Karl,kwrandolph wrote:.
I would like to see other examples of this use of the Hiphil. I had never heard of it before you mentioned it in this discussion. Unless this use applies also to the Hophal, it doesn’t apply to Jeremiah 4:10 as the consonantal text, according to your reading, is Hophal, not Hiphil. So if you can show some examples where there’s no question that we deal with Hiphils, that would be appreciated.Michael W Abernathy wrote:I can understand why you don’t want to think of Jeremiah accusing God of deception but if you take that as implying tolerance that doesn’t seem to apply. The NET Bible explains their interpretation this way, “The Hiphil of נָשָׁא (nasha’, “to deceive”) is understood in a tolerative sense here: “to allow [someone] to be deceived.” IBHS 446 §27.5c notes that this function of the hiphil describes caused activity that is welcome to the undersubject, but unacceptable or disagreeable to a third party. Jerusalem and Judah welcomed the assurances of false prophets who deceived them. Although this was detestable to God, he allowed it.”
Sincerely,
Michael Abernathy
Right now, my understanding of the Hiphil as causative doesn’t allow for this use of the Hiphil. That’s why I ask for more examples. If there are no other examples, then that’s a good reason to reject it here too.
I also don’t take translations into English as evidence. I saw their claim here, but as I asked of you above, I need to see more examples in Hebrew in order to agree with it.
Yours, Karl W. Randolph.
Could you articulate your understanding of the Hiphil. From my experience, English speakers don't fully grasp the causative use of a verb. I suspect that you have a narrow view of what it means to say "causative" and don't fully appreciate the nuance in native usage. This is not an attack, just a personal observation. I have found that most of my fellow students have a difficult time with the semantics of the causative.
I speak Swahili with a native feel for the language. When you use a causative in afro-asiatic languages, it is rarely adequate to translate it literally. Let me throw in some examples:
lala v. lie down --> lala+za (causative suffix) = laza lit. cause to lie down; usage/translation: to admit someone to hospital. Digression: mostly used in the passive. laza+wa (passive suffix)=lazwa, example: amelazwa hospitalini, he has been admitted to hospital. Native speakers don't think the person was forced to lie down or any such thing, they just understand it as admittance.
shuka come down --> shuka+sha (caus. suf.) = shukisha or shusha. When you let someone out of your car you cause him to come down, i.e. you drop him off. Again, no one is forcing you to get out of the car, you are being "allowed" to get out of the car. Causation here is permissible, not forceable. The verb shusha expresses the abstract idea humiliating someone. So here you have the physical picture of causing someone to come down, which in turn refers to the idea of humiliating them.
BH is the same, causative forms can express abstract ideas and permissibility among other things. It's very broad in application and very useful, as it allows a language with limited roots a virtual limitless semantic expansion. A great example of that is Psalm 23:2, בִּנְאֹ֣ות דֶּ֭שֶׁא יַרְבִּיצֵ֑נִי. The awkward translation he makes me to lie down betrays a lack in the English language to adequately express what David means here. Let me add just one more example from Swahili: kula v. to eat --> kula+sha = kulisha, to feed (lit. cause to eat); but kunywa v. to drink --> kunywa+sha = kunywesha, here there is no English equivalent so the translator will have to supply a phrase, to give someone to drink. Maybe in the right context this might be waterboarding.
Sincerely,
Jonathan