Intro to my readers: I am on an email list where I have been introducing to my good brethren (living around the country) the scholarly exchange between Michael S. Heiser and David Bokovoy in The FARMS Review (Vol. 19, No. 1, 2007). This is the first of many posts where I am pressing for an informal discussion. Feel free to jump in. (For quotes, I have omitted the proper language markings on Hebrew words. Please consult the original source material.)
Todd: Let me start out with a quote from Michael Heiser on how fundamental this topic is for both evangelicals and LDS.
I feel more strongly than ever that there is not a single doctrine that is untouched by the subject. The reason is simple: the divine council is all about the nature of God, his creation and rulership of all that is, his heavenly and earthly family, and the destiny of the earth and the larger cosmos (222).
Amen to this statement.
But now let me share an argument by Heiser that I struggle with:
Evangelical scholars have commonly appealed to Exodus 21:6 and 22:8-9 as proof that the elohim of Psalm 82 are humans. Neither passage is any help for that view, actually. Exodus 21:1-6 recounts the procedure undertaken when a slave chooses to stay with his master rather than go free. Part of that procedure reads, “then his master shall bring him to elohim, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.” The word elohim here can easily be translated as a singular (“God”) and often is, making an appeal to this text as a plural tenuous. However, it seems quite plausible that the final editor of Deuteronomy thought it might be plural, or deemed that it could be understood as a plural, because in the parallel passage to Exodus 21:1-6 found in Deuteronomy 15:15-18, the reference to bringing the slave before elohim has been removed. A removal only makes sense if a later editor, in the wake of Israel’s punishment for following after other gods, thought that elohim might sound theologically inappropriate. If the word was understood as referring to plural humans, there would be no such need to remove it. Of course an original Mosaic text in Deuteronomy 15 may simply have omitted this detail for some indiscernible reason. That option, of course, would lend no weight to the human elohim view since elohim can easily be translated as singular in the passage (226-227).
What are your thoughts on this Deuteronomistic editing? Is it plausible?
Frank: I am not familiar with the book or the author except for what you have mentioned on this list, so if my answer makes no sense in the broader context, please forgive me.
In regards to Heiser’s argument as you have presented it, I would say that it is very weak. Even if you were to grant a later editor, the passages have enough other differences to make any argument from the parallels (or lack of parallels) in the passages a significant stretch. For instance, what would be the reason for that editor leaving out the servant’s love for the servant’s wife and the servant’s children that are mentioned in the Exodus passage?
If the passages were exactly parallel except for the use of the word “elohim” the point would be stronger – although I would still have problems with it (obviously). As it sits, however, even if you come with a less than divine view of the production of Scripture, this is a pretty big stretch.
I hope that makes sense.
Todd: It does make sense. To decide upon multiple inclusions of statements by redactors seems to me highly subjective. Yet there has been a discussion over here at this blog, By Common Consent, among those LDS who are convinced by the redaction in this scriptural text brought up by Heiser.
Jesus in Idaho Falls 
A sidenote to think about on this beautiful Monday morning:
Our church family just studied Genesis 4 last night. (The discussion carried on later in my home over Cain’s wife. My kids were especially curious.) But here is something from the chapter that I would like to point out quickly on the prevailing Documentary Hypothesis of the Pentateuch that snags most mainstream biblical scholars, including many in academic Mormonism. Some would say chapter 4 is of the Yahweh (J) source. Every reference in the chapter is Yahweh except one – Elohim in Genesis 4:25.
This would be my question to source critics: How did that slip in there??? (I’m smiling).
E and J both know the terms Yahweh and El/Elohim.
“The point is not that the sources have different names of God. The point is that the different sources have a different idea of when the name YHWH was first revealed to humans.” Friedman, Bible with Sources Revealed, p. 10.
J sometimes uses El/Elohim, and as explained by Friedman more on that page, E uses YHWH as well, but not until it’s revealed to Moses. (Historically speaking, the text supports the claim of E.)
In any case, Friedman assigns Gen 4:25 to R, not J or E.
Todd,
I second much of what Nitsav has said. I think I pointed out to you the importance of seeing J and E as tightly bound together in a previous post. Nitsav’s point is also well taken that (an) editor(s) who knew both the traditions of J and E which were being weaved together also made insertions.
—–
With that tangent aside, it seems to me that Heiser’s main argument against rendering elohim as a “judges” is that it is easier to translate it as the singular “God”– regardless of the textual editing. He says for instance:
“The word elohim here can easily be translated as a singular (“God”) and often is, making an appeal to this text as a plural tenuous … elohim can easily be translated as singular in the passage.”
I think the point is that elohim referring to “judges” in this passage is unlikely at best and should hardly be used as an argument against the Psalms and other places where it is quite clear from usage, theme, and context that other divinities are being referenced to. The argument (that elohim in Exodus is somehow referring to human judges and hence in other [unrelated] places it “could” be used this way as well) is obviously trying to dodge the clear meaning and context of a textually and literarily unrelated passage in Psalms 82 and in numerous other places.
This is just a tangent. Yes. But I am highly curious because I am directly in this text for life ministry to people this week.
So Nitsav, what are Friedman’s reasons for assigning Gen. 4:25 to R. I don’t have the book.
Because it is different from the beginning of the chapter? New thought with the end verse?
I can hardly believe this.
Todd,
According to Friedman, the assignment of Gen. 4.25-26 has to do with the genealogies found in J and P.
First, Friedman assigns almost all of chapter 5 to an independent source “The Book of Record (or: Generations).” This “is a separate document, used by the redactor to form a logical framework for the combined sources in Genesis. Within that framework, the stories of J, E, and P now flow through a chronology of the generations from the first humans to the generation of Jacob’s twelve sons.”
“The J genealogy traces Adam’s line through Cain alone and mentions no other surviving children. The Book of Records genealogy traces Adam’s line through Seth and never mentions Cain or Abel. The Redactor added this line [i.e., 4.25-26] explaining that Seth was born to Adam and Eve as a replacement for Abel, thus reconciling the two sources.”
Ok Mike, here is a heart question.
Do you believe that Enos, Adam’s grandson, specifically called on the name of Yahweh?
I believe a rightly calling in faith upon Yahweh is what separates genuine believers from nonbelievers. I see this thread from Genesis to Revelation.
And though not for the same reasons as Friedman, I think 4:25-26 logically and beautifully tie chapters 4 and 5 together. It is what disguishes the seventh man from Adam through Seth’s line from the seventh man from Adam through Cain’s line.