An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax

essential meaning and found no equivalent category of thought in the Indo-European
languages:
An exact equivalent to the Niphal’s category of meaning does not exist in our languages, so
that we are compelled to take two different categories to help in the rendering of the uniform
stem—namely, passive and reflexive, to which sometimes must be added a so-called
tolerative use… 6
His conclusion is thus similar to Bergsträsser’s.
f We shall attempt to follow the third approach, namely, we shall abstract as best we
can a primary meaning from the stem’s many uses and theorize the course of
secondary[Page 380] developments. Since such an approach goes beyond the
descriptive evidence, we need to justify it. We need to approximate the Hebrew
structures (in contradistinction to those of English), and we need to establish the
meaning of the grammatical category (in contradistinction to lexical meanings).
g Our aim being to establish the meaning(s) of the Niphal stem in Hebrew, we may
begin by classifying the species of the Niphal. We may consult the categories of
thought known to us as English speakers, but the categories of English are not
necessarily those of Hebrew. By abstracting an essential notion behind all these
specific uses we may come closer to the Hebrew category. The stem’s values differ
according to a word’s meaning in context. By abstracting the common notion behind
these uses we may, however, come close to the grammatical form’s significance apart
from the lexical values. Some grammarians referred to the reflexive idea as primary,
but they do not adequately define this notion. 7 If, when we attempt to trace the
development of a primary meaning into its secondary uses, we find a plausible
development, it will tend to corroborate our starting point.
h The stem’s specific meanings can be classified as (1) middle, (2) passive, (3)
adjectival (simple adjectival, ingressive, gerundive), and (4) double-status (reflexive,
benefactive, reciprocal, tolerative, causative-reflexive). There are some unclassified
uses and some Niphal denominatives. We abstract from these specific meanings a
medio-reflexive notion. In all the specific uses of the Niphal, we find the common
notion(s) that the action or state expressed by the verb affects the subject (as in the
middle voice) or its interests (as in the reflexive). 8 Species 1, 2, and 3 can plausibly be
associated with the middle notion, and the others with the reflexive. Even in the
double-status uses, where the subject is both actor and patient of the action, the
primary notion is that the subject is affected by the action.
6
LHS 131.
7
Carl Brockelmann, Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen
Sprache (Berlin: Reuter und Reichard, 1908), 1. 536; Brockelmann, Hebräische
Syntax (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1956) 37; BL §38b-e, s’/ pp. 279–80, 288;
Joüon §51c / p. 115.
8
GKC §51c / p. 137 mentions the similarity of the Niphal to the Greek middle, which
has medio-passive sense.