wales@ucla-cs.UUCP (12/12/84)
As a preface to what I am about to ask:
(1) I am not a Jew (I am a Mormon) -- though I have had lots of discus-
sions with Jewish friends and believe I know at least some basic
things regarding Judaism. I took two years of modern Hebrew at UCLA
and can plod through the scriptures in the original with some degree
of facility.
(2) The following question is a sincere one and is NOT a covert attempt
to proselytize or to "bait" anyone into a doctrinal argument. I
know that this newsgroup has been plagued with such activity at var-
ious times, but I do not wish to contribute to same.
Some people have recently discussed the fact that one of the commonly
used names of G-d is formally plural. Almost all the time when this
word is used to refer to the true G-d (as opposed to pagan deities), the
use of singular verbal, pronominal, and adjectival forms make it clear
that a single entity is being referred to by the apparently plural name.
However, there is at least one case where this doesn't appear to be so.
I'm not too sure whether anything significant can or should be made of
it, but I'd be very interested in knowing how Jewish tradition has ex-
plained it.
In Exodus 32:4 (the "golden calf" incident), we read:
vayomru 'eleh 'eloheikha yisra'el
'asher he`elukha me'eretz mitzrayim
Note the plural demonstrative ('eleh), as well as the plural verb
(he`elukha -- he, ayin, lamed, vav, khaf sofit).
One might be tempted to assume that multiple pagan deities were involved
here, but consider the following:
(1) There was evidently only one golden calf, not several. Hence, if
the meaning really was plural, it is not obvious at all to me what
is being referred to by the plurality.
(2) Aaron's actions in verse 5 (proclaiming a feast day to the L-rd in
connection with the making of the golden calf) -- combined with the
fact that he was later forgiven for his actions and not put to death
(cf. Exodus 32:26-28) -- suggest to me that he intended the idol not
as a replacement or rival of the true G-d, but rather as a represen-
tation (albeit quite misguided and totally unauthorized) of G-d that
the Israelites could understand and would accept.
(3) Nehemiah, in recalling this incident (Neh. 9:18) --
vayomru zeh 'eloheikha
'asher he`elkha mimitzrayim
-- uses a singular demonstrative (zeh) and a singular verb form
(he`elkha -- he, ayin, lamed, khaf sofit).
For what it may be worth, the Septuagint version of Neh. 9:18 dis-
agrees with the Masoretic text by using plural forms.
The chapter-and-verse indications used above are from the KJV; however,
they are the same as those in the two Hebrew versions in my collection
(a two-volume JPS edition with Hebrew and English in parallel columns,
and a one-volume pocket-sized Hebrew-only edition published in Israel)
-- so I trust everyone reading this group will be able to find the pas-
sages without difficulty.
Anyway, as I said, I'd be interested in knowing what Jewish scholarship
thinks about these particular verses. Again, this is a genuine request
for information and is not fraught with any ulterior motives. If I have
inadvertently offended anyone by the way I have discussed the issue, I
offer all necessary apologies in advance.
--
Rich Wales
UCLA Computer Science Department
3531 Boelter Hall // Los Angeles, CA 90024 // (213) 825-5683
ARPA: wales@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA
UUCP: ...!{cepu,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!walesmis@spuxll.UUCP (Meyer Steinberg) (12/13/84)
I think the best answer is one given by some else recently, i think it was by Martillo. In Biblical Hebrew the plural is used for abstracts. elo-him would not mean G-ds but G-dship. I remember coming across other abtracts. For example the word for virginity is plural. "Vlo matzati la betulim". Dueteronomy 22:14. Betulim is in the plural, and a woman has one virginity! The previous posted answer gave another example, but i dont remember it.
de@moscom.UUCP (12/18/84)
> Some people have recently discussed the fact that one of the commonly > used names of G-d is formally plural. Almost all the time when this > word is used to refer to the true G-d (as opposed to pagan deities), the > use of singular verbal, pronominal, and adjectival forms make it clear > that a single entity is being referred to by the apparently plural name. > > However, there is at least one case where this doesn't appear to be so. > I'm not too sure whether anything significant can or should be made of > it, but I'd be very interested in knowing how Jewish tradition has ex- > plained it. > > In Exodus 32:4 (the "golden calf" incident), we read: > > vayomru 'eleh 'eloheikha yisra'el > 'asher he`elukha me'eretz mitzrayim > > Note the plural demonstrative ('eleh), as well as the plural verb > (he`elukha -- he, ayin, lamed, vav, khaf sofit). > I quote to you the answer given in the Soncino text (taken without permission): From the fact that the words were addressed to Israel and not spoken by them (otherwise the text would have read, 'this is our god'), it may be inferred that not the native-born Israelites clamoured for gods, but the mixed multitude who came out of Egypt with them. They made the idol and led Israel astray. They were not foolish as to imagined the Calf was a Divine object; but they were influenced by the widespread heathenish belief that the idolatrous image was imbued with God's spirit and power and could help them in their needs. A close examination of the text shows that the "trop" (the punctuation/note), beneath the work "masakhah" is an "etnakhtah", a trop corresponding to a semi-colon in English. The next thought has a tenuous connection to the preceding phrase. Thus "and they said: ..." is not Aaron speaking but the mixed multituded who were used to speaking of gods. David Esan (moscom!de) ZZ