An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax

protective h, for example, imperative hiqqātēl, infinitive construct hiqqātēl, and
another form of the infinitive absolute, hiqqātōl. 2
b Concerning the origin of the n prefix nothing definite can be said. Hans Bauer and
Pontus Leander suppose that the *na and *ta affixes in the Niphal and Hithpael stems
respectively represent the original Proto-Semitic pronouns of the first-person
plural[Page 379] cf. Hebrew ˒ănáḥnû) and of the second person (cf. Hebrew ˒attâ,
etc.). They further suppose that these affixes originally indicated reflexives for just
these persons and that they were generalized secondarily throughout the conjugations
for the expression of the reflexive. They defend their suggestion by pointing to the
Scandinavian and Slavic languages, where the third-person reflexive pronoun
penetrated into the remaining persons in expressions of the passive. 3
c The suggestion that the *na augment originated with the first-person plural pronoun
is plausible, but the further suggestion that it was originally used to express a
reflexive idea goes beyond the formal evidence. Of greater importance than the
etymological problem is the actual usage of the Niphal.
d Grammarians have sought to determine the Niphal’s meaning in three different ways:
(1) by categorizing the stem’s values, (2) by abstracting a meaning common to all its
values in translation, and (3) by theorizing one original meaning from which others
secondarily were developed. Gotthelf Bergsträsser essentially opted for the first
approach:
The Niphal is related according to its meaning mostly to the Qal; it is (a) reflexive of the
Qal—occasionally (b) in a reciprocal sense—still more frequently (c) passive. From the
passive meaning is derived the sense of ‘to allow something to be done to someone.’ 4
The task of categorizing is a necessary preliminary, but Bergsträsser’s analysis
neither exhausts the Niphal’s functions nor does it attempt to penetrate to the meaning
of the stem in Semitic categories.
e Thomas O. Lambdin went beyond basic efforts by abstracting a medio-passive
meaning from what he considered to be the four categories of Niphal use: (1)
incomplete passive, (2) middle, (3) reflexive, and (4) resultative: “These four
categories have been defined on the basis of English. In Hebrew, however, they are
one: the medio-passive as expressed by the Niphal form.” 5 Ernst Jenni also sought one
2
The secondary h in these forms presumably results from analogy with comparable
forms in the inflection of the Hiphil stem.
* unattested form
3
BL §38c / p. 280.
4
GB 2.89 (§16b); see the similar treatment of Mayer Lambert, “L’emploi du nifal en
hébreu,” Revue des études juives 41 (1900) 196–214. On the use of forms of the Qal
and Niphal stems of the same root in neighboring lines of verse, see Moshe Held,
“The Action-Result (Factitive-Passive) Sequence of Identical Verbs in Biblical
Hebrew and Ugaritic,” Journal of Biblical Literature 84 (1965) 272–82.
5
T. O. Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew (New York: Scribner, 1971) 177, cf.
175–78.