An alternative place for and sell the refuse of the wheat (end of the verse) is at the beginning of verse 6, as in Good News Translation and New English Bible (see also 8.5-6; 8.5).

That we may buy the poor for silver and the needy for a pair of sandals/We’ll find a poor man who can’t pay his debts, not even the price of a pair of sandals, and we’ll buy him as a slave. This picture is very much like that of 2.6 except that here it speaks of buying rather than selling, and here it is the poor rather than the righteous who are being described. According to the explanations given in 2.6, the translation here might run something like “We will buy poor people as slaves because they cannot pay their debts, even if the debt is so small as that of a pair of sandals.”

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 I raised up some of your sons for prophets, and some of your young men for Nazirites/I chose some of your sons to be prophets and some of your young men to be Nazirites. The Hebrew verb has the meaning of “constitute,” “appoint,” so it is possible to translate: “I appointed some of your sons to be prophets, and some of your young men to be Nazirites” (The Translator’s Old Testament). On the other hand, the Hebrew “appoint” includes both “call” and “choose.” Thus, a rendering “I called…” or I chose is equally possible.

Prophets is usually difficult to translate. The Old Testament word for “prophet” should not be different in the translation from that used in the New Testament, but if the New Testament word is not satisfactory it should be changed so that both Testaments use a satisfactory word. It is useful to work out together words for a whole group of related and distinct terms such as prophet, seer, apostle, disciple, etc., or to revise words already in use.

Normally there are three different possibilities for the translation of prophet: (1) an expression for foretelling the future; (2) an expression which describes the prophet as a revealer of God’s will and word; and (3) a loan word borrowed from Greek or some language in the area of the translation. This last solution (borrowing) should not be used unless the word is already known in the language, and with the correct meaning. The meaning which the term is likely to get in the process of borrowing is not likely to be the Biblical meaning.

The first solution (foretelling the future) is easy to follow, as all cultures have terms equivalent to “soothsayer,” “fortune teller,” etc. However, while not denying that the Hebrew term includes foretelling the future, the more important part is its meaning of the revelation of God’s word; and the term for “soothsayer” would doubtless convey meanings that have nothing to do with the Biblical message.

The second solution (descriptive phrase for revealing God’s will and word) is therefore usually the best: “who speaks the things of God,” “interpreter for God,” “God’s sent-word person,” etc. The problem with descriptive phrases is keeping them concise as well as accurate. This is especially necessary with such words as prophet which occur so frequently in the Bible. (See also the restructuring in Translating Amos, Section 2.3.)

Occasionally there may be a fourth alternative for prophet. Some traditional societies have a type of wise person who is quite distinct from the fortune teller. Through word revelation and without use of magic ritual he reveals hidden connections between things that happen and their causes. If the various meanings associated with the term for such a person are all right, the term can be used for prophet.

Nazirites should not normally be translated, but should be spelled according to the sound system of the language. Even if some descriptive expression is used, it will not convey the very particular meaning of the term. In either case, additional qualifications such as “were people (men) called Nazirites” will be necessary. An explanation will often be needed in a footnote or in the glossary. For example: “The Nazirite was someone set apart for the service of God. He was not allowed to cut his hair or to drink wine. He had to take several vows which are described in the law of the Nazirite: Num 6.1-21.” (Compare the Good News Translation note).

Is it not indeed so, O people (Hebrew: sons) of Israel?” says (Hebrew: message of) the LORD/Isn’t this true, people of Israel? I, the LORD, have spoken. The climactic, emphatic quality of these reminders that God is talking to his people has already been discussed (2.9-12), as has the fact that they interrupt the flow of discussion of the Nazirites and prophets.

The translator should try to make this climax strong, but he may have to change its location in order to do it. The climactic position may be after verse 12. The language which he uses in the translation should also be forceful.

Some languages will not allow questions which do not have answers such as Isn’t this true, people of Israel? Or in some languages such questions may be weak. In that case, a strong positive exclamation may have to be used, such as “You Israelites will not deny that!” (The Translator’s Old Testament) or a statement followed by a question: “You know that is true, don’t you, people of Israel”?

“Message of the LORD” has been translated as an independent sentence in Good News Translation: I, the LORD, have spoken. In many languages such a translation may sound awkward, especially if this line is not placed after verse 12. It may look as though the Lord, having indicated that he has spoken, continues to speak in an apparently unfinished discourse! If the question is to be maintained, it may be easier to translate: “Isn’t this true, people of Israel? I, the LORD, ask you.” (compare Moffatt). Other possibilities: “It’s your LORD speaking,” “I am your LORD, reminding you that this is true.” The two sentences can be combined: “You know that what I am saying is true, don’t you, people of Israel?”

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 .

Thus I will do to you/I am going to punish you. This is a transitional verse and for the way to relate it to the other passages and paragraphs, see 4.4.

The verse is rather difficult because we cannot be sure what this (or thus) refers to. All commentators agree that this cannot refer directly back to one of the punishments in the preceding paragraphs since all these things took place before. They also agree that this does not seem to refer to future events described in the beginning of the next chapter because these form a different section of the book, and verses 12-13 are the end of a section. Some scholars think that this problem came about through changes which were made by early scribes. A more natural explanation is that this refers to some threatening gesture or to something the first hearers could see on the spot and which did not need any explanation to those who could see it.

All this may help to understand the text, but is will certainly not help the translation as we do not know what the gesture was, anyhow. So the translation may have to be vague and unsatisfactory. Nevertheless, if it is impossible for the receptor language to refer to the punishment as this, the translator will have to say something like “I am going to punish you severely.” Such a rendering would be based on purely translational considerations.

Good News Translation has tried to solve the problem by translating first I am going to punish you, and then this in the next sentence refers back to the punishment. However, this restructuring causes unnecessary and awkward repetition. It might be better to say: “So then, people of Israel, I am going to punish you. Get ready to face….”

Prepare to meet your God/get ready to face my judgment. The meeting with God refers to judgment and punishment, so has to be qualified in translation: “face your God” (The Translator’s Old Testament) or face my judgment. In some languages it will be good to say something like “prepare yourself to meet God, who will judge you.” Your God is a fixed saying, like God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah in 4.11. It can be translated in various ways: my judgment; “me, your God”; “me, your God, who will judge you”; “me, as I judge you.”

This is the end of the LORD’s speaking until 5.3. If the receptor language indicates such an ending, see the discussion at 1.2.

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 .

Who sing idle songs to the sound (Hebrew: upon the mouth of) of the harp (or: lute) and like David invent for themselves instruments of music/You like to compose songs, as David did, and play them on harps. Translations of this verse differ very much because the Hebrew is not clear. It is easier if we start with the second part of this sentence: like David invent for themselves instruments of music. Many translations (Revised Standard Version, New English Bible, The Translator’s Old Testament, Dhorme, Bible de Jérusalem) translate this literally, but not many commentators think that is the right meaning because it makes no sense either within this paragraph or in the wider historical context of the Old Testament.

For that reason, the great majority of scholars have proposed very minor changes of the Hebrew. Not all scholars would propose exactly the same change, but all give a common understanding of the text, as in Smith-Goodspeed: “and compose songs for themselves like David,” Moffatt: “composing airs like David himself” and Good News Translation: You like to compose songs, as David did. This meaning should be translated in spite of the minor changes in the Hebrew that are involved.

In the first part of the Hebrew verse, only the meaning “to the sound of (upon the mouth of) the lute” is sure. The precise meaning of the Hebrew verb (which is found only here in the Old Testament) is not clear. No definite solution can be offered here, but all the various meanings proposed for the word involve the meaning of “to sing” or “to play,” and it seems safe to use one of these, as in Good News Translation: and play them on harps.

Good News Translation has changed the order of the two halves of the verse since composing songs normally precedes their singing or playing. This change would be helpful in many languages.

Invent/compose. Some languages have no special term for composing music. In some situations the nearest idea is “improvising”; or it may be necessary to translate “you like to sing new songs, which nobody sang before, and play them on harps.”

Harps. See 5.23.

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 .

Though they hide themselves on the top of Carmel, from there I will search out and take them/If they hide on the top of Mount Carmel, I will search for them and catch them. The top of Carmel was an ideal hiding place because of thick forests and more than two thousand limestone caves. Such information should, however, not be stated in the translation. The important thing is the balance of up with down. Normally it is important to indicate that Carmel is a “mountain” or “hill.”

Good News Translation stops using even after verse 2, but in some languages it may be better to use an equivalent expression in verses 3 and 4 also, in order to emphasize the impossibility of escape.

And though they hide from my sight (Hebrew: my eyes) at the bottom of the sea/If they hide from me at the bottom of the sea. “My eyes,” of course, is a picture of God searching, and when understood as such can be kept in the translation (Smith-Goodspeed; compare Revised Standard Version, The Translator’s Old Testament: my sight; New American Bible: “my gaze”). In other cases it may be more natural to say from me (so also Moffatt, New English Bible). Sometimes it would be possible not to state directly what they are hiding from because it is clear from the context.

It is not always easy to translate at the bottom of the sea. In cultures where the sea is not known, it may be necessary to say “on the earth, after having gone into the water” or “… under the deep water” or “… deep in the water.”

There I will command the serpent, and it shall bite them/I will command the sea monster to bite them. This is the only case in this paragraph where the picture is of the LORD using something else to accomplish what he wants to do. However, it is not fully clear what the meaning is. The English translations indicate the range of possibilities: serpent (also Smith-Goodspeed, New American Bible), “Serpent” (with capital S: The Translator’s Old Testament), “Dragon” (Moffatt), or sea monster. Since poisonous sea-serpents did not live in the Mediterranean, most scholars think that this is the sea monster, called Rahab (Isa 51.9; Psa 89.10; Job 9.13; 26.12) and Leviathan (Isa 27.1; Psa 74.14). On the other hand, except for Isa 27.1, these passages do not have the Hebrew word nachash which is used here, whereas this word and the word for bite are both used in Amos 5.19: bitten by a snake. The translator will have to make his translation on the basis of what makes sense in his language. If it is possible to speak of a sea monster, it may still be necessary to add a cultural note such as is given in Good News Translation: “It was believed that the sea was inhabited by a great monster. This creature, like all others, was regarded as under God’s control.” In some languages there may be some fearful creature in the sea, and it may be possible to use that here. Often, however, it is necessary to use the general term for “snake.”

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 .

Is a trumpet blown in a city, and the people are not afraid? Does evil befall a city unless the LORD has done it?/Does the war trumpet sound in a city without making the people afraid? Does disaster strike a city unless the LORD sends it? In spite of the similarities between these two questions, there is a very important division in the text between them. The first question ends a series about the relation of natural creatures to each other (man to man, animals to animals, men to animals). The second starts a series about the relation of God to man.

The first question, furthermore, ends the series which states the general premise (that nothing happens without a reason), whereas the second begins the specific premise (that disaster comes from the LORD). The order of the parts of the first question is different from the rest of the first series, as well as from the second question. That is, it has a condition-consequence order, whereas the second one uses the earlier sequence of consequence-condition. This change, along with a new question word in Hebrew, helps to emphasize that the first question in verse 6 is the climax of the first series.

If a similar change would produce the same results in the translation, the change in Hebrew order of condition-consequence should be followed. But if such a change would result in awkward or inconvenient style, or if all of the questions have been translated with condition-consequence because that is more natural in the language, the climactic emphasis should be shown in some other way. For example, if the questions are being answered in the translation, the answer here could be more emphatic: “Most certainly not!” If statements are being used instead of questions, there are other possibilities: “How well you know that people in the city are afraid when the war trumpet sounds!”

Otherwise, there are not many translation problems in this verse. It is not enough to translate as in the Revised Standard Version: Is a trumpet blown in a city (see also New American Bible, Smith-Goodspeed). The Hebrew word here means war trumpet, and without that the reason for the fear and the condition-consequence relation is lost. Some cultural adaptation may be necessary since different instruments such as bells or drums are the warnings for war in other places. It is not music which is intended. Sometimes a more general statement can be made to avoid the cultural difficulties. The Translator’s Old Testament is good in this respect: “If the alarm is sounded in a city.” However, not all languages have such a possibility, and in any case the picture in the question must be a strong and lively one.

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 .

Because the balance organization of the Hebrew is complicated, Good News Translation has restructured it some. In Good News Translation, verse 11a is a separate sentence stating the wrong behavior. Then the results of such behavior (And so) are given. Since the result is you will not live in…, that has been emphasized rather than you will build houses. The point is that the people to whom Amos is speaking will not enjoy the fruits of their luxury because destruction is coming.

In some languages such a restructuring may not be helpful. After verse 11a the order of the Hebrew is the order of the events as they take place, and the relationship between the events can be expressed grammatically: “… building houses … you will not live in them, planting vineyards … you shall not drink their wine,” or “although you build houses … you will not live in them; although you plant vineyards, you will not drink wine made from their grapes.”

Therefore because you trample upon the poor/You have oppressed the poor. The meaning is expressed in a picture in Hebrew, more directly in Good News Translation. The translator may want to find picture language which will carry the meaning.

And take from him exactions of wheat/robbed them of their grain. The idea of forcing people is well expressed by the verb rob, but other languages will use different constructions such as “you have taken with force their grain for nothing.”

You have built houses of hewn stone/fine stone houses you build. There are still places where houses of hewn stone are a sign of great luxury. Where this is not so, the luxurious character of the houses will have to be shown in a different way, as in Good News Translation for example. In some languages there are different words for ordinary houses and great luxurious homes like “mansions.” The use of a term for such a luxurious home may carry the meaning of luxury where the fact of stone does not.

For wine and vineyards, see 4.9.

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 .