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: Martin Shields <enkidu AT bigpond.net.au>
  • To: Bryant J.Williams III <bjwvmw AT com-pair.net>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Ecclesiastes 3:11
  • Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 23:52:41 +1100

Bryant,

Thanks for the references to Gesenius.

"2. Two negatives in the same sentence do not neutralize each other (as in
'nonulli, non nemo'), but make the negation more emphatic (like 'OUK OUDEIS, OUK
OUDAMWS, 'NULLI-NON, NEMO NON'); E.G. zP 2:2 (if the text is correct) This
especially applies to the compounds formed by the union of )ayN, BeLI with MiN-,
without (para. 119y), e.g. Is 5:9; (6:11 ) (Jer. 2:15,) prop. without no
inhabitant, i.e. so that no inhabitant is left there. On the other hand, in Is
50:2 is causative; as also Ex 14:11; 2 K 1:2, 6, 16. In Ec 3:11 except that (yet
so that man cannot, &c.)."


What Gesenius means by "sentence" is not clear, but "clause" would seem a more logical unit to deal with here, and since Qoh 3:11 has the two negatives in different clauses (one being subordinate to the other, at least the way I read it), then even if the basic assertion above is true it doesn't automatically apply to Qoh 3:11.

Indeed, I don't think their examples present any close parallels to Qoh 3:11 which I think is formally closer to something like 1Kings 8:46 (כי אין אדם אשר לא יחטא) which means "for there is no person who does not sin" not "for there is certainly no person who sins"! The negative in the subordinate clause does not merely reinforce the first negative, rather it retains its own negativity.

I would also refer you to BAGD, 2nd Edition, pp. 576-577, which gives a good
description of the use of hOPWS MH in section 2 and 2a references
Blass-DeBrunner, paragraph 369 and Robertson, 985-87.
"a. to indicate purpose (in order that, neg. hP. MH in order that...not"
(Bl-D, para. 369; Rob. 985-7).
Thus, the LXX reads, hOPWS MH EURNi... This appears to indicate that the
translator of Ecclesiastes 3:11 is giving the exact equivalent of the Hebrew.

οπως μη in the LXX renders various forms in Hebrew, including ‏בל ,לבלתי, and other simple negatives (in my brief check I saw no examples of double negatives rendered by this aside from Qoh 3:11), indicating that the double negative of Qoh 3:11 is not explicitly represented in the Greek. Obviously the LXX reflects the understanding (or best guess!) of its translators, but I'm not sure we have any good reason to believe they had any particular insight into the meaning of this expression and they may have, as many do today, sought to make the best sense of the words in context based on similar constructions elsewhere!

Now, regarding )asher, see Gesenius, paragraph 138, The Relative Pronoun
especially sub-section "a."

I'm afraid I don't have ready access to Gesenius and the online version I can access does not seem to have the same information as the version you're referring to, so I'm not sure what your point is here.

Regards,

Martin Shields,
Sydney, Australia.



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page