Can the word translated as "visited" in Isaiah 29:6 be more accurately translated as "inspected" as it is translated in the Youngs Literal Translation?:

YLT Isa 29:6  By Jehovah of Hosts thou art inspected, With thunder, and with an earthquake, And great noise, hurricane, and whirlwind, And flame of devouring fire.

  • For reference, the word is פָּקַד and here's the verse in Hebrew – Luke Sawczak Jul 14 at 3:35
  • Paqad can bear the meaning 'to pay attention to' 'to observe' see BDB Strong 6485. Paqid is an overseer or officer. So 'visitation' with a view to observation results in Young's choice of translation. He gives the alternate meaning in his Analytical Concordance, also. – Nigel J Jul 14 at 12:07
  • @NigelJ Both Strong and Young are KJV concordances I suggest you use a lexicon instead. A concordance can't possibly be used to validate a translation. – Ruminator Jul 15 at 3:39
  • @NigelJ BDB is, I believe, an excellent lexicon. As I read it, according to BDB, Paqad can be used to mean "pay attention to, observe (with care, practical interest) of, however, that is when the Hebrew word is in the "Qal", not in the "Niphal" which is why BDB lists Isaiah 29:6 in section 2 of the Niphal section. This is another reason why you must consult a lexicon and never just a concordance. Or, you can spread nonsense your whole life; your choice. – Ruminator Jul 15 at 12:15
  • The question could be improved by adding Robert Young's justification for such a translation. – Ruminator Jul 15 at 12:21

Disclaimer: I have no formal Hebrew education.

According to Brown-Driver-Brown (BDB) Lexicon the verb Paqad appears in the Niphal in Isaiah 29:6 and has the sense of "visit" in the Biblical/archaic sense:

...Niph`al Perfect3masculine singular נִפְקַד 1 Samuel 25:7 +; 2 masculine singular וְנִפְקַדְתָּ֫ 1 Samuel 20:18; Imperfect3masculine singular יִמָּקֵד 1 Samuel 20:18 +, etc.; Infinitive הִמָּקֵד absolute 1 Kings 20:39; construct Judges 21:3; —

1 be (sought, i.e. needed) missed, lacking 1 Samuel 20:18 + 1 Samuel 20:19 (ᵐ5, for ᵑ0 תֵּרֵד, We Dr and others), 1 Samuel 25:7; 1 Kings 20:39 (+ infinitive absolute), 2 Kings 10:19 (twice in verse); Jeremiah 23:4 (Gr Gie conjecture יִפְחָ֖דוּ), + מִן particle Judges 21:3; 1 Samuel 25:21; 2 Samuel 2:30; Numbers 31:49; of seat 1 Samuel 20:18, place 1 Samuel 20:25; 1 Samuel 20:27 (i.e. be empty).

**2 be visited (graciously) Ezekiel 38:8; Isaiah 24:22, compare Isaiah 29:6 (ב accompare; see Di).**

3 be visited upon, עַל person, Numbers 16:29 (subject מְּקֻדָּה); רָ֑ע ׳בַּל יִמּ Proverbs 19:23 evil shall not be visited (that is, upon him; read perhaps שׂבֵר עָלָיו for שָׂבֵעַ יָלִין see Toy).

4 be appointed Nehemiah 7:1, + עַל Nehemiah 12:44....

It appears Robert Young is alone in translating as "inspected" and is in error.

The basic meaning of the MT root is 'to inspect, to keep watch (on)' (Schoekel). If one decide to spend his time to inspect, or keeping watch on (something), a specific purpose is in sight.

In the cases God inspects someone/something (for another example see Rut 1:6) He performs it to give blessings (2 Chr 16:9) to someone (like the Ruth passage I've cited), or to punish (Isa 29:6) someone other.

The basic meaning above mentioned is confirmed by the Akkadian language. In fact, we found PAQADU, ‘to entrust, to hand over (persons), to take care of, to inspect [(Old Assyrian), CAD XII:115-129; and also PAQIDU, ‘provider, overseer, caretaker’ [(Old Babylonian), CAD XII:137-138].

  • Please cite Schoekel rather than just mention his name; thanks. I believe you (and possibly he) are committing the etymological fallacy. BDB does not seem to agree with your source or conclusions: biblehub.com/bdb/6485.htm – Ruminator Jul 19 at 21:03
  • @Ruminator: At your service. Luis Alonso Schoekel, 'Dizionario di Ebraico Biblico', publ. house San Paolo, Torino TO, 2013; on the entry 'Paqad'. I can't cite here dozens of Hebrew lexicons to confirm 'Paqad' basically means 'to inspect' (or similar meanings). However, if you want to be sure of this, go to a Hebrew Concordance (like that of Mandelkern) and, please, consult in the TaNaKh every occurrences of this conceptual root. In this manner, you will have a conclusive proof of this conclusion. – Saro Fedele Jul 20 at 8:08
  • A single Hebrew lexicon will probably be sufficient. However, a concordance is of no value for this purpose. hermeneutics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/923/… – Ruminator Jul 20 at 10:51

Your Answer

 

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.