Does anyone know if Dr. Heiser's OT Pseud. contain most of his dissertation or does his dissertation contain most of the OT Gk. Psued. book? Or are they different in significant ways?
Your questions are always so intriguing. I had forgotten there were significant discussion in this resource (since the pre-pub pseudepigraha resource seems doomed). 'The total output of these introductions exceeds 50,000 words, easily the equivalent of an introductory book on the subject. Bibliography for each book is also included.'
The copyright on the intros and morphology is owned by Logos, if that gets you any closer.
Perhaps I don't understand your question; Heiser's dissertation is a dissertation, not a translation of ancient texts per se.
Are you asking what his dissertation cites? Are most of the texts he cites found in that collection?
Hey Ben,
What I was wondering was, does Dr. Heiser' OT Pseud. include most of his comments that are in his dissertation, albeit spread out. If both contain redundant comments re: the divine council (http://www.twopowersinheaven.com/) then maybe one book would be good enough.
Specifically what I want is this: a resource that engages the concept of the two powers/divine council thought in Ancient Israel.
Hi Denise, a little closer - thanks.
Heiser's video is excellent.
Since this bumped back to the top, I thought maybe people want to know what Mike Heiser's dissertation subject was. This is from the blog in 2005 (!):http://blog.logos.com/2005/10/etssbl_sessions_2/
Yahweh, the Sons of God and the Monogenes Son of God, Yahweh’s Hypostatic Vice Regent: The Divine Council of Israelite Religion as the Foundation of High Christology and Heterodox ChristologiesMichael S. Heiser, Logos Research SystemsThis paper is based in part on the authors dissertation.
Several passages in the OT depict God presiding over a council of divine beings referred to as his sons (bene ha-)elohim / bene )elim). Explicit parallels between these passages and the material from Ugarit are well know. The divine council of ancient Ugarit had a clearly-defined vice regent office the position of Baal under El. Israelite religion retained the vice regency position, but in the Israelite system, various hypostases of Yahweh filled that position, allowing Israels council to have two heads, both of the same essence.The contention of this paper is that all the major Christological heresies encountered by the early Church are based on a flawed understanding of the Israelite divine council and its hypostatic vice regency. Elevating the lesser )elohim to the same status as Yahweh results in a Gnostic view of the heavenly host (the archons). Denying that the vice regent was the hypostasis of Yahweh yields a created vice regent of similar or lesser essence.On the positive side, an accurate understanding of the divine council in Israel helps us to discern how the early Christians articulated a binitarian godhead, one that saw Jesus and God the Father as the same essence. It also helps is sort of common points of confusion, such as how the OT can speak of multiple sons of God while the NT speaks of Jesus as the monogenes son of God. The divine council and its vice regency element are the key to a biblical understanding of the One and the Many, to comprehending where early Christological heresies went wrong, and how high Christology is rooted in Israelite religion.
Since this is 7 years later, I don't know this is still his thinking but it's a very interesting one.
Available Now
Build your biblical library with a new trusted commentary or resource every month. Yours to keep forever.
