nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Question about Factbook

Gary Osborne

I just happened by Psalm 82:1 (and vs 6) and I see that Logos has labeled Elohim in the Factbook as "Sons of God".

Why in the world would that be?

This verse has nothing to do with the Genesis 6 passage and "sons" isn't used. I don't understand the Factbook giving this [disputed] definition about heavenly beings marrying daughters of men for this verse.

Does it have something to do with the relationship Logos has forged with Michael Heiser, who I believe does interpret this verse in a similar fashion? Regardless, I'd expect the Factbook to be a little tighter with its "facts".

P.S. Not to mention that Jesus clearly links these "gods" with men (John 10:34).

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Kenneth Neighoff

The NET Bible has this note on John 10:34

A quotation from Ps 82:6. Technically the Psalms are not part of the OT “law” (which usually referred to the five books of Moses), but occasionally the term “law” was applied to the entire OT, as here. The problem in this verse concerns the meaning of Jesus’ quotation from Ps 82:6. It is important to look at the OT context: The whole line reads “I say, you are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you.” Jesus will pick up on the term “sons of the Most High” in 10:36, where he refers to himself as the Son of God. The psalm was understood in rabbinic circles as an attack on unjust judges who, though they have been given the title “gods” because of their quasi-divine function of exercising judgment, are just as mortal as other men. What is the argument here? It is often thought to be as follows: If it was an OT practice to refer to men like the judges as gods, and not blasphemy, why did the Jewish authorities object when this term was applied to Jesus? This really doesn’t seem to fit the context, however, since if that were the case Jesus would not be making any claim for “divinity” for himself over and above any other human being—and therefore he would not be subject to the charge of blasphemy. Rather, this is evidently a case of arguing from the lesser to the greater, a common form of rabbinic argument. The reason the OT judges could be called gods is because they were vehicles of the word of God (cf. 10:35). But granting that premise, Jesus deserves much more than they to be called God. He is the Word incarnate, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world to save the world (10:36). In light of the prologue to the Gospel of John, it seems this interpretation would have been most natural for the author. If it is permissible to call men “gods” because they were the vehicles of the word of God, how much more permissible is it to use the word “God” of him who is the Word of God?

Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible (Biblical Studies Press, 2005).

The reading from Psalm 82:1 and 6 are coming from the Dead Sea Scrolls (if my memory serves me correctly).

I do not think FaithLife is playing lose with the facts.

Graham Criddle

This verse has nothing to do with the Genesis 6 passage and "sons" isn't used. I don't understand the Factbook giving this [disputed] definition about heavenly beings marrying daughters of men for this verse.

I don't know why it was tagged in this way but it is consistent with the article in the Lexham Bible Dictionary:

A similar phrase occurs in Psa 82. The term “sons of Elyon” (בני עליון, bny 'lywn) in Psa 82:6 is very similar to “sons of God” (בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים, beney ha'elohim). Sometimes translated as “most high,” Elyon is often considered synonymous with Yahweh. In a psalm exalting Yahweh as the head of a divine council of gods (Psa 82:1), the audience is called “sons of Elyon” or “sons of the most high” and is told that “you are gods” (Psa 82:6).

Matthew James Hamilton, “Sons of God,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).

But others make similar suggestions as well - including AYBD:

The use of the expression “sons of God” (more correctly “sons of the gods”) with reference to heavenly beings does not imply actual progeny of God (or the gods) but reflects the common Semitic use of “son” (Heb ben) to denote membership of a class or group. “Sons of the gods,” then, designates beings belonging to the heavenly or divine sphere. Such allusions to a plurality of divine beings, occurring especially in the Psalms and related poetic literature, represent a stage when Israel’s Yahwism found room for a pantheon in many ways similar to Canaanite models (cf. the literature of Ugarit). In the Bible, however, such beings are clearly subordinate to Yahweh, forming his heavenly court or council (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Pss 29:1; 82:6; 89:6; cf. Deut 32:43 LXX). Echoes of deliberation with such a court can be heard in the mysterious plural references of Gen 1:26; 3:22; 11:7. As shown by the episode related in Gen 6:1–4, where the “sons of the gods” take wives from the daughters of men, and also by Ps 82:6–7, a key point of distinction between the “sons of the gods” and human beings lay in the matter of life and death: humans remain mortal, unless given a share in the “spirit” common to Yahweh and his host. Eventually the “sons of the gods” were fused with the concept of angels—a development already to be seen in Dan 3:25 and reflected, for the most part, in the LXX.

Brendan Byrne, “Sons of God,” ed. David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 156.

Allen Browne

I just happened by Psalm 82:1 (and vs 6) and I see that Logos has labeled Elohim in the Factbook as "Sons of God".
Why in the world would that be?

This verse has nothing to do with the Genesis 6 passage and "sons" isn't used. I don't understand the Factbook giving this [disputed] definition about heavenly beings marrying daughters of men for this verse.

Does it have something to do with the relationship Logos has forged with Michael Heiser, who I believe does interpret this verse in a similar fashion? Regardless, I'd expect the Factbook to be a little tighter with its "facts".

P.S. Not to mention that Jesus clearly links these "gods" with men (John 10:34).

Good chance it's Heiser's influence, even if indirectly.

As you probably know, this verse (along with the Enochic interpretation of Gen 6) is crucial to his theology.

Agreed the interpretation seems imposed on this verse in the Factbook entry.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1181052#Comment_1181052

Agreed the interpretation seems imposed on this verse in the Factbook entry.

This is true of a number of entry especially with respect to anachronous readings. Just as you have to double check the resources for the prejudices of their authors, so you need to double check all of the Faithlife tagging for the prejudices of their creators. This is not a complaint, there is simply no way an author can make a decision/choice and not have it reflect their own prejudices.

Simon’s Brother

If every Logos user read through every factbook entry there would possibly be a number of entries that people from different views on theological and interpretative issues that they would dispute.

When I come across things I don’t agree with in things like Factbook, I move on as I do with any other resource.

There is a fine line with your post as to whether you are asking a genuine question or trying to impose your theological viewpoint on how FL writes / tags their material.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and answer you question while avoiding the theological issues around your questions as there are no doubt users on the forums who agree with Mike Heiser’s views and the forum guidelines suggest we avoid directly entering into discussions where we dispute one anothers views.

Mike Heiser worked for a number of years at FL and wrote a number of entires in the Lexham Bible Dictionary and Fairhlife Study Bible as well as a significant portion of the OT notes in that resource. And he probably had influence whether directly or indirectly on Factbook entires and possibly tagging in Reverse Interlinears. All of these things tie into together and feed each other. I also believe he also was involved significantly in the early days of getting mobile Ed off the ground.

Hence I am not surprised by this entry you seem concerned about and you are likely to find more of Mike Heiser’s DNA throughout the Faithlife / Logos ecosystem.

I just happened by Psalm 82:1 (and vs 6) and I see that Logos has labeled Elohim in the Factbook as "Sons of God".

Why in the world would that be?

This verse has nothing to do with the Genesis 6 passage and "sons" isn't used. I don't understand the Factbook giving this [disputed] definition about heavenly beings marrying daughters of men for this verse.

Does it have something to do with the relationship Logos has forged with Michael Heiser, who I believe does interpret this verse in a similar fashion? Regardless, I'd expect the Factbook to be a little tighter with its "facts".

P.S. Not to mention that Jesus clearly links these "gods" with men (John 10:34).

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1181055#Comment_1181055

I'm just surprised Dr Heiser was able to impact so many translations, and commentaries. Apparently several of the Fathers too. Amazing influence over so many centuries.

Simon’s Brother

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1181057#Comment_1181057

I'm just surprised Dr Heiser was able to impact so many translations, and commentaries. Apparently several of the Fathers too. Amazing influence over so many centuries.

People who avoid his theology tend to not know how far back his influence goes. The Father’s listened to the Naked Bible Podcast with great anticipation each week and took notes using Libby’s great-great grandmother.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1181059#Comment_1181059

Libby, unfortunarely, was pressured to be silent (not in the church) by those dastardly 'Logos' people. I'm sure Dr Heiser had to be involved.

Reading a nice Logos volume on Jubilees today, apparently Dr Heiser may well have also influenced Enoch himself. And the targums clearly show his influence, in both Psalms and Isaiah. But I have to draw the line at Ezekiel and the Markubah.

Phil Gons (Logos)

I just happened by Psalm 82:1 (and vs 6) and I see that Logos has labeled Elohim in the Factbook as "Sons of God".

Why in the world would that be?

There's a difference between the expression "sons of God" (which may refer to heavenly beings or human beings) and the reference "The Sons of God (Old Testament)." It's common for a person or persons to be referred to in a variety of ways, and this Factbook page intends to capture the reference not the expression.

Psalm 8:5 mentions "gods" and seems to have the same group in view as passages that mention "sons of God."

“You have made them a little lower than the angels [lit. gods; מֵאֱלֹהִ֑ים] and crowned them with glory and honor.”

One clue is that the LXX translates both "gods" (Ps. 8:5; 138:1) and "sons of God" (Dt 32:8; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7) as angels (ἄγγελος), suggesting they saw both as expressions for the same group.

In addition, Psalm 82:6 may loosely connect the two expressions.

“I said, ‘You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High.’ 7 But you will die like mere mortals; you will fall like every other ruler.”

Not to mention that Jesus clearly links these "gods" with men (John 10:34).

Doesn't telling these gods they'll die like men (Ps 82:6–7) seems tautological if they are in fact men? Compelling (to me) arguments for the heavenly being interpretation of John 10:34 exist. Happy to share a few links if you're interested.

BTW, I created a passage list you may find helpful: Divine Sons of God, Divine Council, Elohim.

Gary Osborne

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1181055#Comment_1181055

There is a fine line with your post as to whether you are asking a genuine question or trying to impose your theological viewpoint on how FL writes / tags their material.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and answer you question

That's mighty nice of you to give me the benefit of the doubt. I feel so privileged. [insert eye roll here]

So now that that's out of the way, perhaps this will help you to see that I was indeed being genuine in my question. Truth is, I lean heavily toward the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 being fallen angels who cohabitated with earthly women and bore children. Peter and Jude clearly make allusions toward the book of Enoch, so I'm certainly predisposed to believe that's exactly what the Hebrew is stating.

But I had never seen anyone state definitively that the Ps 82 passage deals with those same fallen angels. The words "sons of" is not used before Elohim. It used in vs 6 before Elyon though. So I have no problem with it being offered up as an opinion in a commentary. That's one thing. But to have it stated as a "fact" in Factbook is something else entirely. I guess I was under the impression that Factbook in Logos would only offer that type of tagging with things that were well-established facts in the Christian community. But I've come to see that isn't the case.

And for the record, I wasn't metaphorically shooting at Heiser. Just asking a sincere question and deducing he may have had some impact on it. Now I know he almost assuredly did. Fine. I just didn't think that type of supposition would show up in Factbook. I know better now.

I'm just surprised Dr Heiser was able to impact so many translations, and commentaries. Apparently several of the Fathers too. Amazing influence over so many centuries.

Thanks for the sarcasm. It helped a lot. [insert eye roll - again]

Gary Osborne

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1181065#Comment_1181065

BTW, I created a passage list you may find helpful: Divine Sons of God, Divine Council, Elohim.

Thanks, Phil. I appreciate that. Will certainly use it in study.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1181081#Comment_1181081

Thanks for the sarcasm. It helped a lot. [insert eye roll - again]

You're welcome. That Heiser conspiracy (and your willingness to defame him) indeed deserves your eye-roll. If you were knowledgable about pre-Heiser.

Gary Osborne

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1181088#Comment_1181088

Thanks for the sarcasm. It helped a lot. [insert eye roll - again]

You're welcome. That Heiser conspiracy (and your willingness to defame him) indeed deserves your eye-roll. If you were knowledgable about pre-Heiser.

In what way did my initial post offer up a "Heiser conspiracy" and defame him? My exact comment was a simple, straightforward one:

"Does it have something to do with the relationship Logos has forged with Michael Heiser, who I believe does interpret this verse in a similar fashion?"

That was an honest question, and I received my answer from others. You've done nothing but be rude.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1181081#Comment_1181081

Just asking a sincere question and deducing he may have had some impact on it. Now I know he almost assuredly did. Fine.

I guess I'm wondering how you concluded Heiser's specific impact, since any one of the earlier writers, apparently back to Jubilee/LXX times could have visited Bellingham, and done the dirty deed.

Gary Osborne

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1181045#Comment_1181045

The NET Bible has this note on John 10:34

Thanks, Ken.

I don't know why it was tagged in this way but it is consistent with the article in the Lexham Bible Dictionary:

I appreciate that info, Graham.

Good chance it's Heiser's influence, even if indirectly.

As you probably know, this verse (along with the Enochic interpretation of Gen 6) is crucial to his theology.

Agreed the interpretation seems imposed on this verse in the Factbook entry.

That was certainly something that came to mind after seeing the tag and then thinking about it. Thanks.

This is true of a number of entry especially with respect to anachronous readings. Just as you have to double check the resources for the prejudices of their authors, so you need to double check all of the Faithlife tagging for the prejudices of their creators. This is not a complaint, there is simply no way an author can make a decision/choice and not have it reflect their own prejudices.

Thanks, MJ. You are a diligent member of the Faithlife forum here and I do appreciate you taking time to answer my question. Take care.

Simon’s Brother

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1181081#Comment_1181081

Gary I never doubted your question was genuine.

Maybe your expectation of what Factbook is providing is the issue. It is just a gateway to your library. It is not a source of undisputed truth. It presents lots of conflicting views so it could not be undisputed truth. I read lots of things in FL Factbook that I take a different view upon.

There is a fine line with your post as to whether you are asking a genuine question or trying to impose your theological viewpoint on how FL writes / tags their material.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and answer you question

That's mighty nice of you to give me the benefit of the doubt. I feel so privileged. [insert eye roll here]

So now that that's out of the way, perhaps this will help you to see that I was indeed being genuine in my question. Truth is, I lean heavily toward the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 being fallen angels who cohabitated with earthly women and bore children. Peter and Jude clearly make allusions toward the book of Enoch, so I'm certainly predisposed to believe that's exactly what the Hebrew is stating.

But I had never seen anyone state definitively that the Ps 82 passage deals with those same fallen angels. The words "sons of" is not used before Elohim. It used in vs 6 before Elyon though. So I have no problem with it being offered up as an opinion in a commentary. That's one thing. But to have it stated as a "fact" in Factbook is something else entirely. I guess I was under the impression that Factbook in Logos would only offer that type of tagging with things that were well-established facts in the Christian community. But I've come to see that isn't the case.

And for the record, I wasn't metaphorically shooting at Heiser. Just asking a sincere question and deducing he may have had some impact on it. Now I know he almost assuredly did. Fine. I just didn't think that type of supposition would show up in Factbook. I know better now.

I'm just surprised Dr Heiser was able to impact so many translations, and commentaries. Apparently several of the Fathers too. Amazing influence over so many centuries.

Thanks for the sarcasm. It helped a lot. [insert eye roll - again]