Jay, What does "Elohim" mean?

[Dunemeister]

In another connection, Jayhawker Soule said:

As for the grammar behind Elohim, I disagree with the 'plural of majesty' theory bantered about on the internet, but that's a different thread.

So here's that other thread!

I have been taught this theory, but admittedly, I've never heard much about it from very scholarly sources. So I'd like to invite JH to explain what Elohim means in the Tanakh. JH, if you refer to scholarly sources, just be advised that I'm not in a position to buy any. However, if they are in the stacks of my city library (which is actually pretty good), I'll pick them up.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The phrase used by Joel S. Burnett is "concretized abstract plural" (A Reassessment of Biblical Elohim - SBL Dissertation Series 183), originally presented as the author's doctoral thesis at John Hopkins University, 1999, with P. Kyle McCarter, Jr.,serving as Dissertation Advisor. He writes:

The usage in question, as explained in GKC [Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar - JS], is a variety of the abstract plural, which sums up "the conditions or qualities inherent in the idea of the stem. Examples include zequnim "old age," sanverim "blindness," onim "might," 'esot "counsel," harapot "contempt," neqamot "vengeance," and negidim "nobility" -- only a small sampling of a category that is abundantly represented in Biblical Hebrew. ...

The term "concretized absract plural" is preferable to others that have been mentioned because it is more precise and not susceptible to the mistaken notion that the plural form implies a quality of might, excellence, or superiority which may or may not characterize the referent of the word. [He here notes Otto Eissfeldt's reference to the grammatical category "substantivisches Abstraktum."] Again, in the case of the abstract plural, the emphasis conveyed by the plural form pertains not to the object denoted but to the meaninf of the substantive itself. Thus the suffix form of betulim in Lev. 21:13 ("And he shall take a wife in her virginity") does not mean "mighty virgin" [or majestic virgin - JS] but "virginity," emphasizing the idea associated with the stem, i.e., an abstraction.​

He proceeds to trace examples from early Hebrew writing a well as comparable examples from Akkadian, Late Bronze Age Ugarit and Phoenician text.

What I find lovely about this perspective is that it elevates the meaning of Elohim from some narcissistic "plural of majesty" to something far more substantive - what I like to refer to as the reification of Godliness.

Hope that helped a little ...

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The phrase used by Joel S. Burnett is "concretized abstract plural" (A Reassessment of Biblical Elohim - SBL Dissertation Series 183), originally presented as the author's doctoral thesis at John Hopkins University, 1999, with P. Kyle McCarter, Jr.,serving as Dissertation Advisor. He writes:

The usage in question, as explained in GKC [Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar - JS], is a variety of the abstract plural, which sums up "the conditions or qualities inherent in the idea of the stem. Examples include zequnim "old age," sanverim "blindness," onim "might," 'esot "counsel," harapot "contempt," neqamot "vengeance," and negidim "nobility" -- only a small sampling of a category that is abundantly represented in Biblical Hebrew. ...

The term "concretized absract plural" is preferable to others that have been mentioned because it is more precise and not susceptible to the mistaken notion that the plural form implies a quality of might, excellence, or superiority which may or may not characterize the referent of the word. [He here notes Otto Eissfeldt's reference to the grammatical category "substantivisches Abstraktum."] Again, in the case of the abstract plural, the emphasis conveyed by the plural form pertains not to the object denoted but to the meaninf of the substantive itself. Thus the suffix form of betulim in Lev. 21:13 ("And he shall take a wife in her virginity") does not mean "mighty virgin" [or majestic virgin - JS] but "virginity," emphasizing the idea associated with the stem, i.e., an abstraction.
​

He proceeds to trace examples from early Hebrew writing a well as comparable examples from Akkadian, Late Bronze Age Ugarit and Phoenician text.

What I find lovely about this perspective is that it elevates the meaning of Elohim from some narcissistic "plural of majesty" to something far more substantive - what I like to refer to as the reification of Godliness.

Hope that helped a little ...

With all these stems - I assume - the referents are always in the singular?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

With all these stems - I assume - the referents are always in the singular?

Not always, but often.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Not always, but often.

Great, thanks. I'll read that dissertation.

 

[gnostic]

Didn't Maimonides write (in Sefer Yad ha-Chazaka) that two of the groups of angels, Elohim and Bene Elohim in plural forms?

Is it not possible for Elohim to be used in both singular and plural forms?

Not that I believe in angels anymore than I believe in god.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Didn't Maimonides write (in Sefer Yad ha-Chazaka) that two of the groups of angels, Elohim and Bene Elohim in plural forms?

I'd be interested in hearing why you chose to call the work by that name. Frankly, it strkes me as awkward and a bit pretentious.

As for your question, I would not be at all surprised.

Is it not possible for Elohim to be used in both singular and plural forms?

Yes.

 

[gnostic]

I'd be interested in hearing why you chose to call the work by that name. Frankly, it strkes me as awkward and a bit pretentious.

Do you mean, Sefer Yad ha-Chazaka?

I supposed it is awkward. Pretentious? I don't know. I am not an expert in medieval Hebrew literature. It was just a source that I found, instead of the title Mishneh Torah, when investigating angelology. I don't why it has 2 titles.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Do you mean, Sefer Yad ha-Chazaka?

I supposed it is awkward. Pretentious? I don't know. I am not an expert in medieval Hebrew literature. It was just a source that I found, instead of the title Mishneh Torah, when investigating angelology. I don't why it has 2 titles.

Why not share the source? (By the way, 'investigating' is a pretty impressive term for a casual web search.)

 

[Dunemeister]

Hope that helped a little ...

It did, but it raises other questions for me (no surprise given my lack of familiarity with Hebrew, biblical or otherwise). My understanding is that the singular form of Elohim is El, correct? If what you're saying is correct, Elohim is a way of emphasizing an abstract quality, which is the actual referent of the word El. You characterize that as a "reification" of godliness. What do you mean by that? I'm a bit confused because I understood El to mean God or Lord (both with divine connotations). What would it mean to "reify" those sorts of things? Sorry if my question is muddled. It's a product of my lack of education in these matters.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If what you're saying is correct, Elohim is a way of emphasizing an abstract quality, which is the actual referent of the word El.

Not singular - plural. Elohim is a way of representing God as 'God[li]ness' - as the exemplar of qualities, as "That Which ..."

You characterize that as a "reification" of godliness. What do you mean by that? I'm a bit confused because I understood El to mean God or Lord (both with divine connotations). What would it mean to "reify" those sorts of things? Sorry if my question is muddled. It's a product of my lack of education in these matters.

Here, 'interpret' would be better than 'characterize,' and deals more with my (provisionally godless) theology than with Biblical Hebrew. I have no problem pursuing the matter, but it might take us off-topic in this thread.

 

[Dunemeister]

Not singular - plural. Elohim is a way of representing God as 'God[li]ness' - as the exemplar of qualities, as "That Which ..."

So the grammar means that Elohim is that being who exemplifies godliness to the nth degree. So the question then is, what is the godliness that the covenant god of Israel exemplifies to the nth degree?

Here, 'interpret' would be better than 'characterize,' and deals more with my (provisionally godless) theology than with Biblical Hebrew. I have no problem pursuing the matter, but it might take us off-topic in this thread.

Okay, I thought something like that might be going on. BTW, I have to say that this discussion is proving immensely helpful to me. Thanks for taking the time to spoon feed me.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The OED defines reification as "the mental conversion of a person or abstract concept into a thing." So one can choose: either

• Godliness is the aggregate of qualities that define God, or
• God is the mental conversion (typically, personification) of that aggregate of abstract qualities that we render as Godliness.

The first starts with preternatural agency and infers its attributes. The second envisions an ideal lattice of attributes and allows personification as a convenience. The interesting [Jewish] question then becomes: is there a meaningful difference between seeking a covenant with God and seeking a covenant with Godliness?

 

[stmdvrgnt]

Maimonides writes in the Guide (1:2) that Elohim is a homonym that denotes God, angels, judges, and the rulers of countries.

As to why the plural form is used when signifying God: in the passage I quoted Maimonides suddenly digresses to explain that panim, the Hebrew equivalent of face, is derived from the word panah, “he turned”, and signifies also “aim”, because a person will generally turn his faces towards something he desires. What does this have to do with his discussion about God and Elohim? I think he may have meant to address this very question. [/I]Panim[/I] is also in plural form although it signifies a singular face. So maybe Maimonides intends to convey that nouns which are derived from their verb are generally used in their plural form. I think the reason for this is because the noun represents more than action; its very definition is based on something which is a common occurrence. Thus perhaps the term Elohim derives its significance from the verb ho'il, to "will" something to happen, and this is why the term is applied to anyone in a state of power.

I don't have any sources for this explanation, it is my own speculation, but I think it is reasonable.

BTW Mishneh Torah is commonly quoted as Yad haChazakah in rabbinic literature, though I am only familiar with the Hebrew/Aramaic literature and not the English. At any rate, I wouldn't consider it pretentious.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Do you mean, Sefer Yad ha-Chazaka?

I supposed it is awkward. Pretentious? I don't know. I am not an expert in medieval Hebrew literature. It was just a source that I found, instead of the title Mishneh Torah, when investigating angelology. I don't why it has 2 titles.

sefer means book.... hence the first title

Mishneh refers to oral lore... hence the second title...

Elohim can be seen indeed as angels... the ones that give "way" to the watchers I believe....

no belief in angels? or God?

ok

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Maimonides writes in the Guide (1:2) that Elohim is a homonym that denotes God, angels, judges, and the rulers of countries.

Maimonides, lacking the knowledge base of today's philologists, was wrong.

 

[stmdvrgnt]

Maimonides, lacking the knowledge base of today's philologists, was wrong.

I have not read the dissertation, but in the passage you quoted every single example fits with my understanding of what Maimonides is saying - they all come from verbs. That is, except for betulim, but that is because betulim always denotes two things, that she is physically a virgin, and that she has never been penetrated, even anally. There are numerous sources in the Talmud to support this understanding of betulim, see Ketubot 99b for one.

 

[stmdvrgnt]

And please do elaborate on what knowledge refutes this possibility

 

[maklelan]

Maimonides writes in the Guide (1:2) that Elohim is a homonym that denotes God, angels, judges, and the rulers of countries.

This is inaccurate. Keep in mind Maimonides is separated from the biblical use of elohim by several centuries and an enormous ideological disparation. The term elohim is once (maybe twice) used to refer to angels, and not in the sense that they are taxonomically identifiable with the god of Israel or those of the nations, but that they inhabit divine realms. It is never used to refer to human judges (once to refer to a dead king, but this alludes to a theosis also manifested in Ugarit and not to the idea that kings, simply in virtue of being kings, were considered elohim). This is an apologetic rabbinical paraphrase of Psalm 82 and Exodus 22. The Septuagint translation clarifies the earlier understanding of the term. The "rulers of countries" reading is also an apologetic misinterpretation of scriptures like Deut 32:8-9, where YHWH is said to have established gods (lit. "sons of God") over the several nations. Second Temple Judaism conflated angels and these "sons of God" as a result of the universalization of YHWH and the development of a more strict monolatry. This is why Jub 15:31-32, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Deut 32:8, Sirach 17:17, and 1 Enoch 89:59-77; 90:22-27 describes these stewards as angels rather than gods.

As Burnett goes on to explain in his publication, the term can be used to convey several different ideas. It can be singular, plural, and abstract. It can refer to the God of Israel, another god, other gods (plural), divine beings, or divinity as an abstraction. Only a few times throughout the Hebrew Bible is it applied to anything other than recognized Syro-Palestinian deities, and in those instances it is being used in the abstract sense (for instance, Judg 13:22, "We have seen divinity"). Another consideration that must come into play is the fact that "angel" is often an interpolation into stories of divine visitation meant to protect the Jewish "monotheistic" outlook.

As to why the plural form is used when signifying God: in the passage I quoted Maimonides suddenly digresses to explain that panim, the Hebrew equivalent of face, is derived from the word panah, “he turned”, and signifies also “aim”, because a person will generally turn his faces towards something he desires. What does this have to do with his discussion about God and Elohim? I think he may have meant to address this very question. [/i]Panim[/i] is also in plural form although it signifies a singular face. So maybe Maimonides intends to convey that nouns which are derived from their verb are generally used in their plural form. I think the reason for this is because the noun represents more than action; its very definition is based on something which is a common occurrence. Thus perhaps the term Elohim derives its significance from the verb ho'il, to "will" something to happen, and this is why the term is applied to anyone in a state of power.

Not exactly. The Northwest Semitic equivalent of elohim ('ilanu, "gods/god") is used almost identically throughout the Syro-Palestinian literature. It can be found in the plural form in reference to singular subjects in Mari, Ugarit, Ta'anach, Qatna, and the Amarna letters. In no instance can they be shown to derive from a verbal form, but rather a word related to power. While it was very early on used to reference humans (pharaoh in some Amarna letters), by the time of the composition of the texts of the Hebrew Bible it had come to denote divinity.

I don't have any sources for this explanation, it is my own speculation, but I think it is reasonable.

BTW Mishneh Torah is commonly quoted as Yad haChazakah in rabbinic literature, though I am only familiar with the Hebrew/Aramaic literature and not the English. At any rate, I wouldn't consider it pretentious.

If one compares the literature that precedes and is contemporary to the biblical use of elohim one gets a much different picture.

 

[maklelan]

It did, but it raises other questions for me (no surprise given my lack of familiarity with Hebrew, biblical or otherwise). My understanding is that the singular form of Elohim is El, correct?

Eloha is considered the singular of elohim, although it may be backformed. Elim is the plural of el (see Exod 15:11; Ps 29:1; 58:2; 89:7).

If what you're saying is correct, Elohim is a way of emphasizing an abstract quality, which is the actual referent of the word El.

I wouldn't call it that. I would call it the abstraction of a concrete noun. 'abot ("fatherhood") is the abstraction of 'ab, "father," but it doesn't emphasize abstract qualities so much as simply refer to the abstraction of the noun. El is the title "god," but elohim means "divinity." It became concretized through repitition and instead of being read, "YHWH, the divinity," it becomes "YHWH God."