The Function of the Niphal in Biblical Hebrew: In Relationship to Other Passive-Reflexive Verbal Stems and to the Pual and Hophal in Particular.

• Author: Boyd, Steven W.

Although the Semitic D stem has received much attention in recent years, the N stem has not. P. A. Siebesma's monograph is a welcome effort at filling this lacuna. Outside of the summary discussions in the standard grammars, only two comprehensive treatments of the niphal existed, both dated: Halfmann (1888, 1892) and Lambert (1900). In these older works, understanding of the middle-passive-reflexive complex among the derived verbal stems in Biblical Hebrew is in formed by Sprachgefuhl, by an unquestioned allegiance to grammatical theories stemming from the medieval period, and by the translation possibilities, rather than by precise linguistic definitions.

Siebesma's main theoretical contribution is his understanding that the niphal must be studied in contrast to the other middle-passive-reflexive stems. The organization of his work reflects this understanding.

Siebesma's study is meant to test the theories of Ernst Jenni regarding the niphal, and he organizes his survey of previous study on the niphal (chapter 1) around an extensive interaction with Jenni's work on both the piel (1968) and the niphal (1973,1981), Jenni rejects multi-functionality of each of the verbal stems and overlapping of function between stems. In particular, he argues for a central function for the niphal and against assigning to it passive, middle, reflexive, or reciprocal voice. In addition, Jenni thinks that the niphal can only be related to the qal. Siebesma follows Jenni on all but this last point, contending that the niphal can also be related to the piel and hiphil (pp. 3-25, 35, 170-71).

Chapter 2 presents Siebesma's theoretical presuppositions. He maintains that voice signification cannot be unambiguously determined for a given niphal. Some of the more thought-provoking reasons that he adduces to justify his position are:

1. The voice signification of the niphal can only finally be determined by considering the meaning of the root, the context, and exegesis. 2. The number of roots whose niphal requires a reflexive translation to the number of roots whose niphal requires a passive translation is 70 to 358. 3. Biblical Hebrew does not necessarily have the reflexive/ passive distinction observable in Western languages. 4. Semantic factors and theological presuppositions largely determine whether a niphal should be translated as a reflexive, passive, or reciprocal. (Siebesma cites in 2 Sam. 1:23; in Gen. 7:11; and in Gen. 12.3, 18:8, 28:29 as examples where it...