The Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek that is translated as “wisdom” in English is rendered in Amganad Ifugao and Tabasco Chontal as “(big) mind,” in Bulu and Yamba as “heart-thinking,” in Tae’ as “cleverness of heart” (source for this and all above: Reiling / Swellengrebel), in Palauan as “bright spirit (innermost)” (source: Bratcher / Hatton), in Ixcatlán Mazatec as “with your best/biggest thinking” (source: Robert Bascom), in Noongar as dwangka-boola, lit. “ear much” (source: Portions of the Holy Bible in the Nyunga language of Australia, 2018 — see also remember), and in Dobel, it is translated with the idiom “their ear holes are long-lasting” (in Acts 6:3) (source: Jock Hughes).
Some languages do not have a concept of kingship and therefore no immediate equivalent for the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin that is translated as “king” in English. Here are some (back-) translations:
Ninia Yali: “big brother with the uplifted name” (source: Daud Soesilio in Noss 2007, p. 175)
Nyamwezi: mutemi: generic word for ruler, by specifying the city or nation it becomes clear what kind of ruler (source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
Ghomála’: Fo (“The word Fo refers to the paramount ruler in the kingdoms of West Cameroon. He holds administrative, political, and religious power over his own people, who are divided into two categories: princes (descendants of royalty) and servants (everyone else).” (Source: Michel Kenmogne in Theologizing in Context: An Example from the Study of a Ghomala’ Christian Hymn))
Faye Edgerton retells how the term in Navajo was determined:
“[This term was] easily expressed in the language of Biblical culture, which had kings and noblemen with their brilliant trappings and their position of honor and praise. But leadership among the Navajos is not accompanied by any such titles or distinctions of dress. Those most respected, especially in earlier days, were their headmen, who were the leaders in raids, and the shaman, who was able to serve the people by appealing for them to the gods, or by exorcising evil spirits. Neither of these made any outward show. Neither held his position by political intrigue or heredity. If the headman failed consistently in raids, he was superceded by a better warrior. If the shaman failed many times in his healing ceremonies, it was considered that he was making mistakes in the chants, or had lost favor with the gods, and another was sought. The term Navajos use for headman is derived from a verb meaning ‘to move the head from side to side as in making an oration.’ The headman must be a good orator, able to move the people to go to war, or to follow him in any important decision. This word is naat’áanii which now means ‘one who rules or bosses.’ It is employed now for a foreman or boss of any kind of labor, as well as for the chairman of the tribal council. So in order to show that the king is not just a common boss but the highest ruler, the word ‘aláahgo, which expresses the superlative degree, was put before naat’áanii, and so ‘aláahgo naat’áanii ‘anyone-more-than-being around-he-moves-his-head-the-one-who’ means ‘the highest ruler.’ Naat’áanii was used for governor as the context usually shows that the person was a ruler of a country or associated with kings.”
Who…?: the use of questions has been a major feature in this section, 6.1–8.15. Two question were found at 6.12, and a single one at 7.13. The questions at 6.12 were shown to have a special function in the discourse; they actually set the scene for the discussion in chapter 7. Thus, instead of recommending that they be treated like other rhetorical questions, with the possibility of their being replaced with negative statement, we suggested that the question form should be retained. Here in 8.1 we have a similar situation. In the first part of the verse Qoheleth asks what a wise person is like, and in the second part he answers that question. We strongly recommend that translators preserve the question form of these two lines.
The question here can be rendered in a number of ways. As noted, we can say:
• Who is the person who best resembles [is like] the true sage?
• Who is really wise?
• What is a wise person really like?
• How do we recognize a truly wise person?
This last form has the advantage of leading into the answer in the second part of the verse.
If using a question is not possible, then we can say something like “Let me tell you…” or “I will tell you what the truly wise person is like.”
And who knows the interpretation of a thing?: this second question defines more narrowly what Qoheleth asks in the first broad question. The two questions are not different but supplementary. This one asks whether anyone can know the interpretation of a thing. In this phrase we meet the only occasion in biblical Hebrew of the term pesher, rendered here as interpretation. It is a term borrowed from Aramaic. It is used often in the Dead Sea Scrolls of Qumran to describe the commentaries on parts of numerous Old Testament writings. Using the term pesher in the context of wisdom writing is appropriate, for the wise man’s task was to explain the meaning of events and situations he observed. Interpretation, or “explanation of what things mean,” is bound here with the noun davar, which can mean either “matter” or “word.” In verses 2-5 davar is used with both senses, so we cannot restrict its meaning here in verse 1. The very general term “things” offers a solution for translation in some languages.
Some translation suggestions are:
• Who is it who best resembles the wise man? Who is it who knows what things mean?
• Who is really a wise man? Who really knows the meaning of things?
In Hebrew the two questions are joined by the conjunction waw. Thus, instead of two separate sentences, we can combine the two if necessary:
• What does it mean to be wise and to know the meaning of things?
• How do you recognize the person who is wise, the one who knows the meaning of things?
A man’s wisdom makes his face shine: Qoheleth now answers his own question. Attention focuses on a person’s face; when you look at a person’s face you can tell whether or not they are wise. There is something about the face of a wise person that reflects the fountain of wisdom within; wisdom lights up that person’s face. Man here is a generic term for any person. English and some other languages can use “someone” or “a person.”
Used transitively the verb shine elsewhere describes God’s face “shining” in blessing on people (Num 6.25), and those who represent God are also described in the same way as in Psa 80.3, 7. If a person’s face “shines” in this sense, it means they “look with favor on someone.” In these cases the idea is clearly metaphorical, not literal. When Moses face “shone” (Exo 34.29-30) a different verb is used. However, Qoheleth’s expression here uses the verb intransitively to say the person’s face will literally shine. The intransitive use speaks of inner wisdom changing the appearance of the wise person. This is then similar to the phrase about a change in a person’s facial appearance, which follows. The whole expression can also be rendered in the form “If a person is truly wise, his face….”
The translator should search for a culturally appropriate expression here. Most languages have a way of saying a person’s face “lights up.” However, the meaning of the idiom may not apply to the effects of wisdom on a person. If the image does not have the equivalent meaning and cannot be transferred, then the sense will have to be conveyed in another way. Examples may be “their face reflects their wisdom” or “When someone is wise, you can see it in their face.” That a person’s face reflects wisdom is far more profound than Good News Translation‘s “makes him smile.” The Hebrew idiom does not describe how the wise man feels, but what his face reveals about him.
In translation we can say:
• A person’s wisdom is reflected in his [or, that person’s] face.
• You can tell from looking at a person’s face that he [or, that person] is wise.
• If a person is truly wise, his [or, that person’s] face will show it.
And the hardness of his countenance is changed: supplementing the first phrase is this one, which also tells of the change that wisdom can bring about in a person. Countenance means “face” (see comments on 7.3), and hardness of … countenance describes a person’s harsh facial appearance, a severe, unfriendly appearance (Jerusalem Bible “grim”). It also suggests a determination to get your own way, and a generally uncaring attitude toward others. Here again what a person is like inside is reflected in their appearance. Good News Translation “frowns” can indicate unfriendliness or disappointment but does not necessarily mean that a person is very determined and hard. Likewise New American Bible “impudent face” does not reflect the true meaning.
Wisdom brings about a change in a person. In Hebrew, what Revised Standard Version has rendered as is changed actually points to the possibility of change, so we can say “will be changed” or “will change,” or we can use a present tense, “changes.” Qoheleth does not say what the person’s appearance changes into, but the clear understanding is that the change will be for the better, to a softer, more gentle appearance. There are languages in which it will be necessary to say what the face changes to. Good News Translation‘s “makes … disappear” is a good alternative for the verbal phrase. For translation some possibilities are “It takes away the hardness from their face,” “Their harsh appearance changes,” or “[Wisdom] will give them a more gentle appearance.”
The whole verse can be translated as follows:
• What is a wise person really like? And who really knows the meaning of things? You can recognize him [or, the wise person] by the wisdom in his face. His hard appearance changes.
• How can you tell what the wise person is like? Who really knows what things mean? When you look at the face of a wise person, you can tell [immediately]. Wisdom changes a person’s hard appearance.
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 .