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.
(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.
* 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
* 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
* 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.).
* 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 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment