Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Jews improperly thought He was making Himself God. That is why Jesus quoted Psalm 82 to correct them that humans can be called sons of God.
Excellent thoughts.
Psalm 82 says they would "die like common humanity" so they can't be spirit beings because:
Luk 20:36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and [believers] are the sons of God, being the children of the resurrection.
I added the bracketed word above.
Angels and spirit beings can't die. They are not mortal.
Jesus and the Father were one in spirit and mission.
Just as they were one, Jesus prayed that the disciples would be one too even as They were one; not "one in being, of the same substance, God of God etc which is balogna."
John 17:22 And I have given them the glory which Thou has given Me, that they may be one, according as We are One,
Jesus and God were one in spirit and purpose.
The problem with the above, even though a good possibility, is that it is against the whole tone of John's letter - that GOD was manifest in the flesh (1:1, 14) - that is why Jesus is THE SON OF GOD.
If John 10:34 is just that any human can be called god because God called them gods in Ps.82 then there is no power in the statements about him being the son of God and that statement's relationship to 'I and my father are one.' And the Jews response seems to be used by John to emphasize this point. Yes, John 17:22 is contextually one in mission and spirit - but not John 10 in light of John chapter 1.
The concept of the lesser to the greater is not from:
1) humans being called gods (the lesser) to Jesus as a human on a unique mission being called a god (the greater) but,
2) from actual heavebly beings called sons of God (the lesser) to Jesus as THE SON OF GOD - GOD MANIFEST IN FLESH (the greater/est).
Anyway, the interpretation of Ps.82 does not rest per-se on John's take or for that matter Jesus' take - the real issue is closer to the time of when the Ps. was written and the cultural aspects that surround it. John 10 is just one of many points for taking Ps.82 as real heavenly bieings not humans. The sons of God were real not imagined entities.
Ps.89:5-7
‘Let the heavens praise your wonders O YHWH, your faithfulness in the assembly of the holy ones! For who in the clouds can be compared to YHWH, who among the sons of God/the gods is like YHWH a god greatly to be feared in the council of the holy ones, and awesome above all who are around him.’
Duet. is clear on this issue - other sons of God took their portion as YHWH took his.
Deut.4:19-20
‘Lest you lift up your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and bow down to them and serve them, whom the LORD your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven. But the LORD has taken you and brought you out of the iron furnace, out of Egypt, to be a people of his own inheritance, as you are this day.’
Deut.17:3 explicitly states that these objects are not merely idols or astronomical objects but gods that no man or woman in Israel, under the covenant of YHWH, was to worship. If they did they were to be stoned.
‘…who has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, either the sun or moon or any other of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded…’
These other gods were given to the nations but YHWH was given/took Israel as his own possession and that relationship was sealed with a covenant when he took them and brought them out of Egypt.
Deut.29:25-26
‘…for they went and served other gods and worshiped them, gods that they did not know and that he had not allotted them.’
Deut.32:8-9
‘When the Most High [Elyon] gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. But YHWH’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage’
The nations inheritance was the other gods, Elyon divided them up according to the number of his sons. YHWH’s portion was Israel.
Deut.32:17 clearly state that these gods are spiritual entities not idols or humans. A demon is probably some type of protecting spirit that is, in the eyes of God, evil and who accept worship as gods.
'They [Israel] sacrificed to demons, not to God; [to gods] they did not know, to new arrivals that your fathers did not fear.’
In light of us speaking about Deuteronomy 32:7-9 with its implication that Yahweh was nothing more than ONE son of the Most High, it was really interesting to come across this passage from the Ugaritic writings:
sm . bny . yw . ilt
“The name of the son of god, Yahweh.” (KTU 1.1 IV 14)
It seems rather clear here what is being said here and if accurate, it is consistent with Deuteronomy 32:7-9 and other speculations that many have made.
Eventually religious battles were fought between those aligned with Yahweh and those devoted to Baal. Yahweh (as per the Israelite record) won out and, as you pointed out Whoppers, assumed attributes of Baal and the even older El (their father).
That's a strange translation you gave above.
Yes, I'm familiar with the claims that this might refer to Yahweh (as cool as that would be) - but I tend to side with those who see otherwise. One would expect to find him mentioned again, especially in god lists - yet we do not.
The actual line, transliterated:
šm.bny,yw.ilt[.................. ]
The text is so fragmentary that the lacunae on each line makes it very difficult to come to any concrete conclusions, even concerning what grammatical purpose bny serves (because bny can signify multiple things, depending on it's usage), as well as the function of ilt (some give it as Elat, though "goddess" would make more sense to me). It's also possible that the scribe made a simple mistake with the last letter of yw, and had originally meant to write yr - the letter w and r being similar and in what I see as the natural pattern k, w, r in shape. Check out the chart below:
Scribes weren't perfect, and they made mistakes in spelling just like we do, especially when dealing with letters that are very similar in shape to one another, and there seem to be various patterns in letter shapes. I imagine a scribe that learned these patterns could very easily make the wrong sign - I know I have when writing the signs! William Albright suggested this yr reading years ago, and he gave the translation as "my son, brood of Elat". If the signs w and m were similar, I think the majority of scholars would have just assumed that it was a mistake for Yamm. I still wonder, sometimes, whether the scribe had a massive brain aneurism and meant to write ym heh heh!
Smith gives his modern translation as follows, and it comes about in what is presumably a feast in which El and Asherah proclaim various things concerning Yamm. Keep in mind that the ... following almost every line is a long lacuna of missing text:
He dinks curdled milk overflowing.
He takes [a cup in his hand,]
A flagon in both hands.
... like pulp (?) ...
Like ... is gathered...
El appoints his son...
The Bull...
And Beneficent El the Beni[gn] speaks...
"The name of my son (is?) Yw, O Elat...
And he pronounces the name Yamm...
...they answer...
...for sustenance (?)...
"You, O Lord, you proclaim [his name (?)]..."
"I, beneficent El...
Upon the hands ... I pronounce...
Your name ... Beloved of E[l...
My house of silver which (?) ...
In the hand of Mightiest B[aal]...
Thus he reviles me (?) ...
(lines 9-23, UNP)
Personally, I think the extremely fragmentary nature of this tablet makes any conclusions concerning Yw as Yahweh highly suspect - especially if one holds to the theory that Yahweh's origin is Southern, probably Edomitic, in nature. Charles Virolleaud claimed that he had found a deity called Yw in 1932, publishing the text containing the purported name in 1938, at which point Rene Dussaud, in 1940, stated his belief that the deity was basically Yahweh. Despite Dussaud's claims, the fragmentary nature of the text, the context of the narrative (one concerning the extolling of Yamm in some manner by El and Asherah), the lack of mention of Yw in any other Ugaritic text, the similarity of w and r, and the Southern Theory of Yahweh's origin - all prevent me from accepting Dussaud's theory.
It would be interesting if he was correct, however!
Yes, I'm familiar with the claims that this might refer to Yahweh (as cool as that would be) - but I tend to side with those who see otherwise. One would expect to find him mentioned again, especially in god lists - yet we do not.
The actual line, transliterated:
šm.bny,yw.ilt[.................. ]
The text is so fragmentary that the lacunae on each line makes it very difficult to come to any concrete conclusions, even concerning what grammatical purpose bny serves (because bny can signify multiple things, depending on it's usage), as well as the function of ilt (some give it as Elat, though "goddess" would make more sense to me). It's also possible that the scribe made a simple mistake with the last letter of yw, and had originally meant to write yr - the letter w and r being similar and in what I see as the natural pattern k, w, r in shape. Check out the chart below:
Scribes weren't perfect, and they made mistakes in spelling just like we do, especially when dealing with letters that are very similar in shape to one another, and there seem to be various patterns in letter shapes. I imagine a scribe that learned these patterns could very easily make the wrong sign - I know I have when writing the signs! William Albright suggested this yr reading years ago, and he gave the translation as "my son, brood of Elat". If the signs w and m were similar, I think the majority of scholars would have just assumed that it was a mistake for Yamm. I still wonder, sometimes, whether the scribe had a massive brain aneurism and meant to write ym heh heh!
Smith gives his modern translation as follows, and it comes about in what is presumably a feast in which El and Asherah proclaim various things concerning Yamm. Keep in mind that the ... following almost every line is a long lacuna of missing text:
He dinks curdled milk overflowing.
He takes [a cup in his hand,]
A flagon in both hands.
... like pulp (?) ...
Like ... is gathered...
El appoints his son...
The Bull...
And Beneficent El the Beni[gn] speaks...
"The name of my son (is?) Yw, O Elat...
And he pronounces the name Yamm...
...they answer...
...for sustenance (?)...
"You, O Lord, you proclaim [his name (?)]..."
"I, beneficent El...
Upon the hands ... I pronounce...
Your name ... Beloved of E[l...
My house of silver which (?) ...
In the hand of Mightiest B[aal]...
Thus he reviles me (?) ...
(lines 9-23, UNP)
Personally, I think the extremely fragmentary nature of this tablet makes any conclusions concerning Yw as Yahweh highly suspect - especially if one holds to the theory that Yahweh's origin is Southern, probably Edomitic, in nature. Charles Virolleaud claimed that he had found a deity called Yw in 1932, publishing the text containing the purported name in 1938, at which point Rene Dussaud, in 1940, stated his belief that the deity was basically Yahweh. Despite Dussaud's claims, the fragmentary nature of the text, the context of the narrative (one concerning the extolling of Yamm in some manner by El and Asherah), the lack of mention of Yw in any other Ugaritic text, the similarity of w and r, and the Southern Theory of Yahweh's origin - all prevent me from accepting Dussaud's theory.
It would be interesting if he was correct, however!
With my basic understanding of the text I can decipher the similarities in words such as "bny" (Ugaritic) to "ben" or "bene" (Hebrew) meaning "son." I am also aware that Yw could possibly be a "yaw" a deity I think I have read about before. Even if it is not referring to Israel's "Yahweh," to me, it proves a father-son relationship between the gods in my estimation.
Just because people, long before the Bible was written, believed in a pantheon of gods does not mean they were correct. The one true God revealed Himself to Adam and *some* of his progeny. Cain got ticked off and started his own religion. He didn't want to worship God the way God wanted.
So while God was revealing Himself to the people of the Seed, the rest were off doing their own thing, making their own idols and and make-believe gods.
Just because Israel slipped into idolatry from time to time does not mean the idols or "gods" they worshipped during those times were real gods.
Elijah in his contest made fun of the heathen's gods in the contest on the mountain. But the one true God answered Elijah. During that time Israelites slipped into Baal worship. So Elijah showed that god was no real god.
Several posters have pointed out that the ancient Israelites (like everyone else in the world at that time) believed in the existence of other gods, even if the official Yahweh-Alone cult eventually pushed them to worship just one god: Yahweh. Eventually, some (Isaiah most importantly) would write that there were no other actual gods, but that Yahweh was the only God of the Universe and the rest were idols. They were "no-gods". This is the great Monotheistic statement that highly influenced the rest of the Judeo-Christian tradition. But it took time for them to get to that point, and the events of the Exile helped them get there. In that day and age, when a people were defeated, they believed that their god was defeated by their victor's god. The genius of the writers trying to buoy the spirits of the people in Exile was that they turned this henotheistic defeat into a declaration that their god, Yahweh, wasn't actually defeated; he was actually the only God, and he used the Bablyonians to teach the Judahites a lesson. Later, Cyrus the Great - the Persian ruler - would also be a mere tool in Yahweh's great, Universal power: he acted as the "messiah" of the Judahites in capitivity, allowing them to return home and rebuild their Temple if they wished. All these events, the writers used to demonstrate Yahweh's Monotheistic quality.
Going back to the idea of various people who worshipped these gods, which later monotheistic writers would call mere idols - they did not think they were worshipping "no-gods" or just plain pieces of wood that were useless idols - they actually believed they were worshipping real, actual gods. Who in their right mind would worship a piece of wood or stone, right?
As several posters pointed out - it's not whether we believe those gods existed that matters when trying to understand the ancient Israelites and their world-view, but what they believed concerning the gods.
Daniel pointed out an excellent example of Chemosh's victory over the Israelites due to the efficacy (also used by Jephthah to ensure victory in the book of Judges) of human sacrifice. The writers of Kings would not have written this if they had not believed it to have happened.
Several posters have pointed out that the ancient Israelites (like everyone else in the world at that time) believed in the existence of other gods, even if the official Yahweh-Alone cult eventually pushed them to worship just one god: Yahweh. Eventually, some (Isaiah most importantly) would write that there were no other actual gods, but that Yahweh was the only God of the Universe and the rest were idols. They were "no-gods". This is the great Monotheistic statement that highly influenced the rest of the Judeo-Christian tradition. But it took time for them to get to that point, and the events of the Exile helped them get there. In that day and age, when a people were defeated, they believed that their god was defeated by their victor's god. The genius of the writers trying to buoy the spirits of the people in Exile was that they turned this henotheistic defeat into a declaration that their god, Yahweh, wasn't actually defeated; he was actually the only God, and he used the Bablyonians to teach the Judahites a lesson. Later, Cyrus the Great - the Persian ruler - would also be a mere tool in Yahweh's great, Universal power: he acted as the "messiah" of the Judahites in capitivity, allowing them to return home and rebuild their Temple if they wished. All these events, the writers used to demonstrate Yahweh's Monotheistic quality.
With my basic understanding of the text I can decipher the similarities in words such as "bny" (Ugaritic) to "ben" or "bene" (Hebrew) meaning "son." I am also aware that Yw could possibly be a "yaw" a deity I think I have read about before. Even if it is not referring to Israel's "Yahweh," to me, it proves a father-son relationship between the gods in my estimation.
Don't forget that bny can also mean "builder", "creator" or the like - such as in the epithet bny bnwt - "builder of the built" (I know - awkward), or "creator of creatures". It's just that it's difficult to tell the usage of certain words because of the fragmentary nature of the tablet. bn il or bn ilm would be the forms in Ugaritic for "the sons of the gods" or "the son of El", etc. The y on the end shouldn't be correlated to the ending of Hebrew's bene elohim - which does take a y, but only as a long vowel marker - but this is a different state of affairs than masculine plural endings in Ugaritic. If we do use it for "son", as you suggest, then it would be the form, conceivably, of "my son" - that must be admitted, but it wouldn't share the same grammatical ending as Hebrew in that case. I'm no expert in Ugaritic, but a cursory glance at it reveals some of the other possibilities for the various words - such as bny, yw and ilt.
I think it was De Moor (The Rise of Yahwism: The Roots of Israelite Monotheism, 1997) that pointed out that it might also be read, using the wordplay between yw and ym to say something along the lines of "My son shall not be called by the name YW, O goddess, but YM shall be his name" - which is also an interesting reading.
Darn those fragmentary tablets! It's so frustrating sometimes..
Dear, Whoppers and Daniel, please comment on the above.
What does “bib-ne elim” means?
Bene elim means "sons of God." Elim is the most basic plural of the Hebrew el, although here it functions as a singular with an enclitic mem, as it does in several places in the Ugaritic texts (bn 'lm). It may be archaizing or it may genuinely be older. "Mighty" is an incorrect translation based on a speculative etymology, the etymological fallacy, and theological squeamishness. The more common phrase in the Hebrew Bible is bene elohim (Gen 6:2, 4; Deut 32:8; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7).
Bene elim means "sons of God." Elim is the most basic plural of the Hebrew el, although here it functions as a singular with an enclitic mem, as it does in several places in the Ugaritic texts (bn 'lm). It may be archaizing or it may genuinely be older. "Mighty" is an incorrect translation based on a speculative etymology, the etymological fallacy, and theological squeamishness. The more common phrase in the Hebrew Bible is bene elohim (Gen 6:2, 4; Deut 32:8; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7).
Thank you Daniel!
Yahweh is thus one of the sons of Elohim!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
