Discovery BoxEcclesiastes 1:10
Context1:10 Is there anything about which someone can say, “Look at this! It is new!”? 1
It was already 2 done long ago, 3 before our time. 4
Ecclesiastes 6:11
Context6:11 The more one argues with words, the less he accomplishes. 5
How does that benefit him? 6
Ecclesiastes 7:20
Context7:20 For 7 there is not one truly 8 righteous person on the earth
who continually does good and never sins.
Ecclesiastes 8:4
Context8:4 Surely the king’s authority 9 is absolute; 10
no one can say 11 to him, “What are you doing?”
Ecclesiastes 10:8-9
Context10:8 One who digs a pit may 12 fall into it,
and one who breaks through a wall may be bitten by a snake. 13
10:9 One who quarries stones may be injured by them;
one who splits logs may be endangered by them.
Ecclesiastes 10:15
Context10:15 The toil of a stupid fool 14 wears him out, 15
because he does not even know the way to the city. 16
[1:10] 1 tn Alternately, “[Even when] there is something of which someone might claim…” The terms יֵשׁ דָּבָר שֶׁיֹּאמַר (yesh davar sheyyo’mar) may be an interrogative clause without an introductory interrogative particle (GKC 473 §150.a). In questions, יֵשׁ often implies doubt about the existence of something (BDB 441 s.v. יֵשׁ 2.b). The LXX rendered it as a question, as do most English versions: “Is there anything of which it can be said…?” (KJV, ASV, RSV, MLB, NEB, NASB, NIV, NRSV). On the other hand, יֵשׁ is used elsewhere in the Book of Ecclesiastes as a predication of existence (“There is…”) to assert the existence of something (2:13, 21; 4:8, 9; 5:13[12]; 6:1, 11; 7:15; 8:6, 14; 9:4; 10:5). HALOT 443 s.v. יֵשׁ 2 renders יֵשׁ דָּבָר as “There is something….” This view is taken by several translations: “Even the thing of which we say…” (NAB), “Men may say of something …” (Moffatt), and “Sometimes there is a phenomena of which they say…” (NJPS).
[1:10] 2 tn The perfect tense verb הָיָה (hayah) refers to a past perfect situation: It describes an action that is viewed as a remote past event from the perspective of the past. This past perfect situation is brought out by the temporal adverb כְּבָר (kÿvar, “already”; HALOT 459 s.v. I כְּבָר; BDB 460 s.v. I כְּבָר; cf. 1:10; 2:12, 16; 3:15; 4:2; 6:10; 9:6-7). The expression כְּבָר + הָיָה connotes a past perfect nuance: “it has already been” (Eccl 1:10; see BDB 460 s.v.).
[1:10] 3 sn This does not deny man’s creativity or inventiveness, only the ultimate newness of his accomplishments. For example, there is no essential difference between the first voyage to the moon and the discovery of America (different point of arrival, different vehicles of travel, but the same essential action and results).
[1:10] 4 tn Heb “in the ages long ago before us.”
[6:11] 5 tn Heb “The more the words, the more the futility.”
[6:11] 6 tn Or “What benefit does man have [in that]?”
[7:20] 9 tn The introductory particle כִּי (ki) is rendered variously: “for” (KJV); “indeed” (NASB); not translated (NIV); “for” (NJPS). The particle functions in an explanatory sense, explaining the need for wisdom in v. 19. Righteousness alone cannot always protect a person from calamity (7:15-16); therefore, something additional, such as wisdom, is needed. The need for wisdom as protection from calamity is particularly evident in the light of the fact that no one is truly righteous (7:19-20).
[7:20] 10 tn The term “truly” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity. Qoheleth does not deny the existence of some people who are relatively righteous.
[8:4] 15 tn Heb “Who can say…?”
[10:8] 17 tn The four imperfect verbs in vv. 8-9 may be nuanced as indicatives (“will…”) or in a modal sense denoting possibility (“may…”). The LXX rendered them with indicatives, as do many English translations (KJV, RSV, NRSV, ASV, MLB, YLT, NJPS). However, it is better to take them in a modal sense (NEB, NAB, NASB, NIV, NCV, CEV, NLT). One who digs a pit does not necessarily fall into it, but he may under the right conditions.
[10:8] 18 tn Heb “a serpent will bite him.” The clause “he who breaks through a wall” (וּפֹרֵץ גָּדֵר, uforets gader) is a nominative absolute – the casus pendens is picked up by the resumptive pronoun in the following clause “a serpent will bite him” (יִשְּׁכֶנּוּ נָחָשׁ, yishÿkhennu nakhash). This construction is used for rhetorical emphasis (see IBHS 76-77 §4.7c).
[10:15] 21 tn The plural form of הַכְּסִילִים (hakkÿsilim, from כְּסִיל, kÿsil, “fool”) denotes (1) plural of number: referring to several fools or (2) plural of habitual character or plural of intensity (referring to a single person characterized by a habitual or intense quality of foolishness). The latter is favored because the two verbs in 10:15 are both singular in form: “wearies him” (תְּיַגְּעֶנּוּ, tÿyaggÿ’ennu) and “he does [not] know” (לֹא־יָדַע, lo’-yada’); see GKC 440-41 §135.p. The article on הַכְּסִילִים is used in the generic sense.
[10:15] 22 tn This line may be interpreted in one of three ways: (1) “the labor of fools wearies him because he did not know enough to go to a town,” referring to the labor of the peasants who had not been able to find a place in town where life was easier; (2) “the labor of the fools so wearies everyone of them (singular pronoun taken in a distributive sense) so much that he even does not know how to go to town,” that is, he does not even know how to do the easiest thing in the world; (3) “let the labor of fools so weary him that he may not even know how to go to town,” taking the verb as a jussive, describing the foolish man described in 10:12-14. See D. Barthélemy, ed., Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, 3:592–93.
