Daniel says that I'm not telling the truth about what he believes. Yet in a conversation I had with him in 2010 he said,
"I also disagree with the notion that it is Mormon ideologies which lead to the conclusions we espouse."
What conclusions does Daniel "espouse" (he included himself in the conclusions he documents in this conversation). He writes,
You've also misunderstood my subsequent comment. It doesn't provide a key for differentiating, it provides a key for understanding their conflation. I don't have proof that they were conflated specifically at the translation of Deut 32:43, but that they were distinct prior to the Hellenistic Period is unquestionable, and my proof is that there is absolutely nothing in any text anywhere prior to the Hellenistic Period that comes close to even suggesting they were the same class of being. On the other hand, every reference to the two makes their distinction perfectly clear.
I have the distinct impression that my comments are going to be misunderstood again. I hope I am wrong.
I didn't misunderstand him. I nicely asked him to further clarify. I said,
What I want to know is HOW you are arriving at your conclusion. For example, I know the theories on how Yahweh and Asherah were conflated, (Hadley): "IT MAY BE that at this time Yahweh was absorbing this symbol into his cult…" She gives examples which are a lot of conjecture, but HOW did angels and sons of god become conflated? What are you basing this on? Your just telling me does not PROVE IT.
Daniel O. McClellanJune 18, 2010 at 6:58 PM
grindael-
You want to know the process that occurred? Ok. The original Syro-Palestinian pantheon consisted of a high god and his consort. In the case of Israel, it was El and Asherah. The state cult explicitly recognized both deities throughout the united and divided monarchies. The second tier was inhabited by the "Sons of El," which, in the literature as it has come down to us, are nameless except for Yhwh. They are described in similar terms as those used in the Ugaritic literature--that is, deities assigned to specific duties vis-a-vis natural phenomena and political entities. Thus Yhwh is a storm god, Rephesh is a deity of pestilence, Mot is a deity of death, etc. The "Sons of El" are also assigned nations as stewardships, as in Deut 32:8-9. The next tier down constitutes the servant deities. They are ontologically deities, but they exist only to serve other higher-tier deities. These were exclusively messenger deities, originally.
Yhwh and El were conflated around the beginning of the united monarchy in an effort to centralize cultic authority under the single state head when the northern and southern kingdoms came together. Cultic centralization in the late pre-exilic period sought to further consolidate cultic authority by delegitimizing temples and cultic sites outside of Jerusalem. This undermined the local worship of Yhwh, which is attested at Kuntillet Ajrud and Khirbet el-Qom (no more "Yhwh of Teman" or "Yhwh of Shomron." This is too close to "Baal of Peor," and "Baal of Gad," "Baal of Hamon," etc. From now on just Yhwh of Jerusalem).
This consolidating strained localized cultic piety, however, which began to manifest itself literarily. By the time Israel returned from the exile the roles filled by the several deities of the original pantheon were reconfigured and expanded for the new pantheon. Cherubim, Seraphim, the Hosts of Heaven, the Holy Ones, the Adversary, and a number of other offices were developed during the exile.
This expansion continued into the Hellenistic Period with the explosion of angelological literature like 1 Enoch and texts from Qumran, but developing sectarian concerns catalyzed a push to reconsolidate these roles. The solution which was developed was to corral them all into one taxonomical category. The most convenient category was the angelic, so authors and religious authorities began to treat these disparate characters as different responsibilities or manifestation of angelic beings. The Greek translation of Deut 32:43 represents the first clear attempt to equate the angels with the Sons of God, but it was quickly and completely assimilated into the Jewish worldview.
Some modern commentators who prioritize a synchronic reading of the Hebrew Bible and don't concern themselves with the scholarship related to the various roles of the early Israelite pantheon accept the tradition that has come down that the two classes are to be identified, which is why you occasionally find it in dictionaries, translations, and more pop biblical literature.
So, Daniel here, absolutely believes this. I asked for Proof, and that is what he gave me. I was not disrespectful at all in this conversation with him. I wrote,
grindael June 18, 2010 at 7:28 PM
Ok. Thanks. Do you personally believe this is how the Hebrew Religion developed? What about the roles of prophets in the Old Testament? What is your take on the ORIGINAL Hebrew Religion?
I like your overview, it gives me reference points for study. What I would really like to know is what your belief is on how the Hebrew Religion evolved pre-Mosaic period.
Is your overview here a consensus of a majority of scholars? What do you think of S. Hermann, Flanders, Crapps & Smith? I also know about Frank Cross, (I read some of his Dead Sea Scrolls Translations in the 70's). Also, what about L. Handy?
Thanks for your time.
Here is Daniel's reply. Now pay attention and see how disingenuous he is being now:
Grindael-
Yes, I do think that's how it developed. That's the conclusion that the evidence supports.
The prophets of the 8th and 7th century were largely social critics who condemned the excesses of the priestly aristocracy and the monarchy. Later prophets were more aligned with the interests of the monarchy and preached against poly-Yahwism and things like that.
The fact that angels were not originally the Sons of God is a consensus, and the general outline is a majority opinion, but some finer points are theories that I am producing. For instance, at this year's SBL I will present a paper entitled "What is Deity in LXX Deuteronomy?" where I will discuss the reasons for the conflation of the Sons of God and the angels.
Those scholars are largely outdated. Cross was widely influential (far more so than the others), but his era ended long ago. Lowell Handy has some interesting ideas, but I disagree with many of his assumptions. For instance, he simply asserts that the root Q-N-H does not mean "create." Many scholars disagree with this, but it is an assumption that is still occasionally made. The other paper I am presenting at this year's SBL directly confronts his assertion as part of a larger discussion of Gen 14:19, 22.
Source:
http://mormonhomeevening.blogspot.com/2 ... i-lee.htmlSo, was Daniel lying to me then, or now?