gstafleu

Interesting replies, thanks. So it seems reasonably certain that the author of Gen 1:1 had one god in mind. However, by the time we hit 1:26 we have a plural "let us make man in our image." Is this a pluralis deistatis (if there is such a word), or is the word "God" in 1:26 Elohim again (rather than El), in which case we might have an unambiguous plural here?

In case of the names of God, we seem to have:

• El, a god or, monotheistically, the God.
• Elohim, gods plural, or, in an a pluribus unum kind of way, one god, the latter perhaps by way of the boss-god of the many.
• Elyon, which is either a name or an epithet.
• And of course good old Yahweh.

Monotheism is difficult, as Ken might say.

Gerard Stafleu

driver8

Yahweh is problematic in that list. From the same link above:

Just remember, my god's better than yours.

Clivedurdle

Going back to sheep is and sheep are, is it possible that other languages were not grammatically tidy and when using a collective noun would vary between singular and plural verbs?

And how much are we reading back our modern assumptions of monotheism here?

Why do we seem to be assuming a tidy theology and a tidy grammar? Why should not the gods have created the heavens and earth, and as these are stories from hierarchical societies, there was a chief god? Should we not ask what were the features of the societies that informed their creation stories, and not start from our present theological beliefs?

Steven Avery

Hi Clive,

Actually the Hebrew Bible usage is consistent.
The singular is used in references to the creator,
the God of Israel, Jehovah, many hundreds of times.

While the plural is used for the pagan deities..

"the gods of the nations"
"the gods of the people"

There are about two dozen of the plural usages.

Daniel Segraves has written a couple of good articles as to where
and why in a limited number of verses the plural form (e.g Elohim)
is used (e.g. as in Genesis 1:26 in a grammatically singular construction).

http://www.danielsegraves.blogspot.com/
Let Us Make Man

This earlier article had more detail.
http://web.archive.org/web/200104290...ive/elohim.htm
Christian Monotheism: A Biblical Theology

There is a lot more than Daniel's article, of course. Nehemiah Gordon, Karaite, has an article that goes over these topics quite well. Nehemiah might reference some more of the rabbinics (even though he often takes a non-rabbinic approach on this issue folks from diverse backgrounds often agree, tapping the same wells).

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Doug Shaver

No. Fraud implies deceitful intent. The translaters sincerely believed that the author of Genesis was a monotheist. Therefore, they must have supposed that notwithstanding any grammatical technicalities, he was asserting that creation was the act of one and only one god.

Steven Avery

Doug, the grammatical technicalities have been described on this thread and in articles linked to and mentioned on this thread. They simply do not support translating Elohim as a plural of number in the verses at issue. The plural noun form in Hebrew is more widely used than in English (that is one reason why the sheep and deer examples are limited as analogies) with various discussions of plural of intensity, plural of emphasis and more. Usages that are distinct from plural of number and for the most part non-existent in English, except for the "royal we" where a singular number is placed in the plural form, reflecting the attributes and court and respect that can go with the majesty.

As a simple example of the Hebrew forms, the word for water, mayim, has the same plural form ending as Elohim yet is translated as both "water" or "waters" into English depending on the surrounding grammatical, contextual construction. (Granted there is a difference in that Elohim has a singular form available so all such analogies are only a starting point .. in a sense mayim is more like deer and sheep.)

What you should find in those cases in which elohim is translated as "gods", such as "gods of the nations" is a plural construction outside/around the noun itself. If there are some or many examples where this is not the case I would be most interested in knowing. Without that, it would be difficult to have a case for considering translator or author doctrinal viewpoint as a factor.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Jack the Bodiless

That's one for my "useful links" file. Thanks!

gstafleu

The linguistic part of the article seems to do a good job of explaining how Elohim works, thanks for the link. The author seems to be a believer, which of course does introduce some nagging doubts on how serious to take his views. Take for example this little gem:
Right. It is unfortunate that such a slip (blatant petitio principii) finds a place in what otherwise looks like a good linguistic article.

Sometimes this "inspired" business gets you into trouble:
Segraves finds two possible ways out: either a pluralis majestatis or God is addressing other heavenly beings like a council or angels. He goes for the angels. That of course leaves wide open the question of why angels are not (subordinate) gods, thus breaking the strict monotheism requirement. I would guess the easiest solution to that one is to simply define them as non-gods.

1:26 remains a bit strange. If we go with Finkelstein the Pentateuch was thoroughly edited in order to make it confirm to -7C monotheism. So how come they missed this, if they did? The explanations of angels or pluralis majestatis don't seem all that convincing to me.

Gerard Stafleu

gstafleu

First, going by previous discussion, the translation into the singular seems indeed to be correct, so no fraud. But:
That's why I said pious fraud: that indicates a misdeed caused by sincere religious belief, where the misdeed would not have occurred if the belief had not intervened. If the translation had been wrong it would have been a pious fraud. Sincere belief doesn't release the translators from their obligation of accuracy. At the very least a footnote would have been in order.

Gerard Stafleu

Steven Avery

Welcome.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu The author seems to be a believer, which of course does introduce some nagging doubts on how serious to take his views.

You can also look at the article by Nehemiah Gordon and catch much of the same drift.

http://www.karaites-usa.org/Studies_...singular_1.htm
Elohim: Plural or Singular?

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu Take for example this little gem: Right. It is unfortunate that such a slip (blatant petitio principii) finds a place in what otherwise looks like a good linguistic article.

When writing to a believer audience there is no fallacy in appealing to the harmony of the Hebrew and Greek. This is true when discussing Elohim, echad, the Red Sea or another topic. The purpose of that particular paper is not to prove the inspiration of the Bible but to describe the usage of Elohim to a largely Christian audience. In doing so Daniel wrote a very good and readable grammatical summary which one can read even if they do not go with some of the other material.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu Sometimes this "inspired" business gets you into trouble: Segraves finds two possible ways out: either a pluralis majestatis or God is addressing other heavenly beings like a council or angels.

And these have been the two major historical understandings. If I remember the Jewish exegetes give both ideas, perhaps leaning more to the angelic than simply the majesty of the heavenly court (which is more common in Christian circles). There is some overlap between the ideas as well.

Shalom,
Steven Avery