Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Trevor & Julie Peterson" <06peterson AT cua.edu>]

> He states that 
> hwh is not attested in the Hifil in Hebrew, unlike in Syriac.

I'm curious how extensive the Syriac evidence is. Is the Afel (not
Hifil, in Aramaic) a common form?

>  I have a basic (1 year) of Biblical Hebrew, and just need to 
> better understand this statement.  WHat i think he is saying 
> is that hwh does not exist in the hifil in Hebrew.  Can 
> someone verify or assist me in this?  I know it is basic, but 
> understanding that staement fully is very important to 
> continuing.

Is hwh even a native Hebrew root? The evidence in BH is so minimal that
I don't think it would be a stretch to call it an Aramaic loan. If it's
more common in RH, that would also fit with its status as an Aramaic
loan. But if he's talking about hyh, then I think it can be said that
the C stem (Hifil) does not exist in BH, perhaps in Hebrew at all. Hwh
doesn't seem to have a C stem either apart from Syriac (which makes me
wonder if it's not a rather late development and probably irrelevant for
this issue). I'm curious what people think, though, about the root
itself. Can we call it native Hebrew, and if not, what should we say? Is
it a loan? Is it from some early stage of the language at which the
Aramaic and Hebrew forms had not diverged? I think I'm going to raise
some of these questions on the Aramaic list.

> Day uses Ex 3:14 as his proof of yhwh being qal.

It does seem like this passage favors such an idea. I suspect the
counter-argument would be that Exod 3:14 is providing a folk etymology
and not the actual origin of the name. It would hardly be the only place
where the form of a name doesn't seem to line up very well with its
explanation.

Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics