Ecclesiastes 2:8 discusses the many things that Solomon collected for himself. At the end of the verse it mentions to something described as "the delights of the sons of men". But what precisely these delights are differ enormously between translations, for instance:
KJV: I gathered me also silver and gold, and the peculiar treasure of kings and of the provinces: I gat me men singers and women singers, and the delights of the sons of men, as musical instruments, and that of all sorts.
DRV: I heaped together for myself silver and gold, and the wealth of kings, and provinces: I made me singing men, and singing women, and the delights of the sons of men, cups and vessels to serve to pour out wine:
ESV: I also gathered for myself silver and gold and the treasure of kings and provinces. I got singers, both men and women, and many concubines, the delight of the sons of man.
Musical instruments, cups and vessels for wine, concubines? How come there is so much disagreement? It's rather fascinating when you dig into it.
The Hebrew words in question are the last two in the verse:
שִׁדָּ֥ה וְשִׁדֹּֽות׃
These are (reading right to left) the singular and plural form of the word "shiddah" (Strongs H7705). This is the only time this word appears in all of scripture, making it an obscure term with a debatable meaning.
When the meaning of a word is unclear, it can be helpful to refer to the LXX. The LXX renders these words "οἰνοχόον καὶ οἰνοχόας", literally "cupbearers and jugs". That might be correct. But James Aitken suggests that the LXX translator may have understood the Hebrew to mean something like "male and female cupbearers", and also noted that the Hebrew was a poetic pair of similar words. The translator may have put poetic sound ahead of meaning, and chosen a pair of Greek words that maintained the poetry at the expense of accuracy.
The Latin Vulgate renders the end of this verse "scyphos et urceos in ministerio ad vina fundenda". I can't read Latin, but the word "vina" in here clearly shows that it refers to wine, so this verse appears to have been either translated from the LXX or used the LXX to dictate the meaning of the Hebrew.
The Douay-Rheims version is the classic Catholic English bible, an 1899 translation of the Vulgate. So the DRV refers to "cups and vessels to serve out wine". Essentially, the Douay-Rheims here seems to be the end of a chain of Chinese whispers from Hebrew -> Greek -> Latin -> English, where the meaning has developed with each translation.
The KJV on the other hand renders it "musical instruments". I can find no ancient textual support for this whatsoever, it appears to have been invented by the English translators. The best argument for it I could find from KJV-only apologetics was essentially that despite the earlier Bishops Bible and Geneva Bible both translating this "women taken captive", it actually means "musical instruments" simply because the verse talks about singers just before this, and obviously singers need musical instruments. This seems to be clutching at straws.
So let's have a look at the Hebrew words themselves. Note that I am not a Hebrew scholar, I just know enough of the basics to get myself into trouble, but I do think that this is rather clear. Hebrew is fascinating in that each letter originally had a meaning. The meaning of a word is often related to the meaning of the letters within that word.
The three letters in shiddah (right to left) are Shin, Resh, Hey. In the original pictographic Hebrew:
Shin = Two front teeth. Meanings: Sharp, Press, Eat, Two
Resh = Head of a man. Meanings: First, Top, Beginning
Hey = Man with arms raised. Meanings: Look, Reveal, Breath
Shin and Resh together make the word shad (שַׁד, H7699), meaning breast. Shin = eat, Resh = beginning, what you eat in the beginning = breast milk. The word is clearly strongly related to the meanings of the letters in that word.
So shiddah = Breast (shin + resh) + Hey... Which, completely crudely, sounds to me like "one who reveals the breast" or "look at the breast". The fact that the letter "Hey" is a stick figure with their arms raised only adds to the vivid mental imagery... In other words, a wife or concubine.
Supporting the LXX rendering, the Brown-Driver-Briggs concordance suggests that shiddah could be related to the Aramaic word שְׁדָא meaning "pour out". This is Shin - Resh - Aleph, with Aleph being originally a picture of an ox head meaning strong, power, or leader. So Shin - Resh (what you eat first) plus strong leader would suggest a word meaning something like "what the strong leader wants to drink" or "how the strong leader now drinks". So the LXX and Vulgate translations are somewhat understandable. But shiddah is not שְׁדָא , it is שִׁדָּ֥ה. It does not contain the word שְׁדָא, but it does contain the word שַׁד, or breast. So it makes far more sense that it would be related to breasts, than related to wine.
Strongs suggests that it is derived from shaddad (שָׁדַד, H7703), meaning "spoil" or "destroy". But I can't see how anything relating to the delights of men could be derived from that word, and once again a letter has to be removed before this word can be transformed into shiddah. It still seems more closely related to shad. This suggestion seems to be simply obfuscation, hiding the relationship with breast.
This verse seems to very clearly refer to Solomon's many wives and concubines, and call these clearly "the delights of men". Even the early Bishops and Geneva English Bibles recognised that they had something to do with women. Yet this was then covered up for hundreds of years. Protestants using the KJV read "musical instruments". Catholics reading the DRV read "cups and vessels". Only in the 19th century did a few obsure versions mention this, with Youngs Literal rendering it accurately (in my opinion) as "a wife and wives", and the Darby bible using the term "concubines". Only in the 20th century did mainstream versions such as the NASB, ESV and NIV start to translate this "concubines". Even now, every mainstream version sticks with the term "concubines" to give a negative spin on the passage, since all Western Christians have been conditioned to see concubines as wrong, no translation I have seen other than Youngs Literal uses the neutral term "wives".
It's a fascinating and ancient cover-up operation. Can't have men thinking that "the delights of men" are many wives, have to redirect them into thinking it's cupbearers and cups (LXX), better keep the priests thinking about alcohol rather than women (Vulgate), redirect the general English-speaking public to think musical instruments or cups (KJV, DRV)... Oh bother, now the general public has access to lexicons and might start to see through it, fortunately we prepared them for this by teaching them concubines are evil, so use that word. Can't have anyone tempted to delight in many wives...
In conclusion, just in case you forgot: Shin, Resh, Hey. Breasts, arms raised (look!). The delights of men. Hebrew is wonderful!
KJV: I gathered me also silver and gold, and the peculiar treasure of kings and of the provinces: I gat me men singers and women singers, and the delights of the sons of men, as musical instruments, and that of all sorts.
DRV: I heaped together for myself silver and gold, and the wealth of kings, and provinces: I made me singing men, and singing women, and the delights of the sons of men, cups and vessels to serve to pour out wine:
ESV: I also gathered for myself silver and gold and the treasure of kings and provinces. I got singers, both men and women, and many concubines, the delight of the sons of man.
Musical instruments, cups and vessels for wine, concubines? How come there is so much disagreement? It's rather fascinating when you dig into it.
The Hebrew words in question are the last two in the verse:
שִׁדָּ֥ה וְשִׁדֹּֽות׃
These are (reading right to left) the singular and plural form of the word "shiddah" (Strongs H7705). This is the only time this word appears in all of scripture, making it an obscure term with a debatable meaning.
When the meaning of a word is unclear, it can be helpful to refer to the LXX. The LXX renders these words "οἰνοχόον καὶ οἰνοχόας", literally "cupbearers and jugs". That might be correct. But James Aitken suggests that the LXX translator may have understood the Hebrew to mean something like "male and female cupbearers", and also noted that the Hebrew was a poetic pair of similar words. The translator may have put poetic sound ahead of meaning, and chosen a pair of Greek words that maintained the poetry at the expense of accuracy.
The Latin Vulgate renders the end of this verse "scyphos et urceos in ministerio ad vina fundenda". I can't read Latin, but the word "vina" in here clearly shows that it refers to wine, so this verse appears to have been either translated from the LXX or used the LXX to dictate the meaning of the Hebrew.
The Douay-Rheims version is the classic Catholic English bible, an 1899 translation of the Vulgate. So the DRV refers to "cups and vessels to serve out wine". Essentially, the Douay-Rheims here seems to be the end of a chain of Chinese whispers from Hebrew -> Greek -> Latin -> English, where the meaning has developed with each translation.
The KJV on the other hand renders it "musical instruments". I can find no ancient textual support for this whatsoever, it appears to have been invented by the English translators. The best argument for it I could find from KJV-only apologetics was essentially that despite the earlier Bishops Bible and Geneva Bible both translating this "women taken captive", it actually means "musical instruments" simply because the verse talks about singers just before this, and obviously singers need musical instruments. This seems to be clutching at straws.
So let's have a look at the Hebrew words themselves. Note that I am not a Hebrew scholar, I just know enough of the basics to get myself into trouble, but I do think that this is rather clear. Hebrew is fascinating in that each letter originally had a meaning. The meaning of a word is often related to the meaning of the letters within that word.
The three letters in shiddah (right to left) are Shin, Resh, Hey. In the original pictographic Hebrew:
Shin = Two front teeth. Meanings: Sharp, Press, Eat, Two
Resh = Head of a man. Meanings: First, Top, Beginning
Hey = Man with arms raised. Meanings: Look, Reveal, Breath
Shin and Resh together make the word shad (שַׁד, H7699), meaning breast. Shin = eat, Resh = beginning, what you eat in the beginning = breast milk. The word is clearly strongly related to the meanings of the letters in that word.
So shiddah = Breast (shin + resh) + Hey... Which, completely crudely, sounds to me like "one who reveals the breast" or "look at the breast". The fact that the letter "Hey" is a stick figure with their arms raised only adds to the vivid mental imagery... In other words, a wife or concubine.
Supporting the LXX rendering, the Brown-Driver-Briggs concordance suggests that shiddah could be related to the Aramaic word שְׁדָא meaning "pour out". This is Shin - Resh - Aleph, with Aleph being originally a picture of an ox head meaning strong, power, or leader. So Shin - Resh (what you eat first) plus strong leader would suggest a word meaning something like "what the strong leader wants to drink" or "how the strong leader now drinks". So the LXX and Vulgate translations are somewhat understandable. But shiddah is not שְׁדָא , it is שִׁדָּ֥ה. It does not contain the word שְׁדָא, but it does contain the word שַׁד, or breast. So it makes far more sense that it would be related to breasts, than related to wine.
Strongs suggests that it is derived from shaddad (שָׁדַד, H7703), meaning "spoil" or "destroy". But I can't see how anything relating to the delights of men could be derived from that word, and once again a letter has to be removed before this word can be transformed into shiddah. It still seems more closely related to shad. This suggestion seems to be simply obfuscation, hiding the relationship with breast.
This verse seems to very clearly refer to Solomon's many wives and concubines, and call these clearly "the delights of men". Even the early Bishops and Geneva English Bibles recognised that they had something to do with women. Yet this was then covered up for hundreds of years. Protestants using the KJV read "musical instruments". Catholics reading the DRV read "cups and vessels". Only in the 19th century did a few obsure versions mention this, with Youngs Literal rendering it accurately (in my opinion) as "a wife and wives", and the Darby bible using the term "concubines". Only in the 20th century did mainstream versions such as the NASB, ESV and NIV start to translate this "concubines". Even now, every mainstream version sticks with the term "concubines" to give a negative spin on the passage, since all Western Christians have been conditioned to see concubines as wrong, no translation I have seen other than Youngs Literal uses the neutral term "wives".
It's a fascinating and ancient cover-up operation. Can't have men thinking that "the delights of men" are many wives, have to redirect them into thinking it's cupbearers and cups (LXX), better keep the priests thinking about alcohol rather than women (Vulgate), redirect the general English-speaking public to think musical instruments or cups (KJV, DRV)... Oh bother, now the general public has access to lexicons and might start to see through it, fortunately we prepared them for this by teaching them concubines are evil, so use that word. Can't have anyone tempted to delight in many wives...
In conclusion, just in case you forgot: Shin, Resh, Hey. Breasts, arms raised (look!). The delights of men. Hebrew is wonderful!
