(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 .

The Hebrew begins with a word which gives a connection with the preceding section. The connection itself is roughly as follows (the parts in [ ] are a summary, not a translation):

verses 4-5 [You love to sin even when you are “worshiping” me.]
the connection: a Hebrew conjunction meaning “and even though”
verses 6-11 [I have repeatedly tried to make you repent by the punishments I sent you; you refused.]

In many translations no connection is expressed directly in words (see Revised Standard Version, Moffatt, New English Bible, Good News Translation) because 4-5 and 6-11 were separate messages, not connected when they were originally spoken. However, the place itself of the two messages one after the other in the present text suggests a connection to the reader now. The original separation is no longer true. If the use of connecting words is either necessary or preferable in any language, such a connection should be made. In languages where no connection has to be made in words, it is possible (but probably less helpful) not to express the connection.

I/I was the one who. (Compare New English Bible: “It was I who.”) The Hebrew puts particular emphasis on the I by using a separate pronoun as well as including it in the verb. To express such an emphasis, many languages have emphatic pronouns or other systems which can be used, in some cases very much like the Hebrew.

Gave you cleanness of teeth/brought famine. The unusual Hebrew expression cleanness of teeth is a picture or idiom for famine. Though the expression occurs only here, its meaning is certain because of lack of bread which follows in the next line. A literal translation (like Revised Standard Version, Smith-Goodspeed) does not make sense, however, and a translation based on a literal understanding of the expression, such as can be found in New American Bible (“though I have made your teeth clean of food”) and New English Bible (“kept teeth idle”), is misleading. If the language happens to have ways of expressing famine as a picture in a simple way, the translator should use it so that the impact of the original picture does not get completely lost in translation; for example: “I made your ribs protrude and your bellies swell.” However, this will often not be possible, so usually the meaning famine has to be translated directly. Some languages have no noun for famine, so the translation should be something like “I made (caused) that you had nothing to eat.”

And lack of bread in all your places/so that you had no food. This repeats the same point about famine in another way, and in some translations the two pictures should be combined or partly combined, as they have been in Good News Translation.

On the other hand, it is possible that in all your places is deliberately more general than all your cities, in order to emphasize the wide area of the famine: “not only in the towns, but also in the country” (so Moffatt: “your towns,” “over all the land”). So the passage could be condensed in another way (especially in languages which have no noun for famine) by saying, for example, “I made (caused) that you had nothing to eat either in your towns or in the country” or “I made (caused) that you had nothing to eat wherever you lived.” In languages which make a difference between a recent past and a remote past, the remote (if it is not a mythical or legendary remote past) should be used.

For another way of expressing yet you did not come back to me as “but that did not make you come back to me,” see 4.6-11. The Hebrew uses a rather strong word meaning that the movement completely reaches its mark: “all the way back….” Some languages have grammatical ways to express that particular emphasis. In languages which relate directions to a viewpoint place (Bethel, from which Amos is speaking) rather than a viewpoint person (God, who is speaking), the translation may be “go back to me” or “return, go to 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 .

You shall take up (Hebrew: did you take up [?]) Sakkuth your king, and Kaiwan your star-god your images (Hebrew: your images, the star of your god), which you made for yourselves/But now, because you have worshiped images of Sakkuth, your king god, and of Kaiwan, your star god, you will live to carry these images. Considerable restructuring of this verse will be necessary in any translation. For the relationships of this verse with the immediate context and for other major problems in the translation, especially when this verse is connected with the preceding one, see 5. 25-27. When this verse is taken together with the following one, Good News Translation can be used as a model.

God will have to be rendered as “idol.” In this context the gods must be portable. Most languages do not make a distinction between images and gods. In addition, in many cases it is extremely difficult to express such a notion as king god or star god. One possible translation: “your idols, which you call Sakkuth and Kaiwan.”

Take up/carry. Some languages have at least twenty different terms depending on the method of carrying: in the hand, on the shoulders, on the head, with the help of something, alone or sharing the load, etc. They may even have different vocabulary for carrying sacred items. In this case the Hebrew word probably implies that the idol was on the end of some kind of upright support.

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 .

Therefore/And so, Amaziah. The relationship between verses 16 and 17 must be clear, both its change of speakers and in the fact that verse 17 results from what happens in verse 16. “For that reason, (the LORD says to you) Amaziah…” “because you say that, Amaziah.”

Thus says the LORD/the LORD says to you. See 1.3.

By the sword/in war. See verse 11.

Your land shall be parceled out by line/Your land will be divided up and given to others.

This means that Amaziah’s private property becomes the property of the conquerors, who will divide it among the new families of immigrants. The (measuring) line is not important to the meaning so that it does not need to be included if it is a problem. However the information and given to others is important to the meaning, though it is not stated directly in Hebrew. To show who is doing the action, it is possible to use an impersonal subject “someone will divide…” or “the conquerors of the land will divide….”

An unclean land/a heathen country. Neither of the two translations is very helpful for other languages. In most cases one should simply say: “a foreign country” (Moffatt).

And Israel shall surely go into exile away from its land/And the people of Israel will certainly be taken away from their own land into exile. See verse 11b. For some languages this promise of punishment will be much clearer if the order of events in translation fits the order in which they will happen: “Your children will die in war, your country will be conquered, and your land will be divided up and given to those who conquer you; your wife will become a prostitute in the city, and you yourself will be taken away to die in a foreign land. Yes, the people of Israel will be taken away into exile.”

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 .

In that day/On that day. Good News Translation changes the order from the end of verse 16 to the beginning. It should be located where it is natural. However, this is not a way of expressing the simple idea that the events took place on the same day. That day in Amos (see also 8.3,9,13; compare: the day 3.14; the evil day 6.3) is the Day of the LORD (5.18,20) and always has a sound of danger and judgment, except in 9.11-15 where it is just the opposite. Translation should show that this is a special day, and if possible the connection between these different references to the Day of the LORD should not be hidden by the wording. A way of translating this expression meaningfully might be “the day/time when the LORD/I will act/judge/punish.”

He who is stout of heart among the mighty (Hebrew: and the strong with regard to his heart among the warriors)/even the bravest soldiers. The part of the body used to indicate strength and courage will differ from language to language.

Even rightly marks the climax reached at the end of the section. Other languages may have other ways of doing this.

Flee away naked/drop their weapons and run. Even though a literal translation flee naked is possible (Smith-Goodspeed, New American Bible, Moffatt: “shall strip”), it is better to take the expression in the sense of “leaving behind one’s weapons”: “will flee without his weapons” (The Translator’s Old Testament) or “shall be stripped of his arms” (New English Bible) or even as “he shall fling away his weapons” (Robinson).

(6) Says the LORD/The LORD has spoken. The final part giving the source of the message, is slightly different from earlier messages (1.5, 1.8, etc.) in the Hebrew. It is more emphatic and closes not only this message but all eight messages of this section of Amos. In the translation it is good to have a slightly different, slightly more emphatic expression than was used earlier. If, for example, “that is what the LORD says” was used before, then “this is the message from the LORD himself” might be good here. New English Bible has “It is the word of the LORD” in earlier verses and “This is the very word of the LORD” here. Good News Translation, which did not repeat this part each time in the earlier occurrences, now has The LORD has spoken here.

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 .

For thus says the LORD/The LORD says. The opening word in Hebrew introduces a separate saying and does not show a relationship with the preceding paragraph. In contrast with older translations which had “for” (Revised Standard Version, Smith-Goodspeed), it seems better in many languages not to translate this word at all. Note some of the translations in addition to Good News Translation: “These are the words of the LORD to the people of Israel” (New English Bible) and “This is what the LORD has said to the nation of Israel” (The Translator’s Old Testament); (compare also Moffatt: “Here is the Eternal’s message for the house of Israel”). On the structural importance of this phrase, see Appendix, Section 1.3.

The house of Israel/the people of Israel. See 5.1.

Seek me and live/Come to me, and you will live. Often a verb “to seek” implies a search for something or someone lost or inaccessible, which is, of course, not the case here. The best translation in some languages is come to me (so also The Translator’s Old Testament) or, more clearly, “come (back) to worship me” or “come to me for help,” “come to me for advice” (compare New English Bible: “resort to me”). “Turn back” is a possibility in some languages.

Of these, “come/turn (back) to worship me” may be the easiest to fit into the context because of the contrast with places of worship in Bethel, Gilgal, and Beersheba. However, a term for “worship” is not enough if it simply means a ritual. Some possibilities: “come and let me be your LORD” or “come back to being my people.”

The Hebrew has two commands, of which “seek” is the condition and “live” the consequence: Come to me, and you will live or “Come and let me be your LORD. Then you will live,” or even “If you come to me for help, you will live” or “Come back to be my people, so you can live.” You will live may have to be expressed as “you will remain alive,” “you will survive (my judgment),” or in some languages it may be better to translate “so you may not die.” In translating this sentence it is important to keep in mind the parallel sentence in verse 6.

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 .

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 .

Says the Lord GOD/I, the Sovereign LORD, have spoken. See 8.9-10. Here the indication of speaker covers the whole subsection, verses 11-14.

Behold. See 2.13.

The days are coming/The time is coming. See 8.3. Here the expression has days instead of day; but the meaning of “the time of God’s judgment/punishment” is the same.

When I will send a famine on the land/when I will send famine on the land. I will send always refers to the LORD causing a disaster. Often a word meaning “cause” can be used instead: “I will make/cause a famine” or “I will cause hunger to fall on/enter the land,” etc.

On the land may have to be translated “in the country” or “among the people.”

Not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water/People will be hungry, but not for bread; they will be thirsty, but not for water. It may not always be necessary to break up the Hebrew sentence into a number of shorter sentences as has been done in Good News Translation. In some languages a sentence closer to Revised Standard Version would be more effective. This would be especially true when a word can be used which means both “hunger” and “need.” If hunger for food and thirst for water are not suitable metaphors for the lack of a message from God, it may be necessary to strengthen the picture by using a word for “lack” here and in the rest of the verse: “not a lack of bread or water, but a lack of a message from me.”

Bread. If “bread” is not the basic food, a general word meaning “food” should be used or else the word for the most important food, like “rice” or “yams.”

But of hearing the words of the LORD/They will hunger and thirst for a message from the LORD. Since the LORD is speaking, it may be best to translate “my message” or “a message from me, the LORD.”

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 .