Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

> From: K Randolph Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 11:59 AM
> 
> Steve:
> 
> On 12/25/06, Steve Miller <smille10 AT sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> Two points.
> 
> It is not good linguistic practice to take verses out of context.
> While it is true that often, in fact most of the time, reference to
> context is not needed to understand a verse, yet all times verses are
> written in context, and sometimes the context clears up what might be
> unclear without the context.
[Steve Miller] definitely.
> 
> In this verse the negative refers not to parts within the comparison,
> but to the total comparison itself: "not 'as the first, so the
> second'" referring to the two invasions. In the first invasion, he had
> total victory, in the second merely the threat of Roman intervention
> caused him to flee in shame. So the two invasions were "not 'as the
> first, so the second'".

[Steve Miller] Karl,
Thank you for the statement that "the negative does not apply to parts
within the comparison, but to the whole." That is what I thought. I couldn't
prove it, but I think from your familiarity with the Hebrew text, you should
know.
 
If there was no negative, then the verse could be either:

(1)At the time appointed he shall return, and come toward the south, and it
shall be as the first, and as the last.
-or-
(2) At the time appointed he shall return, and come toward the south, and it
shall be, as was the first, so shall be the last.

When I look at double-kophs in the Tanach, translation (1) fits all that I
sampled, but translation (2) is a special case that fits very few. Also (1)
is more literal, not having to add "shall be", which has the meaning of
"become" and thus should have a hayah verb. 

Then if you negate the whole comparison in (1) you get:
... and it shall not be as the first nor as the last.

Why do you say that translation (1) is the correct one and (2) is incorrect?
I see no reason to prefer (2) over (1) except for the context, but the
context could go either way because there is a 3rd expedition against Egypt
in vv 40 ff.

Thanks,
-Steve Miller
Detroit