SBL Paper Online

I’ve put one of the papers I presented at SBL online here (this is the version I read in Atlanta. Footnotes are minimal. Red numbers are cues for my PowerPoint slides, which are not online). It’s entitled “El Elyon, Begetter of Heaven and Earth,” and in the paper I argue for an archaic theogonic provenance for the phrase אל עליון קנה שמים וארץ in Gen 14:19, 22. I got some great feedback from Daniel Fleming and a couple others in the session, and I’d like to revise the paper and perhaps publish a portion of it later on. You feedback is greatly appreciated.

Deuteronomy Bibliography

I was poking around the internet for some publications that might discuss some of the textual variants in LXX Deuteronomy and came across this 66 page Deuteronomy bibliography by Ted Hildebrant (FYI the link opens a Word doc). It’s from 2003, so it doesn’t have anything from the last six years, but it’s a helpful resource.

Scholarly Hubris, James White, and Psalm 82

I recently commented on Michael Heiser’s posts about ETS, Psalm 82, and James White, and his discussion has catalyzed further posts from others that I thought merited some attention. I’d like to comment more fully on the arguments put forth by the Alpha & Omega Ministries vis-à-vis Psalm 82, as well.

A&O Ministries Responses

I’ll start with James White and Alpha & Omega Ministries. I’ve written a post responding to James’ critique here of Michael’s position regarding deities vs. humans in Psalm 82. It is rather lengthy, and deals point by point with his comments, so I’ve put it in PDF form and posted it online here. I will summarize by stating James’ criticisms fall well short of substantiating his position. Heiser’s thesis, that Psalm 82 refers to gods and not humans, is supported by the literary and grammatical context, and James doesn’t really engage either. I’ve not rehashed Michael’s discussion in the post, but those interested in his argument can find his ETS paper here. I agree with Michael that one would have to address the issues he brings up in order to undermine his reading. Simply asserting a different reading with only token jabs in the direction of his argument will not do the trick.

One of James’ colleagues, going by the moniker Tur8infan, has also posted a response to Michael (here). This post makes a much more concerted effort to respond to the literary context, but also misses the mark with some rather peculiar exegesis. For instance, he states, “God accuses these judges of judging unjustly, and particularly accepting the bribes of the wicked.” I find no mention of bribes anywhere in Psalm 82. Ps 82:2 asks (literally), “How long will you render iniquitous judgment and lift up the faces of the wicked?” To “lift up the face” of someone is to show them favor or partiality. The notion that bribery is compelling this partiality is not found in the text. Why does Tur8infan read it into the text? It’s a lot easier to read the text as a reference to human judges if it references bribery. Gods would have no need of bribery. Whether Tur8infan simply misreads the text or intentionally skews it in favor of his reading is unclear.

Tur8infan then goes on to argue that Michael’s argument regarding Ps 82:6–7 is problematic. Michael argues (as do I) that the combination of אמרתי and אכן in those two verses combine to rhetorically assert a stark and unexpected contrast. Since the first verse highlights the divine nature of the beings in question, and the second highlights the fact that they will die “as humanity,” we must understand the contrast to be between their nature as gods and the fact of their impending deaths (which are never narrated anywhere).  Tur8infan argues, however, that כאדם, “as humanity,” is used elsewhere (Job 31:33; Hos 6:7) in ways that point to identification with humanity and not distinction from it. This is specious reasoning, though. The two examples use the term in drastically different contexts, and the end result is still a reference to behavior characteristic of humanity (or of a particular human). That’s exactly the usage in Ps 82:7, only parallel passage contrasts that behavior with the nature of divinity. He goes on to argue that reading “one of the princes” in the second half of Ps 82:7 supports reading the first half “as a man,” or even “as Adam,” rather than the collective “humanity,” since the former are singular. How this argument undermines Michael’s reading is beyond me, but the collective “humanity” is still morphologically singular in Hebrew, and so his argument has little force. He concludes this section:

The best sense of the text is that God is warning these judges of their impending doom. We might paraphrase God’s comment as: “Everyone dies (both ordinary men and princes), and you won’t be an exception.” Dr. Heiser views the comment from God as a sentence imposed on the judges, and – of course – death is a sentence for sin. It is sufficient, however, to simply view this as a proclamation of the doom that awaits unjust judges. They must die and come before the Judge of judges to answer for their injustice.

This neglects to respond to the problem of the contrast drawn between vv. 6 and 7, and it doesn’t really explain how the two previous arguments support this conclusion. At the conclusion he appears to respond to the question of this contrast, but seems to misunderstand the difference between a “contrast” and a “negative consequence”:

Dr. Heiser’s comment that “This sounds as awkward as sentencing a child to grow up or a dog to bark,” seems to fail to appreciate the very different negative consequences of dying as opposed to growing up (unless one is Peter Pan) or barking. A better comparison would be the comparison in the Proverbs:

Proverbs 26:11 As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.

Cautioning the fool that he will return to his folly or a dog to his vomit is not an empty statement devoid of negative connotation. Indeed, the apostle Peter refers us to this very proverb:

2 Peter 2:22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

Even so, contrary to Dr. Heiser’s suggestion that “The point of verse 6 is that, in response to their corruption, the [elohim] will be stripped of their immortality at God’s discretion and die as humans die,” the point is that these judges should be aware of their mortality and the impending judgment of God.

Tur8infan then discusses allusions to earlier sections of the Pentateuch. He states,

Dr. White has already addressed more than sufficiently the relationship of this text with the New Testament. That by itself should be a sufficient basis for rejecting Dr. Heiser’s position. Nevertheless, the Old Testament also provides additional light.

First, James White does not hold a recognized doctorate. I don’t know why he is called “Dr.” here. This page lists a “Dr. James White” as a “Critical Consultant for the NASB Update.” If this refers to the same James White, it is also mistaken. Perhaps this has slipped by James, but I wonder if he is willing to offer a correction.

Next, James’ arguments from the New Testament only hold if one presupposes the univocality of the Bible. I do not. In fact, biblical univocality is flatly precluded (see here). There are far too many ideological and factual disagreements between the testaments and books, and even within books, to assert that the Bible is unified from beginning to end. Tur8infan goes on:

The question is, where did God describe these unjust judges as “gods” (elohim)? It seems unlikely that this is simply a reference back to verse 1 of the psalm, though we cannot completely eliminate the possibility.

There are several places where judges are referred to as “elohim” in the Pentateuch:

Exodus 21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges (elohim); he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

Exodus 22:8-9

If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges (elohim), to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour’s goods. For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges (elohim); and whom the judges (elohim) shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour.

Exodus 22:28 Thou shalt not revile the gods (elohim), nor curse the ruler of thy people.

And beyond the Pentateuch:

1 Samuel 2:25 If one man sin against another, the judge (elohim) shall judge him: but if a man sin against the LORD, who shall intreat for him? Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because the LORD would slay them.

It should be noted, of course, that although that is the KJV’s translation of the verses, as is so often the case, many of the modern translations disagree, using “God” instead of judges. Probably the strongest of these verses is Exodus 22:28, in that it provides a parallel between “reviling the gods” and “cursing the ruler of thy people,” which serves to demonstrate that the two concepts are analogous.

I’ve dealt with these texts here, and will reiterate that the word elohim simply does not mean “judges” or “rulers.” There is plenty of scholarship on this issue (see pp. 255–58 here, for instance), but Tur8infan does not address it and is likely not aware of it. I’ve come across a single publication from the last 75 years which defends the reading “judges” at Exod 21:6 and 22:8–9. It dismisses reading the text as a reference to deities simply because teraphim are “almost always condemned directly” by the biblical text, and thus, “It is inconceivable that this law, or any of the laws, of which God has said, ‘these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them’ (Ex. 21:1), would contain an injunction to go before the teraphim” (J. Robert Vannoy, “The Use of the Word ha-elohim in Ex 21:6 and 22:7, 8,” in The Law and the Prophets [Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1974], 228–29). The author then goes on to list texts from Exodus 20 and 23 which he feels preclude reading “gods” in Exod 21 and 22. Again, univocality is presupposed. That the texts in question might represent older laws which were incorporated verbatim into the Covenant Code (a well established practice) is not addressed. The author rejects the idea that the text refers specifically to Israel’s God (the conclusion favored by most these days) because the verb in Exod 22:8 is plural (which is not unheard of in reference to God), and because bringing someone “before God” sounds vague to the author and might just refer to bringing someone before God’s representatives. See Wright’s book, linked to above, for further discussion of why “judges” is unacceptable.

Scholarly Hubris

James White’s most recent post on A&O Ministries chides Michael Heiser for what James calls “scholarly hubris.” Because Michael would prefer to engage this discussion on an academic level rather than a purely devotional one, James takes issue. He states,

Heiser is basically attempting to “pull rank” based upon some kind of academic authority

Never mind that Michael has provided a rather detailed argument that James’ post manages to never acknowledge. James is also in disagreement because he feels their debate must presuppose the univocality of scripture, and that Michael isn’t playing by the rules:

I do not apologize for calling for an interpretation of sacred scripture that actually takes the entirety of its revelation into consideration.

Can James defend this presupposition on academic grounds? Certainly not. James appears to be criticizing Michael for his academic integrity. For James, such “integrity” is worthless, as it neglects what James believes to be the primary (sole?) purpose of Evangelical scholarship:

Christian scholarship is a practice of SERVANTHOOD, period, end of discussion.

For James, Evangelical scholarship must “edify the body.” He concludes:

We have different audiences, to be sure. But I refuse to give up the middle, balanced ground we have staked out over the decades. On the one side you have the likes of Dave Hunt, who mocks all study of the original languages (except when it suits his purposes). He represents the reprehensible attack upon serious study of the biblical text that is so common in certain elements of evangelicalism. On the other hand you have the attitude expressed by Heiser here, which elevates the academy above the church, makes “peer review” the standard rather than the expression of the mind of the church in the wisdom of those men called as elders whose duty it is to actually teach and preach the Word of God, so that the edification of the body and training in godliness and truth becomes a mere “by-product” of the all-important intellectual activity of the academy. Hebrew and Greek are vital, but if you become so focused upon the languages so as to lose the balance and harmony of all of Scripture, well…you are not helping yourself or anyone else.

In other words, facts are only useful insofar as they support one’s religious dogmas. Once they stop doing that, they’re “unbalanced,” and useless.

A Rarity

Nick Norelli has responded to Michael’s comment by pointing out that he didn’t find James’ original post to be impugning Heiser. After reading over it carefully, I must agree that I don’t see much in the way of impugning (aside from his implication concerning Michael’s “scholarship”). The tone, for the most part, is not unlike the tone of many academic papers, although you do get the sense James feels he is condescending to address these questions, as if his time is much to valuable for those misguided academicians. James’ more recent response, however, appeals with much more regularity to ad hominem to mask its refusal to respond to the points of Michael’s argument. Regarding Nick’s agreement about Psalm 82 referring to humans and not deities, I would point to Michael’s ETS paper and my discussion here and in the short response to James that I put online. I think Psalm 82 is a fascinating text and would love to see more discussion of it on the blogs.

Conclusion

I think Michael is doing an important service to his faith community by bringing these issues to light and trying to help them understand the biblical text better. I have attended universities with Latter-day Saint and Evangelical biases, and a primary concern among students and professors in both is how to help wider lay audiences come to better understand what the Bible really says instead of just letting them perpetuate traditional dogmas, especially where they are at odds with the texts (I’ve also attended a strictly secular university). Michael is taking a big step in that direction, and I appreciate that.

My Academia.edu Page

I’ve been tinkering with a profile at Academia.edu. It can be found here. I’m interested in hearing about what others have done with this website and what potential they think it has.

Review: Religious Diversity in Ancient Israel and Judah

Francesca Stavrakopoulou and John Barton, Eds., Religious Diversity in Ancient Israel and Judah (London: T&T Clark, 2010).

This new volume from T&T Clark, edited by Francesca Stavrakopoulou and John Barton, combines essays from a diverse and international field of scholars focused on the diversity of religious belief and practice in ancient Israel and Judah. A number of concerns guide the volume’s contributions. It seeks primarily to combat the traditional notion of a monolithic Israelite religion, and, as the title suggests, finds value in evaluating religious diversity within the separate kingdoms of Judah and Israel. The social contexts of religious belief and expression play a large role in these analyses. Of considerable significance is the book’s opposition to the presumption of a division between “official” religion of the biblical authors, and the “popular” religion of the apostate factions. This distinction is shown to be artificial and derived from an uncritical acceptance of the value judgments of the biblical authors. There are a number of valuable contributions within this volume, but the identification of that false dichotomy alone should make this book required reading.

The volume is divided into four sections entitled “Conceptual Diversities,” “Socio-Religious Diversities,” “Geographic Diversities,” and a “Postscript” by John Barton. The papers in the first section address broad approaches to the complexity of religious diversity. Susan Niditch’s contribution engages the experiential within Israelite religion. Three categories of texts provide case studies: descriptions of visits to the divine realms, descriptions of earthly visions, and descriptions of the underworld and of contact with the dead. I found some of Susan’s syntheses a bit strained. The topic of Herbert Niehr’s paper is the false dichotomy between Israelite and Canaanite religion. The Hebrew Bible paints a picture of stark contrast between Israel and the indigenous “Canaanites,” but does this contrast exist outside the propaganda of the biblical authors? Niehr addresses historical, literary, and religio-historical aspects of the distinction and concludes with a discussion of Judahite and Israelite religion as a subset of West Semitic religion. Similarly, Francesca Stavrakopouou’s article takes direct aim at the scholarly presumption of a division between the “official” religion of the biblical authors and the “popular” religion of apostate factions. This presumption, the author argues, is largely an attempt to “‘manage’ biblical and archaeological indications of religious diversity in ancient Israel and Judah” (p. 37). Stavrakopoulou evaluates theological and social-scientific constructs of this view of Israelite religion and highlights its inadequacy as a framework for the religious diversity of ancient Israel and Judah. The latter two papers are, in my opinion, the highlights of this volume.

The second section, “Socio-Religious Diversities,” is a more focused approach to the theme of the preceding section. It is the largest section of the book and seeks to “demonstrate that the religions of ancient Israel and Judah can best be understood as a series of spectra, rather than in terms of either/or distinctions” (p. 4). In the first article Nicolas Wyatt examines the nature of ancient Judahite royal ideologies. While presented in the Hebrew Bible as a heavily adapted foreign importation, Wyatt argues the normal elements of Syro-Palestinian royal religion are detectable within the Judahite ideology of kingship. This ideology should be viewed as genetically related to those of surrounding cultures. The king’s participation in ritual as subject and object, his divinity in life and death, and his relationship to Asherah are all evinced to some degree or another in the biblical text and by analogy with surrounding cultures. Diana Edelman follows, presenting biblical and artifact evidence for “Cultic Sites and Complexes beyond the Jerusalem Temple.” The Hebrew Bible makes numerous references to cultic sites outside of Jerusalem, but they are vaguely defined and are polemicized by the text’s authors and editors. Material remains confirm the existence of a wide range of cultic sites throughout the time period of the Bible, and show a sharp decline in number in the Persian Period and later, but do not provide enough data to pinpoint the introduction of cultic worship or its centralization.

Philip Davies authors the next article, which explores the distinction between urban and rural religion. The exploration is encumbered by the biblical and material bias toward urban contexts. The Bible largely polemicizes rural religion and idealizes urban religion, but some inferences and tentative conclusions can be made. Davies concludes with a caution against presuming a rural origin for the biblical texts. Carol Meyers’ article treats the topic of household religion. She begins with a description of the Israelite household, followed by sources for its investigation. The third section of her chapter discusses those manifestations of household religion that can be extrapolated from the biblical text and from comparative anthropology. These practices are categorized according to their regularity. Some were seasonal, monthly, or weekly; others were dictated by the human life cycle; and still others were predicated upon situations requiring divine intervention. Tying them all together were concerns for the sustaining of life, for group identity, and for humanity’s relationship to the divine.

Rainer Albretz’s chapter is entitled “Personal Piety,” and it aims to isolate within the context of folk religion the religious situation of the individual. Albretz identifies three available sources of information from which this situation may be reconstructed: theophoric personal names, individual lament and thanksgiving psalms, and proverbial material. The first two sources manifest a deep-rooted concern for the relationship of the deity to the individual, celebrating and lamenting events which are treated as highly personal acts of God. The last category shows concern for the ethos of the individual vis-à-vis the deity. A short final section evaluates developments in personal piety from the Deuteronomic reforms through to the Second Temple Period.

The last section of this volume examines the geographic dynamic of religious diversity. Jeremy M. Hutton authors the first chapter, which aims to dispel the geographic homogenization of Israelite religion and delineate the religious expression of the north, the south, and Transjordan. Hutton first draws upon archaeological and onomastic evidence to show the degree to which diversity is evident. He moves on to evaluate the Deuteronomic history as a possible source for northern religious practices, producing a great deal of detail from Dtr’s polemic. The most interesting section of Hutton’s paper is his discussion of the archaeological evidence for a distinct Transjordanian religious identity. Using Deir `Alla as a point of reference, the author produces a picture of religious variegation and tension. He concludes with a preliminary synthesis which sees micro-religions tied together under a macro-religious identity developed largely through literary and editorial manipulation. Lester Grabbe’s contribution looks for, but doesn’t find indications of Yhwh worship outside of Israel and Judah. A variety of locales are investigated, and Grabbe’s essay provides a great deal of information.

Barton’s postscript reflects on the broader issues discussed in the book and raises two questions which remain: (1) How did monotheism ever arise within a culture that tolerated and promoted such diverse views on God and the gods, and (2) “why did Judaism, the heir of all these ancient Israelite and Judahite religious practices, become a religion of the book?” He concludes with a warning about treated early Israelite religion as exclusively orthopraxic, rather than orthodoxic. As this volume shows, there was a great deal of reflection and innovation in the theology and religiosity of early Israel and Judah.

Michael Heiser, SBL, and the Divine Council

Michael Heiser has two new posts up at The Naked Bible which discuss his experience at ETS and SBL last week. One discusses papers he presented at ETS entitled “Should the Plural אלהים of Psalm 82 be Understood as Men or Divine Beings?” and “What is an Elohim?” The papers are available here and here, and are closely related to other papers published previously here and here. Michael (I hope he doesn’t mind if I use his first name for convenience) also addresses an old Alpha & Omega Ministries post critiquing his view of Psalm 82. As Michael points out, James White misses the mark on a number of issues. I may write a response to it myself one day.

Michael’s other post mentions the second Early Jewish Monotheisms section from SBL, which he attended from beginning to end. He had promised to attend the paper I read in that session after a short discussion earlier this year on his blog about Mormonism and the Divine Council. I hope he wasn’t disappointed in my paper.

A bit on that Mormonism discussion, by the way: Michael’s work is often quoted among lay and academic Latter-day Saint crowds as a result of his position on “the gods” in texts like Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32. Someone evidently emailed Dr. Heiser to ask if Mormons were representing his work accurately online. He states,

I answered the above question negatively since the emailer informed me that some Mormons on the web are thinking that I believe Yahweh had a father distinct from Himself. Nope. No idea how anyone who’s read my material could come away with that one.

I agree that it’s hard to imagine that someone could come away from his material thinking he espoused such an idea, which is one of the primary reasons I believe the person who emailed him either misunderstood or misrepresented the LDS position they described. I’ve personally never seen anyone so misrepresent Michael’s position. The Latter-day Saints who participate in online discussions of this nature are well aware of his position.

Anyway, it was nice to meet Michael (taller than I thought), and I’m glad he enjoyed hearing Larry Hurtado. Before the session began I was anticipating a question or comment from Michael on my view of Yhwh and El as originally distinct deities, but the issue was raised several times in the other papers, and my view was reiterated each time. It probably would have been a little tedious to bring it up after all that. Michael’s dissertation was mentioned several times, and both Larry and I made reference in our papers to his phrase “species uniqueness.” On his blog Michael mentions he’d like to return to his dissertation and see it published. I think it would be a great idea. It was nice to see so much interaction on these topics, and I look forward to future sessions. I’m told Mark Smith is interested in the question of monotheism in wisdom literature for next year’s session, which sounds like it could be interesting.

My SBL Book Haul

It appears customary among bibliobloggers to post a photo of the books you’ve bought at SBL. My haul this year was rather modest, but I’m excited about each of my purchases. I’m almost through Rollston’s volume, and it’s been excellent so far.

Master’s Thesis Online

I’ve put a PDF of my Oxford master’s thesis, “Anti-Anthropomorphism and the Vorlage of LXX Exodus,” online (here). I’d like to revise and publish it in the future, so I’d love to hear whatever feedback y’all have to offer.

Off to SBL

I’m heading out shortly to catch my flight to Atlanta. Looking forward to this year’s SBL. My papers are at 9:00 AM and 2:00 PM on Monday, which isn’t ideal, but is better than Tuesday. Looking forward to seeing many of you there at the biblioblogger dinner and lunch, and wherever we happen to meet in between.

Shuffled Songs Meme

Nick Norelli responds here to Doug Chaplin’s invitation to put your MP3 player on shuffle and list the first fifteen songs (artist and title) that come up. No editing or cheating. Sounds like fun. I have a pretty eclectic taste in music, and I think this is an interesting way to learn more about someone.

1. The Del Vikings – “Come Go With Me”
2. Wicked: Original Broadway Cast – “Wonderful”
3. Dave Matthews Band – “I’ll Back You Up”
4. Pearl Jam – “Better Man”
5. Hall & Oates – “She’s Gone”
6. The Eagles – “Desperado”
7. Green Day – “When I Come Around”
8. Huey Lewis and the News – “Hip to Be Square”
9. Sarah McLachlan – “I Love You”
10. Sugarland – “Stay”
11. Oasis – “Champagne Supernova”
12. Aliso Krauss and Union Station – “When You Say Nothing at All”
13. Staind – “So Far Away”
14. Seldom Scene – “Wait A Minute”
15. Billy Joel – “Scenes from an Italian Restaurant”

Anyone who thinks this is interesting can participate.