(1) Thus says the LORD: (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 New English Bible: “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/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 Good News Translation 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 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 Translators Handbooks.
In for three transgressions … and for four 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 Moffatt) 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 (Hebrew: cause it to return or reverse/revoke it)/ I will certainly punish them. “It” refers either to the punishment announced immediately afterwards (Revised Standard Version) or to the word of God (New American Bible: “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 Good News Translation 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/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 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” (New English Bible). 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.
Quoted with permission from de Waard, Jan & Smalley, William A. A Handbook on Amos. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1979. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .