Amos Chapter 2.
Amos 2.1–3.
All six of the characteristic parts of this series are present in this message about Moab. A sample restructuring of this passage is given in Translating Amos, Section 5.2.
Amos 2:1.
(1–2) The Lord says … punish them. See 1.3.
(3) Because he burned to lime the bones of the king of Edom. (rsv)/ They dishonored the bones of the king of Edom by burning them to ashes. The historical situation that underlines this accusation is not known to us. However, the act did not take place immediately after the death of the unknown king, but some time later, along with the opening of his tomb. So the particular crime is not in the act of burning, but in the opening up of the tomb and taking out the bones. Such an act was felt to be a serious offense, and not only by the ancient Semites!*
The bones were burned so completely that their ashes became as fine and as white as lime. This is how the meaning can be most easily expressed in many languages.* It is probable, however, that the Hebrew also refers to an additional crime: that the Moabites used the ashes of the king of Edom as one of the materials for plastering their houses. In one ancient translation this possibility has been expressed directly: “and plastered them in the lime on its house.”* This understanding has also been kept in the footnote of the neb. So the restructuring suggested in Translating Amos, Section 5, can also serve as a model for languages where it would be convenient and effective: “burning his bones to make lime.”
Amos 2:2.
(4) I will send fire … fortresses of Kerioth. See 1.10, 14. In one ancient translation Kerioth was not taken as a proper name but as meaning “towns”* (compare neb: “fire that shall consume the palaces in their towns”). There is historical evidence for the existence of a town Kerioth,* however, and it would be better to translate as such: “the fortresses of the town of Kerioth.”
And Moab shall die amid uproar, amid shouting and the sound of the trumpet (rsv)/ The people of Moab will die in the noise of battle while soldiers are shouting and trumpets are sounding. The tev has made much of the meaning clear. Moab (rsv) has been translated as The people of Moab. Uproar is in fact the noise of battle. The shouting involves people, so soldiers are shouting. The sound of the trumpet (rsv) is translated trumpets are sounding. In some languages someone will have to do the blowing so “soldiers are shouting and blowing trumpets.” All three events happen at the same time, and tev expresses this relationship with while. The meaning of the shouting and trumpet blowing should not be misleading. As would be true in many cultures, the shouting probably had a magical function and was intended to chase evil spirits.*
Amos 2:3.
(5) I will cut off the ruler (Hebrew: judge) from its midst, and I will slay all its princes (Hebrew: leaders) with him (rsv)/ I will kill the ruler of Moab and all the leaders of the land. The tev, with its prose restructuring, has combined I will cut off (rsv) and I will slay (rsv), which will need to be done in many other languages as well. In most translations also, the word “judge” should not be translated literally, since in most cultures the work of judging and of ruling is quite different. Ruler is the meaning here.* Where no general term like ruler is possible, some other more specific term may have to be used, but there is no clear indication as to the precise status of this ruler. From early times Moab had been a monarchy (Num 23.7; Judges 3.12ff; 2 Kgs 3.4ff; Jer 27.3; Mesha inscription 1.23), and the function of the ruler was certainly similar to that of a king or chief (mft: “monarch”; Smith-Goodspeed: “chieftain”).
All the leaders of the land will, of course, sometimes be better translated “all its leaders.”
(6) Says the Lord. (rsv) See 1.5.
Amos 2.4–5
The message about Judah has the same parts as the messages about Tyre (1.9–10) and Edom (1.11–12). It is particularly like that about Edom in its grammatical construction in the third part. However, the same structure expresses a message with very different content in some ways from any of the preceding ones. Here there is no mention of crimes against fellow men, only of crimes committed against God. This is particularly noticeable in the Hebrew because in verse 4 the Lord (who is speaking) is referred to as the one being talked about.
Amos 2:4.
(1–2) The Lord says … punish them. See 1.3.
(3) Because they have rejected (Hebrew: despised) the law of the Lord, and have not kept his statutes (rsv)/ They have despised my teachings and have not kept my commands. In most languages the translation of the law of the Lord … his … (rsv) has to be translated my … my …, since this is a section in which the Lord is speaking. However, in Hebrew this stylistic irregularity has a purpose, and this purpose is lost when the irregularity is smoothed out in translation. So, if it is at all possible to include the word “Lord” (rsv) so as to keep the Hebrew emphasis, this should be done: “because they despised the law of me, the Lord” or “because they despised my teaching—the Lord’s teaching!—and have not kept my commandments.”
They have despised my teachings could be translated “they have rejected my teachings.” But if at all possible, it is better to use an expression which keeps some of the meaning of “contempt” (nab and neb use “spurned,” which is good where it is not too high a level of language).
Teachings and commands. The Hebrew terms are difficult to translate. In this particular context, the first Hebrew term means the whole of God’s will, and the second indicates specific rules.*No such distinction can be made in many languages. If a distinction exists, it is often that between a “law” in some traditional and definite form, and a specific order given by some authority. There may also be a distinction between unwritten customary law and specific orders.*
In cases like that, the local terms for traditional law, customary law, etc., should be used as equivalents of teachings; a word for the regulations of officials should be used as an equivalent for commands. In cases where only one term can be used in the receptor language, the sentence can be restructured: “because they have rejected my law.” This is not undertranslation since the two expressions are parallel in the Hebrew text and there is a high degree of overlapping between their meanings.
But their lies have led them astray, after which their fathers walked. (rsv)/ They have been led astray by the same false gods that their ancestors served. Some modern English translations (rsv, Smith-Goodspeed, nab) translate lies literally, but this does not show the full meaning of the Hebrew. The Hebrew word for lies (rsv) is here a reference to false gods or “idols,” which are considered to be producers, and probably also products, of lies.* This reference has been made clear in some recent translations (mft, neb, tev), and such a translation is to be preferred. Whether it will be possible or necessary to qualify the “gods” as false will depend upon the word which has been selected in the translation to render gods. In some languages a diminutive plural “small gods” has been used with the implication of “useless,” “worthless,” and such a translation may be sufficient.
“Walked after” is a picture for served. In some languages the kind of grammatical construction will have to be changed: “the (false) gods which their ancestors served have led them astray (or: have made them do wrong).”
Amos 2:5.
(4) So I will send fire upon Judah and burn down the fortresses of Jerusalem. See 1.4.
Amos 2.6–16
Five of the usual parts are present in this message to Israel (part [4]—the standard punishment of war and fire—is missing), but three of the five parts are different from the earlier messages in many ways. Only part (1), the statement of the source of the message, and part (2), the general reason for God’s decision to punish the people, are the same in wording as the earlier messages.
The fact that this message fits in with the series of messages where the statements have been so much alike and yet that it is so different in its content, emphasizes the significance of the differences. The challenge to a skillful translator is to make the reader sense that significance in his own language, in spite of the difficulties.
Section heading. See 1.3–3.2.
Amos 2:6a
(1–2) The Lord says … punish them. See 1.3. Since the message is addressed to Israel, and is not simply about Israel (as the previous messages were about the other peoples), the use of the people of Israel and them may cause misunderstanding in some languages. It may sometimes be necessary to translate so that God speaks directly here: “You people of Israel … I will punish you.” To do so brings up to verse 6 the change which the Hebrew makes in verse 10.
However, if some way can be found to continue the style of the previous messages, as though God were still talking about someone else, and then switch dramatically to the more direct form later, as the Hebrew does, this may be very effective in many languages. tev makes the switch in verse 9, one verse before the Hebrew. In some languages it might be best to bring it up even into the second part of verse 6. This would strongly emphasize that although the message begins the same way as the earlier ones, the implications for the hearers are not the same at all.
Wherever the change is made, special attention should be given to the way in which it is made, with special emphasis in its wording. For example: “you, my people, sell honest men into slavery …” or “and you, the people of Israel, have sinned again and again.”
Amos 2.6b–12.
(3) The third part of the message to Israel, containing the specific illustrations of Israel’s crimes, starts with the familiar because they (rsv), with the crimes introduced in the usual way in the Hebrew grammar (2.6b), but there the similarity ends. Interwoven are social crimes and the fact that these are also crimes against God. The way in which these are organized may be seen in the Appendix, Section 3.1.
That the crimes against people are also crimes against God must be clear in the translation.
Amos 2:6b
Because they sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of shoes (rsv) (Hebrew: sandals)—/ They sell into slavery honest men who cannot pay their debts, poor men who cannot repay even the price of a pair of sandals. The Hebrew does not say who (in Israel) did the selling, which causes difficulty for translating into many language. How this is decided depends on how the rest of the passage is understood. Did the same people sell (rsv) the righteous (rsv) as sold the needy (rsv), or did judges sell (rsv) the righteous (rsv) (by taking bribes) and creditors sell (rsv) the needy (rsv) into slavery to recover their debts?*
It does not seem likely that different people are doing the selling in the two cases, or even that one general group such as the corrupt upper classes are here divided into judges and creditors. It certainly is also unlikely that the same verb to “sell” (rsv) should have been used once as picture language (for bribery) and once with its regular meaning. So there are two possible solutions: the ones who did the selling are either judges or creditors in both cases.
The easiest way of understanding the passage seems to be with the meaning of creditors. With it goes natural use of sell (rsv) in both cases. Furthermore, the same people carry on into verse 7, and the rich can be understood as acting in both verses. Finally, it is not necessary to take righteous in a legal sense (compare mft: “honest folk”).*
In Hebrew the emphasis is first on the righteous (rsv) and then on a pair of sandals. So the point is first that for rich creditors money has more value than the personal qualifications of people, and second that even people who need help are victims for insignificant reasons. Translations of this passage should express a lot more of these meanings than they normally do. To sell has to be qualified as “to sell into slavery” or “to sell as slaves,” and the meaning of “for money” and “for a pair of sandals” has to be stated clearly. tev has done many of these things well, but who cannot repay even the price of a pair of sandals does not completely show that selling into slavery is the result of not repaying. Another way might be “because they can’t pay back the small sum they owe for a pair of sandals.”*
A pair of sandals*will have to be translated as “two sandals for two feet,” or some other idiomatic way, in some languages.
Amos 2:7.
They that trample the head of the poor into the dust of the earth (rsv) / They trample down the weak and helpless. The Hebrew for the word translated trample here is not clear. In some translations it has been taken to mean (1) “long for,” in which case the Hebrew would be “they long for the dust of the earth on the head of the poor.” This is the way the older English translations have it: “that pant after the dust of the earth on the head of the poor” King James Version (kjv). Such a translation of the Hebrew has been understood in different ways: (a) as a picture of extreme greed: the rich landowners even long to own the small quantity of earth people throw on their heads as a sign of mourning;* (b) as a picture of the way poor people are pushed down: the rich are only satisfied when they see the poor in a miserable condition;*(c) as “they long for land at the expense of the poor.”*
In other translations the problem word has been understood as (2) “crush,” trample (upon) down, in which case the Hebrew text—after some slight changes—could be translated literally as in the rsv, as well as in most modern commentaries and English translations. The shortened form in the tev They trample down covers all the meaning of the Hebrew sentence as understood in the second interpretation. Leaving out the head … into the dust of the earth (rsv) reduces the picture language but does not change the meaning. mft, on the other hand, uses a comparison to keep the picture: “they trample down the poor like dust.”*
With our present knowledge, we cannot be sure which of these interpretations is best,*but (1a), (1b), and (2) may be followed equally well in translation.
If interpretation (1a) is used, reason for the behavior may have to be stated in many translations; for example, “they (the rich landowners) even long to own the earth which poor people throw on their heads as a sign of mourning.”
Interpretation (1b) is less difficult for translation. Such a statement as “they like to see poor people mourning” or “they like to see poor people throwing earth on their heads as a sign of mourning” can easily be made.
If interpretation (2) is followed, tev can usually be taken as a model. Of course, the expression used to translate trample down must imply oppression and not only physical “walking on.” In some languages the expression will be something like: “they rob the poor.”
The poor … afflicted (rsv)/ the weak and helpless … poor. tev has apparently changed” the order of these two terms. In the Hebrew it is the poor (rsv) which goes with trample (rsv), and “weak/oppressed/humble” which goes with push … out of the way. In doing this, of course, the tev has not changed the meaning of the passage, since the expressions are parallel and are picture language for the same kind of action toward poor people who are not able to defend themselves.
Turn aside the ways: of … (rsv)/ push … out of the way can be interpreted in two different ways: (a) as a general statement like in tev, and (b) as a more specific act such as “they pervert the way (or: cause judgment) of the weak.” The more specific interpretation is made stronger by the parallel expression in 5.12.*Here again it is difficult to decide, but as the specific case is included in the general, it is perhaps preferable to follow (a). In that case, if an expression like push … out of the way is not natural and there is no similar use of picture language, the translation will have to say something like “they worry/trouble miserable people” (compare mft: “and humble souls they harry”).
If interpretation (b) is preferred, some restructuring will be necessary, such as “they keep the miserable from getting justice.”
A man and his father go in to the same maiden, (rsv)/ A man and his father have intercourse with the same slave girl. The men involved are a man and his father, which should not be translated as “father and son” (neb) because the Hebrew implies “not only the son, but even the father.”
The Hebrew go in to (rsv) includes the meaning of sexual intercourse.* However, the attention seems to be less on the intercourse than on the way the woman is abused. The general theme is still that of mistreating the lower classes: “not only the son, but even the father, goes after the servant girl.” In different languages, of course, the polite ways of expressing the sexual behavior will vary.
Slave girl is the right translation, rather than “prostitute” (nab, jb note, Smith-Goodspeed). If temple prostitution was emphasized, we would expect to find verse 7b after verse 8.* Also, nowhere in the Old Testament does the word for “girl” mean “prostitute,”*nor anything equivalent in ancient translations.*
So that my holy name is profaned; (rsv)/ and so profane my holy name. This is the result of the treatment of the servant girl, expressed through a Hebrew particle translated and so.*Profane can often be translated by a word equivalent to English “defile.” In languages in which it is hard to find an acceptable equivalent for holy, the translator can simply say “profane/ defile/ dishonor my name.” Since the name stands for God himself, the translation can say something like “profane/ defile/ dishonor me.”
Amos 2:8.
They lay themselves down beside every altar upon garments taken in pledge; (rsv)*/ At every place of worship men sleep on clothing that they have taken from the poor as security for debts. In many languages beside every altar should be translated something like At every place of worship or “at all the places where they worship God.” The sentence, however, raises several questions which are left unanswered: (a) why is the clothing at the place of worship? and (b) why do people lie down at the altars, and why on this clothing?* The translator cannot answer these questions, but he should word the translation in such a way that the reader sees all that is pictured as a misuse of the place of worship as well as a mistreatment of the poor, whose clothing (taken in pledge during the day) was to be returned at nighttime (Exo 22.26; Deut 24.12ff). For example, “even in their places of worship they lie down on clothing unlawfully kept from the poor as security for debts.”
The Hebrew word for clothing should be taken here as a general word which includes every kind of garment. tev has translated taken in pledge (rsv) clearly and in less technical language as have taken … security for debts. In many cases a less technical term such as “guarantee” will have to be used in the receptor language, even if technical terms are available. Many societies do have a well-developed vocabulary for different kinds of pledges, but they may have meanings which are so tied in with the receptor culture that they cannot suitably reflect the Biblical situation.
In the house of their God (rsv)/ In the temple of their God. This may also mean “the house of their gods” (See neb margin, Smith-Goodspeed). If God (rsv) is used, house (rsv) can be translated temple, although in many languages, of course, “house of God” will be standard terminology for temple. It should be clear that in this context it is the house of the God who is speaking, and in many languages the translation would better be “my house” or “my temple.” Such a translation also helps in verse 9.
The temple of their God is, of course, fully equivalent with every place of worship, and the whole verse can sometimes be tied together by stating this setting only once, if that is better. However, in Hebrew the repetition of profane my holy name, at every place of worship and in the temple of their God emphasizes that this is not only injustice to man but also unfaithfulness to God.
They drink the wine of those who have been fined (rsv)/ they drink wine which they have taken from those who owe them money. tev is based on the parallel in verse 8a, and such an interpretation is possible.*It is more probable, however, that the fines are those paid to the (temple) community, and this money was used for drunken parties in the sacred places instead of for those who received damage! It is quite possible that the fines were paid in wine rather than money.*This is the standard interpretation of the commentaries and the modern English translations. In translation this meaning might be expressed as “they drink the wine they got from people they have fined” Translators’ Old Testament (TT).
In this context wine is a rather general word for any strong, intoxicating drink, and it is not necessary to use a borrowed word to make this drink more specific. The translator can use the local word for “palm wine,” “rice wine,” “millet beer,” etc.*
Amos 2.9–12
At this point in the listing of the sins of the people of Israel, God reminds them of his special relationship to them and of his care for them in the past. This comes to a climax in verse 11:
“Israel, you know that is true, don’t you?
It’s the Lord who is reminding you!“
In translations where God has been speaking disrespectfully of the sinning nations (see under 1.3 [2]), it may be good for that style to change here and for this passage to Israel to be in a warmer style, more sorrowful than angry.
But this passage is difficult and needs special care by the translator (see the English restructuring in Translating Amos, Section 2.3); it is a very important passage in Amos’ total message. One difficulty lies in the way it is organized in Hebrew (see Appendix, Section 3.1). It seems out of place in the list of Israel’s sins, and part of it seems backwards as we read it in most translations. Salvation from Egypt (verse 10) actually came before the opening up of the land of Canaan (verse 9). Such backwards order is not possible in some languages, or it may be awkward and have to be changed (compare mft). Even in languages where going back to a previous event is perfectly natural and makes a good translation, the two events should be carefully related. rsv and neb, for example, do not do so, and leave the second mention of the Amorites in verse 10 as a weak repetition. tev, in the way it constructs the sentences, more skillfully relates the events of Egypt and the desert as background to the events connected with the Amorites; the final mention of the Amorites is a stronger ending, better tied with verse 9. Many languages have words or expressions to relate things which are out of order in this way. Verse 9 describes what God has done to the Amorites on behalf of Israel, verse 10 what God has done to Israel itself. So in some languages the change can be underlined through the use of an emphatic pronoun: “And you, my people, I brought you ….”
A second major problem for some languages is the one already mentioned under 2.6a; in verse 10 in Hebrew God now speaks directly to the people of Israel. See the earlier discussion.
A third problem is that the I which comes near the beginning of verse 9 is emphatic in Hebrew. It helps to indicate the sharp contrast between the people, who have been unfaithful, and God’s faithfulness. Languages differ in how they express such emphasis and contrast. Some do it with special pronouns, some with changes in order, some with special expressions or additional words. In English, for example: “it was I” (neb, nab), “I, myself,” or “I was the one.”
Verse 10 also has an emphatic I, but at least partly with a different purpose. It is to make clear that verse 10 does not follow verse 9 in time, as discussed earlier. However, even though an emphatic wording may not be needed for that reason in the language of the translation (because the change in time is handled in some other way), still the contrast present in verse 9 is also present here, and for many languages the emphasis will need to be preserved (see neb). A great deal will depend on how the two verses are tied together.
In many languages, also, long quotations are confusing, and the speaker has to be mentioned periodically. Where that is true, the beginning of verse 9 is likely to be such a place: “and the Lord continues to say,” “and the Lord also says.”
Amos 2:9.
Before them, (rsv)/ for your sake. In contrast to what has been done in most modern translations, the Hebrew should be understood as showing the reason for God’s action (like the tev), not the place (like the rsv) (compare Hos 10.15; Gen 6.13; Deut 28.20).
Destroyed. In translation the term must be one which can be used for people. This destruction is that of war: death, loss of home and possessions, exile.
Amorite (rsv)/ Amorites lived in Canaan at the time when the people of Israel conquered it. Where it is helpful, the translation may say “your/ their enemies, the Amorites.”
Whose height was like the height of the cedars, and who was as strong as the oaks (rsv)/ men who were as tall as cedar trees and as strong as oaks. Such full comparisons are usually not hard to translate except for the terms cedar trees*and oaks.*
In either case, where the specific kind of Biblical tree is not known, the best solution is probably to take a general word for “tree” (provided it includes the possibility of tall trees and strong trees), and to build the comparison around it. Something like “as tall as the tallest trees, and strong as the greatest trees” might do. Or the two comparisons can be combined: “as tall, as strong as the greatest tree.”
A second possible solution would be to borrow the words cedar and oak and write them according to the sound patterns of the language of 2.9 the translation: “tall as the tree called cedar,” etc. Still a third possibility is to take local trees which are tall and strong. Such a solution would not be as good if this were a particular tree of historical importance, but as a basis for comparison like this, it is a possibility. Still another possibility is to say something like “strong as big trees like the mahogany tree.” Or yet again, some of the information could be put in a footnote so that the kind of tree could be better understood without including inaccurate information in the text.
I destroyed his fruit above, and his roots beneath. (rsv) This picture is not kept in the tev but included in the earlier use of totally destroyed because this was a standard Canaanite and Hebrew idiom,* and the meaning of the expression as a whole should be translated and not the meanings of the individual words.*If the Hebrew idiom can be replaced by an equivalent idiom in your language, it should be done. In English we could say: “I destroyed them root and branch” (Robinson, TT); in German: “ich rotte sie mit Stumpf und Stiel aus,” etc. If it is not possible to find an equivalent idiom, the meaning of the total expression should be translated in a general way, as tev has done.
Amos 2:10.
I brought you up out of the land of Egypt (rsv)/ I brought you out of Egypt. The word brought, which involves motion, will certainly require an indicator of direction in many languages (see discussion in Translating Amos, Section 3). Hebrew has up out (rsv). In order to determine what would be most appropriate in the language of the translation, the translator will need to think about the relationship of Egypt to Israel. In some cases it may also be useful to qualify Egypt as “land” or “country.”
And led you forty years in the wilderness, (rsv)/ led you through the desert for forty years. “Did you go” is translated led, but the Hebrew in this particular context has two parts to its meaning: “guidance” and “care.”* In some languages the second meaning can be made clearer by using a verb equivalent to English “accompany.”
The Hebrew word translated by desert does not indicate a sandy desert but rough uninhabited land with patches of grass which would provide a certain amount of pasture for animals. “Uninhabited” is the most important part of the meaning, and lack of vegetation is secondary. Most languages have specific words for an uninhabited area such as “grasslands,’ ”“rocky region,” “place where no house is,” etc.*
To possess the land of the Amorite. (rsv)/ and gave you the land of the Amorites. This sentence can be translated “that you might seize/have the land of the Amorites” (see Smith-Goodspeed). On the other hand, this event takes place under the leadership of the Lord, as stated in verse 9. God is doing the action so the sentence can be translated as in tev.
Amos 2:11.
And I raised up some of your sons for prophets, and some of your young men for Nazirites (rsv)/ I chose some of your sons to be prophets and some of your young men to be Nazirites. The Hebrew verb has the meaning of “constitute,” “appoint,”*so it is possible to translate: “I appointed some of your sons to be prophets, and some of your young men to be Nazirites” (TT). On the other hand, the Hebrew “appoint” includes both “call”*and “choose.” Thus, a rendering “I called …” or I chose is equally possible.
Prophets is usually difficult to translate. The Old Testament word for “prophet” should not be different in the translation from that used in the New Testament, but if the New Testament word is not satisfactory it should be changed so that both Testaments use a satisfactory word. It is useful to work out together words for a whole group of related and distinct terms such as prophet, seer, apostle, disciple, etc., or to revise words already in use.
Normally there are three different possibilities for the translation of prophet: (1) an expression for foretelling the future; (2) an expression which describes the prophet as a revealer of God’s will and word; and (3) a loan word borrowed from Greek or some language in the area of the translation. This last solution (borrowing) should not be used unless the word is already known in the language, and with the correct meaning. The meaning which the term is likely to get in the process of borrowing is not likely to be the Biblical meaning.
The first solution (foretelling the future) is easy to follow, as all cultures have terms equivalent to “soothsayer,” “fortune teller,” etc. However, while not denying that the Hebrew term includes foretelling the future, the more important part is its meaning of the revelation of God’s word;*and the term for “soothsayer” would doubtless convey meanings that have nothing to do with the Biblical message.
The second solution (descriptive phrase for revealing God’s will and word) is therefore usually the best: “who speaks the things of God,” “interpreter for God,” “God’s sent-word person,” etc. The problem with descriptive phrases is keeping them concise as well as accurate. This is especially necessary with such words as prophet which occur so frequently in the Bible.*(See also the restructuring in Translating Amos, Section 2.3.)
Occasionally there may be a fourth alternative for prophet. Some traditional societies have a type of wise person who is quite distinct from the fortune teller. Through word revelation and without use of magic ritual he reveals hidden connections between things that happen and their causes. If the various meanings associated with the term for such a person are all right, the term can be used for prophet.
Nazirites should not normally be translated, but should be spelled according to the sound system of the language. Even if some descriptive expression is used, it will not convey the very particular meaning of the term. In either case, additional qualifications such as “were people (men) called Nazirites” will be necessary. An explanation will often be needed in a footnote or in the glossary. For example. “The Nazirite was someone set apart for the service of God. He was not allowed to cut his hair or to drink wine. He had to take several vows which are described in the law of the Nazirite: Num 6.1–21. “(Compare the tev note).
Is it not indeed so, O people (Hebrew: sons) of Israel? says (Hebrew: message of) the Lord. (rsv)/ Isn’t this true, people of Israel? I, the Lord, have spoken. The climactic, emphatic quality of these reminders that God is talking to his people has already been discussed (2.9–12), as has the fact that they interrupt the flow of discussion of the Nazirites and prophets.*
The translator should try to make this climax strong, but he may have to change its location in order to do it. The climactic position may be after verse 12. The language which he uses in the translation should also be forceful.
Some languages will not allow questions which do not have answers such as Isn’t this true, people of Israel? Or in some languages such questions may be weak. In that case, a strong positive exclamation may have to be used, such as “You Israelites will not deny that!” (TT) or a statement followed by a question: “You know that is true, don’t you, people of Israel”?
“Message of the Lord” has been translated as an independent sentence in tev: I, the Lord, have spoken. In many languages such a translation may sound awkward, especially in this line is not placed after verse 12. It may look as though the Lord, having indicated that he has spoken, continues to speak in an apparently unfinished discourse! If the question is to be maintained, it may be easier to translate: “Isn’t this true, people of Israel? I, the Lord, ask you.” (compare mft). Other possibilities: “It’s your Lord speaking,” “I am your Lord, reminding you that this is true.” The two sentences can be combined: “You know that what I am saying is true, don’t you, people of Israel”?
Amos 2:12.
In languages where long quotations are confusing or where the mention of the Lord speaking in verse 11 will sound like the end of a quotation, the speaker can be introduced here again: “And the Lord continues to say.”
But you made the Nazirites drink wine may simply mean “but you made the Nazirites break their vow.”*
Wine, see verse 8.
And commanded the prophets, saying, “You shall not prophesy.” (rsv)/ and ordered the prophets not to speak my message. For some languages it will be perfectly natural to have the direct words quoted as in Hebrew (see rsv), even though this quotation is inside another quotation. In other languages the direct quotation should be avoided, as it has been in the tev. Compare: “and forbade the prophets to prophesy” (TT). Prophesy (rsv) can best be rendered as speak my message or “speak my things,” or, indirectly, “speak the things of God.”
Amos 2.13–16
(5) This is the part of the message to Israel which gives the particular punishment the nation will receive. This part is again considerably longer here than in the messages to the other nations, and is different in content. Instead of promises of destruction for people and leaders, the punishment at first seems weak and mild: loss of strength, loss of ability to fight, inability to hold up a heavy load. However, the implication in context is very powerful. Israel’s strength came from its relationship to God. Now that Israel has broken that relationship, its strength will be gone.*(See Appendix, Section 3.1).
Amos 2:13.
Behold (rsv)/ And now. In Hebrew this is an expression which calls attention to something and often begins a strong final or climactic statement. Behold, of course, is not modern English, while and now is too weak, particularly with no paragraph break in the tev. A paragraph break and “so then” might be better in English here. The equivalent in many languages is more like the literal Hebrew.
I will press you down (Hebrew: meaning of word uncertain) in your place as a cart full of sheaves presses down. (rsv)/ I will crush you to the ground, and you will groan like a cart loaded with grain. The key word in this verse is not clear in Hebrew. Discounting suggestions to change the text, six different meanings have been proposed:*
(2) I will make it groan under you (so with slight variants Smith Goodspeed, TT [alternative reading]; compare neb).*
(3) I will split (the earth) under you.*
(4) I will bring you to a halt (TT).*
Until more convincing evidence turns up it is not possible to say that any one of these is absolutely correct. Nevertheless, a choice has to be made, and it seems wise to choose one of the first three translations.*All three carry the thought of a catastrophe, and this is exactly what one expects to find on the basis of the punishment we expect here. Also, a cart loaded with grain indicates “harvest,” which is often a Hebrew picture of God’s judgment.
The balanced organization of the Hebrew lines probably gives more weight to meaning (2), since this part of the balanced system has to do with Israel’s weakness without God (Appendix). If this meaning is followed, some kind of clear statement will be needed such as “(when I punish you) you will groan (with weakness) as a cart overloaded with grain groans.” In some languages, of course, the same word cannot be used for the pain of something alive and the sound of a cart, which may weaken the picture somewhat: “… you will groan … as a cart … squeaks/creaks.”
The word for cart should stand for any type of vehicle without motor and capable of carrying grain. It is often easier to say that the cart is loaded / overloaded with grain than to say that it is “full of sheaves” (rsv).
In Hebrew the focus is on the weight.*Every language has its own ways of indicating that the cart is “overloaded.” It is not enough, however, to translate simply “a full load” (neb), omitting the grain which represents harvest and judgment.
If translation (1) is chosen, the first part of tev can be followed: I will crush you to the ground “the way a cart full of grain is loaded down (or: is overloaded).”
tev, however, combines translations (1) and (2), using (1) for the first part and (2) for the second part of the verse, which is rather doubtful.
Translation (3) is a difficult picture to translate: “I will split the earth under you as a cart loaded with grain splits the earth,” as it is not clear what meaning this picture would have in the context.
Amos 2:14.
Flight (Hebrew: a refuge) shall perish from the swift (rsv)/ Not even fast runners will escape. In many languages some form of restructuring will be necessary, such as “swift runners will find no refuge” (TT), or Not even fast runners will escape, “he who is quick will not escape,” etc. There has been a slight shift in the language from earlier verses. God is now talking about, not directly to, people once more, so far as the grammar is concerned: “the swift,” not “you who are swift” (see discussion under 2.6a). In English there is no problem, as these various people are examples of the you in verse 13. However, in some languages it would be better to translate “you fast runners” or “your fast runners” or “the fast runners among you.” This continues through verse 16.
The strong shall not retain (Hebrew: unfold) his strength (rsv)/ strong men will lose their strength. Another possibility for the Hebrew: “his strength will not strengthen the strong.” In some languages one may have to say something like: “strong (or mighty) people will not be able to use their strength” or “the strong will become weak.”
Nor shall the mighty save his life (rsv)/ and soldiers will not be able to save their own lives. Another possibility: “and the warriors will not be able to save (or: protect) themselves.”
rsv Revised Standard Version
* Compare the inscription found on the tomb of Eshmunazar, king of Sidon (3rd century b.c.): “I adjure every prince and every man that they open not this resting-place … nor take away the coffin of my resting-place, nor carry me from this resting-place (and lay me) on a second resting- place … For every prince and every man who shall open this resting-place … may they have no resting-place with the Shades, nor be buried in a grave” (Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum 1.3 in the translation of G. A. Cooke, A Text-Book of North-semitic Inscriptions, Oxford, 1903, p. 31). See also M. J. Lagrange, Etudes sur les religions sémitiques, Paris, 1905, pp. 314–341.
* This is the way it was understood by at least one ancient translation. The Vulgate focuses on the completeness of the burning: eo quod incenderit ossa regis Idumeae usgue ad cinerem.
* So Targum: wesadinun baggira’ bebeyteyh. Wolff (op. cit., p. 162) gives a free translation which rightly renders the meaning: es hat daraus Kalkverputz für sein Haus gemacht.“
neb New English Bible
* The town is mentioned in line 12f of the Mesha stone (see the edition by Cooke) according to which Kerioth was an important center of worship of the national god Chemosh. According to K. H. Bernhardt (Zur Identifizierung moabitischer Ortslagen, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina Vereins 76, 1960, pp. 136–158), Kerioth should be identical with the modern kurêyât ‘alêyân.
tev Today’s English Version
* For this and for literature on the subject see V. Maag, op. cit., p. 207, note 664.
mft Moffatt
* No doubt torah and huqqim have to be interpreted according to the meaning these terms had in the vocabulary of the deuteronomistic school from which they are taken.
* Compare also E. A. Nida, Bible Translating, London, 1961, p. 197f.
* So Keil, op. cit., ad loc. For the lxx translator, they are “worthless human products”: ta mataia; … ha epoiêsan.“
*
Most commentators understand the word “righteous” (rsv) to mean ‘the innocent party in a lawsuit’ and so they see the judges as the ones who “for silver” (rsv) or “for money” have been taking bribes from the guilty party. (For the definite use of keseph see Brockelmann, Syntax, par. 21c. be after the use of a verb of selling can only be interpreted as be pretii.) “Sell” (rsv), then, would be picture language. (So Keil, Sellin, Robinson, Cripps, van Gelderen, Amsler, Wellhausen, Driver.) In fact, the first half line in the Hebrew seems to have been understood in that way by at least some ancient translators. In one of the Lucianic subgroups (62, 147), the setting has been made explicit: en krisei (in trial).
However, if “and the needy for a pair of shoes” (rsv) expresses the same thought, judges should also be the ones who are doing the selling; “sell” (rsv) would be picture language for ‘to condemn,’ and “a pair of shoes” (rsv) would express the insignificance of the bribe which the judges were willing to take. But few commentators want to understand it this way. Only Wellhausen and Sellin interpret the text consequently according to the parallelism. Under reference to 1 Sam 12.3 lxx, Wellhausen obseves: “Ein Paar Schuh ist ein sprichwörtlich geringfügiger Preis” (op. cit., ad loc.).
Instead, many of them want to see creditors as the ones doing the selling here, and a meaning ‘to sell into slavery.’ It is the debt which is insignificant. So a.o. Driver, Cripps (though conscious of the awkwardness of the change of subject) and van Gelderen (who sees no conflict, as for him the subject is of a more generic character, judges and rich people being taken together as members of the same corrupt upper class and judged according to the same conduct).
* Some commentators, at least, rightly defend this last interpretation. So a.o. van Hoonacker, Weiser, Wolff.
* The discussion whether be and ba abur are equivalents or whether ba’abur na’alayim should rather mean “for the sake of a pair of sandals” stolen, borrowed and lost?) is translationally not very relevant.
* For the Hebrew dual form see Joüon, op. cit., par. 91c.
kjv King James Version
* So Budde and Maag. For both ‘erets is epexegetical. The same interpretation is also to be found in Valeton, op. cit., ad loc. and in F. Hitzig, Die zwölf kleinen Propheten erklärt, Vierte Auflage, besorgt von H. Steiner, Leipzig, 1881, ad loc.
* So Keil, C. von Orelli, Die zwölf kleinen Propheten, Dritte Auflage, Munchen, 1908, ad loc. and C. van Gelderen. This interpretation is typical of the older exegesis and is defended by Gesenius, Ewald, Maurer, Schmoller and others.
* So M. A. Beek, The Religious Background of Amos 2.6–8, Oudtestamentische Studien 5, 1948, p. 135. Beek translates bero’sh with “at the expense of” referring to the parallel text 1 Chr 12.19. ‘aphar must then be deleted as a gloss.
* This interpretation has also been given in one ancient translation, the Targum.
*
It has especially been argued that all ancient translations favor (2), but this argument is not as impressive as it seems to be at first sight. The lxx in reading ta patounta epi ton choun tês gês kai ekondulizon eis kephalas ptôchôn presents a doublet and translates the Hebrew text twice. This means that the Hebrew Vorlage was corrupt and Maag (op. cit., p. 199) gives a very convincing reconstruction of the original text and the way in which it became corrupted. The Vulgate text qui conterunt super pulverem terrae capita pauperum may have been influenced by lxx in its interpretation of the verb, so that only the Targum remains.
No interpretation can simply be dismissed as “nonsense” (Wellhausen’s qualification of 1a). One cannot get rid of the impression that it has often been the “logic” of the western mind which dictated the choice.
* So Cripps, Wolff, Maag. For Maag see especially p. 228ff.
* So rightly Koehler-Baumgartner and Brown-Driver-Briggs s.v. halak; Wolff, op. cit. 2 p. 202 (referring also to Hos 3.3).
jb Jerusalem Bible
* Some defenders of this interpretation have proposed making such a change (so Budde and Weiser). There is, however, absolutely no textual support for such a transposition.
* See especially Maag, op. cit. p. 174ff. Remarkable is Norman H. Snaith’s treatment of the passage. First he defines na’arah as “a young girl, under the age of puberty” (The Book of Amos, Part Two: Translation and Notes, London, 1946, p. 82), but then equates na’arah with qedeshah (temple prostitute) (ibidem, p. 43).
* For this particular consecutive use of lema’an see Joüon, par. 169g.
* Not taking the hiphil of the verb natah intransitively (so a.o. Brown-Driver-Briggs s.v.), but transitively with ellipsis of ‘body’ (so a.o. Maag, p. 88).
* A very plausible reconstruction of a possible chain of events with regard to (a) has been given by Maag (op. cit., p. 235, note 22). According to him, temple officers could have brought sacrifices for poor people who were not able to pay the price of an animal. As a security for debts they took then the clothes of the poor. The series of events implicit in (b) has been made explicit by commentators in several ways. So it has been said that they lie down to sleep on these clothes which would have been an additional sin against the law which prescribed that a cloak taken during the day as a pledge should be returned before nightfall (Exo 22.26; Deut 24.12f.). Others think that they lie down on these clothes for their feasts or even their sacred prostitution (Jerome in his explanation of the paraphrase of the lxx).
* So T. H. Robinson, The Book of Amos, in National Adult School series of translations into colloquial speech, 1921, and N. H. Snaith, op. cit., p.45.
*
The Hebrew word translated cedar trees probably indicates one particular species of the genus ‘conifer,’ a tree which could reach height of ten to twenty-five meters. Such a modern scientific description is, however, not very useful for translation purposes, especially if the particular tree, and sometimes even the family to which it belongs, is completely unknown in the receptor culture.
According to Koehler (’erez, Zeitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 55, 1937, p. 163ff.) only three species can be taken into consideration: Juniperus excelsior (5–20 m.), Pinus Pinea (10–20 m.), Abies Cilicia Kotschy (10–25 m., rarely 50 m.). As the height is the ground of the comparison, the last one is perhaps meant here (as well as in Isa 2.13). See also Fauna and Flora of the Bible, Helps for Translators, Volume XI, London, 1972 s.v. cedar.
* The meaning of the word rendered by oaks is not so certain. The Hebrew word was originally used for any big tree and later more specifically for oaks, but there seems to be no unanimity among modern botanists as to which of the six species of oak found in Palestine the Hebrew word refers. For ‘allon in the sense of “big tree” see especially Hess, Beduinisches im Alten Testament, Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 35, 1915, p. 124f. Fauna and Flora of the Bible s.v. oak tree, thinks of the species quercus aegilops (15 m. high) which has a heavy trunk and may well symbolize strength. A parallel development in referential meaning can be noted for the Greek drus (lxx).
* See Isa 37.31 (= 2 Kgs 19.30) and the inscription quoted in note 34 in which the following sentence occurs: “may he have no root beneath, or fruit above, or any beauty among the living under the sun.”
* It is only because he disregards this character of idiom that Neher (op. cit., ad loc.) can explain the meaning of the individual words ‘fruits’ and ‘roots’ as referring to ‘young’ and ‘old.’ Compare also H. L. Ginsberg, “Roots Below and Fruit Above” and Related Matters, in Hebrew and Semitic Studies, presented to G. R. Driver, D. W. Thomas and W. D. McHardy (eds.), 1963, pp. 59–71.
* See Koehler-Baumgartner, s.v. halak, and especially Sellin: “’olek = ich erhielt euch am Leben.” So also Ehrlich, Cramer, van Gelderen. The component of guidance is strongly expressed in one lxx ms (233) which reads hôdêgêsa.
* See Notes on the Book of Amos (Old Testament Translators’ Translation), ad loc. and A Translator’s Handbook on Mark on 1.3.
* So rightly Brown-Driver-Briggs s.v. qum. Compare also Wolff ad loc.: “qum hi. bezeichnet … die Amtseinsetzung der Propheten …”
* Compare Maag, note 528: “qum”: aufstellen = (durch Berufung) erstehen lassen.“
* See a.o. Maag, op cit., note 377: “Für Amos heisst nabi’ somit ein berufsmässiger Künder des göttlichen Wortes.”
* Compare also A Translator’s Handbook on Mark on 1.2. See now also Barclay M. Newman and Eugene A. Nida, A Translator’s Handbook on the Acts of the Apostles, London, 1972, on 2.16.
* Some scholars believe that this second line should be transposed after verse 12 (so Baunann, Budde and Sellin), but textually and stylistically there seems to be no decisive argument for such a transposition.
* It may possibly refer to parents who consecrated their children as Nazirites and who, in a period in which they were responsible for the keeping of that vow, made these children drink wine. (So Maag, op. cit., note 390. Compare also Beek, art. cit., p. 138.)
* In Hebrew, 2.13 has a rhyme and style similar to 2.9a, with which it is balanced, but it continues the direct statement with the pronoun you which began in verse 10. However, in the remaining verses the Hebrew is no longer direct but changes to them again, so even the place of the switch in pronouns balances.
* The first one through comparison with an Aramaic verb, the others through comparison with Arabic verbs.
* So Targum, Jewish tradition generally, Ewald, G. A. Smith, Driver, Snaith, Gesenius, Keil, Brown-Driver-Briggs s.v. In this case ‘uq is considered to be an Aramaism for Hebrew tsuq.
* Through comparison with Arabic ‘aqa (groan, creak). So already Aquila: trizêsô hupokatô humôn katha trizei hê hamaksa; Vulgate: ecce ego stridebo super vos sicut stridet plaustrum onustum faeno. This interpretation has been followed by Hoffmann, Marti, Weiser, van Gelderen and Touzard. neb makes the subject as acted upon instead of acting: “I groan under the burden of you as a wagon creaks under a full load.”
* Through comparison with post-biblical Hebrew ‘uqah (excavation), Arabic ‘aqqa and Ugaritic ‘qq (split). So H. Gese, Kleine Beiträge zum Verständnis des Amos-buches, Vetus Testamentum 12, 1962, pp. 417–424; Wolff, op. cit., ad loc.
* Through comparison with Arabic ‘aqa (stop, hinder). Such a reading is presupposed by lxx A: kôluô. It has first been defended by J. G. Wetzstein, (Briefliche Bemerkungen von Consul Dr. J. G. Wetzstein, mitgetheilt von E. Riehm, Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 3, 1883, pp. 273–279) and followed by Harper, Budde, van Hoonacker, Amsler.
* Through comparison with Arabic ‘aqa and ‘auq. So L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, Leiden, 1958, s.v. and Maag.
* Through comparison with Arabic ‘uj (withdraw, flee away). So Hitzig’s later view.
* (1) and (3) are closest to the use of related Aramaic or post- biblical Hebrew vocabulary. Both (1) and (2) have important support from ancient versions.
* The weight is expressed through the verb (whatever its interpretation may be) and through a secondary device. lah can best be taken as dativus incommodi.
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. 41
Amos 2:15.
He who handles the bow shall not stand (rsv)/ Bowmen will not stand their ground. tev uses an English idiom “to stand one’s ground” meaning “to maintain one’s position in battle.” This is exactly the meaning of the Hebrew verb. However, idioms can rarely be translated literally, so usually a translator will have to describe the action: “the men who shoot the bow in battle will be forced to retreat,” or “the bowmen will not wait,” meaning that they will not even be able to take time to aim, or “they will not stand firm” (see Smith-Goodspeed, TT).
Not all languages have a specific word for Bowmen. Often a descriptive phrase has to be used as in Hebrew “he who handles the bow.” The translator may have to say, for example, “he who holds the bow in his hand” or “he who fights with a bow.” If the bow is not known, the translator may have to use a more generic term for weapon.
He who is swift of foot shall not save himself, (rsv)/ not even fast runners will escape. Many languages have expressions similar to swift of foot (rsv), such as “men who have strong legs,” etc.
Nor shall he who rides the horse save his life (rsv)/ men on horses will not escape with their lives. It will be necessary in many cases to use a descriptive phrase for men on horses, especially when horses are not used in the local culture. Normally they will at least be known, and there will be some term for them. Using horses in battle may be less widely known than horses themselves. In such cases the use of the horses may have to be clear: “men who ride horses as they fight their enemies.”
Amos 2:16.
In that day, (rsv)/ On that day. tev changes the order from the end of verse 16 to the beginning. It should be located where it is natural. However, this is not a way of expressing the simple idea that the events took place on the same day. That day in Amos (see also 8.3, 9, 13; compare: the day (rsv) 3.14; the evil day (rsv) 6.3) is The Day of the Lord (rsv) (5.18, 20) and always has a sound of danger and judgment, except in 9.11–15 where it is just the opposite.*Translation should show that this is a special day, and if possible the connection between these different references to the Day of the Lord should not be hidden by the wording. A way of translating this expression meaningfully might be “the day/time when the Lord/I will act/judge/punish.”
He who is stout of heart among the mighty (rsv) (Hebrew: and the strong with regard to his heart*among the warriors)/ even the bravest soldiers. The part of the body used to indicate strength and courage will differ from language to language.
Even rightly marks the climax reached at the end of the section. Other languages may have other ways of doing this.
Flee away naked (rsv)/ drop their weapons and run. Even though a literal translation flee naked (rsv) is possible (Smith-Goodspeed, nab, mft: “shall strip”), it is better to take the expression in the sense of “leaving behind one’s weapons”:*“will flee without his weapons” (TT) or “shall be stripped of his arms” (neb) or even as “he shall fling away his weapons” (Robinson).
(6) Says the Lord (rsv)/ The Lord has spoken. The final part giving the source of the message, is slightly different from earlier messages (1.5, 1.8, etc.) in the Hebrew. It is more emphatic and closes not only this message but all eight messages of this section of Amos. In the translation it is good to have a slightly different, slightly more emphatic expression than was used earlier. If, for example, “that is what the Lord says” was used before, then “this is the message from the Lord himself” might be good here. neb has “It is the word of the Lord” in earlier verses and “This is the very word of the Lord” here. tev, which did not repeat this part each time in the earlier occurrences, now has The Lord has spoken here.
rsv Revised Standard Version
tev Today’s English Version
* Even in passages where the reference does not seem to be to the Day of the Lord, “day” (rsv) has ominous associations in Amos: “day of battle” (rsv), “day of the whirlwind” (rsv) (1.14); “darkens the day into night” (rsv) (5.8); “darken the earth in broad daylight” (rsv) (8.9); “a bitter day” (rsv) (8.10).
* See Brockelmann, Syntax, par. 71a and par. 77f.
mft Moffatt
* So Maag, op. cit., note 479, Snaith and Cripps. For a comparable meaning of the Greek gumnos see Herodotus 2.141. See also Horatius, Carmina I, 22.
neb New English Bible
No comments:
Post a Comment