LittleNipper wrote:Sir:
In life, one must learn to pick and choose his or her battles carefully, or one will soon be considered a very disagreeable know-it-all that none will be willing to discuss anything other than the weather with.
Whereas simply shotgunning a bunch of websites you blithely culled from Google is gentlemanly and respectful? Do yourself a favor and just don't presume to lecture me about the Hebrew word elohim.
LittleNipper wrote:ELOHIM
The word elohim is a plural word; in Hebrew the plural form of a noun ends in "im" or "Old Testament."
Elohim is the plural form of "eloah."
No. Eloah is a backformation from the plural elohim. It is late and rare. There is no indication it is the singular root of elohim. Here's what I wrote about elohim in my most recent master's thesis:
אלהים is the most common word for “deity” in the Hebrew Bible, appearing some 2600 times. Of those occurrences, around 1400 are in the construct state or have pronominal suffices, indicating an appellative sense. The majority of these occurrences refer specifically to YHWH, but 230 occurrences refer instead to other deities or to the generic concept of deity, with almost half appearing in the plural. The noun’s frequency of occurrence by book is as follows:
Gen: 219 Ezek: 36 Mal: 7
Exod: 139 Hos: 26 Pss: 365
Lev: 53 Joel: 11 Job: 17
Num: 27 Amos: 14 Prov: 5
Deut: 374 Jonah: 16 Ruth: 4
Josh: 76 Mic: 11 Eccl: 40
Judg: 73 Nah: 1 Dan: 22
1–2 Sam: 154 Hab: 2 Ezra: 55
1–2 Kgs: 204 Zeph: 5 Neh: 70
Isa: 94 Hag: 3 1–2 Chr: 321
Jer: 145 Zech: 11
The etymological root of the word אלהים is irretrievable, but some manner of relationship to the Hebrew אל is likely, and appears to be presumed by the biblical authors, and so Marvin Pope’s conclusion on the matter will be our starting point: “the problem is philologically insoluble on the basis of the materials now at our disposal. The word ilu, ʾēl is simply a primitive noun and as such cannot be further analyzed.” Its usage in the Hebrew Bible indicates it is fundamentally a generic noun meaning “deity” that became lexicalized in its most frequent usage as a reference to YHWH, either with or without the definite article (האלהים לו ויאמר, 1 Chr 14:14; אלהים לו ויאמר, Gen 35:10). Based on the trends within the scholarship, one may be tempted to understand the usage of the article to reflect different stages in the progression toward אלהים as a personal name for YHWH (“god” > “The God” > “God” [DN]), but the development is not linear (e.g., P rarely uses the definite article, while Chronicles frequently inserts it). The appellative sense of the word is clearly maintained throughout the Hebrew Bible, as well, even in reference to YHWH (cf. אלהינו, Deut 6:4; Dan 9:9; Joel 1:6; Mic 4;5; Zech 9:7). In light of this, אלהים is best understood fundamentally as a common noun that appears often in a titular sense. The latter interpretation is preferred by most scholars for the word’s anarthrous use in reference to a specific entity, but that usage is too inconsistent to be sure, and I see no clear method for making the distinction.
Much has been made of the morphologically plural form of אלהים despite explicitly singular referents, including YHWH (Gen 1:1; 1 Kgs 11:33; 18:27). The most common explanation has for some time been the notion of a “plural of majesty,” which views the plural as honorific or intensifying. Three observations mitigate the value of that expanation, however: (1) the plural אלהים appears in pejorative references to singular foreign deities, (2) אל and אלהים are used interchangeably in places (e.g., Exod 20:3//34:14; Deut 32:21//Hos 8:6; Ezek 28:2//9), and (3) no heightened sense of honor or majesty is demonstrable in any occurrence of אלהים. These observations undermine the notion of any intensifying or honorific sense for the plural. The difference seems to be one of style, not sense.
The most compelling explanation of this usage from recent years is that of Joel Burnett, who argues that the most common use of אלהים is as a “concretized abstract plural.” That is, the morphologically plural אלהים had the abstract sense of “divinity,” but became concretized in reference to actual instantiations of divinity, and thus came to mean “deity.” This final sense is largely synonymous with the singular אל and אלוה, but as Burnett notes, an abstract nuance may be detectable in some places. For instance, in 1 Kgs 11:33 the masculine plural אלהים appears in reference to a feminine singular deity. The abstract sense of “deity” is gender neutral, while non-abstract אלהים, “god,” is masculine. While Biblical Hebrew has no word for “goddess”—leaving the author little choice—the masculine plural ʾlm in reference to singular feminine deities is also found in Phoenician, which does have a word for “goddess” (ʾlt). This is not definitive proof of the same usage in Hebrew, but it is suggestive, and it links unusual usage to the same phenomena in cognate languages that is otherwise left unexplained by the plural of majesty. The adjectival genitive use of אלהים is also better explained if we understand the term as an abstract plural (e.g., אלהים חרדת, “divine trembling,” 1 Sam 14:15). While Burnett’s argument and presentation are not without problems, his explanation seems the best available explanation of the data.
Another question related to the use of אלהים in the Hebrew Bible is the historical interpretation of some passages as a reference to human rulers or judges. The passages considered most supportive of this reading are Exod 21:5–6 and 22:8–9. The former describes a ritual whereby a slave may elect to stay on permanently with his master’s household:
[5]But if the slave declares, “I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out a free person,” [6] then his master shall bring him אל־האלהים. He shall be brought to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him for life.
Exod 22:8–9, on the other hand, describes the juridical process should an individual’s property go missing while in a borrower’s possession, and no thief is found.
[8] If the thief is not caught, the owner of the house shall be brought אל־האלהים, to determine whether or not the owner had laid hands on the neighbor’s goods. [9] In any case of disputed ownership invovling ox, donkey, sheep, clothing, or any other loss, of which one party says, “This is mine,” the case of both parties shall come האלהים עד; the one whom אלהים condemns (pl. ירשׁיען) shall pay double to the other.
Nothing internal to either text is suggestive of the reading “judges,” or “rulers.” In fact, the context militates against such a reading. “Judges” are referred to already with the term פללים in Exod 21:22, and in a context that indicates their presence is presupposed by these laws. There is no need to prescribe appearance before them. It is theological sensitivity alone that compels reading the ostensibly plural use of אלהים in Exod 22:9 as a reference to human judges or rulers (contributing to the same reading in 21:6). That sensitivity, however, is lexicographically irrelevant, as well as unjustified. While a number of scholars suggest that the plural reading “gods” is likely, the most judicious analysis of the evidence points to an intended singular sense: “God.” A singular sense for אלהים with plural verbal elements, pronouns, or adjectives is not uncommon (cf. Gen 35:7; Exod 32:4, 8; Josh 24:19; 1 Sam 28:13–14; 2 Sam 7:23), and the verses immediately following clarify the prescribed process.
Exod 22:10–11 stipulate an “oath of YHWH” for a strikingly similar situation. Specifically, if an animal is entrusted to another, and it disappears or dies, the borrower must swear an oath that he has not stolen or destroyed the livestock, which the original owner is then obligated to accept. It is unlikely that we have two entirely different processes prescribed for such comparable scenarios, with one defendant appearing before human judges—who will somehow determine guilt or innocence without witnesses or evidence—and the other appearing before YHWH to swear an oath that definitively determines innocence. Rather, both cases appear to command the same procedure: an oath sworn before God.
Through what means, then, does God “condemn” (hiphil רשׁע) a guilty party? The juridical swearing of an oath before deity to determine guilt or innocence was quite common to the ancient Near East. As an example, requirements very similar to those of Exod 22:8–9 are found for a variety of legal situations in the laws of Hammurabi (LH). According to section 120, if a man stores grain with another, and somehow the amount of grain is reduced, the former may declare the original amount “before the god” (maḫar ilim) and be restored double that amount. According to section 249, if a man rents an ox, and it dies through not fault of the renter, he may go free if he swears an oath “before the god” (nīš ilim) that he was not at fault. The oath was a test of the swearer’s belief in their own innocence. One who had the courage to swear an oath before God/the gods, or who could do so without divine intervention, must not be guilty. On the other hand, one who knew their own guilt would fear the consequences of swearing falsely before the deity or deities. The individual would be condemned by their own fear, or, if they managed to swear the oath, by the deity’s swift and decisive punishment (such as described in Num 5:27–28).
LittleNipper wrote:From Webster's New World Hebrew Dictionary, Macmillan 1992, p65.
Eloah () nm God
Elohim () nm God
This is a dictionary of Modern Hebrew, which is a different language from Biblical Hebrew.
LittleNipper wrote:It is interesting to note that even though Elohim is plural, the Hebrew dictionary still translates it "God" instead of "Gods." This is because the Hebrews know that there is only one Yahweh.
No, it's because dictionaries translate nouns in the singular.
LittleNipper wrote:Cognate forms are found throughout the Semitic languages. They include Ugaritic ʾil, pl. ʾlm; Phoenician ʾl pl. ʾlm; Hebrew ʾēl, pl. ʾēlîm; Aramaic ʾl; Akkadian ilu, pl. ilānu.
You're missing the Ugaritic 'iln and 'ilhn, as well as the Phoenician 'ln.
LittleNipper wrote:In Northwest Semitic usage ʾl was both a generic word for any "God" and the special name or title of a particular god who was distinguished from other Gods as being "the God", or in the monotheistic sense, God.
No, he was just a god named El.
LittleNipper wrote:Ēl is listed at the head of many pantheons. Ēl was the father God among the Canaanites.
And among the Israelites.
LittleNipper wrote:So, why did the Hebrews use the word "Elohim" (plural)?
From Unger's Bible Dictionary, Moody Press 1966 Third Edition, p412:
In Canaan there was a tendency to employ the plural forms of deities Ashtoreth (Ashtoroth), Asherah (Asherim), Anath (Anathoth) to summarize all the various manifestations of this deity.
That's completely and totally false. There's not a shred of evidence for this, and those are the biblical spellings of those names. They do not appear in those forms in any non-biblical inscriptional material.
LittleNipper wrote:In like fashion the Canaanite plural Elohim ("gods") was adopted by the Hebrews to express all the excellencies and attributes of the one true God. M. F. U.
I already explained where that usage comes from and referred you to a more recent and far more thorough study.
LittleNipper wrote:Again from Unger's Bible Dictionary:
p311 Elohim (e-lo-him); Heb. plural 'elohim; singular eloah, mighty),...
p293 El (el) ...El is a generic name for God in Northwest Semitic (Hebrew and Ugaritic), and as such it is also employed in the Old Testament for heathen deities... The original generic term was 'ilum, which dropping the mimation and the nominative case ending "u" became el in Hebrew. The word is derived from the root "wl, "to be strong, powerful," meaning "the strong one."... El was the head of the Canaanite pantheon.
The oldest manuscripts that have been found only go back a few hundred years B.C.E. The oldest copy of a complete Bible (Leningrad Codex) was found in a geniza in Cairo, Egypt in 1008 C. E. Much later there were thousands of fragments of older Scriptures found at the same site, but these have been sitting in the Cambridge Museum in England for over 100 years waiting to be restored and translated. All of the existing Hebrew manuscripts use El or Elohim.
Some people will not use the words "El" and "Elohim" due to the Canaanite origin. Is it wrong for us to refer to Yahweh with a generic word like "El," "Elohim," or "God?" "El" and "Elohim" are the Hebrew generic word for a "mighty one;" and "God" is the current English generic word for a "mighty one." Consider the following:
Eloi (e-lo'i; Aramaic for My God, derived from El).
Mark 15:34 (KJS) And at the ninth hour {Yahshua} cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Here the Messiah used "El," the generic word for a "mighty one," to refer to his father, Yahweh!
Is this just a weak appeal to authority? Unger said it so it's right? You're not going to address any of the challenges I already brought to this view of the word?