Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10 in the NWT

Zico

5 For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten.

10 All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in She´ol, the place to which you are going.

As I'm sure you know, the Society always use this scripture as proof that the bible teaches that those who die have no mind at all. However, I have looked up this scripture in other translations, and can't find any translations which state that the dead are conscious of nothing. So, my question is, is this a mistranslation used by the Society to prove their teaching? Is that what the original writer (Solomon?) wanted to say?

Thanks,

Zico

poppers

So, my question is, is this a mistranslation used by the Society to prove their teaching?

Gee, I don't know Zico. But I do know that others also teach that the dead know nothing. I was listening to a radio show on a network devoted to SDA's and the speaker said that if the dead were conscious after death then surely Lazarus would have said something about it after Jesus brought him back to life.

Narkissos

The Hebrew text actually uses the verb yd`, "to know".

NRSV: The living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no more reward, and even the memory of them is lost. Their love and their hate and their envy have already perished; never again will they have any share in all that happens under the sun. (...) Whatever your hand finds to do, do with your might; for there is no work (ma`aseh) or thought (cheshbôn) or knowledge (da`ath, from the same root yd`) or wisdom (chokhmah) in Sheol, to which you are going.

While "to be conscious of" overtranslates yd` (as usual in the NWT), this is not semantically far off the mark. Otoh one must note that this reflects one of many views in the Bible, most likely an early form of the Sadducean perspective which owes much to epicurean influence and also rejects resurrection...

fullofdoubtnow

I looked it up in a few other translations on gateway passage lookup, and it generally says the dead know nothing, as in the English Standard Version:

For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten.

It seems to jmply the same as the NWT to me, just using slightly differrent terminology

sir82

if the dead were conscious after death then surely Lazarus would have said something about it after Jesus brought him back to life.

This line of "reasoning" is also found in the new "Bible Teach" book as well.

But, how do we know Lazarus didn't say anything? Lazarus isn't quoted at all in the Bible. He "didn't say anything" in the Bible about the moon being made of green cheese, either. Thus, since he didn't say anything about it, we must accept that it is made of green cheese, right?

I'm not saying that I necessarily agree that the dead are conscious. I'm just pointing out that it is shoddy reasoning.

drew sagan

The book of Ecclesiastes is an anceint form of literature in which two voices are speaking. These two voices can be labels as:
1. The Humanist
2. The Theist
This can be eaisly seen by how opposite many of the texts appear to be in the book. Would a Jehovah's Witness ever say that this is ment to be literal:

1 For I took all this to my heart, even to search out all this, that the righteous ones and the wise ones and their works are in the hand of the [true] God. Mankind are not aware of either the love or the hate that were all prior to them. 2 All are the same in what all have. One eventuality there is to the righteous one and the wicked one, the good one and the clean one and the unclean one, and the one sacrificing and the one that is not sacrificing. The good one is the same as the sinner; the one swearing is the same as whoever has been afraid of a sworn oath. 3 This is what is calamitous in all that has been done under the sun, that, because there is one eventuality to all, the heart of the sons of men is also full of bad; and there is madness in their heart during their lifetime, and after it—to the dead ones!

In this passage the voice of the Humanist states that to be good is to be the same as bad. It dosn't matter what you do, it has no bearing on your eternal future.
Opposite of this of course if the voice of the Theist who in a later passage states:

Remember, now, your Grand Creator in the days of your young manhood, before the calamitous days proceed to come, or the years have arrived when you will say: “I have no delight in them”; 2 before the sun and the light and the moon and the stars grow dark, and the clouds have returned, afterward the downpour; 3 in the day when the keepers of the house tremble, and the men of vital energy have bent themselves, and the grinding women have quit working because they have become few, and the ladies seeing at the windows have found it dark; 4 and the doors onto the street have been closed, when the sound of the grinding mill becomes low, and one gets up at the sound of a bird, and all the daughters of song sound low. 5 Also, they have become afraid merely at what is high, and there are terrors in the way. And the almond tree carries blossoms, and the grasshopper drags itself along, and the caper berry bursts, because man is walking to his long-lasting house and the wailers have marched around in the street; 6 before the silver cord is removed, and the golden bowl gets crushed, and the jar at the spring is broken, and the waterwheel for the cistern has been crushed. 7 Then the dust returns to the earth just as it happened to be and the spirit itself returns to the [true] God who gave it.

Please also note that in the final verse (which I bolded) many say that the word 'itself' should not be there, but instead it should read 'the spirit returns to the [true] God who gave it.

There are much more deeper commentaries on this, but I think this can give you the basic idea of what is going on in the book of Ecclesiastes and why doctrine shouldn't be pulled from the book on the basis of one verse.

poppers

if the dead were conscious after death then surely Lazarus would have said something about it after Jesus brought him back to life.

This line of "reasoning" is also found in the new "Bible Teach" book as well.
But, how do we know Lazarus didn't say anything? Lazarus isn't quoted at all in the Bible. He "didn't say anything" in the Bible about the moon being made of green cheese, either. Thus, since he didn't say anything about it, we must accept that it is made of green cheese, right?
I'm not saying that I necessarily agree that the dead are conscious. I'm just pointing out that it is shoddy reasoning.

I agree.

drew sagan

poppers is correct.
One should not build doctrine upon what is not said in the Bible. To do so is basing arguements on nothing but conjecture.

hamsterbait

It is interesting that Dante uses this scripture to explain the conversations of those in Hell and Purgatory.

They can remember what happened during their lifetimes, and to some extent are allowed to foretell the future, but all knowledge of current affairs in the world are closed to them.

I always wondered about the mention of wages...

HB

Narkissos

drew sagan,

Whereas the book of Ecclesiastes was probably altered (cf. in particular the successive conclusions) before it made it into the canon (which was ultimately decided by the Sadducees' enemies), I tend to disagree with the dualistic approach you outlined.

The author of the "pessimistic" statements who questions the classical Jewish doctrine of reward and punishment in this life (and, at least implicitly, the later doctrine of reward and punishment in the next world) is a theist. Only, his "God" is remote (5:1f), mysterious (3:11ff; 8:17; 11:5), and cannot be expected to get involved in reward and punishment. He is the source of both life's joys (2:24; 3:13; 5:18ff; 8:15; 9:7) and pains (1:13; 6:2), resulting in overwhelming "vanity" (7:13f). The righteous' advantage in life is, at most, provisional and modest (2:26; 7:18,26; 8:12f). God is to be "feared" (5:4-7; 7:18; 8:12f; 12:13), but there is little else to expect from him.

The statement about man's ruach ultimately getting back to God in 12:7 may be compared to 3:18-21: "I said in my heart with regard to human beings that God is testing them to show that they are but animals. For the fate of humans and the fate of animals is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and humans have no advantage over the animals; for all is vanity. All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knows whether the human spirit goes upward and the spirit of animals goes downward to the earth?" True, chapter 12 seems to finally answer the last question positively; whether it comes from the same hand or is a later addition is debatable, but even if it does there is quite a leap from it to the Pharisaic and Christian idea of post mortem individual hope.

Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10 in the NWT

Share this