This verse presents considerable difficulties to the interpreter and translator. Not only are there several words whose meaning is difficult to determine, but the relationship of the verse to what comes before and what follows also is not easy to establish. How does this verse fit with the rest of the chapter? Does it flow naturally from what comes before it, or, as some claim, does it have a kind of independent status?

Like verse 6, this verse begins with a Hebrew particle that Revised Standard Version renders as Surely. New Jerusalem Bible and Jerusalem Bible, however, translate the word as “For,” interpreting the clause as indicating a motive. The choice is important, because it determines whether this verse logically follows verse 6, or whether it has a more independent status. As we will see in the discussion that follows, arguments can be made on both views. Since statements that include the term hevel (of the type in verse 6c) are most often found at the end of subsections, it is unlikely that a “because” statement would find its place here. Furthermore, the word “oppression” seems out of context; its sudden appearance may suggest that a new thought is beginning. We will return to this discussion at a later point, since there are many other questions to be considered; however, we can indicate here that our decision will be to treat the connective as the emphatic “Surely [or, Indeed].”

The first question concerns the text itself. Oppression is a subject treated earlier in 4.1 and 5.8; refer to notes there for comments. Because this subject seems inappropriate in this setting, some scholars have suggested that there is a textual error, and that the word should be changed and brought parallel with the term bribe in the latter part of the verse. Most recent scholars reject this solution, but note New English Bible “slander” (Revised English Bible returns to “oppression”) and Jerusalem Bible “laughter,” both of which represent changes to the Hebrew text. The latter seeks to establish a connection with the previous verse.

Makes the wise man foolish is a phrase that presents yet another difficulty owing to problems in determining what the root of the verb is. The verb appears to be from the root for “make foolish,” but it may have another meaning, namely, “boast” or “shout.” In view of the frequency in Qoheleth of the word for “folly” and its appropriateness in the present context, we are probably best to see the verb as meaning “make foolish.” (See comments on 1.17.)

The next question relates to the interpretation of the phrase, which appears to suggest that oppression has the effect of making the wise person into a fool. How does that come about? Lack of context makes any interpretation a matter of personal opinion. Good News Translation takes the view that “when a wise man cheats someone, he is acting like a fool,” meaning that the wise person may act in an oppressing manner. It is also possible that the saying means the wise person is the object of oppression rather than him being the one who carries out the action. A third possibility is that the very existence of oppression in society creates intellectual problems for the wise because it raises serious doubts about the justice of God. We have plenty of evidence that Qoheleth is deeply concerned about the existence of oppression in society. We have seen his comments in 4.1-3, and in 8.10-13 he will discuss the impact that unpunished evil has on the community at large. In view of these other comments from Qoheleth, it may be best to understand him to mean that the very existence of oppression in the world makes the wise person’s advice difficult for many to accept.

Because of these difficulties in fixing the meaning of the text, our translation cannot be too narrow. We can say “oppression takes away the value of what the wise says,” “oppression makes the sage appear foolish,” or “oppression makes foolish the sage’s advice.” It may be necessary to say who is oppressing who. We will want to be as general as possible, so two possibilities are “When people oppress each other, this makes the advice of the wise seem ridiculous” or “In times of oppression, the wise person’s advice looks foolish.”

And a bribe corrupts the mind: the Hebrew says literally “a gift destroys the mind.” Although bribe is feminine, it follows a masculine verb form; but this is a common occurrence with inanimate subjects in Hebrew. The Qumran fragment of this text has “twist” or “bend” in place of the verb corrupts. This is an attractive possibility, since it is close to the sense of the verb “make foolish.” Whichever is correct, the saying seems to be arguing that a “gift” or bribe can influence the receiver improperly. Having said that, however, we should also recognize that the giving of a bribe corrupts the giver as well. This thought may also be present in the text. It is perhaps more likely that Qoheleth is thinking in terms of receiving a gift and of the effect that has on a person’s ability to judge impartially. In many languages an expression like “A bribe spoils a person,” or even “A bribe spoils a person’s head,” will give the proper meaning.

Mind (literally “heart”) refers then to the place where a person makes moral judgments, to a person’s ability to judge fairly and justly. The translator will need to find a natural equivalent. The Hebrew term “heart” has no possessive suffix attached to it, so it is difficult to tell whose heart is being talked about. It seems likely that Qoheleth is making a general statement about every person rather than referring to the wise in particular. It is possible to regard mind as representing the whole person, and simply say here “a bribe corrupts” or “a bribe corrupts a person.”

Some models for translation are:

• a bribe can divert a person from honest judgment

• a bribe will hinder fair judgment

or more literally:

• a bribe corrupts a person [or, person’s mind].

We now come back to the problem of the interpretation of the Hebrew connective that opens the verse. As we saw above, our view of its function will determine how we see the relationship of this verse to the rest of the text. We note that several solutions have been offered.

Some scholars think that this verse should follow verse 12. Others have suggested adding a verse such as Pro 16.8 to the present text to replace something that they think has been omitted. None of these suggestions has any textual support and all can be rejected. However, it is possible to see this verse as an example of the problems the wise person encounters: wise advice is generally ignored because people are too ready to listen to fools, and their minds are easily turned. Or alternatively we can see the verse as commenting on the limits of even wise people. This latter analysis of the text would mean that verse 7 follows on from verses 5 and 6 to end the subunit. The fact that verse 8 with its double “better” saying clearly starts a new subsection would be in favor of this analysis.

Whichever interpretation translators choose, and whatever relationship verse 7 has to its context, the verse does not appear to operate as a motive clause. Thus a word like Surely or “Really” may be appropriate. In some languages an affirming word or expression such as “Yes” or “You know” may be effective. Another possibility is to simply leave the particle untranslated, as in Good News Translation.

The complete verse can read:

• Yes, in times of oppression a wise man’s advice looks foolish and a bribe corrupts anybody.

• And you know, when oppression comes, even a wise person turns into a fool; and as for bribes, they cloud anyone’s judgment.

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 .