Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Lee R. Martin" <lmartin AT vol.com>]

Dear Ben,
I know that the "tolerative" is an accepted function of the Niphal.  I too 
accepted
the terminology until I studied several hundred Niphals in context.  I may be 
wrong of
course, but I do not believe "tolerative" is inherent in the Niphal itself, 
but it may
be inferred from the combination of semantics and grammar.  In other words, 
whenever a
subject is in control of a situation, any action toward them must be 
tolerative.  For
example, the niphal of Ra'aH (see) is often translated "appeared," as in "God 
appeared
to Abraham." This is tolerative.  "God allowed himself to be seen by 
Abraham."  Thus,
in every case where God is the subject of a niphal verb, it must logically be
tolerative.  Therefore, the idea of tolerative is not a part of the niphal, 
but is a
part of the situation, the power of the actor in relation to the power of the 
acted
upon.  In Joshua 8:15, the only way that we know the Israelites "allowed" 
themselves
to be defeated, is that we were told earlier of their plan to do just that. 
The
"toleration" can not be inferred from the niphal itself.  Thus IMHO, the 
so-called
tolerative niphal is a useless invention that should be avoided because it 
invests the
niphal stem with a meaning that exists not in the stem, but in the context.

I hope I have not been vague. I'm sure a linguist could address this topic 
more
clearly.  I would be happy to entertain any opposing arguments.

Lee R. Martin


Ben Crick wrote: Many years ago in college I did a study on the Battle of Ai 
in Joshua
8.

>  WaYYiNaG:`uW was explained to me by my tutor (J Alec Motyer) as the
>  3 m pl Perf Niphal of NG` to smite; the "tolerative Niphal", "they
>  allowed themselves to be smitten".