Two similar but not quite parallel sayings carry the theme of this verse. Each is marked by a participle of the verb “love,” indicating “one who loves.” Then the object of their passion is identified (money or wealth). The first clause concludes that such people will not be satisfied. Although this verb is lacking from the second clause, it can be understood and supplied from the context. Quite often in Hebrew poetry one verb serves both parts of the verse: see Psa 98.5, 7, for example. In Eccl 7.1 the phrase “is better than” in the first half of the verse serves the second half also.

This saying is almost certainly a proverb quoted by Qoheleth to introduce the topic of materialism. Translators can attempt to preserve the proverbial style of the saying by imitating the rhythm of the two parallel lines or by inserting stylistic features of proverbs in their own language. This may involve changing the sentence type or the form of the pronoun.

He who loves money: the participle of the verb “love” is an indefinite expression and can be rendered “Anyone who loves.” Alternatively we can use the conditional “If anyone loves,” as the example gives an imaginary situation for us to consider. The object of that love is “silver” or money. In some cultures translators may have to adapt the verb “love” if it has a restricted personal or sexual meaning. To “love money” can mean several things: the desire to get as much of it as possible; thinking about money all the time; making money the highest goal of life, and allowing it to dominate our affections. All these ideas can be summed up in a translation like “Anyone who strives only to become as wealthy as possible…,” or “Anyone whose goal in life is only to make more money….”

Will not be satisfied with money: on the basis of experience, both their own and others’, the wise people of Israel all agreed that those who made money the focus of life would never find satisfaction in it. Qoheleth agrees, but he does not give his reasons why this is so until verse 11. Presumably the reason we are never satisfied is that we always want more. Satisfied means to have enough of something so that we feel our needs are met. When we think that we need more, what we have does not satisfy us.

We can suggest some renderings as follows:

• If you love money, you will find it does not satisfy you.

• One who is only interested in making money will never have enough.

Nor he who loves wealth: this second clause also features the participle “one who loves.” There is a minor problem in this text, as the preposition attached to wealth, the object of the participle loves, is unusual. The preposition should perhaps be omitted. Like “money” in the first clause, wealth represents possession of great amounts of whatever the culture regards as valuable property. The Hebrew of this clause begins with the pronoun who used in the sense of “whoever” or “anyone.” Revised Standard Version nor is the connector that indicates that the second clause is parallel with the first. We can also use “in the same way…” or “likewise….”

With gain is Revised Standard Version‘s attempt to render the negative particle “not” attached to the noun “grain, produce, income.” Gordis’ suggestion is that, because there is no verb in this clause and the negative particle is the form that should precede a verb, we should alter the noun to the verbal phrase “will not come to him.” (The noun used here for gain, “income,” is formed from the root “come.”) Even without altering the text, it is obvious that this is what the sense requires, and so this can be reflected in translation: “Likewise, anyone whose goal is to be wealthy will not attain it.” Good News Translation “if you long to be rich, you will never get all you want” expresses this same idea clearly.

If possible the parallel structure of the two lines can be respected, retaining the poetic rhythm present in the Hebrew:

• For the one who loves money, never enough money.
For the one who loves wealth, never enough income.

Some languages may prefer to avoid the repetition of ideas, combining the two clauses into one. This is acceptable, though it may take away from the proverbial style of the text.

If we are correct in assuming that this saying is a quotation, we can enclose it in quotes, indent it, or add an introductory phrase like “It has been said, ….”

This also is vanity: see comments in “Translating Ecclesiastes,” page 2, on the meaning of the so-called “vanity” term hevel. Good News Translation again uses “It is useless,” and once again we feel that this is an inadequate rendering. Qoheleth has summarized the universal experience that material things cannot satisfy. Every living being needs material things for survival, and these things can and should be enjoyed. They certainly are not useless. Qoheleth’s comment is actually much more profound. When he uses the term hevel, he is expressing his deep amazement at the fact that people keep longing for the security that wealth appears to offer. Yet they also know that they will never have all they would like to have. Only the fool does not understand that people who spend their lives seeking money are fooling themselves.

Our translation can be “This is something of a mystery” or “This, too, is so hard to understand.”

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 .