Torah Torah Torah

Is the pluralism suggested in the above translation warranted ? That is does it occur in the original Hebrew?

If so, how is this plural identifcation explained in the Jewish community?

the royal we:)

Is that from the King James Bible?

It’s possible that the pluralization just signifies that God is important, in a simlair way that the Queen speaks about herself in the plural (the royal ‘We’).

From this website. I’m not a Hebrew expert, so I can’t attest to its accuracy, but I’ve found it pretty much agrees with other translation issues that Hebrew linguists on this board assert.

http://inthebeginning.net/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

(I hope this is not abuse of the “fair use” rules. If so, and it gets clipped, I understand.)

In Bereshit (Bereishis; Genesis), there are strands called “P,” “J,” “E” and one other I’m not remembering (“JE”?). The “E” strand uses Elohim as the name of God.

The word “Elohim” is a grammatical plural, hence the proper possessive is “our.” But in 1:27, there’s “So God created man in His image,” which again uses “Elohim.” So zev_steinhart or others, why does my Artscroll Tanach render “Elohim” plural in the first instance and singular in the second?

The translation is accurate, since the words B’tzalmeinu B’Kidmoteinu (in OUR image, after OUR likeness) are both in the plural.

There are several explanations brought forward by the commentators. The most common is that G-d was speaking to the ministering angels, who were created on the second day. A Midrash does explain that one who seeks the truth will see it, and that one who is looking for an excuse to blaspheme (by implying that G-d is not One) will do so anyway.

Because the verb used in 1:27, vi-yivra is singular. The plural (they made) is vi-yiv’r’u.

The verb used in 1:26 na’aseh is future tense plural (we). Future tense singular would have been e’e’seh.

Zev Steinhardt

Have we forgotten the 3 persons in one God thing…?

Thanks. My contemporary Hebrew is much better than my biblical Hebrew (which isn’t saying a lot).

Except that the OP asked about it from the Jewish POV. Since we don’t hold of the 3-in-one God concept, no one brought it up.

Zev Steinhardt

From a purely linguistic standpoint, it is worth noting that in Biblical Hebrew words indicating ownership or mastery tend to be rendered as plural, even if they refer to a singular entity. So that the owner of an ox is referred to as ba’alav (his owners), and the master of a slave is referred to as adonav (his masters). Those names of God that refer to lordship aspects are plural, those that refer to other attributes are singular.

Okay. I see. I think. The pluralism is entirely justified in a literal sense given the ancient Hebrew.

I’ve received two explanations for the pluralism.rampisad’s claim for angels created on the second day is not supported by my copy of Genesis, and the “our image” expression would suggest that the angels were made in the image of God as well.

IzzyR’s post is very interesting. Could IzzyR or any other Hebrew scholar/student support his claim for the ancient rendering style of pluralizing to suggest mastery rather than to suggest just numbers greater than one?

And given IzzyR’s explanation, are vernacular translations of the Torah corrected towards a singular concept of God ?

mrcrow, i believe you mean the eclesiastical we

adonuv - Used in Exodus 21:4. Clearly singular.
b’alav - Used in Exodus 22:13.

Zev Steinhardt


Fixed the italics-- CKDH

It’s been a really long time since I read it, but for a dissenting viewpoint or two you might want to check out Isaac Asimov’s *In The Beginning. * I recall much discussion in the book about linguistic inconsistencies and such in the Torah, which Asimov posited were related to Babylonian and Sumerian mythologies. (He didn’t only write sci-fi, you now.)