Pengkhotbah 1:3

Futility Illustrated from Nature

1:3 What benefit ¹  do people ²  get from all the effort

which ³  they expend ⁴  on earth? ⁵ 

Pengkhotbah 2:17

2:17 So I loathed ⁶  life ⁷  because what

happens ⁸  on earth ⁹  seems awful to me;

for all the benefits of wisdom ¹⁰  are futile – like chasing the wind.

Pengkhotbah 2:20

2:20 So I began to despair ¹¹  about all the fruit of ¹²  my labor ¹³ 

for which I worked so hard ¹⁴  on earth. ¹⁵ 

Pengkhotbah 4:3

4:3 But better than both is the one who has not been born ¹⁶ 

and has not seen the evil things that are done on earth. ¹⁷ 

Pengkhotbah 5:13

Materialism Thwarts Enjoyment of Life

5:13 Here is ¹⁸  a misfortune ¹⁹  on earth ²⁰  that I have seen:

Wealth hoarded by its owner to his own misery.

Pengkhotbah 8:9

8:9 While applying ²¹  my mind ²²  to everything ²³  that happens in this world, ²⁴  I have seen all this:

Sometimes one person ²⁵  dominates ²⁶  other people ²⁷  to their harm. ²⁸ 

Pengkhotbah 9:6

9:6 What they loved, ²⁹  as well as what they hated ³⁰  and envied, ³¹  perished long ago,

and they no longer have a part in anything that happens on earth. ³² 

[1:3]  ¹ tn The term “profit” (יֹתְרוֹן, yotÿron) is used in Ecclesiastes to evaluate the ultimate benefit/effects of human activities, as is טוֹב (tov, “good, worthwhile”) as well (e.g., 2:1, 3). While some relative advantage/profit is recognized (e.g., light over darkness, and wisdom over folly), Qoheleth denies the ultimate advantage of all human endeavors (e.g., 2:11, 15).

[1:3]  ² tn Heb “the man.” The Hebrew term could be used here in a generic sense, referring to the typical man (hence, “a man”). However, it is more likely that the form is collective and that humankind in general is in view (note NIV “man”). Note the reference to “a generation” coming and going in the next verse, as well as v. 13, where the phrase “the sons of man” (= humankind) appears. In this case the singular pronominal suffix and singular verb later in v. 3 reflect grammatical agreement, not individuality.

[1:3]  ³ tn The use of the relative pronoun שֶׁ (she, “which”) – rather than the more common אֲשֶׁר (’asher, “which”) – is a linguistic feature that is often used to try to date the Book of Ecclesiastes. Noting that שֶׁ is the dominant relative pronoun in Mishnaic Hebrew and that אֲשֶׁר does not appear as frequently (Jastrow 130 s.v. אֲשֶׁר), many scholars conclude that אֲשֶׁר is early and שֶׁ is late. They conclude that the use of שֶׁ in Ecclesiastes points to a late date for the book. However, as Samuel-Kings suggest, the שֶׁ versus אֲשֶׁר phenomena may simply be a dialectical issue: אֲשֶׁר is commonly used in the south, and שֶׁ in the north. The use of שֶׁ in Ecclesiastes may indicate that the book was written in a northern rather than a southern province, not that it is a late book. This is supported from related Akkadian terms which occur in texts from the same periods: אֲשֶׁר is related to asru (“place”) and שֶׁ is related to sa (“what”).

[1:3]  ⁴ sn The Hebrew root עָמָל, (’amal, “toil”) is repeated here for emphasis: “What gain does anyone have in his toil with which he toils.” For all his efforts, man’s endeavors and secular achievements will not produce anything of ultimate value that will radically revolutionize anything in the world. The term “toil” is used in a pejorative sense to emphasize that the only thing that man obtains ultimately from all his efforts is weariness and exhaustion. Due to sin, mankind has been cursed with the futility of his labor that renders work a “toilsome” task (Gen 3:17-19). Although it was not yet revealed to Qoheleth, God will one day deliver the redeemed from this plight in the future kingdom when man’s labor will no longer be toilsome, but profitable, fulfilling, and enjoyable (Isa 65:17-23).

[1:3]  ⁵ tn Heb “under the sun.”

[1:3]  sn This rhetorical question expects a negative answer: “Man has no gain in all his toil.” Ecclesiastes often uses rhetorical questions in this manner (e.g., 2:2; 3:9; 6:8, 11, 12; see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 949).

[2:17]  ⁶ tn Or “I hated.”

[2:17]  ⁷ tn The term הַחַיִּים (hakhayyim, “life”) functions as a metonymy of association, that is, that which is associated with life, that is, the profitlessness and futility of human secular achievement.

[2:17]  ⁸ tn Heb “the deed that is done.” The root עָשָׂה (’asah, “to do”) is repeated in הַמַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה (hamma’aseh shenna’asah, “the deed that is done”) for emphasis. Here, the term “deed” does not refer to human accomplishment, as in 2:1-11, but to the fact of death that destroys any relative advantage of wisdom over folly (2:14a-16). Qoheleth metaphorically describes death as a “deed” that is “done” to man.

[2:17]  ⁹ tn Heb “under the sun.”

[2:17]  ¹⁰ tn Heb “all,” referring here to the relative advantage of wisdom.

[2:20]  ¹¹ tn Heb “I turned aside to allow my heart despair.” The term לִבִּי (libbi, “my heart”) is a synecdoche of part (i.e., heart) for the whole (i.e., whole person); see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 648.

[2:20]  ¹² tn The phrase “the fruit of” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity (see the following note on the word “labor”).

[2:20]  ¹³ tn Heb “all my toil.” As in 2:18-19, the term עֲמָלִי (’amali, “my labor”) is a metonymy of cause (i.e., my labor) for effect (i.e., the fruit of my labor). The metonymy is recognized by several translations: “all the fruits of my labor” (NAB); “all the fruit of my labor” (NASB); “all the gains I had made” (NJPS).

[2:20]  ¹⁴ tn Here the author uses an internal cognate accusative construction (accusative noun and verb from the same root) for emphasis: שֶׁעָמַלְתִּי הֶעָמָל (he’amal she’amalti, “the toil for which I had toiled”); see IBHS 167 §10.2.1g.

[2:20]  ¹⁵ tn Heb “under the sun.”

[4:3]  ¹⁶ tn The word “born” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.

[4:3]  ¹⁷ tn Heb “under the sun.”

[5:13]  ¹⁸ 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]  ¹⁹ 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]  ²⁰ tn Heb “under the sun.”

[8:9]  ²¹ tn The term נָתוֹן (naton, Qal infinitive absolute from נָתַן , natan, “to give”) is a verbal use of the infinitive absolute, used with vav to indicate an action that took place simultaneous to the main verb (see IBHS 596-97 §35.5.2d). Thus, the clause וְנָתוֹן אֶת־לִבִּי (vÿnaton ’et-libbi, “while applying my mind…”) indicates contemporaneous action to the clause, “All this I have seen” (אֶת־כָּל־זֶה רָאִיתִי, ’et-kol-zeh ra’iti). This is view is taken by several translations: “All this I have seen, having applied my mind to” (NEB); “All this I observed while applying my mind to” (RSV); “All this I saw, as I applied my mind to” (NIV); “All this I saw, as thoughtfully I pondered” (Moffatt). On the other hand, the LXX vav is taken in a coordinating sense (“and”) and the infinitive absolute as an independent verb: Και συμπαν τουτο εἰδον, και ἐδωκα την καρδιαν μου εἰς (“I saw all this, and I applied my heart to”). This reading is adopted by other English versions: “All this I have seen, and applied my heart” (KJV); “All these things I considered and I applied my mind” (NAB); “All this have I seen, and applied my heart unto” (ASV); “All this I have seen and applied my mind to” (NASB); “All these things I observed; I noted” (NJPS).

[8:9]  ²² tn Heb “my heart.”

[8:9]  ²³ tn Heb “every work”; or “every deed.”

[8:9]  ²⁴ tn Heb “that is done under the sun.” The phrase “that is done under the sun” (אֲשֶׁר נַעֲשָׂה תַּחַת הַשָּׁמֶשׁ, ’asher na’asah takhat hashamesh) is an idiom for “what happens in this world” or “on the earth” (BDB 1039 s.v. שֶׁמֶשׁ 4.c). Moffatt renders this idiom, “what goes on within this world.”

[8:9]  ²⁵ tn Heb “the man.” The article on הָאָדָם (ha’adam, “the man”) can be taken in a particularizing sense (“one person”) or in a collective sense as humankind as a whole (“humankind”); see HALOT 14 s.v. I אָדָם 1; BDB 9 s.v. אָדָם 2. So LXX: “All the things in which man has power over [his fellow] man to afflict him.” This is adopted by the RSV (“man lords it over man to his hurt”); NJPS (“men still had authority over men to treat them unjustly”); Moffatt (“men have power over their fellows, power to injure them”); MLB (“man has mastery over another to harm him”); and YLT (“man hath ruled over man to his own evil”). On the other hand, 8:1-9 focuses on the absolute power of the king, so the referent of הָאָדָם is probably the king. The article functions in an individualizing, particularizing sense. The particularization of הָאָדָם is reflected in many English versions: “one man” (KJV, ASV, NEB, NAB, Douay), “a man” (NASB, NIV), and “one person” (NRSV).

[8:9]  ²⁶ tn The verb שָׁלַט (shalat) denotes “to domineer; to dominate; to lord it over” (HALOT 1522 s.v. שׁלט; BDB 1020 s.v. שָׁלַט). The English versions have: “rule over” (KJV, YLT, Douay), “have power over” (NEB, ASV), “lord it over” (RSV, NIV), “have authority over” (NJPS), “exercise authority over” (NASB, NRSV); “have mastery over” (MLB); “tyrannize” (NAB).

[8:9]  ²⁷ tn Heb “man.” The word “other” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity. The singular noun אָדָם (’adam, “man”) functions as a collective singular, connoting “men, people” (cf. HALOT 14 s.v. אָדָם 1; BDB 9 s.v. אָדָם 2). The absence of the article might suggest an indefinite rather than an individual, particular sense.

[8:9]  ²⁸ tn Heb “a man exercises power over [another] man to his harm” [or “to his own harm”]. The 3rd person masculine singular singular pronominal suffix לוֹ (lo, “to his”) may refer to the antecedent אָדָם (’adam, “man” or “men”), being understood either in a singular sense (so NEB, RSV, NRSV, NAB, ASV, NASB) or in a collective sense (Moffatt, NJPS, NIV margin). However, the antecedent might be הָאָדם (ha’adam, “[one] man” = the king) with the suffix functioning reflexively: “to his own harm” (KJV, ASV margin, YLT, Douay, NIV).

[9:6]  ²⁹ tn Heb “their love.”

[9:6]  ³⁰ tn Heb “their hatred.”

[9:6]  ³¹ tn Heb “their envy.”

[9:6]  ³² tn Heb “under the sun.”