Abraham ibn Ezraאַבְרָהָם אִבְּן עֶזְרָא

English

“E-lohim” – After we have found [the word] e-loah, we know that E-lohim is its plural form, and the root [of this] is in the nature of language. For every language has a formal form. The way of expressing formality in non-Hebrew languages is by the lesser using the plural in the presence of the greater. In Arabic the way of formal expression is for the greater to speak, as royalty, in the plural. In the Holy Tongue, the way is to refer to the greater in the plural. Like “master” (adonim), “owner” b’alim as they said, “a harsh master” (b’alim) Isaiah 19:4, “his master (b’alim) shall take”. Likewise the word “upon him” (alav), “to him” (elav), “until him” (adav). For this reason does Scripture state “He created” and not “they created”.

Sefaria Community Translation · cc0

Hebrew / Aramaic

Ibn Ezra on Gen 1:1, s.v. אלהים · pd

Notes

The grammarian's answer, and it is comparative philology two hundred years before anyone calls it that. Having found eloah, we know that Elohim is its plural, and the root of the usage is in the nature of language itself: every language has a way of showing honour. In the vernacular tongues the lesser addresses the greater in the plural; in Arabic the greater — a king — speaks of himself in the plural; in the Holy Tongue the way is to speak of the greater in the plural, as with adonim, 'master', and be'alim, 'owner', which take plural forms for a single person (Isa 19:4, Exod 22:10). And therefore: Scripture says bara and not bare'u. That last clause is word for word what Abelard asks at the Paraclete twenty years earlier — unde dictum est Eloim creavit, non creaverunt? — and the two men give opposite answers to it, neither having heard of the other.

Threads

• → contests · Peter Abelard
  The same question and the opposite answer, twenty years apart and with no possible contact. Abelard: Eloim is plural, showing a plurality of divine persons, each of which is God, and the singular verb shows they are one creator. Ibn Ezra: Elohim is the plural of eloah, and the plural is how the Holy Tongue speaks of the great — as adonim and be'alim are plural for one master, and as a king in Arabic speaks of himself in the plural — 'and for this reason Scripture says bara and not bare'u.' Each has the whole of the other's evidence and takes the plural to mean the opposite thing.
• → echoes · Bereshit Rabbah
  Ibn Ezra's closing clause is Bereshit Rabbah's argument reduced to a grammarian's note: 'for this reason Scripture says bara and not bare'u.' What the midrash offers as a refutation of two authorities, he offers as the expected concord of an honorific plural — the same reading with the polemic taken out and a comparative philology of Arabic, Hebrew and the vernaculars put in.
• ← contests · Moses ben Naḥman (Naḥmanides)
  Ramban has Ibn Ezra open in front of him throughout the comment on this verse and takes the plural the other way: not an honorific but a compound, el hem, the force and 'they' — all the other forces — so that Elohim is the force of all forces. He does not deny the grammar; he refuses to let the plural be empty. 'A secret will yet be disclosed in connection with this' says that the real answer is one he will not print.
• ← contests · Abraham ibn Ezra
  One grammarian, two plurals, two incompatible accounts, and the daf can only show it because both pages are here. At Gen 1:1 the plural noun Elohim is the honorific plural and means nothing more: every language honours the great with a plural, as adonim and be'alim are plural for one master and as a king in Arabic speaks of himself in the plural. At Gen 1:26 Saadia Gaon offers him the identical explanation for the plural verb — na'aseh is the manner of royal speech — and he calls the proof texts false witnesses, parses every one of them away, and puts a real hearer in their place: God said to the angels, let us make a human, we shall occupy ourselves with him and not the water and the earth. The plural of majesty is a fact about nouns and does not reach a verb with a subject; but the reader who has only the Gen 1:1 page would take Ibn Ezra's answer to this crux to be the opposite of what it is.