Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Steve Miller" <smille10 AT sbcglobal.net>]

Anthony,
Thank you for a very informative question.

>From looking at translations, this seems to be debatable:
LXX - the last shall not be as the first
Tyndale - follows LXX
KJV - not as the 1st or last (KJV usually follows Tyndale & LXX, so this was
a deliberate change from its predecessor)
Darby - follows LXX (Darby follows KJV by default, so this was a deliberate
change from its predecessor)
1901 ASV - follows KJV (ASV usually follows Darby over KJV, so this was a
deliberate change)
NASV - goes back to LXX (normally follows ASV, so this was a deliberate
change)
Stone Tanach (1996) - like KJV

Double kaph comparisons connected with a waw are quite common in Tanach, and
the meaning is "like A and like B". (Gen 22:17; 48:20; 49:9; Exo 11:6;
24:10; 29:41; Lev 6:10; 18:3 .....). This supports your view of the
translation.

Another meaning of the double kaph is "as A, so also B" (Josh 14:11; Ezek
18:4). With the negative in front, maybe it could mean, "Not like the first,
so this latter shall be."

The real problem is the scope of the negative. Does the negative apply only
to what is before the "and" or to what is after the "and" also? In the
Tanach, there are many instances of a single negative applying to both what
is before and after the "and" (Gen 19:33, 35; 45:6; 49:10 ...) I cannot find
a case of the opposite, where the negative does not apply to what is after
the "and". (I think that would be bad writing, but that doesn't prove
anything.) 

****Can anyone find an example in the Tanach of "don't do A, but do B" where
the "but" is a waw prefix? Without that kind of example, I don't think the
negative can be applied to only what is before the "and".

I think the reason that most modern translations use the "not like the 1st,
so also the latter will be" meaning, is the reason Karl gives: that the
context seems more sensible for verse 29 to compare the 2nd expedition to
the first. In general I feel that modern Christian translations place too
much emphasis on context over what the verse actually says. In prophecy, I
think it is more important to let each verse speak for itself. 

Without the witness of a negative applying only to what is before the "and",
I support your translation. 

-Steve Miller
Detroit
www.voiceinwilderness.info


> From: Randolph
> 
> Anthony:
> 
> What you run into here is a contrast between the first and second
> campaigns. The Hebrew doubles the prefixed K- to tie the two events
> together, where we in English would use only one "as". The writer does
> not refer to a third event in this verse.
> 
> Karl W. Randolph.
> 
> On 12/20/06, Anthony Becker <ABecker AT nerdshack.com> wrote:
> > Greetings everyone,
> >
> > I just joined the list and already have a question. I merely dabble in
> > Hebrew so please be patient with me. I am looking at Daniel 11:29. There
> it
> > says, "WL) THYH KR)SNH WK)XRNH." The RSV/ESV translates as "but it shall
> not
> > be this time as it was before." The JPS translates as "but the second
> time
> > will not be like the first." Translations such as these see a contrast
> being
> > made between two items: the first / former and the last / later. These
> two
> > items are no doubt understood to be the 2 campaigns of Antiochus IV
> against
> > Egypt given Daniel 11:25-28, 11:29-35. Thus, in effect the meaning of
> these
> > translations is "but this campaign will not be successful like the first
> one
> > was." My questions is, is it possible that the text should be read as
> > implying a middle campaign, and translated as "but it shall not be as
> the
> > first or as the last"? The reason I ask is that Daniel 11 continues
> later on
> > and envisions another campaign against Egypt (among others) which is to
> be
> > successful (Daniel 11:40-43). Thus we would have Daniel 11:25-28
> > (successful, first), 11:29-35 (unsuccessful), 11:40-43 (successful,
> last).
> > The statement at 11:29 would then say in effect, "unlike the first and
> last
> > campaigns, this one will not be successful." I just want to know if the
> text
> > supports such an understanding or if I am overreaching and reading
> things
> > into the text.
> >
> > Anthony