Mitchell Dahood on Psa 149:2:
his Supreme Maker. An attempt to reproduce the plural of excellence
ʿōśāyw, often emended to singular ʿōśō or ʿōśēhū, and usually rendered simply “his Maker.” This plural of
excellence recurs in Isa 54:5 and Job 35:10. (Mitchell Dahood, Psalms III: 101-150: Introduction,
Translation, and Notes with an Appendix: The Grammar of the Psalter [AYB 17A,
Anchor Yale Bible ([New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], 357)
Klaus Baltzer on Isa 54:5:
The plural form of the suffix is
explained as “the royal we” (see GKC § 124k). Other commentators (e.g., North)
believe that it is an assimilation to the following “who has made you” (עֹשַׂיִךְ). LXX, Syriac, and Targum are evidently assuming a simple
“(your) lord” (בַּעַל). This too would still fit in with the
wedding image. But it is impossible to overlook that the text is preparing for
a theophany and that—as the exegesis of v. 4 showed—the text belongs to the
dispute with the foreign myth. “Baal” is a title for the weather god, a
description has become a proper name. Baal is the counterpart to Anat. I
therefore do not believe that it is just a Masoretic scribal peculiarity when a
verb is used here instead of the substantive; this belongs to the original
text, the purpose being to avoid confusion with the foreign god. It is
certainly closely linked with the following “who has made you,” the temporal
sense of the participles being left open. Verses 6–10 will make clear that the
subject is a “marriage,” or a restoration of the marriage relationship as a
relationship that is permanent. “The covenant of my peace” is God’s covenant
with his people.
In the Ezekiel text about Oholah
and Oholibah (Ezekiel 23), to which there is probably a covert reference in
DtIsa 54:2, 315 the text says about Oholibah’s foreign lovers (Ezek
23:24): “They will fall upon you” (עָלַיִךְ וּבָאוּ). In that passage
this is meant in a hostile sense.
But according to the present text
too, this is not Baal arriving for a sexual adventure, as the myth relates. The
one who is coming is “he who made you,” and this bond is a bond purposing peace
and permanence. Consequently the reading “who weds you” is in line with the
present context and its dispute with the Baal–Anat myth. It would again be a
dramatic hyperbole characteristic of DtIsa, in which seriousness and wit are
closely knit. (Klaus Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah:
A Commentary on Isaiah 40–55 [Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical
Commentary on the Bible; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001], 441-42)
Choon-Leong Seow on Eccl 12:1
12:1. your creator. BHS has bôrĕʾêkā, apparently a plural, but many MSS read the singular form brʾk/bwrʾk “your creator.” The former
is, however, the lectio difficilior;
the latter may represent an attempt to correct the text. The form is sometimes
explained as the “plural of majesty” (so Delitzsch), but in Isa 43:1 we find
the form bōraʾăkā “your creator” used
of the deity; the “plural of majesty” is not used there. It is better not to
interpret the form as a plural, but as the result of the frequent confusion in
late Hebrew of III-ʾAlep and III-Weak
roots (see Notes at 2:26). The form is, thus, comparable with the participle ʿōśeh “maker” (used of God), which is
also attested with a pronominal suffix (see Isa 54:5; Ps 149:2; Job 35:10).
There is no need to emend the text or to interpret the form as a plural of
majesty. The more serious problem is with the meaning of the word.
All the ancient versions
understand the form (either reading bwrʾk
or bwrʾyk) to mean “your creator,”
but not all commentators agree that “your creator” is best suited to the context,
especially since the deity is always called ʾĕlōhîm
in Ecclesiastes. Hence, instead of bôrĕʾêkā
or bôraʾăkā, various alternatives
have been proposed. These include: (a) bĕrûʾêkā
“your well-being” or “your health” (Ehrlich); (b) boryāk “your vigor” (Zimmermann); (c) bĕʾērêkā or bôrĕkā “your
well” (Graetz), a metaphor for one’s wife, as in Prov 5:15; (d) bôrĕkā “your pit,” a synonym for the
grave (Galling). (C. L. Seow, Ecclesiastes: A New Translation
with Introduction and Commentary [AYB 18C; New Haven: Yale University Press,
2008], 351)
Note to Eccl 2:26 referenced above:
26. to the one who is favored. Hebrew lĕʾādām šeṭṭôb lĕpānāyw, lit. “to the person who is good before him
[i.e., God].” A similar expression is found in 7:26 (ṭôb lipnê hāʾĕlōhîm), where it also is contrasted with ḥôṭeʾ “offender.” The one who is ṭôb lipnê hāʾĕlōhîm is pleasing before
God (cf. Lev 10:19; Mal 2:17), whereas the ḥôṭeʾ—is
displeasing. Here the author may be thinking analogically of the Persian court,
where there were favorites of the king—those who were pleasing to the king—who
received royal grants, while others were left out (see Introduction, pp.
23–33).
the offender. The noun ḥôṭeʾ
is vocalized as if it were from a III-Weak root. This phenomenon is evident
elsewhere in Ecclesiastes: ḥôṭeʾ in
8:12; 9:2, 18 (but ḥôṭēʾ in 7:26), môṣeʾ in 7:26, yōṣāʾ in 10:5, and yĕšanne[ʾ]nnû
(emended) in 8:1 (see GKC § 75nn–rr). It is evident especially in Late Biblical
Hebrew (e.g., ḥôṭeʾ in Isa 65:20, a
text from the Persian period), in Qumran, and Mishnaic Hebrew (see Schoors, Pleasing Words, pp. 98–99). It is
important to observe that ḥôṭēʾ is
not a religious category in the wisdom tradition. The word ḥôṭēʾ, etymologically meaning “one who misses, lacks,” refers to
one who makes mistakes and bungles all the time, who cannot do anything right
(Prov 8:36; 13:22; 14:21; 19:2; 20:2; Eccl. 7:26; 9:2, 18; cf. Job 5:24). The ḥôṭēʾ is what one may call “a bungler”
or “a loser” in contemporary parlance. The ḥôṭeʾ
is displeasing. In contrast to the ḥôṭēʾ,
the one who is ṭôb is the smart one,
the one who does everything right. The same pair, ṭôb // ḥôṭeʾ, occurs two
other times in Ecclesiastes. In 7:26, the one who is “favored by God” (ṭôb lipnê hāʾĕlōhîm) will escape the
snares of Folly (see Comment at 7:26), while the ḥôṭeʾ “offender” is captured by her. The different destinies of
“the one who is favored” and “the offender” in that context are reminiscent,
respectively, of the wise and the fool in Proverbs 1–9, where the smart ones
escape the dangerous seductress (personified Folly), but the fools are caught
in her traps (see Comment at 7:26). In 7:20 one reads: “there is no one so
righteous (ṣaddîq) on earth, who does
only good (ṭôb) and does not err (yeḥĕṭāʾ)” (7:20). In this context, ṣaddîq also is not a religious term; it
refers to one who is always correct—the opposite of the fool (see Notes at
7:16). The one who “does only good” is one who is always correct and does not
make mistakes. The contrasting pair of ṭôb
and ḥôṭeʾ also occurs in 9:2, with
other pairs that typically portray positive and negative characters. In 9:18,
the ḥôṭeʾ is contrasted with the
sage; a single ḥôṭeʾ destroys much
“good.” See also 10:4, where the term ḥăṭāʾîm
“offenses” is used in a secular, rather than religious, sense. (C.
L. Seow, Ecclesiastes: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AYB
18C; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], 141-42)
Gesenius §124.k
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, עשָֹׁי my Maker, Jb 35:10; עשַֹׁ֫יִךְ
Is 54:5; עשָֹׁיו Ps 149:2; עשֶֹׁיהָ
Is 22:11; נוֹֽטֵיהֶם stretching them out, Is 42:5; for all these forms may also be
explained as singular, according to § 93 ss.—נֹֽגְשָׂיו
Is 3:12 might also be regarded as another instance, unless it be a numerical
plural, their oppressors; moreover, מְרִימָיו him
who lifteth it up, Is 10:15 (but read probably מְרִימוֹ);
שֹֽׁלְחָיו him who sendeth him, Pr 10:26, 22:21 (so Baer, but Ginsburg שֹֽׁלְחֶ֫ךָ), 25:13 (in parallelism with אֲדֹנָיו).
These latter plurals, however (including מרימיו),
may probably be more simply explained as indicating an indefinite individual,
cf. o below.—For שֹֽׁמְרֶ֫יךָ Ps 121:5 (textus receptus) and בּוֹֽרְאֶ֫יךָ Ec 12:1 (textus receptus) the singular
should be read, with Baer. (Friedrich Wilhelm Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E.
Kautzsch and Sir Arthur Ernest Cowley [2d ed.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910],
399)
Gesenius §93.ss
In a few instances, before a
suffix beginning with a consonant, the original ăy of the termination has been contracted to ê, and thus there arise forms which have apparently plural suffixes; as מִשְׁתֵּיהֶם
Is 5:12, Dn 1:10, 16; מַרְאֵיהֶם their appearance, Dn 1:15, Gn 41:21, cf. Na 2:5; נוֹֽטֵיהֶם who stretched them
forth, Is 42:5; defectively אֹֽפֵהֶם Ho 7:5 (cf. נְוֵהֶם Ez 34:14); on the
other hand, the examples in Is 14:11, Gn 47:17, which were formerly classed
with the above, are really plurals. But מַֽחֲנֶ֫יךָ thy camp, Dt 23:15 (מַֽחֲנֶ֫ךָ
occurs just before), מִקְנֶ֫יךָ thy cattle, Is 30:23 (probably also שָׂדֶ֫יךָ
1 K 2:26), מַרְאַ֫יִךְ Ct 2:14, and מַרְאָיו the sight of him,
Jb 41:1 (with the י here retained orthographically), מַֽעֲלָיו Ez 40:31, &c., are still to be explained as singulars.—On a
few other examples which may perhaps be thus explained, see § 124 k. Before the
plural ending the original termination ay
reappears in מְמֻֽחָיִם Is 25:6 (part. Pu. from מָחָה). (Friedrich
Wilhelm Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew
Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch and Sir Arthur Ernest Cowley [2d ed.; Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1910], 273-74)
Paul Joüon and Takamitsu Muraoka on the Plural in
Biblical Hebrew
§ 136. The plural
a
The plural is used mainly to
designate a plurality of distinct beings. It is also used, quite broadly, to
designate things which, while having a real unity, also express plurality in
some way. Thus in a compound object one may consider the component elements, in
an extended object the various parts, in a particularly perfect being the
multiplicity or the intensity of the being, or even in something abstract the
multiplicity of manifestations. Thus in Hebrew one may distinguish the plurals
of composition, of extension, of excellence or of majesty,
of intensity, of abstraction.
Many of these plurals are pluralia tantum (§ 90 f). Moreover, a
fair number of them are only found in poetry.
b
Plural of composition: חִטִּים wheat as a
collection of grains and stalks, e.g. always קְצִיר חטּים wheat harvest Gn 30.14 (חִטָּה
designates wheat as a species: Ex 9.32; Dt 8.8); same distinction between שְׂעֹרָה and שְׂעֹרִים barley,
פִּשְׁתָּה and פִּשְׁתִּים flax; כֻּסֶּ֫מֶת and כֻּסְּמִים spelt().
From כֶּ֫סֶף we have כְּסָפִים Gn 42.25 pieces of silver; from עֵץ we have עֵצִים pieces or bits of wood; from בְּדִיל we have בְּדִלִים particles of lead
Is 1.25; בַּד linen, בַּדִּים linen
garments Dn 10.5. In poetry לֵילוֹת
sometimes seems to mean parts of the
night, nocturnal hours Is 21.8 (cf. LXX); Ct 3.1,8; Ps 16.7; 92.3; 134.1.
The plural דָּמִים designates blood in a state of dispersion (stains,
pools of blood) and thus the blood shed
in a murder Gn 4.10, hence murder Ez
22.2.
Compare, with dual of
composition, נְחֻשְׁתַּ֫יִם two pieces of bronze = chains (of a prisoner; comp. Fr. les fers, Engl. irons), עַרְבַּ֫יִם § 91 g.
מַ֫יִם water may be
explained as a plural of composition() or as a plural of extension.
(1) Here belongs a whole series
of nouns which have the fem. ending in the sg., and the masc. in the pl.,
mostly designations of various kinds of agricultural produce: לְבֵנָה brick; בֵּיצָה (the sg. attested in MH) egg;
דְּבוֹרָה bee; נְמָלָה (pl. נְמָלִים
in MH) ant; עֲדָשָׁה
(attested in MH) lentil; עֲרָבָה (MH) poplar; פַּגָּה (so in MH) early fig;
שׁוֹשַׁנָּה rose; שִׁטָּה acacia tree; שִׁקְמָה (MH) sycamore tree; תְּאֵנָה fig, a word
which occurs as תאן in Ammonite (Heshbon ostracon 2), like the
Arabic collective noun tīn, parallel
to בערמ beasts of burden and חבלמ ropes.
c
Plural of extension: שָׁמַ֫יִם sky, heavens; מְרַאֲשׁוֹת bed-head (parts where the head is laid);
מרַגְּלְוֹת place of the feet;
אֲחוֹרִים hinder parts Ex 26.12 etc.; פָּנִים face (in Ez 1.6 the form is used as ordinary pl., faces); צַוָּארִים neck.
d
Plural of excellence or of majesty():
אֱלהִים God (and ordinary plural: gods); it is generally constructed in
the singular (§§ 148 a, 150 f); comp. קְדשִׁים the Holy One
(Pr 9.10; 30.3) and Arm. עֶלְיוֹנִין the Most High
(Dn 7.18,22,25).
אֲדֹנִים lord and Lord (and ordinary plural: lords). The plural of majesty exists in
all the forms, but in the 1st pers. sg. אֲדֹנָי it presents three
peculiarities(): 1) it is sacred (and reserved for God); 2) it has an
(emphatic) qameṣ; 3) the value of the suffix is practically nil(): the Lord. The plural of majesty has to a
large extent ousted the singular, of which only the form without suffix אָדוֹן (sacred and profane) is found, and the form אֲדֹנִי my lord. Therefore
we have: אָדוֹן (sacred and profane; speaking about God,
always אֲדוֹן כּל־הארץ 6 x); אֲדֹנִים
(sacred and prof.); in the 1st p.sg. אֲדֹנִי (prof., e.g. א׳ הַמֶּ֫לֶךְ), אֲדֹנָי (sacred, e.g. אֲדֹנָי יֱהוִה)(); in the other persons, e.g. אֲדֹנֵ֫ינוּ our
lord, our Lord (and our lords)().
From בַּ֫עַל
in the sense master, lord (not in the
sense of husband) there is a plural
of majesty, but only with suffixes (in fact only בְּעָלָיו
and בְּעָלֶ֫יהָ his/her master). תְּרָפִים Teraphim (domestic idols, household
gods), treated as a sing. in 1Sm 19.13,16, is prob. a plural of excellence.
חָכְמוֹת Wisdom (§ 96 A
b) seems to be a kind of plural of majesty.
(1) In various languages the
names of water tend to pass to the
plural: the renewal of running water produces the impression of distinct parts;
cf. W. Meyer-Lübke, Grammaire des langues
romanes (Paris, 1890–1906), 3, § 26.
(2) J. Euting, Tagbuch einer Reise in Inner-Arabien
(Leiden, 1896–1914), p. VII(cf. p. 127) draws attention to a curious example of
the plural of majesty in a modern Arabic dialect: the sheik (šayḫ) of Ḥayel is called aš-šuyūḫ (broken plural: the sheiks). This example shows that it
is not necessary for the origin of the plural of majesty to be sought in the
plural of abstraction. The we of
majesty does not exist in Hebrew, § 114 e, n.
(3) Cf. O. Eissfeldt, “ʾādhōn,”
in G.J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren (eds), Theologisches
Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament (Stuttgart/Berlin/Köln/Mainz, 1970ff.), 1,
cols. 62–78, where it is suggested, inter alia, that /-āy/ in this case may be
a special afformative, “Lord of all.” However, the differentiation אֲדֹנִי (secular/human) vs. אֲדֹנָי (divine) can easily
be an artificial, theologically motivated one; cf. צְלֵם
vs. צֶ֫לֶם, טְעֵם vs. טַ֫עַם,
and the unique לֶהֱוֵא in BA.
(4) Comp. Fr. monseigneur (from mon seigneur), madame; un monsieur.
(5) 1 x אֲדֹנַי my lords Gn
19.2.
(6) 1Sm 16.16 אדננוּ our lord,
without Yod, is prob. incorrect.
e
There probably() is a plural of
majesty, doubtless on the analogy of the preceding nouns, in the following
cases which refer to God or to a master. Speaking about God: עֹשָׂ֑י my
maker Job 35.10; עֹשַׂיִךְ Is 54.5; עֹשָׂיו Ps 149.2. Speaking about a master: שֹׁלְחָיו he who has sent him Pr 10.26; 25.13
(parall. אֲדֹנָיו); מְרִימָיו he
who lifts it Is 10.15.
(1) In the case of ל״ה
roots, there may be an apparent plural (§ 96 C e), e.g. Is 42.5 נוֹטֵיהֶם;
22.11 עֹשֶׂ֫יהָ.
f
Plural of intensity() (analogous to the preceding): תַּנִּינִים the (great) Dragon Ps 74.13; prob. בְּהֵמוֹת Behemoth
(the great Beast) Job 40.15. But abstract plural nouns (§ g) often given as intensive plurals, e.g. בַּטֻּחוֹת security;
אוֹנִים strength (Is 40.29 excludes the idea of
intensity) do not seem to have this nuance. With Beth essentiae (or Beth
of the predicate, § 133 c) there is Ps 118.7 יהוה לי בְּעֹזְרָ֑י Y. is for me my (great) Auxiliary; 54.6; Jdg 11.35.
(1) Cf. A. Ember, “The pluralis
intensivus in Hebrew”, AJSLL 21
(1905) 195ff.
g
Plural of abstraction. An abstract noun is quite often expressed by a plural,
which properly speaking aims at the various concrete manifestations of a
quality or of a state; thus בַּטֻּחוֹת security
originally meant the sure circumstances,
the sure things, secura, from which the transition was made to security.
Qualities: אֱמוּנוֹת integrity Pr 28.20† (the singular is
frequent) and אֱמוּנִים (7 x; sg. אֵמוּן
1 x); בִּינוֹת intelligence Is 27.11† (the sg. is freq.); תְּבוּנוֹת intelligence
(6 x; sg. freq.); דֵּעוֹת knowledge 1Sm 2.3; Job 36.4† (sg. דֵּעָה
4 x); בַּטֻּחוֹת security Job 12.6† and מִבְטַחִים Is 32.18; Jer 2.37
(sg. freq.); יְשׁוּעוֹת salvation Is 26.18; Ps 18.51; 28.8; 42.6; 44.5 etc. (sg. freq.); הַוּוֹת evil
(misfortune and malice); חֲמוּדוֹת excellence
Dn 9.23; אישׁ חֵמוֹת Pr 22.24 (= אישׁ חֵמָה
15.18 bad-tempered man); חֲרָפוֹת shame
Dn 12.2; תּהְפֻּכוֹת perversity (no sing.)(1); מֵישָׁרִים rectitude; אוֹנִים strength
Is 40.26,29; רַחֲמִים compassion; בְּמִסְתָּרִים Jer 13.17; Ps 17.12;
Lam 3.10 and בַּמִּסְתָּרִים Ps 10.8; 64.5 in secret (like בַּמִּסְתָּר Hb 3.14; Ps 10.9); מַמְּרֹרִים bitterness
Job 9.18; מַמְתַּקִּים sweetness Ct 5.16; מַחֲמַדִּים charm, beauty Ct 5.16; שַׁעֲשֻׁעִים pleasure, delights
(no sing.); תַּעֲנוּגִים pleasure, delights. Instances are mainly poetic. Cf. also § 90 f.
(1) Instead of קִנְאָה
the pl. קְנָאוֹת is used for jealousy in the legal and ritual sense מִנְחַת ק׳ offering of
Jealousy Nu 5.15,18,25; תּוֹרַת ק׳ law of J. vs. 29†.
h
States(): בְּחוּרִים() adolescence (state or time) Nu
11.28(?)†; בְּחוּרוֹת Ec 11.9; 12.1†; בְּתוּלִים virginity (state): Lv 21.13, etc (but
time: Jdg 11.37); זְקֻנִים old age (state or time; contr. זֹ֫קֶן quality of old age: senility); כְּלוּלוֹת engagement
(time: Jer 2.2†); מְגוּרִים sojourning; נְעוּרִים youth
(time) [comp. נֹ֫עַר (poetic) time: Ps
88.16; Pr 29.21; Job 36.14; perh. quality of youth 33.25†]; 1 x נְעוּרוֹת Jer 32.30; סַנְוֵרִים
kind of blindness (false vision) Gn 19.11; 2Kg 6.18†; עֲלוּמִים youth (time: Ps 89.46; Job 33.25; state
Is 54.4 (= celibacy); quality of
youth = youthful vigour, Job 20.11); שִׁכֻּלִים childlessness
Is 49.20. Perhaps the word חַיִּים life should be
included here.
(1) Since a state is essentially
durative, these plurals can prob. be explained by the idea of extension (§ c) in time.
(2) If the primary meaning had
been young people (Brock., GvG, II, p. 60; BL, p. 472), one would
expect בַּחוּרִים, בַּחוּרוֹת. Indeed it is rather
a qtūl form, like the analogous נְעוּרִים, זְקֻנִים.
i
Actions(1): זְנוּנִים fornication,
prostitution; כִּפֻּרִים atonement (MH also כִּפּוּר); מִלּוּאִים consecration; נִחֻמִים and תַּנְחוּמִים consolation; שִׁלֻּחִים sending back, dismissal (MH שִׁלּוּחַ); שִׁלּוּמִים retribution Is 34.8 (שִׁלּוּם
Ho 9.7; Mi 7.3†); שִׁמֻּרִים watching Ex 12.42†; תַּחֲנוּנִים supplication.
(1) The plural can in some cases
be explained by the multiplicity of the acts making up the total action. In
other cases the plural is difficult to explain, thus for שִׁלֻּחִים sending back,
dismissal (but comp. in Italian plurals like dare le sue dimissioni
“to tender one’s resignation,” prendere le difese di “to stand
up for, defend.”
j
Plural of generalisation. Apart from these various kinds of plural, some
plurals are found, mainly in poetry(), which seem due to generalisation and to
indetermination. Most instances are concrete nouns. Thus the plural is found in
words for sleep, dream, vision: שֵׁנוֹת sleep Pr 6.10 (= 24.33†); תְּנוּמוֹת sleep Pr 6.10
= (24.33); Job 33.15†; חֲלמוֹת dream Gn 37.8;
Dn 2.1†; מַרְאוֹת vision Gn 46.2; Ez 1.1 etc. Other exx.:
Zech 9.9 בֶּן־אֲתֹנוֹת foal of a she-ass
(cp. Ct 2.9 עֹ֫פֶר הָאַיָּלִים fawn of hind);
1Sm 17.43 מַקְלוֹת stick(s); Jdg 11.36; 2Sm 4.8† נְקָמוֹת vengeance; Gn 21.7 בָּנִים son;
Ex 21.22 יְלָדֶ֫יהָ offspring; Ps 133.3 הַרְרֵי צִיּוֹן mountain of Zion (cp. Am 3.9; Ct 4.8); Jer 23.24 בַּמִּסְתָּרִים in a hidden place (also in
secret, § g).
(1) Thus in the Song of Solomon
(P. Joüon, Le Cantique des Cantiques
[Rome, 1909], p. 79): 1.9 רִכְבֵי; 1.17 בָּתַּ֫ינוּ;
2.9 אַיָּלִים, חַלּנוֹת; 2.14 חַגְוֵי;
2.17 הָרֵי; 3.6 תִּימְרוֹת;
5.5 כַּפּוֹת; 6.2 גַּנִּים;
7.14 פְּתָחֵ֫ינוּ.
k
Finally, some plurals are
variously explained, especially in poetry, e.g. חֶרְמוֹנִים Hermon Ps 42.7† (everywhere else חֶרְמוֹן); perhaps plural of intensity (§ f), the Great Hermon, or
of extension (§ c).
l
Alongside the tendency to use the
plural despite the presence of the idea of the singular, there is the opposite
tendency to use the singular instead of the plural in a case where several
individuals have something in a similar manner, especially a member (hand, head, heart, mouth), a voice
etc.: Jdg 7.19 “the jugs which were in
their hand בְּיָדָם”; 7.25 “the head of Oreb and Zeeb”; Jer 32.40 “I
will put the fear of me in their heart”.
(The plural hearts is rare: 8 x); Ps
17.10 פִּימוֹ דִבְּרוּ their mouth(s)
have said; Ru 1.9 “they lifted up their voice קוֹלָן”; Ru 1.2 “the name of
his two sons”; 2Kg 23.14 מְקוֹמָם their sites;
25.28 כִּסֵּא “the thrones of the kings”; Ezr 1.9 מִסְפָּרָם their
numbers (the pl. only 1Ch 12.23).
m
Plural of a genitival group. There are three ways of forming the plural of
genitival group. Usually only the first noun is in the plural, quite rarely
only the second, quite often both nouns.
1) The first noun only in the plural. It is the ordinary and logical
construction: 1Ch 7.2 גִּבּוֹרֵי חַ֫יִל warriors of valour; 1Sm 22.7 בְּנֵי יְמִינִי (sing. בֶּן־יְמִינִי Benjaminite);
with suffix: Dt 1.41 כְּלֵי מִלְחַמְתּוֹ his instruments of war = his weapons (§
140 b).
n
2) The second noun only in the plural. This rather rare construction
assumes that the genitival group forms a compact block equivalent to a single
noun. It seems to be found only with בֵּית,
mainly בֵּית אָב family (literally house[hold] of father), pl. בֵּית אָבוֹת
Ex 6.14 etc. Other examples: 2Kg 17.29,32 בֵּית הַבָּמוֹת the buildings of the high-places (but 23.19 בָּתֵּי); 1Kg 12.31 (contr. 13.32); perhaps Mi 2.9; 1Sm 31.9 (¿); Ez
46.24.
o
3) Both nouns in the plural. This fairly common construction can be
explained by grammatical attraction():
the plural of the first noun was mechanically passed on to the second: גִּבּוֹרֵי חֲיָלִים warriors of valour (1Ch 7.5 etc.; contr.
7.2, § m). The plural חילים, never anywhere else meaning valour, cannot be explained as plural of abstraction (§ g); probably שָׂרֵי הַחֲיָלִים the chiefs of the army (1Kg 15.20 etc., where probably only one
army is meant; contr. 2Sm 24.4 שָׂרֵי הַחַ֫יִל);
Nu 13.32 אַנְשֵׁי מִדּוֹת men of tall
stature (contr. Is 45.14 אנשׁי מדּה);
Dt 9.9 לוּחוֹת הָאֲבָנִים the tablets of
stone (contr. Ex 24.12 לוּחוֹת הָאֶ֫בֶן);
Ezr 3.3 עַמֵּי הָאֲרָצוֹת the peoples of the
land (not: of the lands); 1Ch
29.30 כּל־מַמְלְכוֹת הָאֲרָצוֹת πάσας βασιλείας τῆς γῆς; 1Ch 29.4
קִירוֹת הַבָּתִּים the walls of the
temple; Dt 9.2a בְּנֵי עֲנָקִים (contr. 2b בְּנֵי עֲנָק);
Ps 63.6 שִׂפְתֵי רְנָנוֹת lips of exultation;
Gn 42.35b צְרֹרוֹת כַּסְפֵּיהֶם their money-bags (contr. 35a
צרוֹר־כּספּוֹ).
The writer of Chronicles likes this construction(), e.g. אַנְשֵׁי שֵׁמוֹת men of renown 1Ch 5.24; 12.30 (contr. אַנְשֵׁי שֵׁם Nu 16.2; cf. Gn 6.4). It is also common in
MH, e.g. בָּתֵּי כְּנֵסִיּוֹת.
(1) Thus can the Fr. de guerre lasse (for las) be explained. Comp. formations like les Nouveaux-Zelandais, inhabitants of la Nouvelle-Zelande.
(2) Kropat, Sy (Paul Joüon and Takamitsu Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 2 vols. (Rome:
Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2003], 2:499-505)
