[4:1]  ¹ tn The prefixed vav on וְשַׁבְתִּי (vÿshavti, vav + perfect 1st person common singular from שׁוּב, shuv, “to turn”) might be: (1) introductory (and left untranslated): “I observed again”; (2) consequence of preceding statement: “So I observed again”; or (3) continuation of preceding statement: “And I observed again.”

[4:1]  ² tn Heb “I turned and I saw.” The phrase וָאֶרְאֶה…וְשַׁבְתִּי (vÿshavti… va’er’eh, “I turned and I saw”) is a verbal hendiadys (the two verbs represent one common idea). Normally in a verbal hendiadys, the first verb functions adverbially, modifying the second verb which retains its full verbal force. The verb וְשַׁבְתִּי (vav + perfect 1st person common singular from שׁוּב “to turn”) is used idiomatically to denote repetition: “to return and do” = “to do again” (e.g., Gen 26:18; 30:31; 43:2) or “to do repeatedly” (e.g., Lam 3:3); see HALOT 1430 s.v. שׁוב 5; BDB 998 s.v. שׁוּב 8; GKC 386 §120.e: “I observed again” or “I repeatedly observed.” On the other hand, the shift from the perfect וְשַׁבְתִּי to the preterite וָאֶרְאֶה (vav + Qal preterite 1st person common singular from רָאָה, ra’ah, “to see”) might indicate a purpose clause: “I turned [my mind] to consider.” The preterite וָאֶרְאֶה follows the perfect וְשַׁבְתִּי. When a wayyiqtol form (vav + preterite) follows a perfect in reference to a past-time situation, the preterite also represents a past-time situation. Its aspect is based on the preceding perfect. In this context, the perfect and preterite may denote definite past or indefinite past action (“I turned and considered” as hendiadys for “I observed again” or “I repeatedly observed”) or past telic action (“I turned [my mind] to consider”). See IBHS 554-55 §33.3.1a.

[4:1]  ³ tn Heb “all the oppressions” or “all the oppression”; alternately, “all the various kinds of oppression.” The term עֹשֶׁק (’osheq) denotes “oppression,” e.g., Jer 6:6; 22:17; Ezek 18:18; 22:7, 12, 29; Pss 73:8; 119:134 (see HALOT 897 s.v. עֹשֶׁק 1; BDB 799 s.v. עֹשֶׁק 1). It occurs several times in the book, always in reference to personal rather than national oppression (4:1; 5:8 ET [5:7 HT]; 7:7). The noun הָעֲשֻׁקִים (ha’ashuqim) is plural and articular (Heb “the oppressions”). The article indicates a generic class (“oppression”). The plural may be classified in one of two ways: (1) a plural of number, which refers to specific kinds of oppression that occur on earth: “the various kinds of oppression”; (2) an abstract plural, which is used to refer to abstract concepts: “the oppression”; or (3) a plural of intensity, which describes the oppression at hand as particularly grievous: “awful oppression” or “severe oppression.” The LXX renders it as a plural of number: συκοφαντίας (sukofantias, “oppressions”), as does the Vulgate. Most English versions treat it as a plural of number: “the oppressions” (KJV, ASV, NAB, RSV, NRSV, MLB, YLT); however, a few treat it as an abstract plural: “the oppression” (NJPS, NIV, Moffatt).

[4:1]  ⁴ tn Heb “is done.” The term נַעֲשִׂים (na’asim, Niphal participle mpl from עָשַׂה, ’asah, “to do”) is a probably a verbal use of the participle rather than a substantival use (NEB: “all the acts of oppression”). This verbal use of the participle depicts durative or universal gnomic action. It emphasizes the lamentable continuity of oppression throughout human history. The English versions translate it variously: “[all the oppressions that] are done” (KJV, ASV, Douay, YLT), “[all the oppression] that goes on” (NJPS, Moffatt), “[all the oppressions] that are practiced” (RSV, NRSV), “[all the oppressions] that occur” (MLB), “[all the acts of oppression] which were being done” (NASB), “[all the oppressions] that take place” (NAB), “[all the oppression] that was taking place” (NIV).

[4:1]  ⁵ tn Heb “under the sun.”

[4:1]  ⁶ tn Heb “and behold.” The deictic particle וְהִנֵּה (vÿhinneh, “and behold!”) often occurs after verbs of perceiving, such as רָאָה, ra’ah, “to see” (e.g., Gen 19:28; 22:13; Exod 3:2; Lev 13:8). It introduces the content of what the character or speaker saw (HALOT 252 s.v. הִנֵּה 8). It is used for rhetorical emphasis, to draw attention to the following statement (e.g., Gen 1:29; 17:20; Num 22:32; Job 1:19; cf. HALOT 252 s.v. 5). It often introduces something surprising or unexpected (e.g., Gen 29:6; Num 25:6; cf. HALOT 252 s.v. 6).

[4:1]  ⁷ tn The term הָעֲשֻׁקִים (ha’ashuqim, Qal passive participle mpl from עָשַׁק, ’ashaq, “to oppress”) is a passive form, emphasizing that they are the objects of oppression at the hands of their oppressors. The participle functions as a noun, emphasizing the durative aspect of their condition and that this was the singular most characteristic attribute of this group of people: Their lives were marked by oppression.

[4:1]  ⁸ tn Heb “the tear of the oppressed.” Alternately, “the oppressed [were in] tears.” The singular noun דִּמְעָה (dim’ah, “tear”) is used as a collective for “tears” (2 Kgs 20:5; Isa 16:9; 25:8; 38:5; Jer 8:23; 19:7; 13:17; 14:17; 31:16; Ezek 24:16; Mal 2:13; Pss 6:7; 39:13; 42:4; 56:9; 80:6; 116:8; 126:5; Lam 1:2; 2:18; Eccl 4:1); see HALOT 227 s.v. דִּמְעָה; BDB 199 s.v. דִּמְעָה. It is often used in reference to lamentation over calamity, distress, or oppression (e.g., Ps 6:7; Lam 1:2; 2:11; Jer 9:17; 13:17; 14:17). The LXX translated it as singular δάκρουν (dakroun, “the tear”); however, the Vulgate treated it as a collective (“the tears”). Apart from the woodenly literal YLT (“the tear”), the major English versions render this as a collective: “the tears” or “tears” (KJV, ASV, NEB, NAB, NASB, RSV, NRSV, NJPS, MLB, NIV). The term דִּמְעָה functions as a metonymy of association for “weeping” (e.g., Isa 16:9; 8:23): “the oppressed [were weeping with] tears.” The genitive construct דִּמְעָת הָעֲשֻׁקִים (dim’at ha’ashuqim, literally, “tear of the oppressed”) is a subjective genitive construction, that is, the oppressed are weeping. The singular דִּמְעָת (dim’at, “tear”) is used as a collective for “tears.” This entire phrase, however, is still given a woodenly literal translation by most English versions: “the tears of the oppressed” (NEB, NAB, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, MLB, NIV, NJPS). Some paraphrases attempt to fill out the meaning, e.g., “the oppressed were in tears” (Moffatt).

[4:1]  ⁹ tn Heb “comforts.” The verb נָחַם (nakham, “to comfort”) is used as a metonymy of effect (i.e., comfort) for cause (i.e., deliverance), e.g., it is used in parallelism with גָאַל (ga’al, “to deliver”) in Isa 52:9 (see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 560-67).

[4:1]  ¹⁰ tn Heb “from the hand of their oppressors is power.”

[4:2]  ¹¹ tn The verb שָׁבַח (shavakh) has a two-fold range of meaning: (1) “to praise; to laud”; and (2) “to congratulate” (HALOT 1387 s.v. I שׁבח; BDB 986 s.v. II שָׁבַח). The LXX translated it as ἐπῄνεσα (ephnesa, “I praised”). The English versions reflect the range of possible meanings: “praised” (KJV, ASV, Douay); “congratulated” (MLB, NASB); “declared/judged/accounted/thought…fortunate/happy” (NJPS, NEB, NIV, RSV, NRSV, NAB).

[4:2]  ¹² tn Heb “the dead who had already died.”

[4:2]  ¹³ tn Heb “the living who are alive.”

[4:3]  ¹⁴ tn The word “born” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.

[4:3]  ¹⁵ tn Heb “under the sun.”

[4:4]  ¹⁶ tn Heb “saw.”

[4:4]  ¹⁷ tn Heb “all the toil and all the skill.” This Hebrew clause (אֶת־כָּל־עָמָל וְאֵת כָּל־כִּשְׁרוֹן, ’et-kol-’amal vÿ’et kol-kishron) is a nominal hendiadys (a figurative expression in which two independent phrases are used to connote the same thing). The second functions adverbially, modifying the first, which retains its full nominal function: “all the skillful work.”

[4:4]  ¹⁸ tn The phrase “nothing more than” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.

[4:4]  ¹⁹ tn The noun קִנְאַה (qin’ah, “competition”) has a wide range of meanings: “zeal; jealousy; envy; rivalry; competition; suffering; animosity; anger; wrath” (HALOT 1110 s.v.; BDB 888 s.v.). Here, as in 9:6, it denotes “rivalry” (BDB 888 s.v. 1) or “competitive spirit” (HALOT 1110 s.v. 1.b). The LXX rendered it ζῆλος (zhlos, “envy; jealousy”). The English versions reflect this broad range: “rivalry” (NEB, NAB, NASB), “envy” (KJV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, MLB, NIV, NJPS), and “jealousy” (Moffatt).

[4:4]  ²⁰ tn Heb “a man and his neighbor.”

[4:4]  ²¹ tn The word “like” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.

[4:5]  ²² tn Heb “the fool folds his hands.” The Hebrew idiom means that he does not work (e.g., Prov 6:10; 24:33). In the translation the words “and does no work” (which do not appear in the Hebrew text) have been supplied following the idiom to clarify what is meant.

[4:5]  ²³ tn Heb “and eats his own flesh.” Most English versions render the idiom literally: “and eats/consumes his flesh” (KJV, AS, NASB, NAB, RSV, NRSV, NJPS). However, a few versions attempt to explain the idiom: “and lets life go to ruin” (Moffatt), “and wastes away” (NEB), “and ruins himself” (NIV).

[4:6]  ²⁴ sn Qoheleth lists three approaches to labor: (1) the competitive workaholic in 4:4, (2) the impoverished sluggard in 4:5, and (3) the contented laborer in 4:6. The balanced approach rebukes the two extremes.

[4:7]  ²⁵ tn The prefixed vav on וְשַׁבְתִּי (vÿshavti, vav + perfect 1st person common singular from שׁוּב, shuv, “to turn”) might be: (1) introductory (and left untranslated): “I observed again…”; (2) consequence of preceding statement: “So I observed again…”; or (3) continuation of preceding statement: “And I observed again….”

[4:7]  ²⁶ tn Heb “I turned and I saw…”; or “I again considered.” The Hebrew phrase וָאֶרְאֶה…וְשַׁבְתִּי (vÿshavti…va’er’eh, “I turned and I saw”) is a verbal hendiadys (the two verbs represent one common idea). Normally in a verbal hendiadys, the first verb functions adverbially, modifying the second verb which retains its full verbal force. The verb שׁוּב (shuv, “to turn”) is used idiomatically to denote repetition: “to return and do” = “to do again” (e.g., Gen 26:18; 30:31; 43:2) or “to do repeatedly” (e.g., Lam 3:3); see HALOT 1430 s.v. שׁוב 5; BDB 998 s.v. שׁוּב 8; GKC 386 §120.e: “I observed again” or “I repeatedly observed.” On the other hand, the shift from the perfect וְשַׁבְתִּי (vav + perfect 1st person common singular from שׁוּב, “to turn”) to the preterite וָאֶרְאֶה (vav + Qal preterite 1st person common singular from רָאָה, ra’ah, “to see”) might indicate a purpose clause: “I turned [my mind] to consider….” The preterite וָאֶרְאֶה follows the perfect וְשַׁבְתִּי. When a wayyiqtol form (vav + preterite) follows a perfect in reference to a past-time situation, the preterite also represents a past-time situation. Its aspect is based on the preceding perfect. In this context, the perfect and preterite may denote definite past or indefinite past action (“I turned and considered …” as hendiadys for “I observed again” or “I repeatedly observed”) or past telic action (“I turned [my mind] to consider…”). See IBHS 554-55 §33.3.1a.

[4:7]  ²⁷ tn The word “another” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.

[4:7]  ²⁸ tn Heb “under the sun.”

[4:8]  ²⁹ tn Heb “There is one and there is not a second.”

[4:8]  ³⁰ tn Heb “son nor brother.” The terms “son” and “brother” are examples of synecdoche of specific (species) for the general (genus). The term “son” is put for offspring, and “brother” for siblings (e.g., Prov 10:1).

[4:8]  ³¹ tn Heb “his eye.” The term “eye” is a synecdoche of part (i.e., the eye) for the whole (i.e., the whole person); see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 647.

[4:8]  ³² tn The phrase “he laments” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity. The direct discourse (“For whom am I toiling and depriving myself of pleasure?”) is not introduced with an introductory structure. As in the LXX, some translations suggest that these words are spoken by a lonely workaholic, e.g., “He says…” (NAB, NEB, ASV, NIV, NRSV). Others suggest that this is a question that he never asks himself, e.g., “Yet he never asks himself…” (KJV, RSV, MLB, YLT, Douay, NASB, Moffatt).

[4:8]  ³³ tn Heb “my soul.”

[4:8]  ³⁴ tn This rhetorical question is an example of negative affirmation, that is, it expects a negative answer: “No one!” (see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 949-51).

[4:8]  ³⁵ tn The adjective רָע (ra’, “evil”) here means “misfortune” (HALOT 1263 s.v. רָעָה 4) or “injustice, wrong” (HALOT 1262 s.v. רָעָה 2.b). The phrase עִנְיַן רָע (’inyan ra’, “unhappy business; rotten business; grievous task”) is used only in Ecclesiastes (1:13; 2:23, 26; 3:10; 4:8; 5:2, 13; 8:16). It is parallel with הֶבֶל (hevel, “futile”) in 4:8, and describes a “grave misfortune” in 5:13. The noun עִנְיַן (’inyan, “business”) refers to something that keeps a person occupied or busy: “business; affair; task; occupation” (HALOT 857 s.v. עִנְיָן; BDB 775 s.v. עִנְיָן). The related verb עָנָה (’anah) means “to be occupied; to be busy with (בְּ, bet),” e.g., Eccl 1:13; 3:10; 5:19 (HALOT 854 s.v. III עָנָה; BDB 775 s.v. II עָנָה). The noun is from the Aramaic loanword עִנְיָנָא (’inyana’, “concern; care.” The verb is related to the Aramaic verb “to try hard,” the Arabic verb “to be busily occupied; to worry; to be a matter of concern,” and the Old South Arabic root “to be troubled; to strive with” (HALOT 854 s.v. III ענה). HALOT 857 s.v. עִנְיָן renders the phrase as “unhappy business” here. The phrase עִנְיַן רָע, is treated creatively by English versions: KJV, ASV “sore travail”; YLT “sad travail”; Douay “grievous vexation”; RSV, NRSV, NJPS “unhappy business”; NEB, Moffatt “sorry business”; NIV “miserable business”; NAB “worthless task”; NASB “grievous task”; MLB “sorry situation”; NLT “depressing.”

[4:9]  ³⁶ tn Heb “they have.”

[4:9]  ³⁷ tn Heb “a good reward.”

[4:10]  ³⁸ tn Heb “woe to him.”

[4:12]  ³⁹ tn The verbal root תקף means “to overpower; to prevail over” e.g., Job 14:20; 15:24; Eccl 4:12; 6:10 (HALOT 1786 s.v. תקף).

[4:14]  ⁴⁰ tn Heb “came from the house of bonds.”

[4:14]  ⁴¹ tn The phrase “what would become” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity. However, it is not altogether clear whether the 3rd person masculine singular suffix (“his”) on בְּמַלְכוּתוֹ (bÿmalkhuto, “his kingdom”) refers to the old foolish king or to the poor but wise youth of 4:13.

[4:15]  ⁴² tn Heb “under the sun.”

[4:15]  ⁴³ tn Heb “the second youth.” It is not clear whether “the second” (הַשֵּׁנִי, hasheni) refers to the young man who succeeds the old king or a second youthful successor.

[4:15]  ⁴⁴ tn The verb עָמַד (’amad, “to stand”) may denote “to arise; to appear; to come on the scene” (e.g., Ps 106:30; Dan 8:22, 23; 11:2-4; 12:1; Ezra 2:63; Neh 7:65); cf. BDB 764 s.v. עָמַד 6.a; HALOT 840 s.v. עמד 1.a.

[4:16]  ⁴⁵ tn Heb “the people.” The term עַם (’am, “people”) can refer to the subjects of the king (BDB 766 s.v. עַם 2).

[4:16]  ⁴⁶ tn Heb “those who were before them.”

[4:16]  ⁴⁷ tn Heb “those coming after.” The Hebrew term הָאַחֲרוֹנִים (ha’akharonim, “those coming after”) is derived from the preposition אַחַר (’akhar, “behind”). When used in reference to time, it refers to future generations (e.g., Deut 29:21; Pss 48:14; 78:4, 6; 102:19; Job 18:20; Eccl 1:11; 4:16); cf. HALOT 36 s.v. אַחַר B.3; BDB 30 s.v. אַחַר 2.b).

[4:16]  ⁴⁸ tn The word “like” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.

[5:1]  ⁴⁹ sn Beginning with 5:1, the verse numbers through 5:20 in the English Bible differ by one from the verse numbers in the Hebrew text (BHS), with 5:1 ET = 4:17 HT, 5:2 ET = 5:1 HT, etc., through 5:20 ET = 5:19 HT. Beginning with 6:1 the verse numbers in the English Bible and the Hebrew Bible are again the same.

[5:1]  ⁵⁰ tn Heb “Guard your feet.” The Kethib is the plural רַגְלֶיךָ (raglekha, “your feet”), while the Qere is the singular רַגְלְךָ (raglÿkha, “your foot”), which is preserved in several medieval Hebrew mss and is reflected in the versions (LXX, Aramaic Targum, Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta). For example, the LXX reads πόδα σου (poda sou, “your foot”) which reflects רַגְלְךָ.

[5:1]  ⁵¹ tn Heb “the house of God.” The term “house” (בַּיִת, bayit) is a synecdoche of general (i.e., house) for specific (i.e., temple), e.g., 1 Kgs 6:3; 7:12; 1 Chr 9:11; 2 Chr 3:8; 28:11. See E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 620.

[5:1]  ⁵² tn Alternately, “to obey.” The term לִשְׁמֹעַ (lishmoa’, preposition + Qal infinitive construct from שָׁמַע, shama’, “to hear”) may be taken in one of two ways: (1) literal: “to listen” in contrast to speak or (2) figurative (metonymy of cause for effect) “to obey” in contrast to sacrifice (HALOT 1572 s.v. שׁמע 4; BDB 1033–34 s.v. שָׁמַע). The LXX took the term in the literal sense: τοῦ ἀκούειν (tou akouein, “to listen”). The English versions reflect both literal and figurative options: “obedience” (NJPS, Douay, NAB, NEB) versus “to hear [or listen]” (KJV, ASV, YLT, MLB, RSV, NASB, NIV, NRSV). The section warns against rash vows therefore, the nuance “to listen” is more appropriate: the wise man will be slow to speak and quick to listen in the presence of God; however, the fool is unrestrained and speaks rashly.

[5:1]  ⁵³ tn The term “sacrifice” (זֶבַח, zevakh) is the general term that refers to the thank offering and free will offering (Lev 7:12, 16). This section focuses on making vows in prayer and fulfilling them, such as the vow offering. The term “sacrifice” functions as a synecdoche of general (i.e., sacrifice) for specific (i.e., vow offering).

[5:1]  ⁵⁴ tn Heb “the fools, a sacrifice.” The term “fools” (הַכְּסִילִים, hakkÿsilim) is an adverbial accusative of comparison (e.g., GKC 375 §118.r): “rather than giving a sacrifice like fools” (מִתֵּת הַכְּסִילִים זָבַח, mittet hakkÿsilim zavakh). Contextually, the “sacrifice” is a rash vow made to God that is not fulfilled. The rash vow is referred to in 5:2 as the “voice of a fool.” Qoheleth admonishes the fool against making a rash vow that is not paid: “When you make a vow to God, do not delay in paying it; for God takes no pleasure in fools: Pay what you vow! It is better for you not to vow than to vow and not pay it” (vv. 4-5 [3-4 HT]).

[5:3]  ⁵⁵ tn The term עִנְיַן (’inyan) means “business; affair; task; occupation” (HALOT 857 s.v. עִנְיָן; BDB 775 s.v. עִנְיָן). HALOT nuances עִנְיַן בְּרֹב (bÿrov ‘inyan) as “excessive activity” (HALOT 857 s.v. עִנְיָן). Here, it is used as a metonymy of cause (i.e., tasks) for effect (i.e., cares). The term is nuanced variously: (1) literal sense: “business” (KJV, ASV, YLT, NEB, RSV) and “effort” (NASB), and (2) metonymical: “cares” (NAB, NIV, NRSV), “concerns” (MLB, Douay), “worries” (Moffatt) and “brooding” (NJPS). The LXX mistakenly related עִנְיַן to the root II עָנַה (’anah) “to afflict,” and rendered it as πειρασμοῦ (peirasmou, “trial”).

[5:3]  ⁵⁶ tn The juxtaposition of the two lines joined by vav (“just as…so…”) suggests a comparison (BDB 253 s.v. ו 1.j); see R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 71, §437.

[5:3]  ⁵⁷ tn Heb “voice.” The Hebrew term קוֹל (qol, “voice”) is used as a metonymy of cause (i.e., voice) for the contents (i.e., the thing said), e.g., Gen 3:17; 4:23; Exod 3:18; 4:1, 9; Deut 1:45; 21:18, 20; 1 Sam 2:25; 8:7, 9; 2 Sam 12:18); see HALOT 1084 s.v. קוֹל 4.b; BDB 877 s.v. קוֹל 3.a; also E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 545–46. Contextually, this refers to a rash vow made by a fool who made a mistake in making it because he is unable to fulfill it.

[5:3]  ⁵⁸ tn The word “occurs” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.

[5:4]  ⁵⁹ tn Heb “vow a vow.” The phrase תִּדֹּר נֶדֶר (tiddor neder, “to vow a vow”) is a Hebrew idiom in which the root נדר is repeated for emphasis. The construction is a cognate accusative (see IBHS 166-67 §10.2.1f). The verb נָדַר (nadar, “to vow”) refers to the action of making a solemn promise to the Lord to perform an action or offer a sacrifice, e.g., Lev 27:8; Num 6:21; 30:11; Deut 23:23-24; Jonah 2:10; Mal 1:14; Pss 76:12; 132:2; see HALOT 674 s.v. נדר. The noun נֶדֶר (“vow”) was a gift or offering promised to be given to the Lord (Num 30:3; Deut 12:11; 23:19; Isa 19:12; Nah 2:1 [ET 1:15]; Ps 61:6, 9); see HALOT 674–75 s.v. נֵדֶר. It usually was a sacrifice or free-will offering (Deut 12:6; Ps 66:13) that was often promised during times of pressure (Judg 11:30; 1 Sam 1:11; 2 Sam 15:7-8; Pss 22:25; 66:13; 116:14, 18; Jonah 2:9).

[5:4]  ⁶⁰ tn The term לְשַׁלְּמוֹ (lÿshallÿmo, preposition + Piel infinitive construct from שָׁלַם, shalam + 3rd person masculine singular suffix) is derived from the root שׁלם which is used in a general sense of paying a debt (2 Kgs 4:7; Ps 37:21; Prov 22:27; Job 41:3), and more specifically of fulfilling a vow to the Lord (Deut 23:22; 2 Sam 15:7; Pss 22:26; 50:14; 61:9; 66:13; 76:12; 116:14, 18; Prov 7:14; Job 22:27; Isa 19:21; Jonah 2:10; Nah 2:1); see HALOT 1535 s.v. שׁלם 3a; BDB 1022 s.v. שָׁלֵם 4. An Israelite was never required to make a vow, but once made, it had to be paid (Lev 22:18-25; 27:1-13; Num 15:2-10; Nah 1:15 [2:1 HT]).

[5:4]  ⁶¹ tn Heb “he”; the referent (“God”) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[5:5]  ⁶² tn The word “it” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.

[5:6]  ⁶³ tn Heb “your flesh.” The term בָּשָׂר (basar, “flesh”) is a synecdoche of part (i.e., flesh) for the whole (i.e., whole person), e.g., Gen 2:21; 6:12; Ps 56:4[5]; 65:2[3]; 145:21; Isa 40:5, 6; see HALOT 164 s.v. בָּשָׂר; E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 642.

[5:6]  ⁶⁴ tc The MT reads הַמַּלְאָךְ (hammal’akh, “messenger”), while the LXX reads τοῦ θεοῦ (tou qeou, “God”) which reflects an alternate textual tradition of הָאֱלֹהִים (ha’elohim, “God”). The textual problem was caused by orthographic confusion between similarly spelled words. The LXX might have been trying to make sense of a difficult expression. The MT is preferred as the original. All the major translations follow the MT except for Moffatt (“God”).

[5:6]  ⁶⁵ tn The Hebrew noun שְׁגָגָה (shÿgagah) denotes “error; mistake” and refers to a sin of inadvertence or unintentional sin (e.g., Lev 4:2, 22, 27; 5:18; 22:14; Num 15:24-29; 35:11, 15; Josh 20:3, 9; Eccl 5:5; 10:5); see HALOT 1412 s.v. שְׁגָגָה; BDB 993 s.v. שְׁגָגָה. In this case, it refers to a rash vow thoughtlessly made, which the foolish worshiper claims was a mistake (e.g., Prov 20:25).

[5:6]  ⁶⁶ tn Heb “at your voice.” This is an example of metonymy (i.e., your voice) of association (i.e., you).

[5:7]  ⁶⁷ tn The syntax of this verse is difficult. Perhaps the best approach is to classify the vav on וַהֲבָלִים (vahavalim, “futilities”) as introducing the predicate (e.g., Gen 40:9; 2 Sam 23:3; Prov 10:25; Isa 34:12; Job 4:6; 36:26); BDB 255 s.v. ו 5.c.γ: “There is futility….” The phrase בְרֹב הֲלֹמוֹת (vÿrob halomot) is an adverbial modifier (“in many dreams”), as is דְבָרִים הַרְבֵּה (dÿvarim harbeh, “many words”). The vav prefixed to וּדְבָרִים (udÿvarim) and the juxtaposition of the two lines suggests a comparison: “just as…so also…” (BDB 253 s.v. ו 1.j). The English versions reflect a variety of approaches: “In the multitude of dreams and many words there are also diverse vanities” (KJV); “In the multitude of dreams there are vanities, and in many words” (ASV); “When dreams increase, empty words grow many” (RSV); “In many dreams and follies and many words” (MLB); “In the abundance of dreams both vanities and words abound” (YLT); “Where there are many dreams, there are many vanities, and words without number” (Douay); “Many dreams and words mean many a vain folly” (Moffatt); “Much dreaming leads to futility and to superfluous talk” (NJPS); “In many dreams and in many words there is emptiness” (NASB); “Much dreaming and many words are meaningless” (NIV); “With many dreams comes vanities and a multitude of words” (NRSV).

[5:8]  ⁶⁸ tn Alternately, “oppression.” The term עֹשֶׁק (’osheq) has a basic two-fold range of meaning: (1) “oppression; brutality” (e.g., Isa 54:14); and (2) “extortion” (e.g., Ps 62:11); see HALOT 897 s.v. עֹשֶׁק; BDB 799 s.v. עֹשֶׁק. The LXX understands the term as “oppression,” as the translation συκοφαντίαν (sukofantian, “oppression”) indicates. Likewise, HALOT 897 s.v. עֹשֶׁק 1 classifies this usage as “oppression” against the poor. However, the context of 5:8-9 [7-8 HT] focuses on corrupt government officials robbing people of the fruit of their labor through extortion and the perversion of justice.

[5:8]  ⁶⁹ tn Heb “robbery.” The noun גֵזֶל (gezel, “robbery”) refers to the wrestling away of righteousness or the perversion of justice (HALOT 186 s.v. גֵּזֶל). The related forms of the root גזל mean “to rob; to loot” (HALOT 186 s.v. גֵּזֶל). The term “robbery” is used as a figure for the perversion of justice (hypocatastasis): just as a thief robs his victims through physical violence, so corrupt government officials “rob” the poor through the perversion of justice.

[5:8]  ⁷⁰ tn Heb “in the province.”

[5:8]  ⁷¹ tn The word “official” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.

[5:8]  ⁷² sn And there are higher ones over them! This may describe a corrupt system of government in which each level of hierarchy exploits its subordinates, all the way down to the peasants: “Set in authority over the people is an official who enriches himself at their expense; he is watched by a more authoritative governor who also has his share of the spoils; and above them are other officers of the State who likewise have to be satisfied”; see A. Cohen, The Five Megilloth (SoBB), 141.

[5:9]  ⁷³ tn The phrase “is seized” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.

[5:9]  ⁷⁴ tn The function of the term נֶעֱבָד (ne’evar, Niphal participle ms from עָבַד, ’avar, “to serve”) has been understood in four ways: (1) adjectival use of the participle, modifying the noun שָׂדֶה (sadeh, “field”): “cultivated field” (RSV, NRSV, NJPS, NAB); (2) adjectival use of the participle, modifying מֶלֶךְ (melekh, “king”): “the king who cultivates” (NASB); (3) verbal use of the participle, taking שָׂדֶה (“field”) as the subject: “field is cultivated” (NEB); and (4) verbal use of the participle, taking מֶלֶךְ (“king”) as the subject: “the king is served” (KJV, NASB); also “the king profits” (NIV). BDB 713 s.v. עָבַד 2 lists both the adjectival and verbal options: “a king for [i.e., devoted to] the cultivated field” and “a king that makes himself servant to the field [i.e., devoted to agriculture].” HALOT 774 s.v. עבד suggests the line be rendered as “a king who serves the land.” In the Qal stem the verb עָבַד (’avar) is sometimes used in reference to tribute imposed upon a king’s subjects (e.g., Jer 25:14; 27:7; 30:8; Ezek 34:27) and in reference to subjects serving a king (e.g., Judg 9:28, 38; 1 Sam 11:1; 1 Kgs 5:1; 2 Sam 22:44; Jer 27:7; 28:14; 2 Kgs 25:24); cf. BDB 713 s.v. עָבַד 3; HALOT 773 s.v. עבד 3. Likewise, it is also used in reference to tilling the ground (e.g., Gen 2:5; 4:2, 12; 2 Sam 9:10; Isa 30:24; Jer 27:11; Zech 13:5; Prov 12:11; 28:19) and a vineyard or garden (Gen 2:15; Deut 28:39); cf. HALOT 773 s.v. עבד 3; BDB 713 s.v. עָבַד 3.

[5:9]  ⁷⁵ tn The syntax and exegesis of the line is difficult. There are three basic interpretive options: (1) the king takes care of the security of the cultivated land: “in any case, the advantage of a country is that there is a king for the cultivated land”; (2) the king is in favor of a prosperous agricultural policy: “in any case, the advantage of a country is that there is a king who is obeyed for the sake of the agriculture”; and (3) the king exploits the poor farmers: “the produce of the land is [seized] by all, even the king is served by the fields.” Perhaps the best option in the light of the context is to take the referent of כֹּל (kol, “all”) to the government officials of 5:8 rather than to the people as a whole. The verse depicts the exploitation of the poor farmers by corrupt government officials. This is reflected in two English versions: “the increase from the land is taken by all; the king himself profits from the fields” (NIV); “the profit of the land is among all of them; a cultivated field has a king” (RSV margin). On the other hand, the LXX treated the syntax so the king is viewed in a neutral sense: και περισσεια γης ἐπι παντι ἐστι, βασιλευς του αργου εἰργασμενου (“The abundance of the earth is for everyone; the king is dependent on the tilled field”). Most English versions deal with the syntax so that the king is viewed in a neutral or positive sense: “the profit of the earth is for all; the king himself is served by the field” (KJV); “a king who cultivates the field is an advantage to the land” (NASB); “this is an advantage for a land: a king for a plowed field” (NRSV); “the greatest advantage in all the land is his: he controls a field that is cultivated” (NJPS); “a country prospers with a king who has control” (Moffatt); “a king devoted to the field is an advantage to the land” (MLB); “a king is an advantage to a land with cultivated fields” (RSV); “the best thing for a country is a king whose own lands are well tilled” (NEB); and “an advantage for a country in every respect is a king for the arable land” (NAB). See D. Barthélemy, ed., Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, 3:576–77.

[5:10]  ⁷⁶ tn Heb “silver.” The Hebrew term כֶּסֶף (kesef, “silver”) refers to “money” (HALOT 490–91 s.v. כֶּסֶף 3). It is a synecdoche of specific (i.e., silver) for the general (i.e., money); see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 625-29.

[5:10]  ⁷⁷ sn The Hebrew term “silver” (translated “money”) is repeated twice in this line for rhetorical emphasis.

[5:10]  ⁷⁸ tn The term הָמוֹן (hamon, “abundance; wealth”) has a wide range of meanings: (1) agitation; (2) turmoil; (3) noise; (4) pomp; (5) multitude; crowd = noisy crowd; and (6) abundance; wealth (HALOT 250 s.v. הָמוֹן 1–6). Here, it refers to abundant wealth (related to “pomp”); cf. HALOT 250 s.v. הָמוֹן 6, that is, lavish abundant wealth (Ezek 29:19; 30:4; 1 Chr 29:16).

[5:10]  ⁷⁹ tn The phrase “will never be satisfied” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity. Note the previous line.

[5:10]  ⁸⁰ tn The word “his” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.

[5:11]  ⁸¹ tn The word “someone’s” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.

[5:11]  ⁸² tn The term טוֹבָה (tovah, “good”) connotes “prosperity” (Deut 23:7; Job 9:25; 21:25; Ps 106:5; Lam 3:17; Eccl 4:8; 5:10, 17; 6:3, 6; 7:14; 9:18; Neh 2:10; Sir 6:11; 41:13); cf. HALOT 372 s.v. טוֹבָה 2. The related term טוֹב (tov, “good”) connotes “prosperity” as well (Prov 11:10; Job 20:21; 21:16); cf. HALOT 372 s.v. טוֹבָה 1.b. Here, it refers to the possessions and wealth a person acquires as the fruit of his labors. This nuance is well reflected in several English versions: “The more a man gains, the more there are to spend it” (Moffatt); “When riches multiply, so do those who live off them” (NEB); “As his substance increase, so do those who consume it” (NJPS); and “Where there are great riches, there are also many to devour them” (NAB). The line does not describe the economic law of “supply and demand,” as some versions seem to imply, e.g., “As goods increase, so do those who consume them” (NIV); “When goods increase, those who eat them increase” (NRSV); cf. also KJV, ASV, RSV, MLB, NASB.

[5:11]  ⁸³ tn The form is plural in the Hebrew text, but the plural is one of intensification; it is used here to emphasize the owner’s authority over his wealth. See GKC 399 §124.i. See v 13 as well.

[5:11]  ⁸⁴ tn The rhetorical question is an example of negative affirmation, expecting a negative answer: “There is no ultimate advantage!” (see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 947-48).

[5:13]  ⁸⁵ tn Heb “there is.” The term יֵשׁ (yesh, “there is”) is often used in aphorisms to assert the existence of a particular situation that occurs sometimes. It may indicate that the situation is not the rule but that it does occur on occasion, and may be nuanced “sometimes” (e.g., Prov 11:24; 13:7, 23; 14:12; 16:25; 18:24; 20:15; Eccl 2:21; 4:8; 5:12; 6:1; 7:15 [2x]; 8:14 [3x]).

[5:13]  ⁸⁶ tn The noun רָעָה (ra’ah, “evil”) probably means “misfortune” (HALOT 1263 s.v. רָעָה 4) or “injustice, wrong” (HALOT 1262 s.v. רָעָה 2.b). The phrase רָעָה רַבָּה (ra’ah rabbah) connotes “grave injustice” or “great misfortune” (Eccl 2:17; 5:12, 15; 6:1; 10:5).

[5:13]  ⁸⁷ tn Heb “under the sun.”

[5:14]  ⁸⁸ tn Or “through a bad business deal.” The basic meaning of עִנְיַן (’inyan) is “business; affair” (HALOT 857 s.v. עִנְיָן) or “occupation; task” (BDB 775 s.v. עִנְיָן). The term is used in a specific sense in reference to business activity (Eccl 8:16), as well as in a more general sense in reference to events that occur on earth (Eccl 1:13; 4:8). BDB suggests that the phrase עִנְיַן רָע (’inyan ra’) in 5:13 refers to a bad business deal (BDB 775 s.v. עִנְיָן); however, HALOT suggests that it means “bad luck” (HALOT 857 s.v. עִנְיָן). The English versions reflect the same two approaches: (1) bad luck: “some misfortune” (NAB, NIV) and (2) a bad business deal: “a bad investment” (NASB), “a bad venture” (RSV, NRSV, MLB), “some unlucky venture” (Moffatt, NJPS), “an unlucky venture” (NEB), “an evil adventure” (ASV).

[5:14]  ⁸⁹ tn Heb “there is nothing in his hand.”

[5:16]  ⁹⁰ tn See the note on the phrase “depressing misfortune” in v. 13.

[5:17]  ⁹¹ tn Heb “all his days.” The phrase “of his life” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.

[5:18]  ⁹² tn Heb “Behold, that which I have seen, I, good which is beautiful.” The phrase “for people” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.

[5:18]  ⁹³ sn The phrase “to eat and to drink” is a common idiom in Ecclesiastes for a person enjoying the fruit of his labor (e.g., 2:24; 3:13).

[5:18]  ⁹⁴ tn Heb “his,” and three times later in the verse.

[5:18]  ⁹⁵ tn Heb “the toil which one toils.”

[5:18]  ⁹⁶ tn Heb “under the sun.”

[5:18]  ⁹⁷ tn The term חֵלֶק (kheleq, “lot”) has a wide range of meanings: (1) “share of spoils” (Gen 14:24; Num 31:36; 1 Sam 30:24), (2) “portion of food” (Lev 6:10; Deut 18:8; Hab 1:16), (3) “portion [or tract] of land” (Deut 10:9; 12:12; Josh 19:9), (4) “portion” or “possession” (Num 18:20; Deut 32:9), (5) “inheritance” (2 Kgs 9:10; Amos 7:4), (6) “portion” or “award” (Job 20:29; 27:13; 31:2; Isa 17:14) or “profit; reward” (Eccl 2:10, 21; 3:22; 5:17-18; 9:6, 9); see HALOT 323 s.v. II חֵלֶק; BDB 324 s.v. חֵלֶק. Throughout Ecclesiastes, the term is used in reference to man’s temporal profit from his labor and his reward from God (e.g., Eccl 3:22; 9:9).

[5:19]  ⁹⁸ tn The syntax of this verse is difficult. The best approach is to view הִשְׁלִיטוֹ (hishlito, “he has given him the ability”) as governing the three following infinitives: לֶאֱכֹל (le’ekhol, “to eat”), וְלָשֵׂאת (vÿlase’t, “and to lift” = “to accept [or receive]”), and וְלִשְׂמֹחַ (vÿlismoakh, “and to rejoice”). This statement parallels 2:24-26 which states that no one can find enjoyment in life unless God gives him the ability to do so.

[5:19]  ⁹⁹ tn Heb “this.” The feminine singular demonstrative pronoun זֹה (zoh, “this”) refers back to all that preceded it in the verse (e.g., GKC 440-41 §135.p), that is, the ability to enjoy the fruit of one’s labor is the gift of God (e.g., Eccl 2:24-26). The phrase “these things” is used in the translation for clarity.

[5:20]  ¹⁰⁰ tn The verb זָכַר (zakhar, “to remember”) may be nuanced “to call to mind; to think about,” that is, “to reflect upon” (e.g., Isa 47:7; Lam 1:9; Job 21:6; 36:24; 40:32; Eccl 11:8); cf. BDB 270 s.v. זָכַר 5; HALOT 270 s.v. I זכר 2.

[5:20]  ¹⁰¹ tn The word “fleeting” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.

[5:20]  ¹⁰² tn The term מַעֲנֵה (ma’aneh, Hiphil participle ms from II עָנָה, ’anah, “to be occupied”) refers to activity that keeps a person physically busy and mentally preoccupied, e.g., Eccl 1:13; 3:10; 5:19 (HALOT 854; BDB 775 s.v. עָנָה II). The related noun עִנְיַן (’inyan,“business; occupation; task”) refers to activity that keeps man busy and occupies his time, e.g., Eccl 1:13; 2:26; 3:10 (HALOT 857; BDB 775 s.v. עִנְיָן). The participle form is used to emphasize durative, uninterrupted, continual action.

[5:20]  ¹⁰³ tn Heb “with the joy of his heart.” The words “he derives from his activity” do not appear in the Hebrew, but they are added to clarify the Teacher’s point in light of what he says right before this.

[6:1]  ¹⁰⁴ tn The term יֵשׁ (yesh, “there is”) is often used in aphorisms to assert the existence of a particular situation that occurs sometimes. It may indicate that the situation is not the rule but that it does occur on occasion, and may be nuanced “sometimes” (Prov 11:24; 13:7, 23; 14:12; 16:25; 18:24; 20:15; Eccl 2:21; 4:8; 5:12; 6:1; 7:15 [2x]; 8:14 [3x]).

[6:1]  ¹⁰⁵ tn The noun רָעָה (ra’ah, “evil”) probably means “misfortune” (HALOT 1263 s.v. רָעָה 4) or “injustice, wrong” (HALOT 1262 s.v. רָעָה 2.b); see, e.g., Eccl 2:17; 5:12, 15; 6:1; 10:5.

[6:1]  ¹⁰⁶ tn Heb “under the sun.”

[6:1]  ¹⁰⁷ tn The word “weighs” does not appear in Hebrew, but is added in the translation for smoothness.

[6:1]  ¹⁰⁸ tn Heb “it is great upon men.” The phrase וְרַבָּה הִיא עַל־הָאָדָם (vÿrabbah hi’ ’al-ha’adam) is taken in two basic ways: (1) commonality: “it is common among men” (KJV, MLB), “it is prevalent among men” (NASB), “that is frequent among men” (Douay). (2) oppressiveness: “it lies heavy upon men” (RSV, NRSV), “it weighs heavily upon men” (NEB, NAB, NIV), “it presses heavily on men” (Moffatt), “it is heavy upon men” (ASV), and “a grave one it is for man” (NJPS). The preposition עַל (’al, “upon”) argues against the first in favor of the second; the notion of commonality would be denoted by the preposition בְּ (bet, “among”). The singular noun אָדָם (’adam) is used as a collective, denoting “men.” The article on הָאָדָם (ha’adam) is used in a generic sense referring to humankind as a whole; the generic article is often used with a collective singular (IBHS 244 §13.5.1f).

[6:2]  ¹⁰⁹ tn Heb “his appetite.”

[6:2]  ¹¹⁰ tn Heb “There is no lack in respect to his appetite”; or “his desire lacks nothing.”

[6:2]  ¹¹¹ tn The verb שָׁלַט (shalat) in the Qal stem means “to domineer; to dominate; to lord it over; to be master of” and in the Hiphil stem “to give power to” (BDB 1020 s.v. שָׁלַט) and “to grant” (HALOT 1522 s.v. שׁלט). God must grant a person the ability to enjoy the fruit of his labor, otherwise a person will not be able to enjoy his possessions and wealth. The ability to partake of the fruit of one’s labor and to find satisfaction and joy in it is a gift from God (e.g., Eccl 2:24-26; 3:13; 5:18 [19]; 9:7).

[6:2]  ¹¹² tn Heb “to eat of it.” The verb אָכַל (’akhal, “to eat”) functions as a metonymy of association, that is, the action of eating is associated with the enjoyment of the fruit of one’s labor (e.g., Eccl 2:24-26; 3:12-13, 22; 5:17-19; 8:15; 9:9).

[6:2]  ¹¹³ tn The phrase “the fruit of his labor” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.

[6:2]  ¹¹⁴ tn Heb “a stranger.” The Hebrew expression אִיש נָכְרִי (’ish nokhri, “stranger”) sometimes refers not to a foreigner or someone that the person does not know, but simply to someone else other than the subject (e.g., Prov 27:2). In the light of 6:3-6, it might even refer to the man’s own heirs. The term is used as a synecdoche of species (foreigner for stranger) in the sense of someone else other than the subject: “someone else” (BDB 649 s.v. נָכְרִי 3).

[6:2]  ¹¹⁵ tn Heb “eats.”

[6:2]  ¹¹⁶ sn Instead, someone else enjoys it. A person may be unable to enjoy the fruit of his/her labor due to an unfortunate turn of events that robs a person of his possessions (5:13-14) or a miserly, lifelong hoarding of one’s wealth that robs him of the ability to enjoy what he has worked so hard to acquire (5:15-17). Qoheleth recommends the enjoyment of life and the fruit of one’s labor, as God enables (5:18-20). Unfortunately, the ability to enjoy the fruits of one’s labor is often thwarted by the obstacles described in 6:1-2 and 6:3-9.

[6:2]  ¹¹⁷ tn Heb “an evil sickness.”

[6:3]  ¹¹⁸ tn Heb “the days of his years are many.”

[6:3]  ¹¹⁹ tn Heb “he has no burial.” The phrase וְגַם־קְבוּרָה לֹא־הָיְתָה (vÿgam-qÿvurah lo’-haytah, “he even has no burial”) is traditionally treated as part of a description of the man’s sorry final state, that is, he is deprived of even a proper burial (KJV, NEB, RSV, NRSV, ASV, NASB, NIV, NJPS, MLB, Moffatt). However, the preceding parallel lines suggest that this a hyperbolic protasis: “If he were to live one hundred years…even if he were never buried [i.e., were to live forever]….” A similar idea occurs elsewhere (e.g., Pss 49:9; 89:48). See D. R. Glenn, “Ecclesiastes,” BKCOT, 990.

[6:3]  ¹²⁰ tn The noun נֶפֶל (nefel) denotes “miscarriage” and by metonymy of effect, “stillborn child” (e.g., Ps 58:9; Job 3:16; Eccl 6:3); cf. HALOT 711. The noun is related to the verb נָפַל (nafal, “to fall,” but occasionally “to be born”; see Isa 26:18); cf. HALOT 710 s.v. נפל 5.

[6:3]  ¹²¹ sn The point of 6:3-6 is that the futility of unenjoyed wealth is worse than the tragedy of being stillborn.

[6:4]  ¹²² tn Heb “he”; the referent (“the stillborn child”) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[6:4]  ¹²³ tn The phrase “into the world” does not appear in Hebrew, but is added in the translation for clarity.

[6:4]  ¹²⁴ sn The birth of the stillborn was in vain – it did it no good to be born.

[6:4]  ¹²⁵ sn The name of the stillborn is forgotten.

[6:5]  ¹²⁶ tn Heb “it never saw the sun.”

[6:5]  ¹²⁷ tn The word “anything” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.

[6:5]  ¹²⁸ sn The Hebrew term translated rest here refers to freedom from toil, anxiety, and misery – part of the miserable misfortune that the miserly man of wealth must endure.

[6:6]  ¹²⁹ tn Heb “Do not all go to the same place?” The rhetorical question is an example of erotesis of positive affirmation, expecting a positive answer, e.g., Ps 56:13 [14] (see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 947). It affirms the fact that both the miserly rich man who lives two thousand years, as well as the stillborn who never lived one day, both go to the same place – the grave. And if the miserly rich man never enjoyed the fruit of his labor during his life, his fate was no better than that of the stillborn who never had opportunity to enjoy any of the blessings of life. In a sense, it would have been better for the miserly rich man to have never lived than to have experienced the toil, anxiety, and misery of accumulating his wealth, but never enjoying any of the fruits of his labor.

[6:7]  ¹³⁰ tn The phrase “for nothing more than” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.

[6:7]  ¹³¹ tn Heb “All man’s work is for his mouth.” The term “mouth” functions as a synecdoche of part (i.e., mouth) for the whole (i.e., person), substituting the organ of consumption for the person’s action of consumption (see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 641-43), as suggested by the parallelism with נֶפֶשׁ (nefesh, “his appetite”).

[6:7]  ¹³² tn The term נֶפֶשׁ (nefesh, “desire; appetite”) is used as a metonymy of association, that is, the soul is associated with man’s desires and appetites (BDB 660 s.v. נֶפֶשׁ 5.c; 6.a).

[6:8]  ¹³³ sn So what advantage does the wise man have over a fool? The rhetorical question in Hebrew implies a negative answer: the wise man has no absolute advantage over a fool in the sense that both will share the same fate: death. Qoheleth should not be misunderstood here as denying that wisdom has no relative advantage over folly; elsewhere he affirms that wisdom does yield some relative benefits in life (7:1-22). However, wisdom cannot deliver one from death.

[6:8]  ¹³⁴ sn As in the preceding parallel line, this rhetorical question implies a negative answer (see the note after the word “fool” in the preceding line).

[6:8]  ¹³⁵ tn Heb “ What to the pauper who knows to walk before the living”; or “how to get along in life.”

[6:9]  ¹³⁶ tn The phrase “to be content with” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.

[6:9]  ¹³⁷ tn The expression מַרְאֵה עֵינַיִם (mar’eh ’enayim, “the seeing of the eyes”) is a metonymy of cause (i.e., seeing an object) for effect (i.e., being content with what the eyes can see); see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 552-54.

[6:9]  ¹³⁸ tn Heb “the roaming of the soul.” The expression מֵהֲלָךְ־נָפֶשׁ (mehalakh-nafesh, “the roaming of the soul”) is a metonymy for unfulfilled desires. The term “soul” (נֶפֶשׁ, nefesh) is used as a metonymy of association for man’s desires and appetites (BDB 660 s.v. נֶפֶשׁ 5.c; 6.a). This also involves the personification of the roving appetite as “roving” (מֵהֲלָךְ); see BDB 235 s.v. הָלַךְ II.3.f; 232 I.3.

[6:9]  ¹³⁹ tn The phrase “continual longing” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.

[6:9]  ¹⁴⁰ tn The term “like” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity and smoothness.

[6:10]  ¹⁴¹ tn Heb “already its name was called.”

[6:10]  ¹⁴² tn Or “and what a person (Heb “man”) is was foreknown.”

[6:10]  ¹⁴³ tn Heb “he cannot contend with the one who is more powerful than him.” The referent of the “the one who is more powerful than he is” (God) has been specified in the translation for clarity. The words “with God about his fate” have been added for clarity as well.

[6:11]  ¹⁴⁴ tn Heb “The more the words, the more the futility.”

[6:11]  ¹⁴⁵ tn Or “What benefit does man have [in that]?”

[6:12]  ¹⁴⁶ tn Heb “For who knows what is good for a man in life?” The rhetorical question (“For who knows…?”) is a negative affirmation, expecting a negative answer: “For no one knows…!” (see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 949-51). The translation renders this rhetorical device as a positive affirmation.

[6:12]  ¹⁴⁷ tn The vav prefixed to וְיַעֲשֵׂם (vÿya’asem, conjunction + Qal imperfect 3rd person masculine singular from עָשַׂה, ’asah, “to do” + 3rd person masculine plural suffix) functions in an explanatory or epexegetical sense (“For …”).

[6:12]  ¹⁴⁸ tn The 3rd person masculine plural suffix on the verb וְיַעֲשֵׂם (vÿya’asem, conjunction + Qal imperfect 3rd person masculine singular from ָָעשַׂה, ’asah, “to do” + 3rd person masculine plural suffix) refers to מִסְפַּר יְמֵי־חַיֵּי הֶבְלוֹ (mispar yÿme-khayye hevlo, “the few days of his fleeting life”). The suffix may be taken as an objective genitive: “he spends them [i.e., the days of his life] like a shadow” (HALOT 891 s.v. I ָָעשַׂה 8) or as a subjective genitive: “they [i.e., the days of his life] pass like a shadow” (BDB 795 s.v. ָָעשַׂה II.11).

[6:12]  ¹⁴⁹ tn Heb “Who can tell the man what shall be after him under the sun?” The rhetorical question (“For who can tell him…?”) is a negative affirmation, expecting a negative answer: “For no one can tell him…!” (see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 949-51). The translation renders this rhetorical device as a positive affirmation.