Bokovoy on the warpath again

[_Mister Scratch]

Danny Boy,

What a pleasure it is to hear from you again!

Now let us briefly review the thread in question, and thereby put this dispute to rest, once and for all. Here is the pertinent portion of my initial post:

On page 114 of Dan Vogel’s Joseph Smith -- The Making of A Prophet, he writes:

Among the holdings of the LDS Church archives in Salt Lake City is an undated page in Oliver Cowdery’s hand that is identified, similar to the document in the Community of Christ archives, as “Characters on the Book of Mormon.” 22 This document bears four symbols not present on the Anthon transcript, suggesting that Smith may have prepared more than one set of characters or that the Anthon fragment was detached from a larger document.

Footnote 22 reads:

22. Original in LDS Church Archives, catalogued among Joseph Smith’s Egyptian papers.

According to my research, there is no such document among the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers. And therefore I am led to believe that this citation is completely inaccurate …

Here is the link:
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 1208040422

Our readers will note that I have deliberately bolded the word citation. Nowhere was it ever suggested that you had “invented” any document out of thin air – only that you inaccurately described the contents of the document and that you didn’t have any idea where it was actually located within the archives, and that your citation thereof was inaccurate.

Was it a big deal? Absolutely not. Indeed, the thread was started for the sole purpose of jerking your chain a little – an objective that it achieved with notable success.

Eventually I did your research for you and identified where the document in question was actually located:

After consulting again with my contact who has access to protected materials in the Church Archives, I hereby provide this report on the smoldering issue of the document referenced in endnote 22 of chapter 8 of Dan Vogel’s Joseph Smith - The Making of a Prophet.

The document in question is: Ms d 3408 fd 4.

According to the Church Historian’s Office, this document is not now and, to the best of their knowledge, has never been associated with or catalogued with the Joseph Smith Egyptian papers.

A photo of the document was included on a microfilm dated 09/14/1956 that was pirated from the CHO. The microfilm in question contains a hodge podge of various historical documents. Contrary to some reports, the microfilm does NOT contain the entire collection of the Joseph Smith Egyptian papers. Neither W. W. Phelps’ Ms. #1, nor Willard Richards’ Ms. #4 are included on the film. Williams’ Ms. #2 appears in order, pages 1 – 4. Parrish’s Ms. #3 appears in the following page order: 5, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1. It appears that the film contains partial copies of both the bound and unbound Egyptian grammar papers, as well as some images of papyrus fragments, but obviously not those included in the Metropolitan Museum collection donated to the Church in 1967.

The so-called “Cowdery” document (Ms d 3408 fd 4) appeared on the microfilm between some pages of the Egyptian grammar documents and some fragments of Egyptian papyrus. Following the papyrus fragments are some documents written “in poorly-formed Arabic,” which were also never associated with nor catalogued with the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers. Also included in the microfilm are pages of a late-19th century Egyptian grammar written in German, and a mid-19th century Egyptian grammar written in French. Neither of these Egyptian grammars are associated with the Joseph Smith Egyptian papers, but originate from elsewhere in the archives.

It appears that someone produced a roll of microfilm containing objects of personal interest, rather than it being the product of a systematic archive of documents. The items appearing on the film were drawn from various locations in the archives.

A copy of this roll of microfilm was pirated from the Church Archives and it, or a copy of it, somehow ended up in the possession of the Tanners.

Contrary to popular belief, the document is not conclusively known to be in the hand of Oliver Cowdery. The phrase “made by Oliver” does appear on the document, but no orthographic analysis has ever been performed to determine the author of the handwriting appearing thereon.

The document in question does not, as reported in The Making of a Prophet, contain the title “Characters on the Book of Mormon”. That phrase is unique to a document in the hand of Frederick G. Williams (MS 4583 box 1 fd 5):

[IPB Image]

which contains characters similar to those written on Ms d 3408 fd 4.

In summary, despite my acknowledgment that his confusion concerning its location may have been influenced by the contents of the pirated Tanner microfilm described above, I will simply note, without elaboration, that Vogel’s description of the document contains inaccuracies and his endnote concerning its location is not accurate. Other than that, I draw no further conclusions regarding the factual accuracy of his book, nor the personal integrity of the author. Nor can it be shown that I ever did, notwithstanding the claims to the contrary made by Mr. Vogel and many of his supporters.

I might also note that, although my source for all of this information desires to remain unattributed, I will state that the individual in question is sufficiently authorized to obtain documents from the vault, including those referenced above. Said individual retrieved this day, Thursday, October 5, 2006, at my request, document Ms d 3408 fd 4. Said individual, at my request, also retrieved the microfilm in question and examined its contents, and immediately thereafter provided directly to me the information I have reported above. Anyone seeking to dispute the accuracy and reliability of my report is hereby invited to go to the Church Historian's Office in Salt Lake City, UT, to inquire for themselves. Anyone choosing to so do will find the information I have provided to be accurate in all its essential details, and according to the information I was given.

Link: http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 1208044923

Therefore, Dan, let me publicly and contritely apologize for having brought to your attention that you had an inaccurate citation in your astonishingly ahistorical account of the life of Joseph Smith. Not only was the citation itself inaccurate, but your description of the document in question was inaccurate.

Now go fix your description of the document and the citation which references its location in order that at least something will be accurate in future editions of your psycho/fantasy biography of Joseph Smith -- and stop your freaking whining!

P.S. And while I’m cowering meekly in sackcloth and ashes, permit me to apologize for having e-mailed you as “William Schryver” (which is, oddly enough, the name on my birth certificate) while simultaneously engaging in spirited debates with you on the old FAIR message board (using the pseudonym of “Provis”) regarding your astoundingly unsupportable theories regarding the alleged evolution of the story of Joseph Smith’s first vision.

Will:

You are so full of crap, your breath stinks. Here is your OP from the ironically named FAIRboard, so that everyone can see for him/herself what you were or were not doing:

I am initiating this thread in order to fulfil a promise made earlier this week. After a suitable period of time for comment, I would request that the moderators lock it.

Gee, I wonder why you would make such a "request"?

After consulting again with my contact who has access to protected materials in the Church Archives, I hereby provide this report on the smoldering issue of the document referenced in endnote 22 of chapter 8 of Dan Vogel’s Joseph Smith - The Making of a Prophet.

The document in question is: Ms d 3408 fd 4.

According to the Church Historian’s Office, this document is not now and, to the best of their knowledge, has never been associated with or catalogued with the Joseph Smith Egyptian papers.

A photo of the document was included on a microfilm dated 09/14/1956 that was pirated from the CHO. The microfilm in question contains a hodge podge of various historical documents. Contrary to some reports, the microfilm does NOT contain the entire collection of the Joseph Smith Egyptian papers. Neither W. W. Phelps’ Ms. #1, nor Willard Richards’ Ms. #4 are included on the film. Williams’ Ms. #2 appears in order, pages 1 – 4. Parrish’s Ms. #3 appears in the following page order: 5, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1. It appears that the film contains partial copies of both the bound and unbound Egyptian grammar papers, as well as some images of papyrus fragments, but obviously not those included in the Metropolitan Museum collection donated to the Church in 1967.

The so-called “Cowdery” document (Ms d 3408 fd 4) appeared on the microfilm between some pages of the Egyptian grammar documents and some fragments of Egyptian papyrus. Following the papyrus fragments are some documents written “in poorly-formed Arabic,” which were also never associated with nor catalogued with the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers. Also included in the microfilm are pages of a late-19th century Egyptian grammar written in German, and a mid-19th century Egyptian grammar written in French. Neither of these Egyptian grammars are associated with the Joseph Smith Egyptian papers, but originate from elsewhere in the archives.

It appears that someone produced a roll of microfilm containing objects of personal interest, rather than it being the product of a systematic archive of documents. The items appearing on the film were drawn from various locations in the archives.

A copy of this roll of microfilm was pirated from the Church Archives and it, or a copy of it, somehow ended up in the possession of the Tanners.

Contrary to popular belief, the document is not conclusively known to be in the hand of Oliver Cowdery. The phrase “made by Oliver” does appear on the document, but no orthographic analysis has ever been performed to determine the author of the handwriting appearing thereon.

Wow.... What a stunning discrediting! Way to go, Will!

The document in question does not, as reported in The Making of a Prophet, contain the title “Characters on the Book of Mormon”. That phrase is unique to a document in the hand of Frederick G. Williams (MS 4583 box 1 fd 5):

IPB Image

which contains characters similar to those written on Ms d 3408 fd 4.

In summary, despite my acknowledgment that his confusion concerning its location may have been influenced by the contents of the pirated Tanner microfilm described above, I will simply note, without elaboration, that Vogel’s description of the document contains inaccuracies and his endnote concerning its location is not accurate. Other than that, I draw no further conclusions regarding the factual accuracy of his book, nor the personal integrity of the author. Nor can it be shown that I ever did, notwithstanding the claims to the contrary made by Mr. Vogel and many of his supporters.

Right. Wait a sec.... Where have I seen this technique before? Ah, yes! This is classic DCP. Impugn the adversary's integrity without explicitly admitting to it. Way to be courageous, Will! Heavenly Father will bless you for sure!

I might also note that, although my source for all of this information desires to remain unattributed, I will state that the individual in question is sufficiently authorized to obtain documents from the vault, including those referenced above. Said individual retrieved this day, Thursday, October 5, 2006, at my request, document Ms d 3408 fd 4. Said individual, at my request, also retrieved the microfilm in question and examined its contents, and immediately thereafter provided directly to me the information I have reported above. Anyone seeking to dispute the accuracy and reliability of my report is hereby invited to go to the Church Historian's Office in Salt Lake City, UT, to inquire for themselves. Anyone choosing to so do will find the information I have provided to be accurate in all its essential details, and according to the information I was given.

Might I add that your "anonymous source" amounts to a big fat zero? C'mon, Will. We all know about the institutionalized secrecy that is such an inherent part of Mormonism. If anything, you should be working to rid the Church of secrecy.

[_Dan Vogel]

Hello Dan,

Hope all is well.

This came up during the thread. Could you give us your assessment of the Marquardt book? I would be interested in your view.

Thanks.

Who Knows, as you certainly know, D&C 121 derives from Joseph’s letter to the Church at Quincy, Illinois 20 March 1839.

The section that Kevin missed in his assessment originally read:

“the dispensation of the fullness of times according to that which was ordained in the midst of the councyl [sic.] of the eternal God of all other Gods before this word…” see Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, revised edition, pg. 437.

Hope that helps,

--DB

I believe both section 121 and 122 are derived from that (very long) letter, which he wrote while in Liberty Jail. When I worked for the church, a guy in my department was tasked with reading through all the editions of the Book of Mormon and the D&C to see where and when changes had occurred. He said it was next to impossible to get at an original text of the D&C revelations because there weren't any original manuscripts and all the revelations had
undergone extensive revision.

I'm sure that's true. I own a copy of Signature Book's Joseph Smith Revelations: Text and Commentary by H. Michael Marquardt. He probably does as good as job as possible at reconstructing the originals, but we should ask Dan.

It's a handy source. He reproduced the earliest version of each revelation and has commentary on the major changes. I use it a lot.

[_Dan Vogel]

Will,

Our readers will note that I have deliberately bolded the word citation. Nowhere was it ever suggested that you had ““invented”” any document out of thin air –– only that you inaccurately described the contents of the document and that you didn’’t have any idea where it was actually located within the archives, and that your citation thereof was inaccurate.

Remember this statement?

According to my research, there is no such document among the “Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers”. And therefore I am led to believe that this citation is completely inaccurate, and I am left to wonder what it portends about the reliability of the research in this so-called “definitive” biography of Joseph Smith. Certainly one bad reference does not a bad book make, but this is quite an extraordinary claim that Vogel has made, and one that does not seem to stand up under close scrutiny.

Many readers took Will’s statement to mean that he doubted the document existed, although he repeatedly denied this interpretation. Three pages later, Will complained that I had not responded to his challenge and became emboldened and made his accusation of fabrication more explicit.

By the way, I have yet to see a correction/retraction from Mr. Vogel regarding the apparently inaccurate reference I cited. I'm actually a bit disappointed. [b]I was hoping that there really is another source of Book of Mormon characters. That would be a significant historical discovery, indeed.

That sounds like you didn't believe the document existed, Will! Now, stop the damage control

Was it a big deal? Absolutely not. Indeed, the thread was started for the sole purpose of jerking your chain a little –– an objective that it achieved with notable success.

Oh, how immaturrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre! In reality, you thought you had something big, but had to settle for a minor error.

Eventually I did your research for you and identified where the document in question was actually located: ...

Thanks.

[_Fortigurn]

Elish, time to get back to you.

First, a few commentators identifying the members of the Divine council as angels (this is the material the existence of which you declared complete ignorance):

'For the undoing of Ahab, an angel in the divine council offers to go and function “as a spirit of falsehood” (lérûäḥ s̆eqer) in the mouth of Ahab’s prophets.

Meridith G Kline, 'Primal Parousia', WTJ 40:2 (Spr 78) p. 255

'In this regard it is interesting to note Isaiah 6:2 in the Septuagint, where the angelic beings in the passage stand before Yahweh, not above Him as in the Masoretic text.'

'It is necessary to recognize a distinction between Deity (God) and divinity (godlikeness) as a solution for reconciling the plural אֱלֹהִיםand Israelite monotheism.'

'Whereas other ancient Near Eastern religions showed only glimpses of the monotheistic idea,83 Israel alone was consistent in holding to monotheism.'

'Deuteronomy 32:8 in Light of God’s Divine Council in the Hebrew Bible', BSac 158:629 (Jan 01) p. 62, 66, 74

Again, “the sons of God” are said to be earthly “tyrant kings” (Genesis 6, p. 28), while the only other time the identical phrase is used with the article in the Old Testament they are said to be members of the heavenly council (Job 1 and 2, p. 27).

Review of 'Images of the Spirit', Meredith G. Kline. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980, in The Evangelical Theological Society. (1981; 2002). Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Volume 24 (24:275-276)

'Divine council

Consisted of the "sons of God," a council of angels which surrounded God and served as his deliberative assembly'

B L Bandstra, 'Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Hebrew Bible', 1999

Exactly why you are entirely unfamiliar with this material, despite allegedly having read all the material you say, is unclear.

Next, the sons of God. You ignored my entire case regarding the 'son of' idiom, in which I demonstrated that 'son of X' never means 'X'. Instead you threw out a single claim from a source which said that 'sons of God' means 'gods'. That was nothing more than selective reading (and an implied appeal to authority).

You need to address the grammatical argument. It won't go away. You also need to explain why the standard lexical sources do not give 'gods' as the meaning of 'sons of God', or 'sons of the gods'.

I'll start with Gesenius, for comfort. But don't get excited, we'll soon see he's not out of date on this issue. Here's Ben Ha Elohim in Gesenius:

בְּנֵי אֵלִים Ps. 29:1; 89:7, “sons of gods,” by an idiom of the Hebrew and Syriac syntax, poet. for “sons of Gods,” i.e. angels.

Gesenius, W., & Tregelles, S. P. (2003). Gesenius' Hebrew and Chaldee lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures. Translation of the author's Lexicon manuale Hebraicum et Chaldaicum in Veteris Testamenti libros, a Latin version of the work first published in 1810-1812 under title: Hebräisch-deutsches Handwörterbuch des Alten Testaments

Here's Elohim in Abrigded BDB:

n.m.pl. (f.) pl. in number. a. rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power. b. divine ones, superhuman beings including God and angels. c. angels; cf. אלהים(ה) בני = (the) sons of God, or sons of gods = angels

Whitaker, R., Brown, F., Driver, S. (. R., & Briggs, C. A. (. A. (1997, c1906). The Abridged Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon of the Old Testament : From A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Francis Brown, S.R. Driver and Charles Briggs, based on the lexicon of Wilhelm Gesenius. Edited by Richard Whitaker (Princeton Theological Seminary)

Here's Bar Elohim in Swanson's Aramaic:

10120 בַּר (bǎr): n.masc.; ≡ DBLHebr 1201, 1337 Str 1247; TWOT 2639—1. LN 10.42 son, one’s own male child (Ezr 5:2(2×); 6:10; 7:23+); 2. LN 10.30 descendant (Ezr 5:1; 6:14+); 3. LN 9.46-9.48 child, a term of intimacy and personal knowledge (Da 5:22+); 4. LN 10.36 child, offspring; either male or female (Da 6:25+); 5. LN 9.3-9.4 son of man or Son of Man (Da 7:13+), see 10050; 6. LN 9.4 person of ..., formally, son of ...; this is an idiom referring to a class or kind (Ezr 6:16b; Da 2:25, 38; 5:13, 21; 6:14[EB 13]+); 7. LN 11.58 the people of Israel (Ezr 6:16a+); 8. LN 12.28 a son of the gods, an angel of God (Da 3:25+);.

Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Aramaic (Old Testament)

Here's Ben El and Ben Ha Elohim in Swanson's Hebrew:

11. LN 12.1-12.42 unit: בֵּן אֵל (bēn ˒ēl)5 heavenly being, angel, formally, son of God, i.e., a supernatural being, created, with a special focus of being in a unique class (Ps 29:3; 89:7[EB 6]; Hos 2:1+); 12. LN 12.1-12.42 unit: בֵּן הַ־ אֱלֹהִים (bēn hǎ- ˒ělō∙hîm) heavenly being, angel, formally, son of God, i.e., a supernatural being, created, with a special focus of being in a unique class (Job 1:6);

Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament)

Here's Ben Ha Elohim in BDB:

...cf. בני (ה)אלהים = (the) sons of God, or sons of gods = angels Jb 1:6; 2:1; 38:7 Gn 6:2, 4...

Brown, F., Driver, S. R., & Briggs, C. A. (2000). Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon

Here's Ben Ha Elohim in TWOT:

The “sons of God” (˒ĕlōhı̂m) mentioned in Gen 6 are either angelic beings, or rulers, i.e. kings (cf. Ps 82:6), or more likely the godly line of Seth.

Harris, R. L., Harris, R. L., Archer, G. L., & Waltke, B. K. (1999, c1980). Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament

There's a very consistent message there. None of these standard lexical sources gives 'gods' as a meaning of 'sons of God', or 'sons of the gods' in either the Aramaic or the Hebrew forms, with either El or Elohim. You'll see of course that 'angels' get a very solid vote.

[_Enuma Elish]

Fortigurn,

I’ll start with a sincere apology to you and Kevin. I realized this weekend that my posts did not carry an appropriate tone.

Exactly why you are entirely unfamiliar with this material, despite allegedly having read all the material you say, is unclear.

Clearly I have not plummeted the debts of sources such as The Westminster Theological Journal and the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. You’ve proven your point. I was wrong to state that when scholars refer to the Divine Council we are referring specifically to an assembly of gods.

It appears that some Evangelical scholars have attempted to usurp the expression. Whether they have done so in an effort to intentionally confuse readers or out of sheer ignorance, I can’t say. But clearly, I was wrong.

Thank you for providing some examples.

Next, the sons of God. You ignored my entire case regarding the 'son of' idiom, in which I demonstrated that 'son of X' never means 'X'. Instead you threw out a single claim from a source which said that 'sons of God' means 'gods'. That was nothing more than selective reading (and an implied appeal to authority).

You should go back and read the first paragraph from the dictionary entry I provided which illustrates that the expression “son of X’ does mean “X.” It appears that you also have access to the Brown Driver and Briggs Lexicon. Under “ben” see entry 8, which defines examples such as “sons of wickedness” as “wicked men” and “sons of pledges” as “hostages”; etc.

I'll start with Gesenius, for comfort. But don't get excited, we'll soon see he's not out of date on this issue. Here's Ben Ha Elohim in Gesenius:

I promise not to get excited. But your sources are out of date. They will not reflect anything that we've learned about Semitic languges from Ugaritic, and very little of what we now know through Akkadian. Gesenius was first published in 1909. The BDB (Brown Driver Briggs Hebrew) you are using reflects a concise version of the 1906 American version.

While these sources are important scholarly references tools (although very much dated) most scholars would not consider The TWOT (Theological Word Book of the Old Testament) a standard reference tool.

Unfortunately, there really isn’t an up to date Aramaic Dictionary. But even if there was such a source, Aramaic of course reflects later Jewish theological developments, which as I illustrated in an earlier post specifically attempt to humanize the Divine Counicl of deities.

[_dartagnan]

I noticed today that the self-ordained “Backyard Professor” decided to dirty his foot with that dead horse.

I hate to sound like I am beating a dead horse here, but I so totally side with David B. concerning Leonidas's phony claim that the Prophet gathered his goodies on the council of the Gods via the Zohar.

Kerry Shirts is banking on the ignorance of his audience. He is banking on the hopes that none of them will actually take the time to read through the discussion to find out I made no such “claim.” I read Hamblin’s treatment on this subject and I was very careful in what I said. I never said it was definitive. I said it was plausible and it was certainly not as unsupported as the illicit leap to his preferred scenario: “God must have told him about the divine council.”

Bill Hamblin, as Bokovoy has also pointed out, and as has Dan Peterson, simply laid this Kabbalah argument to total REST concerning Joseph Smith's use of it. The Prophet studied Hebrew, the Zohar is clearly and firmly in Aramaic, (I KNOW this to be the case, I have the entire 23 volume Zohar in ARAMAIC) another entirely different language, even though the script is the same, or at least similar.

This is all beside the point really. This is like saying I would be unable to teach my neighbors anything about American culture, simply because they don’t speak the language in which American culture is written: English. Of course we already know from Joseph Smith’s own admission that he learned of the plurality of God in Gen 1:1 only after seeing “others” translate it that way. Who are these “others,” Kerry? It doesn’t really matter if this involved conversations with Jewish mystics. The point is we know he had contact with people who had made these points before he did. This in and of itself precludes any apologetic hope that it was divine revelation.

And if Leonidas is Kevin Graham, it's sad to see someone who once had the knack of being critical in his arguments (in the good sense, as in careful), and now he has obviously fallen for far lesser rigid approaches against the scriptures such as the Book of Abraham, as his weak Kabbalah argument goes.

On the contrary, I haven’t changed much at all in that regard. I am being critical, which is why people like Kerry don’t like me anymore. I’m no longer a team player because I decided to apply logic both ways. Apologists don’t like it when you d that. I continue to strive for logic, diligence and above all, caution in what I say. Unfortunately, Kerry hasn’t changed either. He is still the one guy who can ruin an apologists’ victory party by going off at the lip without carefully reading what it is he claims to be refuting. He did the same thing when Brian Hauglid finished his presentation at FAIR; Kerry went to the forum and gave an inaccurate account of what Brian actually presented and then had to apologize for his own scatterbrained account.

Where he lacks in aptitude and scholarship he tries to compensate with giddy emotion.


“Joseph Smith had a no fault system. If you find similarities, that becomes evidence for his inspiration. If not, then it's new revelation. If similar but different, then it's a restoration of a corrupted transmission.” – Dan Vogel

[_Enuma Elish]

'Whereas other ancient Near Eastern religions showed only glimpses of the monotheistic idea,83 Israel alone was consistent in holding to monotheism.'

'Deuteronomy 32:8 in Light of God’s Divine Council in the Hebrew Bible', BSac 158:629 (Jan 01) p. 62, 66, 74

By the way. We should clarify that this source is in reality:

Michael S. Heiser, “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God,” Bibliotheca Sacra 158 (2001): 52-74.

Though Heiser is an evangelical scholar, he does not believe that Israel was monotheistic and he argues that the “Sons of God” refers to the gods of the divine council. He also believes that angels do not represent a separate species, but are simply divine messengers sent to represent the council of the gods.

His views are accessible at his site thedivinecouncil.com.

Unfortunately, my University library does not carry Evangelical Bible studies, so I can't check your other references without ILL or going over to the Divinity School at Boston University or Boston College, so it may take a while.

[_aussieguy55]

I read Heiser's paper and his response to you. I don't have the knowledge to engage in debate. I did some hebrew years ago with F I Anderson at the University of Queensland. He was a brillant man and Christian. He wrote a book on the waw consecutive. I imagine you would be aware of it.

[_Fortigurn]

'Whereas other ancient Near Eastern religions showed only glimpses of the monotheistic idea,83 Israel alone was consistent in holding to monotheism.'

'Deuteronomy 32:8 in Light of God’s Divine Council in the Hebrew Bible', BSac 158:629 (Jan 01) p. 62, 66, 74

By the way. We should clarify that this source is in reality:

Michael S. Heiser, “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God,” Bibliotheca Sacra 158 (2001): 52-74.

What do you mean 'in reality'? You've cited exactly the same article and reference that I did, except that you didn't give the month name, and you didn't cite accurately the pages I quoted (I only quoted pages 62, 66 and 74).

Though Heiser is an evangelical scholar, he does not believe that Israel was monotheistic and he argues that the “Sons of God” refers to the gods of the divine council. He also believes that angels do not represent a separate species, but are simply divine messengers sent to represent the council of the gods.

I'm familiar with Heiser's work. I quoted him specifically because he's on one radical extreme of the debate, but even he won't go as far as Mormons do on this issue. As to whether or not he believes that Israel was monotheistic, it's putting words into his mouth to say he doesn't:

'Does the affirmation of the reality of other אלהים by the canonical authors disqualify Israelite religion as monotheistic? Are other terms used in academic discourse for ancient religious pantheons more appropriate? The short answer to both questions, in the view of this writer, is a qualified no.'

Michael Heiser, 'Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism? Toward an Assessment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible', pages 21-22

'Israel did not believe that Yahweh should be viewed as the supreme god only because of his deeds on behalf of Israel. The canonical authors considered Yahweh to be in a class by himself. He was “species-unique.”54 In briefest terms, the statements in the canonical text (poetic or otherwise) inform the reader that, for the biblical writer, Yahweh was an אלהים , but no other אלהים was Yahweh—and never was nor could be.

This notion allows for the existence of other אלהים and is more precise than the terms “polytheism” and “henotheism.” It is also more accurate than “monotheism,” though it preserves the element of that conception that is most important to traditional Judaism and Christianity: Yahweh’s solitary “otherness” with respect to all that is, in heaven and in earth.

Michael Heiser, 'Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism? Toward an Assessment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible', pages 21-24

Emphasis mine. I really don't see much in Heiser's articles which goes anywhere near polytheism, since he believes that all other elohim were created by Yahweh, that none of them were self-existent, and that all were subject to Him. You could call them 'angels', and Heiser's model would fit neatly into traditional Evangelical exposition, with the exception that it includes rather more disobedient angels than traditional Evangelical exposition is comfortable with.

Unfortunately, my University library does not carry Evangelical Bible studies, so I can't check your other references without ILL or going over to the Divinity School at Boston University or Boston College, so it may take a while.

I can email you each article in its entirety if you like.

[_Fortigurn]

Fortigurn,

I’ll start with a sincere apology to you and Kevin. I realized this weekend that my posts did not carry an appropriate tone.

Thank you, I appreciate it.

Clearly I have not plummeted the debts of sources such as The Westminster Theological Journal and the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. You’ve proven your point. I was wrong to state that when scholars refer to the Divine Council we are referring specifically to an assembly of gods.

Thank you again.

It appears that some Evangelical scholars have attempted to usurp the expression. Whether they have done so in an effort to intentionally confuse readers or out of sheer ignorance, I can’t say. But clearly, I was wrong.

They haven't usurped it at all. They're simply using it as it's been used since at least the LXX (treating the LXX as an interpretative text, and leaving the original Hebrew texts aside for the sake of the argument).

You should go back and read the first paragraph from the dictionary entry I provided which illustrates that the expression “son of X’ does mean “X.” It appears that you also have access to the Brown Driver and Briggs Lexicon. Under “ben” see entry 8, which defines examples such as “sons of wickedness” as “wicked men” and “sons of pledges” as “hostages”; etc.

No, I'm afraid this doesn't prove your case. You've simply repeated my statements and claimed they support your argument. My statement was that 'son of X' does not mean 'X', it means characterized by, or sharing qualities of X.

Let 'wickedness' be 'X'. Does 'son of wickedness' mean 'wickedness'? No, it means a person who is characterized by wicked behaviour. Let 'pledges' be 'X'. Does 'sons of pledges' mean 'pledges'? No, it means people who are characterized as being part of a pledge, in this case 'hostages'.

But your sources are out of date. They will not reflect anything that we've learned about Semitic languges from Ugaritic, and very little of what we now know through Akkadian. Gesenius was first published in 1909. The BDB (Brown Driver Briggs Hebrew) you are using reflects a concise version of the 1906 American version.

Actually I quoted the abridged BDB and the full BDB, and both are from the 1956 revised edition, which was written long after a published Ugarit corpus existed (the Schaeffer discoveries of 1928). I also quoted the Concise HALOT, which is dated to 1970, and quotes the relevant Ugarit literature throughout. I also quoted TWOT, which was published in 1980 and quotes extensively from the Ugarit literature. I also quoted from Swansons' Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains (both Hebrew and Aramaic), which was published in 1997 and also uses the existing Ugarit corpus.

The reason why I chose to include Gesenius was simply to show that the definition he gave is still current. It is seen in the revised BDB of 1956, the Concise HALOT of 1970, the current TWOT of 1980, and Swanson's work of 1997.

Now, I'm interested in your thoughts on how a 6th century BC post-exilic Jew can write with such detailed accuracy concerning the religion of a society which ended 500 years before he lived. Do give me your thoughts on how the post-exilic authors became so familiar with the Ugarit pantheon, despite never having been contemporaries of the Ugarit society.