Hithpael or nifal verb in 2 Chronicles 32:23

[TYA]

Two of my Hebrew tagged texts say this verb is Hithpael, while a third text says it's Nifal.  Can someone explain (see attached).

 

 

[Donald Cobb]

Interesting question! My first reflex was to say: duh, of course it's a niph'al. But since Waltke's grammar references the passage I took a look. Waltke says this:

 

"(2) Hippael forms are controversial: the doubling of an initial nun or kaph with some roots³⁰ is treated by some as a sign of Hithpael forms in which the infixed —t- has been assimilated to the root’s initial radical.³¹ Israel Eitan considers some of the forms as evidence of a נ -reflexive stem,³² and David Yellin has identified some of them as part of a heretofore unidentified Hippael stem.³³"    

 

Here are the two footnotes:

 

"³⁰ The forms are, for n, (1) hinnābēʾ, Ezek 37:9; (2) hinnabb́̄ʾtî, Ezek 37:10; (3) hinnabbəʾû, Jer 23:13; (4) hinneḥá̄mtî, Ezek 5:13; (5) tinnaśśēʾ, Num 24:7; (6) yinnaśśēʾ, 2 Chr 32:23; (7) yinnaśśəʾû, Dan 11:14; and, for k, (8) tikkônēn, Num 21:27; (9) tikkasseh, Prov 26:26. Of the nine forms, five (## 1, 2, 4, 6, 7) are in prose, four in verse."

 

"³² I. Eitan, “Light on the History of the Hebrew Verb,” Jewish Quarterly Review 12 (1921–22) 25–32, referring to the nśʾ forms, ## 5-7 in n. 30."

 

Theoretically, there should be a ת in a hithpa'el form. That ת is replaced—so goes the argument—by the daggesh in the נ. 

[Robert Holmstedt]

The vowels do not match the Nifal -- the qamets under the first root consonant is missing. Also, the Nifal does not have gemination in the second root consonant. The best guess is that the Masoretes imposed a Hitpael pattern on a consonantal sequence that seems to reflect a non-Hitpael (i.e., the Tav of the Hitpael is not present). 
 

That's the description of what is there. As for parsing, take your pick, as long as you recognize the issues. The meaning would not necessarily be any different. 

[TYA]

The vowels do not match the Nifal -- the qamets under the first root consonant is missing.

 

Are you saying that if the word was truly a Nifal, then the letter nun would have had a qamets instead of a patach?

Edited September 27, 2020 by TYA

[JonathanHuber]

Fwiw, the BHS apparatus mentions that two Hebrew manuscripts have the qamets instead. Gesenius also comments on this root in the section on hithpael. 

[Robert Holmstedt]

Yes, precisely -- a qamets under the nun and no dagesh in the sin.