Eccl. 3.15 ends in Grk: καὶ ὁ θεὸς ζητήσει τὸν διωκόμενον. but the Latin Vulgate is et Deus instaurat quod abiit. This seems very different

— sententiae antiquae (@sentantiq) November 3, 2017

What is the roughest translation of the Hebrew?

— sententiae antiquae (@sentantiq) November 3, 2017

Strange! Literally 'God will seek that what is being pursued'. The context suggests 'He will seek to do again what has occurred in the past'

— Armand D'Angour (@ArmandDAngour) November 3, 2017

Yes – note the amazing variety of translation on the website here. NET Bible seems right to me; and that allows for 'instaurat quod abiit'. pic.twitter.com/RthnvF4Jik

— Armand D'Angour (@ArmandDAngour) November 3, 2017

I think there may be a conflation/confusion between διωκω and διοιχομαι. Most translators seem to be reading it as if διοιχομενον.

— Armand D'Angour (@ArmandDAngour) November 3, 2017

Is Jerome (who matches Masor.) transl. from the LXX here, or are he and they working from diff. Heb. mss (that underlying LXX not extant)?

— Giovanni Lido (@Giovanni_Lido) November 3, 2017

In a way. (Perhaps evidence for the idea – now being questioned – that the LXX was a sort of “crib” for reading the Hebrew?)

— Giovanni Lido (@Giovanni_Lido) November 3, 2017

Yes, one meaning of _radaf_, the verb at the end of this verse: https://t.co/oWhulUefXS

— Giovanni Lido (@Giovanni_Lido) November 3, 2017

“That [neuter thing] which is passed” would be “mah she-avar” vel sim. But that’s not what the Heb. has and trans. leaves ambiguous. …

— Giovanni Lido (@Giovanni_Lido) November 3, 2017

so διωκομενον a literal rendering of נִרְדָּף (but could have been rendered e.g. διωχθεν): cyclical return of the past is clearly the intent

— Armand D'Angour (@ArmandDAngour) November 3, 2017