Pluralis Majestatis/Majestaticus [the "Royal We"] and God in the Hebrew Bible

Anti-Trinitarians commonly appeal to pluralis majestatis [or pluralis majestaticus] to explain passages like Gen. 1:26; Gen. 3:22 and Gen. 11:7 [etc.]. I'll be gathering links, resources and quotes that undermine that explanation in this blogpost. So, the blogpost will continue to grow as I find such materials.


In the following video Anthony Rogers shows why that proposed explanation doesn't work.

The Trinity in Genesis? Two Objections

(The Trinity in Jewish and Christian Scriptures, Part 2)

URL HERE

Among other things, Anthony Rogers points out that while the Plural of Majesty is wildly popular among anti-Trinitarians, it's altogether rejected by Hebrew scholars as a viable explanation.

Rogers states:

While one could loosely use the phrase "plural of majesty" as a way of referring to the Bible's use of nouns like "elohim" for God, which is technically plural in form but ordinarily functions as a singular, this ISN'T TRUE when it comes to verbs and pronouns or certain participles in Hebrew. Such as one finds in the underlying Hebrew text of Genesis 1:26 or companion texts like [Genesis] 3:22 and [Genesis] 11:7 where God likewise speaks in the plural. As the Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Lingustics states:

//The pluralis majestatis appears most frequently in nouns...but may also be used with some nominalized adjectives...[and] some participles. There are no undisputed examples of a pronoun or a verb displaying the pluralis majestatis...'Let us make man in our image' (Gen. 1:26) has occasionally been explained as a pluralis majestatis, but comparative Semitic and contextual factors favor other explanations."//

Rogers goes on to cite professor of Old Testament at Andrews University Gerhard Hasel as saying [or writing]:

"...there are no certain examples of plurals of majesty with either verbs or pronouns...the verb used in Genesis 1:26 ('asah) is never used with a plural of majesty. There is no linguistic or grammatical basis upon which the 'us' can be considered a plural of majesty."

Rogers goes on to quote Claus Westermann who was a professor at the University of Heidelberg:

"The plural of majesty does not occur in Hebrew..., so this older explanation has been completely abandoned today."

Rogers goes on to point out that if the plural of majesty were correct, then Gen. 3:22 would not say [as translated in English] "Behold, the man has become like ONE of Us." Rather it would say, "Behold, the man has become like Us" (without the phrase "one of").

Rogers goes on to quote Classical and Biblical scholar Tayler Lewis:

"Of all these views the pluralis majestaticus has the least support. It is foreign to the usus loquendi of the earliest language; [and] it is degrading instead of honoring to Deity..."

Here's a link to the Bible.ca website which doesn't appear to be fully Evangelical in its theology, but it does affirm the Doctrine of the Trinity. The following article deals with the pluralis majestatis issue.

http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-oneness-unity-plural-of-majesty-pluralis-majestaticus-royal-we.htm

Here's an excerpt:

E. What scholars say about "Plural of Majesty":

1. "Every one who is acquainted with the rudiments of the Hebrew and Chaldee languages, must know that God, in the holy Writings, very often spoke of Himself in the plural. The passages are numerous, in which, instead of a grammatical agreement between the subject and predicate, we meet with a construction, which some modern grammarians, who possess more of the so-called philosophical than of the real knowledge of the Oriental languages, call a pluralis excellentiae. This helps them out of every apparent difficulty. Such a pluralis excellentiae was, however, a thing unknown to Moses and the prophets. Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, David, and all the other kings, throughout TeNaKh (the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa) speak in the singular, and not as modern kings in the plural. They do not say we, but I, command; as in Gen. xli. 41; Dan. iii. 29; Ezra i. 2, etc." (Rabbi Tzvi Nassi, Oxford University professor, The Great Mystery, 1970, p6, )

1. "This first person plural can hardly be a mere editorial or royal plural that refers to the speaker alone, for no such usage is demonstrable anywhere else in biblical Hebrew. Therefore, we must face the question of who are included in this "us" and "our." It could hardly include the angels in consultation with God, for nowhere is it ever stated that man was created in the image of angels, only of God. Verse 27 then affirms: "and God [Elohim] created man in His own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female He created them" (NASB). God--the same God who spoke of Himself in the plural--now states that He created man in His image. In other words, the plural equals the singular. This can only be understood in terms of the Trinitarian nature of God. The one true God subsists in three Persons, Persons who are able to confer with one another and carry their plans into action together--without ceasing to be one God." (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason Archer, p.359, commenting on whether Gen 1:26 is a "plural of majesty")

1. "The best answer that they [Old Hebrew lexicographers and grammarians] could give was that the plural form used for the name (or title) of God was the 'pluralis majestatis,' that is the plural of majesty...to say nothing of the fact that it is not at all certain that the 'pluralis majestatis' is ever found in the Old Testament, there is an explanation much nearer at hand and much simpler, and that is, that a plural name was used for the one God, in spite of the intense monotheism of the Jews, because there is a plurality of person in the one Godhead." (The God of the Bible, R. A.Torrey, 1923, p 64)

1. "Another very popular view in modem times is that God uses the plural, just as kings do, as a mark of dignity (the so-called "plural of majesty"), but it is only late in Jewish history that such a form of speech occurs, and then it is used by Persian and Greek rulers (Esdr. iv. 18; 1 Mace. x. 19). Nor can the plural be regarded as merely indicating the way in which God summons Himself to energy, for the use of the language is against this (Gen. ii. 18; Is. xxxiii. 10)." (Trinity, A Catholic Dictionary, William E. Addis & Thomas Arnold, 1960, p 822-830)