In Hebrew this verse is a rather difficult sentence with three parts, as is clearly seen in the Revised Standard Version: (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 Good News Translation: 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 Translators 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/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 Revised Standard Version can imply. The Good News Translation (compare New American Bible [New American Bible] and New English Bible) may also be misleading as it does not show that this was no longer true. (Moffatt) 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” (New English Bible).

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/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/God revealed to Amos all these things about Israel. Good News Translation 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 Good News Translation, 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 Good News Translation 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 d thed*) 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.”

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 .

And he said/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.

Good News Translation 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 leaders 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”; Moffatt: “When … then….”

The LORD roars from Zion, and utters his voice from Jerusalem/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 Good News Translation 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 d roard* and d thunderd*: “When the Eternal thunders out of Sion, loudly from Jerusalem” (Moffatt). 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 New American Bible). “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 Translators 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 (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 is necessary to narrow down the meaning in the original text. However, this information is already included in the specific term pastures in the Good News Translation. 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/and the grass on Mount Carmel turns brown. It may be best to indicate that Carmel is a mountain, as in Good News Translation. 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. Good News Translation 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.”

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) 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 .

(4) So reflects the fact that verse 4 is a result of the terrible deeds of verse 3. Making the last part of verse 3 connected with verse 4 is also possible: “Because they threshed Gilead with sledges of iron, I will send fire…” (New American Bible; compare Jerusalem Bible [Jerusalem Bible]). Whatever is done to express this relationship should fit in with the same relationship also shown between the parts of verse 3, as already discussed.

Send a fire/send fire refers to the burning which goes along with defeat by a foreign army, in this case by the Lord. The battle of which the fire is a part is mentioned directly in the punishment of Ammon (1.14) and Moab (2.2). Sometimes fire has been translated “fires of war” (Moffatt). Send is picture language for “make/cause (fire) to burn.”

The house of Hazael/the palace built by King Hazael. Because of the parallel between Hazael and Benhadad, this Hebrew expression could mean “the royal family of Hazael,” which in turn could be taken as “the kingdom of Syria.” In the same way the fortresses of King Benhadad could mean the town of Damascus.

On the other hand, it may be better to take house literally, as the exact parallel word in the next line is a Hebrew word translated fortresses. Also, the expression I will send fire occurs in all the other messages of this section except the one against Israel, and the fire always burns a building. A translation “on the house (palace) of King Hazael” is therefore better.

Make sure that the palace built by King Hazael and the fortresses of King Benhadad do not sound like different places. In languages where parallelism or the grammatical construction does not make it clear that they are the same, some additional restructuring may do it: “the royal palace of Syria, with its fortresses defended by King Benhadad” or “the royal palace … among the fortresses…” or “the royal palace…, that is, the fortresses of King Benhadad.”

Devour/burn down. The Hebrew idiom of “fire that eats (up) something” occurs frequently and can be carried over naturally into many languages. In other cases, the translation will have to have another picture or translate the meaning burn.

Strongholds/fortresses translates one of the most important parts of the meaning of the Hebrew word (New American Bible: “castles”). Unfortunately, such buildings are not known in many parts of the world so this meaning cannot always be made clear in translation. Sometimes a more general word has to be used in this context, and the nearest equivalent which is present in some languages may be the word for “chief’s compound” or “chief’s house.”

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 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 .

(1-2) The LORD says … punish them. See Amos 1.3. It may be useful to mark Gaza as a town: “the people of the town of Gaza.”

(3) Because they carried into exile a whole people (Hebrew: because of their deporting an entire exile)/They carried off a whole nation. (Compare New English Bible: “because they deported a whole band of exiles.”) Such an abstract wording as the Hebrew presents problems in many languages, and the group or groups which were carried off should often be expressed in translation. It may not have been a whole nation which was carried off, however. It is better to speak of “whole groups” (New American Bible), or even of “whole villages.” Thus the translation might be something like “because they captured/carried off (as captives) the population of whole villages.”

To deliver them up to Edom/and sold them as slaves to the people of Edom. The attention is on the violence and the inhuman conduct to which the captives were submitted, and not on the commercial aspect of selling slaves. However, many languages require a specific translation, and a rendering such as sold sometimes cannot be avoided.

Them. To use some other translation than nation avoids another problem which the Good News Translation has here. Sold them (plural) refers back to nation (singular).

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) I will send fire upon the city walls of Gaza and burn down its fortresses. See Amos 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 .

(5) I will remove the rulers of the cities of Ashdod and Ashkelon. See Amos 1.5. It should be shown that Ashdod and Ashkelon are cities. It should also be clear in context that they and Ekron along with Gaza are cities of the Philistines.

I will turn my hand against Ekron/I will punish the city of Ekron. (See also Smith-Goodspeed, New American Bible, New English Bible). Hand here means “power.” If similar picture language can be used in the translation, it should be. If not, then some other kind of picture language expressing the idea of “power and punishment” should be used if possible. If no picture language is suitable, the translation will have to be direct as it is in the Good News Translation. Compare Moffatt: “I strike my blows at Ekron.” Ekron may also have to be qualified as the city of Ekron.

The remnant of the Philistines/all the Philistines who are left. The remnant of the Philistines does not mean those who have not been mentioned in the preceding verses, but those who might have escaped the punishment. The Good News Translation restructuring is helpful.

(6) Says the Lord GOD. Unlike verse 5, the Hebrew text here has an additional word, GOD. However, whatever the reason for this difference, the use of exactly the same form as in verse 5 is perfectly correct in the translation. (See also under 3.7.)

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 .