Elohim= The Trinity

[Shermana]

I personally like the idea anyway. However, like you said, it is discounted. I believe they discount it because there is no other attestation to it in the Ancient Near East?

Perhaps Fallingblood would like to present a link that says it's been discounted by scholars, he's usually good on backing his claims on such issues.

 

[Shermana]

Not gonna waste my time. You wouldn't accept those scholars as "legit" (even though they are legit). If you did accept them, you wouldn't have posted as you did here.

That's what I thought. Thanks for playing. Eventually you may realize that when someone asks for proof of your assertions and you refuse, it makes it look to everyone else reading like you're full of it.

However, let's just see a single scholarly article to begin with, regardless if I say it's legit or not. Otherwise, if you refuse to do that...then you should just be honest and say "I am full of it, I am talking nonsense and cannot back what I say" and you'd look much better.

C'mon Jay, I want to see you weigh in on this. You did a great job calling out Sojourner last time on the allegory thing.

 

[sojourner]

That's what I thought. Thanks for playing. Eventually you may realize that when someone asks for proof of your assertions and you refuse, it makes it look to everyone else reading like you're full of it.

I don't think so. I'm the one with the scholarship shield by my name. What have you got? I've proven myself here, and everyone knows it.

Eventually you may realize that your habitual dismissal of reputable scholars isn't winning you any credibility here.

But we have some lovely parting gifts for you, including the home version of our game: Baloney of the Marginally-grounded.

 

[Shermana]

I don't think so. I'm the one with the scholarship shield by my name. What have you got? I've proven myself here, and everyone knows it.

Eventually you may realize that your habitual dismissal of reputable scholars isn't winning you any credibility here.

What scholars did I dismiss exactly? I truly wish there was a reputable scholar even being mentioned here that I could even say what they're saying so I could dismiss it to begin with. Do you realize how silly it looks to say that I'm dismissing scholars when you're absolutely refusing on multiple counts to even list one?

If you want to show everyone that because you have the "scholarship shield" that you think its a get-out-of-backing-claim card, feel free to utterly discredit the scholarship shield? The way the "scholarship shield" people post, it looks like it's an utterly worthless award, and if anything stifles debate by stoking people's egos to the point of feeling they don't have to actually contribute the facts anymore.

So please, feel free to actually cite a SINGLE scholar that discusses this whether or not I find their view legit. Please do.

And again, I'd love to see Jay's view, if it's one thing I give him credit for, he calls you out real good when you start trying to pull this kind of thing.

 

[sojourner]

What scholars did I dismiss exactly? I truly wish there was a reputable scholar even being mentioned here that I could even say what they're saying so I could dismiss it to begin with. Do you realize how silly it looks to say that I'm dismissing scholars when you're absolutely refusing on multiple counts to even list one?

If you want to show everyone that because you have the "scholarship shield" that you think its a get-out-of-backing-claim card, feel free to utterly discredit the scholarship shield?

Dude --
Whatever. Get real.

 

[Shermana]

Dude --
Whatever. Get real.

Just realized, what you have is a "Shield of knowledge", not "shield of scholarship". That could mean they thought you had great knowledge in bonobo mating habits. It could imply knowledge in Dutch poetry. Knowledge in best pickup lines. How it means that people have identified you as a scholar to the point you aren't under the obligation to back your assertions, I have no knowledge of.

 

[outhouse]

I don't think so. I'm the one with the scholarship shield by my name. What have you got? I've proven myself here, and everyone knows it.

Eventually you may realize that your habitual dismissal of reputable scholars isn't winning you any credibility here.

But we have some lovely parting gifts for you, including the home version of our game: Baloney of the Marginally-grounded.

the awards given at this site are more of a theist popularity contest then anything else.




but with all that said, you are correct.

 

[outhouse]

Shermana the "royal we" doesnt fly with elohim at all.

Elohim was used in many places in the OT when they redacted El to mean Yahweh when the religion switched to monotheism.

 

[Shermana]

Shermana the "royal we" doesnt fly with elohim at all.

Elohim was used in many places in the OT when they redacted El to mean Yahweh when the religion switched to monotheism.

I completely agree that the ancient Israelites were Henotheistic as opposed to exactly what's called "Monotheistic" (Psalm 136:2 god of the gods Elohei Ha-Elohim)" but I think that "El" simply mean "god" like "Boss" and its debatable whether YHW is the same as YHWH, or if the Canaanites simply viewed the Israelite god as underneath their god. The word "god" itself, as I've mentioned is highly misunderstood. It means "power". Thus, the Canaanite and Hebrew word "El" simply mean "Chief" or "Power". Like how "Baal" means "lord".

Now, where "Elohim" can mean a singular god in the indefinite:

Which one of these do you think makes the most sense?

Exodus 7:1

a) "You have been made gods to Pharoah and Aaron will be your prophet"
b) "You have been made a god to Pharoah and Aaron will be your prophet"
c) "You have been made G-d to Pharoah and Aaron will be your prophet"

I say b). It's been translated this way in many versions. Likewise, single angels are referred to as "Elohim". Samuel's spirit is referred to as an Elohim.

Thus is why most often "Elohim" is articulated when it's THE god (god of the gods) even though it has a singular verb used. Why would it use a singular conjugation? Where else do you see a plural word have a singular conjugation? If nowhere else, then the special exception for the Majestic Plural applies.

 

[fallingblood]

Perhaps Fallingblood would like to present a link that says it's been discounted by scholars, he's usually good on backing his claims on such issues.

I believe Gary Rendsburg touches on this. He in fact likes the idea about the Royal we as well; however, he goes on to say that without additional evidence, such as it appearing in some other literature from the Ancient Near East, it can't be an idea that can really be argued. He has a lecture on Genesis with the teaching company, which he covers it.

 

[outhouse]

first

there is no debate that early Israeli's used El as a deity in the family of deities.

yahweh was the son and El was the creator god who created all the other deities like yahweh, Asgerah and Baal.

 

[Shermana]

I believe Gary Rendsburg touches on this. He in fact likes the idea about the Royal we as well; however, he goes on to say that without additional evidence, such as it appearing in some other literature from the Ancient Near East, it can't be an idea that can really be argued. He has a lecture on Genesis with the teaching company, which he covers it.

Thank you fallingblood.

I think one problem with this view is that the "Royal We" appears in Dark Age Arabic and also Indian literature, dismissing it because it doesn't appear as of yet in neighboring languages I don't think is enough to explain why it has a singular verb conjunction or why it can be used in the singular such as for Samuel's soul and various angels.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So what's your considered opinion of my take? I'm interested to hear a Jewish perspective. I'm strictly a product of Christian seminary, so I don't know if Jewish scholarship agrees with the JEPD theory or not...

Scholarship agrees with some form of JEDP as sort of a meta-theory.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Have you not heard of the Majestic Plural?

The "majestic plural" is, in my opinion, an obsolete and shallow understanding of the term.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Oh it has? Please, by all means, feel free to back your claim. I'd like to see a single non-Trinitarian scholar debunk the "Royal we", ...

A Reassessment of Biblical Elohim

 

[sojourner]

So please, feel free to actually cite a SINGLE scholar that discusses this whether or not I find their view legit. Please do.

Fine. I'll give you two:
Victor Matthews
Rick Lowery

 

[Shermana]

A Reassessment of Biblical Elohim

Unless I'm reading this wrong, this review seems to indicate that he thinks little if any differently than what I'm saying, and I think it may even contradict what Rendburg says.

Review of J. S. Burnett, A Reassessment of Biblical Elohim

The word elohim, morphologically plural, is routinely construed with a singular verb. In chapter 2 Burnett explores this with reference to ilanu (plural form) in Late Bronze Age cuneiform documents from Syria-Palestine written in "western peripheral Akkadian"(p. 7). He cites instances from the Amarna letters (EA) where the plural refers to pharaoh, ilaniya, "my divinity," and is construed with a singular verb or modified by a singular attributive adjective. He concludes that ilanu was used with a singular meaning and corresponds exactly to the use of elohim in the Hebrew Bible; a use that he has not yet discussed, merely asserted, evidence of the circular reasoning that hampers parts of his work. Geographical distribution of the term shows that the plural use spread from the coastal plain into the valleys and highlands, displacing the singular ilu with which it was interchangeable in pre-Amarna Canaanite, a term that could refer either to the personal god, the tutelary deity or the divine image. However, based on the juxtaposition of the two words in EA 151, he argues that ilanu possessed the further connotation of an abstract plural that encompassed the properties inherent in the concept, a classification known in biblical Hebrew, i.e., deity/divinity, as opposed to a specific god. First-Millennium parallels are adduced from Phoenician, Aramaic, and Akkadian sources. Burnett cites instances from Assyrian royal correspondence where the plural, ilanu is used for a single divinity. In Mesopotamian wisdom texts the personal god was regularly referred to in plural form, influenced by the Canaanite west.

 

[Shermana]

Fine. I'll give you two:
Victor Matthews
Rick Lowery

That's a good start, but I asked for links so we can actually see what they're saying. At least Jayhawker gave us a link so I could look up the review and see that he actually appears to agree with me and proves evidence for my case. As far as we know, your cited sources may actually be in agreement with me too.

Judging by the fact that there are other words that end with 'im" that are still referred to as singular, I don't see why Elohim, which can mean "a god" in the indefinite, would be any different.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Have you not heard of the Majestic Plural?

I'd like to see a single non-Trinitarian scholar debunk the "Royal we", ...

A Reassessment of Biblical Elohim

Unless I'm reading this wrong, this review seems to indicate that he thinks little if any differently than what I'm saying, ...

The word elohim, morphologically plural, is routinely construed with a singular verb. In chapter 2 Burnett explores this with reference to ilanu (plural form) in Late Bronze Age cuneiform documents from Syria-Palestine written in "western peripheral Akkadian"(p. 7). He cites instances from the Amarna letters (EA) where the plural refers to pharaoh, ilaniya, "my divinity," and is construed with a singular verb or modified by a singular attributive adjective. He concludes that ilanu was used with a singular meaning and corresponds exactly to the use of elohim in the Hebrew Bible; a use that he has not yet discussed, merely asserted, evidence of the circular reasoning that hampers parts of his work. Geographical distribution of the term shows that the plural use spread from the coastal plain into the valleys and highlands, displacing the singular ilu with which it was interchangeable in pre-Amarna Canaanite, a term that could refer either to the personal god, the tutelary deity or the divine image. However, based on the juxtaposition of the two words in EA 151, he argues that ilanu possessed the further connotation of an abstract plural that encompassed the properties inherent in the concept [emphasis added - JS], a classification known in biblical Hebrew, i.e., deity/divinity, as opposed to a specific god. First-Millennium parallels are adduced from Phoenician, Aramaic, and Akkadian sources. Burnett cites instances from Assyrian royal correspondence where the plural, ilanu is used for a single divinity. In Mesopotamian wisdom texts the personal god was regularly referred to in plural form, influenced by the Canaanite west.

As emphasized above, Burnett does not support 'elohim as an example of the "Majestic Plural" or 'royal we'. So, for example, ...

Other cases, including ilanu) in which plural nouns occur as grammatically singular are frequently explained by recourse to a supposed "plural of amplitude," "excellence," or "majesty." However, a closer review of the passages in question shows the existence of such a phenomenon in the Amarna letters to be doubtful.Weighing against this solution, first of all, is the plural writing of the word "servant," a usage which Bohl ironically termed plurale modestiae.

Rather than suggesting 'elohim as an example of the "Royal we," Burnett insists:

Like ilanu, Biblical Hebrew 'elohim and Phoenician 'lm are examples of the "concretized" abstract plural, a grammatical category operative in those Iron Age languages and in the Canaanite of the Amarna letters.

So, yes, you are indeed 'reading it wrong.'

 

[Shermana]

Okay, so he's nonetheless saying that Elohim in various uses is still singular, just ruling out the "Majestic We" concept but still saying it's an "Abstract plural" of sorts, that's fine, I can agree with that since there are other words in Hebrew that end with "Im" in the singular as I mentioned.