Amos Chapter 3
Amos 3.1–2
The theme of this passage goes with that which immediately precedes more than with that which immediately follows, so we have included it with the messages about Israel and the nations in this Handbook.*The section which follows (3.3–8) is a clearly independent section with its questions and its emphasis on the role of the prophet rather than on Israel, and with its talking about the Lord (as in 2.9–16) rather than the Lord talking. The tone of 3.1–2 continues more sorrowful than angry, and the translation should carry this feeling. It makes more clear the point developed in 2.6–16 that Israel’s punishment results especially from the breaking of the special relationship to God. The expression Hear this word (rsv), furthermore, and other similar ones begin the conclusion of various sections of Amos (see Appendix, Section 1.21), and the structure of the section ties closely with what goes before (see Appendix, Section 3.2).
In spite of the fact that this passage ties more closely with what precedes than what follows, none of the existing translations, except possibly for tev, seem to group it that way. The tev could be taken more than one way. Because there is no section heading in the tev, 3.1–2 could be considered as the final paragraph of a larger section, 1.3—3.2, or as the final paragraph of a smaller section, 2.6—3.2.
Actually, 3.1–2 summarizes almost the total content of Amos’ prophecy, so that it could have found a legitimate place elsewhere in the book, even at the beginning of the book as its general theme. In the general organization of the book, Amos 3.1–2 may well be a transition from the section on Israel among the nations to a continuing message to Israel in particular. It does end the particular attention to the theme of Israel’s sins and punishment, which is picked up again in 8.4–14.
Section heading. For translations which are not trying to show the structure of the book through the use of section headings, a separate section heading may be used for 3.1–2, if this seems helpful in the translation (compare jb). A suitable title for 3.1–2 would be “God Punishes His Own People,” emphasizing the connection with what goes before.
In those translations where the headings do show the structure, something like “Basis for Israel’s Guilt” or “Why God Punished His Own People” might be helpful in showing the relationship.
Amos 3:1.
Hear this word that the Lord has spoken against you, O people of Israel, against the whole family which I brought up out of the land of Egypt: (rsv)/ People of Israel, listen to this message which the Lord has spoken about you, the whole nation that he brought out of Egypt. Because of the important relationship between this passage and the previous one (see 3.1–2), it would be helpful in many languages to show the relationship with a word like “so.”
The Hebrew gives translators a problem because it changes from Amos speaking to God speaking right within the same sentence. Such a rapid change happens often in prophetic writings, and the reason may be that the prophet identifies himself completely with the message of the Lord.
However, this kind of change is often awkward and grammatically unacceptable in other languages. There are three ways of dealing with it in translation: (a) the Lord may speak from the beginning: “I, the Lord”; (b) the Lord may begin to speak in the second half of the verse, as in Hebrew, with a change to indicate whose “family” (rsv) is being talked about: “I led your whole family out of Egypt”; (c) the Lord does not begin to speak until the next verse so that Amos continues speaking throughout verse 1: the whole nation that he brought out of Egypt. (c) is the best solution. It is a simple matter of a change of pronoun and gives little problem.*
People of Israel. tev moves this to the first of the sentence. In each translation it should be given a natural position in keeping with language usage.
Message which the Lord has spoken. To “speak” a message is not fully natural in English, and other wordings may be better in other languages as well: “Listen to this message from the Lord about you, people of Israel!”, “Listen to what the Lord has to say about you.”
Brought out. One way in which the sorrowful tone of this passage can be strengthened in some languages is through the use of a word which is warmer than brought out in English: “rescued” or “led out” or some other term that implies personal involvement.
Whole family (rsv)/ whole nation. Whole nation or “whole race” (mft) or “all the people” is the meaning of the Hebrew.
Amos 3:2.
If the solution to the problem of verse 1 is to have the Lord begin speaking at verse 2, then an expression like “The Lord says” or “He says” may be needed here to introduce verse 2. It must be clear also that the following words are spoken now, not during the time when the people were being brought out of Egypt.
You only (rsv)/ Of all the nations on earth, you … only. The tev is a correct translation of the Hebrew here. The meaning is not “more than” the other nations.*
Have I known (rsv)/ I have known and cared for. The Hebrew word for “known” has several important parts to its meaning, including personal knowledge, intimate knowledge, care, and choice. In this particular context the meaning of intimate knowledge and care should be translated. I have known and cared for, “cared for” (neb, mft), “I have known intimately” (TT). The Hebrew, furthermore, has considerable overlapping with another Hebrew word for “choose,” “elect,”*so that it may very well be translated “I have chosen.” In fact, this may be the best translation in many languages, as very often a verb to “choose” implies personal intimate knowledge and care. The way in which this is expressed should contribute to the tone of sorrow: “the only ones I have really known and cared for,” “the only ones I have ever really chosen and cared for as my own.”
This knowledge and care of the Lord does not refer only to the past,*but also to his revelation which continues in the present: “I have always cared for,” “I am continually caring.” In some languages the continuation could be expressed through two different tenses: “I have cared and care for.”
Therefore (rsv)/ That is why. The meaning is that God punishes because he knows and cares for. Because the Lord knows the people of Israel intimately and cares for them, the people in its turn should know the Lord intimately and want to do his will. Because of his special care, their sins are more terrible.
Iniquities (rsv)/ sins. The Hebrew word is different from the one used in chapters 1 and 2. There the emphasis was on the evil nature of man, whereas here (and only here in Amos) the emphasis is on the damage caused by doing wrong or the guilt of the person who causes damage through doing wrong.* “Guilty behavior” or “doing wrong” would be good translations, although it may be difficult to make this kind of difference in many languages.
* According to some scholars, section 3.1–2 is the final paragraph of a larger discourse unit: 1.3–3.2. Such a division has first been proposed by Budde and it has been defended again by Maag. One possible link seems to be a situational one in that 3.1–2 may have found its origin in a discussion in which the people of Israel reacted against the preceding message by calling upon their special status and particular privileges. (So Weiser, op. cit., ad loc.: “Der kurze Spruch ist aus der Diskussion entstanden.”) Such an appeal is then characterized as an illusion (so Sellin, op. cit., ad loc.).
rsv Revised Standard Version
tev Today’s English Version
jb Jerusalem Bible
*
(a) eliminates the difference between the speech of the prophet and the speech of the Lord; (b) introduces into the direct speech of the Lord a clearly secondary-and according to some scholars, even contradictory-element. Even if one does not want to combine in the actual text 3.1 and 9:7 as J. Morgenstern (Amos Studies, Part Four, in Hebrew Union College Annual, 32, 1961, p. 309) does (compare also Sellin ad loc.), it cannot be denied that both texts belong closely together. And 9.7 makes abundantly clear that the exodus tradition provides no ground for the certainty of election.
Verse 1b has been regarded as a gloss so as more clearly to cover Judah. So Meinhold, Marti, Weiser, Hölscher, T. H. Robinson, Snaith, Wolff (who gives five important arguments on p. 212). Though there are insufficient textual arguments to omit verse 1b, its explanatory and thus secondary character can leave no doubt.
mft Moffatt
* The comparative sense of min has wrongly been defended e.g. by Th. C. Vriezen (Die Erwählung Israels nach dem Alten Testament, in Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 24, 1953, p. 37) and it is wrongly refected in nab: “You alone have favored, more than all the families of the earth.” For the negative force of min see Brockelmann, Syntax, par. 111c, f.
neb New English Bible
* For the degree of overlapping of both the verbs yada’ and bahar see especially Wolff, op. cit., ad loc., and W. Schotroff in Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament s.v. yada’, col. 692.
* R. Smend (Das Nein des Amos, Evangelische Theologie, 23, 1963, p. 409) has made the interesting suggestion that the secondary discourse element 1b gives in fact an exegesis of yada’.
* So Maag, op. cit., p. 187. Compare also R. Knierim, Die Hauptbegriffe für Sünde im Alten Testament, 1965, pp. 236–242.
No comments:
Post a Comment