Psalm 8:4-6

[Sleeping in EQ]

The KJV renders these verses:

4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?

5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet.


The Septuagint version of these verses, the version used by early Christians, is quoted in Hebrews 2:6-8, and uses the term "angels" in verse 5. This term eventually made it into the Latin manuscripts, and eventually into the KJV.

What I find interesting in all of this is that the Hebrew OT uses the term "elohim" instead of "angels" in verse 5.

The NRSV renders the verse: "Yet you have made them a little lower than God..." and indicates in a footnote "Or than the divine beings or angels. Heb. elohim.

The conservative, but very literal, NASB reads: "Yet You have made him a little lower than God..."

The ESV reads: "Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings..." with a footnote declaring that, "Or than God; Septuagint than the angels."

The ever-popular NIV compromises with: "You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings..." and forgoes any footnote.

I can't help but think that Psalm 82:6, where even the KJV translates the term "elohim" as "gods" when declaring, "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High," and Genesis 1:26, with it's famous use of "us," suggest that the Hebrew OT's use of "elohim" in Psalm 8 need not be considered anti-biblical. It certainly might have been thought of as putting humans too close to God.

A significant bone of contention here seems to be whether or not every time "elohim" is used in the plural, "angels," or "God and angels" are being referred to. To assume that "angels" or "God and angels" is always meant seems wholly axiological to me, as does it's very selective translation. Why would the Jews in John 10 want to stone Jesus over referencing the Psalm 82 passage?

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

A significant bone of contention here seems to be whether or not every time "elohim" is used in the plural, "angels," or "God and angels" are being referred to. To assume that "angels" or "God and angels" is always meant seems wholly axiological to me, as does it's very selective translation. Why would the Jews in John 10 want to stone Jesus over referencing the Psalm 82 passage?

Interesting. Sounds like some philological study needs to be done, but, as you point out, I wonder if scholars will be able to identify the various meanings, since the word is clearly ambiguous. At least, we can conclude that 'angels' had entered the tradition well before the time of Christ.

The verses remind me a little of the choral Hymn to Man in Sophocles' Antigone:

[332-368] Wonders are many, and none is more wonderful than man. . . . Earth, too, the eldest of the gods, the immortal, the unwearied, he wears away to his own ends, turning the soil with the offspring of horses as the plows weave to and fro year after year. The light-hearted tribe of birds and the clans of wild beasts and the sea-brood of the deep he snares in the meshes of his twisted nets, and he leads them captive, very-skilled man. He masters by his arts the beast who dwells in the wilds and roams the hills. He tames the shaggy-maned horse, putting the yoke upon its neck, and tames the tireless mountain bull. Speech and thought fast as the wind and the moods that give order to a city he has taught himself, and how to flee the arrows of the inhospitable frost under clear skies and the arrows of the storming rain. He has resource for everything. Lacking resource in nothing he strides towards what must come. From Death alone he shall procure no escape, but from baffling diseases he has devised flights. Possessing resourceful skill, a subtlety beyond expectation he moves now to evil, now to good. (Jeb's translation)

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

A significant bone of contention here seems to be whether or not every time "elohim" is used in the plural, "angels," or "God and angels" are being referred to. To assume that "angels" or "God and angels" is always meant seems wholly axiological to me, as does it's very selective translation. Why would the Jews in John 10 want to stone Jesus over referencing the Psalm 82 passage?

An (unorthodox) Evangelical scholar, Greg Boyd, devotes a whole chapter in his book God at War to examine the "gods" in the OT. He contends that the "angels," or "gods,"

have a great deal of autonomous power...For this reason, as well as out of simple fidelity to Scriptures, it seems advisable to retain the word "god," over the word "angel."

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

An (unorthodox) Evangelical scholar, Greg Boyd, devotes a whole chapter in his book God at War to examine the "gods" in the OT. He contends that the "angels," or "gods,"

Thanks, CC. I'll check it out.