Canter Bridge

The abstract of this article reads as follows:

A long-recognized crux interpretum in Genesis is the diathesis of the Niphal (Gen 12:3; 18:18; 28:14) and Hitpael (Gen 22:18; 26:4) stems of ברך in the different renditions of the patriarchal promise of blessing. Many scholars assume that both stems should be translated the same way, arguing for either a medio-passive (‘be blessed’ or ‘become blessed’) or a reflexive (‘bless themselves’) translation. After investigating the functions of the Niphal, Piel, and Hitpael verbal stems in biblical Hebrew, this paper reexamines the Niphal and Hitpael of ברך in the Hebrew Bible and argues that these two stems of this lexeme have different meanings contextually. Despite their different nuances, however, both stems indicate that the nations are blessed by means of Abraham, not that they utter blessings using Abraham’s name because they recognize his status as one greatly blessed by God.

The argument of this fine article pivots upon whether the patriarchal blessing promises that employ ברך in the Niphal and Hitpael denote ‘blessing mediation’ or ‘blessing utterance’. That is, are the nations to be blessed through Abraham or are they to achieve the promised blessing by blessing themselves by uttering Abraham’s name? One might just detect a trend towards the latter in English Bible translations of the second half of the twentieth centuryֶ, although more recent translations seem largely to have reverted to the former preference. The two lists of translations provided by the author suggest to this reader that discernible ideologies or theological pre-understandings animating the translation projects themselves might go some distance toward explaining how this crux is handled in translation. That is a line of inquiry that might repay careful study.

Noonan’s linguistically astute argument claims for ברך a stative rather than active identity. Its Piel form is therefore ‘active with a passive undersubject’, suggesting that the subject ‘makes, declares, or considers the undersubject to be in the state of being blessed’.

For its part, the author states that in biblical Hebrew the Niphal is rarely reflexive or reciprocal, but that in fact it is nearly always ‘medio-passive’. Absent an argument that Niphal ברך is exceptional, we should translate it as middle or passive.

By analogy of the relationship that exists elsewhere between Piel and Hitpael, we should expect in the case of the Hitpael of the stative verb ברך, that is ‘reflexive action with a passive undersubject: “make/declare/consider oneself to be blessed”.’ Arguably, the critical sentences of the essay follow this observation: ‘Rather than denoting simple speech acts, the Hitpael of ברך thus designates a reflexive action by which a state of blessing is estimated, declared, or achieved. Whether the subject regards himself as blessed by another, declares himself blessed by another, or makes himself blessed by another depends on the context.’ The author then surveys the use of Hitpael ברך in the DSS and its cognates in Semitic languages to show that ‘consider themselves blessed’ (without explicit reference to speech acts) is the appropriate meaning in the patriarchal blessing texts, the oft-cited parallel in Gen 48.20 notwithstanding.

Noonan next examines the four occurernces of Hitpael ברך ֹoutside of Genesis, claiming that in none of them justifies a reflexive or reciprocal that requires speech acts.

Finally, the author returns to the Niphal and Hitpael occurences of ברך in Genesis. He refutes the assignment of priority to the cases of Hitpael in way that would govern its meaning in Niphal. He argues that the literary context itself calls for a medio-passive meaning that flows from the ‘greatness of Abraham’ theme that the text develops. Speaking of Gen 26.4 but with broader relevance, Noonan writes, ‘(T)he narrative context of Gen 26:4 supports a translation of the Hitpael of ברך in which others recognize Isaac’s greatness and ingratiate themselves to him, seeking his blessing and desiring to be on good terms with him. This is consistent with a paradigm of blessing instrumentation in which Abraham and his descendants are the mediator’s of God’s blessing.’

Noonan does indeed note a difference in meaning between the Niphal and Hitpael cases under study, but not in a way that requires speech acts of the subjects of the Hitpael Rather, ‘Whereas the medio-passive Niphal is not specific as to the role of the subject in the action, instead only noting that the subject was blessed, the Hitpael specifically denotes the nations’ active role in seeking the patriarchs’ blessing. The focus on the nations’ participation in turn reflects the successful status of the patriarchs and their role as a source of blessing, creating a reciprocal relationship between the nations and the patriarchs. The difference between the Niphal and Hitpael of ברך is thus one of focus, but even though their nuances are different, both stems reflect the same paradigm of blessing mediation rather than blessing utterance.’

In the first paragraph of this note, I wondered whether ideology or theology might have influenced how this crux has been managed in translation. Whether or not this speculation can bear its own weight, Noonan’s article will place the argument for all comers upon more solid linguistic ground.