This verse is not at all clear. None of the very different English translations can definitely be considered the right one.
One of the major problems is that we do not know who the story is about or who the people are that speak to each other in it.
And when a man’s kinsman, he who burns him (Hebrew: and will take him his uncle and he who burns him), shall take …/The dead man’s relative, who was also in charge of the funeral, will take … In most English translations the uncle does the thing, and “him” refers to one of the dead people. In that case the general statement of verse 9 is being developed with an example. In spite of the problems, this is the best solution.
However, two uncertainties remain. Does “his uncle and he who burns him” refer to the same person or to two different people, and does the Hebrew grammatical construction, which occurs only here, really mean “he who burns him?”
If “uncle” and “he who burns him” are different people, then the conversation can be between them, as one of them searches inside the house. If not, the relative must speak to a survivor. The only English translation which has the uncle and “embalmer” as two different people (New English Bible), has them both speak to a survivor. It is impossible to know from the Hebrew which interpretation is correct. However, the translator must make a decision, perhaps on the basis of the dominant translation in the area.
As to the meaning of “he who burns him,” the Hebrew has been taken to mean several sometimes-unrelated things: (a) corpse-burner (Revised Standard Version); (b) the one who burns spices in honor of the dead (alternative reading of Revised Standard Version: “who makes a burning for him”); Smith-Goodspeed: “who is to burn a sacrifice for him”; and, more generally expressed, who was also in charge of the funeral, “who performs his funeral rites” (The Translator’s Old Testament); (c) embalmer (New English Bible); (d) relative in general, or specifically the mother’s brother along with the father’s brother, who is mentioned first.
Of these, meaning (c) seems unlikely. In spite of the English translations, (b) is also improbable, since the custom of burning spices in honor of the dead was probably used only for royal people. Each of the remaining meanings, “corpse-burner” and “relative,” is supported by one of the ancient translations. Here again, it is impossible to tell which of the two meanings to choose. Against the meaning “corpse-burner” is the fact that cremation was never an accepted funeral practice among the Israelites, except in the case of an epidemic. It would have to be assumed that at a time of plague corpses could be burned because of the unusual disaster.
Meaning (a), “he who burns him;” combined with the preceding “uncle,” can be translated: “When a dead man’s uncle comes to take out the body and burn it….” This “uncle” is the “father’s brother.” In societies where only the mother’s brother has any role in funeral ceremonies, a short cultural note will be necessary.
If meaning (a) is accepted, but “he who burns him” is combined with a second person, the translation may be something like “When a dead man’s uncle comes to take out the body together with him who will burn it….”
For meaning (d) the translation would be something like “When the uncle and another member of the family of a dead man come to take out the body…” or “When a dead man’s relative comes to take out the body….”
And shall say to him who is in the innermost parts of the house/The relative will call to whomever is still left in the house. The conversation should be translated according to the decisions made about who is involved. The person speaking may be outside at the door or just inside the house. The person who answers is inside the house, and if he is taken to be a survivor, it may be that he is hiding there.
“Is there still anyone with you?” he shall say, “No”; and he shall say, “Hush! We must not mention the name of the LORD”/“Is anyone else there with you?” The person will answer, “No!” Then the relative will say, “Be quiet! We must be careful not even to mention the LORD’s name”. For some translations, like New English Bible, New American Bible, Smith-Goodspeed and Dhorme, the conversation ends with Hush (spoken by the uncle and not by a survivor, as in New English Bible), and then the prophet adds a kind of commentary: “For the name of the LORD must not be mentioned.” In other translations, such as Revised Standard Version, The Translator’s Old Testament, Good News Translation, Jerusalem Bible, the last sentence is still spoken by the relative. Whichever interpretation is followed, the translation should be clear, not just from the use of quotation marks (which cannot be heard when the passage is read aloud). When the last sentence is taken as part of the conversation, the statement is as true for the speaker as it is for the person spoken to. Therefore Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation use we. If the receptor language makes such a distinction, the word for we should, of course, be the one which includes the person spoken to.
Why the relative says what he does is also not very clear, but he seems to be afraid that the person hiding there may for some reason carelessly use the LORD’s name and so call the LORD’s attention to them and bring destruction upon them: “We must be careful not to call the LORD’s attention to us by mentioning his name.”
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 .