A person who has no one, either son or brother: the scene is set precisely: a solitary and lonely individual toiling ceaselessly. The solitariness is described simply as “one without a second.” Added to this is an explanatory phrase: the worker has neither relatives nor children. Here the singular forms son and brother are general terms for “siblings” and “children,” and we can render them as such. “A person who has neither children nor relatives” is its meaning, or perhaps even “Here is someone who has no family at all.”

The Hebrew text introduces this example with a particle meaning “There is [or, was] [a person who…].” Qoheleth thus marks this as an example explaining what he described in verse 7. New Jerusalem Bible translates “And I have noted this further futility under the sun: the case of the man who is alone….” Good News Translation starts the discussion with the expression “Here is someone….” The translator should find a natural way to introduce such an example.

Yet there is no end to all his toil: this clause follows as a contrast from the previous one, so the conjunction should be translated as “but” or “however.” The word end here means the point at which something finishes rather than “end” in the sense of purpose or goal. Thus a second feature of this person’s situation is his unceasing toil. He never stops working, never takes a vacation. The sense is that the lack of rest is self-inflicted. It is not caused by his having so much to do that he never gets the chance to rest, but it results from his own choice. In the present example the person has no family to provide for, so it is hard to see why he works unceasingly. We may translate “he never ceases from his work,” or “he is working all the time,” or “he never stops working.”

These two facts about this worker, namely, his loneliness and ceaseless work, set the scene for a double conclusion. He himself is not satisfied with what he gets, nor is anyone else able to enjoy what he achieves. Hebrew inserts an “and” between the first two clauses. In some translations, putting the two sentences side by side (juxtaposition) may be sufficient: “[here is] a person who has no family or relatives; he [also] works unceasingly.” In other languages the word “and” can be translated literally: “Here is a person who has no family or relatives and who never stops working.” The translator should avoid giving the impression that the reason this person never stops working is because he has no family to spend his time with.

His eyes are never satisfied with riches: although he works so ceaselessly, and we presume successfully, his eyes are never satisfied. This same phrase occurs in 1.8. Eyes is a metaphor for the total person. These material rewards do not give him any satisfaction. If this interpretation is accepted, a simple pronoun “he” may be used in place of the figurative eyes. Another possibility is that eyes represents his desires and longings, so we may also use the phrase “his desires.”

The phrase never satisfied can mean (1) that the man was always wanting more than he had, (2) that the things he had did not give him any pleasure or happiness. The context suggests the second view. Thus he did not derive any pleasure from what he did or what he gained. The term riches includes money and what it can buy. It does not suggest that the person is greedy, so the New American Bible addition (“and riches do not satisfy his greed”) should be ignored.

For translation we can say “he found no satisfaction in being wealthy” or “his money gave him no satisfaction.”

The words so that he never asks are not in the Hebrew text of this verse but are added by translators to give the setting of the following question. Readers will immediately note that the text changes from third person speech to first person, and so the first person question may require some form of introduction to make plain its connection with the earlier part of the verse. Good News Translation “for whom he is working so hard” avoids the use of an introductory formula, but in doing so it changes the first person forms to third person. However, in making these changes the connection between the question and the remainder of the verse is not made clear.

There is a problem in supplying an introductory formula here, because what we insert will depend entirely on our understanding of the situation of the worker. It is this interpretation that causes difficulties. Revised Standard Version adds a result clause, so that he never asks. This rests on an interpretation in which the worker fails to show any concern for the purpose in his work. New English Bible and Revised English Bible take the opposite view and supply “he asks,” indicating that he did in fact question the purpose of his labors. Thus two contrary understandings are reflected in these translations. Since the person in the example cited has no relatives, hence no heir, it seems perfectly natural for him to ask “For whom am I working?” Therefore the recommendation given in this Handbook is that we may add an explanatory “he asks” or “he asks himself,” to introduce the question, rather than follow Revised Standard Version and its negative view. However, translators will note that the interpretation is not certain but a matter of personal choice.

In some languages, especially in Africa, it is common for dialog or monologue to appear with no introduction. Where this is the case, the question can simply follow the description of the man, with no introductory statement:

• Here’s a man who is all alone. He has no children or brothers. He works all the time, but he is never satisfied. “Who am I working so hard for?”

For whom am I toiling…?: this part of the question refers back to the previous clause, which also uses the term “toil.” Although this person works ceaselessly, he cannot know who, if anyone, will benefit from his labor. Having no children and no siblings means he has nobody to support and nobody to whom he can leave his goods. In English the verb “to work for” can also mean “who is employing me.” Our translation here should rather indicate that his question is about who will benefit from what he does, so we can say “For whose benefit am I toiling?”

Depriving myself of pleasure: the For whom phrase or “for whose benefit” from the previous clause applies here also. The question is simply about who will benefit from the fact that he is denying himself pleasure. The answer to this rhetorical question is already given in the opening part of the verse; he is doing it for nobody, for he has no relatives to provide for and he is without an heir in the world.

Depriving myself is literally “causing my life-spirit to lack.” Qoheleth’s point is that the person derives no enjoyment or pleasure from his many accumulated goods. Pleasure in this setting does not translate the same Hebrew word as “pleasure” in 2.1, 10. Here it renders the Hebrew adjective “good” used as a noun with the sense of “goods” or “good things” that money can buy. The problem in this clause is in the fact that the person who is working so hard does not lack material things but lacks the power to be able to enjoy what he has. This then gives a translation as follows: “but failing to derive any good from it,” “failing to obtain what my goods should provide,” “not enjoying what I should,” or “not getting any pleasure out of it.”

The person here is reasoning with himself, and so this dialog can be treated like a rhetorical question. Thus it may be better in some languages to make a statement than to ask a question: “I am not working for anybody! I am depriving myself of pleasure for nothing!” In other languages it may be more natural to combine a rhetorical question and a statement: “Why am I working so hard? There is no one to benefit from it, and I am not getting anything out of it.”

This also is vanity and an unhappy business: This refers back to the entire situation just described. For Qoheleth this situation is hevel, which is to say he has no explanation for it; it is another enigma or mystery. He further describes it as an unhappy business. On business see comments on 3.10. Unhappy is the Revised Standard Version translation of the adjective that Qoheleth frequently uses to portray the bitter pain or sadness of a situation, not its moral value.

A suggestion for translation is:

• Take the case of a man who is all alone. He has no children or relatives. He works all the time. Yet he gets no satisfaction from what he earns. He asks himself, “For whose good am I working, denying myself of pleasure?” This is another puzzling and bitter situation!

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 .