Heb “I turned, I, even my heart.”


Heb “to seek.”


The phrase “the role of” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity and smoothness.


The phrase חָכְמָה וְחֶשְׁבּוֹן ( khokhmah vÿkheshbon , “wisdom and the scheme of things”) is a hendiadys (a figure of speech in which two nouns connote one idea): “wisdom in the scheme of things.” This is similar to the hendiadys עִצְּבוֹנֵךְ וְהֵרֹנֵךְ (’ itsÿvonekh vÿheronekh , “pain and childbearing”) which connotes “pain in childbearing” ( Gen 3:16 ).


Or “the evil of folly” The genitive construct phrase רֶשַׁע כֶּסֶל ( resha ’ kesel ) may be taken as a genitive of attribution (“the wickedness of folly”) or as a genitive of attribute (“the folly of wickedness”). The English versions treat it in various ways: “wickedness of folly” (KJV); “wrong of folly” (YLT); “evil of folly” (NASB); “stupidity of wickedness” (NIV); “wickedness, stupidity” (NJPS); “wickedness is folly [or foolish]” (ASV, NAB, NRSV, MLB, Moffatt), and “it is folly to be wicked” (NEB).


Or “the folly of madness” The genitive construct phrase וְהַסִּכְלוּת הוֹלֵלוֹת ( vÿhassikhlut holelot ) may be taken as a genitive of attribution (“the stupidity of wickedness”) or a genitive of attribute (“the evil of folly”). The phrase is rendered variously: “foolishness and madness” (KJV); “foolishness of madness” (NASB); “madness of folly” (NIV); “madness and folly” (NJPS); “the foolishness which is madness” (NEB); and “foolishness [or folly] is madness” (ASV, NAB, NRSV, MLB, Moffatt).


The word “this” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for smoothness.


The phrase “kind of” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity (see the following note on the word “woman”).


The article on הָאִשָּׁה ( ha ’ ishah ) functions in a particularizing sense (“the kind of woman”) rather than in a generic sense (i.e., “women”).


Heb “is snares.” The plural form מְצוֹדִים ( mÿtsodim , from the noun I מָצוֹד , matsod , “snare”) is used to connote either intensity, repeated or habitual action, or moral characteristic. For the function of the Hebrew plural, see IBHS 120-21 §7.4.2. The term II מָצוֹד “snare” is used in a concrete sense in reference to the hunter’s snare or net, but in a figurative sense of being ensnared by someone ( Job 19:6 ; Prov 12:12 ; Eccl 7:26 ).


The word “only” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for smoothness.


The word “upright” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation twice, here and in the following line, for clarity.


The preposition כְּ ( kaf ) prefixed to כְּהֶחָכָם ( kÿhekhakham , “wise man”) is traditionally taken in a comparative sense: “Who is like [or as] the wise man?” On the other hand, it may denote identity, e.g., Gen 1:26 ; Num 11:1 ; 1 Sam 20:3 ; 2 Sam 9:8 ; Neh 7:2 ; Job 10:9 ; Nah 3:6 (see R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax , 47, §261; IBHS 202-4 §11.2.9b).


The definite article on הֶחָכָם ( hekhakham , “wise man”) may be taken in an individualizing (“the wise man”) or generic sense (“a wise man”).


Or “the explanation.” The noun פֵּשֶׁר ( pesher ) denotes “solution; explanation; interpretation; meaning” ( HALOT 982–83 s.v. פֵּשֶׁר ; BDB 833 s.v. פֵּשֶׁר ). The Hebrew term is an Aramaic loanword from פִּשְׁרָא ( pishra ’, “diagnosis; meaning; solution”). The Aramaic noun פְּשַׁר ( pÿshar , “interpretation of a dream or prophecy”) and verb פְּשַׁר ( pÿshar , “to interpret a dream or prophecy”) reflect a later meaning not present in Ecclesiastes, but current at the time of Daniel ( Dan 2:5-7; 4:3, 15, 16; 5:12, 15, 16; 7:16 ) and Qumran (e.g., 1QpHab).


Heb “a thing.”


Heb “makes his face shine.”


The MT vocalizes the consonantal form ישנא as יְשֻׁנֶּא ( yÿshunne ’, Pual imperfect 3rd person masculine singular from I שָׁנָה , shana , “to change”). However, the LXX μισθήσεται ( misqhsetai ) reflects an alternate vocalization tradition of יִשָּׂנֵא ( yissane ’, Niphal imperfect 3rd person masculine singular from שָׂנֵא , sane ’, “to hate”), while the Vulgate’s commutabit reflects יְשַׁנֶּה ( yÿshanneh , Piel imperfect 3rd person masculine singular from II שָׁנָה , shanah , “to repeat”). tn Heb “the strength of his face is changed.”


Heb “the strength of his face is changed.” The expression עֹז פָּנָיו (’ oz panayv , “strength of his face”) is an idiom for “boldness; impudence” (BDB 739 s.v. עֹז 4) or “hard face” = harsh countenance ( HALOT 805 s.v. I עֹז 1.c).


The Leningrad Codex (the basis of BHS ) reads אֲנִי (’ ani , 1st person common singular independent personal pronoun): “I obey the king’s command.” Other medieval Hebrew mss and all the versions (LXX, Vulgate, Targum, Syriac Peshitta) preserve an alternate textual tradition of the definite accusative marker אֶת־ (’ et ) introducing the direct object: אֶת־פִּי־מֶלֶךְ שְׁמוֹר (’ et-pi-melekh shÿmor , “Obey the command of the king”). External evidence supports the alternate textual tradition. The MT is guilty of simple orthographic confusion between similar looking letters. The BHS editors and the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project adopt אֶת־ as the original reading. See D. Barthélemy, ed., Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project , 3:582–83.


The phrase “you took” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for smoothness.


The genitive-construct שְׁבוּעַת אֱלֹהִים ( shÿvu ’ at ’ elohim , “an oath of God”) functions as a genitive of location (“an oath before God”) or an adjectival genitive of attribute (“a supreme oath”).


The words “to be loyal to him” do not appear in the Hebrew text, but are supplied in the translation for clarification.


Or “do not stand up for a bad cause.”


Heb “word.”


Heb “supreme.”


Heb “Who can say…?”


The word “his” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for smoothness and clarity.


Heb “the heart of a wise man.”


The term עֵת (’ et , “time”) connotes “a proper, suitable time for an event; the right moment” ( HALOT 900 s.v. עֵת 6; BDB 773 s.v. עֵת 2.b); e.g., “it was the time for rain” ( Ezra 10:13 ); “a time of judgment for the nations” ( Ezek 30:3 ); “there is an appropriate time for every occasion” ( Eccl 3:1 ); “the time when mountain goats are born” ( Job 39:1 ); “the rain in its season” ( Deut 11:14 ; Jer 5:24 ); “the time for the harvest” ( Hos 2:11 ; Ps 1:3 ); “food in its season” ( Ps 104:27 ).


Heb “evil”; or “misery.”


Heb “the man.”


Heb “upon him.”


Heb “what will be.”


Heb “Who can tell him what will be?”


Heb “There is not a man who has mastery over the wind to restrain the wind.”


The word “his” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.


Heb “There is no discharge in war.”


Heb “its owners.”


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).


Heb “my heart.”


Heb “every work”; or “every deed.”


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.”


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).


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).


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.


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).


Heb “Then…” The construction בְכֵן ( vÿkhen ) means “then; thereupon; on this condition” (cf. Eccl 8:10 ; Esth 4:16 ; Sir 13:7; see GKC 384 §119. ii ; BDB 486 s.v. כֵּן 3.b; HALOT 483 s.v. כֵּן 8.c). The line could be rendered, “It is was then that I saw.”


There are three textual options: (1) The MT reads קְבֻרִים וָבָאוּ וּמִמְּקוֹם ( qÿvurim vava ’ u umimmÿqom , “they were buried, and they came, and from the place”). קְבֻרִים is a Qal passive participle mpl from קָבַר , qavar , “to bury.” The MT reading is retained by most translations: “[And so I saw the wicked] buried, who had come and gone from the place [of the holy]” (KJV); “[Then I saw the wicked] buried; they used to go in and out of the [holy] place” (RSV, NRSV); “[I saw how the wicked] were buried, who had gone in and out from the [holy] place” (MLB); “[I have seen the wicked] buried, those who used to go in and out from the [holy] place” (NASB); “[Then too, I saw the wicked] buried – those who used to come and go from the [holy] place” (NIV); and “[And then I saw] scoundrels coming from the [Holy] Site and being brought to burial” (NJPS). (2) The LXX reflects the reading קְבָרִים מוּבָאִים וּמִמְּקוֹם ( qÿvarim muva ’ im umimmÿqom , “to the tombs they are brought, and from the place”). The LXX reflects the consonantal text of קברים but τάφους ( tafous , “tombs”) reflects a vocalization tradition of קְבָרִים (“tombs”). (3) Several scholars suggest emending the text to קרבים ובאים וממקום (“approaching and coming to the place”). The emendation involves קרבִים (Qal active participle mpl from קרב “to approach; to draw near”). The emendation is adopted by several English versions: “I saw wicked men approach and enter…the sacred place” (NAB); “I saw wicked men approaching and even entering the holy place” (NEB). The emendation makes good sense because קָרַב ( qarav , “to approach; to draw near”) is a synonym to בּוֹא ( bo ’, “to enter”), and is often used in reference to a person approaching the Lord at the tabernacle or temple. The textual corruption would be due to transposition of ב ( bet ) and ר ( resh ) in קָרַב ( qarav , “to approach”) and קָבַר ( qavar , “to bury”). See D. Barthélemy, Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project , 3:584.


The phrase “the temple” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity and smoothness. Note the reference to the sanctuary in the next line.


Heb “the holy place.”


The MT reads וְיִשְׁתַּכְּחוּ ( vÿyishtakkÿkhu , “and they were forgotten”; Hitpael imperfect 3rd person masculine plural from שָׁכַח , shakhakh , “to forget”). Apart from the MT reading here, the verb שָׁכַח “to forget” never occurs elsewhere in the Hitpael ( HALOT 1490 s.v. I שׁכח ; BDB 1013 s.v. שָׁכַח ). Many medieval Hebrew mss read וישׁתבּחו “and they boasted” (Hitpael imperfect 3rd person masculine singular from שָׁבַח , shavakh , “praise, boast”). This alternate textual tradition is reflected in the Greek versions, e.g., Old Greek: και ἐπῃνέθησαν ( kai ephneqhsan , “and they were praised”), Aquila and Theodotion: και ἐκαυχήσαντο ( kai ekauchsanto , “and they boasted”), and Symmachus: και ἐπαινούμενοι ( kai epainoumenoi , “and they were praised”). This is also reflected in the Vulgate. The English versions are divided; several follow the MT and translate “they were forgotten” (KJV, ASV, NASB, MLB, NJPS), but a good number adopt the alternate textual tradition and translate either “they were praised” or “they boasted” (NEB, RSV, NAB, NIV, NRSV). The context of 8:10-17 , which focuses on the enigmatic contradictions in divine retribution (sometimes the wicked are not punished), favors the alternate tradition. The wicked boast that they can come and go as they please in the temple, flaunting their irreligion without fearing divine retribution ( 8:10 ). This thought is continued in v. 11 : failure to execute a sentence against a criminal emboldens the wicked to commit more crimes, confident they will not suffer retribution. It is likely that the original reading of וישׁתבחו was confused for וישׁתכחו because the root שָׁבַח (“to praise; to boast”) is much rarer than the common root שָׁכַח (“to forget”). The phrase is best rendered “they boasted” (NEB: “priding themselves”) rather than “they were praised” (NAB, RSV, NRSV, NIV) – the verb שָׁבַח means “to praise” in Piel, but “to boast” in Hitpael ( Ps 106:47 ; 1 Chr 16:35 ; HALOT 1387 s.v. I שׁבח ; BDB 986 s.v. שָׁבַח ). This approach is adopted by the committee for the Jerusalem Hebrew Bible Project: see D. Barthélemy, ed., Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project , 3:584–85.


The term הֶבֶל ( hevel ) here means “enigmatic,” that is, difficult to grasp mentally. This sense is derived from the literal concept of breath, vapor or wind that cannot be seen; thus, the idea of “obscure, dark, difficult to understand, enigmatic” ( HALOT 236–37 s.v. I הֶבֶל ; BDB 210–11 s.v. I הֶבֶל ). It is used in this sense in reference to enigmas in life ( 6:2; 8:10, 14 ) and the future which is obscure ( 11:8, 10 ).


The particle אֲשֶׁר (’ asher ) is used as a conjunction in a conditional/temporal clause to introduce the protasis (“when” or “if”), and עַל־כֵּן (’ al-ken ) introduces the apodosis (“then”); cf. BDB 83 s.v. אֲשֶׁר 8.d.


The noun פִתְגָם ( fitgam , “decision; announcement; edict; decree”) is a loanword from Persian patigama ( HALOT 984 s.v. פִּתְגָם ; BDB 834 s.v. פִּתְגָם ). The Hebrew noun occurs twice in the OT ( Eccl 8:11 ; Esth 1:20 ), twice in the Apocrypha (Sir 5:11; 8:9), and five times in Qumran (11QtgJob 9:2; 29:4; 30:1; 34:3; 1 QapGen 22:27). The English versions consistently nuance this as a judicial sentence against a crime: “sentence” (KJV, NEB, NAB, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, MLB, YLT), “sentence for a crime” (NIV), “sentence imposed” (NJPS), “sentence on a crime” (Moffatt).


Heb “is not done.” The verb עָשַׂה (’ asah , “to do”) refers to a judicial sentence being carried out ( HALOT 892 s.v. 2 ). The Niphal can denote “be executed; be carried out” of a sentence ( Eccl 8:11 ) or royal decree ( Esth 9:1 ; BDB 795 s.v. 1 .a). Similarly, the Qal can denote “to execute” vengeance ( Judg 11:36 ) or judgment ( 1 Sam 28:18 ; Isa 48:14 ; Ezek 25:11; 28:26 ; Ps 149:7, 9 ; BDB 794 s.v.).


Heb “the evil.”


Heb “the heart of the sons of man.” The singular noun לֵב ( lev , “heart”) is used collectively. The term לֵב is often used figuratively (metonymy) in reference to inclinations and determinations of the will (BDB 525 s.v. 4 ), moral character (BDB 525 s.v. 6 ), and as a synecdoche for the man himself (BDB 525 s.v. 7 ).


Heb “is full to do evil.” The verb מָלֵא ( male ’, “to fill”) is used figuratively (metonymy): the lack of swift judicial punishment only emboldens the wicked to commit more crimes without fear of retribution. Most English versions translate the term literally: “are filled” (NIV, MLB, YLT), “is fully set” (KJV, ASV, RSV, NRSV). However, several versions nuance it figuratively: “emboldened” (ASV, NJPS) and “boldly” (NEB). Moffatt renders the line, “Because sentence on a crime is not executed at once, the mind of man is prone to evil practices.”


Heb “does evil one hundred [times].”


Heb “and prolongs his [life].”


Heb “those who fear God.”


Heb “they fear.”


Heb “he.”


The word “their” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for smoothness.


The phrase “like a shadow” ( כַּצֵּל , katsel ) modifies the verb (“prolong”) rather than the noun (“days”). Several English versions misconstrue the line: “he will not prolong his days, [which are] like a shadow” (KJV, ASV); “the man who does not fear God is like a shadow” (NEB); and “he will not prolong his shadowy days” (NAB). It should be rendered “he will not prolong his days like a shadow” (RSV, NRSV, NASB, MLB, NIV). Unlike a shadow that lengthens at sunset, the wicked do not normally live long.


Heb “they do not fear.”


Heb “there is.” The term יֶשׁ ( 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]).


The word “another” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity and smoothness.


Or “vanity” (again at the end of this verse). The Hebrew term הֶבֶל ( hevel ) here denotes “enigma,” that is, something that is difficult to understand. This sense is derived from the literal referent of breath, vapor or wind that cannot be seen; thus, “obscure; dark; difficult to understand; enigmatic” (see HALOT 236–37 s.v. I הֶבֶל ; BDB 210–11 s.v. I הֶבֶל ). It is used in this sense in reference to enigmas in life ( 6:2; 8:10, 14 ) and the future which is obscure ( 11:8, 10 ).


Heb “to whom it happens according to the deeds of the wicked”; or “who are punished for the deeds of the wicked.”


Heb “to whom it happens according to the deeds of the righteous”; or “who are rewarded for the deeds of the righteous.”


Heb “the enjoyment.” The phrase “of life” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.


Heb “under the sun.”


The phrase “to do” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for smoothness.


The construction אִם … כִּי ( ki …’ im ) is used as a particle of exception to limit the preceding clause (“except; nothing but”). See, e.g., Gen 28:17; 39:9 ; Lev 21:2 ; Num 14:30 ; Deut 10:12 ; 1 Sam 30:22 ; 2 Kgs 4:2; 5:15 ; 2 Chr 21:17 ; Esth 2:15; 5:12 ; Eccl 3:12 ; Isa 42:19 ; Dan 10:21 ; Mic 6:8 (cf. HALOT 471 s.v. אִם כִּי B.2; BDB 474 s.v. אִם כִּי 2.a).


The term “life” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity and smoothness.


The vav introduces a logical conclusion.


Heb “it”; the referent (enjoyment of life) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


Heb “I applied my heart.”


Heb “to know.”


Heb “and to see the business which is done.”


Heb “for no one sees sleep with their eyes either day or night.” The construction גַם … כִּי ( ki … gam ) expresses a concessive sense: “even though” (e.g., Ps 23:4 ; Prov 22:6 ; Eccl 4:14 ; Isa 1:15 ; Lam 3:8 ; Hos 8:10; 9:16 ); cf. HALOT 196 s.v. גַּם 9; BDB 169 s.v. גַּם 6; 473 s.v. כִּי 2.c.


Heb “all the work of God.”


Heb “the work that is done.”


Heb “his”; the referent (man, in a generic sense) has been specified in the translation as the adjective “human” for clarity.


Heb “find.”


The term “it” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for smoothness.


The particle אִם (’ im , “even if”) introduces the protasis in a real conditional clause (“If a wise man …”); see IBHS 636-37 §38.2d; R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax , 74, §453.


The imperfect tense verb יֹאמַר ( yo ’ mar , “to say”) functions in a modal sense, denoting possibility (see IBHS 508 §31.4e; R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax , 31, §169).


Heb “he cannot find”; or “he does not find.”


The term “it” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is an implied direct object and has been supplied in the translation for smoothness and stylistic reasons.


Heb “I laid all this to my heart.”


The term וְלָבוּר ( velavur , conjunction + Qal infinitive construct from בּוּר , bur , “to make clear”) denotes “to examine; to make clear; to clear up; to explain” ( HALOT 116 s.v. בור ; BDB 101 s.v. בּוּר ). The term is related to Arabic baraw “to examine” (G. R. Driver, “Supposed Arabisms in the Old Testament,” JBL 55 [1936]: 108). This verb is related to the Hebrew noun בֹּר ( bor , “cleanness”) and adjective בַּר ( bar , “clean”). The term is used in the OT only in Ecclesiastes ( 1:13; 2:3; 7:25; 9:1 ). This use of the infinitive has a connotative sense (“attempting to”), and functions in a complementary sense, relative to the main verb.


The words “I concluded that” do not appear in the Hebrew text, but are supplied in the translation for clarity.


Heb “whether love or hatred.”


Heb “man does not know anything before them.”


Heb “all things just as to everyone, one fate.”


The MT reads simply “the good,” but the Greek versions read “the good and the bad.” In contrast to the other four pairs in v. 2 (“the righteous and the wicked,” “those who sacrifice, and those who do not sacrifice,” “the good man…the sinner,” and “those who make vows…those who are afraid to make vows”), the MT has a triad in the second line: לַטּוֹב וְלַטָּהוֹר וְלַטָּמֵא ( lattov vÿlattahor vÿlattame ’, “the good, and the clean, and the unclean”). This reading in the Leningrad Codex (ca. a.d. 1008) – the basis of the BHS and BHK publications of the MT – is also supported by the Ben Asher text of the First Rabbinic Bible (“the Soncino Bible”) published in a.d. 1488-94. On the other hand, the Greek version in B (Aquila) has two pairs: τῷ ἀγαθῷ καὶ τῷ κακῷ , καὶ τῷ καθαρῷ καὶ τῷ ἀκαθάρτῳ (“the good and the bad, and the clean and the unclean”). Either Aquila inserted καὶ τῷ κακῷ ( kai tw kakw , “and the bad”) to fill out a pair and to create six parallel pairs in v. 2 , or Aquila reflects an early Hebrew textual tradition tradition of לַטּוֹב וְלַרָע ( lattov vÿlara ’, “the good and the bad”). Since Aquila is well known for his commitment to a literal – at times even a mechanically wooden – translation of the Hebrew, with no room for improvisation, it is more than likely that Aquila is reflecting an authentic Hebrew textual tradition. Aquila dates to a.d. 130, while the Leningrad Codex dates to a.d. 1008; therefore, the Vorlage of Aquila might have been the original Hebrew textual tradition, being much earlier than the MT of the Leningrad Codex. The alternate textual tradition of Aquila is also seen in the Syriac and Latin versions (but these are dependent upon the Greek = Aquila). On the other hand, the editors of BHK and BHS suggest that the presence of the anomalous לַטּוֹב was an addition to the Hebrew text, and should be deleted. They also suggest that the Greek pair τῷ ἀγαθῷ καὶ τῷ κακῷ ( tw agaqw kai tw kakw , “the good and the bad”) does not reflect an alternate textual tradition, but that their Vorlage contained only לַטּוֹב : the Greek version intentionally added καὶ τῷ κακῷ ( kai tw kakw , “and the bad”) to create a pair. The English versions are divided. Several follow the Greek: “the good and the bad, the clean and the unclean” (NEB, NAB, RSV, NRSV, NIV, Moffatt, NLT). Others follow the Hebrew: “the good and the clean and the unclean” (KJV, ASV, MLB, NJPS). None, however, delete “the good” ( לַטּוֹב ) as suggested by the BHK and BHS editors. If the shorter text were original, the addition of καὶ τῷ κακῷ would be intentional. If the longer text were original, the omission of וְלַרָע (“and the bad”) could have caused by unintentional homoioarcton (“similar beginning”) in the three-fold repetition of לט in וְלַרָע וְלַטָּהוֹר וְלַטָּמֵא לַטּוֹב ( lattov vÿlara ’ vÿlattahor vÿlattame ’, “the good and the bad, the clean and the unclean”). The term וְלַרָע (“and the bad”) was accidentally omitted when a scribe skipped from the first occurrence of לט in לַטּוֹב to its second occurrence in the word וְלַטָּהוֹר (“the clean”).


Heb “As is the good (man), so is the sinner.”


Heb “evil.”


Heb “under the sun.”


The term “awaits” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for smoothness and stylistic reasons.


Heb “also the heart of the sons of man.” Here “heart” is a collective singular.


Heb “and after that [they go] to [the place of] the dead.”


The consonantal text ( Kethib ) has “is chosen, selected.” The translation follows the marginal reading ( Qere ), “is joined.” See BDB 288 s.v. חָבַר Pu.


Heb “all the living.”


Heb “for their memory is forgotten.” The pronominal suffix is an objective genitive, “memory of them.”


Heb “their love.”


Heb “their hatred.”


Heb “their envy.”


Heb “your bread.”


Heb “see.”


Heb “the wife whom you love.”


As discussed in the note on the word “futile” in 1:2 , the term הֶבֶל ( hevel ) has a wide range of meanings, and should not be translated the same in every place (see HALOT 236–37 s.v. I הֶבֶל ; BDB 210–11 s.v. I הבֶל ). The term is used in two basic ways in OT, literally and figuratively. The literal, concrete sense is used in reference to the wind, man’s transitory breath, evanescent vapor ( Isa 57:13 ; Pss 62:10; 144:4 ; Prov 21:6 ; Job 7:16 ). In this sense, it is often a synonym for “breath; wind” ( Eccl 1:14 ; Isa 57:13 ; Jer 10:14 ). The literal sense lent itself to the metaphorical sense. Because breath/vapor/wind is transitory and fleeting, the figurative connotation “fleeting; transitory” arose (e.g., Prov 31:30 ; Eccl 6:12; 7:15; 9:9; 11:10 ; Job 7:16 ). In this sense, it is parallel to “few days” and “[days] which he passes like a shadow” ( Eccl 6:12 ). It is used in reference to youth and vigor ( 11:10 ) or life ( 6:12; 7:15; 9:9 ) which are “transitory” or “fleeting.” In this context, the most appropriate meaning is “fleeting.”


Heb “he”; the referent (God) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


Heb “under the sun”


The phrase כָּל יְמֵי הֶבְלֶךָ ( kol yÿme hevlekha , “all your fleeting days”) is present in the MT, but absent in the Greek versions, other medieval Hebrew mss , and the Targum. Its appearance in the MT may be due to dittography (repetition: the scribe wrote twice what should have been written once) from כָּל יְמֵי חַיֵּי הֶבְלֶךָ ( kol yÿme khayye hevlekha , “all the days of your fleeting life”) which appears in the preceding line. On the other hand, its omission in the alternate textual tradition may be due to haplography (accidental omission of repeated words) with the earlier line.


Heb “in your toil in which you toil.”


Heb “under the sun.”


Heb “Whatever your hand finds to do.”


Heb “Sheol.”


Or “where you are about to go.”


Heb “I returned and.” In the Hebrew idiom, “to return and do” means “to do again.”


The term “always” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation (five times in this verse) for clarity.


Heb “bread.”


Heb “favor.”


Heb “happen to.”


Heb “man.” The term is used here in a generic sense and translated “no one.”


Heb “time.” BDB 773 s.v. עֵת 2.d suggests that עֵת (’ et , “time”) refers to an “uncertain time.” On the other hand, HALOT 901 s.v. עֵת 6 nuances it as “destined time,” that is, “no one knows his destined time [i.e., hour of destiny].” It is used in parallelism with זְמָן ( zÿman , “appointed time; appointed hour”) in 3:1 ( HALOT 273 s.v. זְמָן ; BDB 273 s.v. זְמָן ). Eccl 3:9-15 teaches God’s sovereignty over the appointed time-table of human events. Similarly, Qoheleth here notes that no one knows what God has appointed in any situation or time. This highlights the limitations of human wisdom and human ability, as 9:11 stresses.


Heb “bad, evil.” The moral connotation hardly fits here. The adjective would seem to indicate that the net is the instrument whereby the fish come to ruin.


Heb “the sons of man.”


The Masoretes pointed the consonantal form יוקשׁים (“are ensnared”) as יוּקָשִׁים ( yuqashim , Pual participle mpl from ַָיקֹשׁ , yaqosh , “to be ensnared”). This is an unusual form for a Pual participle: (1) The characteristic doubling of the middle consonant was omitted due to the lengthening of the preceding short vowel from יֻקָּשִׁים to יוּקָשִׁים (GKC 74 §20. n and 143 §52. s ), and (2) The characteristic prefix מְ ( mem ) is absent, as in a few other Pual participles, e.g., Exod 3:2 ; Judg 13:8 ; 2 Kgs 2:10 ; Isa 30:24; 54:11 (GKC 143 §52. s ). On the other hand, the consonant form יוקשים might actually be an example of the old Qal passive participle which dropped out of Hebrew at an early stage, and was frequently mistaken by the Masoretes as a Pual form (e.g., Jer 13:10; 23:32 ) (GKC 143 §52. s ). Similarly, the Masoretes pointed אכל as אֻכָּל (’ ukkal , Pual perfect 3rd person masculine singular “he was eaten”); however, it probably should be pointed אֻכַל (’ ukhal , old Qal passive perfect 3rd person masculine singular “he was eaten”) because אָכַל (’ akhal ) only occurs in the Qal (see IBHS 373-74 §22.6a).


Heb “evil.” The term רָעָה ( ra ’ ah , “evil; unfortunate”) is repeated in v. 12 in the two parts of the comparison: “fish are caught in an evil ( רָעָה ) net” and “men are ensnared at an unfortunate ( רָעָה ) time.”


The term “burden” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.


The verbs in this section function either as past definite actions (describing a past situation) or as hypothetical past actions (describing an imaginary hypothetical situation for the sake of illustration). The LXX uses subjunctives throughout vv. 14-15 to depict the scenario as a hypothetical situation: “Suppose there was a little city, and a few men [lived] in it; and there should come against it a great king, and surround it, and build great siege-works against it; and should find in it a poor wise man, and he should save the city through his wisdom; yet no man would remember that poor man.”


The two perfect tense verbs וְסָבַב ( vÿsavav , “he besieged”) and וּבָנָה ( uvanah , “he built”) may be taken in a complementary sense, qualifying the action of the main perfect tense verb וּבָא ( uva ’, “he attacked it”).


The root גדל (“mighty; strong; large”) is repeated in 9:13 b for emphasis: “a mighty ( גָדוֹל , gadol ) king…building strong ( גְדֹלִים , gÿdolim ) siege works.” This repetition highlights the contrast between the vast power and resources of the attacking king, and the meager resources of the “little” ( קְטַנָּה , qÿtannah ) city with “few” ( מְעָט , mÿ ’ at ) men in it to defend it.


Heb “was found in it”; the referent (the city) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


Or “he delivered.” The verb וּמִלַּט ( umillat , from מָלַט , malat , “to deliver”) is functioning either in an indicative sense (past definite action: “he delivered”) or in a modal sense (past potential: “he could have delivered”). The literal meaning of זָכַר ( zakhar , “to remember”) in the following line harmonizes with the indicative: “but no one remembered that poor man [afterward].” However, the modal is supported by v. 16 : “A poor man’s wisdom is despised; no one ever listens to his advice.” This approach must nuance זָכַר (“to remember”) as “[no one] listened to [that poor man].” Most translations favor the indicative approach: “he delivered” or “he saved” (KJV, RSV, NRSV, NAB, ASV, NASB, MLB, NIV); however, some adopt the modal nuance: “he might have saved” (NEB, NJPS, NASB margin).


Heb “remembered.”


Or “power.”


The participle form נִשְׁמָעִים ( nishma ’ im , Niphal participle mpl from שָׁמַע , “to listen”) is used verbally to emphasize a continual, durative, gnomic action.


Heb “his words are never listened to.”


The phrase “is heard” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity and smoothness. Note its appearance in the previous line.


Heb “flies of death.” The plural form of “flies” ( זְבוּבֵי , zÿvuve ) may be taken as a plural of number (“dead flies”) or a distributive plural referring to one little fly (“one dead fly”). The singular form of the following verb and the parallelism support the latter: “one little fly…so a little folly.”


The verb בָּאַשׁ ( ba ’ ash ) means “to cause to stink; to turn rancid; to emit a stinking odor” (e.g., Exod 16:24 ; Ps 38:6 ; Eccl 10:1 ); see HALOT 107 s.v. באשׁ 1; BDB 93 s.v. בָּאַשׁ . It is related to the noun בְּאשׁ ( bÿ ’ osh , “stench”; Isa 34:3 ; Joel 2:20 ; Amos 4:10 ); cf. HALOT 107 s.v. באשׁ ; BDB 93 s.v. בְּאשׁ . The verbal root נבע means “to ferment” or “to emit; to pour out; to bubble; to belch forth; to cause to gush forth” ( HALOT 665 s.v. נבע ; BDB 615 s.v. נָבַע ). The two terms יַבְאִישׁ יַבִּיעַ ( yav ’ ish yabbia ’, “to stink” and “to ferment”) create a hendiadys: a figurative expression in which two terms are used to connote one idea: “makes a rancid stench.” Several versions treat this as a hendiadys (Old Greek, Symmachus, Targum, Vulgate); however, the Syriac treats them as separate verbs. Most translations treat these as a hendiadys: “Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savor” (KJV); “Dead flies make a perfumer’s oil stink” (NASB); “dead flies give perfume a bad smell” (NIV); “Dead flies make the perfumer’s ointment give off an evil odor” (RSV); Dead flies make the perfumer’s ointment give off a foul odor” (NRSV); “Dead flies cause a perfumer’s perfume to send forth a stink” (YLT); “Dead flies make the perfumer’s ointment give off a foul odor” (NRSV). Others render both separately: “Dead flies make the perfumer’s sweet ointment rancid and ferment” (NEB); “Dead flies turn the perfumer’s ointment fetid and putrid” (NJPS).


Heb “carries more weight than”; or “is more precious than.” The adjective יָקָר ( yaqar ) denotes “precious; valuable; costly” ( HALOT 432 s.v. יָקָר 2) or “weighty; influential” (BDB 430 s.v. יָקָר 4). The related verb denotes “to carry weight,” that is, to be influential ( HALOT 432 s.v. יָקָר 2). The idea is not that a little folly is more valuable than much wisdom; but that a little folly can have more influence than great wisdom. It only takes one little mistake to ruin a life of great wisdom. The English versions understand it this way: “so a little foolishness is weightier than wisdom and honor” (NASB); “so a little folly outweighs massive wisdom” (NJPS); “so a little folly outweighs an abundance of wisdom” (MLB); “so a little folly outweighs wisdom and honor” (RSV, NRSV, NIV); “so can a little folly make wisdom lose its worth” (NEB); “so a little folly annuls great wisdom” (ASV); “a single slip can ruin much that is good” (NAB); “so doth a little folly him that is in reputation for wisdom and honor” (KJV). The LXX rendered the line rather freely: τιμιον ὀλιγον σοφιἀ ὑπερ δοξαν ἀφροσυνης μεγαλην (“a little wisdom is more precious than great glory of folly”). This does not accurately represent the Hebrew syntax. sn Qoheleth creates a wordplay by using two Hebrew words for social honor or influence: “weighty” = honorable ( יָקָר , yaqar ) and “heavy” = honor ( כָּבוֹד , cavod ).


The MT reads מֵחָכְמָה מִכָּבוֹד ( mekhokhmah mikkavod , “more than wisdom, more than honor”), but several medieval Hebrew mss read וּמִכָּבוֹד מֵחָכְמָה ( mekhokhmah umikkavod , “more than wisdom and honor”). However the textual problem is resolved, the two nouns form a hendiadys: two terms joined by vav that describe one concept. The first noun retains its full nominal sense, while the second functions adjectivally: “heavy wisdom” or better, “great wisdom.”


Heb “a wise man’s heart is at his right hand.” The phrase “right hand” is a Hebrew idiom for the place of protection (e.g., Pss 16:8; 110:5; 121:5 ). In ancient warfare, the shield of the warrior on one’s right-hand side protected one’s right hand. Qoheleth’s point is that wisdom provides protection (e.g., Eccl 7:12 ).


Heb “and the heart of a fool is at his left hand.” The fool lacks the protection of wisdom which is at the right-hand side of the wise man (see note on “right hand” in the previous line). The wise man’s heart (i.e., good sense) protects him, but the fool is always getting into trouble.


Heb “he lacks his heart.”


Heb “he tells everyone.”


Heb “spirit.”


Heb “rises up.”


Heb “Do not leave.”


Heb “your place.” The term מָקוֹם ( maqom , “place”) denotes a position, post or office ( 1 Kgs 20:24 ; Eccl 8:3; 10:4 ; BDB 879 s.v. מָקוֹם 1.c).


The noun II מַרְפֵּא ( marpe ’, “calmness”) is used in reference to keeping one’s composure with a peaceful heart ( Prov 14:30 ) and responding to criticism with a gentle tongue ( Prov 15:4 ); cf. HALOT 637 s.v. II מַרְפֵּא . It is used in reference to keeping one’s composure in an emotionally charged situation (BDB 951 s.v. מַרְפֵּא 2). The term “calmness” is used here as a metonymy of association, meaning “calm response.”


The term “response” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarification (see preceding note on the word “calm”).


The verbal root נוח means “to leave behind; to leave untouched” ( HALOT 680 s.v. I נוח 2) in general, and in this passage, “to undo” or “to allay” offenses ( HALOT 680 s.v. I נוח 3; BDB 629 s.v. נוּחַ 5) or “to avoid” offenses (BDB 629 נוּחַ 5). The point is either that (1) a composed response can calm or appease the anger of the ruler, or (2) a calm heart will help one avoid great sins that would offend the king. The root נוח (“to rest”) is repeated, creating a wordplay: “Do not leave” ( אַל־תַּנַּח , ’ al-tannakh ) and “to avoid; to allay” ( יַנִּיחַ , yanniakh ). Rather than resigning (i.e., leaving), composure can appease a king (i.e., cause the anger of the king to leave).


The term “another” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation to indicate that this is not the first “misfortune” described by the Teacher. See 5:13, 16; 6:1-2 .


Heb “an evil.”


Heb “under the sun.”


Heb “like an error that comes forth from the presence of a ruler.”


Heb “folly.”


Heb “high places.”


Or “servants,” so KJV, ASV, NCV, NLT (also in the following line).


Heb “upon the earth.”


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.


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).


The term “ax head” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity. The preceding noun “iron” functions as a metonymy of material (i.e., iron) for the object with which it is associated (i.e., ax head).


Heb “he”; the referent (the workman) is implied, and has been specified in the translation for clarity


The verb קלל in the Pilpel means “to sharpen; to make a blade sharp” ( HALOT 1104 s.v. קלל 1).This denominative verb is derived from the rare noun II קָלַל “smooth; shiny” (referring to bronze; Ezek 1:7 ; Dan 10:6 ; HALOT 1105 s.v.). Sharpening the blade or head of a bronze ax will make it smooth and shiny. It is not derived from I קָלַל ( qalal ) “to treat light” or the noun I קְלָלָה ( qÿlalah ) “curse.” Nor is it related to I קָלַל “to shake” ( Ezek 21:26 ); cf. HALOT 1104. BDB 886 s.v. קָלַל 2 erroneously relates it to I קָלַל , suggesting “to whet” or “to move quickly to and fro.”


Heb “face.”


Heb “strength.” The term וַחֲיָלִים ( vakhayalim , conjunction + plural noun from חַיִל , khayil , “strength; efficiency”) is an example of a plural of intensification (GKC 397-98 §124. e ). The point is that it is a waste of a great deal of strength and energy. If a person is not smart, he will have to use a lot of energy and waste his efficiency.


Heb “without charming.”


Heb “the master of the tongue.”


Heb “has no profit”; ASV, NAB, NRSV “there is no advantage.”


Heb “of a wise man’s mouth.”


The phrase “win him” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but has been supplied in the translation for clarity.


Or “are gracious.” The antithetical parallelism suggests that חֵן ( khen ) does not denote “gracious character” but “[gain] favor” (e.g., Gen 39:21 ; Exod 3:21; 11:3; 12:36 ; Prov 3:4, 34; 13:15; 22:1; 28:23 ; Eccl 9:11 ); cf. HALOT 332 s.v. חֵן 2; BDB 336 s.v. חֵן 2. The LXX, on the other hand, rendered חֶן with χάρις ( caris , “gracious”). The English versions are divided: “are gracious” (KJV, YLT, ASV, NASB, NIV) and “win him favor” (NEB, RSV, NRSV, NAB, MLB, NJPS, Moffatt).


Heb “lips.”


Heb “consume him”; or “engulf him.” The verb I בלע (“to swallow”) creates a striking wordplay on the homonymic root II בלע (“to speak eloquently”; HALOT 134-35 s.v בלע ). Rather than speaking eloquently (II בלע , “to speak eloquently”), the fool utters words that are self-destructive (I בלע , “to swallow, engulf”).


Heb “the words of his mouth.”


Heb “his mouth.”


Heb “madness of evil.”


Heb “and the fool multiplies words.” This line is best taken as the third line of a tricola encompassing 10:13-14 a (NASB, NRSV, NJPS, Moffatt) rather than the first line of a tricola encompassing 10:14 (KJV, NEB, RSV, NAB, ASV, NIV). Several versions capture the sense of this line well: “a fool prates on and on” (Moffatt) and “Yet the fool talks and talks!” (NJPS).


Heb “after him”; or “after he [dies].”


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.


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.


Heb “he does not know to go to the city.”


Or “a child”; or “a servant.” The term נַעַר ( na ’ ar ) has a wide range of meanings ( HALOT 707 s.v. נַעַר ; BDB 654–55 s.v. II נַעַר ). Used in reference to age, it may refer to an infant ( Exod 2:6 ; Judg 13:5 ; 1 Sam 1:22; 4:21 ; 2 Sam 12:16 ), a child just weaned ( 1 Sam 1:24 ), an adolescent in puberty ( 1 Sam 16:11 ), or a young man of marriageable age ( Gen 34:19 ; 2 Sam 14:21; 18:5, 12 ). Its technical or titular use denotes “servant” ( Num 22:22 ; Judg 7:10-11; 19:3 ; 1 Sam 3:9 ; 2 Sam 16:1 ; 2 Kgs 4:12, 25; 19:6 ), “retainer; attendant; follower” ( Gen 14:24 ; 1 Sam 25:5 ; 2 Sam 2:14 ; 2 Kgs 19:6 ; Isa 37:6 ; Job 1:15-17 ; Neh 4:10, 17 ) and “soldier” ( 1 Kgs 20:15-16 ). The parallel Ugaritic term is used in reference to physical age (lad; son; youth) and in a technical sense (guild members; servitors; soldiers); see UT 19.445. The LXX rendered it with νεώτερος ( newteros , “youthful”). The English versions vary: “child,” (KJV, ASV, NASB, MLB, RSV, NRSV margin, NIV margin); “childish” (NIV margin); “servant” or “slave” (NEB, NAB, ASV margin, NRSV, NIV); and “lackey” (NJPS). When used in reference to rulers, it emphasizes incompetence, naiveté, inexperience, and immaturity ( Isa 3:4, 9 ; 1 Kgs 3:7 ). This use must be understood in the light of the parallel antonym: “son of freemen” ( בֶּן־חוֹרִים , ben-khorim ). This suggests “servant,” that is, one who was not well trained and prepared by noble birth to ascend to the throne.


Heb “son of nobles”; or “son of freemen.” The term חוֹרִים ( khorim ) is from חֹר ( khor , “noble one; freeman”); cf. HALOT 348 s.v. I חֹר ; BDB 359 s.v. I חֹר . It is related to the Aramaic noun חֲרַר ( kharar , “freeman”); Sabean חר (“freeman; noble”); Old South Arabic חר and Arabic hurr (“freedom”); cf. HALOT 348 s.v. חֹר ; BDB 359 s.v. חֹר .


The noun עֵת (’ et , “point in time”) has a basic two-fold range of meanings: (1) “time of an event” and (2) “time for an event” (BDB 773 s.v. עֵת ). The latter has four sub-categories: (a) “usual time,” (b) “the proper, suitable or appropriate time,” (c) “the appointed time,” and (d) “uncertain time.” Here it connotes “a proper, suitable time for an event” ( HALOT 900 s.v. עֵת 6; BDB 773 s.v. עֵת 2.b). Examples of this use include: “it was the time for rain” ( Ezra 10:13 ); “a time of judgment for the nations” ( Ezek 30:3 ); “there is an appropriate time for every occasion” ( Eccl 3:1 ); “the rain in its season” ( Deut 11:14 ; Jer 5:24 ); “the time for the harvest” ( Hos 2:11 ; Ps 1:3 ); “food in its season” ( Ps 104:27 ); “the right moment” ( Eccl 8:5 ); cf. HALOT 900 s.v. עֵת 6.


Heb “for strength and not for drunkenness”; or “as heroes and not as drunkards”; or “for nourishment and not for drunkenness.” According to HALOT 172 s.v. גְבוּרה 1.d the term גְבוּרָה ( gÿvurah , “strength”) may here connote “self-control.” This tactic is adopted by a few English versions: “with self-control, and not as drunkards” (NEB) and “with restraint, not with guzzling” (NJPS). On the other hand, most English versions render בִּגְבוּרָה וְלֹא בַשְּׁתִי ( bigvurah vÿlo ’ vashÿti ) in a woodenly literal sense, “for strength and not for drunkenness” (YLT, KJV, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, NIV). However, a few attempt to express the idiom clearly: “as stalwarts and not as drunkards” (MLB); “stalwart men, not sots” (Moffatt); “for vigor and not in drinking bouts” (NAB); “for refreshment, and not for riotousness” (Douay).


Or “the rafters sink.”


Heb “lowering of hands.”


Heb “bread.” The term לֶחֶם ( lekhem ) is used literally of “bread” and figuratively (i.e., by metonymy) for a “feast” (BDB 536–37 s.v. לֶחֶם ). BDB suggests that עֹשִׂיה לֶחֶם (’ osih lekhem ) in Eccl 10:19 means “make a feast” (BDB 537 s.v. לֶחֶם 1.a). This obscure line has occasioned numerous proposals: “a feast is made for laughter” (KJV, ASV, NIV); “feasts are made for laughter” (NRSV); “men feast for merrymaking” (Moffatt); “men prepare a meal for enjoyment” (NASB); “the table has its pleasures” (NEB); “they [i.e., rulers of v. 16 ] make a banquet for revelry” (NJPS); “people prepare a banquet for enjoyment” (MLB); “for laughter they make bread and wine, that the living may feast” (Douay); “bread is made for laughter” (RSV); “bread [and oil] call forth merriment” (NAB).


The subject of the verb is not specified. When active verbs have an unspecified subject, they are often used in a passive sense: “Bread [feasts] are made….”


Heb “and wine gladdens life.”


Or “and [they think that] money is the answer for everything.”


Perhaps the referent is people who are in authority because of their wealth.


Heb “in chambers of your bedroom.”


Heb “a bird of the air.”


Heb “might carry the voice.” The article is used here with the force of a possessive pronoun.


The Hebrew phrase בַּעַל הַכְּנָפַיִם ( ba ’ al hakkÿnafayim , “possessor of wings”) is an idiom for a winged creature, that is, a bird (e.g., Prov 1:17 ; see HALOT 143 s.v. בַּעַל A.6; BDB 127 s.v. בַּעַל 5.a). The term בַּעַל (“master; possessor”) is the construct governing the attributive genitive הַכְּנָפַיִם (“wings”); see IBHS 149-51 §9.5.3b.


The term “your” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for smoothness.


Heb “tell the matter.”


The verb שָׁלַח ( shalakh , “to send; to cast”) refers to the action of sending something to someone (e.g., Neh 8:12 ; HALOT 1995 s.v. שׁלח ). The term is traditionally rendered here as “cast” (KJV, NAB, RES, ASV, NASB, NIV); however, some render it “send” (NJPS, NRSV, NEB). LXX uses ἀπόστειλον ( aposteilon , “send”).


Heb “your bread.” The term לֶחֶם ( lekhem ) is traditionally rendered “bread” (KJV, NAB, RSV, NRSV, ASV, NASB, NIV, NJPS). However, 11:1-2 seems to deal with exporting goods overseas (D. R. Glenn, “Ecclesiastes,” BKCOT , 1002-3). It is better to take לֶחֶם (“bread”) as a metonymy of product, standing for the grain and wheat from which bread is produced (e.g., Gen 41:54-55; 47:13, 15, 17, 19; 49:20 ; Num 15:19 ; 2 Kgs 18:32 ; Isa 28:28; 30:23; 36:17; 55:10 ; Jer 5:17 ; Ezek 48:18 ; Job 28:5 ; Ps 104:14 ; Prov 28:3 ); see HALOT 526 s.v. 1 ; BDB 537 s.v. 1 .b. It is taken this way by several translations: “grain” (NEB) and “goods” (Moffatt). Qoheleth encouraged the export of grain products overseas in international trade.


Heb “upon the surface of the waters.” This is traditionally viewed as extolling generosity from which a reward will be reaped. On the other hand, some scholars suggest that the imagery deals with commercial business through maritime trade. M. Jastrow took this verse as advice to take risks in business by trusting one’s goods or ships that will after many days return with a profit (A. Cohen, The Five Megilloth [SoBB], 181). Sea trade was risky in the ancient Near East, but it brought big returns to its investors (e.g., 1 Kgs 9:26-28; 10:22 ; Ps 107:23 ); see D. R. Glenn, “Ecclesiastes,” BKCOT , 1002-3. The verse is rendered thus: “Send your grain across the seas, and in time you will get a return” (NEB); or “Trust your goods far and wide at sea, till you get a good return after a while” (Moffatt).


Heb “find it.”


Heb “give a portion.”


The phrase “seven or eight” is a graded numerical saying depicting an indefinite plurality: “The collocation of a numeral with the next above it is a rhetorical device employed in numerical sayings to express a number, which need not, or cannot, be more exactly specified. It must be gathered from the context whether such formulae are intended to denote only an insignificant number (e.g., Is 17:6 “two” or at the most “three”) or a considerable number (e.g., Mi 5:4 ). Sometimes, however, this juxtaposition serves to express merely an indefinite total, without the collateral idea of intensifying the lower by means of the higher number” (GKC 437 §134. s ). Examples: “one” or “two” ( Deut 32:30 ; Jer 3:14 ; Job 33:14; 40:5 ; Ps 62:12 ); “two” or “three” ( 2 Kgs 9:32 ; Isa 17:6 ; Hos 6:2 ; Amos 4:8 ; Sir 23:16; 26:28; 50:25); “three” or “four” ( Jer 36:23 ; Amos 1:3-11 ; Prov 21:19; 30:15, 18 ; Sir 26:5); “four” or “five” ( Isa 17:6 ); “six” or “seven” ( Job 5:19 ; Prov 6:16 ); “seven” or “eight” ( Mic 5:4 ; Eccl 11:2 ).


The word “investments” is not in the Hebrew text; it is added here for clarity. This line is traditionally understood as an exhortation to be generous to a multitude of people (KJV, NAB, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, NIV, NJPS); however, it is better taken as shrewd advice to not commit all one’s possessions to a single venture (A. Cohen, The Five Megilloth [SoBB], 181). D. R. Glenn (“Ecclesiastes,” BKCOT , 1003) writes: “In view of the possibility of disaster, a person should make prudent investments in numerous ventures rather than put all his ‘eggs in one basket’ (e.g., Gen 32:7-8 for a practical example of this advice).” Several translations reflect this: “Divide your merchandise among seven ventures, eight maybe” (NEB); “Take shares in several ventures” (Moffatt).


The term רעה (lit. “evil”) refers to calamity (e.g., Eccl 5:13; 7:14; 9:12 ).


Heb “what is the way of the wind.” Some take these words with what follows: “how the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a pregnant woman.” There is debate whether הָרוּחַ מַה־דֶּרֶךְ ( mah-derekh haruakh ) refers to the wind (“the path of the wind”) or the human spirit of a child in the mother’s womb (“how the spirit comes”). The LXX understood it as the wind: “the way of the wind” ( ἡ ὁδὸς τοῦ πνεύματος , Jh Jodos tou pneumatos ); however, the Targum and Vulgate take it as the human spirit. The English versions are divided: (1) spirit: “the way of the spirit” (KJV, YLT, Douay); “the breath of life” (NAB); “how a pregnant woman comes to have…a living spirit in her womb” (NEB); “how the lifebreath passes into the limbs within the womb of the pregnant woman” (NJPS); “how the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child” (RSV); “how the breath comes to the bones in the mother’s womb” (NRSV); and (2) wind: “the way of the wind” (ASV, RSV margin); “the path of the wind” (NASB, NIV); and “how the wind blows” (MLB, Moffatt).


The term “form” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity and smoothness.


Heb “the one who is full.” The feminine adjective מְלֵאָה ( mÿle ’ ah , from מָלֵא , male ’, “full”) is used as a substantive referring to a pregnant woman whose womb is filled with her infant ( HALOT 584 s.v. מָלֵא 2; BDB 571 s.v. מָלֵא ). This term is used in reference to a pregnant woman in later Hebrew ( HALOT 584 s.v. מָלֵא ). The LXX understood the term in this sense: κυοφορούσης ( kuoforoushs , “pregnant woman”).


Heb “do not let your hand rest.” The Hebrew phrase “do not let your hand rest” is an idiom that means “do not stop working” or “do not be idle” (e.g., Eccl 7:18 ); cf. BDB 628 s.v. נוּחַ B.1. Several English versions capture the sense of the idiom well: “do not stop working” (NEB); “do not be idle” (MLB); “let not your hand be idle” (NAB); “let not your hands be idle” (NIV); “stay not your hand” (Moffatt). The term “hand” is a synecdoche of part (i.e., do not let your hand rest) for the whole person (i.e., do not allow yourself to stop working).


The terms “morning” ( בֹּקֶר , boqer ) and “evening” ( עֶרֶב , ’ erev ) form a merism (a figure of speech using two polar extremes to include everything in between) that connotes “from morning until evening.” The point is not that the farmer should plant at two times in the day (morning and evening), but that he should plant all day long (from morning until evening). This merism is reflected in several translations: “in the morning…until evening” (NEB, Moffatt).


The term “activity” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity and smoothness.


The verb כָּשֵׁר ( kasher , “to prosper”) is used metonymically to denote “will succeed.” In 11:10 , it means “skill in work.”


Or “together.”


The term “light” ( הָאוֹר , ha ’ or ) is used figuratively (metonymy of association) in reference to “life” (e.g., Job 3:20; 33:30 ; Ps 56:14). By contrast, death is described as “darkness” (e.g., Eccl 11:8; 12:6-7 ).


The Hebrew term מָתוֹק ( matoq , “sweet”) is often used elsewhere in reference to honey. The point is that life is sweet and should be savored like honey.


Heb “to the eyes.” The term “eyes” is a synecdoche of part (i.e., eyes) for the whole person. Used with the idiom “to see the sun” (i.e., to be alive), Qoheleth is simply saying that the experience of a life is a pleasant thing that should be savored.


The idiom “to see the sun” (both רָאָה הָשָּׁמֶשׁ , ra ’ ah hashamesh , and חָזָה הַשָּׁמֶשׁ , khazah hashamesh ) is an idiom meaning “to be alive” (e.g., Ps 58:9 ; Eccl 6:5; 7:11; 11:7 ); cf. BDB 1039 s.v. שֶׁמֶשׁ 4.b. The opposite idiom, “the sun is darkened,” refers to the onset of old age and death ( Eccl 12:2 ).


The phrase “the days of darkness” refers to the onset of old age ( Eccl 12:1-5 ) and the inevitable experience of death ( Eccl 11:7-8; 12:6-7 ). Elsewhere, “darkness” is a figure of speech (metonymy of association) for death ( Job 10:21-22; 17:13; 18:18 ).


The term הֶבֶל ( hevel ) here means “obscure,” that is, unknown. This sense is derived from the literal concept of breath, vapor or wind that cannot be seen; thus, the idea of “obscure; dark; difficult to understand; enigmatic” (see HALOT 236–37 s.v. I הֶבֶל ; BDB 210–11 s.v. I הֶבֶל ). It is used in this sense in reference to enigmas in life ( 6:2; 8:10, 14 ) and the future which is obscure ( 11:8 ).


Heb “in your youth”; or “in your childhood.”


Heb “walk in the ways of your heart.”


Heb “the sight.”


Heb “and know that concerning all these God will bring you into judgment.” The point is not that following one’s impulses and desires is inherently bad and will bring condemnation from God. Rather the point seems to be: As you follow your impulses and desires, realize that all you think and do will eventually be evaluated by God. So one must seek joy within the boundaries of God’s moral standards.


The verb סוּר ( sur , “to remove”) normally depicts a concrete action of removing a physical object from someone’s presence ( HALOT 748 s.v. סור 1). Here, it is used figuratively (hypocatastasis) of the emotional/psychological action of banishing unnecessary emotional stress from one’s mind. The Hiphil usage means “to remove; to abolish; to keep away; to turn away; to push aside” ( HALOT 748 s.v. 1 ). The English versions render this term in a variety of ways, none of which is very poetic: “remove” (KJV, RSV, ASV, NASB); “turn aside” (YLT); “ward off” (NAB); and “banish” (NEB, MLB, NIV, NRSV, NJPS, Moffatt).


The root “vexation” ( כַּעַס , ka ’ as ) has a broad range of meanings: “anger” ( Deut 4:25; 9:18 ), “irritation” ( Deut 32:21 ), “offend” ( 2 Kgs 23:26 ; Neh 3:37), “vexation” or “frustration” ( Ezek 20:28 ), “grief” ( 1 Sam 1:6 ), and “worry” ( Ps 112:10 ; Eccl 7:9 ); cf. HALOT 491 s.v. כַּעַס . Here, it refers in general to unnecessary emotional stress and anxiety that can deprive a person of the legitimate enjoyment of life and its temporal benefits.


Heb “your heart.”


In light of the parallelism, רָעָה ( ra ’ ah ) does not refer to ethical evil, but to physical injury, pain, deprivation or suffering (e.g., Deut 31:17, 21; 32:23 ; 1 Sam 10:19 ; Neh 1:3; 2:17 ; Pss 34:20; 40:13; 88:4; 107:26 ; Eccl 12:1 ; Jer 2:27 ; Lam 3:38 ); see HALOT 1263 s.v. רָעָה 4.b; BDB 949 s.v. רָעָה 2. This sense is best captured as “pain” (NASB, RSV, NRSV, MLB, Moffatt) or “the troubles [of your body]” (NEB, NIV), rather than “evil” (KJV, ASV, YLT, Douay) or “sorrow” (NJPS).


Heb “your flesh.”


Or “childhood.”


Or “youth”; Heb “black hair” or “the dawn [of life].” The feminine noun הַשַּׁחֲרוּת ( hashakharut ) is a hapax legomenon , occurring only here. There is debate whether it is from שָׁחֹר ( shakhor ) which means “black” (i.e. black hair, e.g., Lev 13:31, 37 ; Song 5:11 ; HALOT 1465 s.v. שׁחר ; BDB 1007 s.v. שָׁחֹר and שָׁחַר ) or שַׁחַר ( shakhar ) which means “dawn” (e.g., Gen 19:15 ; Job 3:9 ; Song 6:10 ; HALOT 1466–67 s.v. שָׁחַר ). If this term is from שָׁחֹר it is used in contrast to gray hair that characterizes old age (e.g., Prov 16:31; 20:29 ). This would be a figure (metonymy of association) for youthfulness. On the other hand, if the term is from שַׁחַר it connotes the “dawn of life” or “prime of life.” This would be a figure (hypocatastasis) for youthfulness. In either case, the term is a figure for “youth” or “prime of life,” as the parallel term הַיַּלְדוּת ( hayyaldut , “youth” or “childhood”) indicates. The term is rendered variously in the English versions: “black hair” (NJPS); “the dawn of youth” (NAB); “the dawn of life” (ASV, MLB, RSV, NRSV); “the prime of life” (NEB, NASB); “vigor” (NIV); “youth” (KJV); and “manhood” (Moffatt). The plural forms of הַשַּׁחֲרוּת and הַיַּלְדוּת are examples of the plural of state or condition that a person experiences for a temporary period of time, e.g., זְקֻנִים ( zÿqunim , “old age”); נְעוּרִים ( nÿ ’ urim , “youth”); and עֲלוּמִים (’ alumim , “youthfulness”); see IBHS 121 §7.4.2b.


The term הֶבֶל ( hevel , “vanity”) often connotes the temporal idea “fleeting” (e.g., Prov 31:30 ; Eccl 3:19; 6:12; 7:15; 9:9 ). This nuance is suggested here by the collocation of “youth” ( הַיַּלְדוּת , hayyaldut ) and “the prime of life” ( הַשַּׁחֲרוּת , hashakharut ).


The imperative זְכֹר ( zekhor , “Remember!”) is a figurative expression (metonymy of association) for obeying God and acknowledging his lordship over one’s life (e.g., Num 15:40 ; Deut 8:18 ; Pss 42:6-7; 63:6-8; 78:42; 103:18; 106:7; 119:52, 55 ; Jer 51:50 ; Ezek 20:43 ; Jonah 2:7 ; Mal 4:4 ). The exhortation to fear God and obey his commands in 12:13-14 spells out what it means to “remember” God.


The temporal adjective עַד (’ ad , “before”) appears three times in 12:1-7 (vv. 1 b, 2a, 6a). Likewise, the temporal preposition בְּ ( bet , “when”) is repeated (vv. 3 a, 4b). These seven verses comprise one long sentence in Hebrew: The main clause is 12:1 a (“Remember your Creator in the days of your youth”), while 12:1 b-7 consists of five subordinate temporal clauses (“before…before…when…when…before…”).


The adjective רָעָה ( ra ’ ah , “evil”) does not refer here to ethical evil, but to physical difficulty, injury, pain, deprivation and suffering (e.g., Deut 31:17, 21; 32:23 ; 1 Sam 10:19 ; Neh 1:3; 2:17 ; Pss 34:20; 40:13; 88:4; 107:26 ; Eccl 11:10 ; Jer 2:27 ; Lam 3:38 ); see HALOT 1263 s.v. רָעָה 4.b; BDB 949 s.v. רָעָה 2.


Heb “the light and the moon and the stars.” The phrase “the light and the moon” is a hendiadys (two separate terms denoting one idea) or perhaps even a hendiatris (three separate terms denoting one idea) for “the light of the moon and stars” (e.g., Gen 1:14 ).


The verb שׁוּב ( shuv , “to return”) here denotes “to desist” ( HALOT 1430 s.v. שׁוּב 3). It pictures the disappearance of the clouds as a result of the precipitation of their contents.


Heb “the watchers of the house.”


The verb זְוּעַ ( zÿua ’, “to tremble”) probably does not refer to physical tremors but to trembling in fear (e.g., Esth 5:9 ; Hab 2:7 ; Sir 48:12); cf. HALOT 267 s.v. זוע ). At the onset of old age, those who had been the most courageous during their youth suddenly become fearful.


The verb עָוַת (’ avat , “to bend; to stoop”) means “to be stooped” ( HALOT 804 s.v. עות ) rather than “to bend themselves” (BDB 736 s.v. עות ). The perfect tense may be taken in an ingressive sense (“begin to stoop over”).


The term הַטֹּחֲנוֹת ( hattokhanot , Qal active participle feminine plural from טָחַן , takhan , “to grind”) is a double entendre. In its literal sense, it refers to female mill-grinders; in its figurative sense, it refers to molar teeth ( HALOT 374 s.v. * טֹחֲנָה ). The related Hebrew noun טַחֲנָה ( takhanah ) refers to a “mill,” and the related Arabic noun tahinat means “molar tooth” ( HALOT 374 s.v. * טַחֲנָה ).


The verb חָשַׁךְ ( khashakh , “to grow dim”) is used elsewhere in reference to failing eyesight (e.g., Ps 69:24 ; Lam 5:17 ); see HALOT 361 s.v. חשׁך 2. Therefore, the phrase “those who look through the windows” is probably a figurative description of the eyes, picturing failing eyesight at the onset of old age.


The noun טַחֲנָה ( takhanah ) refers to a “grinding-mill” where grain is ground into flour ( HALOT 374 s.v. טַחֲנָה ). The term is here used as a double entendre, figuratively describing the loss of one’s teeth at the onset of old age. The figurative usage also draws upon the polysemantic nature of this noun; the related Arabic root tahinat means “molar tooth” ( HALOT 374 s.v. * טֹחֲנָה ).


Heb “rises up.” The verb קוּם ( qum , “to arise”) refers to being awakened from sleep in the middle of the night by a sound (e.g., Exod 12:30 ; 1 Sam 3:6, 8 ) and waking up early in the morning (e.g., Gen 24:54 ; Judg 16:3 ; Ruth 3:14 ; Neh 2:12 ; Job 14:12; 24:14 ); see HALOT 1086 s.v. קוּם 1; BDB 877 s.v. קוּם 1.a. Here it describes one of the frustrations of old age: the elderly person is unable to get a full night’s sleep because every little sound awakens him in the middle of the night or too early in the morning.


The term “their” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity and smoothness.


Heb “all the daughters of song.” The expression “the daughters of song” ( בְּנוֹת הַשִּׁיר , bÿnot hashir ) is an idiom for “songs; musical sounds; melodious notes” ( HALOT 166 s.v. I בַּת 2; BDB 123 s.v. בַּת 5; GKC 418 §128. v ). The genitive הַשִּׁיר (“song”) represents the nature, quality, character or condition of the construct בְּנוֹת (“daughters”); see IBHS 149-51 §9.5.3b. The idiom refers to the musical songs sung during one’s youth or to the ability to hear songs that are sung. This line is lamenting the loss of hearing which occurs at the onset of old age.


Heb “are brought low.”


The Hebrew noun חַתְחַתִּים ( khatkhattim ) literally means “terrors” ( HALOT 363 s.v. חַתְחַת ; BDB 369 s.v. חַתְחַת ). Here it is used as a metonymy (cause for effect) to refer to dangers that cause the elderly to be fearful of going outside or walking along the streets. The form חַתְחַתִּים is a reduplicated noun stem from the root חתת (“terror”); HALOT 363 s.v. חַתְחַת ; BDB 369 s.v. חַתְחַת . The reduplication of the noun stem intensifies its meaning: the noun חִתַּת ( k hittat ) means “terror,” so the intensified reduplicated form חַתְחַת ( khatkhat ) connotes something like “great terror” (see S. Moscati, Comparative Grammar , 78-79, §12.9-13). The plural form חַתְחַתִּים (“great terrors”) denotes plural of number (more than one) or plural of intensity (which would further intensify the experience of fear); see IBHS 122 §7.4.3a.


The noun שָׁקֵד ( shaqed ) is used in the OT in reference to the “almond nut” (e.g., Gen 43:11 ; Num 17:23) and metonymically (product for thing producing it) for the “almond tree” (e.g., Jer 1:11 ); cf. HALOT 1638 s.v. שָׁקֵד ; BDB 1052 s.v. שָׁקֵד 2.


The verb נצץ (“to blossom”) is a geminate verb (II = III) that, in this case, is written with a matres lectionis (plene spelling) rather than the normal spelling of וינץ (GKC 204 §73. g ). The Hiphil verb יָנֵאץ ( yane ’ ts ) is from the root נצץ “to shine; to sparkle; to blossom” ( HALOT 717 s.v. נצץ ; BDB 665 s.v. נָצַץ ). It is used in reference to almond blossoms whose color progresses from pink to white as they ripen (e.g., Song 6:11 ). This is an appropriate metaphor (comparison of sight) to describe white hair that often accompanies the onset of old age.


Or “locust.”


The verb סָבַל ( saval , “to bear a heavy load”) means “to drag oneself along” as a burden (BDB 687 s.v. סָבַל ) or “to become thick; to move slowly forward; to clear off” ( HALOT 741 s.v. סבל ).


The noun אֲבִיּוֹנָה (’ aviyyonah , “caper berry, caper fruit”) is a hapax legomenon , occurring only here in the Hebrew Bible. It refers to the Capparis spinosa fruit which was eaten as an aphrodisiac in the ancient Near East ( HALOT 5 s.v. אֲבִיּוֹנָה ; BDB 2–3 s.v. אֲבִיּוֹנָה ). There are two options for the interpretation of this figure: (1) At the onset of old age, the sexual virility that marked one’s youth is nothing more than a distant memory, and even aphrodisiacs fail to stimulate sexual desire to allow for sexual intercourse. (2) The onset of old age is like the shriveling up of the caper berry fruit; the once virile youth has passed his prime just like a shriveled caper berry can no longer provide a sexual stimulant.


Or “fails”; or “bursts.” The meaning of the verb פָּרַר ( parar , “to break; to make ineffectual”) is debated: (1) “to be ineffectual,” that is, to fail to provide sexual power as an aphrodisiac, or (2) “to break; to burst,” that is, the caper berry fruit shrivels as it lingers on its branch beyond its period of ripeness ( HALOT 975 s.v. פרר 2.f; BDB 830 s.v. I. פָּרַר 2.d). tc The MT vocalizes consonantal ותפר as וְתָפֵר ( vÿtafer , conjunction + Hiphil imperfect 3rd person feminine singular from פָּרַר , parar , “to burst”). However, an alternate vocalization tradition of וְתֻפַּר ( vÿtupar , conjunction + Hophal imperfect 3rd person feminine singular “to be broken down”) is reflected in the LXX which reads καὶ διασκεδασθῇ ( kai diaskedasqh , “is scattered”) and Symmachus καὶ διαλυθῇ ( kai dialuqh , “is broken up”) which is followed by the Syriac. On the other hand, Aquila’s καὶ καρπεύσει ( kai karpeusei , “are enjoyed,” of fruits) reflects וְתִפְרֶה (Qal imperfect 3rd person feminine singular from פָרַה , “to bear fruit”); this does not reflect an alternate reading but a translator’s error in word division between וְתָפֵר הָאֲבִיּוֹנָה ( vÿtafer ha ’ aviyyonah , “the caper berry bursts”) and וְתִפְרֶה אֲבִיּוֹנָה ( vÿtifreh ’ aviyyonah , “the caper berry bears fruit”).


In the construct phrase בֵּית עוֹלָמוֹ ( bet ’ olamo , “house of his eternity”), the genitive עוֹלָמוֹ (“eternity”) functions as an attributive adjective: “his eternal home.” This is an idiom for the grave as the resting place of the body (e.g., Ps 49:12 [11]; Job 7:9; 14:10-12 ; Eccl 12:5 ) or Sheol as the residence of the dead (e.g., Job 17:13; 30:23 ); see HALOT 124 s.v. I בַּיִת 2; 799 (5); BDB 109 s.v. בַּיִת 1.d. For example, the term בֵּית (“house”) is used in Job 30:23 in parallelism with “death” ( מָוֶת , mavet ). The same idiom appears in postbiblical Hebrew: “the house of eternity” ( בֵּית עוֹלָם , bet ’ olam ) is a euphemism for a burial ground or cemetery (e.g., Lamentations Rabbah 1:5); see Jastrow 1084-85 s.v. עָלַם III. This idiom is also found in a Moabite text in reference to the grave (Deir Alla Inscription 2:6 ). A similar idiom is found in Phoenician and Palmyrene in reference to the grave ( DISO 35). The idiom appears to have originated in Egyptian literature (H. A. Hoffner, TDOT 2:113). See F. Cumont, Afterlife in Roman Paganism , 48-50.


Heb “water-spring.”


The term גַּלְגַּל ( galgal , “wheel”) refers to the “water wheel” or “paddle wheel” for drawing water from a well ( HALOT 190 s.v. I גַּלְגַּל 2; BDB 165 s.v. גַּלְגַּל 1.b). This Hebrew noun is related to the Akkadian term gulgullu (“pot”), as well as Phoenician (?) גלגל (“wheel for drawing water”). The Latin term girgillus (“lever for the bucket”) is a late derivation from this term. See G. Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina , 2:225-28.


Or “spirit.” The likely referent is the life’s breath that originates with God. See Eccl 3:19 , as well as Gen 2:7; 6:17; 7:22 .


Heb “futility of futilities.” The phrase “absolutely futile” ( הֲבֶל הֲבָלִים , havel havalim ) is a superlative genitive construction (GKC 431 §133. i ). See note on “futile” at 1:2 .


Elsewhere in the book, the author is identified with the anarthrous term קֹהֶלֶת ( qohelet , Eccl 1:1, 2, 12; 7:27; 12:9, 10 ); however, in 12:8 it is used with the article, indicating that it is a professional title rather than a personal surname: הַקּוֹהֶלֶת ( haqqohelet , “the Teacher”). Numerous English translations render קֹהֶלֶת as a professional title: “the Speaker” (NEB, Moffatt); “the Preacher” (KJV, RSV, YLT, MLB, ASV, NASB); “the Teacher” (NIV, NRSV); “the Leader of the Assembly” (NIV margin); “the Assembler” (NJPS margin). Others render it as a personal surname: “Koheleth” (JPS, NJPS) and “Qoheleth” (NAB, NRSV margin).


Heb “Everything.” The term is rendered “all of these things” for clarity. Although כֹּל ( kol , “everything; all”) is often used in an absolute or comprehensive sense (BDB 481 s.v. כֹּל 1), it is frequently used as a synecdoche of the general for the specific, that is, its sense is limited contextually to the topic at hand (BDB 482 s.v. 2 ). This is particularly true of הַכֹּל ( hakkol , BDB 482 s.v. 2 .b) in which the article particularizes or limits the referent to the contextual or previously mentioned topic (e.g., Gen 16:12; 24:1 ; Exod 29:24 ; Lev 1:9, 13; 8:27 ; Deut 2:36 ; Josh 11:19 [see 2 Sam 19:31 ; 1 Kgs 14:26 = 2 Chr 12:9 ]; 21:43; 1 Sam 30:19 ; 2 Sam 17:3; 23:5; 24:23 ; 1 Kgs 6:18 ; 2 Kgs 24:16 ; Isa 29:11; 65:8 ; Jer 13:7, 10 ; Ezek 7:14 ; Pss 14:3; 49:18 ; 1 Chr 7:5; 28:19; 29:19 ; 2 Chr 28:6; 29:28; 31:5; 35:7; 36:17-18 ; Ezra 1:11; 2:42; 8:34-35; 10:17 ; Eccl 5:8 ). Thus, “all” does not always mean “all” absolutely or universally in comprehension. In several cases the context limits its reference to two classes of objects/issues being discussed, so הַכֹּל means “both” (e.g., 2:14; 3:19: 9:1, 2 ). Thus, הַכֹּל (“all; everything”) refers only to what Qoheleth characterizes as “futile” ( הֶבֶל , hevel ) in the context. This does not mean that everything is futile. For example, fearing God is not “futile” ( 2:26; 3:14-15; 11:9-10; 12:1, 9, 13-14 ). Only those objects/issues that are contextually placed under כֹּל are designated as “futile” ( הֶבֶל ).


The term הֶבֶל ( hevel , “futile”) is repeated three times within the six words of this verse for emphasis. See footnote on “futile” at 1:2 . sn Absolutely futile!…All of these things are futile! This motto is the theme of the book. Its occurs at the beginning ( 1:2 ) and end of the book ( 12:8 ), forming an envelope structure ( inclusio ). Everything described in 1:2 —12:8 is the supporting proof of the thesis of 1:2 . With few exceptions (e.g., 2:24-26; 3:14-15; 11:9 –12:1, 9), everything described in 1:2 — 12:8 is characterized as “futile” ( הֶבֶל , hevel ).


Heb “he weighed and studied.” The verbs וְאִזֵּן וְחִקֵּר ( vÿ ’ izzen vekhiqqer , “he weighed and he explored”) form a hendiadys (a figurative expression in which two separate terms used in combination to convey a single idea): “he studiously weighed” or “carefully evaluated.” The verb וְאִזֵּן (conjunction + Piel perfect 3rd person masculine singular from II אָזַן (’ azan ) “to weigh; to balance”) is related to the noun מֹאזֵן ( mo ’ zen ) “balances; scales” used for weighing money or commercial items (e.g., Jer 32:10 ; Ezek 5:1 ). This is the only use of the verb in the OT. In this context, it means “to weigh” = “to test; to prove” (BDB 24 s.v. מאזן ) or “to balance” ( HALOT 27 II אָזַן ). Cohen suggests, “He made an examination of the large number of proverbial sayings which had been composed, testing their truth and worth, to select those which he considered deserving of circulation” (A. Cohen, The Five Megilloth [SoBB], 189).


The verb תָּקַן ( taqan , “to make straight”) connotes “to put straight” or “to arrange in order” ( HALOT 1784 s.v. תקן ; BDB 1075 s.v. תָּקַן ).This may refer to Qoheleth’s activity in compiling a collection of wisdom sayings in an orderly manner, or writing the wisdom sayings in a straightforward, direct manner.


In the construct phrase דִּבְרֵי־חֵפֶץ ( divre-khefets , “words of delight”) the noun חֵפֶץ (“delight”) functions as an attributive genitive (“delightful words”) or a genitive of estimation or worth (“words viewed as delightful by Qoheleth” or “words that he took delight in”). For another example of a genitive of estimation of worth, see זִבְחֵי אֱלֹהִים ( zivkhe ’ elohim ) “sacrifices of God” = “sacrifices viewed as acceptable to God” ( Ps 51:19 ). In other words, Qoheleth wrote his proverbs so effectively that he was able to take moral and aesthetic delight in his words.


The consonantal form וכתוב has been revocalized in three ways: (1) The Masoretes read וְכָתוּב ( vÿkhatuv , conjunction + Qal passive participle ms from כָּתַב , katav , “to write”): “Qoheleth sought to find pleasant words, what was written uprightly, namely, words of truth.” This is supported by the LXX’s καὶ γεγραμμένον ( kai gegrammenon , conjunction + masculine accusative singular perfect passive participle from γράφω , grafw , “to write). (2) The BHS editors suggest the vocalization וְכָתוֹב ( vÿkhatov , conjunction + Qal infinitive absolute). The infinitive וְכָתוֹב (“and to write”) in the B-line would parallel the infinitive of purpose לִמְצֹא ( limtso ’, “to find”) in the A-line: “Qoheleth sought to find pleasant words, and to write accurately words of truth.” (3) Several medieval Hebrew mss preserve an alternate textual tradition of וְכָתַב ( vÿkhatav , conjunction + Qal perfect 3rd person masculine singular). This is reflected in the Greek versions (Aquila and Symmachus), Syriac Peshitta and Vulgate. The major English versions are divided among these three textual options: (1) וְכָתוּב (Qal passive participle): “ and that which was written was upright, even words of truth” (KJV); “ and that which was written uprightly, even words of truth” (ASV); “ and, written by the upright, words of truth” (YLT); “but what he wrote was the honest truth” (NEB); “ and what he wrote was upright and true” (NIV). (2) וְכָתוֹב (Qal infinitive absolute): “ and to write words of truth correctly” (NASB); “ and to write correctly the reliable words of truth” (MLB); “ and to write down true sayings with precision” (NAB). (3) וְכָתַב (Qal perfect 3rd person masculine singular): “and uprightly he wrote words of truth” (RSV); “and he wrote words of truth plainly” (NRSV); “even as he put down plainly what was true” (Moffatt); “ and he wrote words most right, and full of truth” (Douay); and “ and he recorded genuinely truthful sayings” (NJPS). The editors of the Jerusalem Hebrew Bible project favor וְכָתוֹב “and to write” (option 2): see D. Barthélemy, ed., Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project , 3:596–97.


The construct phrase דִּבְרֵי אֱמֶת ( divre ’ emet , “words of truth”) is a genitive of content (“words containing truth”) or an attributive genitive (“truthful words”). Depending upon the vocalization of וכתוב , the phrase functions in one of two ways: (1) as direct object of וְכָתוֹב יֹשֶׁר ( vÿkhatov yosher ) “and he accurately wrote truthful words ”; or (2) in apposition to וְכָתוּב יֹשֶׁר ( vÿkhatuv yosher ) “and what is written uprightly, namely, truthful words. ”


Or “goads”; NCV “sharp sticks used to guide animals.” For further information see M. A. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation , 29–32.


The verb עָשָׂה (’ asah , “to do”) may mean “to make” ( HALOT 890 s.v. I עשׂה 3) or “to acquire” ( HALOT 891 s.v. I עשׂה 6). The LXX rendered it as ποιῆσαι ( poihsai , “making”), as do most English versions: “making” (KJV, YLT, RSV, NRSV, NAB, ASV, MLB, NIV, NJPS). However, several English versions reflect a different nuance: “there is no end to the buying of books” (Moffatt); “the use of books is endless” (NEB); and “the writing of many books is endless” (NASB).


Heb “the flesh.” The term בָּשָׂר ( basar , “flesh”) refers to the body, functioning as a synecdoche or part (i.e., flesh, skin) for the whole (i.e., body), e.g., Gen 17:13 ; Ps 16:9 ; Prov 14:30 (see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech , 642).


Heb “The end of the matter, everything having been heard.”


Heb “This is all men”; or “This is the whole of man.” The phrase זֶה כָּל־הָאָדָם ( zeh kol-ha ’ adam , “this is all men”) features rhetorical elision of a key word. The ambiguity over the elided word has led to no less than five basic approaches: (1) “this is the whole duty of man” (KJV, ASV, RSV, NAB, NIV); (2) “this is the duty of all men” (MLB, ASV margin, RSV margin); (3) “this applies to all men” (NASB, NJPS); (4) “this is the whole duty of all men” (NRSV, Moffatt); and (5) “there is no more to man than this” (NEB). The four-fold repetition of כֹּל ( kol , “all”) in 12:13-14 suggests that Qoheleth is emphasizing the “bottom line,” that is, the basic duty of man is simply to fear and obey God: After “all” ( כֹּל ) has been heard in the book, his conclusion is that the “whole” ( כֹּל ) duty of man is to obey God because God will bring “all” ( כֹּל ) acts into judgment, including “all” ( כֹּל ) that is hidden, whether good or bad. See D. Barthélemy, ed., Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project , 3:596.


Heb “will bring every deed into judgment.”


The preposition ל in אֲשֶׁר לִשְׁלֹמֹה (’ asher lishlomoh ) has been taken as: (1) authorship : “which is written by Solomon.” The lamed of authorship (also known as lamed auctoris ) is well attested in Hebrew (see GKC 421 §130. b ), particularly in the psalms (e.g., Pss 18:1; 30:1; 34:1; 51:1; 52:1; 54:1; 56:1; 57:1; 59:1; 60:1; 63:1; 72:21 ); (2) dedication : “which is dedicated for Solomon.” The lamed of dedication is attested in Ugaritic psalms dedicated to Baal or about Baal ( CTA 6.1.1 = UT 49.1); or (3) topic : “which is about/concerning Solomon.” The lamed of topic is attested in Hebrew (e.g., 1 Chr 24:20 ) and in Ugaritic, e.g., lb`l “About Baal” ( CTA 6.1.1 = UT 49.1). The ל is most likely denoting authorship. The ל followed by a name in the superscription of a poetic composition in the OT, usually (if not always) denotes authorship. Just as the superscription לְדָוִד ( lÿdavid ) claims Davidic authorship within the Psalter, the heading claims Solomonic authorship. Whether or not this attribution is historically reliable or simply a matter of Jewish tradition is debated in scholarship, just as the Davidic superscriptions in the Psalter are debated (see study note on the word “Song” in the superscription).


Heb “the song of songs.” The genitive construct שִׁיר הַשִׁירִים ( shir hashirim ) is translated literally as “the song of songs” in the early versions: Greek LXX ( ᾀσμα ᾀσμάτων , asma asmatwn ), Latin Vulgate ( canticum canticorum ) and Syriac Peshitta ( tesŒbÿhat tesŒbÿha„ta„á ). The phrase שִׁיר הַשִׁירִים may be understood in two ways: (1) The noun הַשִׁירִים is a plural of number (“songs”) and functions as a genitive of composition: “the song composed of several songs,” that is, the book is a unified collection (hence the singular שִׁיר “song”) composed of individual love songs (see note on the expression “Her Lover” in v. 1 ). (2) The expression may be a superlative genitive construction denoting par excellence (see IBHS 154 §9.5.3j; GKC 431 §133. i ; R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax , 11, §44; 17-18, §80). For example, קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים ( qodesh qadashim , “the holy of holies”) means the most holy place ( Exod 29:37 ); אֱלֹהֵי הָאֱלֹהִים וַאֲדֹנֵי הָאֲדֹנִים (’ elohe ha ’ elohim va ’ adone ha ’ adonim , “the God of Gods and Lord of Lords”) means the Highest God and the Supreme Lord ( Deut 10:17 ); and עֶבֶד עֲבָדִים (’ eved ’ avadim ,“a slave of slaves”) means an abject slave ( Gen 9:25 ). The title “the Song of Songs” is an expression of great esteem for the composition. It has been translated variously: “The Song of Songs, which is Solomon’s” (KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, NASB), “Solomon’s Song of Songs” (NIV), “The most beautiful of songs, by Solomon” (TEV), “dedicated to,” or “about Solomon” (TEV margin), “Solomon’s most beautiful song” (CEV), “This is Solomon’s song of songs, more wonderful than any other” (NLT).


Heb “song.” The noun שִׁיר ( shir ) may refer to a musical song that was sung ( Exod 15:1 ; Num 21:17 ; Ps 33:3 ; Isa 42:10 ) or a poetic composition that was simply read ( Deut 31:19, 21, 22; 30; 32:44 ) (BDB 1010 s.v. שׁיר ). Several factors suggest that the Song of Songs was poetry to be read and enjoyed rather than sung: (a) its sheer length, (b) absence of musical notations or instrumental instructions, (c) testimony of Jewish tradition and interpretation, (d) lack of evidence of its musical performance in the history of Israel, and (e) comparison with ancient Egyptian love poetry. The term שִׁיר here probably refers to love poetry (e.g., Isa 5:1 ) (BDB 1010 s.v. 1 ; W. L. Holladay, Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon , 368). The Song appears to be a collection of individual love songs rather than a single multistanza poem. For comparison of the Song of Songs with ancient Egyptian loves songs, see M. V. Fox, The Song of Songs and the Ancient Egyptian Love Songs , and J. B. White, Language of Love in the Song of Songs and Ancient Egyptian Poetry (SBLDS). sn The superscription “Solomon’s Most Excellent Love Song” appears to be a late addition, just as many superscriptions in the Psalter appear to have been added to the psalms sometime after their original composition. R. E. Murphy ( Song of Songs [Hermeneia], 119) notes that the use of the independent relative pronoun אֲשֶׁר (’ asher ) in 1:1 sharply distinguishes the superscription from the body of the Song as a whole where the short form - שֶׁ ( she- ) occurs thirty-two times (e.g., 1:6, 12; 6:5 ). The short form - שֶׁ also occurs frequently in Ecclesiastes which is traditionally attributed to Solomon. Therefore, it would appear that the superscription is a later addition to the Song. This, of course, raises the question whether or not the attribution of Solomonic authorship of the Song is historically reliable or simply a matter of later Jewish tradition.


The introductory headings that identify the speakers of the poems throughout the Song do not appear in the Hebrew text. They are supplied in the translation for the sake of clarity. These notations should not be misinterpreted as suggesting that the Song be interpreted as a drama. Throughout the Song, the notation “The Lover” refers to the young man, while “the Beloved” refers to the young woman. Since the Song of Songs appears to be a collection of individual love songs, the individual love poems within the collection might not have originally referred to the same young man and young woman in each case. Just as the Book of Proverbs contains proverbs composed by Solomon (10:1-22:16; 25:1-29:27) as well as proverbs composed by other wise men (22:17-24:34; 30:1-31:9), so the Song of Songs may contain love poems composed by Solomon or written about Solomon as well as love poems composed by or written about other young couples in love. Nevertheless, the final canonical form of this collection presents a unified picture of idyllic love between one man and one woman in each case. The young man in several of the individual love poems is explicitly identified as Solomon ( 1:5; 3:7; 8:11-12 ), King Solomon ( 3:9, 11 ) or the king ( 1:4; 7:6 ). Some statements in the Song are consistent with a royal figure such as Solomon: references to Tirzah and Jerusalem ( 6:4 ) and to multiple queens and concubines ( 6:8 ). It is not so clear, however, whether Solomon is the young man in every individual poem. Nor is it clear that the same young woman is in view in each love poem. In several poems the young woman is a country maiden working in a vineyard ( 1:5-6; 8:11-12 ); however, the young woman in another poem is addressed as “O prince’s daughter” ( 7:2 ). The historian notes, “Solomon loved many women, especially the daughter of Pharaoh” ( 1 Kgs 11:1 ). So it would be surprising if the Song devoted itself to only one of Solomon’s many liaisons. The Song may simply be a collection of love poems written at various moments in Solomon’s illustrious career as a lover of many women. It may also include love poems written about other young lovers that were collected into the final form of the book that presents a portrait of idyllic love of young lovers.


Heb “May he kiss me….” The shift from 3rd person masculine singular forms (“he” and “his”) in 1:2 a to 2nd person masculine singular forms (“your”) in 1:2 b-4 has led some to suggest that the Beloved addresses the Friends in 1:2 a and then her Lover in 1:2 b-4. A better solution is that the shift from the 3rd person masculine singular to 2nd person masculine singular forms is an example of heterosis of person: a poetic device in which the grammatical person shifts from line to line (M. H. Pope, Song of Songs [AB], 297). The third person is put for the second person (e.g, Gen 49:4 ; Deut 32:15 ; Ps 23:2-5 ; Isa 1:29; 42:20; 54:1 ; Jer 22:24 ; Amos 4:1 ; Micah 7:19 ; Lam 3:1 ; Song 4:2; 6:6 ) (E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech , 524-25). Similar shifts occur in ancient Near Eastern love literature (cf. S. N. Kramer, The Sacred Marriage Rite , 92, 99). Most translations render 1:2 literally and preserve the shifts from 3rd person masculine singular to 2nd person masculine singular forms (KJV, AV, NASB, NIV); others render 1:2 with 2nd person masculine singular forms throughout (RSV, NJPS).


Heb “May he kiss me with the kisses of his mouth!” The phrase יִשָּׁקֵנִי מִנְּשִׁיקוֹת ( yishshaqeni minnÿshiqot , “kiss me with kisses”) is a cognate accusative construction used for emphasis.


The MT vocalizes consonantal דדיך as דֹּדֶיךָ ( dodekha , “your loves”; mpl noun from דּוֹד , dod , “love” + 2nd person masculine singular suffix). The LXX and Vulgate reflect the vocalization דַּדֶּיךָ ( daddekha , “your breasts”; mpl noun from דַּד , dad , “breast” + 2nd person masculine singular suffix). This alternate tradition was well known; it was followed by Hippolytus of Rome (d. 235) in his exposition of Canticles 1:2 and by Rabbi Yohanan of Tiberias (3rd century a.d. ) as recorded in the Jewish midrashim on Canticles Rabbah 1:2.2. However, the MT vocalization is preferred. In terms of external evidence, the MT vocalization tradition is generally more reliable. In terms of internal evidence, the LXX form דַּדֶּיךָ ( daddekha , “your [male!] breasts”) is a bit shocking, to say the least. On the other, the plural form דּוֹדִים ( dodim , “loves”) is used in the Song to refer to multiple expressions of love or multiple acts of lovemaking (e.g., 1:4; 4:10; 5:1; 7:13 [ET 12]). tn Although it may be understood in the general sense meaning “love” ( Song 1:4 ), the term דּוֹד ( dod ) normally means “lovemaking” ( Prov 7:18 ; Song 4:10; 7:12 [13]; Ezek 16:8; 23:17 ). The plural form דֹּדֶיךָ ( dodekha , lit. “your lovemakings”) is probably not a plural of number but an abstract plural (so BDB 187 s.v. דּוֹד 3).


Heb “better than.” With the comparison of lovemaking to wine, the idea is probably “more intoxicating than wine” or “more delightful than wine.”


The young woman compares his lovemaking to the intoxicating effects of wine. A man is to be “intoxicated” with the love of his wife ( Prov 5:20 ). Wine makes the heart glad ( Deut 14:26 ; Judg 9:13 ; Ps 104:15 ) and revives the spirit ( 2 Sam 16:1-2 ; Prov 31:4-7 ). It is viewed as a gift from God, given to enable man to enjoy life ( Eccl 2:24-25; 5:18 ). The ancient Egyptian love poems use the imagery of wine and intoxication to describe the overwhelming effects of sexual love. For example, an ancient Egyptian love song reads: “I embrace her and her arms open wide; I am like a man in Punt, like someone overwhelmed with drugs. I kiss her and her lips open; and I am drunk without beer” ( ANET 467-69).


The preposition לְ ( lÿ ) of לְרֵיחַ ( lÿrekha ) has been understood in three ways: (a) dative of reference: “with respect to fragrance [your perfumes are pleasing]” (see GKC 430 §133. d ); (b) asseverative or emphatic: “indeed the fragrance [of your perfumes is pleasing]” (see R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax , 50-51, §283); or (c) comparative: “[your lovemaking is better than wine], indeed better the scent [of precious ointments]” (W. F. Albright, “Archaic Survivals in the Text of Canticles,” Hebrew and Semitic Studies , 2, n. 4).


Heb “the scent of your oils.” The term שֶׁמֶן ( shemen , “cologne”) refers to perfumes or colognes ( Eccl 7:1; 10:1 ; Song 4:10 ). In Israel bodily oils were expensive ( 1 Kgs 17:12 ff; 2 Kgs 2:4 ff). Possession of oils and perfumes was a sign of prosperity and luxury ( Deut 32:8; 33:24 ; Job 29:6 ; Prov 21:17 ; Ezek 16:13, 20 ). Wearing cologne was associated with joy ( Ps 45:8 ; Eccl 9:8 ; Isa 61:3 ) because they were worn on festive occasions ( Prov 27:9 ).


The meaning of the phrase שֶׁמֶן תּוּרַק ( shemen turaq ) is difficult to determine; several options have been proposed: (1) Traditionally, the term תּוּרַק is taken as a verb (Hophal imperfect 3rd person feminine singular from רִיק , riq , “to pour out”) which functions as an attributive adjective modifying the noun שֶׁמֶן (“oil, perfume”): “poured out oil.” The phrase is taken this way by LXX ἒλαιον ἐκχεομενον (“oil poured out”) which seems to reflect a Hebrew Vorlage of a passive verb functioning adjectivally. Accordingly, the phrase is traditionally translated “ointment/oil poured forth/poured out” (KJV, NKJV, ASV, NIV, RSV, NRSV, NJB), “purified oil” (NASB) or “spreading perfume” (NAB, CEV). However, this is syntactically awkward because: (a) the noun שֶׁמֶן (“oil”) is masculine (BDB 1032 s.v. שֶׁמֶן ) but the verb תּוּרַק (“poured out”) is feminine (3rd person feminine singular); and (b) this would demand heterosis of the verb for an adjective function. (2) Aquila, who is known for his woodenly literal translation technique, reads ἒλαιον ἐκκενωθὲν ( elaion ekkenwqen, “oil poured out”) which reflects a passive participle functioning adjectivally, perhaps מוּרָק ( muraq; Hophal participle ms from רִיק “to pour out”). This involves simple orthographic confusion between ת and מ . This might be reflected in Qumran because Baillet’s restoration of 6QCant reads מרקחת מורקה (cited in BHS apparatus “c-c”) which would be vocalized מִרְקַחַת מוּרקָה ( mirqakhat murqah , “perfumed poured out”). However, Baillet’s restoration is questioned by some scholars. (3) The BHS editors suggest emending MT תּוּרַק ( turaq ) to the noun תַּמְרוּק ( tamruq , “purification”), used for oil of purification (e.g., Esth 2:3, 9, 12 ): תַּמְרוּק שֶׁמֶן ( shemen tamruq ) would mean “oil of purification” or “purified oil.” (4) A simpler solution is to take תּוּרַק as a previously unrecognized noun that is related to the Ugaritic noun trq which refers to high grade cosmetic oil ( UT 145.20; 19.371). This approach is adopted by one other translation: “Your name is like finest oil” (NJPS).


Heb “love.”


The three verbs in this line are a good example of heterosis of person, that is, a shift from 2nd person masculine singular to 1st person common plural to 3rd person masculine singular forms: מָשְׁכֵנִי ( mashÿkheni , “draw me!”; Qal imperative 2nd person masculine singular from מָשַׁךְ , mashakh , “to draw” + 1st person common singular suffix:), נָּרוּצָה ( narutsah , “let us run!”; Qal cohortative 1st person common plural from רוּץ , ruts , “to run”), and הֱבִיאַנִי ( hevi ’ ani , “he has brought me” or “bring me!”; Hiphil perfect 3rd person masculine singular בּוֹא , bo ’, “to bring” + 1st person common singular suffix). Heterosis from second to third person occurs elsewhere in the Song in 1:2-3; 4:2; 6:6 (e.g, Gen 49:4 ; Deut 32:15 ; Ps 23:2-5 ; Isa 1:29; 42:20; 54:1 ; Jer 22:24 ; Amos 4:1 ; Micah 7:19 ; Lam 3:1 ).


Or “O king, bring me into your chambers!” The article on the noun הַמֶּלֶךְ ( hammelekh , “the king”) may be taken in two ways: (1) the particularizing use of the article: “The king” (e.g., NIV: “The king has brought me into his chambers”) or (2) the vocative use of the article: “O king!” (NJPS margin: “O king, bring me into your chambers!”) (For the vocative use of the article, see GKC 405 §126. e ; Joüon 2:506-7 §137.f; R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax , 19, §89; IBHS 247 §13.5.2c). The syntactical classification of the article is dependent upon: (1) Whether the MT reading of the 3rd person masculine singular suffix on חֲדָרָיו ( khadarav , “his chambers”) is retained or whether the text is emended to the 2nd person masculine singular suffix form חַדְרֶךָ ( khadrekha , “your chamber”) as reflected in Syriac (see textual note below). (2) Whether הֱבִיאַנִי ( hevi ’ ani , Hiphil perfect 3rd person masculine singular from בּוֹא , bo ’, “to bring” + 1st person common singular suffix) is classified as a perfect of past action (“The king has brought me into his chambers”) or a precative perfect (“O king, bring me into your chambers!”) (see syntactical note below). (3) Whether the consonantal form הביאני should be vocalized as הֱבִיאַנִי ( hevi ’ ani , Hiphil perfect 3rd person masculine singular + 1st person common singular suffix) as preserved in MT or as הֲבִיאֵנִי ( havi ’ eni , Hiphil imperative 2nd person masculine singular + 1st person common singular suffix) as reflected in Symmachus and Syriac (see textual note below).