(4) I will send fire … fortresses of Kerioth. See 1.10, 14. In one ancient translation Kerioth was not taken as a proper name but as meaning “towns” (compare New English Bible: “fire that shall consume the palaces in their towns”). There is historical evidence for the existence of a town Kerioth, however, and it would be better to translate as such: “the fortresses of the town of Kerioth.”

And Moab shall die amid uproar, amid shouting and the sound of the trumpet/The people of Moab will die in the noise of battle while soldiers are shouting and trumpets are sounding. The Good News Translation has made much of the meaning clear. Moab has been translated as The people of Moab. Uproar is in fact the noise of battle. The shouting involves people, so soldiers are shouting. The sound of the trumpet is translated trumpets are sounding. In some languages someone will have to do the blowing so “soldiers are shouting and blowing trumpets.” All three events happen at the same time, and Good News Translation expresses this relationship with while. The meaning of the shouting and trumpet blowing should not be misleading. As would be true in many cultures, the shouting probably had a magical function and was intended to chase evil spirits.

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 .

(5) I will cut off the ruler (Hebrew: judge) from its midst, and I will slay all its princes (Hebrew: leaders) with him/I will kill the ruler of Moab and all the leaders of the land. The Good News Translation, with its prose restructuring, has combined I will cut off and I will slay, which will need to be done in many other languages as well. In most translations also, the word “judge” should not be translated literally, since in most cultures the work of judging and of ruling is quite different. Ruler is the meaning here. Where no general term like ruler is possible, some other more specific term may have to be used, but there is no clear indication as to the precise status of this ruler. From early times Moab had been a monarchy (Num 23.7; Judges 3.12ff; 2 Kgs 3.4ff; Jer 27.3; Mesha inscription 1.23), and the function of the ruler was certainly similar to that of a king or chief (Moffatt: “monarch”; Smith-Goodspeed: “chieftain”).

All the leaders of the land will, of course, sometimes be better translated “all its leaders.”

(6) Says the LORD. See 1.5.

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 .

(1-2) The LORD says … punish them. See 1.3.

(3) Because they have rejected (Hebrew: despised) the law of the LORD, and have not kept his statutes/They have despised my teachings and have not kept my commands. In most languages the translation of the law of the LORD … his … has to be translated my … my…, since this is a section in which the Lord is speaking. However, in Hebrew this stylistic irregularity has a purpose, and this purpose is lost when the irregularity is smoothed out in translation. So, if it is at all possible to include the word LORD so as to keep the Hebrew emphasis, this should be done: “because they despised the law of me, the LORD” or “because they despised my teaching—the LORD’s teaching!—and have not kept my commandments.”

They have despised my teachings could be translated “they have rejected my teachings.” But if at all possible, it is better to use an expression which keeps some of the meaning of “contempt” (New American Bible and New English Bible use “spurned,” which is good where it is not too high a level of language).

Teachings and commands. The Hebrew terms are difficult to translate. In this particular context, the first Hebrew term means the whole of God’s will, and the second indicates specific rules. No such distinction can be made in many languages. If a distinction exists, it is often that between a “law” in some traditional and definite form, and a specific order given by some authority. There may also be a distinction between unwritten customary law and specific orders.

In cases like that, the local terms for traditional law, customary law, etc., should be used as equivalents of teachings; a word for the regulations of officials should be used as an equivalent for commands. In cases where only one term can be used in the receptor language, the sentence can be restructured: “because they have rejected my law.” This is not undertranslation since the two expressions are parallel in the Hebrew text and there is a high degree of overlapping between their meanings.

But their lies have led them astray, after which their fathers walked/They have been led astray by the same false gods that their ancestors served. Some modern English translations (Revised Standard Version, Smith-Goodspeed, New American Bible) translate lies literally, but this does not show the full meaning of the Hebrew. The Hebrew word for lies is here a reference to false gods or “idols,” which are considered to be producers, and probably also products, of lies. This reference has been made clear in some recent translations (Moffatt, New English Bible, Good News Translation), and such a translation is to be preferred. Whether it will be possible or necessary to qualify the “gods” as false will depend upon the word which has been selected in the translation to render gods. In some languages a diminutive plural “small gods” has been used with the implication of “useless,” “worthless,” and such a translation may be sufficient.

“Walked after” is a picture for served. In some languages the kind of grammatical construction will have to be changed: “the (false) gods which their ancestors served have led them astray (or: have made them do wrong).”

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 .

(4) So I will send fire upon Judah and burn down the fortresses of Jerusalem. See 1.4.

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 .

(1-2) The LORD says … punish them. See 1.3. Since the message is addressed d tod* Israel, and is not simply d aboutd* Israel (as the previous messages were about the other peoples), the use of the people of Israel and them may cause misunderstanding in some languages. It may sometimes be necessary to translate so that God speaks directly here: “You people of Israel … I will punish you.” To do so brings up to verse 6 the change which the Hebrew makes in verse 10.

However, if some way can be found to continue the style of the previous messages, as though God were still talking about someone else, and then switch dramatically to the more direct form later, as the Hebrew does, this may be very effective in many languages. Good News Translation makes the switch in verse 9, one verse before the Hebrew. In some languages it might be best to bring it up even into the second part of verse 6. This would strongly emphasize that although the message begins the same way as the earlier ones, the implications for the hearers are not the same at all.

Wherever the change is made, special attention should be given to the way in which it is made, with special emphasis in its wording. For example: “you, my people, sell honest men into slavery…” or “and you, the people of Israel, have sinned again and again.”

(3) The third part of the message to Israel, containing the specific illustrations of Israel’s crimes, starts with the familiar because they, with the crimes introduced in the usual way in the Hebrew grammar (2.6b), but there the similarity ends. Interwoven are social crimes and the fact that these are also crimes against God. The way in which these are organized may be seen in the Appendix, Section 3.1.

That the crimes against people are also crimes against God must be clear in the translation.
Because they sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of shoes (Hebrew: sandals) /They sell into slavery honest men who cannot pay their debts, poor men who cannot repay even the price of a pair of sandals. The Hebrew does not say who (in Israel) did the selling, which causes difficulty for translating into many languages. How this is decided depends on how the rest of the passage is understood. Did the same people sell the righteous as sold the needy, or did judges sell the righteous (by taking bribes) and creditors sell the “needy” into slavery to recover their debts?

It does not seem likely that different people are doing the selling in the two cases, or even that one general group such as the corrupt upper classes are here divided into judges and creditors. It certainly is also unlikely that the same verb to sell should have been used once as picture language (for bribery) and once with its regular meaning. So there are two possible solutions: the ones who did the selling are either judges or creditors in both cases.

The easiest way of understanding the passage seems to be with the meaning of creditors. With it goes natural use of sell in both cases. Furthermore, the same people carry on into verse 7, and the rich can be understood as acting in both verses. Finally, it is not necessary to take righteous in a legal sense (compare Moffatt: “honest folk”).

In Hebrew the emphasis is first on the righteous, and then on a pair of sandals. So the point is first that for rich creditors money has more value than the personal qualifications of people, and second that even people who need help are victims for insignificant reasons. Translations of this passage should express a lot more of these meanings than they normally do. To sell has to be qualified as “to sell into slavery” or “to sell as slaves,” and the meaning of “for money” and “for a pair of sandals” has to be stated clearly. Good News Translation has done many of these things well, but who cannot repay even the price of a pair of sandals does not completely show that selling into slavery is the result of not repaying. Another way might be “because they can’t pay back the small sum they owe for a pair of sandals.”

A pair of sandals will have to be translated as “two sandals for two feet,” or some other idiomatic way, in some languages.

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 .

They that trample the head of the poor into the dust of the earth/They trample down the weak and helpless. The Hebrew for the word translated trample here is not clear. In some translations it has been taken to mean (1) “long for,” in which case the Hebrew would be “they long for the dust of the earth on the head of the poor.” This is the way the older English translations have it: “that pant after the dust of the earth on the head of the poor” King James Version (King James Version). Such a translation of the Hebrew has been understood in different ways: (a) as a picture of extreme greed: the rich landowners even long to own the small quantity of earth people throw on their heads as a sign of mourning; (b) as a picture of the way poor people are pushed down: the rich are only satisfied when they see the poor in a miserable condition; (c) as “they long for land at the expense of the poor.”

In other translations the problem word has been understood as (2) “crush,” trample (upon) down, in which case the Hebrew text—after some slight changes—could be translated literally as in the Revised Standard Version, as well as in most modern commentaries and English translations. The shortened form in the Good News Translation They trample down covers all the meaning of the Hebrew sentence as understood in the second interpretation. Leaving out the head … into the dust of the earth reduces the picture language but does not change the meaning. Moffatt, on the other hand, uses a comparison to keep the picture: “they trample down the poor like dust.”

With our present knowledge, we cannot be sure which of these interpretations is best, but (1a), (1b), and (2) may be followed equally well in translation.

If interpretation (1a) is used, reason for the behavior may have to be stated in many translations; for example, “they (the rich landowners) even long to own the earth which poor people throw on their heads as a sign of mourning.”

Interpretation (1b) is less difficult for translation. Such a statement as “they like to see poor people mourning” or “they like to see poor people throwing earth on their heads as a sign of mourning” can easily be made.

If interpretation (2) is followed, Good News Translation can usually be taken as a model. Of course, the expression used to translate trample down must imply oppression and not only physical “walking on.” In some languages the expression will be something like: “they rob the poor.”

The poor … afflicted/the weak and helpless … poor. Good News Translation has apparently changed the order of these two terms. In the Hebrew it is the poor which goes with trample, and “weak/oppressed/humble” which goes with push … out of the way. In doing this, of course, the TEV has not changed the meaning of the passage, since the expressions are parallel and are picture language for the same kind of action toward poor people who are not able to defend themselves.

Turn aside the way of …/push … out of the way can be interpreted in two different ways: (a) as a general statement like in Good News Translation, and (b) as a more specific act such as “they pervert the way (or: cause judgment) of the weak.” The more specific interpretation is made stronger by the parallel expression in 5.12. Here again it is difficult to decide, but as the specific case is included in the general, it is perhaps preferable to follow (a). In that case, if an expression like push … out of the way is not natural and there is no similar use of picture language, the translation will have to say something like “they worry/trouble miserable people” (compare Moffatt: “and humble souls they harry”).

If interpretation (b) is preferred, some restructuring will be necessary, such as “they keep the miserable from getting justice.”

A man and his father go in to the same maiden/A man and his father have intercourse with the same slave girl. The men involved are a man and his father, which should not be translated as “father and son” (New English Bible) because the Hebrew implies “not only the son, but even the father.”

The Hebrew go in to includes the meaning of sexual intercourse. However, the attention seems to be less on the intercourse than on the way the woman is abused. The general theme is still that of mistreating the lower classes: “not only the son, but even the father, goes after the servant girl.” In different languages, of course, the polite ways of expressing the sexual behavior will vary.

Slave girl is the right translation, rather than “prostitute” (New American Bible, Jerusalem Bible note, Smith-Goodspeed). If temple prostitution was emphasized, we would expect to find verse 7b after verse 8. Also, nowhere in the Old Testament does the word for “girl” mean “prostitute,” nor anything equivalent in ancient translations.

So that my holy name is profaned/and so profane my holy name. This is the result of the treatment of the servant girl, expressed through a Hebrew particle translated and so. Profane can often be translated by a word equivalent to English “defile.” In languages in which it is hard to find an acceptable equivalent for holy, the translator can simply say “profane/defile/dishonor my name.” Since the name stands for God himself, the translation can say something like “profane/defile/dishonor me.”

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 .

They lay themselves down beside every altar upon garments taken in pledge/At every place of worship men sleep on clothing that they have taken from the poor as security for debts. In many languages beside every altar should be translated something like At every place of worship or “at all the places where they worship God.” The sentence, however, raises several questions which are left unanswered: (a) why is the clothing at the place of worship? and (b) why do people lie down at the altars, and why on this clothing? The translator cannot answer these questions, but he should word the translation in such a way that the reader sees all that is pictured as a misuse of the place of worship as well as a mistreatment of the poor, whose clothing (taken in pledge during the day) was to be returned at nighttime (Exo 22.26; Deut 24.12ff). For example, “even in their places of worship they lie down on clothing unlawfully kept from the poor as security for debts.”

The Hebrew word for clothing should be taken here as a general word which includes every kind of garment. Good News Translation has translated taken in pledge clearly and in less technical language as have taken … security for debts. In many cases a less technical term such as “guarantee” will have to be used in the receptor language, even if technical terms are available. Many societies do have a well-developed vocabulary for different kinds of pledges, but they may have meanings which are so tied in with the receptor culture that they cannot suitably reflect the Biblical situation.

In the house of their God/In the temple of their God. This may also mean “the house of their gods” (See New English Bible margin, Smith-Goodspeed). If God is used, house can be translated temple, although in many languages, of course, “house of God” will be standard terminology for temple. It should be clear that in this context it is the house of the God who is speaking, and in many languages the translation would better be “my house” or “my temple.” Such a translation also helps in verse 9.

The temple of their God is, of course, fully equivalent with every place of worship, and the whole verse can sometimes be tied together by stating this setting only once, if that is better. However, in Hebrew the repetition of profane my holy name, at every place of worship and in the temple of their God emphasizes that this is not only injustice to man but also unfaithfulness to God.

They drink the wine of those who have been fined/they drink wine which they have taken from those who owe them money. Good News Translation is based on the parallel in verse 8a, and such an interpretation is possible. It is more probable, however, that the fines are those paid to the (temple) community, and this money was used for drunken parties in the sacred places instead of for those who received damage! It is quite possible that the fines were paid in wine rather than money. This is the standard interpretation of the commentaries and the modern English translations. In translation this meaning might be expressed as “they drink the wine they got from people they have fined” (Translators’ Old Testament [The Translator’s Old Testament]).

In this context wine is a rather general word for any strong, intoxicating drink, and it is not necessary to use a borrowed word to make this drink more specific. The translator can use the local word for “palm wine,” “rice wine,” “millet beer,” etc.

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 .

Before them/for your sake. In contrast to what has been done in most modern translations, the Hebrew should be understood as showing the reason for God’s action (like the Good News Translation), not the place (like the Revised Standard Version); (compare Hos 10.15; Gen 6.13; Deut 28.20).

Destroyed. In translation the term must be one which can be used for people. This destruction is that of war: death, loss of home and possessions, exile.

Amorite/Amorites lived in Canaan at the time when the people of Israel conquered it. Where it is helpful, the translation may say “your/ their enemies, the Amorites.”

Whose height was like the height of the cedars, and who was as strong as the oaks/men who were as tall as cedar trees and as strong as oaks. Such full comparisons are usually not hard to translate except for the terms cedar trees and oaks.

In either case, where the specific kind of Biblical tree is not known, the best solution is probably to take a general word for “tree” (provided it includes the possibility of tall trees and strong trees), and to build the comparison around it. Something like “as tall as the tallest trees, and strong as the greatest trees” might do. Or the two comparisons can be combined: “as tall, as strong as the greatest tree.”

A second possible solution would be to borrow the words cedar and oak and write them according to the sound patterns of the language of the translation: “tall as the tree called cedar,” etc. Still a third possibility is to take local trees which are tall and strong. Such a solution would not be as good if this were a particular tree of historical importance, but as a basis for comparison like this, it is a possibility. Still another possibility is to say something like “strong as big trees like the mahogany tree.” Or yet again, some of the information could be put in a footnote so that the kind of tree could be better understood without including inaccurate information in the text.

I destroyed his fruit above, and his roots beneath. This picture is not kept in the Good News Translation but included in the earlier use of totally destroyed because this was a standard Canaanite and Hebrew idiom, and the meaning of the expression as a whole should be translated and not the meanings of the individual words. If the Hebrew idiom can be replaced by an equivalent idiom in your language, it should be done. In English we could say: “I destroyed them root and branch” (Robinson, The Translator’s Old Testament); in German: “ich rotte sie mit Stumpf und Stiel aus,” etc. If it is not possible to find an equivalent idiom, the meaning of the total expression should be translated in a general way, as TEV has done.

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 .