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).
I wanted to specify that this article was written by Michael Heiser and in reality entitled, “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God.” Also, in reality, Hesier’s work does not support your claims.
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:
True enough. Heiser does not agree with Mormonism. He is an Evangelical Bible scholar (certainly one of the best in my humble opinion). And yes, Heiser doesn’t go far enough in his views, which is why I have a forty some odd page critique coming out concerning Heiser’s recent arguments regarding the LDS use of Psalm 82 and John 10.
As to whether or not Heiser believes that “monotheism” is an appropriate term to apply to biblical theology, I believe Heiser has made his views quite clear.
I can email you each article in its entirety if you like.
Thank you. That would be very nice. Please send a PM.
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).
I provided a post that included a somewhat brief history of the way that this term has appeared in scholarly usage beginning with H. Wheeler Robinson, who concerning the biblical council of the gods declared, “One of the chief perils in the exegesis of ancient writings is that we should take figuratively that which in origin was meant quite realistically.” H. Wheeler Robinson, “The Council of Yahweh,” The Journal of Theological Studies (1944): 151.
No, I'm afraid this doesn't prove your case.
Well, then apparently I have no idea what ever will. As I said from the beginning, the Hebrew word ben can denote “a member, fellow of a group, class guild” (The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament; Study Edition, vol. 1, 138). This is why HALOT refers to the “son of the prophet” as “a member of the band of prophets” and the “son of the wise men” as “one of the wise men” (Ibid.).
This is true not only for Hebrew, but for the Semitic languages as a whole. It explains not only why many translators simply render the biblical phrase “sons of God” as “gods," but it also explains why law 188 from the Babylonian Laws of Hammurabi states summa mar ummanim “if the son of a craftsman,” which Martha T. Roth translates, “If a craftsman” (Law Collections From Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, 119). More importantly, the grammatical rule also explains why the Ugaritic tablet KTU 1.10:I.4 features the biblical cognate bn il “sons of God” which Simon Parker translates as “the gods” (Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, 182).
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).
Yes. The BDB has been reprinted many times. All of these reprints, however, still reflect the 1906 version. This is why you will not find any Ugaritic cognates listed with the Hebrew entries and you must be very careful in accepting any of the information they provide concerning “Assyrian,” i.e., Akkadian cognates.
Note that the BDB entry for “ben” provides an unvocalized Phoenician cognate, an Arabic cognate, an Assyrian cognate, and an Aramaic cognate, but no Ugaritic.
I don’t mean to be too disparaging, the Brown Driver and Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon is one of my all time favorite books, however, given its date, you simply cannot rely upon the BDB as an up to date resource. Espeically for issues concerning the word elohim and the expression "sons of God."
I also quoted the Concise HALOT, which is dated to 1970, and quotes the relevant Ugarit literature throughout.
Good! I don’t see a HALOT reference in your post, but HALOT is much more reliable than the BDB.
I also quoted TWOT, which was published in 1980 and quotes extensively from the Ugarit literature.
Yes. I know. Again, most scholars (myself included) do not view The Theological Word Book of the Old Testament as a standard academic reference tool, despite its date. Though quite expensive, the multi-volume Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament I cited is far superior.
The reason why I chose to include Gesenius was simply to show that the definition he gave is still current.
Again, I have a copy of Gesenius that assumes a prominent place on my shelf, but at 1909, the information is not current. I could provide several examples off the top of my head where the grammatical rules outlined in Gesenius have been proven incorrect.
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.
I certainly don’t believe that the post-exilic authors were entirely well-stepped in the details concerning Ugaritic mythology. Though the tablets from Ugarit reflect an early Canaanite perspective, it is a fact that many of the latest texts preserved in the Hebrew Bible still reflect Canaanite imagery; see Michael Fishbane, Biblical Myth and Rabbinic Mythmaking (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).
The conflict between Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the Son of Man depicted in the book of Daniel may reflect the Baal Cycle in which the younger god Baal empowered by the older god El defeats Yam (The Sea); see J.J. Collins, “Stirring up the Sea: The Religio-Historical Background of Daniel 7,” The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings; A.S. van der Woude, ed. (Levuven 1993): 121-126.
As another example of Canaanite influence on late biblical texts, Simon Parker has argued that the depiction of El’s residence at Ugarit “at the springs of the Rivers among the streams of the Deeps” is “exploited in Ezekiel’s account of the presumptuousness of the king of Tyre, who, Ezekiel says, has claimed, ‘I am God (El), I sit in the seat of God in the midst of the seas’ (Ezek 28:2).” Simon B. Parker, “Ugaritic Literature and the Bible,” Near Eastern Archaeology 63:4 (2000): 231.
Indeed, as André Caquot has suggested, imagery associated with early Canaanite mythology may even appear directly reflected within the New Testament:
“No one contests today the fact that knowledge of Ugarit is indispensable for exegetes of the Old Testament. But those of the New Testament should not neglect it either for it attests to details that were long retained by popular memory. The seven-headed best of the Apocalypse of John (12:3) does not come from the visions of Daniel, and Psalm 74 does not mention the number of Leviathan’s multiple heads. On the other hand, the Ugaritic ancestor of this dragon, reportedly defeated by Baal, is certainly the beast with seven heads. We have perhaps not considered sufficiently the fact that in Matthew 6:30-52, Mark 14:13-33 and John 6:1-20, the story of the multiplication of the loaves is immediately followed by the scene describing Jesus walking on the waters as if deliberately recalling two events in the cycle of Baal wherein Baal gives men their nourishment and vanquishes the sea” André Caquot, “At the Origins of the Bible,” Near Eastern Archeology 63:4 (2000): 227.
If we can trace this type of imagery to New Testament and Rabbinic writings, then clearly the earliest texts from the Hebrew Bible should be interpreted with a sensitivity directed towards these "Canaanite" traditions.