Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Ecclesiastes 3:11

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "B. M. Rocine" <brocine AT twcny.rr.com>
  • To: b-hebrew Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Ecclesiastes 3:11
  • Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 21:56:33 -0400


Hi Martin,

I like your analysis.

As you noted a key word is, mib.:liy.

It's an idiom that I think the BDB does better defining than the HALOT.

See BDB p. 115, highly edited here:

"2. adv. of negation ...With preps. c. MI (a) from want of; for lack of; on account of there being no..."

Ironically, the BDB does not list Ecc 3:11 under sense 2c(a), but under 2c(b) with pleonatic lo', as you have mentioned. In this latter interpretation mibliy means "so that no...", also, as you have mentioned.

Like you, I think the mibliy belongs in section 2c(a) rather than 2c(b), and may be thought to mean "because without..." as it often does. See Isa 5:13 mibliy da`at "because [they are] without knowledge."

We may say the notion or deep structure of Ecc 3:11 is mibliy tet 'elohiym ha`olam bilbam, where tet... surfaces as 'a$er.

Thank you for sharing your analysis.

Shalom,
Bryan

Martin Shields wrote:
Hello Bryant,

My question is, "What is your take on the phrase in the second half of the
verse, "et-olam natan bilbam milbam asher lo-yimtza hadom et-hammaaseh
asher-asah...?

There are a couple of issues in this verse (aren't there always), the meaning of ‏העלם and the meaning of ‏מבלי אשר לא. Taking the second first, we have a double negative which is universally understood as either indicating a negative purpose ("so that not") or else a simple negative ("yet [he] cannot"). The problem is that the parallels frequently cited to justify these translations do not include אשר between the negatives so that the second negative is effectively in a separate clause. If you look for examples where this does happen, the double negatives in those instances never lose their individual negativity (if you follow my meaning).

Hence I render the expression "without which [he] cannot find..." I'll admit that I'm on my own here, but I think that it both makes sense in context (see below) and also makes sense of the Hebrew.

As a result of the usual understanding of this clause, some propose reading העלם as "darkness" so that the "darkness" God has placed in our hearts functions to inhibit any ability to find our what God has done from the beginning to the end. With my reading I think taking העלם as a temporal term (so "eternity" in most translations) makes sense: God has placed "eternity" (some sort of awareness which extends beyond the present moment) in our "hearts" without which we could not find what God has done from start to finish.

How does this make sense in context? The fact that Qohelet proceeds to make assertions about what God has done and will do (cf. especially Qoh 3:14-15) immediately demonstrates that Qohelet has some awareness of what God has done and will do (at least he thinks he does!). It is obvious that Qohelet isn't claiming omniscience nor comprehensive knowledge of what God has and will do, but he has some awareness and that seems to be sufficient to justify his observation.

I hope that helps!

Regards,

Martin Shields,
Sydney, Australia.

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

--
B.M. Rocine
Living Word Church
6101 Court St. Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13206
W: (315) 437-6744





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page