A child born dead is better off than one who lives without joy

Verses 5:17 through 6:9 present Kohelet's conclusion from the investigations in chapters 2 through 5.  Verses 5:17-19 present the conclusion positively, and 6:1-9 present it negatively.  In summary, the best thing that a person can find in his life under the sun is to find enjoyment in his daily life, satisfaction in his labor, and contentment in his lot.  In contrast, the worst thing that can happen to any person under the sun is to acquire vast wealth but never be able to enjoy any part of that wealth.

Chapter 6

.μd:a;h;Al[' ayhi hB;r"w“ vm,V;h' tj'T' ytiyair: rv,a} h[;r: vyE 1

There is a calamity that I perceive under the sun, and it weighs heavily on man (or it is common among men).

μd:a;h;Al[' ayhi hB;r"w“ This clause could mean either 'it is great upon the man' or 'it is much upon mankind.'  Upon examining the next verse, it is debatable how frequently this exact scenario plays out among men; however, when it does occur it is devastating to the individual who experiences it.

lKomi /vp]n"l] rs,j; WNn<yaew“ d/bk;w“ μysik;n“W rv,[o μyhiloa‘h; /lAˆT,yI rv,a} vyai  2

WNl,k}ayO yrIk]n: vyai yKi WNM,mi lkoa‘l, μyhiloa‘h; WNf,yliv]y"Aalow“ hW<a't]yIArv,a}

.aWh [r: ylij’w: lb,h, hz<

A man that God gives riches, treasures, and power; and he lacks nothing that his soul might desire, but God does not give him the authority to eat from it because a foreigner will devour it.  This is a futility and a bad sickness.

μysik;n“W rv,[o μyhiloa‘h; /lAˆT,yI rv,a} vyai This verse begins in exactly the same way as verse 5:18, but the scope of bestowal continues to include power and everything his soul might desire.  But God denies him the ability to consume or enjoy any part of it, as expressed by WNf,yliv]y"Aalow in this verse instead of /fyliv]hiw“ as in verse 5:18. 

WNl,k}ayO yrIk]n: vyai yKi This clause give the reason why the first person becomes dispossessed without being able to enjoy the abundance he had received from God.  The phrase yrIk]n: vyai literally means 'a foreign man.'  This could refer to a non-Israelite raider or to someone who could have no automatic claim to the man's wealth.  The manner by which the man is dispossessed in not relevant and so not mentioned.

wyn:v;Aymey“ Wyh]yIv, br"w“ hy<j]yI t/Br" μyniv;w“ ha;me vyai dyli/y μai  3

/L ht;y“h;Aalo hr:Wbq]Aμg'w“ hb;/Fh'Aˆmi [B'c]tiAalo /vp]n'w“

.lp,N:h' WNM,mi b/f yTir“m'a;

If a man begets a hundred children and lives many years, so that the days of his years became many, but his soul is not satisfied from the good things and also he has no grave, I say the miscarriage is better off than he.

hy<j]yI t/Br" μyniv;w“ ha;me vyai dyli/y μai The first two clauses present the common perception of one who was blessed by God – long life and a multitude of children.

wyn:v;Aymey“ Wyh]yIv, br"w“ This clause is grammatically peculiar, but there is no indication of textual corruption.  The form br" could be a 3ms qal perfect verb, an ms adjective, or a noun.  The simplest resolution is to interpret the form as a verb with the relative clause as the subject of the verb – So that the days of his years became many.

/L ht;y“h;Aalo hr:Wbq]Aμg'w“ hb;/Fh'Aˆmi [B'c]tiAalo /vp]n'w“ These two clauses are not grammatically difficult, but they present the greatest calamity that Kohelet can imagine in two parts.  The first part is the man's failure to enjoy any part of the abundance he had been given.  (See verse 4:8.)  The second part is that he had no grave – literally 'A grave was not for him.'  A more standard way of expressing this situation would be  hr:Wbq; /L ˆyae μg'w“.  This implies that when he died there was neither family nor friend left to bury his body, which was among the greatest calamities for the Semitic mind to consider.

lp,N:h' WNM,mi b/f  The term lp,N:h' is a definite ms noun that literally means 'the fallen thing.'  This is one of the terms used to describe a miscarriage or an aborted fetus.  This assertion repeats the ironic sentiment expressed in 4:3.

.hS,kuy“ /mv] Ëv,job'W ËleyE Ëv,job'W aB; lb,h,b'AyKii  4

Because it comes with futility, it goes in darkness, and its name is covered in darkness.

.hZ,mi hz<l; tj'n' [d:y: alow“ ha;r:Aalo vm,v,AμG"  5

Moreover, it never sees or experiences (lit. knows) the sun: (yet) its rest is better than his.

Verse 4 begins with AyKii and introduces the rationale as to why a dead fetus is better off than the person described in verse 3.  Verses 4 and 5 list four characteristics of a fetus that never lived:

·      aB; lb,h,b'ii – It comes with futility.  Though it may come forth in the normal way, it is dead and may not be completely formed.  As such, its arrival is futile, incapable of fulfilling the normal purpose of conception.

·      ËleyE Ëv,job'W – It goes with darkness.  ËleyE is a 3ms imperfect form of Ëlh meaning 'go, walk.'  Since it is dead at birth, it departs without ever having conscious experience of sunlight or anything else.

·      hS,kuy“ /mv] Ëv,job' – Its name is covered with darkness.  Assuming that every human life is known to God from the moment of conception, the name of such a child is never declared by its parents or anyone else under the sun.

·      [d:y: alow“ ha;r:Aalo vm,v, – It never sees or knows the sun.  Such a child never sees or experiences any circumstances of life – good or bad – that are present here under the sun.

hZ,mi hz<l; tj'n' The common Semitic conception was that all the dead resided in sheol where they, the μyaip;r], have a conscious existence but no activity, and certainly no activity under the sun.  From that standpoint both the man of this example and the dead fetus will reside in the same place, but the rest of the fetus will be superior to that of the man because the man will have a conscious realization of his great loss.

ha;r: alo hb;/fw“ μymi[}P' μyniv; 5l,a, hy:j; WLaiw““  6

.Ële/h lKoh' rj;a, μ/qm;Ala, aloh}}

If a man should live a thousand years twice and not experience (lit. see) good – is not everyone going to one place?

WLaiw““ This form occurs only here in the Hebrew scriptures, but it is fairly common in the Mishneh.  It is an Aramaic form of μai.

hb;/f This is a feminine singular noun that refers to things or experiences that people generally consider to be b/f – good, things that bring enjoyment or happiness.

Ële/h lKoh' rj;a, μ/qm;Ala, aloh The verse begins with a conditional statement with two conditions, but this clause does not follow logically from the two conditions listed.  Regardless of the character of a person's life, he (or she) will end up in the same place as everybody else – sheol, the grave.  Consequently, the fetus that never experiences anything under the sun is better off than one who had abundance but never enjoyed any part of that abundance; or as stated in the previous verse, 'its rest is better than his.'

.aleM;Ti alo vp,N<h'Aμg'w“ Whypil] μd:a;h; lm'[}AlK;;  7

All of a man’s toil is for his mouth, yet his soul is not filled.

This verse duplicates the content of verse 1:8 – the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor is the ear filled from hearing.

Whypil] μd:a;h; lm'[}AlKo This clause appears to be a partial answer to the rhetorical question posed in verse 1:3:  What does a human gain from all his toil?  All his toil is for his mouth.  This response corresponds to God's original judicial sentence on mankind:  With the sweat of your face you shall eat your bread until you return to the ground (Gen 3:19).

aleM;Ti alo vp,N<h'Aμg'w“ The ultimate irony of this is that no matter how much one eats, the food just goes to his stomach, so his soul, that which constitutes the essence of a human, is not filled, not satisfied, just by food.  This implies that there is something unique about humans that does not apply to animals, though Kohelet does not elaborate that difference at this point.

.μyYIj'h' dg,n, Ëloh}l' ['dE/y yni[;l,Ahm' lysiK]h'Aˆmi μk;j;l, rte/yAhm' yKii  8

For what is the advantage of the wise man over the fool?  What (advantage) does the poor man have for knowing how to walk before the living.

lysiK]h'Aˆmi μk;j;l, rte/yAhm' yKii This verse consists of two rhetorical questions that are answered by a proverb in the following verse.  This first question revisits a topic raised in verses 2:13 and 2:16.  There Kohelet asserted that the wise man had an advantage during life but no enduring benefit, because both the wise man and the fool die in exactly the same way, and both are ultimately forgotten.

μyYIj'h' dg,n, Ëloh}l' ['dE/y yni[;l,Ahm'  The second rhetorical question raises an issue not previously visited.  yni[; is an ms adjective meaning 'poor, humble' that is used here as a noun.  μyYIj'h' is ambiguous.  It could be an abstract plural noun meaning 'the life,' a plural adjective meaning 'the living,' or a qal mp participle meaning 'those living.'  The abstract noun does not fit the context, and the resultant meaning expressed by the adjective and the participle is essentially the same.  Now, a person (rich or poor) who knows how to walk (practical conduct of life) before the living is by definition one endowed with hm;k]j;.  So what does such an individual gain from hm;k]j;?

.j'Wr tW[r“W lb,h, hz,AμG' vp,n;AËl;h}me μyIn'y[e haer“m' b/f  9

What the eyes see is better than what the soul desires; this too is illusory and striving after wind.

This proverb constitutes a final summary for the first half of the book.  If the best thing a person can do is find enjoyment in his life and his toil – and the capability to do this is a gift from God – then what one has at present is superior to what one may long for.  Anyone who constantly is chasing after desires will never really enjoy what he already has access to.  This realization is the ultimate advantage that the person endowed with hm;k]j has over the fool.

j'Wr tW[r“W lb,h, hz,AμG'  As previously mentioned, this clause is used something like a refrain or a chorus in a song.  Because it or its variations occur so frequently, the words tend to lose some of their impact.  The first interpretive question that should be asked is 'What is the antecedent for hz,AμG'?'  There are at least three possibilities:

·      An ms noun or noun phrase in the immediately preceding clauses.  In this case, there is no ms noun in the immediate context that is a likely candidate.

·      The entire contents of the last statement made.  If the scope of the clause is restricted to the proverbial statement in the preceding clause, then he is saying that even focusing on what one presently has is not ultimately satisfying in and of itself.

·      The entire contents of the preceding vignette.  If the assertion encompasses the entire vignette, then we need to ask if the statement is true or not.  Certainly there have been and will yet be those for whom this worst of all negative experiences becomes real in their lives.  For such an individual the experience is terrible, no illusion.  For everybody else, such a person's life becomes something of a proverb for a useless, empty existence.  A poignant example of this is the life and death of Howard Hughes.  Though he accomplished great things during his life and amassed a great fortune, the last 10 years or so of his life were spent as a recluse strung out on drugs.  When he finally died, many people tried to claim his wealth, but he had neither friend nor family.

If verses 6:1-9 present the greatest of all calamities that a person can experience it but the capacity to enjoy life comes as a gift from God, how can a person avoid the former and gain the latter?  This is the topic addressed by chapters 7-11.  Verses 6:10-12 serve as the introductory statement for this entire topic.  The main thrust of this passage is to note that every human life is subject to circumstances that we cannot predict with any certainty and over which we have no real control.  That being the case, how can a person find enjoyment that transcends circumstances and live in such a way that he does not become the source of calamities that may enter his life?

μd:a; aWhArv,a} [d:/nw“ /mv] ar:Q]NI rb;K] hy:h;V,Ahm' 10

.WNM,mi 5yQiT'hv, μ[i ˆydIl; lk'WyAalow“ 

What is it that has existed?  It (or he) has already been named and is being made known (ms niph part) that he is human (or a man or Adam).  But he is not able to contend (lit., judge, execute judgement) with one who is mightier than himself.

hy:h;V,Ahm'  hm' (what thing) is always an interrogative pronoun when it stands at the beginning of its clause.  Here it begins a verbless clause followed by a subordinate relative clause as predicate.  The LXX translation renders the verse as 'If something existed, it had already been named.'  Modern English translations generally follow this rendering even though it deviates from the Hebrew grammar, yet there is no evidence of textual corruption in the MT at this point.  A smoother English translation of the Hebrew might be 'What has come into being?'

μd:a; aWhArv,a} [d:/nw“ /mv] ar:Q]NI rb;K] The response to the rhetorical question consists of two clauses.  The verb of the first clause is formally ambiguous and could be a niphal 3ms perfect or an ms participle from the root arq; however, the adverb rb;K] (already) resolves the ambiguity by requiring a completed event.  The second is a verbless clause composed of a niphal ms participle from [dy and a relative noun clause.  The participle can mean 'being known' or 'being made known,' but the noun clause can only be rendered 'that he is a man (human, Adam).'  Now this combination is highly peculiar, because hm' is properly used only for things; and ymi is used only for people.  However, here a What becomes a Who.  So, who is being referred to here – any man, the human creature, or specifically Adam the first representative of mankind?

WNM,mi 5yQiT'hv, μ[i ˆydIl; lk'WyAalow“ The second half of the verse is introduced by a simple vav conjunction, which in translation could simply be dropped as unnecessary for English, rendered as and, or rendered as but.  I opted to use the adversative but because the first half of the verse is stated positively, and this clause is negative, producing a contrast.  lk'Wy is a qal 3ms imperfect form from lky 'be able.'  Here I have rendered the form as gnomic, i.e. characterizing habitual or characteristic action.  5yQiT'h is a k'tiv-k're for 5yQiT' , which is an adjective meaning 'mighty, powerful.'

Now, if we assume that Kohelet is talking about mankind in general or specifically Adam as the original representative Man, then a thing (dirt) became a who (Adam), and he was named immediately after his creation.  Sometime later Adam rebelled against the one prohibition that God had given, and he became the object of a judicial sentence.  Adam was not, is not, and will never be able to contend with God who issued that sentence.

.μd:a;l; rteYOAhm' lb,h; μyBir“m' hBer“h' μyrIb;D“AvyE yKi 11

When there are words greatly increasing futility, what advantage does the human have?

AvyE yKii The fundamental uses of yKii are 'that, for, when.'  The first option is valid only for subordinate clauses and so is not appropriate here.  The most common approach for translating this verse is to render the yKii by for, but this verse does not provide any explanation or cause for the condition mentioned in the previous verse.  Consequently, I opted for the temporal force, which introduces a follow-on idea.

lb,h; μyBir“m' hBer“h' The verb string consists of a hiphil infinitive absolute followed by a hiphil ms participle from the root hbr.  Such a combination represents the most common use of the infinitive absolute, and the resultant expression amplifies the root meaning of the verbal root.  So lb,h; is being greatly multiplied, but what does lb,h; mean here?  Certainly, the literal meaning of 'breath, mist, vapor' does not fit unless we use the English slang expression 'hot air,' meaning useless speech.  At any rate, the point is that the words produce and contribute nothing substantial or useful for the situation that confronts each human under the sun.

μd:a;l; rteYOAhm' The form rteYO is an ms noun meaning 'advantage, superiority.'  Here μd:a;l; is definite, so it could be rendered by the man or the human but not by the personal name Adam.

lXeK' μce[}y"w“ /Lb]h, yYEj'Aymey“ rP's]mi μyYIj'B' μd:a;l; b/FAhM' ['dE/yAymi yKi 12

.vm,V;h' tj'T' wyr:j}a' hy<h]YIAhm' μd:a;l; dyGIy"Aymi rv,a}

For who knows what is good for the man in life the numbered days of his futile life?  Yes, he makes them like a shadow, for who can tell the man what will come after him under the sun? 

μd:a;l; b/FAhM' ['dE/yAymi yKi This verse does provide an explanation for why words become insubstantial in dealing with the situation in which man finds himself. b/FAhM' ['dE/yAymi introduces a rhetorical question and also illustrates the semantic difference between ymi and hM'.  As a rhetorical question, it expects one of two answers: Nobody or The one who is more powerful than the human. 

/Lb]h, yYEj'Aymey“ rP's]mi μyYIj'B' μyYIj'B' literally is definite 'in the life' indicating a period of time.  The remainder of the phrase is in apposition to μyYIj' and describes what makes up that period of time (lit., a number of days of life of his lb,h,).  Here /Lb]h, could be literal – his breath – but it has not generally been understood in that way.  Similar expressions occur in 7:15 and 9:9.  In each case, the expression could be understood to refer to the time during which the human possesses breath.  If the term is understood figuratively, then it is asserting that the time period of a man's physical life is futile, or illusory, in the sense that it does not produce anything of ultimately enduring value.  (“Life is but walking shadow; a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and is and then is heard no more; it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”)

lXeK' μce[}y"w“ The verb form is a qal 3ms imperfect from the root hc[ meaning 'do, make.'  The interpretive problem is how this clause relates to the rhetorical question in the first clause.  It clearly is no answer, so I have interpreted it as a follow-on observation, and the subject of the verb is most likely intended to be the human.  The expression lXeK' can be understood in two different ways: like a protective shade or like something transitory, temporary.  The latter meaning seems to be the point here.

μd:a;l; dyGIy"Aymi rv,a} This syntactic construction occurs just one other place in the MT – Dt 3:24.  The use of rv,a} seems to be essentially synonymous with that of yKi, and that typically is how it is translated.  The remainder of the verse presents a rhetorical question that is parallel with that at the beginning of the verse.  These two questions become the boundaries for the content of the next four chapters:

·      Who knows what is good for the man in life?

·      Who can tell the man what will come after him?