Was 'elohim' in Ge 1:1 a collective singular?

[tonychanyt]

The English noun "fish" can function as a collective singular. Similarly, Ex 7:

21 The fish [singular] in the Nile died [singular], and the Nile stank, so that the Egyptians could not drink water from the Nile. There was blood throughout all the land of Egypt.

Brown-Driver-Briggs: דָּגָה> noun feminine fish … almost always collective.

Hebrew had collective singulars, e.g., a collective singular noun followed by a singular verb to denote a collection of objects.

On the other hand, Ge 1:

In the beginning, God [plural] created [singular] the heavens and the earth.

God
אֱלֹהִ֑ים (’ĕ·lō·hîm)
Noun - masculine plural
Strong's 430: gods -- the supreme God, magistrates, a superlative

created
בָּרָ֣א (bā·rā)
Verb - Qal - Perfect - third person masculine singular
Strong's 1254: To create, to cut down, select, feed

This was not an example of collective singular. The noun was plural in form. And then it broke the usual grammatical rule. It was followed by a singular verb. The noun and verb did not agree in number.

Now, the British English phrase "city have" is an example of a collective plural.

Was 'elohim' in Ge 1:1 a collective singular?

No.

Was 'elohim' in Ge 1:1 a collective plural?

No.

What was it then?

It was an unusual construct that broke the usual grammatical rule.

 

[DennisF]

The English noun "fish" can function as a collective singular. Similarly, Ex 7:


Brown-Driver-Briggs: דָּגָה> noun feminine fish … almost always collective.

Hebrew had collective singulars, e.g., a collective singular noun followed by a singular verb to denote a collection of objects.

On the other hand, Ge 1:


God
אֱלֹהִ֑ים (’ĕ·lō·hîm)
Noun - masculine plural
Strong's 430: gods -- the supreme God, magistrates, a superlative

created
בָּרָ֣א (bā·rā)
Verb - Qal - Perfect - third person masculine singular
Strong's 1254: To create, to cut down, select, feed

This was not an example of collective singular. The noun was plural in form. And then it broke the usual grammatical rule. It was followed by a singular verb. The noun and verb did not agree in number.

Now, the British English phrase "city have" is an example of a collective plural.

Was 'elohim' in Ge 1:1 a collective singular?

No.

Was 'elohim' in Ge 1:1 a collective plural?

No.

What was it then?

It was an unusual construct that broke the usual grammatical rule.

Not knowing enough Hebrew I'll have to defer to your answer but I am suspicious of this because being familiar with the extensive nuances of language, it seems to me contrived to make this an "unusual construct" when it seems that an alternative is the collective singular for the verb.

Another angle to this is that the Hebrew language in scripture extends over centuries - over a millennium - and would not have remained static that long. Are there grammatical differences between paleo-Hebrew and, say, post-captivity (square-letter) Hebrew? I suppose that much of what is known of Hebrew is of the later Hebrew, not so much of paleo-Hebrew or "Phoenician". That makes me wonder.