I didn't say that. For brevity I didn't expand on it. What I was saying is from a semantic perspective it is easier to tie a duration to the act of walking than it is to tie duration to the act of leading away. I said nothing about duration with respect to the exile.Kenneth Greifer wrote:Jonathan,
I don't think the king will lead them in exile 3 years.
Of course, we all understand this kind of phrase as an expression, since we know Kings carry their will out through delegation. But this has nothing to do with the point I was making.Kenneth Greifer wrote:I think Isaiah 20:1 says that he sent someone to capture Ashdod, so I am sure someone else does the work for the king.
You are confusing translation and meaning with speculation and extrapolation.Kenneth Greifer wrote:It probably means that Egypt and Ethiopia will be driven out of the two lands over a three year period because there are a lot of people or maybe all of the exiles will walk for three years, I don't know which one.
If Isaiah walked NAB for three years as a sign, then it is not unreasonable to extrapolate that the three years might have some bearing on how long the process might take. Extrapolation is not a bad thing in of itself, but you have to recognize it for what it is. FYI, we got the "three" wisemen through the same process. The Gospel writer does not tell us how many magi there were, only how many gifts.
Kenneth Greifer wrote:I think the quote can be read as Isaiah walked for three years naked and barefoot or Egypt and Ethiopia will,
That's the main issue. And the answer is, NO, the grammar does not support it. The phrase shalosh shanim is embedded in the first proposition (the "AS" phrase). If you could produce a manuscript that had shalosh shanim on the other side of the conjunction (I referred to it as a preposition before, but I actually think it's more correct to say conjunction) ken, then it would be clearly understood as applying to that phrase. However, the text is unambiguous here. Grammatically, this is a straight forward trouble free sentence.
In this sentence, it is precisely because Isaiah walks NAB for 3 years that it becomes a sign. Moreover, it would be a difficult reading if "has walked" was left without the complement "three years." If you strip the verb "has walked" from its complement "three years," you leave the VERB naked and barefoot. Also, neither the nouns "sign" and "omen," nor the verb "will lead away" call for a complement.Kenneth Greifer wrote:but the sign is for Ashdod who will also walk naked and barefoot in the future. The sign for Ashdod is upon Egypt and Ethiopia because they will walk three years naked and barefoot. Isaiah is just representing the sign that is on those two nations.
Kenneth Greifer wrote:It would not make sense for Isaiah to do that for three years,
I don't know why this doesn't make sense to you. I think it just makes you uncomfortable. And I don't mean this in a mean way. But this is where you start. You're uncomfortable with something, then you imagine something more acceptable to your sensitivities, and then set about to conform the text to your instinct. But that is not exegesis. You are not letting the language speak.
Yes I agree, but again it would be extrapolation only, since Isaiah chooses not to provide that detail.Kenneth Greifer wrote:but if he did do it, then you could say that the sign for Egypt and Ethiopia would be that they would also walk for three years, since they will walk naked and barefoot like Isaiah did. I don't think this is right, but this would fit the sign of him walking three years.
Again, the text itself disagrees with you. You could say however, that based on the text (that Isaiah walked NAB 3 yrs), it is possible that the deportation efforts took three years, but you can't say that it is possible Isaiah didn't walk for 3 years; the text won't let you. And let's just suppose hypothetically that shalosh shanim was in the ken phrase. We would be reasonably inclined to wonder if Isaiah walked for the same duration.Kenneth Greifer wrote:I think that it is possible that Isaiah did not walk three years. This is one time I have to disagree, even though I can't say the other translation is wrong.