This verse expresses a thought identical to that of the second half of verse 5 regarding the dead. The text at the beginning is very rhythmic and says literally “also their love, also their hate, also their envy, it has vanished.” The introductory particle “also” or “even” is used three times here; it is a stylistic way of drawing special attention to the three nouns of emotion, love, hate, and envy. An introductory particle like “Even…” will help show the connection with the end of verse 5.

Two points require clarification in this verse. The first is whether the two nouns love and hate have the same sense as in verse 1. There we suggested that they meant God’s love and God’s hate, references to “God’s acceptance of…” and “God’s rejection of…” a person. Do they mean “acceptance” and “rejection” here in verse 6 also? The fact that they form part of the device of “inclusion” for the section suggests that they might have the same meaning, but it is not necessarily so. We can use “love” and “hate” if that is appropriate.

The second question has to do with the Hebrew suffix attached to these nouns, translated by Revised Standard Version as their. These nouns actually represent actions. By saying Their love … their hate … their envy, Qoheleth may be referring to the love, hate, and envy that the people—now dead—felt when they were alive. In other words, their feelings are as dead as they are. Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version, and New Jerusalem Bible are some of the versions that seem to take this approach. Another possibility, however, is that the suffix refers to an object, so the phrase would then mean “How people loved them [the ones who are now dead], how they hated them, and how they envied them, all these feelings are gone, too.” The preceding clause in verse 5 has a similar structure, where the suffix functions as the object of the verb, so this may serve as a pattern on which to base our interpretation. Though many versions maintain the ambiguity, it is probably better for translators to choose one interpretation, and if they feel it is necessary, put the other possible meaning in a footnote.

The three terms love, hate, and envy are almost certainly representative terms, all relating to the feelings that one person has for another. For the meaning of envy see comments on 4.4.

Have already perished: if there is the object of love, hate, and envy, then Qoheleth here states that the dead not only are forgotten (verse 5), but the living also reject every emotional tie with them. Have … perished can also be rendered “they [the living] have abandoned [their love, hate, and envy of the dead].” It is striking that Qoheleth uses a verb like “perish” or “die” in this context. In many languages such a figurative use will be perfectly acceptable, and some of the flavor of the original can be transferred: “All feelings of love, hate, and envy that people felt toward them are dead!”

Renderings that follow the suggested interpretation more clearly can be:

• even their love, hate and envy of the dead have been abandoned.

• even all their feelings toward those who died have ceased.

Some languages may even prefer using an entire clause for each emotion. A direct link can also be made with the end of verse 5:

• … Indeed, people have forgotten all about those who died— how they loved them, how they hated them, how they envied them, all this has passed away.

If we follow the interpretation of Good News Translation, a footnote can be added:

• Their loves, their hates, their passions all died with them.*
*This line may also mean “how people loved them, how people hated them, and how they envied them, all these feelings have also vanished.”

And they have no more for ever any share: since they have ceased to feel anything for those who died, the dead are now totally cut off from the community of the living. Qoheleth comes from a community where there is a powerful sense of communal unity. The living have a very close connection with all those who lived in the past. The present generation is bound with all past members of the group, such that people actually “participated” in events long before they were born. (See, for example, the ancient statement in Deut 6.20-25, where “we” and “us” marks every generation of the Israelite people as personally present in the Exodus.) Qoheleth says the living actually cut the dead off from their world, so that the dead can no longer join in the events now taking place. See Good News Translation “never again take part in.” They must refer to the dead, not to those still living, and this should be made clear.

No more for ever is an emphatic phrase combining two similar adverbs. Translators can use a forceful adverbial phrase like “never again” if the redundancy is not appropriate.

Share translates the Hebrew noun “portion,” also used in 2.10 and 4.9. Qoheleth has argued in those passages that all a person can hope for in this life is a “portion,” as there is no lasting advantage (yithron) on earth. Now he goes further. He says the dead have no portion in what is done in the world. This is a natural conclusion, as they have already left this world.

In all that is done under the sun: see comments on 1.14; 2.17.

For translation we may consider the following:

• so they never again can share in what is done in the world.

• so they will never again be part of what is done [or, happens] on earth.

With this verse a subunit is brought to an end. The repetition of love and hate (first mentioned in verse 1) rounds out the “envelope” structure so typical of Hebrew literature. Having hit a “low point,” Qoheleth makes his characteristic move to a call to enjoyment (verse 7 and following). Even if all these things he mentions are true of human experience, our response must not be passive resignation.

Quoted with permission from Ogden, Graham S. and Zogbo, Lynell. A Handbook on the Book of Ecclesiates. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1997. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .