Translating the Geography of the Book ofAmos in the Bible

Translating the Geography of Amos

One of the problems which makes some translations of the Bible difficult to understand is that direction of movement (words like “come,” “go,” “climb,” “descend,” etc.) is not translated naturally. Amos refers to many places, and makes frequent reference to movement to them or away from them, from one place to another. In this section we would like to give the translator a little help which may make it possible for him to translate such movement more meaningfully.

For many languages, the place in which the message is spoken or written is the viewpoint place. Amos certainly traveled extensively, and it is hard to know exactly where his prophetic activities took place. Probably he stayed in Samaria and Bethel for some time and delivered some of his messages there. But he may have also visited Gilgal and other places. However, the translator should imagine the messages as spoken in Bethel. The choice is somewhat arbitrary, but has some justification, and for many languages the translation will be clearer if a specific place is kept in mind.

In languages where the place of speaking or writing is the viewpoint place, the choice of words like “come” and “go,” and the use of expressions like “went up” and “went down,” should be based not on what the Hebrew or English has, but on the relationship to that viewpoint place. For the translation to be natural, the translator must always keep in mind how the different places are related to Bethel geographically.

But in some other languages the question of viewpoint place is more complicated. Some messages are spoken or written as though the viewpoint place was not the place of speaking, but the place which is important in the message. In that case, the viewpoint place in translation will shift from time to time, as in the first two chapters of Amos, for example. In some languages these two different kinds of viewpoint place may each be used at different times.

The different place names mentioned in Amos are in all directions from Bethel. Also, there are other features of the geography which are important for motion in some languages. The direction of flow in the Jordan River is southward, so north is upstream and south is downstream. For those languages where this is important, for example, Amaziah sent a message “up” to Jeroboam in 7.10.

The mountains are important for some languages where “up” and “down” is a matter of relative height on the mountain. In general, what is near the Jordan and the lakes is down, as is what is near the sea. Within the mountains it may be harder to know. Samaria is higher than Bethel so, again, for languages like this Amaziah’s message went “up” to Jeroboam.

In some languages the important distinction is between going toward or away from the water. If a translator were to use a map, it may be of help in translating meaningfully.

Waard, Jan de ; Smalley, William Allen ; Smalley, William Allen: A Translator's Handbook on the Book of Amos. Stuttgart : United Bible Societies, 1979 (Helps for Translators), S. 8

Introduction to the book of Amos

INTRODUCTION: THE PROPHET 1.1.

This short section forms the title and serves as an introduction to the book of Amos. It has information about the prophet: his name, his social position, the time and place where he lived, why he did what is written here. However, in many languages it will not be understood as a title unless special care is taken in the translation. One way of doing this is to use special type and print the verse in a block under the modern book title:

1 These are the words of Amos, a shepherd from the town of Tekoa. Two years before the earthquake, when Uzziah was king of Judah, and Jeroboam son of Jehoash was king of Israel, God revealed to Amos all these things about Israel.

Section heading. Bible de Jérusalem (bj) uses “Title” before verse 1; Smith-Goodspeed in taking verses 1 and 2 together uses the heading “Title and Purpose of the Book.” New English Bible (neb) prints the words of Amos in capitals. Today’s English Version (tev) omits any section heading.

What the translator should do depends in good part on what he decides about trying to show the balanced structure of the book of Amos in the section headings (see Translating Amos, Section 2.4). If he wants to stay with a simple, traditional set of headings, the best solution is probably not to have any heading here. If he decides to do something along the line of what is suggested in Translating Amos, and to reflect what he can of the balanced structure of the book, then he needs to consider both a heading for the first part of the book (1.1–5.3) and one for this single verse.

For a title to the longer part, in Translating Amos we suggest “Israel’s Guilt; The Prophet’s Responsibility.” This can be translated in such a way as “Israel Has Sinned; The Prophet Must Proclaim/Announce God’s Message.” For verse 1 the heading could be simply “Title” or “Introduction,” or it could be something like “Introduction: The Prophet” or “Introduction: The One Who Spoke God’s Message.”

Amos 1:1.

In Hebrew this verse is a rather difficult sentence with three parts, as is clearly seen in the rsv: (1) “words of Amos, “(2)”who was among the shepherds of Tekoa, “(3)” which he saw concerning Israel in the days of Uzziah king of Judah and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel, two years before the earthquake. “The problem is how (3) relates to (1). One possibility can be expressed like this: “words of Amos, who was among the shepherds of Tekoa, and who had visions …. “Depending on the needs of the language of the translation, such a meaning can be expressed in slightly different ways: “These are the words of Amos, who …; these are the visions which he had”; or “This is the book of the words of Amos, who …; this is the book of the visions which he had …. “The translator may use this meaning, ^* which certainly shows the two major kinds of message in the book,^* although it is not the meaning most scholars prefer. The possibility which most scholars seem to prefer however, is “the words of Amos … which he received” (Smith-Goodspeed),^* as many languages would express it. This implies “which he received from God.” This meaning is the base of the tev: These are the words of Amos … God revealed to Amos all these things …. Or: “This is the book of the words Amos spoke … God gave him these messages about Israel ….”

Amos. This is the only person in the Old Testament who has this name.^* It should be translated as an ordinary name and the spelling adapted to the sounds of the language of the translation. (See Translator’s Handbook on Ruth, 1.2) In doing this the translator should be careful not to use the same spelling as for the different name Amoz in Isaiah 1.1.

Amos’ father is not mentioned, which may be a problem in some languages, but this does not mean anything about Amos’ social position.^* In languages where names should have titles with them, the title for Amos should be based on his role as prophet rather than shepherd (Translating Amos, Section 4). A title suitable for someone who delivered God’s message and spoke it with authority should be used. However, Amos was not a priest or any other kind of official religious leader, and his title should not imply that he was.

In some languages the first introduction of a major person must be indicated by an expression such as “There was a prophet Amos” or “Have Amos,” as it is expressed in some parts of the world. The translator will have to decide whether this introduction is more natural here in verse 1, or (if verse 1 is treated as a title) if it should be in verse 2: “Have prophet Amos, who said”:

“Who was among the shepherds of Tekoa, “(rsv)/ a shepherd from the town of Tekoa. This simply means that Amos was “formerly one of the shepherds from the town of Tekoa.” It does not mean that there were many shepherds living together, as rsv can imply. The tev (compare New American Bible [nab] and neb) may also be misleading as it does not show that this was no longer true.^* Moffatt (mft) correctly translates: “who belonged to the shepherds of Tekoa.”

Shepherd. The Hebrew word translated here is used only one other time in the Old Testament (2 Kgs 3.4) where it is used of Mesha, the king of Moab, and where it has the meaning of “sheep-breeder.” Sheep breeding must have been a rather profitable business as it enabled King Mesha to send the wool of a hundred thousand lambs and a hundred thousand rams to the king of Israel each year. Texts from related cultures^* also seem to indicate that these sheep-breeders were well-to-do, and Amos was probably one of the important men of Tekoa. He was surely more than a simple shepherd:^* “one of the sheep-farmers” (neb).^*

For languages which do not have vocabulary referring to stock raising, it may be possible to use some sort of descriptive phrase (such as “owner of sheep” or even “owner of many sheep”) to show the importance of Amos’ social position. Where people consider sheep to be dirty despised animals, it is even more important that the translation show Amos as the one profiting from owning the sheep rather than caring directly for them, if this is possible. Sheep are known in most parts of the world, although in some places they are called by such names as “cotton deer” or “woolly goat.” Where a specific name for sheep is lacking it may be possible to use a descriptive phrase like “an animal which produces wool.”

“Of Tekoa “(rsv)/ from the town of Tekoa. Tekoa was the town Amos considered his home, even though his ministry was in Bethel. Different languages express the idea of the home town in different ways: “born in the town/ village of Tekoa,” “his (father’s) town/village was Tekoa,” etc. In translation it will often be necessary to include the word “town/village.”^*

“Which he saw concerning Israel “(rsv)/ God revealed to Amos all these things about Israel. tev has changed the order of this phrase. Each translation should use whatever order is smooth and clear. Possible translations have already been discussed, but there are some other problems for the translator if the meaning chosen by the tev is followed.

Reveal. The meaning may be expressed by “made known” or “showed.”

These things, in the tev, are the messages of the book. In some languages the expression for “this” or “these” does not point forward to what follows in the text so cannot be used here. Other restructurings can take care of this problem: “This book contains (or: in this book are written) the words of Amos, … God gave Amos these words to say about Israel ….” Note that now “this book” points outside the text to the book itself, and “these words” points back to “words of Amos.” In other languages something like “the words continuing/going on from here” would be best.

Israel. Since this term has several meanings in the Bible, the translator should make sure that in the translation here it clearly means the kingdom which divided off from David’s and Solomon’s kingdom after Solomon died (1 Kgs 12.16–20; 2 Chr 10.1–19). It may be helpful in some translations to say “the country (or kingdom) of Israel.,”

Two years before the earthquake … king of Israel. See Translating Amos, Section 1. In Hebrew the time of the earthquake is mentioned last, the time of the rulers first. The order is reversed in the tev because for English and many other languages the Hebrew order can be misleading. It can sound like the kings ruled two years before the earthquake rather than that Amos received the message then. Also, Two years before the earthquake is a more specific time than the longer period when the kings ruled. In each language the translator will have to decide what makes the clearest and most natural order.

All of these time periods are mentioned in a way which sounds as though the reader should know all about them, something which may not be true of modern readers. On the other hand, translations in some languages (especially languages without words like the) are likely to sound as though the reader should be learning about this time information for the first time, as though the English were “… two years before an earthquake, when a certain Uzziah was king of a country called Judah, and someone called Jeroboam … was king of another country called Israel.” Such a translation is misleading. All languages have ways of indicating “the one you know about” either grammatically or with special words. Sometimes it is with the use of equivalents for “this” or “that”: “two years before that earthquake … when that Uzziah … and that Jeroboam ….” The reader may not actually know about the earthquake or the kings, but the wording should express to him the idea that he is not being told about them but that they are the setting for the rest of what is being said.

In many languages the two kings should have titles with their names (Translating Amos, Section 4).

Earthquake. Most languages will have a term for earthquake. This earthquake, however, must have been a particularly violent one because it was used for dating in a region where earthquakes are common. The translator may have to say: “two years before the great/violent earthquake.” When there is no equivalent noun in the receptor language, the event can be described in a short phrase “two years before the earth/ ground shook violently.”

bj La Bible de Jérusalem

neb New English Bible

tev Today’s English Version

rsv Revised Standard Version

^* So K. Budde, Zu Text und Auslegung des Buches Amos, JBL 43, 1924, pp. 46–131; 44, 1925, pp. 63–122; E. Sellin, Das Zwölfprophetenbuch übersetzt und erklärt, Leipzig, 1929–30; A. Weiser, Die Prophetie des Amos, ZAW Beih. 53, 1929; idem, Das Buch der zwölf kleinen Propheten I, ATD 24, Göttingen, 1956; K. Cramer, Amos. Versuch einer theologischen Intepretation, BWANT 51, 1930; C. van Gelderen, Het Boek Amos, Kampen, 1933. The same preference is to be found in W. Baumgartner, Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexicon zum Alten Testament I, Leiden, 1967 s.v. hazah, and in the translations of mft Dhorme, and bj. See also J. de Waard, “Selected Translation Problems from the Prophets with Particular Reference to Bamiléké,” TBT 22 (1971):146–154, especially pp. 146–147.

^* Modern research shows that the book of Amos is made up of a collection of oracles together with a collection of reports concerning visions.

^*

The most important arguments for such a reading are to be found in C. F. Keil, Biblischer Commentar über die zwölf kleinen Propheten, Leipzig, 1888; A. van Hoonacker, Les douze petits prophètes, Paris, 1908; J. Touzard, Le livre d’Amos, Paris, 1909; S. Amsler, Amos, in Commentaire de l’Ancien Testament XIa, Neuchâtel, 1965; R. S. Cripps, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Amos, London, 1969; H. W. Wolff, Amos, in Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament XIV/2: Dodekapropheton 2: Joel und Amos, Neukirchen, 1969. The arguments are that (1) in comparable titles of prophetic books of the Old Testament the verb for “to see” is never used without a grammatical object and “words” is the only available object, and (2) this is the way the text has been read by ancient translators. (So all known lxx manuscripts [see J. Ziegler, Duodecim prophetae, in Septuaginta, Vetus Testamentum Graecum auctoritate academiae litterarum Göttingensis editum XIII, Göttingen, 1967] and Vulgate.)

The expression “to see a word” occurs also elsewhere in the Old Testament (Isa 2.1 and Micah 1.1; compare also Isa 13.1 and Hab 1.1), but the remarkable statement that “Amos saw the words of Amos” is without parallel in the Old Testament. It is, of course, true that much of the harshness of the expression is due to the hand of the final redactor who tried to combine the two sources of the book in the title. Though we are able to reconstruct with some degree of certainty the work of a “school of Amos” as well as that of later interpreters and redactors, we are not primarily concerned with such a reconstruction in the field of translation. Our concern is to translate the book of Amos as it has been transmitted, not to give a translation of its sources. This means that in a dynamic translation harsh expressions or constructions of the source text which betray the work of a redactor, disappear.

More recent translations in English, such as neb and nab, have tried to smooth out this particular difficulty by translating idiomatically: “The words of Amos … which he received in vision(s).” But such a translation is not obligatory. At quite an early the the word for ‘vision’ was already used in the more general sense of ‘revelation,’ and this general use gave rise to the more specific meaning ‘word revelation,’ ‘oracle.’ In the same way the verb for ‘to see’ could be used for the reception of revelation generally and for the reception of divine oracles in particular. (See Koehler-Baumgartner, s. v. hazah; L. Koehler, Theologie des Alten Testaments, 1966, par. 36; H. Wildberger, Jesaja, in Bibischer Kommentar Altes Testament X/1, Neukirchen, 1965, p. 5.)

^* The meaning of the name is obscure. It can be compared with the name Amasiah (2 Chr 17.16) Which in Hebrew sounds like “Yahweh bears.” Amos may even be a shorter form of the same name. (Compare M. Noth, Die israelitischen Personennamen, 1928, p. 178. See also Wolff ad loc. for Aramaic parallels and Cripps in the introduction to his commentary [p. 10] who defends a passive meaning “borne [by God].”)

^* L. Köhler (Amos in Schweiz. Theol. Zeitschrift 34, 1917, pp. 10–21; 68–79; 145–157; 190–208) thinks that the absence of the father’s name may lead to the conclusion that Amos was the son of poor people.

nab New American Bible

^* The perfect tense of the verb “to be” in Hebrew clearly indicates the past. (See P. Joüon, Grammaire de l’hébreu biblique, Rome, 1947, par. 154m.)

mft Moffatt

^* See the Ugaritic texts 62, 55 and 113, 71.

^* So Targum: “marey geytin,” “masters (i.e. owners) of the flock.”

^* On the basis of the related root in Arabic, these might be sheep of a particular breed with short legs and producing good wool.

^*

Tekoa is a village of Judah, 17 kilometers south of Jerusalem built upon a hill 825 meters above sea level. (Compare G. E. Wright, F. V. Filson, W. F. Albright, The Westminster Historical Atlas to the Bible, London, 1957, Plate IX.) The precise location of ancient Tekoa was probably on the east side of modern hirbet teku’. The rabbinic and mediaeval thesis that Tekoa was located in the northern kingdom or more particularly in the tribe of Asher (so Kimhi) lacks convincing arguments.

Because Tekoa was a border place it was fortified by King Rehoboam, according to 2 Chr II. >6. In 2 Sam 14 a story is told about an important role played by a “wise woman of Tekoa.”

Waard, Jan de ; Smalley, William Allen ; Smalley, William Allen: A Translator's Handbook on the Book of Amos. Stuttgart : United Bible Societies, 1979 (Helps for Translators), S. 21

THE POWER OF GOD TO PUNISH

THE POWER OF GOD TO PUNISH 1.2.

Amos’ message to Israel begins with a strongly poetic statement on God’s power to punish through destruction, a theme which is repeated from time to time and balanced against the idea of God’s power to create (see Appendix, Section 1.1). It gives an introduction to the contents of the book.

Section heading. If the translator is not trying to show the structure of the book by use of section headings (see Translating Amos, Section 2.4), then probably there should not be a heading here. If he is, he can use something like “The Power of God to Punish” or “God Is Able To Destroy.” Whatever is chosen, it should be something which can also be used in connection with 5.8 and 9.5–6, and which will contrast well with what is used in 4.13.

Amos 1:2.

“And he said:” (rsv)/ Amos said. Since this expression introduces a brief message which is like a summary of the message of the book, it might be helpful in some languages to say “Here is what Amos’ message was,” “What Amos said was.” In some other languages Amos said should be left untranslated, as it is included in the meaning of the first verse.

In some languages the end of a quotation must be indicated grammatically or by an expression like “he said.” In other cases, like in English, the translator must decide where he will put a quotation mark to indicate the end of a quotation. So each saying in Amos will have to be studied carefully in light of the rules of the language and of the fact that in the book there are two or more levels of speaking, with Amos reciting the words of the Lord. In only two places (1.1; 7.10–12) is Amos himself not speaking.

tev is somewhat misleading here. The tev translation sounds as though Amos’ words carry only through verse 2 and that another speaker (the Lord) replaces him in verse 3. tev use of quotation marks is even more definite. According to them Amos stops talking at the end of verse 2, and does not speak again in the book except for a few remarks in chapters 7 and 8.

This confusion can be reduced by eliminating the quotation marks from verse 2, just as they are absent from some other section of hymn in the tev (4.13; 5.8–9; 9.5–6). The same effect could be obtained, of course, even more directly by adding them to the beginning of each paragraph (verses 3, 6, etc., all the way through the book), but that would be difficult for readers and make it hard to translate the quotations inside quotations which would result when Amos in turn quotes the Lord. Also, except for some brief sections in chapter 7, the whole book would be in quotation marks. Taking the quotation marks out of verse 2 would be a much easier solution.

The Hebrew poetry of Amos begins here, and except for Amos said. this verse is written in a style which is even more poetic than most of the book of Amos, the style of a hymn.^* On the characteristics of Hebrew poetry and how to translate it, see Translating Amos, Section 5. If at all possible, the translator should try to use an equivalent poetic structure in the language of the translation.

What happens in the first half of this poem causes what happens in the second half. That is, the drying up, the withering, is the result of the Lord’s roaring and thundering.^* This must be clear in translation. Compare Smith-Goodspeed: “So that”; mft: “When … then ….”

“The Lord roars from Zion, and utters his voice from Jerusalem:” (rsv)/ The Lord roars from Mount Zion; his voice thunders from Jerusalem. Along with the regular patterns of rhythm and sentence structure there is unity in the use of very different pictures here. The Hebrew word for “roar” is also used of thunder in the Old Testament (Jer 25.30; Job 37.3–4).

What these pictures mean is not absolutely clear, but the basis of the comparison is probably God’s anger and the threat of disaster or punishment. Then when he speaks he has the power to destroy and is even about to do so. This is certainly the general theme of Amos and comes again in similar pieces of hymn in 5.9 and 9.5.

In translation, use of this picture language may or may not be a problem. Everything depends on the possible meanings which equivalent words in the receptor language may have, and on the poetic use of that language. In many languages the sounds of some animals can also sometimes be applied to men (the translator should, of course, make sure when that can be done and what it means). Such sounds can sometimes even be applied to nature.^* For example, in English the verb roar frequently refers to a loud sound produced by a lion, a person in rage, or a waterfall. It causes no problem to use it also for thunder. By using it tev keeps the relationship with thunder as in the Hebrew.

However, such an easy solution cannot always be found. Sometimes roaring and thunder will give the wrong meaning like that of going crazy, or no meaning at all. Sometimes the Hebrew picture cannot be expressed as it is. If only animals, or even only a lion, can make the sound, a comparison has to be expressed: “The Lord roars from Zion like a lion roars when it is about to destroy its prey” or “The Lord speaks from Zion like a lion roars when it is going to destroy its prey.” In such a case the link with thunder in the Hebrew may be weakened.

In places where lions are completely unknown, it may be useful to keep a certain unity by combining the words roar and thunder:^* “When the Eternal thunders out of Sion, loudly from Jerusalem” (mft). However, in many languages a sentence such as his voice thunders from Jerusalem is not easily translatable either. Very often a voice or a person cannot “thunder,” and “the Lord causes the thunder” hardly means the same thing. So the translator must say something like: “and from Jerusalem he raises his voice (calls out/shouts)” (compare nab). “he calls out in anger from Jerusalem, so that his voice is like a clap of thunder.” As this is a present reality, and a general statement, tenses which reflect that meaning should be used.

The Lord. See Translator’s Handbook on Ruth, 1.6.

Zion. Zion was originally the name of the fortress of the Jebusites (from whom the Israelites conquered the area of Jerusalem), located on the eastern mountain of Jerusalem. Later it became the name of the whole eastern mountain and of the whole city. In this passage it is another name for Jerusalem, and the translation should not sound like they are two different places.

“The pastures of the shepherds mourn, “(rsv) (Hebrew: the habitations of the shepherds dry up)/ The pastures dry up. As the Hebrew term for “habitations” is a very general one used of animals, men, and God, the “of the shepherds” (rsv) is necessary to narrow down the meaning in the original text. However, this information is already included in the specific term pastures in the tev. When a specific word such as pastures exists in the receptor language, the translator should follow the example of the tev. Otherwise, a descriptive phrase could be used such as “the places/grounds dry up where men feed (lead/watch over/care for) the sheep.” Older English translations say the “pastures of the shepherds mourn” (see also Smith-Goodspeed). Dry up is correct and should be followed.^*

Where the meaning will not be clear from the picture alone, you may translate something like “when he speaks (he can command) the pastures (to) dry up” or “because of his anger he causes the pastures to dry up.”

“And the top of Carmel withers. “(rsv)/ and the grass on Mount Carmel turns brown. It may be best to indicate that Carmel is a mountain, as in tev.^* The mountain ridge of Carmel was one of the most fertile parts of Palestine, abundant in woods, flowers and vineyards. But those facts are unknown to many present-day readers, and so the point may have to be made clear. tev does this by mentioning grass. Any expression for rich vegetation would do. In keeping with the contrast as well as with the poetry of the text, this grass turns brown. Perhaps at this point tev is not an easy model for translators, since in many languages colors are not easily used to express events. It may, therefore, be necessary to make a statement such as “and the woods (trees) on Mount Carmel’s top wither.”

rsv Revised Standard Version

tev Today’s English Version

^* For the similarities and differences with regard to the so-called theophanic hymns see especially Wolff, op. cit., p. 147f. and the literature cited there.

^* This is shown in Hebrew by the change from imperfect to (consecutive) perfect tense. See G. Beer, R. Meyer, Hebräische Grammatik, Berlin, 1952–55, par. 101/6.a. Compare also Joüon, par. 119 cij.

mft Moffatt

^* Whereas Hebrew sha’aq applies only to lions, its Arabic cognate can be used of several animals. The only time Hebrew sha’aq is used with regard to a person in particular condition (Psa 38.9), it is equivalent to ‘groan’ and it translated the anguished cries of a sufferer (see A. A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms, Vol. I, in the New Century Bible, London, 1972, ad loc.). The lxx in marking the speaking of the Lord as a loud one uses a Greek verb phtheggomai which can refer to human beings, animals, thunder and other inanimate things. Aquila and Symmachus, on the other hand, use a Greek verb bruchaomai, an onomatope properly used of lions and other animals. It should, however, be noted that when used of persons their particular condition is dying or a painful experience!

^*

This is a possibility which has been defended by several scholars. So J. Wellhausen, Die kleinen Propheten übersetzt und erklaärt, 1963, ad loc.; Sellin and Cripps ad loc. The first line of 1.2 reoccurs in Joel 4.16. The whole question who uses the text of whom is not relevant for translation purposes. Compare also M. Weiss, “In the Footsteps of One Biblical Metaphor,” Tarbiz 34, 1964–65, pp. 107–128.

nab New American Bible

^* 5. For Koehler-Baumgartner we have to do with a homophonous Hebrew verb ‘abal, cognate of Accadian abâlu meaning ‘vertrocknen.’ See also V. Maag, Text, Wortschatz und Begriffswelt des Buches Amos, Leiden, 1951 ad loc. On the other hand, E. Kutsch (’Trauerbräuche’ und ‘Selbstminde- rungsriten’ im at, Theol. Studien 78, 1965, p. 35f.) is of the opinion that both specific meanings ‘dry up’ and ‘mourn’ stem from one and the same root with the generic meaning ‘diminish.’

^* The word also occurred as a common noun standing for farmland and garden-land (see Isa 16.10; Jer 2.7; 2 Kgs 19.23).

Waard, Jan de ; Smalley, William Allen ; Smalley, William Allen: A Translator's Handbook on the Book of Amos. Stuttgart : United Bible Societies, 1979 (Helps for Translators), S. 25

ISRAEL’S SPECIAL GUILT AMONG THE NATIONS

ISRAEL’S SPECIAL GUILT AMONG THE NATIONS 1.3—3.2.

Here begins the first long section of Amos, in fact, the longest one. It is clearly separate from the verses which precede. In Hebrew there is no word to connect verse 3 with what goes before. Furthermore, in verse 2 Amos was speaking about the Lord whereas in verse 3 the Lord himself speaks. The theme of God’s judgment on Israel’s neighbors begins in verse 3.^*

This section of Amos has a series of eight very similar messages from the Lord plus a conclusion. In each message a different nation is mentioned, its sins are vividly pictured, and a promise of punishment is made. The first seven of these messages are about Israel’s neighbors and, in some cases, traditional enemies. Then the eighth, longer than any of the others, is about Israel itself. So the first seven messages are preliminary, setting a mood, establishing a rhythm in which the listener-in, Israel, hears stirring but often reassuring words that foreign people are going to be punished. But then, suddenly and dramatically, the eighth message comes to Israel itself. God’s own people are doing things as evil or worse, and God will punish them also!

This section of Amos is a powerful passage because of its dramatic use of language. With some thought and care the translator should be able to prepare a powerful, moving translation as well. The strength of the Hebrew comes from its picture language and from the rhythmical repetition as each accusation is made. The similar wording from message to message helps to emphasize how the message to Israel is both similar and different.

In general, each of the eight messages in this section has the same six parts in the same order, although some of the messages leave out one or more parts. Furthermore, some of the parts are worded nearly the same in nearly all of the messages. Here is a list of the parts, and a literal translation of the Hebrew in the cases where the wording is the same or nearly the same in each message:

(1) The source of the message: “thus the Lord said.”

(2) The general reason for God’s punishment: “for three transgressions of … and for four, I will not revoke it.”

(3) The specific illustration of the people’s crimes: “because they/he ….”

(4) The standard punishment (not included for Israel): “but I will send/kindle a fire into/on/in … and it shall devour the palaces ….” This is expanded with further detail about the battle in which the fire will come in the cases of Ammon and Moab.

(5) Additional particular punishment (not included for Tyre, Edom, Judah).

(6) The source of the message repeated (not included for Tyre, Edom, or Judah): “said (the Lord) Jahweh.”

Parts 5 and 6 are simply missing for Tyre, Edom, and Judah, and part 4 is missing for Israel. Part 6 is not separately translated in the tev, but is included in part 1.

The translator should work on this section of Amos as a whole, and before he finishes, all of these messages about the different nations should contribute to the total effect. Each message should reinforce the others and lead to the climax, which is the message to Israel. The whole section should be read aloud repeatedly after it is translated to make sure of the smooth, free-flowing rhythm and effect. The translation should have a tone of strong denunciation. The mood is dignified anger.

This overall tone, rhythm, and climax in the passage is more important in translation than is poetry as such. The section is poetry in Hebrew, but it is a different kind of poetry from verse 2. The question of whether or not to translate in poetry was discussed in Translating Amos, Section 5. If poetry is appropriate for accusation and promise of punishment^* in the language of the translation, it should be used. And if poetry is used it should, of course, be in the poetic patterns of that language, not of Hebrew. If prose is used, it should carry the emotional tone of accusation just the same. Note the restructuring of 2.1–3 suggested to help increase the force of the English in those verses, in Translating Amos, Section 5.3.

In languages where God and kings or chiefs speak in a different style from ordinary people, special care must be taken to get naturalness in these messages where Amos, an ordinary person, is quoting God (Translating Amos, Section 4). The translator must decide what level is suitable, and this can be complicated by the fact that in some of these languages the form used by kings or God may not always be clear to ordinary people. In some cases the level will change back and forth in the translation. In 1.3, The Lord says is Amos speaking, but the remainder of the verse is Amos speaking God’s words.

Section headings. When the translator is not trying to show the structure of the book through section headings he may follow the tev, which separates off the judgment on Israel (2.6–16), or he may have one main heading for the whole section, although it is rather long. Alternative wordings for the tev section headings which may be easier to translate in some languages include: “God Judges/Will Punish the Sins of Israel’s Neighbors” or “God Judges/Will Punish the Nations,” and “God Judges/Will Punish Israel’s Sins.” A heading for the whole section might be “The Sins of Israel and Her Neighbors” (neb). In either case, it may be well to follow the tev and indicate each separate message with a separate heading (the name of the nation) as well.

Where the translator is trying to show the structure of the book, it is important to have one main heading for the whole long section, something which is similar to the headings of 4.4–12, 5.18–6.14, and 8.4–9.4. We have used “Israel’s Special Guilt Among the Nations,” which could be translated something like “Israel Is the Most Guilty of All the Nations,” or “Israel Has Sinned More Than All Other People.”

Then the smaller sections within this section can each have its heading consisting of the name of the nation (see Translating Amos, Section 2.4). The heading for 3.1–2 will be discussed when that section is reached.

Amos 1.3–5

The message about Syria includes all of the six parts listed above. The discussion of the passage below is numbered according to these different parts.

Amos 1:3.

1) “Thus says the Lord: “(rsv) (Hebrew: thus the Lord said)/ The Lord says. In some languages it may be useful to keep the Hebrew past tense in translation in order to show the difference between the actual speech of Amos and an earlier experience in which Amos received God’s message.^* On the other hand, the message is a timeless warning with present and future meaning. The translation should reflect this fact, as is done with the use of the present tense in many English translations.

The expression “thus the Lord said” or others similar to it is used in the prophetic books of the Old Testament to declare God’s authority for the message. The translation should not be as flat as the Lord says. The expression is not a simple introduction to a quotation. The words should have the sound of authority in the translation: “Listen to what the Lord says,” “Here is the word of the Lord” (compare neb: “These are the words of the Lord”), “This is what the Lord has to say.”

The expression used here should be something which will sound well when repeated many times in the Old Testament. Part of the strong tone of the prophetic books depends on the frequent repetition of this expression and others very much like it. The expression does not have to be repeated in the translation every time it occurs in the Hebrew, of course, but to have to leave it out because it is a weak expression and sounds weak and repetitive is much less valuable than to have the repetition itself make the message more urgent and powerful.

(2) “For three transgressions of Damascus, and for four, “(rsv)/ The people of Damascus have sinned again and again. As is clear from verses 4 and 5, Damascus stands for both the rulers and the inhabitants of the city of Damascus, and they can be taken together in a general way as The people of Damascus or “the people of the city of Damascus.” The city of Damascus itself stands for the people and rulers of the whole country of Syria (verse 5). Syria is the heading in tev for that reason. Damascus and Syria should not sound like different places in the translation. If the confusion of Damascus and Syria is a problem, one solution is to use “Syria” for “Damascus” right from the beginning except for verse 5, where its relationship to Syria should be clear in context. Another solution would be to translate “Damascus in Syria” or “Damascus, the capital of “Syria, “etc., in verse 3.

It should be clear, furthermore, that Damascus is a city well-known to the people of Israel. The translation should not sound like “a city called Damascus” but like “the city of Damascus (that you know about).” This kind of difference was discussed under 1.1.

“Transgressions “(rsv) are things that people do, and so are usually better translated with a verb: have sinned. In Amos the Hebrew noun here translated “transgressions “is used only for sins against people.^* The word or expression in the translation should be one with the strong meaning of “to commit a horrible crime.” Neither a weak word such as “to make a mistake” nor a highly specialized theological one such as “to disobey God” is adequate here. The difficult problems in translating words for “sin” are discussed in other Translator’s Handbooks.^*

In “for three transgressions … and for four “(rsv) the numbers should not be taken either symbolically or literally.^* The progression from three to four expresses a climax or increasing intensity.^* In languages where numbers have only a literal value, a literal translation of this sequence would give rise to a wrong meaning. On the other hand, some attempts at idiomatic translation such as “many”^* are also misleading. Only translations such as “the people of Damascus have committed crime upon crime” (compare mft) or have sinned again and again are adequate in English. Translators should look for something to give this meaning of piling sin upon sin.

“I will not revoke the punishment “(rsv) (Hebrew: cause it to return or reverse/revoke it)/ I will certainly punish them. “It” refers either to the punishment announced immediately afterwards (rsv) or to the word of God (nab: “I will not revoke my word”).^* However, the word of God is a word of judgment in the context of these messages. Also, in many languages a negative statement as in the Hebrew is weak or does not have the positive meaning the Hebrew has here. That is why tev has I will certainly punish them.

The punishment is the result of the sin, and the clause I will certainly punish them is connected as the result of what precedes (sinned again and again) and what follows (They treated …). Furthermore, the kind of punishment is shown in verse 4. In some languages such moving back and forth between reason and result may not be fully natural or clear. In such cases the order of I will certainly punish them and They treated … may have to be changed, or some other restructuring employed. Then I will certainly punish them may have to be introduced with a word equivalent to “so.”

Some languages do not use quotations in which I means the person quoted (the Lord), not the immediate speaker (Amos). In such cases the use of I here might even mean whoever is reading in the local situation. In that case, the quotation often cannot be a direct one but must be something like “The Lord’s message is that … he will punish”; or the language may have other ways of making the meaning clear. In some cases a noun would be used even though the Lord is speaking of himself: “The Lord will certainly punish them.” This problem, if it exists, will carry through the whole book and need regular attention.

The shift in style which will be necessary in some languages when God begins to speak has already been mentioned (1.3–3.2). In some languages God should also use words or grammar which show that he is speaking disrespectfully of the people of Damascus. In many languages, some pronouns are respectful and some pronouns are disrespectful. In that case it might be best to translate as “the people of the city of Damascus, they have sinned again and again,” with the word for “they” one which indicates the speaker’s disapproval.

(3) “Because they have threshed Gilead with threshing sledges of iron“. (rsv)/ They treated the people of Gilead with savage cruelty. “Gilead “probably stands for the people of Gilead or “the inhabitants of the country of Gilead.”^*

“Threshing sledges of iron “(rsv) were flat wooden platforms which were studded with iron knives^* and pulled by animals across the harvested grain to cut up the straw and separate the grain from the stalks: “threshing-sledges spiked with iron” (neb). As there is no direct evidence from elsewhere of doing this to people, the expression can best be taken as picture language, to show cruelty by the picture of the violence with which grain is threshed. The picture should often be translated as a comparison: “because they destroyed the people of Gilead like someone threshes grain with iron chariots.” For other possibilities see Translating Amos, Section 5.

Amos 1:4.

(4) So reflects the fact that verse 4 is a result of the terrible deeds of verse 3. Making the last part of verse 3 connected with verse 4 is also possible: “Because they threshed Gilead with sledges of iron, I will send fire …” (nab; compare Jerusalem Bible [jb]). Whatever is done to express this relationship should fit in with the same relationship also shown between the parts of verse 3, as already discussed.

Send a fire (rsv)/ send fire refers to the burning which goes along with defeat by a foreign army, in this case by the Lord. The battle of which the fire is a part is mentioned directly in the punishment of Ammon (1.14) and Moab (2.2). Sometimes fire has been translated “fires of war” (mft). Send is picture language for “make/cause (fire) to burn.”

The house of Hazael, (rsv)/ the palace built by King Hazael. Because of the parallel between Hazael and Benhadad, this Hebrew expression could mean “the royal family of Hazael,” which in turn could be taken as “the kingdom of Syria.” In the same way the fortresses of King Benhadad could mean the town of Damascus.^*

On the other hand, it may be better to take house (rsv) literally, as the exact parallel word in the next line is a Hebrew word translated fortresses. Also, the expression I will send fire occurs in all the other messages of this section except the one against Israel, and the fire always burns a building. A translation “on the house (palace) of King Hazael” is therefore better.

Make sure that the palace built by King Hazael and the fortresses of King Benhadad do not sound like different places. In languages where parallelism or the grammatical construction does not make it clear that they are the same, some additional restructuring may do it: “the royal palace of Syria, with its fortresses defended by King Benhadad” or “the royal palace … among the fortresses …” or “the royal palace …, that is, the fortresses of King Benhadad.”

Devour (rsv)/ burn down. The Hebrew idiom of “fire that eats (up) something” occurs frequently and can be carried over naturally into many languages. In other cases, the translation will have to have another picture or translate the meaning burn.

Strongholds (rsv)/ fortresses translates one of the most important parts of the meaning of the Hebrew word (nab: “castles”).^* Unfortunately, such buildings are not known in many parts of the world so this meaning cannot always be made clear in translation. Sometimes a more general word has to be used in this context, and the nearest equivalent which is present in some languages may be the word for “chief’s compound” or “chief’s house.”

Amos 1:5.

(5) I will break the bar of Damascus, (rsv)/ I will smash the city gates of Damascus. The bar was made of bronze or iron, fixed in the doorpost to block the gate from opening. It formed part of the defense of the city gate, and to break it meant that the gate was broken in (compare mft: “I shatter the defences of Damascus”).

Translation is difficult in those cultures where there are no city walls or city gates. The translator may even have to use a slightly longer descriptive phrase and say, for example, “The bar which bolts the doors of the mouth/opening/entrance in the walls/fences around the city of Damascus.” The verb used should show the violence of the action necessary to break through a city gate. I will smash expresses this violence very well in English.

And cut off the inhabitants (rsv) (Hebrew: the ruler) from the Valley of Aven (Hebrew: BiqaT-aben), and him that holds the scepter from Betheden; (rsv)/ and remove the inhabitants of Aven Valley and the ruler of Betheden. The Hebrew for “ruler” has been translated inhabitants (rsv; see also nab, neb), but as the meaning “ruler” is a possible one it is better because of the parallel with “him that holds the scepter.”^* If the meaning “ruler” is used and if the parallel is not needed for the style of the translation, the repetition can be combined. This may sound more natural in some languages, and the translator will not have to look for often non-existing words with similar meanings.

Cut off (rsv)/ remove. Remove may be weak for an English translation. Compare “wipe out” (neb), “cut down” (Jerusalem Bible [jb]). In context the meaning would seem to be that of harsh destruction or captivity.

Aven Valley … Betheden. There are many problems with the two names of places in this verse. Different suggestions about their location have been given (see commentaries). For translation the problem is that the names in Hebrew have two purposes: they are names for areas in the normal meaning of place names, but they are also moral descriptions of those areas. “Biqat-Aven” sounds in Hebrew like “valley of iniquity,” and Betheden sounds like “house of pleasure.”^* The translator has to decide which names or parts of names he will translate and which he will handle as ordinary names.

The normal practice in English has been to translate Valley in the first name and to treat the rest as names. However, this is probably wrong. The name itself may be “Valley” and “Aven” may be a description. If so, the place was “The Plain” (as it was called) between Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon which is characterized as “Plain of Iniquity.”

As much remains uncertain, it seems wiser to follow the French practice of treating both completely as names: “Biqat-Aven” and Betheden. Then the additional meaning of the name can be given in a footnote.

And the people of Syria shall go into exile (rsv)/ The people of Syria will be taken away as prisoners. The tev uses less technical language than “exile” compare nab, neb, mft), a word lacking in many languages. The Hebrew means go into exile (rsv), but since this action was obviously not voluntary tev has restructured: will be taken away as prisoners. In many languages the person or people who do the action will have to be indicated: “one/ others will take them away/cause them to leave their country as prisoners.” The term used for prisoners, of course, should not mean people locked up in jail, but rather people taken from their homes as captives.

To Kir (rsv)/ to the land of Kir. Hebrew simply has Kir, but it is necessary in translation to show that this is a land. According to 9.7, the Syrians came originally from Kir. Their return to the same region implies that their whole history is reduced to nothing. The exact location of this land of Kir is uncertain.

(6) Says the Lord (rsv) (Hebrew: the Lord has said). tev does not repeat this last part of Amos’ message, which gives its source once more, as in verse 3. It has considered this repetition unnecessary, perhaps awkward, in English, especially as the next message begins in the next verse again with The Lord says. The decision to leave it out in the tev restructuring is perfectly correct so far as the meaning is concerned. On the other hand, this mentioning of the source of the message both at the beginning and the end is part of the power and rhythm of the passage in Hebrew. Also, it is an important part of the way in which the book of Amos is organized. It would not be too difficult to keep this second indicator of the source in English if the whole passage is translated accordingly. We already suggested, for example, that in English part (1) in verse 3 could be strengthened. Now part (6) can be tied in with it like this: (1) “Here is what the Lord says: … (6) That is what the Lord says!” (1) “Here is the word of the Lord: … (6) That was the word of the Lord!” An example of such a restructuring of the tev is to be found in Translating Amos, Section 5.3. In a prose translation these introductory and closing reminders of the source of the message should probably be set off in some way on separate lines or with special type. In some languages, of course, indicating the source of a message at the end is completely normal, if not required.

Amos 1.6–8.

The same numbering for the different parts of the message will be used as were used in discussing the message to Syria. Except where the Hebrew is different, as much as possible the wording in translation should be the same also. However, the translator should not follow the earlier message mechanically but should think about how it sounds and how the whole passage fits together. It may be that the translation of the earlier message should be revised in keeping with things that are thought of in this one or later on.

Amos 1:6.

(1–2) The Lord says … punish them. See verse 3. It may be useful to mark Gaza as a town: “the people of the town of Gaza.”

(3) Because they carried into exile a whole people (rsv) (Hebrew: because of their deporting an entire exile)/ They carried off a whole nation. Compare neb: “because they deported a whole band of exiles.”) Such an abstract wording as the Hebrew presents problems in many languages, and the group or groups which were carried off should often be expressed in translation.^* It may not have been a whole nation which was carried off, however. It is better to speak of “whole groups” (nab), or even of “whole villages.” Thus the translation might be something like “because they captured/carried off (as captives) the population of whole villages.”

To deliver them up to Edom (rsv)/ and sold them as slaves to the people of Edom. The attention is on the violence and the inhuman conduct to which the captives were submitted, and not on the commercial aspect of selling slaves. However, many languages require a specific translation, and a rendering such as sold sometimes cannot be avoided.

Them. To use some other translation than nation avoids another problem which the tev has here. Sold them (plural) refers back to nation (singular).

Amos 1:7.

(4) I will send fire upon the city walls of Gaza and burn down its fortresses. See verse 4.

Amos 1:8.

(5) I will remove the rulers of the cities of Ashdod and Ashkelon. See verse 5. It should be shown that Ashdod and Ashkelon are cities. It should also be clear in context that they and Ekron along with Gaza are cities of the Philistines.

I will turn my hand against Ekron; (rsv)/ I will punish the city of Ekron. (See also Smith-Goodspeed, nab, neb). “Hand” here means “power.”^* If similar picture language can be used in the translation, it should be. If not, then some other kind of picture language expressing the idea of “power and punishment” should be used if possible. If no picture language is suitable, the translation will have to be direct as it is in the tev. Compare mft: “I strike my blows at Ekron.” Ekron may also have to be qualified as the city of Ekron.

The remnant of the Philistines (rsv)/ all the Philistines who are left. The remnant of the Philistines (rsv) does not mean those who have not been mentioned in the preceding verses, but those who might have escaped the punishment. The tev restructuring is helpful.

(6) Says the Lord God. (rsv) Unlike verse 5, the Hebrew text here has an additional word, “God.” However, whatever the reason for this difference,^* the use of exactly the same form as in verse 5 is perfectly correct in the translation. (See also under 3.7)

Amos 1.9–10

The message about Tyre differs slightly from the preceding ones about Syria and Philistia. Part (3), giving the specific illustrations of the people’s crimes, starts in the same way as the others in Hebrew, but this time it is shorter and continues with a different grammatical construction. Parts (5) and (6) are completely missing.

Amos 1:9.

(1–2) The Lord says … punish them. See verse 3. Tyre may be indicated as a “town.”

(3) Because they delivered up a whole people to Edom (rsv) (Hebrew: because of their handing over an entire exile to Edom)/ They carried off a whole nation into exile in the land of Edom. The Hebrew uses the same words as in verse 6, so the translator should consult the discussion there. However, he should be careful of the meaning of this part of verse 9. The Hebrew involves two kernel sentences: (a) someone exiled/ deported/ took captive whole (groups of people); and (b) they (the people of Tyre/ the rulers of Tyre) handed them over/sold them to Edom. The problems are in (a). (1) The nationality of the captives is not shown. Were they Israelites^* or not?^* Could they have been Phoenicians (people of the same country captured by their fellow people of Tyre)? (2) There is no historical evidence for any extensive slave raiding by the Phoenicians, but there is evidence for slave commerce. So perhaps the subject of (a) differs from that of (b). Maybe the slave raiders were Aramean. (3) The translation of the tev is wrong as it implies capture by the Phoenicians and because it indicates that a whole people were carried off, which is not the meaning.^*

Although a clear understanding of the first kernel is impossible, the best solution for translation would probably be something like:. “because they delivered/sold whole groups of people (or: the population of whole villages) as captives/slaves to the people of Edom” (compare especially nab).

And did not remember the covenant of brotherhood. (rsv)/ and did not keep the treaty of friendship they had made. Although this is an independent sentence in both Hebrew and tev, it is just another way of looking at the same events. This relationship should be made clear one way or another in the translation. neb, for example, has done this by saying, “because, forgetting the ties of kinship, they delivered ….” Another way might be by a word or a grammatical link between the two different sentences: “so (in so doing) they ….”

Remember (rsv)/ keep. Keep is the right meaning of the Hebrew word in this context as it does not mean a mental process (“remember”) but personal action.^* Covenant of brotherhood (rsv), however, is more difficult, especially since this is the only place in the Old Testament where the expression occurs. Which covenant and between whom?^* Most commentators think of the political treaty between King Hiram of Tyre and King Solomon (1 Kgs 5.12), and this understanding is translated in tev the treaty of friendship they had made.^* But the political treaty between Hiram and Solomon was more than 200 years before that, which makes this understanding rather doubtful.^*Because of the uncertainties, a general translation such as “so they did not keep/honor the obligations brothers have toward each other” would be best. If something like this cannot be done, then the tev solution should be followed.

Amos 1:10.

(4) So I will send fire upon … fortresses. See verse 4.

Amos 1.11–12

The message about Edom is almost the same as the preceding one about Tyre. The main difference is in part (3). After starting with the same grammatical construction in Hebrew, part (3) is developed a little differently. Parts (5) and (6) again are missing.

Amos 1:11.

(1–2) The Lord says … punish them. See verse 3.

(3) Because he pursued his brother with the sword, (rsv)/ They hunted down their brothers, the Israelites. Hunted down may be a good solution for “pursued … with the sword” (rsv)in other languages as well. Showing how the hunting was done may contribute to the emotional tone in some languages: “because, sword in hand, they hunted their kinsmen down” (neb; compare mft). If “hunting” vocabulary cannot be used for action toward people, the translation might be “they put their brothers to flight (or: they chased their brothers) by means of the sword.”

For brothers the translator should use a very broad term including all fellow nationals or tribesmen. It may be necessary to state who their brothers are: the Israelites. The Edomites were descended from Esau, Jacob’s brother (Gen 36.1–19).

And cast off all pity (rsv) (Hebrew: destroyed his mercy),/ and showed them no mercy. The Hebrew idiom cannot be translated directly into most languages. Sometimes a verb with a similar meaning can be used to create a similar picture: for example, “to stifle” in English (compare Smith- Goodspeed, mft, neb), “étouffer” in French, etc. But in a majority of languages even this would be impossible so a descriptive phrase has to be used as in tev, or, even more directly: “and refused to be merciful.” In this particular context the specific meaning of the Hebrew noun for mercy is “brotherly feelings,” “brotherly love.”^*As many cultures have a specific term in this area, it may be possible to translate “they did not (want to) love them as brothers.”

And his anger tore perpetually, and he kept his wrath for ever. (rsv)/ Their anger had no limits and they never let it die. The Hebrew text here is not clear, but may be understood as follows: “he (Edom) persisted in his anger and kept his wrath to the end” (nab), or: “his anger persisted forever and his wrath to the end.”^* This is the basis for the tev. In some translations the parallel information may be combined into one short sentence: “their anger never stopped/died down.” tev uses die for anger because it is clear and forceful in English. In each case the translator will have to look for an appropriate natural expression. Even a flat rendering such as: “they continued to be angry with them” may be necessary.^*

Amos 1:12.

(4) So I will send fire upon the city of Teman and burn down the fortresses of Bozrah. See verse 4.^* tev indicates that Teman is a city, but Teman and Bozrah could be taken as names of towns, regions, or both, so it is better not to be specific, if possible. As the fortresses of Bozrah are not included in Teman, and as there is a certain distance between the towns or regions, the translation should not say that the fire sent on Teman will burn up the fortresses of Bozrah, as rsv and other modern translations (except tev) do.

Amos 1.13–15

All six parts are present in this message about Ammon as they were in the messages about Syria and Philistia.

Amos 1:13.

(1–2) The Lord says … punish them. See verse 3.

(3) Because they have ripped up^*women with child in Gilead, that they might enlarge their border (rsv)/ In their wars for more territory they even ripped open pregnant women in Gilead. The meaning is that when the Ammonites were fighting for more land they killed much of the population of Gilead and in so doing were especially cruel to pregnant women. Both events of “enlarging the territory” and committing atrocities happened at the same time, so the translator may have to say something like: “because, while extending their territory, they ripped open …” (compare nab, mft). Pregnant women in Gilead sometimes has to be translated as “pregnant women living in the land of Gilead.”^*

Amos 1:14.

(4) So I will send fire … fortresses. See verse 4. This time the Hebrew shows another slight variation: “I will set fire to” instead of the usual “I will send fire on.” This variation makes almost no change in meaning, so the translator may use the phrase which he has used elsewhere if it seems best.^*

With shouting in the day of battle, with a tempest in the day of the whirlwind; (rsv)/ Then there will be shouts on the day of battle, and the fighting will rage like a storm. In this case the battle of which the fire is a part is mentioned. The Hebrew parallelism makes clear that “whirlwind” is a picture of the heavy fighting. Since a translation such as tempest in the day of the whirlwind (rsv) makes little sense in most languages, the tev type solution is helpful. The translator should also make sure that the relation between shouts and battle is clear. The shouts are part of the noise of the confused fighting and the failing defenses.

Amos 1:15.

(5) And their king shall go into exile, he and his princes together (rsv)/ Their king and his officers will go into exile. Their king is, of course, the king of the Ammonites. Because this word is so far from the word to which it refers, in some languages it would be better to state the relationship: “the king of (the people of) Ammon,” or even “the king of Rabbah.”

Officers translates a very general Hebrew term which includes court officials, counsellors, military and other authorities. In many languages a term such as “notables” or “big people” would be the right equivalent.

Exile. See verse 6.^*

(6) Says the Lord. (rsv) See verse 5

^* It seems better, therefore, not to place the title of 1.3–2.16 before verse 1, as has been done in some translations (nab, zür).

tev Today’s English Version

^* See especially Keith R. Crim, “Translating the Poetry of the Bible,” TBT 23 (1972), pp. 102–110.

neb New English Bible

rsv Revised Standard Version

^* In contrast with the present tense (tade legei kurios) in the introductory formulae of the following oracles, lxx has here the reading kai eipe kurios. A translation of the past tense has been defended by Weiser, Wolff, and Amsler and is to be found in the translation of Dhorme.

^* See especially the important ‘Exkurs’ on pesha’ in Wolff, pp. 185–186.

^* See Translator’s Handbook on Mark on 1.4 and Translator’s Handbook on Luke on 1.77.

^* Compare W. R. Harper, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Amos and Hosea, Edinburgh, 1960, ad loc.; and M. Delcor in Les petits prophètes, Tome VIII, 1 of L. Pirot and A. Claner, La Sainte Bible, Paris, 1961, ad loc.

^* A number followed by the next higher number is frequent in Hebrew literature. One and two (Psa 62. 11; Job 40. 5), two and three (Sirach 26.28), three and four (Prov 30.15, 18, 21, 29; Sirach 26.5) and nine and ten (Sirach 25. 7–11). The sequence three and four is the most frequent. See especially W. M. W. Roth, The Numerical Sequence x/x + 1 in the Old Testamnt, VT 12 (1962), pp. 300–311; idem, Numerical Sayings in the Old Testament, VT (Suppl. 13), 1965. Compare also J. de Waard, art. cit., pp. 148–149.

^* The Translator’s Translation (stage 4) e.g. reads: “because the people of … have committed many crimes.” Compare also Robinson’s observation in Th. H. Robinson and E. Horst, Die zwölf Kleinen Propheten, HAT 1.14, Tübingen, 1954, ad loc: “Ausdruck zur Bezeichnung einer unbestimmten, aber nicht grossen Zahl.”

mft Moffatt

nab New American Bible

^* Keil, Touzard, Wellhausen, Cripps, van Gelderen, Amsler are all in favor of a reference to “punishment.” Wolff, on the other hand, sees a reference to the “word of God.” Compare, however, van Hoonacker who sees already rightly that the discussion is irrelevant to a certain extent: “l’objet signifié par le suffixe et que Jahvé ne retirera point, c’est sa parole, savoir l’arrêt de condannation, ou la proclamation de la peine: je ne retirerai point la chose; le contexte donne à l’idée sa détermination précise.” In the lxx, the majority of manuscripts have the reading auton which refers to the word of God, only the Lucianic recension followed by the Bohairic translation and the Syrohexaplar reads auten which should refer to ‘punishment.’

^* So Targum: yat yatbhey’ara’ gila’d. It should, however, be noted that the more specific lxx reading (tas) en gastri echousas tôn en Galaad (the pregnant women of Gilead) presupposes a Hebrew original harot hagila’d which has now been found back in 5Q41. According to Wolff, this specific reading (also found in Vetus Latina) has been introduced from 1.13. But there are are arguments for regarding this reading as original.

^* See J. Benzrnger, Hebräische Archäologie, 1907, pp. 209–210; K. Galling, Biblisches Reallexikon, 1937, pp. 137–139; G. Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina, III, Gütersloh, 1933, p. 83, 88f.

jb Jerusalem Bible

^* As already proposed by van Hoonacker, op. cit., ad loc.

^* None of the existing Greek translations seem to have made this component explicit. lxx renders ‘armenot consistently with themelia which means either “foundations (of buildings)” or “building-sites”; tas aulas in Theodotion stands for any dwelling and bareis in Aquila and Symmachus may focus on the dimensions of the buildings. Even if the meaning “tower” is presented in bareis, it is the dimension aspect which is important, not its being a fortified place. It is possible that themelia reflects a relationship with the Hebrew root rmh I and bareis with the Hebrew root rwm.

^* So Budde and Wolff and Moffatt. The same interpretation is found in W. Gesenius and F. Buhl, Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament, 1949, s.v. yashab. Van Gelderen argues that in case of a strict parallel we should expect the reading yosheb kisse’, but it can be said that such an explicit reading is unnecessary because of the parallelism! On the other hand, though the use of a collective sg. noun yosheb for ‘population’ is possible, one could also argue that in case of a meaning ‘inhabitants’ we should expect a plural. Semantically, the parallelism remains the strongest argument for the interpretation. Interestingly, even the lxx translates according to the parallelism. Though it has the reading katoikountas (inhabitants), it reads in the next half line phulên for “him that holds the scepter”!

^* Of the versions, none seems to apply a consistent translation method. They all seem to translate the first part of the first compound noun (pediou), but whereas Aquila and Symmachus translate the second part as a symbolic designation in reading respectively anôphelous (valley of the useless) and adikias (valley of injustice), lxx and Theodotion give a transcription according to a different vocalization of the Hebrew: “n. For the many hypotheses to which this geographical identification has given rise, see the commentaries. Similarly, Symmachus and Theodotion translate the first part of the second compound noun (oikou and oik” i), but whereas Theodotion translates also the second part: truphês (house of daintiness), Symmachus gives a transcription of the Hebrew: eden. As to method, the same applies to lxx, only that eks andrôn should be traced back to Hebrew bene (compare Bohairic translation) and that the particular reading charran should be considered as ‘Sonderüberlieferung’ (see Wolff, ad loc.).

^* Compare Van Hoonacker, ad loc. and Brockelmann, Syntax, par. 92a.

^* See A. R. Johnson, The Vitality of the Individual in the Thought of Ancient Israel, 1964, p. 56.

^* It is true that the reading of mt is confirmed by the “standard text” Mur 88 III 25 (see Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan II: Les grottes de Murabba’ât, 186) as well as by the Targum and Vulgate, but the absence of the variant text in the lxx tradition (with the exception of C and mss. 68 and 613) almost certainly means that this text was not yet known to the lxx translators. The more so as ‘adonai has frequently been added by later hands to the original Amos text elsewhere.

^* So Keil, Touzard, van Gelderen ad loc.

^* So a. o. S. R. Driver, The Books of Joel and Amos (The Cambridge Bible, 1897), revised by H. C. O. Lanchester, 1915, ad loc.; W. Nowack, Die kleinen Propheten, HK, 1922, ad loc.; Wellhausen and van Hoonacker, ad loc.

^* The proposal of Robinson, Budde, Sellin, Maag and Amsler to read la’aram for le’edom (even retained as a possibility by K. Elliger in bhs (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia 10: Liber XII prophetarum, Stuttgart, 1970) has to be rejected as such a reading lacks versional support and obscures the relationship between verses 9 and 6b. So rightly Wolff, ad loc.

^* See especially W. Schotroff: “Gedenken” im Alten Testament, WMANT 15, 1967, p. 202. See also B. S. Childs, Memory and Tradition in Israel, Stud. in Bibl. Theol. 37, 1962, p43f. and for other componential meanings of the same verb P.A.H. de Boer, Gedenken und Gedächtnis in der Welt des at, 1962.

^* Weiser’s statement ad loc: “ferner lässt sich nicht sagen, was mit dem Bruderbund … gemeint ist” is fully correct.

^* Compare also 1 Kgs 9.13 where Hiram calls Solomon “my brother”! Understanding the passage this way, of course, would mean that the captives of verse 9 were Israelites.

^*

Those who think verse 9a speaks about Phoenicians being raided by their fellow people of Tyre see in the ‘covenant of brothers’ the “ties of kinship” and the obligations “brothers” of the same tribe have toward each other. However, the lack of historical evidence for this has already been mentioned.

Finally, some see in the ‘covenant of brothers’ the blood relationship between Edom and Israel (Essau and Jacob!). But this relationship is nowhere called a ‘covenant,’ and it is difficult to see how Tyre can be reproached for not having respected such a relationship existing between two other nations.

^* See Brown-Driver-Briggs s.v. rahamim and shahat; W. Robertson Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia 1885, p. 28. Compare also neb: “stifling their natural affections,” and Sellin, ad loc.

^* Reading with the Syriac and the Vulgate wayyittor instead of wayyitroph and with lxx, Symmachus, Theodotion, Syriac, Vulgate and Targum shamar lanetsah instead of shemara netsah. This reading has been first proposed by J. Olshausen (Die Psalmen, 1853, p. 397 ad Psa 103.9) and it has been taken over by most scholars (the last to be mentioned is K. Elliger in bhs) with slight differences as to the interpretation of the subject of both verbs. Olshausen himself, in the traces of lxx, Syriac version and Vulgate, took both verbs as transitive and Edom as subject and he is followed in this by a. o. Sellin, Touzard, Amsler, Cripps, Weiser, Moffatt, nab. On the other hand, van Hoonacker takes both verbs as intransitive so that ‘anger’ and ‘wrath’ are the respective subjects. Compare also neb. Semantically and translationally, however, these differences are of little importance. For the reading of nab see also Textual Notes on the New American Bible, Textual Notes on Old Testament Readings, a separate booklet accompanying the St. Anthony’s Guild edition.

^* The Hebrew text runs literally: ‘his anger tore perpetually and his wrath kept forever.’ In order to make sense out of this text one has to postulate (a) an implicit simile in the first half line such as “like a wild beast its prey” as well as an implicit object “the Israelites” and (b) an implicit object such as “prey” in the second half line. Evidence for an implicit simile can be found in the parallel construction in Job 16.9: “His wrath has torn me” (compare tev: In anger, God tears me limb from limb). Restructured and explicitly stated, the Hebrew text has then the following meaning: “In anger, Edom tore the Israelites perpetually as a wild beast its prey and in fury they watched continually over their prey.” For a defense of mt see especially Wolff ad loc. Compare also A. Neher, Amos, 1950, p. 49. Wolff takes the verb taraph in the sense of ‘to plunder’ (a meaning supported by lxx) and he thinks that Jerusalem is the implicit object in the first half line.

^* “Upon the walls” is lacking (compare verse 10). This has been taken as evidence that a region rather than a town called Teman was intended. (So already Wellhausen, ad loc.)

^* For the vocalization of the infinitive biq’am see Joüon, par. 70d and H. Bauer and P. Leander, Historische Grammatik der Hebräischen Spache, 1922, par. 343b.

^*

There are many biblical and extra-biblical examples of this particular atrocity. See for the first one 2 Kgs 8.12 and 15.16, for the second one the appraisal of Tiglatpileser I: “Er zerfetzte der Schwangeren Bäuche/durchbohrte der Schwachen Leib” (cited by H. Schmökel, Ur, Assur und Babylon, 1955, p. 114). Compare also Homer, Iliad VI, 57f.

Because of the peculiar relationship between the two sentences, changes in the text have sometimes been proposed (one of these has recently been followed by neb). J. J. P. Valeton, Amos en Hosea. Een hoofdstuk uit de geschiedenis van Israëls Godsdienst, Nijmegen, 1894 ad loc. thinks that harot is a scribal error for betsurot, “fortified cities,” and he is followed in this by Budde. Both authors point out that the same verb baqa’ is also used for making a breach in the walls of a city. Sellin ad loc. wants to read har (mountain area) instead of harot and this reading must have inspired neb: “they invaded the ploughlands of Gi1ead.” More recently, an approach from the side of comparative philology has been made. Reider (VT 6, 1954, p. 279) compares Arabic harrat and translates “stony tracts.” There is, however, no support and no reason for such a change.

^* For Wolff one even has to read the conventional formula, as the unusual wehitstsatti should come from Jer 49.27 and be due to a copyist.

^*

In the versions much evidence can be found for early translation technical operations, but there is no reason to follow their evidence. Most lxx mss. read “her kings” (a ‘correction’ of the possessive has only taken place in 130 and 407 txt) connecting thus ‘kings’ with ‘Rabbah,’ a much nearer antecedent in the text! There is no reason whatsoever to presuppose the existence of a different Hebrew Vorlage (against Wolff).

The Lucianic main group, Aquila, Symmachus, Syriac and Vulgate vocalize mlkm as milkom (melchom) and think thus of the god of Ammon. Accordingly lxx and Syriac read “their (his) priests and their (his) leaders.” This does not mean that they read kohanayw instead of hu’ (against Wolff), but that they divided the officers into two specific groups of religious and non-religious officials.

Waard, Jan de ; Smalley, William Allen ; Smalley, William Allen: A Translator's Handbook on the Book of Amos. Stuttgart : United Bible Societies, 1979 (Helps for Translators), S. 28