Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] Re: hwh in Hifil?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: furuli AT online.no
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] Re: hwh in Hifil?
  • Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 13:22:05 +0200

Dear Joe,

Your points regarding stative and fientive verbs are well taken. But the verb HYH is possibly somewhat atypical. For instance, all cases of HYH as a YIQTOL , 1. person singular, have future reference, except possibly five cases. Looking at thebulk of examples, we will find that "I will increase being" simply does not fit. But "I will become" fits many of the examples. I therefore see no problem in taking a Hiphil form in the sense "I will cause to become.". However, there is no such Hiphil example, and I would not suggest that such a form ever existed. Another problem with the explanation of YHWH in Exodus 3:14 as a Hiphil of HYH, is that a possible Hiphil form YAHWE is hardly expected as a name that God gave himself. We would rather expect )AHWE "I will cause to be". So I see no way by which we can come to know the etymology of YHWH or its pronunciation.


Best regards

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo



> Shalom,

I am stundying the E and J relations in the Pentatauch. JOhn Day made a
statement in regards to yhwh being qal rather than Cross's opnion that it
is
causitive (hifil). He states that hwh is not attested in the Hifil in
Hebrew, unlike in Syriac. 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. Day uses Ex 3:14 as his proof of
yhwh being qal.
Thanks
John D Robinett

There are two types of verbs in Hebrew: Active and Stative. The Hiphil
seems to behave differently with the two. With an active verb the Hiphil
tends to be "causative." It causes the action in Qal to occur. However, with
a stative verb, the hiphil is not causative, but instead tends to increase
the state of the verb in Qal and make the verb transitive. Thus the
stative verb RWM "to be high" in the Hiphil does not mean "to cause"
anything, but "to increase the height of X, to raise X." It increases the
state of "high" and allows the verb to take a direct object.

Once this is seen, it becomes obvious why HYH "to be" (a stative rather than
an active verb) would not have a Hiphil form, since one would expect the
hiphil would not mean "cause to be" but "increase being for X." The
ocassions for expressing that meaning would be so rare that it would be not
be likely to occur.

If YAHWEH is a verb related to "to be" (as Exod 3:14 suggests) rather than
pun/folk etymology, it is probably based on an archaic form of HAYAH before
the W became a Y in later Hebrew (see original first vav verbs like YALAD
which were originally WALAD forms and the Aramaic form HWH "to be").

Yahweh would then be a Qal imperfect form. The Qal normally takes an /I/
vowel under the preformative YOD, but the /A/ vowel is influenced by the
gutteral HE that tends to prefer /A/ vowels over the /I/ vowel of the
paradygm for Qal imperfects and caused the /I/ to gravitate to that /A/
vowel. Thus the /A/ vowel has nothing to do with the hiphil form, even
though it would be a homonym of a hypothetical hiphil form, but has to do
with the gutteral in the root. Since the hiphil form does not in fact
exist, Yahweh (if a verb) is most certainly a Qal form "He is."

Joe Sprinkle
_______________________________________________





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page