Israel and Humanity - Theological explanation accompanying the plural word Elohim
§ 2.
THEOLOGICAL EXPLANATION
ACCOMPANY THE PLURAL WORD ELOHIM.
We now examine the case where the words that accompany Elohim are themselves plural. The explanation seems more difficult to find and yet it was possible to use a name in a polytheistic form of unitary sense, there is nothing absurd in supposing obedient to the same trend, it is went further and that it has sometimes in the plural other words, without that meaning was in no way modified it. Besides correcting almost invariably the writer who, with the plural Elohim, generally employs the singular, proves that the idea of unity was strong enough to counterbalance the influence of the grammatical rule which prescribed agreement and could therefore be argued that the exceptions that occur here and there, only confirms our thesis. [1] There are, for example the word Elohim in the plural and accompanying the singular verb. Here is a text from Deuteronomy we translate literally as well as others we have to mention to feel better these peculiarities of language: "What man is, indeed, that ever as we heard the voice of God ( Elohim ) alive talking (singular) of the fire, and who lived? "Deuteronomy [2] Sometimes the verb and the name is plural and singular pronoun:" Is there on earth a nation which is like your people, like Israel that Elohim came to buy histrain people? "[3]
Another famous text presents a particular aspect. It is part of the creation account: "Then Elohim said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness ... And Elohim created ... "[4] There is a curious mixture of singular and plural and which comes from two different periods, since the words: "Let us make man in our image," preceded the drafting mosaic to which those who belong above: "Then Elohim said." Do we pretend that our words: "Let us make man in our image," were borrowed from an old version of polytheistic and subsequently combined with the drafting mosaic? But then why do not we find a plural for the whole narrative, as we read the following verse: "Elohim created man in his image?" Modern criticism itself we grant that he must see in this passage a plural of majesty, as later in the episode of the confusion of tongues: "And the Lord said ... Come down, and there confound their language ... And the LORD dispersed them "[5] (4).
In all cases mentioned above, we still support the idea of monotheism presence near the singular plural, but what about the biblical texts where every word Elohim accompanying are in the plural? It is conceivable that by dint of being used in the sense of pure monotheism, as a word Elohim was able to awaken the long stop any contrary idea, but it could not be true of those who demanded writers at the time of reduction, a special effort of attention. It [6] may be in question of negligence of the pen, because in this case the scribes who, afterwards, have reformed so much smaller, would also not hesitate to correct these texts in the meaning unit. It must therefore be a compelling reason to maintain these exceptions that contradict appearance in a way that bad habits acquired language. We have reason to suppose they felt able to make these expressions polytheists harmless or even beneficial to the monotheistic faith in giving them a sense it acceptable. The reader can follow us in the review we will make these texts by ranking according to different causes, in our view, have in turn motivated.
First, we will post those that can not be attributed to the common expressions of language of the heathen, for it is God who speaks of himself. The portion of the first chapter of Genesis and the story of the Tower of Babel we have cited, are noteworthy in this regard and the assumption quite acceptable plural of majesty, must not exclude, in our opinion A deeper explanation is to say that in so doing speak one God viewed as the synthesis of all religious views, it was as if all the gods were at the same time expressed his mouth. It is also the philosophical commentary, the grammatical rule plural of majesty, for God being once conceived as unique, we felt the honor more, calling the name of all gods, specifically to to exclude any idea of divinity and claim that he alone possessed the supreme fulfillment.
For these two passages in the creation and the confusion of tongues, the rabbis have said that God consulted his court and asked the advice of his angels. If we will refer to the explanations we have given above, we see that this is literally true rabbinic gloss, except of course the anthropomorphic image of the consultation, because it means that the concurrence of all the divine attributes was necessary the work in question.
But here is another text that you deem more compromising and we look, for us, as more conclusive in favor of our thesis. Perhaps we used it as a key to explain much of plurals in question. While these plurals almost remain grammatical, they can [7] understand there is no need to look no theological issue, but it is not so with the passage of which we speak, because it is necessary to recognize a plurality logical and true God speaking as if it were accompanied by other gods "Elohim Avaya said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to the knowledge of good and evil. " [8]. The habit of language polytheist could go up using such expressions and the plural of majesty is not enough to explain them. Have we here a text absolutely pagan? One can believe in the presence of these words: "Elohim said Avaya , in which it is impossible to see an addition later monotheistic because the writer who introduced or amended those first words would have a fortiori, corrected the rest of the story. Bringing the word Avaya of the word Elohim to alleviate the sense of it has been a process so childish that the copyist the less experienced, there was no appeal unless it is necessary to see what we see precisely, a senior doctrinal teaching.
The fact that among those discussed here, one speaks on behalf of others, he does not already have a higher unity? You can not assume that God speaks to angels designed in the traditional manner, that is to say lower creatures, separate from Himself; too much equality prevails in the discourse that is possible . Do we not see this as rather the very attributes of God, without ceasing to be God himself, listen, advise and act in turn and that human language, we are forced to use to express these mysteries personifies necessarily? There is no other possible alternative: either the text is frankly polytheistic and describes the cabal of several deities, or this is the One God in a synthesis between adorable all its many attributes. They found somewhat hierarchical, it is natural that at the top of the gradation of divine beings are closer to the essence of the Deity, condensing in themselves, through the concentric organization of universe, all the inferior beings, and whether to them, regardless of the other name they want to, or fumes angels, gods or principalities, that the Lord is addressed primarily to act, ask them to think that if one wants to use anthropomorphic language, really for [9] make her whole being, to talk to himself by talking to them, if we agree to go the bottom of the philosophical idea.
We summarize the theological explanation of this passage by saying that this is an upper unit and a plurality of re-entering the unit, but which do not diversify; of one God and his attributes more or less made in the universe beings vis-à-vis other ideas in relation to God is the Being of beings, the consciousness of consciousness, and which, when spoken to, not out not himself. There is even a passage in the book of Genesis whose form is more unified and more theological, while suggesting a certain plurality in God. This is when God speaks to his own mind, his reason, his logos : "The Lord said to his heart" [10]. The Rabbis, commenting on the passage of an anthropomorphic manner according to their custom, said: This looks like a king who has erected a building by the ministry of an architect if he has any criticism, is not it the architect will address it?
The theological reason that plurals us can not be doubted and biblical anthropomorphism in its grammatical aspects blends naturally with the Theosophical anthropomorphism; Kabbalah or theology than we see in myths as well as biblical mythology rabbinic.
