THE POWER OF GOD TO PUNISH 1.2.
Amos’ message to Israel begins with a strongly poetic statement on God’s power to punish through destruction, a theme which is repeated from time to time and balanced against the idea of God’s power to create (see Appendix, Section 1.1). It gives an introduction to the contents of the book.
Section heading. If the translator is not trying to show the structure of the book by use of section headings (see Translating Amos, Section 2.4), then probably there should not be a heading here. If he is, he can use something like “The Power of God to Punish” or “God Is Able To Destroy.” Whatever is chosen, it should be something which can also be used in connection with 5.8 and 9.5–6, and which will contrast well with what is used in 4.13.
Amos 1:2.
“And he said:” (rsv)/ Amos said. Since this expression introduces a brief message which is like a summary of the message of the book, it might be helpful in some languages to say “Here is what Amos’ message was,” “What Amos said was.” In some other languages Amos said should be left untranslated, as it is included in the meaning of the first verse.
In some languages the end of a quotation must be indicated grammatically or by an expression like “he said.” In other cases, like in English, the translator must decide where he will put a quotation mark to indicate the end of a quotation. So each saying in Amos will have to be studied carefully in light of the rules of the language and of the fact that in the book there are two or more levels of speaking, with Amos reciting the words of the Lord. In only two places (1.1; 7.10–12) is Amos himself not speaking.
tev is somewhat misleading here. The tev translation sounds as though Amos’ words carry only through verse 2 and that another speaker (the Lord) replaces him in verse 3. tev use of quotation marks is even more definite. According to them Amos stops talking at the end of verse 2, and does not speak again in the book except for a few remarks in chapters 7 and 8.
This confusion can be reduced by eliminating the quotation marks from verse 2, just as they are absent from some other section of hymn in the tev (4.13; 5.8–9; 9.5–6). The same effect could be obtained, of course, even more directly by adding them to the beginning of each paragraph (verses 3, 6, etc., all the way through the book), but that would be difficult for readers and make it hard to translate the quotations inside quotations which would result when Amos in turn quotes the Lord. Also, except for some brief sections in chapter 7, the whole book would be in quotation marks. Taking the quotation marks out of verse 2 would be a much easier solution.
The Hebrew poetry of Amos begins here, and except for Amos said. this verse is written in a style which is even more poetic than most of the book of Amos, the style of a hymn.* On the characteristics of Hebrew poetry and how to translate it, see Translating Amos, Section 5. If at all possible, the translator should try to use an equivalent poetic structure in the language of the translation.
What happens in the first half of this poem causes what happens in the second half. That is, the drying up, the withering, is the result of the Lord’s roaring and thundering.* This must be clear in translation. Compare Smith-Goodspeed: “So that”; mft: “When … then ….”
“The Lord roars from Zion, and utters his voice from Jerusalem:” (rsv)/ The Lord roars from Mount Zion; his voice thunders from Jerusalem. Along with the regular patterns of rhythm and sentence structure there is unity in the use of very different pictures here. The Hebrew word for “roar” is also used of thunder in the Old Testament (Jer 25.30; Job 37.3–4).
What these pictures mean is not absolutely clear, but the basis of the comparison is probably God’s anger and the threat of disaster or punishment. Then when he speaks he has the power to destroy and is even about to do so. This is certainly the general theme of Amos and comes again in similar pieces of hymn in 5.9 and 9.5.
In translation, use of this picture language may or may not be a problem. Everything depends on the possible meanings which equivalent words in the receptor language may have, and on the poetic use of that language. In many languages the sounds of some animals can also sometimes be applied to men (the translator should, of course, make sure when that can be done and what it means). Such sounds can sometimes even be applied to nature.* For example, in English the verb roar frequently refers to a loud sound produced by a lion, a person in rage, or a waterfall. It causes no problem to use it also for thunder. By using it tev keeps the relationship with thunder as in the Hebrew.
However, such an easy solution cannot always be found. Sometimes roaring and thunder will give the wrong meaning like that of going crazy, or no meaning at all. Sometimes the Hebrew picture cannot be expressed as it is. If only animals, or even only a lion, can make the sound, a comparison has to be expressed: “The Lord roars from Zion like a lion roars when it is about to destroy its prey” or “The Lord speaks from Zion like a lion roars when it is going to destroy its prey.” In such a case the link with thunder in the Hebrew may be weakened.
In places where lions are completely unknown, it may be useful to keep a certain unity by combining the words roar and thunder:* “When the Eternal thunders out of Sion, loudly from Jerusalem” (mft). However, in many languages a sentence such as his voice thunders from Jerusalem is not easily translatable either. Very often a voice or a person cannot “thunder,” and “the Lord causes the thunder” hardly means the same thing. So the translator must say something like: “and from Jerusalem he raises his voice (calls out/shouts)” (compare nab). “he calls out in anger from Jerusalem, so that his voice is like a clap of thunder.” As this is a present reality, and a general statement, tenses which reflect that meaning should be used.
The Lord. See Translator’s Handbook on Ruth, 1.6.
Zion. Zion was originally the name of the fortress of the Jebusites (from whom the Israelites conquered the area of Jerusalem), located on the eastern mountain of Jerusalem. Later it became the name of the whole eastern mountain and of the whole city. In this passage it is another name for Jerusalem, and the translation should not sound like they are two different places.
“The pastures of the shepherds mourn, “(rsv) (Hebrew: the habitations of the shepherds dry up)/ The pastures dry up. As the Hebrew term for “habitations” is a very general one used of animals, men, and God, the “of the shepherds” (rsv) is necessary to narrow down the meaning in the original text. However, this information is already included in the specific term pastures in the tev. When a specific word such as pastures exists in the receptor language, the translator should follow the example of the tev. Otherwise, a descriptive phrase could be used such as “the places/grounds dry up where men feed (lead/watch over/care for) the sheep.” Older English translations say the “pastures of the shepherds mourn” (see also Smith-Goodspeed). Dry up is correct and should be followed.*
Where the meaning will not be clear from the picture alone, you may translate something like “when he speaks (he can command) the pastures (to) dry up” or “because of his anger he causes the pastures to dry up.”
“And the top of Carmel withers. “(rsv)/ and the grass on Mount Carmel turns brown. It may be best to indicate that Carmel is a mountain, as in tev.* The mountain ridge of Carmel was one of the most fertile parts of Palestine, abundant in woods, flowers and vineyards. But those facts are unknown to many present-day readers, and so the point may have to be made clear. tev does this by mentioning grass. Any expression for rich vegetation would do. In keeping with the contrast as well as with the poetry of the text, this grass turns brown. Perhaps at this point tev is not an easy model for translators, since in many languages colors are not easily used to express events. It may, therefore, be necessary to make a statement such as “and the woods (trees) on Mount Carmel’s top wither.”
rsv Revised Standard Version
tev Today’s English Version
* For the similarities and differences with regard to the so-called theophanic hymns see especially Wolff, op. cit., p. 147f. and the literature cited there.
* This is shown in Hebrew by the change from imperfect to (consecutive) perfect tense. See G. Beer, R. Meyer, Hebräische Grammatik, Berlin, 1952–55, par. 101/6.a. Compare also Joüon, par. 119 cij.
mft Moffatt
* Whereas Hebrew sha’aq applies only to lions, its Arabic cognate can be used of several animals. The only time Hebrew sha’aq is used with regard to a person in particular condition (Psa 38.9), it is equivalent to ‘groan’ and it translated the anguished cries of a sufferer (see A. A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms, Vol. I, in the New Century Bible, London, 1972, ad loc.). The lxx in marking the speaking of the Lord as a loud one uses a Greek verb phtheggomai which can refer to human beings, animals, thunder and other inanimate things. Aquila and Symmachus, on the other hand, use a Greek verb bruchaomai, an onomatope properly used of lions and other animals. It should, however, be noted that when used of persons their particular condition is dying or a painful experience!
*
This is a possibility which has been defended by several scholars. So J. Wellhausen, Die kleinen Propheten übersetzt und erklaärt, 1963, ad loc.; Sellin and Cripps ad loc. The first line of 1.2 reoccurs in Joel 4.16. The whole question who uses the text of whom is not relevant for translation purposes. Compare also M. Weiss, “In the Footsteps of One Biblical Metaphor,” Tarbiz 34, 1964–65, pp. 107–128.
* 5. For Koehler-Baumgartner we have to do with a homophonous Hebrew verb ‘abal, cognate of Accadian abâlu meaning ‘vertrocknen.’ See also V. Maag, Text, Wortschatz und Begriffswelt des Buches Amos, Leiden, 1951 ad loc. On the other hand, E. Kutsch (’Trauerbräuche’ und ‘Selbstminde- rungsriten’ im at, Theol. Studien 78, 1965, p. 35f.) is of the opinion that both specific meanings ‘dry up’ and ‘mourn’ stem from one and the same root with the generic meaning ‘diminish.’
* The word also occurred as a common noun standing for farmland and garden-land (see Isa 16.10; Jer 2.7; 2 Kgs 19.23).
No comments:
Post a Comment