Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Another thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
    Well, my brother would take issue with anyone calling a Unitarian Church a "church," preferring to cast them as "social clubs." To which I've always replied, "That's the point!"

    Unitarian services are famously open to atheists and theists alike, and typically draw moral lessons from any and all religious traditions, or even from secular humanism. I have no problem sharing a pew with any theist who doesn't have a problem sharing a pew with me in mutual tolerance of our sectarian disagreements.

    But that's pretty much exactly why I'd say it's not a comfy space for evangelicals. They don't like us much, or if they do, it's for other reasons, like for instance, because I and my LC/MS preacher are brothers. I'm sure he's deluded in thinking I'm headed for hell, but we love each other just the same.

    His family is awesome. One of the niecelets, my buddy John's kid and an inveterate backseater on my bike, described them as "The Waltons." I shared that with them after a visit, and my brother Bob's wife, Nancy, just beamed!

    It's not a requirement, but as it turns out, every Unitarian Church I've visited was headed by an LGBT pastor, often enough assisted by their partners, which, perhaps not so coincidentally, also figures in my assessment they're close kin to libxians.

    I also attend services at his church when I'm visiting, leaving him and Nancy to find their own explanations back when the kids were young, and would ask why I didn't take communion. They were raised far too polite to demand further explanation from me, and were understandably unsatisfied with my ... yes, cryptic but true ... claim, "I'm not a Lutheran." Lutherans have a closed communion, so the reasoning was valid, if misleading.

    Anything else you'd like to ask, CP, feel free.
    I'll ask for him, since I seem to be reading his mind pretty well these days, but you said a lot without actually discussing why you're going to a Unitarian church. I think we all know that Unitarians are open to both theists and atheists (as all churches ought to be). And yes, I think we all know it probably wouldn't be a comfy space for your more conservative Evangelical. And of course it's no surprise that Unitarian churches accept LGBT pastors. But why are YOU going to a Unitarian church (and no, we're not asking about it's proximity). Is it purely the social dimension? Is it a vestige of some religious interest? What's important about it to you? If that's too personal, then no worries.

    Oh, and I have no idea what an LC/MS is (CP might though).

    Oh, and also Brazil is phenomenal, but that's true of all of Gilliam's earlier work.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Adrift View Post
      Oh, and I have no idea what an LC/MS is (CP might though).
      Based on the fact that he mentioned it in connection with his brother being a LC/MS preacher I'm gonna wager a guess that he's talking about the LCMS, or The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. Especially since he also mentions Lutherans having closed communion, which the confessional Lutheran synods LCMS and WELS (Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod) are known for holding to, in contrast to the more liberal ELCA.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
        Based on the fact that he mentioned it in connection with his brother being a LC/MS preacher I'm gonna wager a guess that he's talking about the LCMS, or The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. Especially since he also mentions Lutherans having closed communion, which the confessional Lutheran synods LCMS and WELS (Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod) are known for holding to, in contrast to the more liberal ELCA.
        Bob once framed his choice of denomination for me in terms of guilt.
        How many Jewish mothers does it take to screw in a light bulb?
        Don't worry about me, I'll just sit here in the dark.

        He told me:
        Jews know better than anyone how to make you feel guilty.
        The Catholics make you feel guilty, too, but they give you a reason!
        Lutherans give you the right reason.

        Bob went LCMS during the Seminex crisis, joining in on the anti-modernist side. Because of our seven-year age gap, that translated to a 6th grader being inundated with excoriations of the "higher-critical" school, as I remembered it.

        He didn't push that on the rest of us, though, steering my aunt and grandmother, which was "home" at the time, to a United Presbyterian church that went on to become one of the first of the Denver-area megachurches. Every Sunday service started with a junior pastor asking us all to, "Stand up. Squeeze in. Make room!" Good times.

        One of those junior pastors, a youngster named Jim Dixon, went on to create his own megachurch.

        I wrote him a few years ago. He never wrote back.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Adrift View Post
          I'll ask for him, since I seem to be reading his mind pretty well these days....
          Because you appear to take me at face value - not looking at my words with an intent to launch into a diatribe.

          One of my favorite stories...

          Johnny asked his mother "where did I come from?"
          She knew it was about time he started wondering about the mysteries of life...
          She told him "ask your father when he comes home from work".
          Dad responded by telling him "ask your mother" - and finally the two of them - mom and dad - decided it was time for "the talk".

          That evening, they sat Johnny down, and explained a little about the biology of human sexuality, the sperm and the egg, fertilization, etc....

          After sitting spellbound for nearly an hour, Johnny responded, "while I found that really fascinating, what I meant was - Bobby comes from Texas - where did *I* come from?

          So, yeah, I really wasn't asking for some arrogant condescending lecture -- just a friendly interest in what was bringing him to "services", such as they were.
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Adrift View Post
            Right. Heiser addresses this earlier in the paper,
            This position is in part based on the idea that these passages presume Yahweh and El are separate, in concert with an “older” polytheistic or henotheistic Israelite religion, and that this older theology collapsed in the wake of a monotheistic innovation. The reasoning is that, since it is presumed that such a religious evolution took place, these texts evince some sort of transition to monotheism. The alleged transition is then used in defense of the exegesis. As such, the security of the evolutionary presupposition is where this analysis begins.
            Prefaced by:
            The focus of this paper concerns the position expressed by Smith and held by many others: whether Yahweh and El are cast as separate deities in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32. This paper argues that this consensus view lacks coherence on several points.

            As above, Smith does not take the position that "Yahweh and El are cast as separate deities in Psalm 82." Which makes me wonder whether Heiser is similarly inaccurate in speaking of it as a consensus position. He argues against Parker, someone I'd never heard of before, and cites Smith in ways I find misleading.

            Heiser's preliminary citation from Smith, framing Heiser's introduction ...
            The author of Psalm 82 deposes the older theology, as Israel's deity is called to assume a new role as judge of all the world. Yet at the same time, Psalm 82, like Deut 32:8-9, preserves the outlines of the older theology it is rejecting. From the perspective of this older theology, Yahweh did not belong to the top tier of the pantheon. Instead, in early Israel the god of Israel apparently belonged to the second tier of the pantheon; he was not the presider god, but one of his sons. (1)

            ... simply does not say what Heiser says it says.

            From the earliest ANE records we have, featuring tutelary deities for city-states from Ur to Shurrupak within the Empire of Sumer and Akkad, gods assumed power over their peers by abrogating the traditions and epithets of their parent gods. Inanna famously claimed ascendancy by taking possession of the "mes" for the city of Uruk from Enki of the city Eridu, who took them from Enlil of Nippur, generally mirroring the cities' political ascendancy.

            As an aside, Dianne Wolkstein worked to assemble a lyrical presentation of Inanna's myths, working with Samuel Noah Kramer, the icon of Sumerology, to keep them true to the best available translations.


            From the epic of Marduk of Babylon to the epic of Gilgamesh, there are no exceptions in the ANE to this theme of slaying the corrupt older gods or stealing their powers when weakened, by wine, cf. Inanna, which is the true foundation of whatever consensus there may be that Yahweh of Israel acquired ascendancy by abrogating the powers and position of El of Ugarit.

            While Yahweh is not named among the sons of El in the Ba'al cycle, his opposition to the Ba'als, who are named there, forces the examination of the Biblical texts within this wider frame. This is the position Heiser fails to interact with, a position that is not answered by a niggling objection to Parker's claim they're both present in Psalm 82 while paying lip service to an interaction with Smith.

            Is name-dropping Smith a requirement for anyone writing on these topics?

            This theme of religious traditions emerging from their contemporary and near contemporary matrix is compelling for me, not because it grants license to demote the god of Abraham from its assumed suzerainty, which it certainly does, but because it provides a broader explanatory vision encompassing a greater range of archaeological, linguistic, and historical facts.

            It makes more sense.

            Plain readings of ancient Hebrew texts translated into English can be tricky (which is why there's considerable discussion regarding Psalm 82). As Heiser suggests, it may not be a command. Rather the prophetic voice pleads for God to act on those he has judged. We see similar language in passages like Psalm 68.
            The plain reading of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 leaves the same impression.
            When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance,
            when he divided all mankind,
            he set up boundaries for the peoples
            according to the number of the sons of Israel.
            For the Lord’s portion is his people,
            Jacob his allotted inheritance.

            This is from the NIV.

            Now I'd argue the interior reading is one of Yahweh, the most high, dividing the nations and leaving them to their own gods, while claiming Jacob's progeny as his chosen people, noting, with Heiser, Smith, et al. that "sons of Israel" is an inferior translation taken from the MT, where the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint render the phrase, "sons of God."

            Heiser cites Smith here, still on p. 48 of Origins:
            The texts of the LXX and the Dead Sea Scrolls show Israelite polytheism which focuses on the central importance of Yahweh for Israel within the larger scheme of the world; yet this larger scheme provides a place for the other gods of the other nations in the world. Moreover, even if this text is mute about the god who presides over the divine assembly, it does maintain a place for such a god who is not Yahweh. Of course, later tradition would identify the figure of Elyon with Yahweh, just as many scholars have done. However, the title of Elyon "Most High") seems to denote the figure of El, presider par excellence not only at Ugarit but also in Psalm 82. (20)

            While Heiser interacts strongly with Smith and the Ugaritic here, noting that Elyon appears in the Ba'al cycle only as an epithet for Ba'al, not El, he fails to interact with the inference, or denotation, that Ba'al acquired the epithet by usurping his father.

            And, again, stepping back, Heiser's thesis that El and Yahweh are identical in the Biblical texts does not interact with the fact they are not identical in Ugarit, where the written references to El antedate even the most optimistic dating for these Biblical passages, by centuries.

            Breaking here to get some other things done before returning to the more political issues in the sequel.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              I am NOT ticked off!
              Okay, okay, I believe you! It's an AMA, nincompoopiehead™ (used by permission), fire away.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                Oh, and also Brazil is phenomenal, but that's true of all of Gilliam's earlier work.
                Also, this.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
                  Prefaced by:
                  The focus of this paper concerns the position expressed by Smith and held by many others: whether Yahweh and El are cast as separate deities in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32. This paper argues that this consensus view lacks coherence on several points.

                  As above, Smith does not take the position that "Yahweh and El are cast as separate deities in Psalm 82." Which makes me wonder whether Heiser is similarly inaccurate in speaking of it as a consensus position. He argues against Parker, someone I'd never heard of before, and cites Smith in ways I find misleading.

                  Heiser's preliminary citation from Smith, framing Heiser's introduction ...
                  The author of Psalm 82 deposes the older theology, as Israel's deity is called to assume a new role as judge of all the world. Yet at the same time, Psalm 82, like Deut 32:8-9, preserves the outlines of the older theology it is rejecting. From the perspective of this older theology, Yahweh did not belong to the top tier of the pantheon. Instead, in early Israel the god of Israel apparently belonged to the second tier of the pantheon; he was not the presider god, but one of his sons. (1)

                  ... simply does not say what Heiser says it says.

                  From the earliest ANE records we have, featuring tutelary deities for city-states from Ur to Shurrupak within the Empire of Sumer and Akkad, gods assumed power over their peers by abrogating the traditions and epithets of their parent gods. Inanna famously claimed ascendancy by taking possession of the "mes" for the city of Uruk from Enki of the city Eridu, who took them from Enlil of Nippur, generally mirroring the cities' political ascendancy.
                  I think you're selling Smith short on this. The fact that Smith believes Psalm 82 both rejects and yet preserves the distinction is totally in line with Heiser's thesis. Smith is arguing for more than abrogation, he's arguing for editing of earlier texts. Reading the context of the quoted section in Smith's The Origins of Biblical Monotheism might make that more clear to you.

                  Simon B. Parker was a professor of Hebrew Bible at Boston University’s School of Theology and is cited by and worked with Smith on a number of occasions (in fact he cites him in both The Early History of God and The Origins of Biblical Monotheism). I suppose it's not surprising that someone who identifies as a hobbyist isn't familiar with his name, but to suggest that Heiser is merely picking on, what?, select and unimportant scholars in the field? I'm finding this whole side discussion a bit strange. I've read critiques of Heiser's material before by other scholars, but I don't remember any that critiqued him for misunderstanding Smith's view of Psalm 82. Most seem to think he's gotten that right at least.


                  Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
                  While Yahweh is not named among the sons of El in the Ba'al cycle, his opposition to the Ba'als, who are named there, forces the examination of the Biblical texts within this wider frame. This is the position Heiser fails to interact with, a position that is not answered by a niggling objection to Parker's claim they're both present in Psalm 82 while paying lip service to an interaction with Smith.
                  Well, for the paper under discussion, I imagine that's because he doesn't see the themes of the Baal Cycle in passages like Psalm 82. But he does interact with the Baal Cycle in some of his other work, and accepts that it undergirds or is challenged in certain passages in the Old Testament. So for instance, he believes that it acts as a backdrop to Daniel 7 (Co-regency in Ancient Israel's Divine Council as the Conceptual Backdrop to Ancient Jewish Binitarian Monotheism).


                  Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
                  Is name-dropping Smith a requirement for anyone writing on these topics?
                  I really don't understand the necessity of dumb little barbs like this. From the moment I mentioned conservative scholars interacting with likes of Smith, I get the feeling that you mostly saw them as insignificant fundamentalists working on the far fringes of Biblical scholarship, completely and obviously over their head, and no challenge to prominent scholars like Smith, Finkelstein, Friedman, et al. It's an odd air to take from someone who, till recently, wasn't familiar with folks like Hess and Heiser, admit at most passing interest in the subject in general, and struggles to recall the details of the positions of the scholars that you have read. Honestly, between this and the occasional soapboxes and sidelines, it's making discussion a bit of an unenjoyable chore.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                    I think you're selling Smith short on this. The fact that Smith believes Psalm 82 both rejects and yet preserves the distinction is totally in line with Heiser's thesis. Smith is arguing for more than abrogation, he's arguing for editing of earlier texts. Reading the context of the quoted section in Smith's The Origins of Biblical Monotheism might make that more clear to you.
                    (Did you mean to write "... selling Heiser short ..." as I'm assuming?)

                    I need more clarity on this. I was assuming that everyone cited here, including Heiser, accepted the fact earlier texts were edited. We can't speak of differences in Deut. 32:8-9 between the LXX and the MT without that assumption, with the implication, or at least a strong suggestion, that adjustments — e.g., from El to Isra-El, respectively — significantly impacting the underlying theology have always been a part of the religious tradition.

                    It could well be I've misread the tea leaves here:
                    ... but that isn't to say that conservative leaning scholars reject the entire notion of an edited and altered Old Testament.

                    Unless I'm badly misreading him, Heiser is not saying Parker is arguing that El and Yahweh were separate in some earlier text or tradition. Heiser is interacting with the thesis they are separate now, in the texts we have in front of us, and that this is a consensus view, supporting it with an extract from Smith, who does not say that. It's Heiser's use of the phrase "expressed by Smith" I'm objecting to here, because it serves to elevate a thesis I do not believe Smith has supported, or would support.

                    Simon B. Parker was a professor of Hebrew Bible at Boston University’s School of Theology and is cited by and worked with Smith on a number of occasions (in fact he cites him in both The Early History of God and The Origins of Biblical Monotheism). I suppose it's not surprising that someone who identifies as a hobbyist isn't familiar with his name, but to suggest that Heiser is merely picking on, what?, select and unimportant scholars in the field? I'm finding this whole side discussion a bit strange. I've read critiques of Heiser's material before by other scholars, but I don't remember any that critiqued him for misunderstanding Smith's view of Psalm 82. Most seem to think he's gotten that right at least.
                    I'd imagine all reviewers, and yourself, are far more familiar with everyone's position than myself. Let me put the question directly. I read from Heiser that ...
                    Yahweh and El are cast as separate deities in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 ... this consensus view ...

                    Is this view a consensus view?

                    And I need to be very specific here, given the context. I am not asking if it's a consensus view that in some earlier text or tradition, Yahweh and El were cast as separate deities, but, as Heiser states, that it is the consensus that they are currently cast as separate deities in the text he is treating.

                    Well, for the paper under discussion, I imagine that's because he doesn't see the themes of the Baal Cycle in passages like Psalm 82. But he does interact with the Baal Cycle in some of his other work, and accepts that it undergirds or is challenged in certain passages in the Old Testament. So for instance, he believes that it acts as a backdrop to Daniel 7 (Co-regency in Ancient Israel's Divine Council as the Conceptual Backdrop to Ancient Jewish Binitarian Monotheism).
                    I went looking for this, and found:
                    Co-regency in Ancient Israel's Divine Council as the ... - jstor

                    https://www.jstor.org › stable
                    by MS HEISER - ‎2016 - ‎Cited by 1 - ‎Related articles
                    Co-regency Co-regency in Ancient Israel's. Divine Divine Council as the. Conceptual Conceptual Backdrop to. Ancient Jewish Binitarian Monotheism. MICHAEL ...

                    The citation is to Heiser:
                    [BOOK] Angels: What the Bible Really Says About God's Heavenly Host
                    MS Heiser - 2018 - books.google.com
                    What does the Bible really tell us about the heavenly host? Everyone knows that angels
                    have wings, usually carry harps, and that each of us has our own personal guardian angel,
                    right? We all have some preconceptions about angels from movies, television shows, and …
                    Cited by 1 Related articles

                    The further citation is to Payne.
                    [BOOK] Satan Exposed: A Biblical Theology of Spiritual Warfare
                    WP Payne - 2019 - books.google.com
                    Spiritual warfare is not a church fad. Rather, it is the rediscovery of biblical Christianity.
                    Furthermore, one will not grasp what the Bible teaches until one comprehends what it affirms
                    about spiritual warfare. In truth, spiritual warfare permeates the entire Bible. When one …

                    This does not argue for significant scholarly interaction.

                    My JSTOR access though the school doesn't include Keener's journal. I can likely acquire access from a public library. But I can't find any other open sources online.

                    It's going to take me some time to interact with this.

                    I really don't understand the necessity of dumb little barbs like this. From the moment I mentioned conservative scholars interacting with likes of Smith, I get the feeling that you mostly saw them as insignificant fundamentalists working on the far fringes of Biblical scholarship, completely and obviously over their head, and no challenge to prominent scholars like Smith, Finkelstein, Friedman, et al. It's an odd air to take from someone who, till recently, wasn't familiar with folks like Hess and Heiser, admit at most passing interest in the subject in general, and struggles to recall the details of the positions of the scholars that you have read. Honestly, between this and the occasional soapboxes and sidelines, it's making discussion a bit of an unenjoyable chore.
                    Okay, I'm going to apologize for that. It was flippant. But it was also borne of frustration.

                    Rephrasing then, I don't feel Heiser's citation of Smith re: Psalms 82 added value to his paper.

                    I'm going to a lot of trouble to interact with scholars, or should I say one scholar, who, you've agreed, is on the scholarly fringe. Yes, Smith's inclusion of portions of Israel in the mlk sacrifice escaped my memory, but, as I said at the time ...
                    That's certainly a promotion by Smith, but in opposition to "originally commanded by Yahweh", it's relegated to a carry-over from pre-Israelite religions.

                    ... it still doesn't look like support for the quoted position, which, admittedly, was not likely intended as a fully fleshed representation of Smith, who instead places the practice within the full diversity of early Israelite Yahwistic traditions.

                    I do appreciate the time you're spending with me here. At the same time, let me suggest there's been more than a little soapboxing on the other side, including for positions I found either misleading or unhelpful, cf. the comparison between Evergreen and RTS. Compare that to my own hesitancy in speaking in similar terms of Enns' experience at WTS.

                    I'd actually prefer to leave that discussion be.

                    I can respect some positions, like Mosaic authorship, or even six-day creationism, for what they are, sincerely held religious beliefs that inform a world view held by significant fractions of our society and earlier societies, while withholding respect from scholars who seem to me to be acting more as apologists than open-minded inquisitors.

                    But I can't accept my sincere, and time-consuming, efforts to interact with these views being mischaracterized as a view of them as "insignificant fundamentalists working on the far fringes of Biblical scholarship, completely and obviously over their head." That's polemic, and unhelpful, and untrue.

                    I'm looking at these works, and seeing what I'm seeing, and to the extent I find value in them ...
                    While Heiser interacts strongly with Smith and the Ugaritic here, noting that Elyon appears in the Ba'al cycle only as an epithet for Ba'al, not El ...

                    ... I'll acknowledge it, and to the extent I find the value is lacking ...
                    ... he fails to interact with the inference, or denotation, that Ba'al acquired the epithet by usurping his father.

                    ... I acknowledge that as well.

                    He did, after all, use this as an argument for why the epithet should not be associated with El.

                    Thank you for your thoughts.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
                      That's just a geography thing.

                      I'm living down in the boonies south of Homestead, with the nearest Unitarian service about 30 miles away, north, in Miami. But with my recent purchase of a property in the East Everglades, the distance is cut in half on the weekends when I'm working the land. So why not?
                      I tried to send you a private message only to find out you are not receiving them, so I wanted to thank you for your help on another matter. I appreciated it very much.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Continuing where I left off on your previous post ...

                        Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                        From my readings, most of the scholars whose names come up again and again in both Old and New Testament studies do just that. They attempt academic objectivity as best they can, especially in their more professional work. As John Sailhamer has said (paraphrasing), when we study the Old Testament on it's own terms, when we attempt to see what the original authors intended and what the original audience understood, only then will the full richness of the text be revealed. That said, if divine inspiration exists (however it may take shape), then one might argue that it does a disservice to the text to ignore it. I think this is something Nick discussed in a Deeper Waters thread some while back.
                        And I can certainly agree with Nick, with the caution that if we're to take divine inspiration into account, it has to be meaningfully demonstrated. And by this, I mean something more than the bare bones that something we could call inspiration was afforded the authors by something we could call divine.

                        Coming from Nick, I'd expect the divine to act as a placemark for his God, and the inspiration to support inerrancy, not merely within the communities of the original authors and audiences, but for us, today, who are asked to assume the authority of the authors' divine inspiration.

                        Someone, it might have been Crossan, was quoted on a video I watched not too long ago, suggesting, or even more than suggesting, that Paul would have taken far more care with his epistles if he was aware of how much theologizing would be devoted to them, mut. mut.

                        It's not a rejection of ANE flat earth cosmology, as such. I mean, it is, but that's not the point of the post. His point is that he's not a literal six-day creationist, and that those who claim to be "'literal creationists' are actually only selective literalists." Heiser would regard himself as an accommodationist. He's very much the opposite of a literalist creationist.
                        Well, not to be forward, but I expect I'm a better example of the opposite of a literalist creationist. In particular, just by the odds amongst evangelicals, I suspect he declines support for the biological evolution of humanity.

                        My lasting impression after reading the link was of an adherent taking pains to be seen as still within an acceptable orthodoxy, despite some unnamed views he is concerned might get him Waltke'd from the next potluck.

                        Don't know what to tell you. He's definitely not a literalist. Maybe his contract had an exception clause.
                        Or perhaps he took care to avoid the question. Or that they took care not to ask.

                        I have no idea why Dr. Heiser chose to publish in those evangelical journals, but I doubt it's because he thought they would constrain his positions or those of his peers. Perhaps he published in them because they share his ideals. You can contact him here and maybe find out for yourself. He's an incredibly busy guy, but I've been able to touch base with him a couple times over email.
                        I'm trying to think how I might broach the subject as a total stranger without appearing either rude or argumentative. Talking to a scholar about what journals accepted or rejected his work is not a way to make friends and influence people.

                        To clarify, though, would you say he is an inerrantist, and in particular an inerrantist in agreement with the Chicago statement? And would you consider writing him on my behalf to clarify this view?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
                          (Did you mean to write "... selling Heiser short ..." as I'm assuming?)
                          No, I meant Smith.

                          Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
                          I need more clarity on this. I was assuming that everyone cited here, including Heiser, accepted the fact earlier texts were edited.
                          They do, but it seemed you thought Smith only viewed Psalm 82 as later abrogation of former theology. Otherwise I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that "Smith does not take the position that 'Yahweh and El are cast as separate deities in Psalm 82.'" He does.

                          Source: The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts by Mark S. Smith, Oxford University Press, 2001, pp. 143-44

                          El was the head of the Israelite pantheon, with Yahweh as its warrior-god. Texts that mention both El and Yahweh but not as the same figure (Genesis 49; Numbers 23-24, discussed in the next section' Psalm 82) suggest an early accommodation of the two in some early form of Israelite polytheism. If Psalm 82 reflects an early model of an Israelite polytheistic assembly, then El would have been its head, with the warrior Yahweh as a member of the second tier (see chapter 2, section 2). Yet the same psalm also uses familial language: the other gods are said to be the "sons of the Most High." Accordingly, Yahweh might have been earlier understood as one of these sons.

                          © Copyright Original Source



                          Source: The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts by Mark S. Smith, Oxford University Press, 2001, pp.156-57

                          Moreover, even if this text is quite mute about the god who presides over the whole arrangement, it does maintain a place for such a god who is not Yahweh. The title of Elyon ("Most High") seems to denote the figure of El (called El Elyon in Genesis 14:18-22); he is presider par excellence not only at Ugarit but also in Psalm 82.

                          © Copyright Original Source



                          That's a bit more concrete than a shadow after redaction. The complaint that Heiser is not interacting with Smith's view has no teeth as far as I can tell.

                          Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
                          Unless I'm badly misreading him, Heiser is not saying Parker is arguing that El and Yahweh were separate in some earlier text or tradition. Heiser is interacting with the thesis they are separate now, in the texts we have in front of us, and that this is a consensus view, supporting it with an extract from Smith, who does not say that. It's Heiser's use of the phrase "expressed by Smith" I'm objecting to here, because it serves to elevate a thesis I do not believe Smith has supported, or would support.
                          I'm not really sure how to reply to this. Smith and Parker (and a number of other Old Testament scholars) believe that Psalm 82 is an early text that indicate an earlier Hebrew belief in distinct Yahweh/El deities, but they believe that this passage was subtle enough that it survived post-exile redaction under the later monotheistic system. No one, not Smith, not Parker, not Heiser believe that later post-exile Jews read this passage as pertaining to distinct deities (outside of possibly the redactors who ignored it). So Heiser isn't interacting with a thesis that the deities are considered separate now (outside of scholarly circles), but that they were ever actually perceived as separate pre-exile.


                          Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
                          I'd imagine all reviewers, and yourself, are far more familiar with everyone's position than myself. Let me put the question directly. I read from Heiser that ...
                          Yahweh and El are cast as separate deities in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 ... this consensus view ...

                          Is this view a consensus view?

                          And I need to be very specific here, given the context. I am not asking if it's a consensus view that in some earlier text or tradition, Yahweh and El were cast as separate deities, but, as Heiser states, that it is the consensus that they are currently cast as separate deities in the text he is treating.
                          I think you're misreading Heiser, or maybe reading him too literally. The current consensus view within mainstream Old Testament scholarship is that Yahweh and El are cast as separate deities in the pre-exile texts of Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32. That isn't to say that post-exile or modern Jews read it that way, but rather modern scholars believe that this is the correct reading of the texts as they were originally written.

                          Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
                          I went looking for this, and found:
                          Co-regency in Ancient Israel's Divine Council as the ... - jstor

                          https://www.jstor.org › stable
                          by MS HEISER - ‎2016 - ‎Cited by 1 - ‎Related articles
                          Co-regency Co-regency in Ancient Israel's. Divine Divine Council as the. Conceptual Conceptual Backdrop to. Ancient Jewish Binitarian Monotheism. MICHAEL ...

                          The citation is to Heiser:
                          [BOOK] Angels: What the Bible Really Says About God's Heavenly Host
                          MS Heiser - 2018 - books.google.com
                          What does the Bible really tell us about the heavenly host? Everyone knows that angels
                          have wings, usually carry harps, and that each of us has our own personal guardian angel,
                          right? We all have some preconceptions about angels from movies, television shows, and …
                          Cited by 1 Related articles

                          The further citation is to Payne.
                          [BOOK] Satan Exposed: A Biblical Theology of Spiritual Warfare
                          WP Payne - 2019 - books.google.com
                          Spiritual warfare is not a church fad. Rather, it is the rediscovery of biblical Christianity.
                          Furthermore, one will not grasp what the Bible teaches until one comprehends what it affirms
                          about spiritual warfare. In truth, spiritual warfare permeates the entire Bible. When one …

                          This does not argue for significant scholarly interaction.
                          "Co-regency in Ancient Israel's Divine Council as the Conceptual Backdrop to Ancient Jewish Binitarian Monotheism" was published in the peer-reviewed Bulletin for Biblical Research Vol. 26, No. 2 (2016), pp. 195-225. I don't really see the relevance of pointing out where it's been cited, unless it's just to score some sort of rhetorical point in your attempt to once again undermine Dr. Heiser's credibility. Something you've been attempting (and failing) throughout this exchange (even though you only became aware of him last Monday). This is behavior I might expect from other forum members, not you. If you're seriously not impressed with what you've read from Heiser so far, or where you've seen him cited, you're welcome to your opinion. In that case, I don't see what more we have to discuss.


                          Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
                          I'm going to a lot of trouble to interact with scholars, or should I say one scholar, who, you've agreed, is on the scholarly fringe.
                          I never asked you to go through this trouble. I merely pointed out that there are conservative scholars that are interacting with the liberal mainstream. And while Heiser (and Hess and other conservative/traditional/evangelical/pick-your-label scholars) may be swimming against the mainstream, he's not so fringe as to be in loony land. He's not Ron Wyatt fringe. Even if you think otherwise, Heiser is well respected among his peers, and his work, especially that associated with his book The Unseen Realm, has been attracting quite a bit of attention over the last 5 years or so. Smith himself acknowledges his work,

                          Source: God in Translation: Deities in Cross-Cultural Discourse in the Biblical World by Mark S. Smith, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2010, pg. 135

                          Scholars have generally noted biblical references to El Elyon (e.g., Genesis 14:19-22) and compared the Ugaritic background of this type-scene of the divine council headed by the god El especially in KTU/CAT 1.2.I.8 This type-scene includes the idea of the gods as the sons of the god El, which is also well known from other texts. Many commentators have viewed Psalm 82 in light of this traditional usage. Accordingly, El in verse 1 and Elyon in verse 6 seem to be vestiges of the older notion of the god El as the head of the divine assembly, as many commentators have noted. To be sure, this figure in the assembly remains in the background, as the text is focused on the victory of Elohim over the other elohim. In recent years, it has been questioned more recently whether or not Psalm 82 represents Elohim and El/Elyon as two different figures.9 The psalm is not explicit on the question, and the presentation in Deuteronomy 32:8-9 (to be discussed shortly), with its similarities to Psalm 82, might seem to favor the identification.

                          8. In addition to the parallels noted by Parker ("The Reign of God"), see the survey of Robert P. Gordon, "Standing in the Council: When Prophets Encounter God," in: The God of Israel (ed. Robert P. Gordon; University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 64; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2007) 190-204.

                          9. See Michael S. Heiser, "Are Yahweh and El Distinct Deities in Deut. 32:8-9 and Psalm 82?" HIPHIL 3 (2006); online journal, http://www.seej.net/Default.aspx?tabid=77 (posted October 3, 2006); Gordon, "Standing in the Council," 200. See also Neef, Gottes himmlischer Thronrat, 13-17. Neef renders the El terminology here as a common noun ('adat 'el as "Gottesversammlung" and bene 'elyon as "Sohne des Hochsten") with no acknowledgement of the older usage associated with the god El. Neef's reading arguably mirrors how ancient readers of Psalm 82 could have read the poem without recognizing its vestigial El imagery and language.

                          © Copyright Original Source




                          Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
                          I can respect some positions, like Mosaic authorship, or even six-day creationism, for what they are, sincerely held religious beliefs that inform a world view held by significant fractions of our society and earlier societies, while withholding respect from scholars who seem to me to be acting more as apologists than open-minded inquisitors.

                          But I can't accept my sincere, and time-consuming, efforts to interact with these views being mischaracterized as a view of them as "insignificant fundamentalists working on the far fringes of Biblical scholarship, completely and obviously over their head." That's polemic, and unhelpful, and untrue.
                          If you see Heiser as nothing more than a scholar who is acting more as apologist than open-minded inquisitor then it seems my characterization was sound. Again, no one asked you to consume your time interacting with Heiser's work. That's something you took up on your own.
                          Last edited by Adrift; 10-07-2019, 02:46 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
                            Well, not to be forward, but I expect I'm a better example of the opposite of a literalist creationist.
                            I knew you were going to nitpick that sentence.

                            Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
                            In particular, just by the odds amongst evangelicals, I suspect he declines support for the biological evolution of humanity.
                            I mean, plenty of evangelicals accept biological evolution just fine (I'm as good an example as any I suppose). Accommodationism, by its nature, doesn't restrict any view on the subject. Just from listening to his podcast, I can tell you that Heiser has expressed a general lack of interest in evolution from a theological perspective, believes that Darwinian evolution exhibits known issues by scientists in the field, but accepts the general concept of evolution, and believes that Young-Earthers (which he is not) would be best served by taking it seriously.

                            Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
                            My lasting impression after reading the link was of an adherent taking pains to be seen as still within an acceptable orthodoxy, despite some unnamed views he is concerned might get him Waltke'd from the next potluck.
                            Again, Heiser has always enjoyed plenty of academic freedom, so I have no idea where you're getting this impression.

                            Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
                            To clarify, though, would you say he is an inerrantist, and in particular an inerrantist in agreement with the Chicago statement? And would you consider writing him on my behalf to clarify this view?
                            As far as I can tell, Heiser's view on inerrancy mirror's something like Enns' definition (though I'm not sure Enns himself still holds to this definition). As Heiser articulated his view on the subject on his podcast a couple years ago, he's an inerrantist in only the loosest sense. Probably in a sense that would mark him as not an inerrantist by most people who consider themselves inerrantists. Something like, he's an inerrantist as far as its doctrinal teachings are concerned, but not one as far as it pertains to issues like science, nature and history. He certainly wouldn't be in agreement with the Chicago Statement.

                            Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
                            And would you consider writing him on my behalf to clarify this view?
                            No, I'm sorry. I have no interest writing on your behalf.
                            Last edited by Adrift; 10-07-2019, 04:18 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                              As far as I can tell, Heiser's view on inerrancy mirror's something like Enns' definition (though I'm not sure Enns himself still holds to this definition). As Heiser articulated his view on the subject on his podcast a couple years ago, he's an inerrantist in only the loosest sense. Probably in a sense that would mark him as not an inerrantist by most people who consider themselves inerrantists. Something like, he's an inerrantist as far as it's doctrinal teachings are concerned, but not one as far as it pertains to issues like science, nature and history. He certainly wouldn't be in agreement with the Chicago Statement.
                              I remembered reading a post by Enns where he acknowledged holding to a very qualified form of inerrancy at the time of writing I&I; one he no longer holds to. I can't find it but he expressly rejects inerrancy here: https://peteenns.com/what-is-the-bible/
                              "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                                I remembered reading a post by Enns where he acknowledged holding to a very qualified form of inerrancy at the time of writing I&I; one he no longer holds to. I can't find it but he expressly rejects inerrancy here: https://peteenns.com/what-is-the-bible/
                                Yeah, that's what I thought.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                14 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                414 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X