In the absence of anything more satisfactory, we would submit a modification of one of the views above noticed, that, viz., which identifies the parties here referred to with the Cainites and the Sethites. Instead of understanding the phrases B'ney Ha Elohim, and B'noth Ha-Adam, in an ethical sense, we would view them rather as party designations ; nnd instead of regarding the formenas belonging to the Sethites, and the latter to the Cainites, we would reverse the application and regard the for mer as belonging to the Cainites, and the latter to the Sethites. In support of this view we would offer the foilowing suggestion. In Gen. v. 3, we are told that Adam begat a son in his own like ness after his image.' Now, without building any dogmatical position on this, it is hardly possible to avoid the conclusion that the writer intended to place this statement in contrast with that in ver. where he says that Adam was made in the like ness of God,' and along with that, to convey the idea that man WaS no longer produced in the like ness of God, but merely in thE. image and likeness of his parent. Farther, in stating this in connec tion specially with the birth of Seth, may not he mean to intimate that in the family of Seth, this fact was specially recognised and acknowledged ? By Cain, on the other hand, we know that this fact was not acknowledged. His great sin lay in his claiming to come before God as an unfallen being, who had no guilt to be expiated, but who had merely an acknowledgment of inferiority and dependance to make. This we take to be the only tenable hypothesis on which to explain the trans action recorded in Gen. iv. 3-7 (see Magee on the ,4 tonement, notes, Nos. 58, 61, 62, 63 ; Faber on Expiatoiy Sacrific-e, p. 85, ff.; Alexander, Connec tion and Harmony of the O. and N. T., p. 339, 2d ed.) Now, is it not conceivable that the pious sons of Seth, in bumble acknowledgment of the fact of men's fallen condition, may have contented themselves with the name of B'ney (B'noth) Ha Adam, while the Cainites, claiming to retain the original dignity of man as he came from the hands of' God, may have boastfully called themselves B'ney IIa-Elohim? In this case, the term Adam,' and the phrase sons of Adam,' though actually applicable to the whole race, would designate a portion of it on the same principle on which the descendants of Jacob called themselves Israel,' and the children of Abraham,' though they were not the only race that could claim descent from that patriarch. If this suggestion be adopted, the narrative we have been considering is a record of what we may very readily suppose to have hap pened, viz., that the descendants of Cain, and those of Seth, who had hitherto lived apart, came, as the land became filled with people, gradually to approach each other ; and that the haughty sons of Cain, who had hitherto probably thought of the Sethites only with contempt, being in this way brought into contact with the daughters of Seth, were struck with their superior beauty, and so after their own high-handed fashion, took them wives of all which they chose.' We now pass on to notice the peculiarity con nected with the use of Elohim, a plural, to desig nate God. This, as a usage in the lang-uage of a people of all others the most tenacious of mono theism, is a remarkable phenomenon; and the peculiarity becomes still more noticeable when we find that they made the laws of language bend to this usage, and construed this plural as if it were a singular with singular verbs and adjuncts. Such a phenomenon has naturally drawn to it the atten tion of interpreters and grammarians, and various solutions of the difficulty, some resting on matenal, others on purely formal grounds, have been offered. 1. An old opinion is that the peculiarity in ques tion was determined by dogmatical considerations ; that as God has revealed himself in His Word as subsisting in Trinity, One yet Three, it is as corres ponding to this revealed fact that a plural depgna tion of Him, construed as if it were singular, is ent• ployed in Scripture. 2. It has been asseited that as the religion of the Hebrews may be supposed to have grown out of an original polytheism, this peculiarity is a remnant or product of that earlier state of things. 3. It is suggested that as God is conceived to be the sum of all perfections, the plural was used along with singular verbs, etc., to indicate this. 4. It has been maintained that this usage belongs to a class coming under the law, that words expressing majesty or mastership are in Hebrew put in the plural. 5. It is regarded a.s
an instance of the plural used to denote the ab stract ; in this case the rO numen veneran dam. 6. It is to be viewed as an instance of the plural intensive. Of these views the first has found few supporters among s cholars, and has been formally repudiated by several who were strongly attached to Trinitarian views, as ex. gr. Calvin, Drusius, Bel larmin, Buxtorf, Hottinger, etc. The second opinion has received the suffrages of some learned men, but has been rejected by the majority as resting on assumptions wholly arbitrary, and as in sufficient to account for all the facts of the case. The sixth has been defended with much ability by Hengstenberg (Auth. d. Pent., i. zoo), and has' received very general assent. Whilst, how ever, it suffices to account for several of the usages which grammarians have placed under the fiction of a pluralis majestaticus,* it will not account for all, and especially for Elohim. For whilst in such words as t6v2 Baalim, p+yiN Adonim, etc., the concept of the singular may be intensified, and this intensification may be expressed by the plural, tbis is not the case with Elohirn; in this case the plural expresses no more than the singular, the very idea of intensified deity being absurd. Of the other proposed solutions, the only one which will bear an examination is the third. Ewald (lib. cit.) has adopted this view, and so has Furst (H. IV. E., in verb.) It rests on a principle pervading the language, viz., that words describing objects which combine plurality with unity arc used in the plural, and generally with verbs, etc., in the singular (comp. Jen li. 38; Ps. lxxii. r3 ; Ps. xviii.
; Is. lix. 12 ; Joel i. zo, etc.) If this hypothesis be adopted, it remains open to consider whether the first of the views above stated may not find place under it. If the plural so used be according to Ewald the idiomatic expression of multitude and variety existing in unity, there seems no reason why we may not regard the plurality in unity ex pressed by Elohim as a plurality ofpersons, as well as a plurality of attributes (Hengstenberg, book cited; Smith, Scripture Testimony to the Messiah, I. 3oS ; Alexander, Connection and Harmony, etc., p. 69, ff.; 2d ed.) II. We now come to consider the etymology and derivation of these words.
The opinion which here most naturally presents itself is, that in we have the simple primitive form, which in process of time was elongated into ;1'6;4. This is the opinion of Gesenius (Thes., s. v.), and also of Fiirst (H. IV. B., s. v.), though both admit that the old opinion that itself is a l derivative from n•t, to be strong, may have some foundation. In this case El is an appellation of God as the Mighty One, and Eloah is the same. By others the relative position of these words is reversed; El being regarded as an abbreviation of Eloah. Those who take this view, generally derive from Ar. adoravit, (1,1 stupuit, attonitus est. In this case .E/oah is the numen venerana'unt, and El the same. By many, however, who reg,ard the noun and the verb as connected, their relation is reversed, the verb being supposed to have come from the noun.
Hengstenberg has strenuously opposed the re garding of ;,s; as a primitive. He contends that such a view is without authority, that it is contrary to analogy (the name for God in all languages being a derivative word having an appellative signification), and that such a transition as that of into M).`„ is wholly unknown to the language. (Auth. d. Pent., I. 251). Ile accordingly contends for the derivation of it4t.!, from r6t.t, coluit, ado ravit, pavore correptus full, and of from III, It may be useful to note the cog-nate terms in other Shemitic dialects. Sanzaritan : sometimes Chilah or Chiu/ah, patens (cf. Castelli Animad. Samar. in Pentateuch., p. 3, ap. Bibl. Polyg. t. vi.) Phawician : El (9)X or /X) as in 'En-el ("EnAos, t.,Z)4j1), Gag-el (Gagilus, $W)), 'EXoEtiL (ap. Sanchuniathon.) Syriac: 4,1 //o, 'OIL\ Eloho. Arabic: L,t7: 4 \ all/ a4 allah.
(Besides the works referred to in this article, the following may be consulted :—Gussetius, Com mentarii Ling. Ebr. s. vocc. ; Leusden, Philologns Nebr. Diss. xxxii. ; Hottinger, Dissertl. Theol. Philo'. Diss. iv. ; Ewald, Die Composition des Ge nesis, sec. 5, ff.—W. L. A.