years (age)

In Aekyom, years are counted as “turtles” (ambum).

Norm Mundhenk tells this story:

“Recently I was checking some New Testament material in the Aekyom language of western Papua New Guinea. It seemed relatively clear until suddenly we came to a passage that started, ‘When Jesus had 12 turtles, …’ Surely I had misunderstood what they said.
“‘Did you say that Jesus had 12 turtles?’
“‘Let us explain! Around here there is a certain time every year when river turtles come up on the banks and lay their eggs. Because this is so regular, it can be used as a way of counting years. Someone’s age is said to be how many turtles that person has. So when we say that Jesus had 12 turtles, we mean that Jesus was 12 years old.’
“It was of course the familiar story of Jesus’ trip with his parents to Jerusalem. And certainly, as we all know, Jesus did indeed have 12 turtles at that time!”

In Tok Pisin, krismas (derived from “christmas”) is taken as the fixed annual marker, so Jesus had 12 “christmases” (Jisas i gat 12-pela krismas pinis) or Abram (in Gen. 12:4) had 75 (Abram i gat 75 krismas) (source: Norm Mundhenk). In Noongar it is biroka kadak or “summers had” (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang).

See also advanced in years.

Translation commentary on Ecclesiastes 6:6

Qoheleth now offers a second illustration; the first was in verse 3. The condition is introduced by “Even if….” We distinguish the illustration in this verse from the previous one, since here the person does not receive the riches given to the other one. The former person had everything except the gift or power to enjoy what he had.

In the second illustration the person has very little, enjoying no good. The only merit he had was an extremely long life. The mention of two thousand years is an obvious hyperbole, even more of an exaggeration than having one hundred children. Having a hundred children is unusual but possible; living two thousand years is not possible. We shall discuss the relationship between the two illustrations further when dealing with the problem of identifying the pronoun “he.”

Even though he should live a thousand years twice told: the introductory Hebrew particle does not need amending as some suggest. It can be rendered as “Let us suppose that…” or “If it should happen that….” Est 7.4 is its only other Old Testament use. In both contexts this particle clearly indicates a hypothetical case that is contrary to fact or impossible to realize. Every language has a way of expressing this notion: “Even if he had lived a thousand….”

He presents a problem for translators in terms of establishing the identity of the person; it refers either to the stillborn or miscarried child, or to the father who had a hundred children, or to another third person. What facts will help us reach a decision on this issue? Some translations (Pleiade/em> French version and Bible de Jérusalem) believe it is the last person referred to, that is, the child. Others leave it unclear (Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation). According to grammatical rule of Hebrew, the pronoun should refer back to the last-mentioned person. This would mean that he refers to the father. Additionally the focus for the previous illustration was the father, and only secondarily the child. This fact seems to suggest that he refers again to the person in focus rather than the secondary character. So we conclude that it is the father or another person rather than the child or fetus. From the use of keywords also, the evidence of the repetition of the verb “live” and of the noun “years” seems to point to the father as the one in mind.

Thus our conclusion is that this is a second illustration, and that it refers either to the original father or to another individual. It is not the stillborn child who is meant by the pronoun, as in Bible de Jérusalem for example. However, translators who work in areas where these French translations are known should take special note about how they translate the pronoun, recognizing that there is a different tradition established.

A thousand years twice told is a very literal translation. Meaning two life spans of a thousand years, or two thousand years, it is likely that Qoheleth has drawn on the wording of the traditional blessing from Deut 1.11 (“May the LORD … make you a thousand times as many as you are, and bless you”), doubled it, then applied it to the length of a person’s life. The translator can retain the literal “two times a thousand” or modify to “two thousand.” In some modern situations young speakers may have trouble interpreting large numbers in their mother tongue (they may be more familiar with numbers in trade or official languages). If this is the case it is possible to write the number 2000 in figures or to include it in parentheses following the wording. Alternatively an idiomatic expression designating an excessive or impossible number of years may be substituted. We may say, for example, “Imagine a person who lived ten times longer than normal.”

Yet enjoy no good: the beginning conjunction should be translated as “But” or “However” to show the contrast between living a long life and being poor throughout. The irony of the situation is that the person enjoys nothing good, or no material goods, though blessed without limit in terms of length of life. The blessing actually becomes a curse. Here Qoheleth imagines a situation in which a person “sees” no good things. The verb enjoy (literally “see”) is his frequent idiom for experiencing or obtaining things, not simply looking at them. See the comments on “see” in 2.1, 3.

Suggestions for translation:

• Suppose there was a person who lived for two thousand years but had no worldly goods.

• Take the case of a person who lived for two thousand years, but he obtained no material wealth at all.

Do not all go to the one place?: this is a rhetorical question and appears to have an independent status. We can preserve the question form or render it as a statement. See comments in 3.20. All is a general term that may need to be clarified. We can say “every person,” or perhaps “everything living.” The fact that death comes to every living creature is a frequent topic in Qoheleth’s writing; see 2.14-16; 3.19. On the other hand all can also mean “both,” as Good News Translation and some other translations suggest. Good News Translation says “both of them are going to the same place,” but we cannot tell from that who “both” refers to. If verse 6 actually describes a different situation from verses 3-5, then either we translate as “every living thing” and make the question completely independent. Or we think of “both” as the wealthy person of verse 3 and the long-living person of verse 6. This may be difficult to show in translation; it is certainly simpler to use “every living thing.” Go is again used in the sense of dying (see verse 4 above). The one place or “the same place” is a euphemism for the grave or death, as in 3.20. Again translators may attempt to keep this imagery or to use more explicit expressions.

To translate this question, two possibilities are:

• Don’t all living creatures die?

• Aren’t we all heading for the same place, the grave?

In statement form we may say:

• Death is common to all living beings.

• Every living thing will eventually die.

• Everyone ends up in the same place—the grave.

This verse makes it obvious that Qoheleth considers quality of life as the most important element a person can enjoy, not how long he lives. But no matter how long life is, all will die. By claiming that the stillborn or miscarried child is better off, Qoheleth is claiming that the sooner an unhappy person enters the rest provided by death, the better.

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 .