Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucla-cs.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!cepu!ucla-cs!wales From: wales@ucla-cs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish Subject: Question about "plural" aspect of Hebrew name of Deity Message-ID: <2715@ucla-cs.ARPA> Date: Tue, 11-Dec-84 16:49:48 EST Article-I.D.: ucla-cs.2715 Posted: Tue Dec 11 16:49:48 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 13-Dec-84 02:45:37 EST Reply-To: wales@ucla-cs.UUCP (Rich Wales) Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Lines: 76 As a preface to what I am about to ask: (1) I am not a Jew (I am a Mormon) -- though I have had lots of discus- sions with Jewish friends and believe I know at least some basic things regarding Judaism. I took two years of modern Hebrew at UCLA and can plod through the scriptures in the original with some degree of facility. (2) The following question is a sincere one and is NOT a covert attempt to proselytize or to "bait" anyone into a doctrinal argument. I know that this newsgroup has been plagued with such activity at var- ious times, but I do not wish to contribute to same. Some people have recently discussed the fact that one of the commonly used names of G-d is formally plural. Almost all the time when this word is used to refer to the true G-d (as opposed to pagan deities), the use of singular verbal, pronominal, and adjectival forms make it clear that a single entity is being referred to by the apparently plural name. However, there is at least one case where this doesn't appear to be so. I'm not too sure whether anything significant can or should be made of it, but I'd be very interested in knowing how Jewish tradition has ex- plained it. In Exodus 32:4 (the "golden calf" incident), we read: vayomru 'eleh 'eloheikha yisra'el 'asher he`elukha me'eretz mitzrayim Note the plural demonstrative ('eleh), as well as the plural verb (he`elukha -- he, ayin, lamed, vav, khaf sofit). One might be tempted to assume that multiple pagan deities were involved here, but consider the following: (1) There was evidently only one golden calf, not several. Hence, if the meaning really was plural, it is not obvious at all to me what is being referred to by the plurality. (2) Aaron's actions in verse 5 (proclaiming a feast day to the L-rd in connection with the making of the golden calf) -- combined with the fact that he was later forgiven for his actions and not put to death (cf. Exodus 32:26-28) -- suggest to me that he intended the idol not as a replacement or rival of the true G-d, but rather as a represen- tation (albeit quite misguided and totally unauthorized) of G-d that the Israelites could understand and would accept. (3) Nehemiah, in recalling this incident (Neh. 9:18) -- vayomru zeh 'eloheikha 'asher he`elkha mimitzrayim -- uses a singular demonstrative (zeh) and a singular verb form (he`elkha -- he, ayin, lamed, khaf sofit). For what it may be worth, the Septuagint version of Neh. 9:18 dis- agrees with the Masoretic text by using plural forms. The chapter-and-verse indications used above are from the KJV; however, they are the same as those in the two Hebrew versions in my collection (a two-volume JPS edition with Hebrew and English in parallel columns, and a one-volume pocket-sized Hebrew-only edition published in Israel) -- so I trust everyone reading this group will be able to find the pas- sages without difficulty. Anyway, as I said, I'd be interested in knowing what Jewish scholarship thinks about these particular verses. Again, this is a genuine request for information and is not fraught with any ulterior motives. If I have inadvertently offended anyone by the way I have discussed the issue, I offer all necessary apologies in advance. -- Rich Wales UCLA Computer Science Department 3531 Boelter Hall // Los Angeles, CA 90024 // (213) 825-5683 ARPA: wales@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA UUCP: ...!{cepu,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!wales