeks ago, you did not ask about John 10----you gave me what you called a "straightforward" literal interpretation of Psalm 82, and asked me how I understood Psalm 82, not John 10.  I provided you with a literal, straightforward interpretation of *all* of Psalm 82 (including verses 3 and 4, which have always been missing from your interpretation of the passage), and thus far, you have not dealt with the heart of my response.  Now you seem to wish to shift away from your originally stated reasons for contacting me, that being the meaning of Psalm 82, onto John 10 and Jesus' disputation with the Jews.  However, Psalm 82 existed for hundreds of years prior to the Lord's use of a section of the passage in that debate.  Are you suggesting that we cannot determine the meaning of the passage without reference to John 10?  And if your purpose was to find out how Psalm 82 could make sense while embracing monotheism, why can't we deal with Psalm 82 itself?

BILL
The actual issue I raised is:  who are the bene el/elohim/elyon/sons of God.  Ps. 82 is simply one example of the use of that term.  I believe all examples must be studied together to obtain as full an understanding as possible.  I also personally feel that, for Christians, Christ's exegesis of Ps. 82 in John 10 should be very important, if not definitive for our own exegesis of Ps. 82.  I'm disappointed that you apparently don't agree.  But, if you want to limit the discussion, at this point, to only Ps. 82, I'm perfectly willing.  ( I suspect that most readers of this correspondence will see this as the quintessential "when you lose, change the topic" tactics for which you and many other anti-Mormons are so well known.) I'll deal with Ps 82 now if you promise to deal with the issues I raised about John 10 when we are done with Ps 82.

JAMES
So far my exegesis has been, in large part, ignored. I have pointed out the meaning of verses 3 and 4, and you have completely failed to even begin to address this material.  I do not feel it would be worthwhile to allow you to skip past such material for reasons that have not even been stated.  You established the parameters:  what does Psalm 82 mean in its original context (you even mentioned translating the Hebrew).  When you are willing to address the response to your original comments, including *all* of those comments (i.e., verses 3 and 4), we can continue.  If not, I see no reason to engage in lengthy written correspondence when you can pick and choose what elements of my replies you will or will not deal with.  Such would be foolhardy on my part.

BILL
(But, obviously, you feel it would be wise on my part to engage in this correspondence "when you can pick and choose what elements of my replies you will or will not deal with."  So be it.  Should I make a list of all the issues I raised which you have conveniently ignored?)

As preliminary background, there seem to be two major schools of interpretations of the elohim/bene elyon in Ps 82.  One maintains that the elohim/bene elyon are human judges (either from Israel or from the goyim), who are given the title of elohim because they exercise divine authority when judging.  This is your position.  The other interpretation is that the elohim/bene elyon are, in fact, celestial beings of some sort.  And that the God of Israel is literally judging the gods.  This is my position.

Just as background, let's take a look at a miscellaneous selection of commentaries on Ps 82.  I went to the BYU library and randomly selected from the broad range of commentaries.  I tried to get famous ones of which I had heard, but I also simply took others randomly from the shelves.  I also tried to include a wide range of perspectives, from conservative to liberal, and dates, from the Reformation to the present.  Here are the results, organized by relative date.

Calvin (16th century) = judges
Dickson (1655) = judges
Matthew Henry (18th century) = judges
Keil & Delitzsch (1880s?) = judges
Nealle and Littledale (1887) = gives both
Briggs (1907) = judges
Spurgeon (1918) = judges
Soncino (1945) = judges (Rashi) or celestial beings (Ibn Ezra)
Interpreters (1955) = leans to celestial beings, but is uncertain
Beacon (1967) = judges
Eerdmans (1970) = judges
Broadman (1971) = celestial beings
New Century (1972) = celestial beings
Anchor (1970s?) = celestial beings
Cambridge (1977) = celestial beings
Kraus (1978) = celestial beings
New Jerome (1990) = celestial beings
Word (1990) = celestial beings
Expositors (Zondervan, 1991) = celestial beings
Interpretation (1994) = celestial beings
New Interpreters (1996) = celestial beings
Goulden, Psalms of Asaph, (1996) = celestial beings

Notice that, since the early 70s, *all* commentaries I found have interpreted this passage as referring to celestial beings. None accept the judge interpretation, even the conservative ones.  I suspect there might be some fundamentalist modern commentaries which may still maintain the judge interpretation, but I couldn't find any.  (If you know of any, please give me the references.)  This phenomenon cannot be attributed to liberal/agnostic vs. conservative/believing, since the various post-1970 conservative commentaries I listed above agree with the celestial being interpretation.  The reason for this shift is that new archaeological discoveries, especially the Ugaritica, along with linguistic and comparative studies have decisively demonstrated that the language used in the Bible to describe the assembly of the gods and the bene elohim is precisely the same language used by other peoples (especially the Canaanites) to describe the divine assembly of their gods.  Have you read E. T. Mullen, The Assembly of the Gods: The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature, (Scholars Press, 1980)?  If you have, and disagree with his conclusions, I would like to see a detailed rebuttal of his position.  (I'm not expecting you to write it yourself.  Just refer me to a source which systematically explains this evidence from your perspective.)  If you haven't, don't you think you should stop pontificating on what Ps 82 and parallel passages mean until you have?

You have been frequently insinuating in your postings that you feel I have skipped verses 3 and 4 because they disprove my position and because I have no explanation for them.  Actually, I skipped them because I felt that the standard explanation for those who view Ps 82 as referring to celestial beings--which I apparently mistakenly assumed you had read--was quite clear on the matter.  I'm not going to waste my time writing a point by point commentary for you, when there are many in existence.  Although I disagree with him on some details, I suggest you read Marvin E. Tate, Word Biblical Commentary, vol 20: Psalms 51-100, (Dallas, Word Books, 1982), pp. 328-341, (a conservative commentary, I believe).  I basically concur with his position on vs. 3-4.  He also provides a useful bibliography.  If you don't have a copy in your personal library, or available at a nearby public library, I'd be happy to send you a xerox at my expense.  If you want one, and request it now, I can mail it today so it will be at your home when you return from New York.

So, there is my explanation for vs. 3-4.  It is really simple and straightforward.  Hardly worth all your rhetorical posturing on the matter.  Now that I have done as you demanded, shall we return to Christ's exegesis, instead of squabbling over yours and mine?

William J. Hamblin
Associate Professor of History
323 KMB
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602-4446

801-378-6469
wh4@email.byu.edu
FAX 801-378-5784

At 02:39 PM 5/1/98 -0600, you wrote:

>JAMES
>[W]hen you contacted me a few weeks ago, you did not ask about
>John 10----you gave me what you called a "straightforward" literal
>interpretation of Psalm 82, and asked me how I understood Psalm 82,
>not John 10.  I provided you with a literal, straightforward interpretation
>of *all* of Psalm 82 (including verses 3 and 4, which have always been
>missing from your interpretation of the passage), and thus far, you have
>not dealt with the heart of my response.  Now you seem to wish to shift
>away from your originally stated reasons for contacting me, that being
>the meaning of Psalm 82, onto John 10 and Jesus' disputation with the
>Jews.  However, Psalm 82 existed for hundreds of years prior to the
>Lord's use of a section of the passage in that debate.  Are you
>suggesting that we cannot determine the meaning of the passage
>without reference to John 10?  And if your purpose was to find out how
>Psalm 82 could make sense while embracing monotheism, why can't
>we deal with Psalm 82 itself?
>
>BILL
>The actual issue I raised is: who are the bene
>el/elohim/elyon/son of God.  Ps. 82 is simply one example of the
>use of that term.

Your words are recorded on both web pages carrying this conversation.  I shall not repost them, they are self-evident.  You said Psalm 82 must be "gibberish" to someone such as myself, and I have demonstrated it is anything but.

>I believe all examples must be studied together to obtain as full an
>understanding as possible.  I also personally feel that, for Christians,
>Christ's exegesis of Ps. 82 in John 10 should be very >important, if not
>definitive for our own exegesis of Ps. 82.

Christ did not exegete Psalm 82.  He quoted a single verse in reference to His opponents.  He never cited verses 1 through 5, nor 7 and 8.  Hence, what you are offering is YOUR interpretation of what is going on in John 10, and reading that back as if it were Jesus' interpretation into Psalm 82, all the while continuing to ignore two major things: 1) the testimony of verses 3 and 4, and 2) the constant witness of the entire OT to the fact that there is only one true God, who has eternally been God.

>I'm disappointed that you apparently don't agree.  But, if you want to
>limit the discussion, at this point, to only Ps. 82, I'm perfectly willing.
>(I suspect that most readers of this correspondence will see this as the
>quintessential "when you lose, change the topic" tactics for which you
>and many other anti-Mormons are so well known.)

Excuse me, but that is not only rude, it is childish.  Such is merely triumphalistic rhetoric.  I have not "loosed" anything, Dr. Hamblin.  *You* have ignored the immediate context of Psalm 82.  *You* have changed the topic away from what you originally presented to me.  I could easily say that you are running from Psalm 82 because you are not able to deal with it exegetically, and of course, that's exactly what I believe.  But what makes me differ from you is that I don't need to intrude that into the conversation the way you seemingly feel you must.  It is amazing that someone of your caliber can so quickly drop to the level of antagonistic ad-hominem as you did here.  Rather than dealing with the exegetical issues, you instead begin using emotionally laden and inaccurate terms like "anti-Mormon."  If I were to respond to your contacts with terms like "this is the kind of tactic we expect from you and many other anti-Christians," you would scream to the highest heavens about how uncharitable we are.  Yet, you don't mind engaging in that kind of tactic yourself.  The double-standard is truly striking.

>I'll deal with Ps 82 now if you promise to deal with the issues I raised
>about John 10 when we are done with Ps 82.
>
>JAMES
>So far my exegesis has been, in large part, ignored. I have pointed out
>the meaning of verses 3 and 4, and you have completely failed to even
>begin to address this material.  I do not feel it would be worthwhile to
>allow you to skip past such  material for reasons that have not even
>been stated.  You established the parameters:  what does Psalm 82
>mean in its original context (you even mentioned translating the
>Hebrew).  When you are willing to address the response to your
>original comments, including *all* of those comments (i.e., verses 3
>and 4), we can continue.  If not, I see no reason to engage in lengthy >written correspondence when you can pick and choose what 
>elements of my replies you will or will not deal with.  Such would be
>foolhardy on my part.

>BILL
>(But, obviously, you feel it would be wise on my part to engage in this
>correspondence "when you can pick and choose what elements of my
>replies you will or will not deal with."  So be it.  Should I make a list of
>all the issues I raised which you have conveniently ignored?)

Yes, please do, since I have not ignored any of your issues at all.  I responded briefly to the last message because you had skipped over a major portion of my response to you, even when I repeated it a second time.  I reject the allegation that I have "conveniently ignored" (another unnecessary ad-hominem comment) anything, but I have documented that you *have* chosen to ignore segments of my replies to you.

>As preliminary background, there seem to be two major schools of
>interpretations of the elohim/bene elyon in Ps 82.  One maintains that
>the elohim/bene elyon are human judges (either from Israel or from the
>goyim), who are given the title of elohim because they exercise divine
>authority when judging.  This is your position.  The other interpretation
>is that the elohim/bene elyon are, in fact, celestial beings of some
>sort.  And that the God of Israel is literally judging the gods.  This is
>my position.

Nor is that, or your listing of viewpoints, relevant to the exegetical discussion I *thought* you requested at first, Dr. Hamblin.  While it is fascinating to note the degradation of commentaries over the years (I have often commented that especially when it comes to the OT, you have to go back 100 years to find much of worth), I have no intention of citing commentaries as the basis of my exegesis of the passage.  I provided you with an exegesis that came from the text itself----I did not open a single commentary in writing it.  My exegesis is both linguistically and contextually consistent, and, it has the added advantage of being consistent with a pan-canonical view of the inspiration of the Scriptures themselves.

>Notice that, since the early 70s, *all* commentaries I found have
>interpreted this passage as referring to celestial beings.  None accept
>the judge interpretation, even the conservative ones.  I suspect there
>might be some fundamentalist modern commentaries which may still
>maintain the judge interpretation, but I couldn't find any.  (If you know of
>any, please give me the references.)

I have never made such a survey, but would actually be surprised if there were any by major publishers.  The currrent climate is not favorable to a methodology of interpretation that would "buck the trends" in regards to OT studies.

>This phenomenon cannot be attributed to liberal/agnostic vs.
>conservative/believing, since the various post-1970 conservative
>commentaries I listed above agree with the celestial being >interpretation.

Actually, the entire methodology of OT studies has shifted radically, leading to interpretations that are determined not by exegetical concerns, but by comparative linguistic studies and the fundamental rejection of the uniqueness of biblical literature.

>The reason for this shift is that new archaeological discoveries, >especially the Ugaritica, along with linguistic and comparative studies
>have decisively demonstrated that the language used in the Bible to
>describe the assembly of the gods and the bene elohim is precisely
>the same language used by other peoples (especially the Canaanites)
>to describe the divine assembly of their gods.  Have you read E. T.
>Mullen, The Assembly of the Gods: The Divine Council in
>Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature, (Scholars Press, 1980)?  If
>you have, and disagree with his conclusions, I would like to see a
>detailed rebuttal of his position.  (I'm not expecting you to write it
>yourself.  Just refer me to a source which systematically explains this
>evidence from your perspective.)

Again, this well illustrates the role of unchallenged presuppositions in OT publications.  If you have read widely in the field, you know that the idea that such sources are to be taken not only as relevant, but as *determinative,* is almost a watchword.  You simply won't get anywhere without buying into that viewpoint.  However, there are many reasons to question the assertion, not the least of which has to do with the fact that it is impossible to think that God would borrow from the pagan practices and concepts of the day to reveal His truth; i.e., that the pagan elements of a "council of gods" should, by some magical determination, be taken into the consideration of a text that fundamentally identifies Canaanite ritual and worship as idolatry.  Sadly, I have found that in many situations today, the "publish or perish" mentality is far more determinative of what ends up coming out under the guise of "scholarship" than the truth itself.

>If you haven't, don't you think you should stop pontificating on what Ps
>82 and parallel passages mean until you have?

I'll let such a comment stand as its own refutation.  I'm tempted to list works that you may not have read, but such would be to stoop to the same level of rhetoric.

>You have been frequently insinuating in your postings that you feel I
>have skipped verses 3 and 4 because they disprove my position and
>because I have no explanation for them.  Actually, I skipped them
>because I felt that the standard explanation for those who view Ps 82
>as referring to celestial beings--which I apparently mistakenly assumed
>you had read--was quite clear on >the matter.

You would never accept such faulty argumentation from me, Dr. Hamblin.  If I had consistently ignored a major portion of your presentation and exegesis of a passage, and when forced to address that action, simply said, "Oh, I assumed you had read the standard explanations, so I ignored that," you'd rightly nail me to the wall.  Why you think you can get away with that kind of comment, I do not know (perhaps it is because, obviously, you are writing more for your friends on skinny-l, and the SHIELDS web page, who will, undoubtedly, only cheer you on in whatever you say, no matter whether it is logically relevant or not?).

>I'm not going to waste my time writing a point by point
>commentary for you, when there are many in existence.
>Although I disagree with him on some details, I suggest you read
>Marvin E. Tate, Word Biblical Commentary, vol 20: Psalms
>51-100, (Dallas, Word Books, 1982), pp. 328-341, (a conservative
>commentary, I believe).  I basically concur with his position on
>vs. 3-4.  He also provides a useful bibliography.  If you don't
>have a copy in your personal library, or available at a nearby
>public library, I'd be happy to send you a xerox at my expense. 
>If you want one, and request it now, I can mail it today so it will
>be at your home when you return from New York.

I returned from New York on Monday.  As to Tate, my personal library copy will work just fine.  Do you wish me to address his comments on verses 3 and 4 as if they were your own?  That will be a little tough for two reasons. 1) He has to do what any commentator has to do: he cannot make any meaningful connection between "gods" and the obviously human act of doing justice, so, he focuses upon human judges (336, 340-341).  2) There is no connection, as far as I can see, between his understanding and your own in the sense that he is not, to my knowledge, asserting that these gods are offspring of an exalted man from another planet.  Hence, the question I originally asked you remains:  please direct me to the statements of the General Authorities of the LDS Church that refer to the role of other "gods" in judging and doing justice here on earth.  Who, aside from Elohim and Yahweh, in LDS theology, are charged with such duties?  How, in LDS theology, are these "gods" supposed to carry out this charge?  And if you refer merely to pre-existant spirit beings who "become" mortal, why are they called "gods" when they have not been exalted?  And, I asked this question before as well:  are you a god, Dr. Hamblin?

>So, there is my explanation for vs. 3-4.  It is really simple and
>straightforward.  Hardly worth all your rhetorical posturing on the >matter.  Now that I have done as you demanded, shall we return to
>Christ's exegesis, instead of squabbling over yours and mine?

I can only guess that what you are saying is that I can take Tate's position and ask all the questions of it that you have thus far refused to address?  If that's OK, I'll be glad to do so, but I don't think that will accomplish a whole lot.

James>>>

Dear James,

At 02:39 PM 5/1/98 -0600, you wrote:

>BILL
>The actual issue I raised is: who are the bene 
>el/elohim/elyon/son of God.  Ps. 82 is simply one example of the
>use of that term.

JAMES
Your words are recorded on both web pages carrying this conversation.  I shall not repost them, they are self-evident.  You said Psalm 82 must be "gibberish" to someone such as myself, and I have demonstrated it is anything but.

BILL
I will quote them:  "In light of our discussion on the radio Sunday night, I'd like to see your interpretation of Psalm 82." Our discussion on the radio was, among other things, about the meaning of the term "sons of god."  That is the overall issue I raised.  Ps 82 is merely a subset of that issue, since it is one case where the phrase appears in the OT.  I also wrote, "From an evangelical perspective this must all seem like gibberish." Here is the antecedent of "this."

Notice here that the elohim/gods are precisely the same as the sons of 'Elyon.  The bene elohim/bene 'elyon are thus, in fact, simply elohim/gods.  Notice, too that these gods/sons of God become like men, and die.  They become humans.  (Of course, this passage is quoted in John 10:34 by Jesus; it is discussed from and LDS Christian perspective by Daniel Peterson, in "Psalm 82 and John 10 as Witnesses to the Divine Nature of Humankind" forthcoming in a few months.  From an LDS Christian perspective, this all makes perfect sense, since the the sons of God are, just as described here, celestial beings who become human (like Adam), fall, and die. (In the NT, Christ allows these sons of God to become immortal again, and become like Christ, joint heirs, and one with the Father, but that is another discussion.)

Thus, I was not saying that Ps 82 was gibberish to you, but that the *literal* interpretation of Ps 82, that the sons of Elyon are gods, is gibberish.  You have amply demonstrated, by your unwillingness to deal with the literal meaning of the Psalm, that you do find it gibberish.  Thus, you are compelled to revert to metaphorical explanations that gods = judges.  But, as I originally stated, the literal reading of this psalm is unacceptable to you.

JAMES
Christ did not exegete Psalm 82.  He quoted a single verse in reference to His opponents.  He never cited verses 1 through 5, nor 7 and 8.

BILL
I note, for the record, that you are backtracking on your previous position.  I wrote:  When Christ quoted "ye are gods" from Ps. 82:6, he was--in typical rabbinic fashion--giving a scriptural reference.  Today we would say, "Read Ps 82:6," but, since such a reference system had not been developed at the time of Christ, the ancients would simply quote the first line of the passage they were referencing.  Christ expected his listeners to know the scripture, and to consider the entire passage, not simply the one line.

To which you replied "Most definitely....including the verses you have removed from consideration (3 & 4)."

So now that you have apparently finally recognized that your original proposed exegesis of John 10 does not work, you are shifting your position, and insisting that Jesus was *not* using standard citation practices of the first century AD to refer to the passage as a whole by quoting one line of the passage.  Which is your position?  That "He [Jesus] never cited verses 1 through 5, nor 7 and 8" or that "[Jesus] Most definitely [cited them]....including the verses you have removed from consideration (3 & 4)."  And why are you shifting ground?

JAMES
Hence, what you are offering is YOUR interpretation of what is going on in John 10, and reading that back as if it were Jesus' interpretation into Psalm 82,

BILL
I am doing no such thing.  I have provided a line by line exegesis of John 10.  You have yet to demonstrate where this exegesis is wrong.  If Jesus said what I think he said, it should provide a key to understanding Ps 82.

JAMES
all the while continuing to ignore two major things: 1) the testimony of verses 3 and 4, and 2) the constant witness of the entire OT to the fact that there is only one true God, who has eternally been God.

BILL
Question begging.  These issues are not decided in your favor, despite your endless repetition of claims that they are; these issues are precisely what are in dispute.  How can your assertion that your case is proven be taken as evidence that your case is proven and therefore needs no proof?

BILL
>I'm disappointed that you apparently don't agree.  But, if you
>want to limit the discussion, at this point, to only Ps. 82, I'm
>perfectly willing.  ( I suspect that most readers of this
>correspondence will see this as the quintessential "when you
>loose, change the topic" tactics for which you and many other
>anti-Mormons are so well known.)

JAMES
Excuse me, but that is not only rude, it is childish.  Such is merely triumphalistic rhetoric.

BILL
I accuse you of changing topics when you begin to "lose" (not "loose", indeed).  This is neither rude, nor childish, it is simply an observation of fact.  Notice again, how you are changing the topic from whether or not you have changed the topic (by refusing to deal with my exegesis of John 10), to claiming I am rude and childish.

JAMES
I have not "loosed" anything, Dr. Hamblin.  *You* have ignored the immediate context of Psalm 82.  *You* have changed the topic away from what you originally presented to me.  I could easily say that you are running from Psalm 82 because you are not able to deal with it exegetically, and of course, that's exactly what I believe.  But what makes me differ from you is that I don't need to intrude that into the conversation the way you seemingly feel you must.

BILL
All of your context questions are answered in precisely the letter which you claim I refused to deal with the context.

JAMES
It is amazing that someone of your caliber can so quickly drop to the level of antagonistic ad-hominem as you did here.

BILL
Apparently you don't understand the ad hominem argument.  I said you changed the subject.  You manifestly did.  I sent you a lengthy post on John 10, you refused to deal with it.  You insisted that I deal with Ps 82 instead.  I did.  It is now your turn to deal with John 10.  You apparently won't.  How is this observation an ad hominem?  You, on the other hand, say that I am rude and childish.  Perhaps so.  I have been called far worse before by people who are losing the argument and want to change the subject.  But even if I grant my rudeness and childishness (for the sake of argument), what has this got to do with the exegesis of John 10 and Ps 82, or your persistent refusal to answer my exegesis of John 10?

JAMES
Rather than dealing with the exegetical issues, you instead begin using emotionally laden and inaccurate terms like "anti-Mormon."  If I were to respond to your contacts with terms like "this is the kind of tactic we expect from you and many other anti-Christians," you would scream to the highest heavens about how uncharitable we are.  Yet, you don't mind engaging in that kind of tactic yourself.  The double-standard is truly striking.

BILL
(Note:  and I suppose "rude" and "childish" are not emotionally laden?)  What is this obsession you have with the term "anti-Mormon?"  Why do you care what I call you?  I certainly don't care what you call me.  What bearing does it have on the issues under discussion?  I feel you are an anti-Mormon.  You think I am an anti-Baptist.  (Since I consider myself a Christian, I can hardly consider myself an anti-Christian, now can I?) I have never in my life attacked the Baptists.  I do not make my living publishing books and pamphlets attacking the Baptists.  I have never picketed their meetings.  I have never attempted to prevent them from buying land or building buildings.  Peterson and Midgley (not Midgely) have made these points quite clearly.  If I am anti anything, I am anti-anti-Mormon.  Quite frankly, I don't even know which denomination you belong to, nor what your theology is–though I get the impression you are a five point Calvinist.  I don't care.  You may believe and preach what you like.  Then, you attack my church and my beliefs.  I defend my beliefs.  Thus, according to you, I am now anti-Christian, while you are still not an anti-Mormon.  The mere fact that I happen to disagree with your theology, tacitly and privately, somehow makes me an anti-Christian (not even just anti-Baptist (or whatever), or even anti-James White.)  My mere refusal to privately assent to your theology makes me anti-something.  This may be news to you, James, but 99% or more of the people in the world disagree with your theology.  I suspect many Baptists (or whatever) disagree with your theology.  Are they all anti-James White?  You, on the other hand, can make your living as a professional religious hate-monger, attacking the beliefs of Mormons and Catholics, and still not be anti-Mormon or anti-Catholic.  This is mindless nonsense.  Quite frankly, if you made your living making these same types of attacks against Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims or Jews, I would find this type of behavior it just as disgusting and repulsive as it is when you attack Mormons.  But none of this has anything to do arguments, now does it?

JAMES
Yes, please do [list issues James has not dealt with], since I have not ignored any of your issues at all.  I responded briefly to the last message because you had skipped over a major portion of my response to you, even when I repeated it a second time.  I reject the allegation that I have "conveniently ignored" (another unnecessary ad-hominem comment) anything, but I have documented that you *have* chosen to ignore segments of my replies to you.

BILL
Note again the utter misunderstanding of the term ad hominem.  Note, also that I said I preferred to take these issues one at a time.  I never claimed I have dealt with all the issues you raise.  I can deal with them, but I am not going to spend my entire life writing endless letters to you.  Shall we take them one at a time or not?  If so, what should be the first issue?  Anyway, here are some of the issues that you have "conveniently ignored," by which I mean you have failed to deal with the substance of my argument.  Your rhetorical posturing will not be confused by any thinking and informed readers for substantive arguments and evidence.
1- Everything in my recent posting about John 10.
2- The extensive arguments of Mullen in the Assembly of the Gods.
3- The fact that Baptists (or whatever you are) don't believe in a council of the gods, even though one is mentioned in the OT.
4- The fact that there is no linguistic or contextual reason to interpret the word elohim as judge in Ex 22:8-9.  The text makes perfect sense when read as bringing judgement before God.
5- The fact that humans are called sons of the Most High, Christ is called son of the Most High, and the sons of the Most High are called gods.
6- These four questions I raised earlier have received no substantive answer (remember, endlessly repeating an unsubstantiated assertion without reference to evidence and analysis does not pass muster as a substantive response):
     1- There is a perfectly good Hebrew word for judge (shaphat).  If Ps 82 meant to condemn wicked judges, why in the world didn't God inerrantly inspire the psalmist to use the word for judge?  Why all this language about elohim, the council of el, and the bene elyon?
     2- Your claim that humans have judging functions as described in Ps 82 is quite correct.  I presume, however, that you are also aware that God is the supreme judge, and judgement, is, in fact, ultimately a divine rather than human function, and that mortals will participate in rendering divine judgement at the final judgement (e.g. Mt 19:28, Lk 22:29).
     3- I quite concur that mortals are condemned for rendering unjust judgement.  This does not demonstrate that elohim can be used as a term to mean judges.
     4- I challenge you show me anywhere else in the OT or NT, where the term elohim unequivocally means judge?
7- The fact that the earliest Christian exegetes (Justin and Irenaeus) agree with my position on the elohim of Ps 82 and John 10.  (I can list many others as well, if you want.)  Who is the first Christian exegete who agrees with your position?
8- The hermeneutical absurdity of your claim that you are letting the text speak for itself.

I could go on but that's enough.  Like I have said before.  We must take these one at a time.  I don't have time to have this discussion degenerate into dozens of separate issues simultaneously.  I think we should deal with John 10 first.  But if you don't like that idea, let's deal with whatever you want first.  But *one* at a time, please.

JAMES
Nor is that, or your listing of viewpoints, relevant to the exegetical discussion I *thought* you requested at first, Dr. Hamblin.  While it is fascinating to note the degradation of commentaries over the years (I have often commented that especially when it comes to the OT, you have to go back 100 years to find much of worth),

BILL
I find the discoveries of the last 100 years are fundamental to understanding the text.  Note the difference here.  To maintain your position you must reject the discoveries and advances of biblical studies of the last 100 years.  While I see these last 100 years as confirming Joseph's restoration of ancient doctrines. Interesting distinction, no?

JAMES
I have never made such a survey, but would actually be surprised if there were any by major publishers.  The currrent climate is not favorable to a methodology of interpretation that would "buck the trends" in regards to OT studies.

BILL
This is absurd nonsense.  Even if you could argue that Scholars Press (the publishing arm of the SBL) would not publish evangelical studies (which might be true), there are dozens of evangelical publishing houses that would.  Are you claiming that there are no conservative publishing houses in the US?  Or just not conservative enough for you?  Is the Word series not conservative?

BILL (old)
>The reason for this shift is that new archaeological discoveries, >especially the Ugaritica, along with linguistic and comparative studies
>have decisively demonstrated that the language used in the Bible to
>describe the assembly of the gods and the bene elohim is precisely
>the same language used by other peoples (especially the Canaanites)
>to describe the divine assembly of their gods. Have you read E. T.
>Mullen, The Assembly of the Gods: The Divine Council in
>Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature, (Scholars Press, 1980)?  If
>you have, and disagree with his conclusions, I would like to see a 
>detailed rebuttal of his position.  (I'm not expecting you to write it
>yourself.  Just refer me to a source which systematically explains this
>evidence from your perspective.)

JAMES
Again, this well illustrates the role of unchallenged presuppositions in OT publications.  If you have read widely in the field, you know that the idea that such sources are to be taken not only as relevant, but as *determinative,* is almost a watchword.  You simply won't get anywhere without buying into that viewpoint.

BILL
None of what you say here, even if true (and it is simply your unsubstantiated opinion), deals with the massive amount of evidence collected by Mullen.

JAMES
However, there are many reasons to question the assertion, not the least of which has to do with the fact that it is impossible to think that God would borrow from the pagan practices and concepts of the day to reveal His truth; i.e., that the pagan elements of a "council of gods" should, by some magical determination, be taken into the consideration of a text that fundamentally identifies Canaanite ritual and worship as idolatry.

BILL
Here you simply assert what is or is not impossible for God to do or not do based solely on your presuppositions.  It is not argument, it is not evidence, it is circular reasoning and bald assertion.  Are you going to deal with the evidence or not?

BILL (old)
>You have been frequently insinuating in your postings that you feel I
>have skipped verses 3 and 4 because they disprove my position and
>because I have no explanation for them.  Actually, I skipped them
>because I felt that the standard explanation for those who view Ps 82
>as referring to celestial beings--which I apparently mistakenly assumed
>you had read--was quite clear on the matter.

JAMES
You would never accept such faulty argumentation from me, Dr. Hamblin.  If I had consistently ignored a major portion of your presentation and exegesis of a passage, and when forced to address that action, simply said, "Oh, I assumed you had read the standard explanations, so I ignored that," you'd rightly nail me to the wall.

BILL
No I wouldn't, if you provided me a standard bibliographic reference, and could demonstrate that the overwhelming consensus of modern scholarship, conservative and liberal, on the issue agreed with your position.

JAMES
I returned from New York on Monday.  As to Tate, my personal library copy will work just fine.  Do you wish me to address his comments on verses 3 and 4 as if they were your own?  That will be a little tough for two reasons. 1) He has to do what any commentator has to do: he cannot make any meaningful connection between "gods" and the obviously human act of doing justice, so, he focuses upon human judges (336, 340-341).

BILL
He does not!  He mentions that humans judge unjustly, but the thrust of his argument is that "vv. 3-4 are composed of a set of commands to the gods" and "the contrast [between proper judgement] and the performance of the gods is evident; they have failed to do their duty" (p. 336).  On pages 340-41, he references your position, concluding "The interpretation [that Ps 82 refers to human judges] is not well grounded in the exegesis of the texts." (p. 341).  He concludes that "it [is] impossible to assume that the ‘gods' (who are called ‘sons of Elyon' in v. 6) could be human beings." (341).  Please try to get it right and read the texts clearly.  Although he mentions your position, he does so to refute it, not accept it!

Let me lay out this issue in a simple syllogism.  Your argument is:
  Some humans judge unjustly
  The beings in Ps 82 judge unjustly
  Therefore, the beings in Ps 82 are humans.
Notice any misplaced middle there?  Let's run a parallel syllogism
  Some Frenchmen judge unjustly
  The beings in Ps 82 judge unjustly
  Therefore the beings in Ps 82 are Frenchmen.
Or another example:
  Some humans have hair
  Dogs have hair
  Therefore, dogs are human
Your argument rests on a logical fallacy of the simplest sort.  Just because humans render unjust judgement, it does not follow that all unjust judges must be humans.  I hope you can grasp this simple issue so we can move on to other more substantive topics.

JAMES
2) There is no connection, as far as I can see, between his understanding and your own in the sense that he is not, to my knowledge, asserting that these gods are offspring of an exalted man from another planet.

BILL
Did I say there was?  Have I argued that this Psalm contains the fulness of the LDS understanding of the Godhead?  However, he does say that the elohim are the offspring/sons of Elyon.

JAMES
Hence, the question I originally asked you remains:  please direct me to the statements of the General Authorities of the LDS Church that refer to the role of other "gods" in judging and doing justice here on earth.  Who, aside from Elohim and Yahweh, in LDS theology, are charged with such duties?

BILL
I already gave you this information.  Please pay attention.  To quote from a former post, I presume, however, that you are also aware that God is the supreme judge, and judgement, is, in fact, ultimately a divine rather than human function, and that mortals will participate in rendering divine judgement at the final judgement (e.g. Mt 19:28, Lk 22:29).

JAMES
And, I asked this question before as well: are you a god, Dr. Hamblin?

BILL
No.  Are you?  I am, however, a son of God?  Are you?

JAMES
I can only guess that what you are saying is that I can take Tate's position and ask all the questions of it that you have thus far refused to address?

BILL
As usual, you guess wrong.  I simply offer Tate as a good example of how Ps 82 can be understood as referring to gods rather than human judges.

JAMES
If that's OK, I'll be glad to do so, but I don't think that will accomplish a whole lot.

BILL
Why don't we take the questions one at a time.  You ask one, I'll answer.  Then I'll ask one, and you answer.  And can we please stick to the topic of who are the "sons of God" in the Bible?  If we don't, this entire enterprise is a monumental waste of time.  If you don't want to discuss this issue, we can end this correspondence.

William J. Hamblin
Associate Professor of History
323 KMB
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602-4446

801-378-6469
wh4@email.byu.edu
FAX 801-378-5784

Dear James,

I await your forthcoming response with unabated anticipation.  In the meantime, you might be interested in reading a new essay by Dan Peterson.  It is a review of the official SBC video and materials on the Mormons for the forthcoming national convention.

http://farms.byu.edu/free/review/10_1/r10a.asp?content=dcp

William J. Hamblin
Associate Professor of History
323 KMB
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602-4446

801-378-6469
wh4@email.byu.edu
FAX 801-378-5784