Biblical Hebrew Forum

["K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Steve and Anthony:

Already in verse 31 we see indications that we are dealing with kings
after Antiochos IV. By the time we reach verses 36–37, the description
is very different, indicating that when these verses are fulfilled it
is a different king. In fact, in modern terms, he may not call himself
a king, just that he will function as a king. This northern king will
bring with him Libyans and Kushites and will come with fleets of
ships, something that did not accompany Antiochos IV attacking across
land from the east. Further, some of the lands conquered by this new
northern king include lands that were part of Antiochos' empire, again
indicating that this is a different northern king.

On 12/26/06, Steve Miller <smille10 AT sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> [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
This is like Joshua 11:14 and several similar verses, only with a
negative preceding it.

Here is an example where the context tells which meaning to choose.
First it mentions one invasion, then a second one, then comments that
the latter was not like the first. Literally the text reads "the after
one" which, in the context, one reads as dealing with the second
invasion.

Further reading indicates that there was no third invasion by this
king. Therefore the second invasion was also the last one.

Karl W. Randolph.