Post by brianwagner on Jul 3, 2016 6:49:51 GMT -6
Nine major translations indicate they think Solomon is saying general revelation is not sufficient. Only Young’s Literal Translation seems to indicate the opposite. They translate מִבְּלִי אֲשֶׁר as “so that” (2x), “except that”(1x), “yet so that”(2x), “but”(1x), “yet”(2x), and “but even so”(1x). But Young’s Literal Translation has “without which”. His is a very literal translation.
When looking at all the instances of מִבְּלִי in the OT, the overwhelming concept is “without” the object that is listed following this preposition. The KJV sometimes translates this preposition “because (for)…not (lack, nothing, none)” (9x) in response to the inference that is made of what resulted from being “without” מִבְּלִי that object. The KJV uses “without” as a translation five times, which in my mind is the most literal and would easily fit in all contexts.
The KJV uses “so that none (no man)” something similar as a translation in Eccl 3:11 and in Jer 9:10, 12, Ezek 14:15 and Zeph 3:6, because evidently the translators thought the inference of those passages denoted a result from the verbal idea of the previous clause. However, all but Eccl 3:11 are translations of מִבְּלִי עוֹבֵר which is literally “without traveler (one passing through)” and was the result of devastating judgment. Ecclesiates 3:11 starts with a positive clause – “He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart”. One would therefore not expect a negative result in the next clause, like there was in these other passages.
The nine major translations of Ecclesiastes 3:11 also do not take into account the negative meaning of מִבְּלִי אֲשֶׁר “without which” as a separate negative from לֹא־יִמְצָא הָאָדָם “the man will not find”. That is a curious grammatical issue not found elsewhere, but it seems like they are treating it as Greek would a double negative, for intensification purposes (Lange), though none of the translations show that intensification.
Here is my translation of Ecclesiates 3:11, and I do believe it points towards an aspect of general revelation that He gives to mankind to prod him to discover the work God has done. I know that once again I am going against the majority understanding, and must also reconcile this verse with 7:14 and 18:17, which I think I have. Lange, though he doesn’t agree with my translation, mentions it in his thorough discussion of this verse (see especially his footnote #4). And he is convinced the verse points to God’s beneficial general revelation, given in the hearts of mankind.
Ec 3:11 אֶת־הַכֹּל עָשָׂה יָפֶה בְעִתּוֹ גַּם אֶת־הָעֹלָם נָתַן בְּלִבָּם מִבְּלִי אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יִמְצָא הָאָדָם אֶת־הַמַּעֲשֶׂה אֲשֶׁר־עָשָׂה הָאֱלֹהִים מֵרֹאשׁ וְעַד־סוֹף׃ The entirety (of everything) He made beautiful in His time. Also the (sense of) eternity He gave in their heart, without which the man will not find out a work which the Godhead made from start even until finish.
I guess, one of the basic Hebrew grammar questions I am asking is – Does אֲשֶׁר ever point forward? If so, then this case supports more toward the majority view, though I would then go with “except that” (NKJV) to keep a more positive emphasis in the verse. In other words, eternity in man’s heart (general revelation) gets him to seek answers, but he will not find out completely or sufficiently about God’s work without special revelation. Or does it more often point to an antecedent, which in this case would be the gift of “eternity in their heart”? I look forward to your input.
When looking at all the instances of מִבְּלִי in the OT, the overwhelming concept is “without” the object that is listed following this preposition. The KJV sometimes translates this preposition “because (for)…not (lack, nothing, none)” (9x) in response to the inference that is made of what resulted from being “without” מִבְּלִי that object. The KJV uses “without” as a translation five times, which in my mind is the most literal and would easily fit in all contexts.
The KJV uses “so that none (no man)” something similar as a translation in Eccl 3:11 and in Jer 9:10, 12, Ezek 14:15 and Zeph 3:6, because evidently the translators thought the inference of those passages denoted a result from the verbal idea of the previous clause. However, all but Eccl 3:11 are translations of מִבְּלִי עוֹבֵר which is literally “without traveler (one passing through)” and was the result of devastating judgment. Ecclesiates 3:11 starts with a positive clause – “He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart”. One would therefore not expect a negative result in the next clause, like there was in these other passages.
The nine major translations of Ecclesiastes 3:11 also do not take into account the negative meaning of מִבְּלִי אֲשֶׁר “without which” as a separate negative from לֹא־יִמְצָא הָאָדָם “the man will not find”. That is a curious grammatical issue not found elsewhere, but it seems like they are treating it as Greek would a double negative, for intensification purposes (Lange), though none of the translations show that intensification.
Here is my translation of Ecclesiates 3:11, and I do believe it points towards an aspect of general revelation that He gives to mankind to prod him to discover the work God has done. I know that once again I am going against the majority understanding, and must also reconcile this verse with 7:14 and 18:17, which I think I have. Lange, though he doesn’t agree with my translation, mentions it in his thorough discussion of this verse (see especially his footnote #4). And he is convinced the verse points to God’s beneficial general revelation, given in the hearts of mankind.
Ec 3:11 אֶת־הַכֹּל עָשָׂה יָפֶה בְעִתּוֹ גַּם אֶת־הָעֹלָם נָתַן בְּלִבָּם מִבְּלִי אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יִמְצָא הָאָדָם אֶת־הַמַּעֲשֶׂה אֲשֶׁר־עָשָׂה הָאֱלֹהִים מֵרֹאשׁ וְעַד־סוֹף׃ The entirety (of everything) He made beautiful in His time. Also the (sense of) eternity He gave in their heart, without which the man will not find out a work which the Godhead made from start even until finish.
I guess, one of the basic Hebrew grammar questions I am asking is – Does אֲשֶׁר ever point forward? If so, then this case supports more toward the majority view, though I would then go with “except that” (NKJV) to keep a more positive emphasis in the verse. In other words, eternity in man’s heart (general revelation) gets him to seek answers, but he will not find out completely or sufficiently about God’s work without special revelation. Or does it more often point to an antecedent, which in this case would be the gift of “eternity in their heart”? I look forward to your input.
