INTRODUCTION

There is a Star Trek episode, where the original Enterprise crew, James T. Kirk in charge, encountered the last remaining Greek god. When people had stopped believing in them they retreated to a distant planet, and gradually different ones of them, though immortal, begin to fade out. Apollo was the final holdout and he was desperate. He kidnapped the Away Team as captive worshippers, but the crew would not worship the god. Kirk won by laughing at the great god. When the last humans Apollo encountered wouldn't take him seriously, he gave up and tearfully faded away.
 

Many texts in the Hebrew Bible assume a polytheistic universe.⁽¹⁾ Much of the ancient Israelite literature appears to reflect beliefs far more varied than the strict monotheistic assertion that only one God exists, and all other gods are delusional. From the time of Genesis ("Let us make the human in our image, after our likeness,") to the Christian tradition's Holy Trinity, notions of monotheism among the people of the book have been less than strict, and always a bit troubled. Polytheism, in many and varying forms seems to revisit ancient Israelite texts as a kind of Freudian "return of the repressed." Freud claimed that those parts of our psyche we repress come out in other ways. Certain emotional conflicts, if we force them down, return, disguised. Although Israel is officially monotheistic, polytheistic texts come back in the Hebrew Bible like undigested lumps in a monotheistic structure. Notice the following examples:
 

Exodus 15:11 Who is like you, O Yahweh, among the 'elohim? Who is like you, majestic in holiness?
 

Exodus 20:3 You shall have no other 'elohim before me.
 

Deut. 32:8-9 When 'elyon/ apportioned the nations,/when he divided humankind,/ he fixed the boundaries of the peoples/ according to the number of the bene 'elohim;⁽²⁾

/ Yahweh's portion was his people,/ Jacob his allotted share.⁽³⁾

Ps. 95:3 For the Yahweh is a great 'el, / and a great King above all 'elohim.⁽⁴⁾
 

Later readers try to repress these polytheistic texts through creative interpretation, but it comes back in psalms like 82 and 58, which contain in themselves the tension between two entirely different world views, polytheism and monotheism. In this paper I examine these two psalms, which speak prominently of gods other than Yahweh, and I aim to delineate the contours of ancient Israelite theism, what they believed about the gods, at least, as expressed in these psalms.
 

They portray Yahweh as the chief god among his competitors. They picture Yahweh as part of a divine pantheon. Although they speak for universal devotion to Yahweh, they create vivid renderings of these beings they profess not to believe in.

This study is part of a larger project in which I explore the various ways the Israelites represented polytheism and monotheism in their literature. My overall thesis is that Israelite theism, throughout its history, was far more complex than the common understanding, and frequently supports some form of polytheism.
 

I. THE UNDERLYING MYTH

There appears to be a coherent and consistent myth behind Psalms 58 and 82 and other biblical passages. Myths, stories folk tell about their gods, profoundly shape their consciousness. This myth serves as an etiology to explain why Israelites worship only one supreme god, and no other divine beings. The following is a summary of the myth drawing from Psalms 58 and 82. The words are my own:
 

The great god 'el convenes his council. All of the gods assemble. One from within this gathering stands and commands the attention of all. 'el's conspicuous absence is a vacuum filled by Yahweh the upstart.⁽⁵⁾

Yahweh accuses the bene 'elyon of bad judgement, and he condemns them to mortality. Yahweh stands alone and declares himself king of all the heaven, only judge of the earth.
 

Among the other instances of this myth I would list Genesis 6, where the bene 'elohim are condemned for marrying human women. Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 pick up the theme of the fall of divine creatures. Supernatural beings are cast down from heaven because of their pride. In the Gospel of Luke we hear Jesus say, "I watched Satan fall from heaven like a flash of lightning." (10:18)
 

SPECIFIC ELEMENTS IN THE PSALMS

I will focus on the uses of the various divine names in this section. There are two categories of divine names:

Various names for the divine council.

Names for the gods of authority

First, these are the divine council names. In Psalm 58:1 (Heb. Text, 58:2), we read:
 

2. Surely, O 'ehlem, you judge fairly. You judge the human realm according to just principles. [and it goes on to say] But in your heart you spread wickedness.
 

'ehlem is the most interesting of the names for these beings. The word 'ehlem only occurs in this Psalm, thought most commonly to be formed from 'ehlim or 'elohim, "gods" in common translation. Most likely, it is a variation on these other words and meant to convey some god-kind of being. Does this odd word, 'ehlem, result from a copyist error, or was it a commonly understood word for which extant evidence is lacking? I think, rather, that 'ehlem is a deliberate neologism, a shortening of the vowels of 'elohim in order to diminish the majesty of that word. "Little gods" seems then an apt translation. The word 'elohim in Psalm 58 is reserved only to Yahweh, the god of Israel.
 

(In verses 7 and 12)
 

The Uses of 'elohim
 

In Psalm 58, the poet refuses to use 'elohim to refer to the divine council. In Psalm 82, in contrast, the poet uses it to mean a few different things. It says:

'elohim arises in the congregation of 'el. In the midst of the 'elohim he judges.
 

And in verse 6 we read:

I have said, "You are 'elohim, and all of you are 'elyon's children (bene elyon). Yet you shall die like 'adam. And like the other princes you shall fall.
 

The first 'elohim in verse 1 (in agreement with the verb) is translated "God," while the second, which has no indication of number, is translated gods: "God arises in the 'el's congregation. In the midst of the gods, he judges." In Psalm 82, 'elohim 1 (identified with Yahweh, the god of Israel) and 'elohim 2 (the little gods) are together meeting in the 'adat-'el, the congregation of 'el. Both of the 'elohims therefore are subjects of 'el, part of his congregation. 'elohim 1 (Yahweh) is accusing witness/attorney. The NRSV (and most commentaries) treat this confusing, double-use of 'elohim as an oversight, or a looseness of the language. It is said that an Elohistic editor changed Yahweh in the original to 'elohim. We would therefore be compelled to picture some fanatical Elohistic figure that went through older Israelite poems carelessly crossing out every YHWH and replacing it with Elohim. In this case, however, this one ignored the difficulties this would create for the interpretation - (two different uses of 'elohim in the same sentence) and just left it in. I think rather that the poet deliberately subverts these names of God by placing them so ambiguously.
 

How are we supposed to distinguish between these two 'elohims, and how can we account for this odd confusion of vocabulary. Wasn't the poet perfectly capable of finding a less ambiguous word pair than 'elohim and 'elohim? 'elohim, in some Hebrew contexts refers to an aggregate of little gods, and in other contexts it refers to Yahweh, the singular God of Israel. In this Psalm however, we have both, not only in the same poem, but also in the same line. The Psalmist deliberately used the word in two different ways to create a sense of ambiguity and shifting meaning in the Psalm. The poet, however imperfectly, intended to create ambivalence by this odd usage.

Second, I here discuss the gods of authority:
 

The 'ehlem/'elohim are also called 'adat-'el and bene 'elyon, so I will consider these phrases as well. The 'elohim are regarded as a collective, a congregation or company. The word bene, "children of" is a word that can be used of subjects of a king, or students of a teacher. And traditionally, 'el and 'elyon are regarded as alternative renderings for Yahweh, also called 'elohim in this Psalm. There is ample evidence for 'el as an independent god in Ugaritic literature, and of 'elyon as a god in the Bible distinct from Yahweh. 'el is absent as a participant in the events of the myth - a shadowy authority in the background. Steven Schweitzer, in an unpublished paper, describes 'elyon as follows:
 

Elyon is presented as the one to whom a person in distress may cry out, the God who "redeemed Israel out of Egypt" in many of the psalms, the recipient of numerous vows by his worshippers, the deity whom Melchizedek worshipped and in whose name he blessed Abraham, and is the name of the God who reigns supreme in the myth of cosmic rebellion . . . Could 'elyon be as much a native Israelite god (seeing that he does not appear outside of the Hebrew Bible) as Yahweh, partially derived from Canaanite 'el, but much more active? (Schweitzer, pp. 2-3)
 

I conclude, therefore that these two words, 'el and 'elyon:
 

Indicate the strong presence of shadowy divine figures in the psalms.
 

They do not represent Yahweh
 

They are identified with the divine council, the 'elohim, which bear both names.
 

In this myth, Yahweh becomes the only supreme judge. This Psalm (and its partner, 58) are arguments for exclusive Yahweh worship. All other gods are banished. As an instructive contrast, I will now examine Second Isaiah's argument for exclusive Yahweh worship, which is different from that of the Psalmist. Second Isaiah is a "radical monotheist." By this I mean that he believed that only Yahweh exists, and all other gods are delusional. Second Isaiah made fun of an idol worshipper, who went into the forest and cut down a tree. Half the trees he used to cook himself breakfast, and "the rest of it he makes into a god, his idol, bows down to it and worships it; he prays to it and says, 'Save me, for you are my god!'" (Isaiah 44:17) Idol worshippers don't worship any true thing, he says, any thing that is real. They delude themselves into thinking there is some spiritual reality behind the objects they worship. Second Isaiah depicts idols as nothings.

In contrast, the monotheism of these psalms, if it is monotheism, is a different sort than what one finds in Second Isaiah. It is a chronological monotheism, which says that there is only one god now, although it has not always been so. Yahweh defeated the other gods on the battlefield of a divine law court, and now was the only god left standing.
 

INTERPRETATIVE ISSUES

M. Tsevat makes the following observation regarding the theism of these psalms:

To call the phenomenon [the portrayal of deity in these psalms] monolatry - less accurately, henotheism - is only to reaffirm its essential polytheism. (Note, Tsevat, p. 125)
 

Tsevat's conclusion is unacceptable to most interpreters. The following are reading strategies forwarded by others to defend this passage from the charge of polytheism.
 

The 'elohim are humans judges, so monotheism is safe.⁽⁶⁾ This becomes the standard Jewish interpretation, and is adopted by Jesus in his discussions of the text in the Gospel of John (10:35).
 

These 'elohim are angels, lesser spiritual beings, not gods. They depend upon Yahweh. He created by them to do his will. So monotheism is safe.
 

The literary presence of these other gods is a vestige of an older polytheism, now long passed.⁽⁷⁾
 

The two psalms offer different contributions to the question of ancient Israel's theism. They say:
 

Yahweh reigns at the end of both Psalms, as "a god who judges on earth (Ps. 58), "who takes possession [tinhal, from nhl] of all the nations." (Psalm 82). Even if other divine beings exist, Yahweh was always in control, so monotheism is safe. Although other gods existed at one time, they are brought down to mortality, and they die. Therefore, Yahweh's supremacy is safe.
 

The notion of chronology

For others, the polytheism of these psalms indicates their historical context - they represent the time when Israel changed from polytheism to monotheism. These psalms represent the transitional moment when the ancient gods are still taken seriously, although Yahweh is reported as deposing them.
 

Many histories of Israel suggest that the earliest Israelites were polytheists, and monotheism emerged subsequently. It is easy to see both theisms represented in these psalms. Many relate them chronologically - first came polytheism, displaced by monotheism. I think rather that the Israelites upheld both theisms throughout their history.⁽⁸⁾

In Israelite literature the divine council becomes more complex over time, so "the development is in the opposite direction."⁽⁹⁾
 

I am not sure that one must read these texts in a chronology such as this, nor am I convinced that this indeed represents the most likely chronology of Israelite religious development. It is based on a philosophical model, that Israel passed through progressive stages of religious development from primitive tribal paganism to ethical monotheism. I see rather that the other gods represented a range of religious options that remained available to the Israelites throughout their long and turbulent history.
 

I do agree with Wright when he says:
 

I find it difficult to regard these references as mere metaphors or as accommodating modes of speech. The actual existence of the other gods is here assumed.⁽¹⁰⁾

We find in these Psalms, and in the mythology which lies behind them, a moment of transition, or to express it better, a moment of liminality, a place in between polytheism and monotheism, not really a part of either, but sharing in the features of both.⁽¹¹⁾
 

Certainly a strong advocate of exclusive Yahwism has written these psalms, but they assume a larger context of a polytheistic universe. Cyrus Gordon called this a Psalm celebrating the displacement of the Old Order by the New Order.⁽¹²⁾

He notes, "The New Order is hailed by calling on God to rule the world and take possession of all the peoples. There are to be no more local or ethnic gods, but only one Lord of the Universe. . . God has indeed inherited the jurisdictions of all the deities that have perished" (p. 13)
 

CONCLUSION
 

Monotheism only works because it allows for modifications and qualifications. Monotheism is not the final destination of theology, nor the end of history. Rather, the contrary view persists in pulling readers of these poems back from the abyss of monism, a horribly frigid place where nothing moves. Monism offers a world where everything gets sucked into a single vortex. In such a world, God becomes abstract and distant.

Historical biblical scholarship has tended to see these two ideologies chronologically, polytheism displaced by monotheism. It is easy to see, however, that the struggle was back-and-forth, and ongoing. The ancient Israelites never quite resolved the "god question." They oscillated from one extreme position to another. Psalm 82 and Psalm 58 seem to reflect both ideologies in equal measure.
 

This narrative myth serves as etiology, answering the questions, "Why do we worship only Yahweh? What is the relationship of Yahweh to the other gods?" And the answer appears to be, "Yahweh is the supreme God, and the other gods, whatever they once were, are irrelevant now." So this could be the story of the origin of monotheism. But there are certain elements in the story, and certain absences, that suggest a more complex advocacy contained within these poems.
 

The theodicy issue considerably underlies Psalm 82, and to a lesser degree, Psalm 58. The Psalms, it might also be said, are written to answer the question - why is there no justice? The answer, however, is complex. There is no justice, because the gods, who were assigned the task of dispensing justice, have done a terrible job. But don't worry. Now they have been fired, and Yahweh, who is a just judge, has taken over, and he is sure to straighten things out. Both Psalms end with calls for Yahweh to begin his process of judging. Whether Yahweh has done a better job enforcing justice in the world, I will leave for others to decide.
 

The two psalms I have examined reflect the tension, ambiguity, and ambivalence of the Israelites towards a formal expression of theism. They clearly saw exclusive loyalty to Yahweh as a primary aspect of their religion. They lived in a world they believed was peopled by divine powers other than Yahweh. These Psalms help explain a looseness of monotheism that carries over in the Christian tradition.^(13)0. "the gods: the meaning of 'elohim in this phrase is discussed in the introduction above. These 'gods' are probably the divine intermediaries who formed Yahweh's heavenly court, and who had responsibility for the proper functioning of human society (cf. Dt. 32:8-9 (LXX)). Whether these divine beings are regarded as 'angels' (so S) or as the demoted gods of the nations (whatever the difference may be), the uniqueness of Yahweh remains perfectly clear. All the other heavenly beings are dependent upon him for their very existence, and they are responsible to him for their actions. When they disregard their duties, they are sentenced to an 'ungodlike' punishment, namely death. It is possible that the inequality of human life and its possibilities suggest to the Psalmist that powers other than Yahweh must be at work by envisaging a judgment of all the guilty divine beings (cf. Isa 24:21) who will be deprived of their delegated authority., In the end Yahweh alone will rule the earth with righteousness." (Anderson II, p, 593)

Tsevat, p. 133 [his interpretation of the Deut. 32 passage] In the distant past, Yhwh, the Most High, divided mankind into nations, whose number He determined by the number of the sons of 'God/El', i.e., the minor gods; each of these gods received a nation as his portion (and conversely, each nation received its tutelary deity (Deut 4:19). Only one nation was not given over to these gods - Israel; that people Yhwh retained for Himself.

Tsevat, p. 133 Ps. 82 shares with Deut. 32 this myth as background, even to the point of using the same significant vocabulary. [note] "Sons" or "assembly of" 'el; benay "of 'God'" or "the Most High"; 'elyon; nachal; goiim.
^(14)0. It is probably that an Israelite would [not?] have meant this exclamation any more henotheistically than would a Babylonian or Canaanite, namely that in the whole assembly of heaven, none is comparable to the head of the assembly? [but then he says in a note] In most cases, however, it is doubtful whether this frequent type of comparative expression involves anything more than an honorific ascription to God . . . The ascription is simply borrowed from a pagan context and used of Yahweh, any definite comparative notion having fallen into the background. (Wright, p. 34)

1.  A. A. Anderson says, "Yet from various OT passages it is clear that the Israelites believed that God was surrounded by various divine beings who did his bidding." Cf. Exod. 15:`; Dt. 32:8; Job 1:6, 38:7; Ps. 82:1, 6, 138:1 (Anderson, p. 430)

2.  Along with LXX and Q. The Hebrew text has bene yisrael.

3.  "the gods: the meaning of 'elohim in this phrase is discussed in the introduction above. These 'gods' are probably the divine intermediaries who formed Yahweh's heavenly court, and who had responsibility for the proper functioning of human society (cf. Dt. 32:8-9 (LXX)). Whether these divine beings are regarded as 'angels' (so S) or as the demoted gods of the nations (whatever the difference may be), the uniqueness of Yahweh remains perfectly clear. All the other heavenly beings are dependent upon him for their very existence, and they are responsible to him for their actions. When they disregard their duties, they are sentenced to an 'ungodlike' punishment, namely death. It is possible that the inequality of human life and its possibilities suggest to the Psalmist that powers other than Yahweh must be at work by envisaging a judgment of all the guilty divine beings (cf. Isa 24:21) who will be deprived of their delegated authority. In the end Yahweh alone will rule the earth with righteousness." (Anderson II, p, 593)
 

Tsevat, p. 133 [his interpretation of the Deut. 32 passage] In the distant past, Yhwh, the Most High, divided mankind into nations, whose number He determined by the number of the sons of 'God/El', i.e., the minor gods; each of these gods received a nation as his portion (and conversely, each nation received its tutelary deity (Deut 4:19). Only one nation was not given over to these gods - Israel; that people Yhwh retained for Himself.
 

Tsevat, p. 133 Ps. 82 shares with Deut. 32 this myth as background, even to the point of using the same significant vocabulary. [note] "Sons" or "assembly of" 'el; benay "of 'God'" or "the Most High"; 'elyon; nachal; goiim.
 

The NRSV translates this, "The LORD's own portion was his people." The word "own" is not in the Hebrew.

4. It is probably that an Israelite would [not?] have meant this exclamation any more henotheistically than would a Babylonian or Canaanite, namely that in the whole assembly of heaven, none is comparable to the head of the assembly? [but then he says in a note] In most cases, however, it is doubtful whether this frequent type of comparative expression involves anything more than an honorific ascription to God . . . The ascription is simply borrowed from a pagan context and used of Yahweh, any definite comparative notion having fallen into the background. (Wright, p. 34)

5. Use of "upstart." - It's 'el's council, and Yahweh's running things. It's from the verb natzav, to rise up, take a stand, and plead a case.

Kraus notes, "This conception entails crass anthropomorphism, which is nevertheless a sign of lively and passionate discussion carried out in the prophetic word. Yahweh himself so far was under the impression that the powers surrounding him (v. 1) were 'elohim or benai 'elyon. However, it is part and parcel of the 'elohim figure that justice and salvation emanate from it. But that is not the case (v. 2). Therefore the heavenly powers are stripped of their 'elohim character. Not only are they stripped of their power, but also they are condemned to the human fate of death. The judgment announced is extreme. The gods are cast down from the heavenly sphere of life to the world of death. As unfaithful "high officials" (sharim) are banished from court by a king, so the powers are driven away." (Kraus, p. 157) But I think that the sarim refer to the heavenly beings who fell, the sons of light.

6.  "The traditional view, of which John 10:34 is the earliest witness, regard the 'elohim here as human, Israelite judges whom God is sentencing for their failure to provide justice. Such an understanding of the word and of the Psalm is, however, entirely too forced with little to commend it. The same can be said for a suggestion of Duhm that the 'elohim are the Hasmonean kings and for Buttenwieser's belief that they are the deified kings of the Hellenistic age . . .Ibn Ezra . . . the 'elohim are the patron angels of the nations." (Wright, p. 31)
 

Psalm 58:12 [58:11 in English] uses the plural verb with the noun 'elohim, which may support the notion of human judges. It would then be translated "surely there are 'elohim who judge on earth," thus suggesting that the unrighteous 'elohim are replaced by the righteous 'elohim. It is however common to use to agree with the plural form of 'elohim. (I am grateful to Bernard Levenson for this insight.
 

"The charge of blasphemy was based on the assertion that Jesus, 'being a man', made himself God. Jesus, however, does not find an Old Testament text to prove directly that men can be called god. He goes back to fundamental principles and argues more generally, that the word 'god' can in certain circumstances, be applied to beings other than God himself." (Emerton, p. 332.)

7. "The widespread depravity on earth caused by sin seems to be attributed - in Psalm 82, this thought is expressed even more clearly - to dereliction of duty by the 'gods' who constitute the celestial court of Yahweh and are to dispense justice on earth and his servants and functionaries . . . process whereby the Yahweh religion absorbed and reduced to a lower rank the gods associated the worship at the Canaanite shrines; in the course of this process, the Old Testament monotheistic idea of God made use of the foreign polytheistic religious elements to suit its own purposes and brought its own moral superiority to bear on them. . ." Weiser, p. 430.
 

G.E. Wright has noted:

"The members of his assembly, the belief in which is a survival or borrowing from polytheism, possess no independent authority or even existence or worship. Their being and authority are derived, not primary . . . they are thoroughly devaluated while he is exalted." (Wright, p. 38)

8.  Schweitzer, p. 1 He argues "This paper will argue that these two psalms contain evidence for the earliest traditions behind the Elohistic and, by extension, Northern theological element in the religion of Ancient Israel . . . My goal is to clarify not only the meaning of the text, but to apply a new understanding of these psalms to common perceptions about the development of the Israelite religion from polytheism through monolatry to monotheism."

9.  Schweitzer maintains that: " . . . my assessment of these psalms suggest that originally one segment of the Israelite nation, those affirming the Northern traditions in a pre-Elohistic context, held to a polytheistic religion . . . The supreme god was victorious as were his people, the socially marginalized, by stripping the gods of their divinity or their position as gods. Could this text reflect a successful social revolt within one segment of Ancient Israelite society? Could the phrase, "fall like one of the rulers" in verse 7, be more than a metaphor for just any deposed leader?" (Schweitzer, p. 6)
 

Wright notes: [It is not possible] " . . .to portray a development in the Old Testament comprehension of the assembly from henotheism to monotheism. In fact, if one were forced to argue the question, he might maintain that the development is the opposite direction, since the assembly undeniably became more complex during the course of time. (Wright, p. 37)

10.  [He goes on to say, arguing that Yahweh's sole position is still maintained.] "The actual existence of the other gods is here assumed. The point is that they are without independent existence; they are responsible to the head of the council, Yahweh . . ." (Wright 35-36) Archaeological and inscriptional evidence points in a general nature to the Israelites being polytheistic throughout their history (with pockets of exclusive monotheism in various forms, throughout the second half

11. Cyrus Gordon, speaking of Psalm 82, observes: "[the psalm] thus reflects an awareness of the history of religion, marking a transition from the stage reflected in the Ugaritic tablets, to the monotheistic ideal of classical Israel. The author also knows that El/Elohim, who once presided over the old pantheon, now reigns as the one and only God of the whole world. For this to take place, the pagan deities had to die . . . " (Gordon, p. 129)

12.  Gordon, p. 129 The psalmist attributes the doom of the Old Order to its corruption in terms of social injustice, when the powerful wicked were allowed to oppress the helpless poor. The psalmist tells the gods that they must therefore die like mortals. (Gordon, p. 131.)

13. Trinity

a) And connected with it, notions of hypostasis

b) Angels, demons and saints

c)
 

So in that Star Trek episode, Captain Kirk rid himself of a troublesome god through mockery. Second Isaiah did likewise. But in these psalms, and for the cadres who shared this myth, Yahweh cleared out the Israelite pantheon in a different manner, through banishment. But when these gods left, they remained as a presence like an afterimage, an absence that has been, and continues to be filled by the theological imagination.
 
 
 

Bibliography

Anderson, A.A. The Book of Psalms. Volume I. The New Century Bible. Somerset: Oliphant, 1972.
 

Braude, William G. Translator. The Midrash on Psalms, Volumes I & II. New Haven, Yale University Press: 1959.
 

Buber, Martin. Good and Evil: Two Interpretations. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1952, 1953.
 

Crenshaw, James. On Psalm 82, CBA 2000
 

Dahood, Mitchell. Psalms II: 51-100, A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Garden City: Doubleday, 1994.
 

Emerton, J.A. "Some New Testament Notes: I. The Interpretation of Psalm LXXXII in John X." Journal of Theological Studies 11 (October 1960) 329-332.
 

Gordon, Cyrus H. "History of Religion in Psalm 82." Pp. 129-131. In Biblical and Near Eastern Studies: Essays in Honor of William Sanford LaSor. Edited by Gary A. Tuttle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.
 

Kselman, John. "Psalms." Pp. 523-552. New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Edited by Raymond Brown. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1990
 

Kraus, Hans-Joachim. Psalms 1-59: A Commentary. Translated by Hilton C. Oswald. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1988.
 

Handy, Lowell K. "Sounds, Words and Meanings in Psalm 82." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 47 (1990) 51-66.
 

O'Callaghan, R.T. "A Note on the Canaanite Background of Psalm 82. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 15 (1953) 311-314.
 

Schweitzer, Stephen, "The 'Gods", Children of the Most High [Psalm 58 & 82]. SBL Presentation, St. Paul, MN, April 9, 1999.
 

Tsevat, Matitahu. "God and the Gods in Assembly: An Interpretation of Psalm 82." HUCA 40-41 (1969-1970) 123-137.
 

Weiser, Artur. The Psalms: A Commentary. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1962.
 

Wright, G. Ernest. The Old Testament Against Its Environment. London, SCM Press, Ltd. 1957.
 

Appendix - Relevant Biblical Passages
 

Exodus 12:12 For I will strike down every first-born in the land of Egypt, both human beings and animals; on all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments.
 

Exodus 15:11 Who is like you, O Yahweh, among the 'elohim? Who is like you, majestic in holiness?
 

Exodus 20:3 You shall have no other 'elohim before me.
 

Numbers 33:4 while the Egyptians were burying all their firstborn, whom the LORD had struck down among them. The LORD executed judgments even against their gods.
 

Deuteronomy 1:17 for the judgement is God's
 

Deuteronomy 4:19 And when you look up to the heavens and see the sun, the moon, and the stars, all the host of heaven, do not be led astray and bow down to them and serve them, things that the LORD your God has allotted to all the peoples everywhere under heaven.
 

Deut. 32:8-9 When the Most High/ apportioned the nations,/when he divided humankind,/ he fixed the boundaries of the peoples/ according to the number of the gods;/ the LORD's own portion was his people,/ Jacob his allotted share.

14.
 

Deut. 33:3 Indeed, O favorite among peoples,/ all his holy ones were in your charge; they marched at your heels, accepted direction from you.
 

Job 5:1 Call now, is there anyone who will answer you?/ To which of the holy ones will you turn?
 

Job 15:15 God puts no trust even in his holy ones, and the heavens are not clean in his sight.
 

Psalm 8:5 Yet you have made them a little lower than 'elohim/ and crowned them with glory and honor.
 

Psalm 29:1 Ascribe to Yahweh, bene 'elohim, ascribe to Yahweh glory and strength.
 

Psalm 77:13 Your way, O God, is holy./ What god is so great as our God?
 

Ps. 89:6-8 For who in the skies can be compared to the LORD?/ Who among the heavenly beings is like the LORD,/ God feared in the council of the holy ones, great and awesome above all that are around him? O LORD God of hosts,/ who is as mighty as you, O LORD? Your faithfulness surrounds you.,

Ps. 95:3 For the LORD is a great God,/ and a great King above all gods