Translating the Geography of the Book ofAmos in the Bible

Translating the Geography of Amos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction to the book of Amos

INTRODUCTION: THE PROPHET 1.1.

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

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

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

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

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

Amos 1:1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

bj La Bible de Jérusalem

neb New English Bible

tev Today’s English Version

rsv Revised Standard Version

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

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

^*

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

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

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

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

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

nab New American Bible

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

mft Moffatt

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

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

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

^*

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

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

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

THE POWER OF GOD TO PUNISH

THE POWER OF GOD TO PUNISH 1.2.

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

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

Amos 1:2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rsv Revised Standard Version

tev Today’s English Version

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

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

mft Moffatt

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

^*

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

nab New American Bible

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

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

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