Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yosef Shalom <yossiyeshua AT yahoo.com>]

Kevin,

You said...

 "It is normal to use a plural verb and adjective in relation to a plural 
noun That isn't a case of attraction, as I understand it.  There is 
grammatically no alternative.

I agree but I think you are missing a vital point here. YHWH was considered 
to be one god, in radical contrast to the pagan elohim (true plural), and the 
usual and overwhelmingly consistent approach in the Hebrew Sciptures is to 
combine Elohim (when speaking of YHWH) with singular verbs (which I'm sure 
you know.)

In other words, when speaking of YHWH, it is expected to use the singular 
verb in tandem with elohim, even though that seems to go against strict 
grammatical rules. That's what's "normal." It doesn't matter that elohim is 
plural as applied to YHWH. They understood YHWH to be one god.

Therefore, attraction would be a possible explanation for those extremely few 
'exceptions to the rule' where a plural verb occurs with Elohim (YHWH). What 
was to be expected to happen on an ideological level (singular verb used) DID 
NOT HAPPEN, but what did happen was what would be grammatically in line with 
a plural, objectively considered.

That's why Gordon is seeing attraction as a reason why this happened. The 
biblical writer should've used the singular verb according to conventional 
usage from a theological viewpoint with reference to YHWH, but instead the 
writer gave in to the temptation to "go with the flow" of grammatical 
consistency, objectively considered, ie "elohim is plural so OF COURSE I 
should use a plural verb. oops, I momentarily forgot that the true Elohim is 
one, and so I needed to "go against the flow" and use a singular verb." (in 
all that, I'm not alleging that the biblical writer introduced error into the 
text. Rather, he was just doing what is common to  human language.)


Kevin Riley <klriley AT alphalink.com.au> wrote: It is normal to use a plural 
verb and adjective in relation to a plural noun
  That isn't a case of attraction, as I understand it.  There is
grammatically no alternative.  It is different to when you have a number of
subjects and the verb is in the singular because of the "pull" of a singular
subject.  Wages in English sometimes has a singular verb because it is
thought of as a collective noun.  Using a singular verb/ adjective in Hebrew
to refer to a noun that is morphologically plural but thought of as singular
is more what I see with 'Elohim.  I doubt David thought of 'Elohim as plural
in concept when applied to God, but grammatically it should have a plural
verb.  It would be interesting to see if the use of a plural with 'Elohim
increases or decreases over time.  It would also be interesting to know why
it is plural in the first place.
 
Kevin Riley
 
-------Original Message------- 
 
From: Yosef Shalom 
Date: 5/12/2007 12:36:37 PM 
 
Kevin, 
 
Could you explain the rationale behind this statement... 
 
" I would also hesitate to call using a plural verb or adjective in
reference to a plural noun a case of attraction". 
 
2Samual 7:23 provides an interesting example because it appears in two
versions in the Hebrew Bible (also in 1 Chronicles 17:21) 
 
In Samuel, the text reads... 
 
"And who is like Your (sg) people (che‘amcha &#1499;&#1456;&#1506;&#1463;
&#1502;&#1468;&#1456;&#1498;&#1464;) Israel, even one nation in the earth,
whom Elohim (they) went (halchu &#1492;&#1464;&#1500;&#1456;&#1499;&#1493;
&#1468;) to redeem for Himself (lo &#1500;&#1493;&#1465;) as a people" 
 
Where halchu (went) is plural. 
 
Note though that the word for "your" in that verse is singular, so David
refers in that same verse to Elohim in the singular. 
 
When the Chronicler repeats David's prayer, the text reads... 
 
"And who is like Your people Israel, even one nation in the earth, whom
Elohim (he) went (halach &#1492;&#1464;&#1500;&#1463;&#1498;&#1456;) to
redeem for Himself a people" 
 
The verb is now recorded as singular. 
 
>From this, it's clear that David does not betray an understanding of plural
divine persons. 
 
But why is a plural verb employed in the Samuel passage? 
 
Attraction makes a lot of sense. The plural form of elohim attracted the
verb to it, which happens all the time in English. 
 
An obvious example would be the English translation ... 
 
"The wages of sin is death." 
 
Clearly, the plural "wages" would demand a plural "are." But because
preceding the verb is a singular noun "sin", it attracts the verb to it in a
singular form. 
 
Please explain the rationale for your statement I quoted above. 
 
Thanks, 
Joe 
 
Kevin Riley  wrote: I think the conclusion of
there being or not being a Trinity from the Hebrew 
Linguistic evidence is not possible solely on linguistic grounds. To 
Acknowledge that attraction occurs in all languages is not the same as 
Proving it occurs in any particular instance. I would also hesitate to call 
Using a plural verb or adjective in reference to a plural noun a case of 
Attraction". What is a linguistic question is whether the ancient Hebrew 
Writers did or did not consider 'Elohim to be a plural form. Assuming they 
Did [and the evidence is not clear], it still would not prove anything in 
Regards to the Trinity. 
 
Part of explaining the English examples may be to see that there is/can be a

Repetition of "there is/are" when two singular subjects are joined by "and",

And this second "there is" is subsequently deleted. In that case, no rule 
Is broken. 
 
You will find most theological arguments appear "cheezy" when you personally

Accept a different conclusion. Saying so on a list containing different 
Varieties of more than one faith is a sure way of offending people and 
Approaches closely to bad manners. 
 
Kevin Riley 
 
-------Original Message------- 
 
From: Yosef Shalom 
Date: 5/12/2007 8:17:00 AM 
 
I don't really want to get into an evaluation of the merits of The American 
Heritage Book of English Usage per se, but here is the full context of what 
Gordon quoted from... 
 
"“There once was a man from …” “There was an old woman who lived in a shoe 
…” Lovers of limericks and nursery rhymes are familiar with the anticipatory

There that functions as a “dummy subject,” delaying the real subject until 
The end of the clause. In this use there is usually classified as a pronoun 
And is distinguished from its use as an adverb indicating location, as in 
There’s the glove I’ve been looking for. 5 
According to the standard rule, when the pronoun there precedes a verb such 
As be, seem, or appear, the verb agrees in number with the following 
Grammatical subject: There is a great Italian deli across the street. There 
Are fabulous wildflowers in the hills. There seems to be a blueberry pie 
Cooking in the kitchen. There seem to be a few trees between the green and 
Me. But people often disregard this rule and use a singular verb with a 
Plural subject, especially when speaking or when using the contraction 
there’s. The Usage Panel dislikes this construction, however. Seventy-nine 
Percent reject the sentence There’s only three things you need to know about

This book. But when there’s is followed by a compound subject whose first 
Element is singular, the panel feels differently. Fifty-six percent of the 
Usage Panel accepts the sentence In each of us there’s a dreamer and a 
realist, and 32 percent more accept it in informal usage. The panel is even 
more accepting of the 
Sentence When you get to the stop light, there’s a gas station on the left 
and a grocery store on the right; 58 percent accept it in formal usage, 
while 37 percent more accept it in informal usage. Although this usage would

seem to violate the rules of subject and verb agreement, the attraction of 
the verb to the singular noun phrase following it is so strong that it is 
hard to avoid the construction entirely." 
 
My question is whether this can serve as a good rational hypothesis of how 
sometimes in speech the ancient Hebrew when speaking of Elohim might have 
not resisted the temptation to modify it with a plural adjective, especially

when that was the normal way to speak of the "elohim" in the surrounding 
paganisms that they interacted with on a daily basis. 
 
If this is a rational and convincing possibility, the attempts to derive 
some Trinitarian significance from the appearance of the plurals is a bit 
cheezy." imho 
 
 
_______________________________________________ 
b-hebrew mailing list 
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org 
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew 
 
 
 
--------------------------------- 
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it
now. 
_______________________________________________ 
b-hebrew mailing list 
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org 
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew 
 
 
-- 
No virus found in this incoming message. 
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.14/1171 - Release Date: 4/12/2007
7:31 PM 
 
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew


       
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing.   Make Yahoo your homepage.
>From leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il  Tue Dec  4 22:33:36 2007
Return-Path: <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mtaout4.012.net.il (mtaout4.012.net.il [84.95.2.10])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AB5E4C012
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Tue,  4 Dec 2007 22:33:36 -0500 
(EST)
Received: from xp ([84.94.61.135])
        by i_mtaout4.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12)
        with ESMTPA id <0JSK00JSK540AN11 AT i_mtaout4.012.net.il> for
        b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 05:45:37 +0200 (IST)
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 05:33:36 +0200
From: Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
X-012-Sender: leviny AT 012.net.il
To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-id: <00a501c836ef$9e665790$9d9015ac@xp>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1;
        reply-type=original
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
References: <409245.29785.qm AT web39510.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Plural verbs/adjectives modifying Elokim
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Biblical Hebrew Forum <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 03:33:36 -0000

In many passages which appear in Samuel-Kings and in Chronicles as 
almost-identical parallels, there are many such "small" differences which 
subtly change the meaning of the text. The usual assumption made by scholars 
is that the Chronicler, writing several centuries after the author of Samuel 
and Kings, is personally responsible for many of these differences, where he 
attemptd to either clarify passages that were unclear to him, or to bring 
theologically difficult passages more into line with his beliefs. One good 
example is at the end of the next chapter: 2 Sam. 8:18 clearly states that 
"David's sons were priests". 1 Chr. 18:17 has "David's sons were first at 
the hand of the king". To the Chronicler, living in the early Second Temple 
period, it was unthinkable that anyone but a direct decendant of Aaron would 
legitimately be called a "priest". In our case, the Chronicler may well have 
had a problem with the idea that Elohim "went" in the plural, and so changed 
the verb to the singular. Notice that he also added the definate article 
"Ha-Elohim" - "The God".
On the other hand, there are actually so many small differences between the 
Samuel text and the Chronicles version that it is not impossible that the 
text that Chronicles used was different in the first place, or even that 
both the present text of Samuel and the present text of Chronicles have been 
corrupted over the centuries by scribal errors. Look through any good 
commentary on Chronicles (such as Sarah Japhet's NCB or Gary Knoppers' 
Anchor Bible) and you'll find a lot on both possibilities.

All of this, or course, says little about the meaning of the "original" text 
in Samuel. Why the monotheistic Hebrews referred to their God in the plural 
is a topic that goes way beyond this discussion: does it reflect the 
Hebrews' polytheistic origins? is the plural form simply an honorific form 
of address? In my mind, the author of Samuel certainly only had one God in 
mind (and while I think that Kevin overstated his point, let's leave the 
Trinity out of this) and did not see the plural verb as a problem. 
"Attraction" sounds like a possibility, but is surely not the only one. BTW, 
it's interesting to note how some of the classic Jewish commentators dealt 
with this passage: Rashi, quoting the Targum Jonathan, writes that the 
"Elohim" referred to here are actually God's "messengers" Moses and Aaron. 
Kimhi (Radak) states that the plural is an honorific, but then mentions the 
Chronicles version and the TJ and writes that a "drash" interpretation could 
be that the singular refers to God, while the plural refers to Moses and 
Aaron.

Yigal Levin



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Yosef Shalom" <yossiyeshua AT yahoo.com>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 4:38 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Plural verbs/adjectives modifying Elokim


> Kenneth,
>
> I never took the two passages as implying David actually prayed the prayer 
> twice in both forms.
>
> What I take it as is that David said it originally as in Samuel, and then 
> later when the Chronicler recorded it, he did so without the plural, since 
> it had no bearing on the essential meaning of the passage and was more in 
> line with the normal appearance of Elohim with singular verbs.
>
>
>
> kenneth greifer <greifer AT hotmail.com> wrote:
> Yosef,
>
> If 2 Samuel 7:23 and 1 Chronicles 17:21 say the same thing, but one is in 
> plural, and the other is in singular, maybe one of them has mistakes, even 
> if you don't know which one. I doubt King David said the same thing twice, 
> once in plural and once in singular.
>
> Kenneth
>