(5) I will break the bar of Damascus/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 Moffatt: “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 (Hebrew: the ruler) from the Valley of Aven (Hebrew: Biqat-Aven), and him that holds the scepter from Betheden/and remove the inhabitants of Aven Valley and the ruler of Betheden. The Hebrew for “ruler” has been translated inhabitants (see also New American Bible, New English Bible), 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/remove. Remove may be weak for an English translation. Compare “wipe out” (New English Bible), “cut down” (Jerusalem Bible [Jerusalem Bible]). 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/The people of Syria will be taken away as prisoners. The Good News Translation uses less technical language than “exile” (compare New American Bible, New English Bible, Moffatt), a word lacking in many languages. The Hebrew means go into exile, 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/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 (Hebrew: the LORD has said). Good News Translation 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 Good News Translation 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.
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 .