Biblical Hebrew Forum

[furuli AT online.no]

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
> _______________________________________________