An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax

verb would be the object in an equivalent clause with a transitive verb; and whether
causation, with either a passive or active role for the secondary subject, is meant.
p The English verb system does not differentiate between underlying transitivity
andintransitivity, so that (1) and (3) may assume the same verbal shape. Moreover,
English tends to elide the reflexive when the subject acts in its own interest or for its
own benefit, and so (5) and (6) along with (9) and (10) take on the same shape as (1)
and (3). Also, the English auxiliaries ‘make, cause,’ etc., with many verbs make the
claim that the subject is coercing someone else to perform the action, with the result
that the corresponding noncoercive sentences (7) and (8)—we have already
mentioned (9) and (11)—fall together with (1), (3), (5), (6). In sum, six or seven of
the twelve sentences have similar English shapes though they mean different things.
Further, while (10) brings out the causative force without ambiguity, it, too, can be
expressed by ‘Sarah flies…’For the most part the English speaker depends on the
context in recognizing notions of agency, causativity, and reflexitivity. Without
context ‘Sarah flies…’ is a very ambiguous statement in English; the same applies to
‘Sarah is flown.’
q One can sympathize with scholars who have expressed doubts about the view that
each stem indicates a difference in meaning. Alexander Sperber claimed, “I am going
to disprove this notion by demonstrating that the so-called verbal stems were
interchangeably used in order to indicate one and the same meaning, without implying
the slightest differentiation.” 22 His lists of forms from different stems used in similar
contexts are of great interest, but ultimately his evidence carries no conviction
because he fails to take[Page 359] note of the verb’s full context in each passage. His
argument amounts to little more than holding up sentences 1, 5, etc. and proclaiming:
“See, there’s no diflference in meaning between the Hebrew verbal stems. They all
mean ‘Sarah flies’ and can be used interchangeably.”
r Because English and other European-language verbal systems are impoverished in
morphological treatments of transitivity, causativity, and reflexitivity, most modern
Hebrew lexicons also fail to show adequately the subtle differences in meaning
among the verbal stems. The lexicographers are often forced to assign similar
“meanings” of a verb to the different verbal stems. For example, William L. Holladay,
in his fine lexicon, presents םקנ as follows. 23
Qal: take revenge
Niphal: be avenged, take revenge, avenge oneself
Piel: avenge
22 Alexander Sperber, A Historical Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Leiden: Brill, 1966)
6, cf. 5–14, drawing on his “Hebrew Grammar: A New Approach,” Journal of
Biblical Literature 62 (1943) 137–262.
23 William L. Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971) 245. We do not mean to suggest that there is any
simple, straightforward, and practical alternative.