JBL 131, no. 2 (2012): 221-239 Death of the o°75x in Psalm 82 JAMES M. TROTTER | Trotter@murdoch eduau ‘Murdoch University, Murdoch WA 6150, Australia As has frequently been noted in the substantial literature on Psalm 82, there are few psalms that have raised more interpretive debate, despite the high degree of certainty about the text.! Hans-Joachim Kraus highlights the interpretive diffi- culties with the following statement: “Psalm 82 is of such exceptional character in the Psalter that it could well be impossible to provide interpretations that are in every respect satisfactory”? The identity of the DTS in vv. 1 and 6 is central to these interpretive difficulties, These 0'717x, who are condemned to die for their failure to maintain justice in the realm of human affairs, have been a contentious issue in the translation and interpretation of this psalm at least since the time of the ancient versions. I will propose here thet the identification of these "78 as divine kings raling over the nations provides a better explanation for the content of the psalm than previously proposed identifications of these figures as human judges, tyrannical foreign rulers abusing subjugated Israel/Judah, or deities of the pan- theon other than Yahweh. There are three issues that are central to any interpreta- tion of this psalm: first, the setting for the event described in the psalm; second, Yahwel’s role in the event; and third, the identity of the D5 mentioned in w. 1 and 6. Although the last of these issues is the primary focus here, the other issues are so integral to the identity of the D»75x that they will also be discussed in some detail. 2 Julian Morgenstern, “The Mythological Background of Psalm 82” HUCA 14 (1938): 29 30; E. Theodore Mullen, The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature (HSM 245 Chico, CA: Scholars Press. 1980), 228: Simon B, Parker, “The Beginning of the Reign of God: Pralm 82 as Myth and Liturgy” RB 102 (1995): 32-33. Kraus, Psalms 60-150: A Coramentary (trans. Hilton C. Oswald; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989), 155. 221222 Journal of Biblical Literature 131, no, 2 (2012) 1. Tae Serrine: 98 mya Psalm 82:1 locates the events of the psalm 9X 7y3. Due in large part to the discoveries of similar language describing divine assemblies in texts from Mesopotamia and Ugarit over the last ca, 150 years, most scholars today interpret this reference to the 9 Ty as an example of this broader ancient Near Eastern phenomenon. Divine council scenes in ancient Near Eastern texts are the location for dis cussion, decision making, and vital activities of the gods (such as creation). In Mesopotamian texts there are numerous references to divine council scenes. Almost all of the key events and decisions in Enuma elish, for example, are dis- cussed, planned, and affirmed in the context of a council of gods. Similarly, in response to the crisis created by the refusal of the Igigi to continue their hard labor, the gods gather in the assembly in Atahasis to discuss the issue and create a solu- tion (tablet I). In Ugaritic texts also, the gods gather in the divine council or the council of El for comparable activities. For example, there is an extended narrative set in the divine council (phr.m‘d) in the Baal Cycle (KTU 1.2.1; cf. 1.4.11). The gods are also depicted gathering in an assembly to decree their judgment on humanity in the Baleam texts from Deir “Alla, These depictions of divine council scenes from other ancient Near Eastern texts provide the cultural context for under~ standing the council scene presented in Psalm 82. There are also several similar depictions of divine council scenes in the Hebrew Bible. In 1 Kings 22 and Job 1-2, the chief deity is seated on a throne and the other members of the council come into his presence and stand before him (1 Kgs 22:19; Job 1:6; 2:1). The scene in Zech 3:1-6:8 is depicted in divine council imagery. Both the supplicant and the accuser come and stand before Yahweh/the angel of Yahweh to receive the deity’s judgment. In the divine council scene of Isaiah’ temple vision report (ch. 6), Yahweh is seated on a throne surrounded by seraphim. These scenes from both biblical texts and a variety of ancient Near East- ‘emliterature provide clear parallels with Psalm 82 and a firm basis for the judgment that the psalm represents a similar divine council scene. It is still necessary, how- ever, to determine the leadership of the council as itis presented in this text. The precise meaning of the phrase 5x n7y hinges on the significance of the term 58, which can be both a generic noun used in reference to any god and the personal name of the deity, El. Ifthis term is understood in the sense of a generic noun, then the identity of the head of this assembly must be determined from other clues in the text. In this interpretation, 98 My could be a designation for a divine council with Yahweh as the chief deity in the midst of an assembly of other gods. The identity of these gods must then be determined with this specific setting in mind. On the other hand, if the term is used here as a proper noun naming the West Semitic deity El, then we have an interesting example of a psalm depictingTrotter: Death of the DON in Psalm 82 223 Yahweh in a subordinate role to another West Semitic deity. This provides a very different mythological context for understanding the participants in the psalm and may well lead to a different determination of the identity of these gods. ‘Some scholars have indeed interpreted the term 9X as a generic noun here and translate the phrase as “divine council” or “assembly of God” For example, Marvin F. Tate suggests that 5x does not refer here to El as a deity distinct from Yahweh but “is used as an epithet for Yahweh”? He attempts to reinforce this inter- pretation by proposing that the first occurrence of t°75s in v. 1 should be replaced by the divine name, m7. This emendation would certainly strengthen the case for rendering 5x as an epithet of Yahweh in this text, but this proposed alteration of the existing text is not convincing. The only basis for this suggested emendation is the location of this psalm in the Elohistic collection of psalms and the assumption that the divine name was replaced here by an ancient editor. This assumption is neither obvious nor necessary. An interesting alternative has been proposed by R. B. Salters, who suggests emending this text to a plural council of gods on the basis of some ancient transla- tions, He contends that the presence of plural translations in the LXX, the Syro- Hexaplar and Aquila, in contrast to the singular in the MT (followed by Symmachus and Jerome), indicates that their Vorlage most likely had the plural, ox mp15 He argues that the plural should be accepted as the older reading of the text because it represents the more difficult reading, He thinks that an ancient translator might changea plural “gods” to a singular “god,” but itis unlikely to happen the other way around, Therefore, the presence of the plural in the translations must reflect a plu- ral in their Vorlage. It is possible, however, to make a case for the alteration of a singular in the Vorlage to a plural in the translations. Such an alteration could reflect a desire on the part of the translators to correct a perceived inconsistency between the constituency of the assembly in v. la (98 My) and the gods (By) being judged by Yahweh in v. Ib. The introduction of the plural in v. 1a would be no more theologically difficult than the existing plural in v. 1b (and v. 6), but would have the effect of introducing consistency between the council of godsin v. 1a and the activ- ity among the gods in v. Ib. In contrast, the emendation of one plural without changing the second would not achieve the supposed intention of removing the potential theological difficulty. In each case, any theological difficulty would still need tobe ameliorated in the particular interpretation of these terms. On this basis, the existing singular of the MT is preferred to Salters’s proposed plural. Otto Eissfeldt suggested reading 5x rmp here as a reference to the council of EL with Yahweh represented as a participant deity. He claimed that “this psalm 2 Tate, Psalms 51-100 (WBC 20; Dallas: Wore Books, 1990), 329. ‘ Tbid sf. Kraus, Psalms 60-150, 154; Mullen, Divine Counci, 230; Matitiahu Teevat, “God and the Gods in Assembiy: An Interpretation of Psalm 82,” HUCA 40-41 (1969-70): 126. 9 Salters, “Psalm 82,1 and the Septuagint,” ZAW 105 (1991): 226.224 Journal of Biblical Literature 131, no. 2 (2012) clearly presents Yahweh in the congregation of El, ie. in the council of gods led by EI, or rather as accuser against the other gods”* He suggested that Yahweh was regarded as subordinate to El in the early, mythological tradition but that Yahweh ‘was of primary importance to the Israelitesas their particular deity. Unfortunately, Eissfeldt did not provide a detailed explanation for this interpretation but asserted that the setting in 8 rp was sufficient evidence to support such a reading of the text. Along similar lines, Erich Zenger noted, “With the location ‘in the assembly of El/in the assembly of the gods’ the psalm immediately evokes the traditional ‘Canaanite idea of a hierarchical assembly of the gods in which Elsits on his throne surrounded by gods as his heavenly council” He indicated also that the under- standing of the context as the council of El is further confirmed by the reference to the condemned gods as “sons of Elyon” in ¥, 6. Elyon isa common epithet of El, so the combination of this identification of the deities as sons of Elyon and a context identified as 9X Ip provides strong support for reading this as a council of El in which Yahweh is a participant deity rather than the chief god. James Stokes Ackerman has discussed the issue of the setting in the 5’ mp at length, and he objects strongly to Eissfeldt’s reading of this text as a depiction of the council of El with Yahweh functioning as one of the members of the council.® Although he also rejects Eissfeldt’s reconstruction of the history of Israelite reli- gion, the key interpretive issue regarding whether this is a council of Elis the func- tion of Yahweh in Psalm 82. In Simon Parker’s analysis, based on his understanding of the significance of the verb 2293 in v. 1, Yahweh functionsas both prosecutor and judge in Psalm 82.9 As will be demonstrated in the next section, this is based on a misunderstanding of the use of 33 here. | will argue that the specific use of 383 in this psalm requires that Yahweh be understood as functioning as a subordinate to EL In light of the similarities between the terminology and characters depicted in this psalm and in divine council scenes from Mesopotamia, Ugarit, and Deir‘Alla, ‘the evidence best supports interpreting 98 MT) here as a reference to the council of El with Yahweh represented as a participant deity within the assembly led by El. ‘The following analysis of Yahweh's role in this psalm will provide additional sup- port for interpreting the seiting as a council scene with El as presiding deity. ‘ Fissfeldt, “Bl and Yahweh. JSS 1 (1956): 29-20. " Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zeager, Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psaims 51-100 (Herrmeneis; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 332. # Ackerman, “An Exegetical Study of Psalm 82" (Ph.D, diss. Harvard University, 1966) 306-36, * Parker, “Beginning of the Reign of God” 532-39.‘Trotter: Death of the DDN in Psalm 82 225 Il, Tue Rove oF YAHWEH IN THE COUNCIL ‘As was argued above, Psalm 82 depicts an event in the council of El in which Yahweh is a participant deity rather than the presiding deity. That argument was based on the specific name given to the council (08 Mp), the similarities between this text and divine council scenes from neighboring cultures, and the identifica- tion of the D'TDX as sons of Elyon (v. 6), Elyon being a typical epithet of El. If Yahweh is not the presiding deity, then the description of Yahwehs role should reflect that fact, Some analyses of Psalm 82 simply assert that Yahweh is depicted here as the head of the divine council, and on this basis 23 is translated as “preside over” or something similar. The basic argument in support of this interpretation is thatit is required by the both the content of the psalm and the general context of ancient Judahite society." But this argument is unpersuasive, since it simply assumes its own conclusion. We know that Yahweh was regarded as the chief (or only) god in the divine council in ancient Judah, so that must be the case in this psalm. The growing awareness of similarities between the religion of ancient Judah and other ‘West Semitic cultures of the Iron Age makes such a simple assertion implausible. E, Theodore Mullen makes a case that this verse presents Yahweh as assum- ing his position as judge and leader of the council. He highlights the group of texts in which Yahweh functions as the chief deity in a council of gods and presents them as parallels to Ps 82:1. Although these texts are important for the light they shed on the general concept of a divine council, Mullen fails to make a distinction between those texts which present Yahweh as seated in the midst of the other gods and this text, which presents Yahweh as standing among the other gods! A more thorough argument is presented by Ackerman and Matitiahu Tsevat, both of whom distinguish between the different postures represented in these texts.!2 In particular, they directly address the issue of the interpretation of the verb © Charles Augustus Briggs and Emile Grace Briggs, A Critical and Exegeical Comment (on the Book of Psalms (2 vols ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1907). 2:215. Cyrus H. Gordon, “His tory of Religion in Psalm 82? in Biblical and Near Eastern Studies: Fstschriftin Honor of William Sanford LaSor (ed. Gary A. Tuttle; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 130.) H. Eaton is ambiguous in his treatment of this issue. He translates the verb “stands” but describes the scene as Yahweh “presiding at the divine assembly” (The Psalms: A Historical and Spiritual Commentary wit an Introduction and New Translation (London/New York: Continuum, 2005), 296-97). » Mullen, Divine Counci, 231 Cf Bthard S. Gerstenberger. who notes that God is standing in the council and asks “why he is not ‘sitting? as befits the leader ofthe divine assembly” He suggests that this pose indicates that judgment has begun (Psalms: Part 1, with an Introduction to Cultic Poetry (OTL M4; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 113).226 Journal of Biblical Literature 131, no. 2 (2012) ‘auiin v. L. Ackerman acknowledges that in some texts (1 Kgs 22:19; Job 1:6; 2:1; Isa 6; Zech 4:15; 6:15) the sovereign is represented as seated and the other participants stand, but he argues that in other texts (Gen 37:7-11; Isa 3:13-15; Amos 9:1-4) the superior figure stands." Ackerman, however, fails to note that there is a key syn tactic difference between these texts. ‘Teevat also concedes that sitting is the normal posture of human judges and of Yahweh in the divine council, but he suggests that in Psalm 82 “standing isa sign of an extraordinary event. The meaning, then, of the psalms opening is that what might normally be a routine assembly. where the gods report or participate in delib- erations, has unexpectedly turned into a tribunal; God has stood up to judge the assembled."!4 The evidence that he marshals in favor of this proposal, however, is Jess than convincing. He cites 2 handful of examples to demonstrate his proposed extraordinary event of judgment (Pss 12:6; 76:10; Isa 3:13; 33:10), but none of these texts involves divine council scene.'5 In fact, the genres and settings of these texts are all very different from Psalm 82. Of the four texts he cites, Isa 3:13 has the strongest similarities to Psalm 82, since it also involves Yahweh bringing accusations against a group. The similarities, however, are only superficial. Isaiah 3:13 is the opening verse of a prophetic lawsuit and makes use ofall ofthe typical language and actions expected for that genre, In this text Yahweh rises as the accuser or prose- cutor to bring charges against “the elders and princes of his people” (3:14). Although both Psalm 82 and the Isaian text present Yahweh in a standing position and making accusations, the genre and setting of Isa 3:13-15 are substantially dif- ferent from those of the psalm, Thus, none of the texts cited by Tsevat provides a good parallel to the genre, setting, and content of Psalm 82 and therefore cannot be used to elucidate the significance of ayy in Ps 82:1.!6 Clearly, the understanding of the verb 23 in v. 1 is a central issue in the inter- pretation of this psalm. Is this verb used here to depict Yahweh presiding over the assembly of gods or standing in an assembly of gods with Elas the presiding deity2"” In the texts of the Hebrew Bible, 293 is typically used to indicate that the subject of the verb is standing as opposed to sitting (some examples of this typical usage include Gen 18:2; 24:13, 43; 37:7; Exod 5:20; 7:155 15:85 17:9; 33:8; 34:25 Num 16:275 Deut 29:10; Judg 18:16, 17; 1 Sam 1:26; Ps 39:5; 45:9 [Heb. 45:10); Prov 8:2; Lam 2:4). Those who propose translating Ps 82:1a as “God presides in .. .” or something similar must make a case either fora technical usage ofthe verb or that the context "> Ackerman, “An Exegetical Study of Psalm 82” 307-13, "4 Teevat, “God and the Gods in Assembly” 127. Also noting the unusual nature of Yahweh standing in the counct, Tate essentially follows Tsevat’s argument on this point (Tate, Psalms 51~ 100, 335). 'S Cf. Parken, “The Beginning ofthe Reign of Gods” 538 n.21. "© It should also be noted that [sa 3:13 is the only one of these texts that uses the verb 283. Parker has 2 good summary of those scholars who read v.1 with Yahweh presiding over the assembly and those who read it with Yahweh as a member of the assembly “Beginning of the Reign of God” 534, esp. nn. 7and 8).‘Trotter: Death of the DDN in Psalm 82 27 demands an unusual translation in this instance.'* For example, Mitchell Dahood reads 23 as “presides.”!” He supports this translation by suggesting a parallel with 1 Sam 19:20, where Samuel is presented as leading the group of prophets. The syn- tactical features of | Sam 19:20 are different from Psalm 82, however. In that case, ‘3¥3 occurs with a gal participle of toy and is followed by the preposition by with the objects indicated by a pronominal suffix attached to the preposition. This is an example ofa small number of texts in which the use of by ax2 does indicate some- one functioning in a position of authority over someone else. A similar example is the servant of Boaz, who is “in charge of ['9p 3¥3] the reapers” (Ruth 2:56). These uses of 83, however, are uncommon. When 2¥1 is used in the description of a group that includes a judge or ruler, it functions to indicate the location of those being judged or ruled relative to the one who is judge or ruler. The following texts demonstrate this use of 393: Moses is seated to judge all the people standing around him (Exod 18:14); Saul sits under the tamarisk tree, while his servants stand around him (1 Sam 22:6-7); Saul orders the guard standing around him to kill the priests of Nob (1 Sam 22:17); the servants of, David standing around him join in his mourning the death of Absalom (2 Sam 13:31). The typical uses of 243 cither indicate someone or something standing with. no implications of hierarchical relationship, or, when such a relationship is indi- cated, 381 is used to indicate the position of the inferior relative to the superior. In Ps 82:1a, 292 is the only verbal element in the clause and, rather than being fol- lowed by 99 to indicate an object, itis followed by -2, indicating a location. The use of au in this specific setting, the council of E, is best interpreted as another example of the verb indicating the inferior standing before the superior. In Psalm 82 Yahweh and the other deities stand in the presence of the superior deity. This is the approach advocated by Zenger, who notes, “First the action of the God of Israelis introduced with the action verb (or participle?) ‘he stands’ (2¥3). He is not thus characterized as the ‘presider’ at the assembly of the gods, but as the prosecutor?# He reads Psalm 82.as a depiction of the God of Israel standing with the other gods in a judicial assembly before an unnamed judge. Parker also argues that the use of 24 in v. 1 indicates that Yahweh is not functioningas the head of the assembly here. He notes that in both divineand human judicial and administrative contexts, the judge/ruler sits and the other participants stand. “The weight of this evidence leads to the conclusion that the language of v. 1, together with the context of vv. 2-4, indicates that God is not here presiding over the divine assembly as judge, but rather stands among the gods to pronounce a charge of injustice”?! '* The frst occurrence of O71'N in v. 1s the subject of «singular verb and so must refer to ingle deity rather than plural gods as in the second occurrence. °° Dahood, Psalms: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (3 vols. AB 16, 17, 17.4; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966-70), 2:269. 2 Hlassfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2,333. + Parker, “Beginning of the Reign of God” 536-38; quotation from 938228 Journal of Biblical Literature 131, no. 2 (2012) There are a number of pictorial representations of chief gods or gatherings of gods from the ancient Near East that provide additional evidence to support read- ing Yahwehs role in Psalm 82 as a participant in the assembly rather than as the ruler of the assembly. Some of these images, collected by Othmar Keel, depict the most senior god sitting with other gods or lesser beings standing around or in front of the seated, superior god. Note in particular image 42 (a cylinder seal from Mari depicting the king of the gods seated on a mountain throne); image 43 (Ea enthroned in the fresh water with other divine figures standing or kneeling around him); image 283 (the king standing before El, who is seated on his throne); image 284 (a seated figure of El); image 285 (Ea seated on a throne with inferior deities standing and presenting a prisoner to him): and image 286 (Shamash seated on a throne surrounded by inferior beings)? These images correspond to the textual evidence presented previously. In gatherings of gods in the ancient Near East, the highest deity is seated and other gods stand in the presence of the seated god.2? This evidence indicates that Psalm 82 depicts the council of El with Yahweh stand- ing among the other gods in the presence of the seated El, who presides over the assembly. TH. Wao Are THESE D'77R? In light of the preceding examination of the context and activities depicted in Psalm 82, it is now possible to consider specifically the identity of those characters designated by the term D°75s in wy. 1 and 6. The previous identifications proposed for these characters fall into two main categories: human judicial officials or divine beings. The following analysis will demonstrate that both of these identifications can be supported by some elements in the psalm but that they both are also incon- gruous with some aspects of the text. An alternative identification that 2°75R refers here to divine kings will be proposed. This understanding of DOR is preferable because it fits better with all of the elements in the psalm than the alternative read- ings Human Judges Before the discovery and dissemination of Mesopotamian and Ugaritic texts depicting similar divine council scenes, the term D798 in Ps 82:1, 6 was often inter- 2 Othmar Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and ‘he Book of sal (trans, Timothy J. Hallet; London: SPCK, 1978). 2 A similar convention may have been observed also in ancient Egypt. “In iconography important gods are often singled out by being enthroned and helding the attributes of life’ and ‘power in their hands, in contrast with the mass of other divine beings” (Erik Hornung, Concep- tions of God in Ancient Egypt: The One and the Many {Ithaca, NY-Cornell University Press, 1982], 230-31),‘Trotter: Death of the DDN in Psalm 82 229 preted asa reference to a group of human judges or rulers. The basis for this understanding of ov75x is the supposed parallel between this text and several verses from the Book of the Covenant (Exod 21:6; 22:7-8, 27). The term D'7bR in these texts is sometimes rendered “judges” in ancient translations * based primarily on Exod 22:27. In this text O77 in the first half of the verse was translated as “judges” by some eatly translators to correspond to the occurrence of 873 (“chief? “prince? or “leader”) in the second half of the verse. According to Cyrus Gordon, the most likely origin of this translation is Targum Ongelos. The rendering of DNDN as “judges” in the targum avoided the theological offensiveness of someone reviling God."* A further example of the theological shaping of the targus translation of mymbe in such circumstances is the translation “angel of God” in 1 Sam 28:13. The obvious theological bias in the handling of this term in Ongelos renders the trans- lation in these instances highly suspect. Following the work of Gordon, Anne E. Draffkorn presented a convincing case for interpreting the references to being ‘Drought before the oR in the Book of the Covenant as examples of rituals per~ formed in the presence of the household gods (teraphim [t»D7n}). She pointed to a number of clear parallels involving similar incidents in the Nuzi texts” On the basis of this evidence, it seems likely that these texts from the Book of the Covenant refer to rituals involving household gods and cannot be read as a use of the term DDK to refer to human judges. Consequently, these texts do not provide a viable basis for proposing such a translation of this term in Psalm 8228 Not only is there a lack of evidence for this usage in other texts of the Hebrew Bible, but such a reading would also create a significant interpretive problem in v.6. If trTDR is interpreted as judges in v. 1, and the word refers to the same group in v. 6, then what is the significance of the condemnation expressed in v. 6? As Salters notes, if the word refers to the same group in both verses, “what is so spe- cial about being condemned to die like men if you are already human and expect- ing it anyway?” The specific content of the judgment in vv. 6-7 on those who have been accused in vy. 2-4 requires that their becoming subject to the same death as (other) humans reflects the loss of something that they had possessed. There are no texts that represent divinity and immortality as possessions of human judges, As 2 See the quotation from John Calvin in Kraus, Pais 60-150, 155 n. Ise Salters ("Psalm 82.1 and the Septuagint.” 231) who notes that both the Midrash and Talmud follow this tradition, of translationvinterpretation. * Salters observes that the Peshitta has this translation ("Psalm 82,1 and the Septuagint,” 231). % Gordon, “ELOHIM in its Reputed Meaning of Rulers, Judges” /B1 54 (1935): 149. He also suggests that OYN5N in these instances mast likely refers to DEAN, ® Dratfkorn, “ILANI/ELOHIM? JBI. 76 (1957). 216-24; cf. Kraus, Psulrus 60-150, 155; Tate, Psalms 51-100, 40-41 2 See Salters, “Psalm 82,1 and the Septuagint,” 231. » Ibid, 232,230 Journal of Biblical Literature 131, no. 2 (2012) will be argued below, the only two groups believed to possess these attributes in the ancient Near East were gods and divine kings. The content of vv. 6-7, then, provides further evidence to rule out human judges as the D*7N of wv. 1, 6. “The judges are not divine beings; they lack the paramount quality belonging solely to the gods: immortality.”*° Another potential motivation for the identification of these DYN as judges is the content of vv. 2-4. For example, Julian Morgenstern argued that the content of wy. 2-4 “can refer only to human beings who discharge the judicial function in consciously and grossly corrupt manner:"*! Although his insight that the responsi- bilities identified in wy. 3-4 are best understood within the sphere of human social justice, his identification of the 2758 in the first half of the psalm as judges charged with these responsibilities, combined with the insight that the loss of immortality in wv. 6-7 is an inappropriate punishment of human judges, leads him to posit a highly speculative and improbable redaction history for Psalm 82. He argues that it is just as obvious that vv. 6-7 can refer only to divine beings as itis that w. 2-4 can refer only to human beings >? On this basis he proposes that wv. 2-4 and wv. 6-7 could not have originally belonged to a single composition but rather must have ‘been brought together in this psalm as the result of a complex process of redac- tion.** Such a conclusion lacks any text-critical support and is entirely unneces- sary. Morgenstern is correct to observe the connection between the accusations of vw. 2-4 and human officials, but he does not allow for the possibility that a group of human beings could have been addressed with the divine titles O'719N (gods) and qwby 122 (sons of Elyon) in vv. 6-7. A similar interpretation has been proposed by Herbert Niehr. Like Morgen- stern, Nichr proposes that gods are addressed in vv. 1, 6-7, but that the actions of humans are described in vv. 2-4. Rather than assert complex redactional history ‘on the basis of the apparent inconsistency of these two different groups being addressed, he suggests a deliberate ambiguity. The actions of “Canaanite officials” are criticized in wv. 2-4, and this criticism has a direct impact on the gods they worshiped. Thus, the psalm is a critique of Canaanite rulers and their gods, accord- ing to Niehr. This proposal has the advantage of recognizing that the content of the accusations in vy, 2-4 is better understood within the social realm of the responsibilities of human rulers. It is also superior to the unnecessarily complex 5% Yair Zakovitch, “Psalm 82 and Biblical Exegesis” in Sefer Moshe: The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume. Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, Qumran, and Post-Biblical Judaism (ed.Chaim Cohen, Avi Hurvitz,and Shalom M. Paul; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 223. 3 Morgenstern, “Mythological Background of Psalm 82,” 3. See the discussion in Sslters, “Psalm 82,1 and the Septuagint? 229-30. 33 Morgenstern, “Mythological Background of Psalm 82) 33. >* Ibid, 35-38. 38 Niche, “Gatter oder Menschen-—eine falsche Alternative: Bemerkaungen 2u Ps 82 ZAW 99 (1987): 96-97.Trotter: Death of the D717N in Psalm 82 231 history of composition asserted by Morgenstern, butit still requires an implausible shift of addressees within the text of the psalm. Once it is acknowledged that all of these verses could be addressed to human kings regarded as divine, the apparent dissonance between them disappears and the proposals of Morgenstern and Niehr to explain an apparent address to two different groups become unnecessary. Other Deities in the Divine Assembly With the discovery of Mesopotamian and Ugaritic texts depicting a divine council, it has become increasingly common to identify the DION of Ps 82:1, 6 as, gods participating in an assembly of gods. As was indicated above, there area num- ber of texts that present a similar scenario of gods meeting in a council of gods both from the Hebrew Bible and from other cultures of the ancient Near East. The interpretation of this scene as an example of a divine assembly of a pantheon of deities has become almost irresistible.» Certainly, the parallels between Psalm 82 and numerous other texts depicting divine council scenes are persuasive. As was indicated above, the most likely inter- pretation of the setting represented in the psalm is the council of El. Therefore, the most common conclusion about the D'79N of wy. 1b, 6 is to identify them as all deities other than Yahweh, who is acting to accuse and condemn them. For exam- ple, Zenger claims that this verse “presupposes the common ancient Near Eastern notion that the world is based on a divine order of law that is meant to bedefended and carried out by the gods within the territories assigned to them” He argues that wy. 3-4 adapt traditional ancient Near Eastern topoi describing divine obligations, but that they are radically reinterpreted by their application to all deities, rather than the individual “law deities” The only textual evidence cited to support this connection between the assignment of territories to different deities and the responsibilities of those deities to maintain social justice is Deut 32:8-9. While this text does represent the concept of various territories or peoples having been assigned by Elyon to specific deities, it does not connect these territorial assign- ments with topoi of divine obligations. It also leaves open the question of the responsibilities of the far more numerous nonnational or nonterritorial deities. This isa key issue in the interpretation of Psalm 82. If these traditional topoi have been reassigned to all deities in this psalm, this would represent a very unusual and unclear use of the tradition. The generalization of obligations for social justice to all deities would be nonsensical. The vast majority of deities in the ancient Near ° See Lowell K. Handy, “One Problem Involved in Translating to Meaning: An Example of, Acknowledging Time and Tradition? SJOT 10 (1996): 17:"The second t'7bx, however, isa body of something among which one can stand. The plain, first-year vocabulary, meaning of OX, should be understood and we have a pantheon” 7 Hessfeld and Zenges, Psalms 2, 333,232 Journal of Biblical Literature 131, no, 2 (2012) East had such limited abilities and spheres of influence that they could not rea- sonably be included in a judgment on the gods for their failure to maintain order in society and provide care for the poor and weak. They were simply not regarded as having these responsibilities. Ifthe idea is a more limited transfer of the powers normally associated with chief deities of the various states of the ancient Near East to Yahweh, then why are all the gods condemned as a single group? There is no distinction made in this reading of the text between those gods who could be argued to have had such responsibilities and the vast majority of gods, whose responsibilities and spheres of influence were limited to very narrow and specific aspects of the functioning of the cosmos. A further issue that arises in this interpretation of Psalm 82 concerns Yah- welis responsibility for the existing state of affairs. If this is a judgment on all deities for an existing state of social injustice and the oppression of the poorest and weak- est members of human society, then why is Yahweh exempted from this judgment? Moreover, what about the head of the pantheon, El? Is he included in this judg- ‘ment or excluded from it? This is particularly an issue for those interpreters who view Yahweh as both head of the divine assembly and judge of the gods for their failure to maintain social justice. Why is Yahweh not equally responsible for these failings as head of the council? In both situations, a generic charge against “the gods” should include all gods, Interpreting the term D'OR as a reference to tradi- tional gods of the pantheon other than Yahweh in this context is not very satisfac- tory. There are too many issues raised by such an interpretation that cannot be adequately addressed. Finally, the issue of the death of gods must be addressed. According to Tate, “A god could be killed if he became rebellious and failed to carry out his functions; as, for example, Kingu in Enuma elig (4.119-28); “We-ila in Atra-hasis (1.4.123- 24); however, the claim that one god renders a whole group of gods to be mortal seems to be without parallel elsewhere ...”* These examples do indicate that gods could die at the hands of other deities, though it is clearly a highly unusual event. Similarly, the slaughter of Tiamat by Marduk in Enuma elif occurs only as the result ofa direct threat to the other gods. All three of these examples have a very specific setting in the creation of the cosmos and humankind, so it may be dangerous to generalize from them to a broader conception of the potential mortality of gods. In the case of “We-ila in Atra-hasis, there is no indication or insinuation of wrongdo- ing, The death is represented as a necessary sacrifice to achieve the creation of humanity, a necessary component in the functioning of the cosmos. Similarly, Tiamat and Kingu are killed as @ consequence of their threat against the continued existence of the other gods and asa precondition of the creation of the cosmos and humankind, The circumstances depicted in these texts are so strikingly different 2 Tate, Pealms 51-100, 338; of, Kraus, Psalins 60-150, 157.‘Trotter: Death of the ON in Psalm 82 233 from Psalm 82 that Tate's judgment that this text is without parallel seems appro- priate, ifthe search for parallels is limited to the death of gods of the pantheon. As will be argued in the next section, the faults of the Ov75N specified in vv. 3-4 are much more suited to accusations against human kings than deities in the divine council. Ifthe term Dynbs refers to human kings considered to have divine status, then there is a clear and well-defined group accused of failure to fulfill responsibilities that clearly belonged to them in the cultures of the ancient Near East. There are also other texts depicting the condemnation of kings with divine status that provide interesting parallels to Psalm 82. Divine Kings A careful analysis of the content of both the accusations ageinst the DTS. and the threatened punishment provides an alternative identification. The follow- ing analysis indicates that the best “fit” for the identification of the O78 in Palm 82 is divine kings, that is, human kings who were considered to have divine status There have been o few previous proposals that have identified the DDN of Psalm 82 as divine kings or kings who thought of themselves as divine, but none of these has proven persuasive. Bernhard Duhm interpreted this psalm asa Pharisaic polemic against the Hasmonean rulers of the second and early first centuries B.ce.” There are a number of difficulties with this suggestion. There is no evi- dence to support the idea that the Hasmonean rulers considered themselves divine. Inaddition, the assertion in v.6 that these rulers were once considered divine seems highly unlikely to have originated from the Pharisaic community of that period. ‘The argument of Moses Buttenwieser, who views this psalm as a condemna- tion of deified kings of the Hellenistic period, has more to commend it. He deals with the potential difficulty of v. 6 by placing the judgment of the psalm in the mouth of the psalmist, so itis the psalmist who was confused and thought thet these kings were gods but then realizes this was an error: While this interpreta- tion is more persuasive than that of Duhm, they both place the composition of the psalm in a very late period, The strong parallels with the much earlier divine coun- cil texts both in the Hebrew Bible and in the broader ancient Near Eastern envi- ronment make such a late date improbable. The following analysis will highlight features of the psalm that are best understood in relation to. criticism of and judg- ment upon divine kings and will propose an earlier context for such a critique that is more consonant with the content of the psalm and its parallels with other bibli- cal and ancient Near Eastern texts. » Dum, Die Psalmen (2nd eds KHC 14; Tubingen: J.C B. Moh, 1922), 211, © Buttenwieses, The Psalms, Chronologically Treated with a New Translation (1938; rept, [New York: Ktay, 1969), 764-79.234 Journal of Biblical Literature 131, no. 2 (2012) The Accusations of Verses 2-4 Best Understood as Failure in regard to Royal Responsibilities As was indicated in the discussion above, other scholars have recognized that the accusations detailed in wy. 2-4 have their primary social setting in the ancient Near East in the realm of royal responsibilities! Zenger observes that the specific obligations mentioned in wv. 3-4 are typical topoi of divine responsibilities in the ancient Near East, but he also notes that the groups mentioned come “under the special protection of God (or of the king as the one holding God's mandate)? ‘While it is correct to say that such groups come under special divine protection, the execution of these obligations is a specific duty of kings. This is not to suggest that gods were not viewed as the source of these social values; deities were the author- izing power behind the values, but implementation of them within a society was a royal obligation—and failure to do so was a royal failure, not a divine one. ‘The responsibility of kings in regard to protection of the poor and marginal ized in society is indicated in several biblical texts. In Ps 45:6b~7a the king's scepter is a scepter of equity (17a) and he loves righteousness (272) and hates wicked- ness (927). In contrast to the imputed failing in regard to these values in Psalm 82, Psalm 72 not only calls on the support of God to help the king fulfill these obliga- tions (wv. 1-4), butit explicitly praises the king for achieving them (vv. 12-14). The royal hymn in Isa 9:27, whether a coronation hymn or a song celebrating the birth of a royal heir, also reflects the importance of these values in royal ideology. In v. 7 itis said that the “child” will establish and uphold the kingdom of David with jus- tice (v8) and righteousness (7177¥). Similarly, these values are a dominant theme in the description of the shoot from the stump of Jesse (Isa | 1:1-5) and are alsoa key aspect of the prophetic critique of the rulers of the nation in Mic 3:9-12. Along similar lines, the reaction of Danel to the birth of an heir to the throne in the Epic of Aqhat is to return to the fulfillment of these specific royal duties. Danel “[glets up and sits by the gateway, Among the chiefs on the threshing floor; Takes care of the case of the widow, Defends the need of the orphan” (KTU 117.V.6-8)4 Parker has provided a valuable insight into the parallels between Psalm 82, the Kirta text (KTU 1.16.VL41-54), and 2 Sam 15:2-6. There are particularly strong connections among the texts on the issue of royal responsibility for the mainte- nance of a just society. In all three texts, the same topoi of royal responsibility to * Morgenstern, “Mythological Background of Psalm 82" 31-- schen,’ 95-98. © Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 334 © [have recently argued that Psalm 45 should be read as a coronation psalm: se James M. Trottes, “The Genre and Setting of Psalm 457" ABR 57 (2008): 34-46. * Quotations from Aqhat are from Usaritic Narrative Poetry (trans. Mark S. Smith etal; ed. Simon B Parker; WAW 8; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 49-80, ‘ Parker, “Beginning of the Reign of God,” 543~48, See also Dahood, Psalms, 2:269; Tate, Paals 51-100, 339. Both have discussed the similarities between this psalm and the Kita text. } Nicht, “Gotter oder Men-Trotter: Death of the DDR in Psalm 82 235 care for the poor and marginalized are cited as justification for the (attempted) removal ofa reigning king(s). Yassib accuses Kirta of neglecting the royal respon- sibilities of providing protection and justice for the poor and marginalized in soci- ety. “You don't pursue the widow's case, You don’t take up the wretched’s claim. You don't expel the poor’s oppressor. You don't feed the orphan who faces you, Nor the widow who stands at your back” (KTU 1.16,VL45-50). On the basis of these accu- sations of failure to perform essential royal responsibilities, Yassib demands that Kirta abdicate in his favor: “Step down—and I'll be king! From your rule—I'll sit on the throne!” (KTU 1.16.V152-54), In addition, there is an underlying ideology of divine kingship in the Kirta text that provides additional linkages with Psalm 82. “How can you, father, die like a mortal” (1.16.L3-5, 17~19; 1.16.11.40-42). “Gods, after all—do they die? The Gentle One’s son—won't he live?” (1.16.1.22-23; 1.16.11.43-44). These texts repre- sent the closest parallels to Psalm 82 from the ancient Near East. The similarities strongly support reading the biblical psalm as a judgment on human kings con- sidered divine rather than as a judgment on the gods of the heavenly pantheon. ‘The accusations begin with a rhetorical question (v. 2) that functions as an introduction to the charges (vv. 3-4). Willem . Prinsloo has highlighted the con- nections between these verses, noting the way in which the repetitions of Dw", (“wicked”) in wv. 2, 4 and 97 (“weak”) in vy, 3, 4 function to bind vy, 2-4 into a coherent unit, which he describes as an inclusio, He continues by noting a number of elements that bind vv. 3-4 tightly together with a parallel construction of the verses.” The combination of the introductory, rhetorical question in v. 2 and the detailed accusations that provide the specific content of the failings of the D*75N (vv. 3-4) creates a highly focused, poetic construction.** The phrase 18Wh DW 381 in v. 2 also indicates a context involving judges or rulers acting in the human social world (“and show partiality to the wicked,” NRSV). Zenger suggests two possible interpretations of the phrase: cither asa ref- erence to unjustified acquittals (cf. Deut 16:18-20) or indicating a general prefer- cence for the wicked in everyday life (cf. Gen 40:13, 19). Both of these suggestions are problematic if the D'7x in this psalm are identified as (heavenly) deities in the council of El, since these readings assume a continual and repeated interaction “© Quotations from Kirta are from the translation by E. Greenstein in Parker, Ugaritic Nar- rative Poetry, 9-48. © Prinsloo, “Psalm 82: Once Agein, Gods or Men?” Bib 76 (1995): 223. % As indicated by Prinsloo (“Psalm 82, 223-74), the elements that bind these two verses together were noted already by Peter van der Lugt, Strfsche Structuren in de Bijbel:-Hebreeuse Poécie: De geschiedents van het onderzoek en een bijdrage tot de theorievorming omntrent de stro~ {fenkouw van de Psalmen (Kampen: Kok, 1980), 341; and Tsevat, God and the Godsin Assembly.” 128. ‘© Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 333; Tate interprets the phrase, which he translates liter- ally as, “Vou lift up the faces of the wicked” asa reference to showing “respect, favor, and partial- ity” to the wicked (salms 51-100, 329).236 Journal of Biblical Literature 131, no. 2 (2012) between these D°798 and everyday human aflairs, They are not general accusations of indifference to the activities of the wicked or even an occasional intervention on behalf of the wicked. This is an accusation of intimate involvement in human affairs with a regular and sustained bias on behalf of the wicked, particularly in matters of social justice. This charge is more appropriately directed at human rulers acting in an unjust manner.” ‘The Content of Verse 5 as a Better Fit with Divine Kings than with Gods of the Heaverily Pantheon ‘The change from direct addressin the second person to third person descrip- tion in v. 5 has been another source of significant interpretative debate. This is immediately followed by a return to second person address to the gods in vv. 6-7. ‘The significance ofthis change of person occurring between the accusations against the gods in wy, 2~4 and the statement of the consequences that result ftom their failure to maintain justice in vv. 6-7 has predominantly been determined in rela- tion to decisions about the genre of the psalm.>! ‘As was indicated previously, comparisons of this psalm with legal texts, par- ticularly covenant lawsuit texts, do not provide a good generic comparison. There are far more similarities between this text and vision reports, particularly reports of visions of a divine council scene. In this generic context, the changing voices/speakers of Psalm 82 are not unexpected. Dialogue and interjections by dif- ferent speakers are atypical feature of these reports (cf. 1 Kgs 22:19-23; Job 1:6-1 2:16; Isaiah 6). The difference in Psalm 82 is the lack of identification of the var- ious speakers, but the terse, compact nature of the poetry does not lend itself 10 the sorts of details that fit comfortably into prose narration. In this interpretive context, v. 5 is an example of a typical feature of a vision report, an interjection— in this case by an unidentified speaker—that highlights the failings of these gods from another perspective: they lack knowledge and understanding and walk around in darkness. This interjection also emphasizes the negative impact of their behav- ior, the undermining of the foundations of the earth. These specific accusations of lacking knowledge and understanding and stumbling about in the dark would be extremely rare, if not entirely unique, as charges against gods of the pantheon: they are far more suited to charges against human kings regarded as divine. 50 Dahood represents the extremes of connecting these accusations with a reading of the DT7ON as the chief deities of other nations when he says that the unjust and the wicked of v. 2 “designate the pagans, such asthe Cansanites and Moahites, whose gods are referred ta ina gen ‘eral manner in v8.1" (Psalms, 2209). ** For example, both Eaton and Tsevat interpret this verse as an aside by the judge ina legal case (Eaton, Psalms, 297; Tsevat, “God and the Gods in Assembly,” 128-29).‘Trotter: Death of the OTR in Psalm 82 237 The Consequences of the Failure of the ETDS in Verses 6-7 The accused group are identified as DION for a second time in v. 6. The par- allel of 7x with 7799722 in v. 6 and the consequences of their failures announced in. 7 provide additional evidence as to the identity of this group. Karl Budde wrote the classic treatment of the combination of 4X "38 intro- ducing a clause followed by a second clause introduced with j2¥. He demonstrated quite convincingly that this combination is a fixed formula that carries the force, “T had thought ...., but. .. ”* He provides numerous examples of this usage across a range of texts from the Hebrew Bible. In Psalm 82 the force of this construction is to have Yahweh acknowledge that he had considered this accused group to be both ornx and 7r>y 723, but, in spite of this previous acknowledgment, now they will suffer the consequences detailed in v. 7. In contrast to their former status as gods and sons of Elyon. they will now suffer the fate of mortals—death.» Zenger interprets these verses as a judicial sentence pronouncing the death penalty on “all the gods—except for the God of Israel”®* Such an interpretation, however, requires that the setting in the council of El a setting advocated by Zenger, be ignored.* Ifit were a divine council led by Yahweh, this reading might be pos- sible, The council of Fl, however, seems an unlikely setting in which to present Yah- web passing sentence on all other deities, presumably including El. It would be a strange choice for an ancient author to depict Yahweh passing judgment from a subservient position within a divine council with another deity in charge. If, how- ever, these D'79x are identified as human kings who claim divinity, then the setting is entirely appropriate. Yahweh, standing in the council of Fl, brings judgment against these gods for their failure to maintain the standards of justice and care for the poor and weak that was expected of them. It is not a judgment on all of the DTN of the council, but only on those who are charged with the responsibilities indicated in w. 2-4. Other texts that are often cited to support reading Psalm 82 as a death sen- tence on the gods of the pantheon are also better interpretated as a judgment on kings claiming divine status. J. H. Eaton, for example, interprets this verse as the loss of immortality by heavenly beings. “The immortality of these heavenly beings (cf. Gen 3.5, 22) is forfeit; they will be cast down from office like any human mi 2 Budde, “Ps 82:67 JBL 40 (1821): 39-42; note his comment on this combination: “haben ‘wir ¢s mit einer stehenden Formel zu tun” (pp. 39-40). 3 in contrast, Aubrey R. Johnson translated this phrase, “admit .. (Sacral Kingship in ‘Ancient Israel (Cardiff: University of Weles Press, 1955], 99). Tate prefers this translation alzo, but has argument that it is preferable because it “avoids the difficulty” of having Yahweh admit mis- taken judgments unconvincing (Psalms 51-100, 330, 337-38). 5 Hossield and Zenger, Psalms 2,334; ee also Tsevat, “God and the Godsin Assembly” 129. 55 Hossfeld and Zenger, Peabms 2, 330, 332-33.238 Journal of Biblical Literature 131, no, 2 (2012) who has betrayed his king (cf. the myth of the fallen star or angel reflected in Isa 14.126; Ezek 28.16f.; Rev 12.9).’5* These texts cited by Eaton are not about the loss of immortality by gods of the pantheon but about judgment on kings who consid- ered themselves divine. Although these passages do indeed provide very close par- allels to Psalm 82, they fit best with an interpretation of the DNDN as divine kings. Ezekiel 28:1~10 recounts the downfall of the king of Tyre, who thought of himself as a god but is put in his place by Yahweh, who stresses that he is mortal (v. 2). Isaiah 14:3-21 describes the judgment on the king of Babylon, who attempted to make himself like Elyon but who is brought down to Sheol and even denied a proper burial. Finally, note the description of Antiochus IV in Daniel 11 (esp. vv, 36-39) as one who exalts himself above ell gods. The closest parallels to Psalm 82 in the Hebrew Bible are texts about divine kings (or kings who considered them- selves divine), not texts about gods of the pantheon. Parallels between Psalm 82 and certain Ugaritic texts have also been proposed to explain the loss of mortality of the gods in wy. 6-7. Dahood notes the similarity with the Kirta text.7 As was noted above, however, while these texts provide excel- ent parallels to illuminate Psalm 82 (KTU 1.16..3-5, 17-19; 1.16.11.40~42s 1.16.1.22- 23; 1.16.11.43-44; cf. 1.14.1.41), their content about a divine king fits better with an. interpretation of the terms D798 and yr>y 123 in Psalm 82 as references to divine ings, Note also that Kirta’ identity as the son or scion of El in this text (bnm.ilin 1.16.1.9-11 and bn il in 1.16.1.20-22; 1.16.11.48-49) is an integral component of the recognition that he is divine and not mortal, just as the O'7X are identified as the yoy ‘33 in Ps 82:6. Finally, the pairing of O18 and o»Wn strikes at the arrogance of these divine kings who had failed to maintain the social order as was expected of them. The use of 78 undermines their perception of divinity, “you will die like mortals” The use of wi undermines their perception of their elevated status as kings, ‘you will fall like one of the chieftains? Tate suggests that the reference to the “god intended to be ironic or sarcastic... [have chosen ‘chieftain’ because it is within the range of the meaning of "W and has a pejorative connotation in contemporary English”** His suggestion that sarcasm is intended here seems likely, but the use of “W would not obviously carry the pejorative connotation suggested by Tate if directed at deities who functioned as lesser officials in the council of the chief deity. It would, however, be an excellent choice for a sarcastic description of kings who ‘were accustomed to being addressed as D°75X. They were O719R and py 733, but their failure to maintain the standards of social justice expected of them has resulted in their forfeiture of this status. Now they will die like any human being (like Kirta) and fal like any ordinary official. “ Eaton, Psalms, 297; ef. Dahood, Psalms, 2270; Perker, “Beginning of the Reign of God.” 540; Tate, Psalms 51-100, 331, © Dahood, Psalms, 2270; Gordon, “History of Religion in Pealm 82” 130. ‘Tate, Psalms 51-109, 331.‘Trotter: Death of the DDR in Psalm 82 239 A common criticism of the idea that this psalm refers to divine rulers is expressed by Salters: “.. . if 0758 applies to rulers here, why is it not otherwise applied to them in the Old Testament?”®? This criticism fails to recognize that there are similar uses in the Hebrew Bible. The king is addressed by a vocative use of TDR in Ps 45:7 (Eng. 45:6). Similarly, one of the honorific titles ascribed to the king or royal heir in Isa 9:5 (Eng. 9:6) is 122 5x (“Mighty God”). In addition, there are two or three other texts that may also use a divine title to refer to a royal figure (e.g, Ps 58:1). This is not an attempt to resurrect the excessive claims associated with the myth and ritual school of the mid-twentieth century but a suggestion that the reaction against those excesses may have been an overreaction. This psalm and a handful of other texts indicate that there was a concept of divine kingship in ancient Judah. TV. CONCLUSION The proposal to read Psalm 82 28 a set of accusations against kings who were considered divine and the consequences of their failure to maintain social justice in these matters combines the strengths of the two most common previous read- ‘ings of this text. The older interpretation of the O°79X in Psalm 82 asa reference to human judges provided a good fit with the list of accusations in wv. 2-4 but relied on parallels that were unsustainable under closer scrutiny. The common contem- porary reading of this term as a reference to gods of the pantheon highlights the similarities between this text and other biblical and ancient Near Eastern divine council texts. Such an interpretation, however, is unable to account persuasively for the list of accusations in wy. 2-4 and fails to recognize that the closest parallels are with texts about the responsibilities of kings, both in Israel and the rest of the ancient Near East. Reading the term 71x as a descriptor of human kings who were regarded as divine provides a good explanation for the list of accusations in vy, 2-4 and situates Psalm 82 within the clearest set of parallel texts from Israel, Ugerit, and Mesopotamia. ° Salters, “Psalm 82,1 and the Septuagint; 234,