"The Sons of God!" Mere mortals, literal sons or angels? (soul, grace)

[TRANSPONDER]

Eusebius. "They killed their own prophets,"

Which prophets were those? And where did you hear that the Jews had been killing their own prophets? Before you reply, I can suppose that you regard the apocryphal 'Lives of the prophets' and unworthy of belief?

[InsaneInDaMembrane]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

John's revelation is indeed not an island unto itself. All revelation in the Old testament is expanding. John's revelation expands upon Daniels. But John wrote what he actually saw. He did not see his vision based on the reading of Daniel! Daniel saw what he saw and wrote it down as did John.

Imagine how insulted the Jews were in Jesus' day when He told them that. They did not know their scripture best. They killed their own prophets, which means they did not understand what the prophets were saying. They killed their prophets because those prophets were trying to get them to come back to God. They loved the gods of the nations more which proves they didn't really understand their own One True God.



Thanks.

So let me see if I get this straight. The first book of Enoch which was in circulation during Jesus' day, quoted and hinted at by other NT writers is to be completely discounted on this subject because the Jews who wrote it were deluded and by extention, collectively, prophet killers? Meanwhile, the Jews who wrote the books of the bible that made it into the canon were genuine and telling us the truth? Your argument basically comes down to "the Jews killed their prophets and Jesus said they were blind anyway so I disregard any other material they wrote except the 66 books I have in my bible because THOSE Jewish writers were the good guys."

So, your bible, without the book of Enoch is more divinely inspired and accurate than the Ethiopic bible WITH the first of Enoch included?

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan

No question they were second-tier divine beings, like Yhwh originally was. A recent attempt to promote the Sethite interpretation was actually published by an academic journal (here), but the vast, vast majority of scholars acknowledge this. A book that gathers a lot of good info on lesser deities is here (I review it here), and a paper I presented at SBL on the transition from "sons of God" to "angels" is here.

Good post, Daniel. I'm still working through your SBL paper, and it's very good, by the way. Everyone should run and read that - especially the opening section - right now! It provides an excellent summary of the different levels of "divine beings" that are being discussed. I hope you don't mind, Daniel, if I quote some of it here for those who might not have followed the link (and for those who cannot read Hebrew, I transliterated the Hebrew used into a very simple form using brackets like [this] - it will probably assist in following the reasoning; just be aware that it's a simple transliteration, and not a more detailed and accurate one):

As a result of the contextualization provided by this cognate literature,
recent scholarship has supported viewing the organization of the early Israelite
pantheon according to a three or four-tiered hierarchy. El and his consort inhabit the top tier of this hierarchy. El represents the high god, and the father of the other deities. The בניאלהים, [bene elohim] or “sons of Elohim,” inhabit the second tier. Cho is certainly correct in concluding the sons of Elohim were viewed as sharing a filial relationship with El; that is, they were the procreated offspring of El and his consort, not simply members of the אלהים [elohim] taxonomy. A third tier comprising craftsmen or artisan deities is proposed, but is not well attested in the Hebrew Bible. The bottom tier comprises messenger deities who were servants to the other tiers. These are the “angels” of the English Bible, although the same underlying Hebrew word can be used in reference to human messengers. Originally it was a functional designation, not a taxonomic one.
The first, second, and fourth tiers are well attested in the Hebrew Bible. The Hebrew אל [el] is frequently used in its generic as well as its personal sense in reference to Israel’s high god. That the Israelite El had a consort is supported by textual and archaeological evidence. Genesis, Deuteronomy, Job, and two psalms refer to the בני (ה)אלהים [bene ha-elohim], or בניאלים [bene elim] - the sons of God (Gen 6:2, 4; Deut 32:8–9 [LXX and 4QDeutj], 43 [4QDeutq]; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Psalm 29:1; 89:7). Divine messengers, or angels, are also referenced frequently. All three of these tiers were populated by anthropomorphic deities according to both the Ugaritic literature and the Hebrew Bible. The word אלהים [elohim] can render divinity, deity, God, or gods, and covers all the tiers discussed, showing a rather broad semantic range. Moses, Samuel, and David are also referred to in the biblical texts with the word אלהים [elohim].The lines that delineated the divine taxonomy, and its metaphorical or rhetorical usage, have not been clearly preserved, if they were ever clearly defined in antiquity.
(Daniel McClellan, "What Is Deity In LXX Deuteronomy?", Studia Antiqua Vol. 10, No. 3, 2007, pp. 66-67)

The above is an excellent description of what was going on in the Hebrew Bible, how divinity was viewed by the ancient authors, and helps to demonstrate the stage which provided later interpretations - including inner-biblical interpretation and revision - with material. Daniel, your statement that "the ancient Israelite concept of deity was not static by any means, but there is a general consensus regarding its earliest recoverable shape" (ibid, p. 66) perfectly catches the fact (denied by many fundamentalists) that things change - especially ideas, and the authors of the various books of the Bible were no exception to this rule.

Excellent paper, and well worth the time to read it - as well as the other links you provided. The bibliography that Daniel provides is a very helpful tool in hunting down more detailed information.

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Eusebius. "They killed their own prophets,"

Which prophets were those? And where did you hear that the Jews had been killing their own prophets? Before you reply, I can suppose that you regard the apocryphal 'Lives of the prophets' and unworthy of belief?

Mat 23:31 So that you are testifying to yourselves that you are the sons
of those who murder the prophets.

Mat_23:35 so that on you should be coming all the just blood shed on the
earth, from the blood of just Abel until the blood of Zechariah, son of
Berechiah, whom you murder between the temple and the altar."

Mat_23:37 Jerusalem! Jerusalem! who art killing the prophets and pelting
with stones those who have been dispatched to her! How many times do I
want to assemble your children in the manner a hen is assembling her
brood under her wings-and you will not!"

Luke 11:47-48 Woe to you! for you are building the tombs of the
prophets, yet your fathers kill them." (48) Consequently you are
witnesses and are endorsing the acts of your fathers, for they, indeed, kill
them, yet you are building their tombs."

Luk_13:34 Jerusalem! Jerusalem! killing the prophets and pelting with
stones those who have been dispatched to her! How many times do I want
to assemble your children in the manner a hen does her brood under her
wings, and you will not!"

Act_7:52 Which of the prophets do not your fathers persecute? And they
kill those who announce before concerning the coming of the Just One, of
Whom now you became the traitors and murderers -"

Jesus was a mighty prophet and was murdered by the Jews.

Luk_13:33 Moreover, I must be going today and tomorrow and the coming
one, for it is not credible that a prophet perish outside of Jerusalem."

They murdered the prophets and Jesus because they didn't understand their Bible and didn't believe their prophets and were out of line with God's will.

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by InsaneInDaMembrane

So let me see if I get this straight. The first book of Enoch which was in circulation during Jesus' day, quoted and hinted at by other NT writers is to be completely discounted on this subject because the Jews who wrote it were deluded and by extention, collectively, prophet killers? Meanwhile, the Jews who wrote the books of the bible that made it into the canon were genuine and telling us the truth? Your argument basically comes down to "the Jews killed their prophets and Jesus said they were blind anyway so I disregard any other material they wrote except the 66 books I have in my bible because THOSE Jewish writers were the good guys."

So, your bible, without the book of Enoch is more divinely inspired and accurate than the Ethiopic bible WITH the first of Enoch included?

The ones who knew God wrote the bible. The ones who wrote the Bible were persecuted by their fellow Jews because much of the Bible testified against their traitorous ways.

As to Jude supposedly quoting the apocraphal book of Enoch or another source has been debated. Paul quoted Paul quotes Epimenides in Titus 1:12 but no one would suggest Epimenides was inspired.

In the Sacred Scriptures we have: Jude 1:14 Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesies to these also, saying, "Lo! the Lord came among ten thousand of His saints,

But in the book called "Enoch" not even written by Enoch, we have:

“Behold, he comes with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon them, and destroy the wicked, and reprove all the carnal for everything which the sinful and ungodly have done, and committed against him.”

But quoting a non-inspired writing does not make the non-inspired writing inspired! But some say he didn't really quote the book called "Enoch."

[InsaneInDaMembrane]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

The ones who knew God wrote the bible. The ones who wrote the Bible were persecuted by their fellow Jews because much of the Bible testified against their traitorous ways.

As to Jude supposedly quoting the apocraphal book of Enoch or another source has been debated. Paul quoted Paul quotes Epimenides in Titus 1:12 but no one would suggest Epimenides was inspired.

In the Sacred Scriptures we have: Jude 1:14 Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesies to these also, saying, "Lo! the Lord came among ten thousand of His saints,

But in the book called "Enoch" not even written by Enoch, we have:

“Behold, he comes with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon them, and destroy the wicked, and reprove all the carnal for everything which the sinful and ungodly have done, and committed against him.”

But quoting a non-inspired writing does not make the non-inspired writing inspired! But some say he didn't really quote the book called "Enoch."

Well this whole "inspiration" crock is not what I am interested in. I am simply pointing out that the book of Enoch was a revered book in the Jewish community for at least a century or more and possibly REFLECTED the Jewish consensus on the matter. It does not take a rocket scientist to recognize that the story in Genesis 6:1-6 is a HIGHLY condensed version of the same story found in the First Book of Enoch.

I studied this topic intensely years ago and I am aware of the "well Paul quoted a Greek philosopher and that does not mean the Greek philosopher was inspired" argument. My point is, none of that matters in the bigger scheme of things. Learned, well trained scholars, far more qualified than you or I have settled this argument. The only folks kicking and screaming in protest of the clear cut facts are those who will refuse on every ground, to accept the notion that the biblical god could indeed have sired sons. This is what happens when amalgamation takes place but that is an entirely different story.

[InsaneInDaMembrane]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

The ones who knew God wrote the bible. The ones who wrote the Bible were persecuted by their fellow Jews because much of the Bible testified against their traitorous ways.

As to Jude supposedly quoting the apocraphal book of Enoch or another source has been debated. Paul quoted Paul quotes Epimenides in Titus 1:12 but no one would suggest Epimenides was inspired.

In the Sacred Scriptures we have: Jude 1:14 Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesies to these also, saying, "Lo! the Lord came among ten thousand of His saints,

But in the book called "Enoch" not even written by Enoch, we have:

“Behold, he comes with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon them, and destroy the wicked, and reprove all the carnal for everything which the sinful and ungodly have done, and committed against him.”

But quoting a non-inspired writing does not make the non-inspired writing inspired! But some say he didn't really quote the book called "Enoch."

Oh, by the way, you never answered if your Bible is more accurate and qualified that the Ethiopic Bible which contains the Book of Enoch?

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by InsaneInDaMembrane

So let me see if I get this straight. The first book of Enoch which was in circulation during Jesus' day, quoted and hinted at by other NT writers is to be completely discounted on this subject because the Jews who wrote it were deluded and by extention, collectively, prophet killers? Meanwhile, the Jews who wrote the books of the bible that made it into the canon were genuine and telling us the truth? Your argument basically comes down to "the Jews killed their prophets and Jesus said they were blind anyway so I disregard any other material they wrote except the 66 books I have in my bible because THOSE Jewish writers were the good guys."

So, your bible, without the book of Enoch is more divinely inspired and accurate than the Ethiopic bible WITH the first of Enoch included?

Very good post, Insane! There have been many excellent works written in the latter half of the last century which made it a point to demonstrate the "extra-biblical" influences on Christianity and Judaism. The situation is very ironic - as you point out. Daniel pointed out that even the Bible underwent it's own interal revisions and changes before becoming "canonized". Michael Fishbane, in his very influential work Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford, 1985), introduces the work with an important statement:

One of the most remarkable features of the great world religions is the emergence to independent dignity of traditions
and commentaries which supplement the original authoritative teachings—be these latter the product of divine
revelation or human wisdom...

But it is in the classical
expressions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam on the one hand, and Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism on the
other, that interpretation has become a cultural form of the first magnitude—transforming the foundational
revelations of the first group and the metaphysical insights of the second, and determining the fateful historical paths
of both.
(p. 1)

As is clear to most scholars, the Bible's ideas were not static and constantly changed. The biggest change should be obvious: The New Testament, it being a drastic re-interpretation of the Hebrew Bible (and other works) that eventually ended up splintering the group into it's own new religion.

It is unfortunate that many Protestant Fundamentalists adhere to a canon which they mistakenly assume is the "official" canon of Christianity through the ages as decided upon by the Church Fathers and God himself, when their Protestant canon was actually decided upon by Martin Luther in the Middle Ages. Even within Martin Luther's realm, he was not a fan of certain books and would have gladly excised them if he could have (Jude comes to mind, as well as Esther) - but they had, at that time, become so normative that Luther had no choice but to retain them.

There have been (and still are) multiple canons containing Scripture considered important for specific faith communities, but not by others. With that said - the history of the forming of our earliest Jewish and Christian canons shows that both religions were highly influenced by ideas found in works that would later be rejected, with the charge of non-inspiration levellled at them. The "official" Jewish canon of the 1st Century CE would reject works written in Greek, or works written after a certain time in Jewish history, or works they deemed too Hellenistic - even though the ideas of such works had already permeated into the Jeiwsh mindset; similarly the various Christian canons (there was never really just ONE official canon) would be formed by people who had definite theological and ideological convictions that determined their choice of inclusion of a book. God did not necessarily have a hand in determining which books were "inspired" and which were not - rather, humans did.

With all that said - the Book of Enoch - no matter it's later status - was one of the most influential books concerning Angelology that the Jew and Christians had access to, and it had a lasting impact on their theology and outlook. This cannot be denied, as it's influence is now widely known, and studies of the book and it's importance have steadily increased over the years. Likewise, the Book of Jubilees was another highly influential work that engaged in a concerted effort to explain most of the Pentateuch's difficult and contradictory passages - especially in Genesis.

The two above works - especially - had a lasting impact on Judaism and Christianity, even if later generations would exclude the works from their "official" canons.

The Gospel of John's majestic opening hymn owed much to previous interpretations of Wisdom as Logos in the Wisdom School, and Philo of Alexandria's Jewish/Greek hybrid views of the same. Paul, being steeped in Jewish oral tradition and "non-canonical" works, expressed many views which, rather than being original to him, were either direct restatements of such traditions, or interpretations of them. This holds true for other NT authors. While some may not realize this - since they restrict themselves to their Protestant Camon and have a severe aversion to other works and traditions - , it doesn't change the fact that the influences are there.

[InsaneInDaMembrane]

Originally Posted by whoppers

Very good post, Insane! There have been many excellent works written in the latter half of the last century which made it a point to demonstrate the "extra-biblical" influences on Christianity and Judaism. The situation is very ironic - as you point out. Daniel pointed out that even the Bible underwent it's own interal revisions and changes before becoming "canonized". Michael Fishbane, in his very influential work Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford, 1985), introduces the work with an important statement:

One of the most remarkable features of the great world religions is the emergence to independent dignity of traditions
and commentaries which supplement the original authoritative teachings—be these latter the product of divine
revelation or human wisdom...

But it is in the classical
expressions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam on the one hand, and Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism on the
other, that interpretation has become a cultural form of the first magnitude—transforming the foundational
revelations of the first group and the metaphysical insights of the second, and determining the fateful historical paths
of both.
(p. 1)

As is clear to most scholars, the Bible's ideas were not static and constantly changed. The biggest change should be obvious: The New Testament, it being a drastic re-interpretation of the Hebrew Bible (and other works) that eventually ended up splintering the group into it's own new religion.

It is unfortunate that many Protestant Fundamentalists adhere to a canon which they mistakenly assume is the "official" canon of Christianity through the ages as decided upon by the Church Fathers and God himself, when their Protestant canon was actually decided upon by Martin Luther in the Middle Ages. Even within Martin Luther's realm, he was not a fan of certain books and would have gladly excised them if he could have (Jude comes to mind, as well as Esther) - but they had, at that time, become so normative that Luther had no choice but to retain them.

There have been (and still are) multiple canons containing Scripture considered important for specific faith communities, but not by others. With that said - the history of the forming of our earliest Jewish and Christian canons shows that both religions were highly influenced by ideas found in works that would later be rejected, with the charge of non-inspiration levellled at them. The "official" Jewish canon of the 1st Century CE would reject works written in Greek, or works written after a certain time in Jewish history, or works they deemed too Hellenistic - even though the ideas of such works had already permeated into the Jeiwsh mindset; similarly the various Christian canons (there was never really just ONE official canon) would be formed by people who had definite theological and ideological convictions that determined their choice of inclusion of a book. God did not necessarily have a hand in determining which books were "inspired" and which were not - rather, humans did.

With all that said - the Book of Enoch - no matter it's later status - was one of the most influential books concerning Angelology that the Jew and Christians had access to, and it had a lasting impact on their theology and outlook. This cannot be denied, as it's influence is now widely known, and studies of the book and it's importance have steadily increased over the years. Likewise, the Book of Jubilees was another highly influential work that engaged in a concerted effort to explain most of the Pentateuch's difficult and contradictory passages - especially in Genesis.

The two above works - especially - had a lasting impact on Judaism and Christianity, even if later generations would exclude the works from their "official" canons.

The Gospel of John's majestic opening hymn owed much to previous interpretations of Wisdom as Logos in the Wisdom School, and Philo of Alexandria's Jewish/Greek hybrid views of the same. Paul, being steeped in Jewish oral tradition and "non-canonical" works, expressed many views which, rather than being original to him, were either direct restatements of such traditions, or interpretations of them. This holds true for other NT authors. While some may not realize this - since they restrict themselves to their Protestant Camon and have a severe aversion to other works and traditions - , it doesn't change the fact that the influences are there.

Wonderful post, sir! Better worded than I could ever express it.

I know this might be odd coming from a non-believer, but this is why I STILL find the bible to be a rather valuable book and why I love studying religious history, notably, the history surrounding the bible. I can now study and ACCEPT things as they are and as they were meant to be and NOT would I would prefer them to be and let that cloud sensible understanding.

I have been enamored with mythology since third grade and the early biblical mythology is just as fascinating, but as you have pointed out above, UNDERSTANDING the world and [outside] influences within which the bible was constructed is also an amazing venture. Unfortunately so many have bought into this idea that the bible was written in a vacuum, uninfluenced by the world around it and solely "inspired" by some deity. This despite the fact you can see internal theological conflicts from book to book and from Testament to Testament.

While the battles and councils to determine the New Testament books are somewhat well known, less attention is paid to the battles that waged in Old Testament (and older Jewish society) over what god or what version of god would win out. Again, the footprints of these battles can be gleaned from the pages of the bible even one as detailed as the battle between the adherents of Baal and those of Yahweh in the story of Elijah/Elisha and the house of Ahab and Jezebel.

[Daniel O. McClellan]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

There are those who believe that the ones who were "sons of the elohim" were of the line of Seth. If we track the word "they" in Genesis 6:4 the antecedent would be "sons of the elohim." These were called "the distinguished" in verse 4 and who were the distinguished?

גבורים does not mean "distinguished." It means "strong" or "mighty." It is used to refer to warriors and war heroes.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

Genesis 5 gives us the answer to that. Chapter 5 leads up to 6. They were "mortals with the name."

In what verse does this phrase appear?

Originally Posted by Eusebius

In chapter 5 it names those distinguished by name. They were distinguished in the earth back then. Adam is called a son of Elohim.

Where is Adam called a "son of Elohim"?

Originally Posted by Eusebius

Elohim, meaning "Subjector"

אלהים means no such thing.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

would tell us that these sons of the elohim were sons of the subjector which is not necessarily GOD but a human subjector.

God told Moses that he would be Elohim (subjector) to Pharaoh and Aaron would be his prophet. So Moses was an elohim. His sons were sons of elohim since Moses was elohim.

No, Moses was "made" a god "to pharaoh." In other words, it was a functional designation. He payed the role of a god to Pharaoh.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

Adams direct sons were sons of the elohim.
In Psalms 82:6 it is said to the Hebrews: "I say ye are elohim and sons of the Supreme are all of you." So if they were elohim, their sons would be sons of elohim. If we tie it all together it need not be angelic beings.

It cannot be humans the word refers to in Gen 6 or Ps 82. Both texts explicitly contrast the "sons of Elohim" with humans. In Gen 6 the sons of Elohim are contrasted with the "daughters of humanity." In Psalm 82 the nature of the defendants as divine beings is strongly contrasted with their condemnation to mortality. In both texts the rhetoric simply falls flat if we try to read elohim as referring to humans.