Page:Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (1910 Kautzsch-Cowley edition).djvu/423

 So especially  (to be distinguished from the numerical plural gods,, &c.). The supposition that is to be regarded as merely a remnant of earlier polytheistic views (i.e. as originally only a numerical plural) is at least highly improbable, and, moreover, would not explain the analogous plurals (see below). That the language has entirely rejected the idea of numerical plurality in (whenever it denotes one God), is proved especially by its being almost invariably joined with a singular attribute (cf. ), e.g. , &c. Hence may have been used originally not only as a numerical but also as an abstract plural (corresponding to the Latin numen, and our Godhead), and, like other abstracts of the same kind, have been transferred to a concrete single god (even of the heathen).

To the same class (and probably formed on the analogy of ) belong the plurals (only of Yahweh),, ,  (cf.  , and the Aram. , , 22, 25); and probably  (usually taken in the sense of penates) the image of a god, used especially for obtaining oracles. Certainly in, 16 only one image is intended; in most other places a single image may be intended ; in alone is it most naturally taken as a numerical plural. In  (of God) is doubtful; according to others it is a numerical plural, superiores.

Further,, as well as the singular , (lordship) lord, e.g. , ; , , cf. ; so especially with the suffixes of the 2nd and 3rd persons, , , &c., also  (except ); but in 1st sing. always. So also (with suffixes) lord, master (of slaves, cattle, or inanimate things; but in the sense of maritus, always in the singular), e.g. , , &c.

On the other hand, we must regard as doubtful a number of participles in the plural, which, being used as attributes of God, resemble plurales excellentiae; thus,, ; ;  ;  ; , ; for all these forms may also be explained as singular, according to. — might also be regarded as another instance, unless it be a numerical plural, their oppressors; moreover,,  (but read probably ); , ,  (so Baer, but Ginsburg ), 25:13 (in parallelism with ). These latter plurals, however (including ), may probably be more simply explained as indicating an indefinite individual, cf. o below.—For  (textus receptus) and   (textus receptus) the singular should be read, with Baer.