Ecclesiastes 12:13 in the LSB

[Stephen L Smith]

I have found it interesting how different translations translate Eccles 12:13. The CSB appears to have a mainstream translation 'When all has been heard, the conclusion of the matter is this: fear God and keep his commands, because this is for all humanity.'

However, the LSB reads 'The end of the matter, all that has been heard: fear God and keep His commandments, because this is the end of the matter for all mankind.'

It translates 'the end of the matter' in italics at the end of the verse, clearly linking this phrase to the same words at the beginning.

What do you think of the LSB translation?

 

[Ed Walsh]

I give a hoot about which translation is the most accurate; I like the KJV.

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter:
Fear God, and keep his commandments:
for this is the whole duty of man.​

I got this idea from something my believing mother-in-law once said when I told her what the Word was teaching on some subject.
To both the hilarity and horror of what she said, my wife loudly said, Mom! Did you hear what you just said?

Here is the quote:

I don't care what the Bible says about this; II believe such and such. And that's final.
~~~~~~~​

I should add that I do truly hate (the ESV & in your citation, the CSB gender-neutral crap. The references 'man' in the original has a deep theological meaning–we must not bow down to cultural anti-God views on the roles of men and women. I wonder if these modern women would take the blame for the fall. Eve was the first to eat. As someone once said, There is absolutely no justification for retaining the word 'justification' in the Bible.

 

[iainduguid]

If we put three translations side by side we can get the gist of the Hebrew:
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. (KJV)
The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. (ESV)
When all has been heard, the conclusion of the matter is this: fear God and keep his commands, because this is for all humanity (CSB).

ESV is more woodenly literal for the first part, where KJV and CSB give a slightly more dynamic translation; everyone agrees on the second part; the third part shows the debate in the commentaries about the meaning of hakkol: does it mean "this is the whole [duty] for man/humans (adam)" or "this is for every man/all humans" (compare NASB, which goes the same way as CSB). People (Men?) can debate their preferences over man/humanity; that has more to do with English usage than the meaning of the Hebrew.

Now let's look at the LSB:
The end of the matter, all that has been heard: fear God and keep His commandments, because this is the end of the matter for all mankind.

The first part approximately follows the more literal ESV, the second agrees with everyone, and the third adds a phrase (in italics) that is not there in the Hebrew. I suspect that the reason is that they think (plausibly enough) that Qoheleth has both ideas in view: "this is the whole for humans" means "this is the whole duty of every human being" (the chief end of man, we might say). But by adding "the end of the matter" they are borrowing from the first part of the verse an idea that is not obviously there in the last part: there is no verbal connection in the Hebrew back to the "end of the matter" only to the "all" that has been heard. So I think it's an unhelpful gloss: it would have been better to have added "this is the whole of the matter for all mankind". On the other hand, most other translations (including the 1995 NASB) are distinctly more literal here than the LSB.

 

[Jack K]

People (Men?) can debate their preferences over man/humanity; that has more to do with English usage than the meaning of the Hebrew.

Iain, if I may ask... What do you think of the argument that in some places translating adam as "man" instead of "humanity" or "people" helps us see the Second Adam, Christ, who fulfilled what humans are supposed to be? In this case, the reader might not only see that fearing God and keeping his commands is to be the whole of each of us, but that it specifically was accomplished in fulness by Christ. Is there merit in that idea, or would it be a case of trying to read too much into what the Spirit is telling us in the Old Testament's use of adam?

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

I give a hoot about which translation is the most accurate; I like the KJV.

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter:
Fear God, and keep his commandments:
for this is the whole duty of man.​

I think this is one of those places where the KJV's rendering is actually far more intelligible (to me, at least) than many modern translations.

 

[Ed Walsh]

ESV is more woodenly literal for the first part, where KJV and CSB

Just for the record, I read through the ESV several times per year, and there are many places it seems inspired by the KJV. I really like it – usually.
Hey, there's always the 1901 ASV to fall back on. I often check it out.
Sorry, my question provoked your taking action. Questions like mine are like Commissioner Gordon's Bat-Signal Highbeam.
Thank you so much again this time for your time.

Ed

 

[Stephen L Smith]

the third part shows the debate in the commentaries about the meaning of hakkol: does it mean "this is the whole [duty] for man/humans (adam)" or "this is for every man/all humans" (compare NASB, which goes the same way as CSB)

Appreciate this insight Iain. I had been led to believe that the translation 'whole duty for man' was an inferior translation but it seems to be one legitimate option. Also it is strange that the literal LSB ends up with a less literal reading.

Interesting that the NKJV (1984 revision) is quite simplified
'Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter:
Fear God and keep His commandments,
For this is man’s all.'