Bokovoy on the warpath again

[_Fortigurn]

Fortigurn wrote:

Back to Genesis 6:

* We still have no evidence that 'sons of God' means 'god' to the Hebrew (standard lexical sources say otherwise)

* In pagan literature gods may die, but in Hebrew literature immortality is a defining feature of a god (otherwise reading 'gods' in Psalm 82 makes no sense)

I don't buy either of these points.

Well if you're a Mormon, of course you won't.

For one, I think it that it represents a perspective that is limited in terms of who you are talking about and when you are talking about them. Israelite religion was certainly not homogenous.

The statement 'Israelite religion was certainly not homogenous' is very vague'. Do you mean that the orthodox religion was not homogenous, or do you simply mean that Israelite society did not uniformly follow the orthodox religion? The latter is true.

And there were Israelites (quite a number of them we are lead to believe) who were Ba'al worshipers, and we all know (right) that Ba'al not only killed other gods, but was himself killed and resurrected. And Ba'al (much like YHWH) was considered one of the sons of El.

Well of course there were, and they were condemned for doing so (there goes the theory that orthodox Israelite religion was polytheistic). But this is the whole point, you only find gods dying in the Canaanite mythology. In the Bible, real gods don't die.

Given this, and the known instances (like Deuteronomy 32) where the text was manipulated to remove such references...

Please supply evidence that the original text in Deuteronomy 32 'was manipulated to remove such references'. And no, the cross reference to the passage in Exodus is not evidence.

...it seems quite likely that there was a Hebrew tradition in which "sons of God" meant "god" to the Hebrews, even if this was not theologically consistent with post-exilic YHWHism.

I've already dealt with this. You need to supply some evidence of this. I've already supplied an abundance of evidence for the 'son of X' idiom, and demonstrated that standard lexical works do not recognise 'gods' within the semantic domain of 'sons of God'.

Nor am I convinced that the to "die like a man/Adam" of Psalm 82 suggests that they could not die to begin with.

I agree it doesn't suggest they could not die to begin with. It suggests to me very much that they could die. And what do you know, men die.

It merely shows that they could not be men to begin with.

How?

Further, the divinties in Psalm 82 were themselves rulers and judges - and equal in that sense with whichever of the Elohim was being highlighted from among them...

I'm afraid that's speculation. The text does not tell us this.

[_Enuma Elish]

Fortigurn,

I've already dealt with this. You need to supply some evidence of this. I've already supplied an abundance of evidence for the 'son of X' idiom, and demonstrated that standard lexical works do not recognize 'gods' within the semantic domain of 'sons of God'.

You haven’t dealt with this issue. You’ve simply plugged your ears with your fingers, closed your eyes, and continued to shake your head stating, “No it's Not!,” “Not it's Not!,” “No it's Not!”

If you had dealt with the issue then you would have recognized the fact that the standard lexical works you cited predate the issue we’re addressing (the BDB doesn’t even include Ugaritic cognates).

Also, you would have recognized the fact that I illustrated that the phrase ‘son of’ is not only translated as a member of a class or guild in Hebrew but also in Akkadian and Ugaritic.

You have not dealt with the fact that law 188 from the Babylonian Laws of Hammurabi states summa mar ummanim “if the son of a craftsman,” and Martha T. Roth translates, “If a craftsman” (Law Collections From Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, 119).

Nor have you dealt with the fact that 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 into English as “the gods” (Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, 182).

Are you dealing with these facts by suggesting that specialists such as Martha Roth and Simon Parker (not to mention Dahood who consistently renders the biblical phrase “sons of gods” as “gods”) simply don’t/did not understand Semitic languages?

[_Fortigurn]

Fortigurn,

I've already dealt with this. You need to supply some evidence of this. I've already supplied an abundance of evidence for the 'son of X' idiom, and demonstrated that standard lexical works do not recognize 'gods' within the semantic domain of 'sons of God'.

You haven’t dealt with this issue. You’ve simply plugged your ears with your fingers, closed your eyes, and continued to shake your head stating, “No it's Not!,” “Not it's Not!,” “No it's Not!”

That's completely untrue. I've given you a sound grammatical argument, demonstrating conclusively that in Hebrew the phrase 'son/s of X' does not mean 'X'. I've also provided a wealth of relevant lexical data. You have responded in the following ways:

* Initially ignored it
* When brought to your attention again, you simply denied it (claiming that in Hebrew the phrase 'son/s of X' does mean 'X')
* When presented to you yet again, you claimed that since 'son/s of God' in Ugarit means 'god', then the Hebrew must mean the same
* Attempted to claim that the lexical sources provided didn't take Ugarit into account (which a number of them did)

To date you have not addressed properly either the grammatical data, or the lexical data.

If you had dealt with the issue then you would have recognized the fact that the standard lexical works you cited predate the issue we’re addressing (the BDB doesn’t even include Ugaritic cognates).

Are you claiming that none of the lexical works I quoted (not cited), were published prior to a recognition that the Hebrew idiom 'son/s of X' actually means 'X'?

Also, you would have recognized the fact that I illustrated that the phrase ‘son of’ is not only translated as a member of a class or guild in Hebrew but also in Akkadian and Ugaritic.

So what? You're supposed to be showing me that the Hebrew idiom 'son of X' actually means 'X', and not 'person characterized by, or sharing qualities of, X'. Please do so at your earliest convenience.

You have not dealt with the fact that law 188 from the Babylonian Laws of Hammurabi states summa mar ummanim “if the son of a craftsman,” and Martha T. Roth translates, “If a craftsman” (Law Collections From Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, 119).

Why should I? I'm looking at Hebrew, not Old Babylonian cuneiform. Why not look at what 'son of' means in Oompa-Loompa, while you're at it?

Nor have you dealt with the fact that 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 into English as “the gods” (Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, 182).

As I said, I'm dealing with Hebrew not Ugarit. You have yet to address the Hebrew. I find it bizarre that you seem to be claiming post-exilic Jews writing in Hebrew or Aramaic used exactly the same grammar as the Ugarit of 500 years earlier. You're also ignoring the wealth of examples I've provided for the Biblical use of the Hebrew 'son of X' idiom.

Are you dealing with these facts by suggesting that specialists such as Martha Roth and Simon Parker (not to mention Dahood who consistently renders the biblical phrase “sons of gods” as “gods”) simply don’t/did not understand Semitic languages?

No I haven't done that. Please don't attribute to me arguments I have not made. Just deal with the arguments I make.

[_Enuma Elish]

Fortigurn,

That's completely untrue. I've given you a sound grammatical argument, demonstrating conclusively that in Hebrew the phrase 'son/s of X' does not mean 'X'.

Your sound grammatical argument relies upon the fact that son of Abraham, etc. does not mean “Abraham.” Therefore, your “conclusive” analysis assumes that “son of” carries only a literal meaning.

Therefore, your argument rejects the information provided in both the Brown Driver and Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon and the Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament that “son of” can denote a member of a class or guild.

By only allowing for a literal meaning, your grammatical argument fails to recognize the legitimacy of the information provided in both BDB and HALOT, namely that “son of a prophet” means “a member of the prophetic guild.”

That son of a wise man means “a wise man.”

That “son of nobles,” means a "freedman," etc.

Words carry a variety of connotations. You are correct. "Son of Abraham" does not mean "Abraham." But how is allowing for only a single literal meaning of the word “son” a “sound grammatical argument,” especially when the dictionaries declare otherwise?

Are you claiming that none of the lexical works I quoted (not cited), were published prior to a recognition that the Hebrew idiom 'son/s of X' actually means 'X'?

You made a big deal over the fact that Gesenius and The Brown Driver and Briggs Lexicon do not recognize the fact that “sons of God” denotes the “gods” of the Divine Council (you even erroneously tried to argue that your BDB was a revised version that post-dated the Ugaritic discoveries and by implication addressed the issue at hand). I explained that due to the fact that these sources predate the discovery of Ugaritic, that neither of these resources (though important scholarly tools) provide current information on the issue of either the word "elohim" or the expression "sons of god."

I also explained that many scholars, myself included, do not accept The Theological Word Book of the Old Testament as a legitimate academic resource. It carries an evangelical bias that rejects the observations of main stream biblical scholarship, which no doubt explains the reason why you find the book so useful.

So what? You're supposed to be showing me that the Hebrew idiom 'son of X' actually means 'X', and not 'person characterized by, or sharing qualities of, X'. Please do so at your earliest convenience.

Of course I have demonstrated that “son of” can carry the connotation of “a member, fellow of a group, class guild” (The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament; Study Edition, vol. 1, 138).

Hebrew is a Semitic language. Therefore, it follows specific grammatical rules and patterns that also apply to languages such as Akkadian and Ugaritic. By demonstrating that other Semitic languages use “son of” to denote the member of a class or guild, I have provided additional evidence to support the fact that Hebrew allows for this construction.

Why should I? I'm looking at Hebrew, not Old Babylonian cuneiform. Why not look at what 'son of' means in Oompa-Loompa, while you're at it?

Because Oompa-Loompa is not a Semitic language. Akkadian, like Hebrew, very much is. In fact, it’s the oldest attested Semitic language. The reason that it falls into the same linguistic family as Hebrew (when Oompa-Loompa does not) is because Akkadian follows many of the same grammatical rules as Hebrew and shares a related vocabulary.

How do you suppose linguists developed Hebrew grammars and dictionaries? I can assure you that these resources rely upon comparative Semitic analysis.

As I said, I'm dealing with Hebrew not Ugarit.

Which is precisely why you don't understand the argument.

You have yet to address the Hebrew. I find it bizarre that you seem to be claiming post-exilic Jews writing in Hebrew or Aramaic used exactly the same grammar as the Ugarit of 500 years earlier. You're also ignoring the wealth of examples I've provided for the Biblical use of the Hebrew 'son of X' idiom.

Again. It’s not odd. Ugaritic is a Semitic language. As I illustrated, Simon Parker translated the Ugaritic phrase bn il “sons of God” as “the gods” (Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, 182). Do you believe that Parker would have approached the Hebrew expression differently?

No I haven't done that. Please don't attribute to me arguments I have not made. Just deal with the arguments I make.

But of course by arguing that these scholars were wrong in translating expressions such as “son of a craftsman” as “craftsman” and “sons of god” as “gods,” aren't you claiming that these scholars don’t/did not understand Semitic languages, including Hebrew?

Isn’t that the implication of your “sound grammatical argument”?

[_Fortigurn]

Fortigurn,

That's completely untrue. I've given you a sound grammatical argument, demonstrating conclusively that in Hebrew the phrase 'son/s of X' does not mean 'X'.

Your sound grammatical argument relies upon the fact that son of Abraham, etc. does not mean “Abraham.” Therefore, your “conclusive” analysis assumes that “son of” carries only a literal meaning.

No that's not true. I was referring to the 'son of' idiom, in which 'son of' is not used to speak of a literal son. You're referring to a statement which uses 'son of' in a literal sense, and claiming it has something to do with my argument. It has nothing to do with my argument. Please address my actual argument, which includes quotes from relevant lexical sources.

You made a big deal over the fact that Gesenius and The Brown Driver and Briggs Lexicon do not recognize the fact that “sons of God” denotes the “gods” of the Divine Council (you even erroneously tried to argue that your BDB was a revised version that post-dated the Ugaritic discoveries and by implication addressed the issue at hand).

On the contrary, I deliberately played down Gesenius. I didn't make a big deal of Gesenius at all. Nor did I make a big deal of BDB - I listed it along with all the others, without comment. And it was not erroneous to say that my BDB was a revised version which post-dated the Ugaritic discoveries. You had told me that my BDB was a 1909 edition which preceded the Ugaritic discoveries. I pointed out to you that it was in fact the 1956 revised edition which post-dated them.

I explained that due to the fact that these sources predate the discovery of Ugaritic, that neither of these resources (though important scholarly tools) provide current information on the issue of either the word "elohim" or the expression "sons of god."

You claimed that all of them predated the discovery of Ugaritic except TWOT, which was patently untrue.

I also explained that many scholars, myself included, do not accept The Theological Word Book of the Old Testament as a legitimate academic resource. It carries an evangelical bias that rejects the observations of main stream biblical scholarship, which no doubt explains the reason why you find the book so useful.

In other words, you're biased against TWOT. And I note you've skipped Swanson's again. Is that equally biased?

Of course I have demonstrated that “son of” can carry the connotation of “a member, fellow of a group, class guild” (The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament; Study Edition, vol. 1, 138).

I'm sorry, that doesn't address what I asked for.

Hebrew is a Semitic language. Therefore, it follows specific grammatical rules and patterns that also apply to languages such as Akkadian and Ugaritic. By demonstrating that other Semitic languages use “son of” to denote the member of a class or guild, I have provided additional evidence to support the fact that Hebrew allows for this construction.

You're as well aware as I am that idioms vary widely in meaning across cultures, even those sharing the same language. Showing me what 'son/s of X' meant in 12th century Ugarit texts does not prove what the same idiom meant in post-exilic Hebrew or Aramaic texts, some 500 years later.

Because Oompa-Loompa is not a Semitic language. Akkadian, like Hebrew, very much is. In fact, it’s the oldest attested Semitic language. The reason that it falls into the same linguistic family as Hebrew (when Oompa-Loompa does not) is because Akkadian follows many of the same grammatical rules as Hebrew and shares a related vocabulary.

See above. I note you've qualified your statement by saying 'Akkadian follows many of the same grammatical rules as Hebrew and shares a related vocabulary'. So one to one comparisons aren't exactly going to work the way you want them to, are they?

How do you suppose linguists developed Hebrew grammars and dictionaries? I can assure you that these resources rely upon comparative Semitic analysis.

And upon an existing Hebrew text corpus. You can't claim 'Well this phrase means X in Ugaritic, so I guess it means exactly the same in Hebrew, even if we can't find any examples of it'.

Which is precisely why you don't understand the argument.

I do understand your argument. Your argument is that a certain phrase meant X in 12th century BC Ugarit, and since both Ugarit and Hebrew are Semitic languages then the same phrase means X in 6th century BC Hebrew. I can see the holes from here.

Again. It’s not odd. Ugaritic is a Semitic language.

So what? That's like saying Romanian and Portuguese must share the same idioms because they're both Romance languages. More than that, it's like saying a phrase found in a 16th century Romanian text will mean the same as the same phrase found in a 21st century Portuguese text.

As I illustrated, Simon Parker translated the Ugaritic phrase bn il “sons of God” as “the gods” (Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, 182). Do you believe that Parker would have approached the Hebrew expression differently?

I have no idea. That would depend entirely on his familiarity with Hebrew, his personal understanding of the historical data, the specific texts he was examining, and his personal worldview.

But of course by arguing that these scholars were wrong in translating expressions such as “son of a craftsman” as “craftsman” and “sons of god” as “gods,”...

When did I do that? Those scholars you quoted were translating languages other than post-exilic Hebrew.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Fortigurn writes:

The way it usually reads in English translations, 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth'. If you read that attempt to rescue Smith from his own 'translation' of Genesis 1:1, you'll find that even diehard Mormon apologists acknowledge that it doesn't read as Smith 'translated' it (or 'appeared to' translate it).

But this is clearly a problematic translation. Take for example the commentary on Genesis by Hamilton (the NICOT series), where he devotes several dozen pages to the translation of the first three verses of Genesis.

The problem is that the first word of the Bible, berosheit, is a noun in bound form. It ought to be translated: "In the beginning of", and the first verse of the Bible is a subordinate clause, existing along side the next two subordinate clauses in an asyndetic state. This has been recognized for a long time (Rashi commented on it in the Middle Ages, claiming that it wasn't meant to describe a temporal order). The first sentance of the Bible then reads something like this:

"In the beginning of God's creating the heavens and the earth (when the earth was a desert, and a wasteland, when darkness was on the surface of the abyss, and when the breath of God hovered over the face of the waters), God said, "Let light exist," and light was.

Thus, the main clause of the first sentance of the Bible is the command by God for light to exist. And since this becomes the first act of creation, the rest - the desert, the wasteland, the earth, the darkness, and so on - they all exist prior to the first act of creation and so by definition from all eternity.

This of course causes all sorts of problems with Orthodox theology. And so modern orthodoxy (like Hamilton) deal with it in this fashion. The way around this for orthodox scholars is to suggest that the noun which begins the text is not a construct - and although it occurs in a construct form in 50 of the other 51 occurences, in one occurence the noun/verb can only be read as an absolute (by context) and rather than claiming that this is an othrographic error in that other instance, that one instance is used as justification to read beroshit in the traditional fashion. That is, it should be read as an absolute because in one other place, a noun in bound form can only be read as an absolute (and of course, the other spot cannot be an orthographic error).

So, the issue becomes a bit larger. On the other hand, I am probably one of the few people alive who has read all three of the grammars published by Joshua Seixas (I own copies of the first two editions - the 1833 and the 1834 editions - used to teach Joseph Smith), and for the most part, the way that Joseph Smith breaks down the word berosheit follows exactly the way that Seixas deconstructs it in one of his grammars. This isn't in the other one (the one used by Zucker) and so it is often missed. But, the Seixas grammars are indespensible for understanding what Joseph Smith is saying in the KFD - he uses the same terminology that Seixas introduces, and so on. And if I had to comment, I would start by suggesting that Kevin's notions do not seem to be that far from the mark in terms of discussing the KFD. Yes, I am LDS, and clearly I am biased. But I also know more about this particular topic than most people, and my opinions are well informed. But since I can only give you my opinion, I am sure you will take it however you want.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Fortigurn writes:

The statement 'Israelite religion was certainly not homogenous' is very vague'. Do you mean that the orthodox religion was not homogenous, or do you simply mean that Israelite society did not uniformly follow the orthodox religion? The latter is true.

What I am saying is that you don't get to decide on the basis of the text what orthodox religion was in Ancient Israel. The Biblical text as we have it significantly postdates this period. It can be seen as describing orthodox religion at the time of its final composition (perhaps) but it cannot be seen as a reflection of earlier orthodoxy. What I mean by the statment that Israelite religion was not homogenous is simply this - Israelite religion evolves. It changes over time. It goes from a polytheistic or henotheistic state to monotheism. It loses entire theological constructs (Wisdom/Asherah for example), it goes through major reforms (Josian reform for example). And so you can't speak of orthodox Israelite religion without also referring at the very least to specific periods of time. Even within a period of time we have difficulties. At the time of Jesus, which was seen as orthodox Judaism? Was it Phariseeism? Saduceeism? Essenism? This idea that you have of the death of God being foreign to Israelite religion can only be seen as accurate within specific contexts - within specific instances of Israelite religion, and certainly this is reflective of later Israelite and Jewish belief, and is far less characteristic of early Israelite religion and belief, and it assumes that Biblical religion was representative of orthodoxy. So when you suggest that Israelite society did not uniformly follow orthodox religion, that is a problematic statement, because I don't think you can define orthodox Israelite religion, nor can you demonstrate to what extent the popular religion as practiced by most Israelites resembled or differred from your model of orthodoxy.

Well of course there were, and they were condemned for doing so (there goes the theory that orthodox Israelite religion was polytheistic). But this is the whole point, you only find gods dying in the Canaanite mythology. In the Bible, real gods don't die.

No actually they weren't condemned for doing so. At least not by anythign contemporary. One of the interesting features of the Bible is that while Israel is supposed to worship YHWH/EL, other pagans were not. In fact, it was expected and considered appropriate that they worship their own divinities (see Deuteronomy 4). Not until Jeremiah do we see the first criticism of the foreign nations for not worshipping YHWH - not until around 600 BC. And as far as real gods not dieing - that is nonsense. Psalm 82 suggests that these gods - these elohim (of which YHWH is one), can in fact die - just like men. There is no suggestion that these aren't real gods. Just that they are impotent ones.

Please supply evidence that the original text in Deuteronomy 32 'was manipulated to remove such references'. And no, the cross reference to the passage in Exodus is not evidence.

Sure. The phrase "sons of God" was changed to "sons of Israel". The sons of God passage seemed to have existed at least prior to the LXX where we get a translation that cannot support the notion of the "sons of Israel" and texts from among the Dead Sea Scrolls collection suggest a Hebrew original for the Greek LXX text. The Masoretic text coming significantly later is now generally assumed to be a modified text designed to theologically protect the later stricter monotheism of Judaism. It is really that simple. And of course, this isn't an LDS position. Michael Heiser has gone into this issue quite a bit, but he is not the only one. I would also recommend the JPS commentary on Deuteronomy.

I've already dealt with this. You need to supply some evidence of this. I've already supplied an abundance of evidence for the 'son of X' idiom, and demonstrated that standard lexical works do not recognise 'gods' within the semantic domain of 'sons of God'.

Your evidence is completely worthless. We have a clear context culturally for the area in which this statement can be seen. YHWH, for example, is called the son of God (the son of El) in Ugaritic texts. Outside of the Biblical text, the related phrases (bene elyon, bene elim, bene el, etc) are all given this meaning. There isn't any reason even to challenge this point unless you are trying to forge some kind of theological defense.

I agree it doesn't suggest they could not die to begin with. It suggests to me very much that they could die. And what do you know, men die.

Yes, but they can't be men. Otherwise they wouldn't "die like men" they would "die as men". The syntax of Psalm 82 does not allow the reading that the elohim there are men. Furthermore, it includes YHWH (with the assumption that he is the one to arise and rule the other elohim) as one of these elohim - they aren't different. You don't get to say that here, elohim means god, and here it means man within the context of the same poetic passage.

I'm afraid that's speculation. The text does not tell us this.

Yes it does tell us this. I had assunmed (apprently incorrectly) that you had some kind of basis for your claims here. I can see that was mistaken.

So ... here is a good place for you to start in your reading on Psalm 82:

Cross, Frank M. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1973.
Gordon, Cyrus H. "Elohim in it's Reputed Meaning of Rulers, Judges," Journal of Biblical Literature 54 (1935).
Handy, Lowell K. "Sounds, Words and Meanings in Psalm 82", Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 47 (1990).
Handy, Lowell K. Among the Host of Heaven: The Syro-Palestinian Pantheon as Bureaucracy. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1994.
Heiser, Michael S. "Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God," Bibliotheca Sacra, 158 (January-March 2001).
Morgenstern, Julian. "The Mythological Background of Psalm 82," Hebrew Union College Annual 14 (1939).
Mullen, E. Theodore. The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature, Harvard Semitic Monographs. Missoula, Montana: Scholars, 1980.
Neyrey, Jerome H. "'I Said: You Are Gods': Psalm 82:6 and John 10," Journal of Biblical Literature 108:4 (1989).
Page, Hugh R. The Myth of Cosmic Rebellion. New York: Brill, 1996.
Prinsloo, W.S. "Psalm 82: Once Again, Gods or Men?," Biblica 76:2 (1995).

That ought to cover it - it certainly covers the spectrum of currently accepted scholarship on this topic (and yes, I have read them all).

By the way, I should point out that the Cyrus Gordon article (which is accepted as the standard in main stream scholarship) argues that every instance of elohim should be translated as "god" or as "gods" and never as a reference to man (except as they become participants in the divine assembly of El).

[_Runtu]

Ben,

It's good to see you over here. I enjoy just sitting back and learning from these kinds of discussions, and the civility warms my heart. I was wondering if you agreed with Kevin that Joseph's understanding of the "divine council" seems to be a product of his Hebrew studies with Seixas rather than some recovery of an ancient concept.

John (the poster formerly known as "Not quite me")

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Fortigurn writes:

No that's not true. I was referring to the 'son of' idiom, in which 'son of' is not used to speak of a literal son. You're referring to a statement which uses 'son of' in a literal sense, and claiming it has something to do with my argument. It has nothing to do with my argument. Please address my actual argument, which includes quotes from relevant lexical sources.

The question is whether or not your evidence applies at all. The problem is that the phrase "son of God" (and variants) occurs not only in Hebrew texts, but it Canaanite texts, and Arabic texts and other semitic languages. And these generally speaking use this term in a very literal sense. Furthermore, your point is complicated by the issue of whether or not the X in son of X is definite. If the X is El, meaning the God El as worshipped by Israelites and Canaanites, then the son of El can reflect a very real literal relationship between a divinity and El as father of the Gods. And this usage would have been understood by Israelites in pre-exilic times in this fashion (as I note just from the simple fact that at least a portion of the Israelite population were believers in the Canaanite pantheon). To this end, it isn't enough to suggest that its possible that it could have meant something else - you have to disqualify this meaning - because this is much more likely to be the meaning understood by the typical 9th century BC Israelite listening to and participating in the performance of Psalm 82. It is that simple.

Are you claiming that none of the lexical works I quoted (not cited), were published prior to a recognition that the Hebrew idiom 'son/s of X' actually means 'X'?

This is more problematic, since I don't think either David or I are interested in this caricature of the position that you create. Early Israelite belief (like its contemporary Canaanite counterpart) distinguished between YHWH/Ba'al and El. So, in Psalm 82, the elohim (the gods) are part of the Assembly of El (God of the Cosmos, father of the elohim). Saying that these elohim are the sons of the Most High (the bene elyon) doesn't imply that they are El. It merely implies that they are divinities who are the sons of El.

No that's not true. I was referring to the 'son of' idiom, in which 'son of' is not used to speak of a literal son.

The question is how you determine when somethign is merely an idiom, and when it is intended to be read literally. Can you enlighten us? Or is it merely based on personal preference?

[_Enuma Elish]

Ben has provided a great list of sources for Psalm 82. He himself has written on the subject, and I would highly recommend his summary to anyone at all interested in the text:

http://www.fairlds.org/Bible/Reconsider ... _82_6.html

It's very sound.

Though Gordon’s article came out in 1935, subsequent discoveries have proven that his claims are correct. This is the value of Wright’s forthcoming book on the Covenant Collection. Though Wright does not directly address this issue, he illustrates conclusively that the Babylonian Laws of Hammurabi are the source for Exodus 20:23-23:19.

This proves that Gordon’s claims were correct, since the only justification that elohim can refer to human judges and not gods derives from the phrase ‘el ha-elohim in Exodus 21:6 and 22:7.

As the source for the Covenant Collection in Exodus, the Hebrew expression ‘el ha-elohim in Exodus 21:6 and 22:7 directly reflects the Akkadian phrase mahar ilim (§23, §120, §266).

This connection strongly suggests that the laws in the Covenant Collection that feature the phrase ‘el ha-elohim use the term elohim as a reflection of the Akkadian word ilim, both of which literally mean “God.”

Wright is actually presenting on the subject tomorrow:

http://www.sbl-site.org/PDF/NE2007Program.pdf

If anyone is interested in reading some (but certainly not all of the evidence) see David P. Wright, “The Laws of Hammurabi as a Source for the Covenant Collection (Exodus 20:23–23:19),” Maarav 10 (2003): 11–87.

I would also state that I have read Ben’s analysis of the laws in Exodus 21:6 and 22:7 which refer to appearing before God/gods and I found his take very insightful.