Cherubic Question

On Language

By Philologos

Published August 21, 2008, issue of August 29, 2008.
  • Print
  • Share Share

Alvin Golub of Brooklyn has a question about cherubs, those little winged figures who, in paintings and illustrations, cavort about the heavens, tooting their horns. Why, he wants to know, does English also have the form “cherubim,” using the Hebrew plural rather than the English one?

On the face of it, this may not seem a very interesting question. English does occasionally (as I once pointed out in these pages) keep foreign plurals when borrowing words from other languages (we speak of data, for example, rather than of “datums,” and of blini rather than of “blins”), so why not cherubim? We even have a contemporary instance of the Hebrew “-im” in English, kibbutz being pluralized as kibbutzim rather than as “kibbutzes.”

But cherubim is a much more interesting word than kibbutzim. In medieval and Renaissance English, it was taken to be a singular form. This is why, when the Hebrew book of Genesis tells us that after Adam and Eve were driven from the Garden of Eden, God put k’ruvim at its entrance to keep humanity from returning there, the 1611 King James Version gives us, “And he [God] placed at the east of the garden of Eden cherubims.”

Ultimately, this goes back to the standard Latin Bible, which translates these words as et collocavit antes paradisum voluptatis Cherubim. Why Jerome, this Bible’s fourth-century translator, did not render the plural of the Hebrew k’ruv as cherubi or cherubes, in the Latin manner, is explained by his decision to capitalize it. He did not, that is, construe k’ruvim as a plural, but rather as the proper name of some kind of supernatural creature placed by God to guard the Gates of Eden — and as a result, cherubim or cherubin entered a large number of European languages with such a meaning.

Thus, we have Italian cherubino, Spanish querubin, French cherubin and so on, all in the sense of a single cherub. The difference between these languages and English was that in the latter, due to the seriousness with which Hebrew scholarship was taken by 17th-century English Protestantism, “cherubim” as a singular came to be recognized as a grammatical mistake and was replaced by “cherub.” This is the usage in the King James, which rather illogically, however, continues to stick with the plural form “cherubims.”

What led Jerome, an accomplished Hebraist in his own right, to make such a mistake? He would seem to have been influenced by a vision of many cherubim in Chapter 10 of the book of Ezekiel, in which each cherub seen by the prophet is depicted as a composite creature, so that “every one had four faces: the first face was the face of a cherub, and the second face was the face of a man, and the third the face of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle.” Since Jerome translates the first part of this as Quattuor autem facies habebat unum: facies una, facies cherub, he apparently understood the singular Hebrew noun k’ruv to be the “cherub-face” of a four-faced creature called k’ruvim in both the singular and the plural, just as our English word “fish” can mean either one fish or many.

Ezekiel’s cherubs, which had wheels and whose “whole body, and their backs, and their hands, and their wings, and the wheels, were full of eyes round about,” are a bit difficult to picture and do not necessarily reflect the idea of a cherub as it existed in biblical culture. Elsewhere in the Bible, cherubs are flying creatures of which golden images stand on either side of the Ark of the Covenant in the Tabernacle and the Temple, shielding it with their wings. The Hebrew word for them comes from Accadian kuribu, a protective angel in ancient Babylonian mythology with wings, a human face, and the body of an ox or lion. Most likely, the biblical Israelites thought of cherubs in the same way.

Why, then, are the cherubs of European art portrayed as cute little baby angels rather than as fierce, semi-animal protectors? This derives from the Babylonian Talmud, which is written in a mixture of Aramaic and Hebrew. In the tractate of Sukkah, Rabbi Huna, who, like the other rabbis of his period, was no longer familiar with the cherub of ancient Semitic mythology, asks, “What is a k’ruv?” The answer is provided by Rabbi Abahu in the form of a play of words on the Aramaic plural of k’ruv, k’ruvaya. A cherub, he tells Rabbi Huna, is “like a ravya” (k’ravya) — that is, like a baby in the colloquial Aramaic of Babylonia.

One suspects that Rabbi Huna was merely joking. He certainly had no inkling that, starting with the Renaissance, generations of Christian artists, appraised of his interpretation by the Judaic studies of Italian humanists, would paint cherubs as chubby children because of him. We owe the adorable putti of Raphael and Titian to a talmudic pun. If that isn’t heavenly, what is?

Questions for Philologos can be sent to philologos@forward.com.


The Jewish Daily Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, The Jewish Daily Forwardrequires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, our spam filter prevents most links and certain key words from being posted and The Jewish Daily Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.





Find us on Facebook!
  • This is what the rockets over Israel and Gaza look like from space:
  • "Israel should not let captives languish or corpses rot. It should do everything in its power to recover people and bodies. Jewish law places a premium on pidyon shvuyim, “the redemption of captives,” and proper burial. But not when the price will lead to more death and more kidnappings." Do you agree?
  • Slate.com's Allison Benedikt wrote that Taglit-Birthright Israel is partly to blame for the death of American IDF volunteer Max Steinberg. This is why she's wrong:
  • Israeli soldiers want you to buy them socks. And snacks. And backpacks. And underwear. And pizza. So claim dozens of fundraising campaigns launched by American Jewish and Israeli charities since the start of the current wave of crisis and conflict in Israel and Gaza.
  • The sign reads: “Dogs are allowed in this establishment but Zionists are not under any circumstances.”
  • Is Twitter Israel's new worst enemy?
  • More than 50 former Israeli soldiers have refused to serve in the current ground operation in #Gaza.
  • "My wife and I are both half-Jewish. Both of us very much felt and feel American first and Jewish second. We are currently debating whether we should send our daughter to a Jewish pre-K and kindergarten program or to a public one. Pros? Give her a Jewish community and identity that she could build on throughout her life. Cons? Costs a lot of money; She will enter school with the idea that being Jewish makes her different somehow instead of something that you do after or in addition to regular school. Maybe a Shabbat sing-along would be enough?"
  • Undeterred by the conflict, 24 Jews participated in the first ever Jewish National Fund— JDate singles trip to Israel. Translation: Jews age 30 to 45 travelled to Israel to get it on in the sun, with a side of hummus.
  • "It pains and shocks me to say this, but here goes: My father was right all along. He always told me, as I spouted liberal talking points at the Shabbos table and challenged his hawkish views on Israel and the Palestinians to his unending chagrin, that I would one day change my tune." Have you had a similar experience?
  • "'What’s this, mommy?' she asked, while pulling at the purple sleeve to unwrap this mysterious little gift mom keeps hidden in the inside pocket of her bag. Oh boy, how do I answer?"
  • "I fear that we are witnessing the end of politics in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I see no possibility for resolution right now. I look into the future and see only a void." What do you think?
  • Not a gazillionaire? Take the "poor door."
  • "We will do what we must to protect our people. We have that right. We are not less deserving of life and quiet than anyone else. No more apologies."
  • "Woody Allen should have quit while he was ahead." Ezra Glinter's review of "Magic in the Moonlight": http://jd.fo/f4Q1Q
  • from-cache

Would you like to receive updates about new stories?




















We will not share your e-mail address or other personal information.

Already subscribed? Manage your subscription.