An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax

implies that he disallows Goetze’s notion of a frequentative use of the Piel (24.5) on
the grounds that only tD stems like the Hithpael can show this meaning. In fact, the
frequentative Piel could be taken as indirect support for Speiser’s view, in that it
allows for more diversity within a stem than, say, Ernst Jenni would (24.1h).
c Not all of Speiser’s nine roots need be construed as iterative. It is difficult to
construct a grammar on the basis of apparent meaning, and the verbs assigned by
Speiser to this stem may only seem not to fit the typical meaning of the Hithpael.
Curiously, the “non-reflexive” use is presented, in one linguistically naive description,
as the most frequent use of the stem—the typical use! A. F. Bean came to this
erroneous conclusion by analyzing the functions of the stem in a purely “descriptive
way,” apparently unaware that he described his sample according to the structures of
the English language; he draws the conclusion that most of the occurrences of the
Hithpael have a “simple, non-specific meaning,” by which he means that they behave
like fientive verbs in the Qal or Piel stems. 15 Bean includes in his lists of Hithpael
verbs with “simple” senses ללפּ ‘pray’ and אבנ ‘prophesy.’ 16 Speiser, however,
excludes these from his list of “atypical” Hithpaels because he realizes that in Hebrew
they describe reflexive actions: ללפּ Hithpael means ‘to seek a mediation for oneself’
with a true reflexive force, 17 and אבנ Hithpael means ‘to appear/conduct oneself as a
prophet,’ again a typical Hithpael reflexive notion. In short, although ‘pray’ and
‘prophesy’ from the English perspective do not seem to have a reflexive force, yet
reflection discloses that they do.
d On balance, the Hithpael probably denotes iterative or frequentative aspect with
לבא, שׁעגּ, ףטע, and האשׁ and העשׁ. These roots show no t-stem sense in the
Hithpael and have Qal rather than Piel as a correspondent to the Hithpael. The verb
ךְלה may be[Page 429] judged to present special problems; it is even possible that
the Hithpael of this root is an “Akkadianism” borrowed into Hebrew. 18
15
A. F. Bean, A Phenomenological Study of the Hithpa˓el Verbal Stem in the Hebrew
Old Testament (Louisville, Kentucky: Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Dissertation, 1975) 139–47, 157–66, 172–73.
16
Bean, Hithpa˓el Verbal Stem, 159.
17
E. A. Speiser, “The Stem PLL in Hebrew,” Journal of Biblical Literature 82 (1963)
301–6.
18
Thomas O. Lambdin cites hlk as the only example of the iterative use of the
Hithpael; see Introduction to Biblical Hebrew (New York: Scribner, 1971) 250. For
another explanation of hlk Hithpael, see S. A. Ryder II, The D-Stem in Western
Semitic (The Hague: Mouton, 1974) 131. Note, too, that David Qimhi remarks that
“the reflexive sense…is not always apparent, e.g., חֹנ־ךְ ַ ֶלּהַ תְ ה ִ Gn 6:9…The sense
being: he made himself worthy (by his good deeds) of walking with God.” See
Chomsky, Mikhlol, 93 and n. a. J. A. Soggin discusses hlk Hithpael in 1 Sam 23:13 in
his Old Testament and Oriental Studies (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1975) 235–36. An
iterative sense may be proper to the root šqq, not cited by Speiser; compare the Qal in