The unity of these two verses is made apparent by the repetition of the Hebrew adjective raʿ, which opens the text in verse 1 and closes it in verse 2. It means literally “an evil,” or something painful. Most translations render this adjective by two different words (Revised Standard Version evil and sore), so the repetition is not readily visible. If it is possible, translators should try to retain the same adjective in both places, to preserve some of the stylistic effect of these verses.

There is an evil which I have seen under the sun is a phrase almost identical to one in 5.13. See comments there. All that this verse lacks of that phrase is the adjective “grievous.” There is no reason to follow those commentators who wish to add that adjective here to make it conform with 5.13. Qoheleth is very flexible in his use of phrases.

And it lies heavy upon men: literally “and it is great [or, heavy] upon the man [or, mankind].” Revised Standard Version lies heavy upon interprets the adjective as something burdensome. See also Jerusalem Bible “it weighs men down.” However, it is probably best to retain the more basic sense “much,” or “great,” indicating extent. This gives a translation “widespread,” “common,” or “prevalent.” The appropriate preposition to follow this would be “in” or “among” rather than upon. Men uses the generic form, meaning “people” or “the community.”

Possible translations of verse 1 are as follows:

• Here is another terrible thing I have observed, and it is very common [in the community].

• There is another horrible thing I have discovered in this world, and it happens all the time.

• There is another evil I have seen here on earth, and it affects a lot of people.

A man: Qoheleth now describes in detail the terrible situation he witnessed. In some languages the transition from verse 1 to verse 2 may be more natural by adding a phrase like “It is the case of a man….” What was expressed as a general form (“the community,” “people”) is now narrowed to one representative person (Hebrew ʾish). This change can be reflected in translation by “person,” or “someone.”

To whom God gives wealth, possessions, and honor: just as in 5.19, where God was the one who donated “wealth and possession,” so too here. See comments on 5.19. Additionally this person is said to have received honor. The Hebrew term for honor may indicate a respected position in society, or a good reputation within the community. On the other hand it can also mean “abundance” or “riches.” It is a problem to determine how Qoheleth uses it, so we seem to have a choice when translating. These same three terms, wealth, possessions and honor, together describe what Solomon received from God in 2 Chr 1.11-12, but that example cannot help us make a decision about the meaning here. However, our present context is of some help. We note as the problem unfolds that the things which this person has are enjoyed by a stranger. Material goods can be inherited and enjoyed by others, but a person’s honor or reputation is hardly the kind of thing someone else can claim and enjoy. For this reason we are probably correct in assuming that here the real meaning of the Hebrew word for honor is “riches.” Good News Translation “wealth, honor, and property” does not seem adequate as a translation. Certain languages may not have three different terms for “wealth,” “possessions,” and “riches,” so this phrase can be reduced if necessary without taking away its meaning: “wealth and possessions” or even “great riches.”

So that he lacks nothing of all that he desires: this phrase explains just how much this person received in the way of wealth and possessions. They were so abundant that he could not possibly imagine having anything more. So he lacks nothing of all that he desires simply means “he has everything he wants.” This is similar to what Good News Translation has, and it is probably more natural than the Hebrew negative form lacks nothing, which Revised Standard Version retains.

Translation possibilities are:

• God gives someone wealth, possessions, and abundant riches. He has everything he wants.

• God gives a person abundant material wealth, so much so that he could not ask for more.

• It is the case of a person to whom God has given great wealth. He has everything he could want.

Yet God does not give him power to enjoy them: the use of the Hebrew conjunction to introduce something contrary to what is expected is well shown by the word yet in Revised Standard Version. In English we can also use “but” or “however” to show that there is an important condition attached to the gift. The phrase does not give him power to enjoy them is repeated from 5.19 except that here it is in the negative. Refer to 5.19 for further comments. The Hebrew expression translated enjoy is the verb “eat” used idiomatically. As noted earlier, many languages have an identical idiom, so if this is the case, a literal translation gives both the form and meaning of the original.

But a stranger enjoys them: the initial ki introduces another statement contrary to expectation; “but,” “on the other hand,” or “instead” are good equivalents. The translator should find a conjunction that reflects the logic here. Some languages have an ironic expression “and then” which may be appropriate. A stranger is a rare term found only here and in Deut 17.15 (“foreigner”). While the person may be from another tribe or a different family, the sense seems to be even more general, that is, “someone else.” It really does not matter who the person actually is. The point of Qoheleth’s problem is that the person who works for something does not get to enjoy it; rather, some other person does.

Some possible translations are:

• However, God does not enable that person to enjoy those gifts; on the contrary, someone else gets to enjoy them.

• However, instead of that person being able to enjoy the gifts God gave, someone else does.

• But God does not allow him to enjoy them; rather a stranger does instead.

This is vanity; it is a sore affliction: the initial demonstrative this points either to the entire situation described, or better, to the problem of another person enjoying someone’s wealth. On the phrase this is vanity, see comments on 2.23. A sore affliction is probably a variation on the phrase used to describe the “sickening” problem in 5.13. As noted above, sore is the same adjective translated “evil” in verse 1. We can see in this example how seriously Qoheleth questions the idea that material success was an obvious sign of divine blessing (as suggested in Pro 13.21, 25). Qoheleth indicates that there is no blessing in having things unless they can be enjoyed.

For translation of this part of the verse, consider the following:

• This situation presents us with a terrible problem; in fact it is sickening.

• What a predicament to be in! It is deeply troubling.

• It is terribly hard to understand why this kind of thing happens. It almost makes you sick.

The whole of verse 2 may be translated as follows:

• It is the case of a person to whom God gives wealth and riches. He has everything he desires. But God does not enable him to enjoy those riches; someone else enjoys them instead. It is very difficult to understand this kind of thing happening. It is enough to make you sick.

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 .