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 .

So two or three cities wandered to one city to drink water, and were not satisfied/Weak with thirst, the people of several cities went to a city where they hoped to find water, but there was not enough to drink. Two or three cities means the people of several cities, and in languages where cities cannot stand for people or be described as doing things like people, it will be necessary to translate as in Good News Translation (compare also New English Bible and The Translator’s Old Testament).

The Hebrew word for wander or went indicates also a state of exhaustion for which “staggered” might be an English equivalent. However, apart from the difficulty of finding a close, natural equivalent, the translator may need to make the reason for the wandering (thirst) clear in the translation and say something like weak with thirst, they went … where they hoped to find. In some languages the natural expression for this state will be “sick of thirst” or “thirsty nearly dead.”

One city/a city. Another town than their own.

On the expressions repeated in each of these paragraphs (yet you did not return to me, says the LORD), see 4.6-11.

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 .

Woe to/How terrible. See 5.7 and 5.18. In many languages it would be better to translate this verse with more than one sentence. Woe to may then have to be repeated in the beginning of the second sentence: “woe to you great men….”

The mention of Zion creates certain problems of interpretation which are dealt with at length in the commentaries (see also 1.2). However, these questions have nothing to do with translation.

On the mountain of Samaria/in Samaria. See 4.1. The particular geographical position of Samaria is not important here, so a translation like in Samaria or “in the town of Samaria” is all right.

At ease … feel secure/have such an easy life … feel safe. The same two Hebrew expressions occur as a pair in Isa 32.9-18 also. Their meanings overlap to a great extent and can be translated as “at ease/careless” and “secure/untroubled.” Possible translations are “to live in peace” and “to rest quietly.” “Peace” in this context means “peace of mind” and many languages may have expressions like “to sit down in one’s heart,” “to have a song in the body,” “to be cool,” “to have a stomach which is smoothed,” etc.

The notable (Hebrew: distinguished, prominent) men of the first of the nations/great men of this great nation Israel. First does not mean first in time, as has been wrongly suggested in some English translations (Moffatt: “leaders of this most ancient race”; New American Bible: “Leaders of a nation favored from the first”). In most languages the translator can restructure much as in Good News Translation.

To whom the house of Israel come (Hebrew: and they come to them the house of Israel)/you to whom the people go for help. The Hebrew raises questions which are difficult to answer. Who comes to whom and why? Is house of Israel coming? Is it an explanation of “them,” or is Amos speaking to the house of Israel? Does “them” refer back to the leaders or to the nations? Why do they—whoever they are—come? For help, for judgment, to honor? Traditionally, the text has been understood to mean that the people of Israel come to their leaders for help (so Smith-Goodspeed, New English Bible: “resort”; New American Bible: “have recourse”; Good News Translation: go for help). The translation should therefore follow the solution of the Good News Translation. However, for “go” or “come” the translator should use what is natural for the language. The Hebrew verb can be understood to mean “come again and again” and some languages should perhaps express this idea of repetition: “keep going/coming,” “come/go again and again.”

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/The LORD asked. See 7.8. Here, in addition, it may be better to translate he as the LORD and/or indicate that he spoke to “me,” depending on what is best in the language.

“Amos, what do you see?” And I said/“Amos, what do you see?” … I answered. Unless there is some reason in the language why it should not be done, the wording here should be the same as in 7.8.

“A basket of summer fruit.” Then the LORD said to me, “The end has come upon my people Israel/“A basket of fruit,” … The LORD said to me, “The end has come for my people Israel. There is a pun between the Hebrew words for summer fruit (qayits) and end (qets). In order to make some kind of pun in English, some translations have “ripe fruit” in verse 1, and here they have “the time is ripe” (New American Bible, New English Bible) or “so is the doom ripe” (Moffatt). However, puns are almost never translatable; only occasionally is there a suitable equivalent, as with “ripe.” To make up a pun which sounds unnatural is no help. Usually it is better to translate the Hebrew rather literally (the end has come) and add a short note that the Hebrew words for “end” and “fruit” are similar, as is done in Good News Translation. Of course, the end has come should not be translated literally, but perhaps something like “the time is finished,” “this is the end” or “(my people Israel) will not continue any longer,” etc.

I will never again pass by them/I will not change my mind again about punishing them. The wording is the same as in 7.8.

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 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 .

If the solution to the problem of verse 1 is to have the LORD begin speaking at verse 2, then an expression like “The LORD says” or “He says” may be needed here to introduce verse 2. It must be clear also that the following words are spoken now, not during the time when the people were being brought out of Egypt.

You only/Of all the nations on earth, you … only. The Good News Translation is a correct translation of the Hebrew here. The meaning is not “more than” the other nations.

Have I known/I have known and cared for. The Hebrew word for “known” has several important parts to its meaning, including personal knowledge, intimate knowledge, care, and choice. In this particular context the meaning of intimate knowledge and care should be translated. I have known and cared for, “cared for” (New English Bible, Moffatt), “I have known intimately” (The Translator’s Old Testament). The Hebrew, furthermore, has considerable overlapping with another Hebrew word for “choose,” “elect,” so that it may very well be translated. “I have chosen.” In fact, this may be the best translation in many languages, as very often a verb to “choose” implies personal intimate knowledge and care. The way in which this is expressed should contribute to the tone of sorrow: “the only ones I have really known and cared for,” “the only ones I have ever really chosen and cared for as my own.”

This knowledge and care of the LORD does not refer only to the past, but also to his revelation which continues in the present: “I have always cared for,” “I am continually caring.” In some languages the continuation could be expressed through two different tenses: “I have cared and care for.”

Therefore/That is why. The meaning is that God punishes because he knows and cares for. Because the LORD knows the people of Israel intimately and cares for them, the people in its turn should know the LORD intimately and want to do his will. Because of his special care, their sins are more terrible.

Iniquities/ sins. The Hebrew word is different from the one used in chapters 1 and 2. There the emphasis was on the evil nature of man, whereas here (and only here in Amos) the emphasis is on the damage caused by doing wrong or the guilt of the person who causes damage through doing wrong. “Guilty behavior” or “doing wrong” would be good translations, although it may be difficult to make this kind of difference in many 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 .

Seek the LORD and live/Go to the LORD, and you will live. Here again there is a change from the LORD speaking to the prophet speaking. If the translator is not trying to translate so that the balanced organization of 4b-6a will be clear in translation, the change of speaker will present little problem. However, if one is trying to get an effect like the Hebrew balance in translation, the change can be difficult. One way, if necessary, is to move the beginning of Amos’ own words to verse 6b, and have the LORD continue to speak here.

Lest/If you do not go. It is much better to start with a new sentence here. The relations between the two sentences should, however, be clearly stated. The following judgment depends on the way in which people will act; for instance, If you do not go … or simply “if not….”

Lest he break out like fire in the house of Joseph, and it devour, with none to quench it for Bethel/If you do not, he will sweep down like fire on the people of Israel. The fire will burn up the people of Bethel, and no one will be able to put it out. The Hebrew sentence structure is not very clear, as can be seen from the Revised Standard Version. However, an analysis into the kernel sentences and a restructuring of these sentences to an acceptable level in the language will certainly give a translation not very different from that of Good News Translation. Instead of saying he will sweep down, the translator may have to say “he will come like a great fire burning.”

House of Joseph/the people of Israel. In Good News Translation the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh have been replaced by the whole group to which house of Joseph refers.

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 .

Amos continues as the speaker here. The verse is composed of two questions to which the answer is “no” (verse 12a) and two statements (verse 12b). The first part of the verse asks if the impossible could happen, the latter part says that the impossible is happening, that the leaders of Israel are doing it, and that this is a terrible evil. The effect is very powerful. One should look for a good way of creating the same effect in the receptor language even if questions cannot be used in this way. Keep in mind the discussion on 3.3-8.

Do horses run upon rocks?/Do horses gallop on rocks? The answer to the first question is “Of course not.” Horses do not run on cliffs or rocks because of their hoofs. The word used for rocks should not mean small stones, but great boulders or expanses of rock. Besides, in those days horses were used only for pulling war chariots in the lowlands. One may have to translate “Horses cannot run on rocks/cliffs, can they?” or “Horses cannot run on rocks/cliffs.”

Horses. See 2.15.

Does one plow the sea with oxen?/Do men plow the sea with oxen? The Hebrew is “does one plow with oxen?” but that does not fit, because the answer to that would be “Of course one does!” Most scholars and nearly all translators solve the problem by dividing the consonants of the last Hebrew word in such a way that they mean “with oxen the sea.” If oxen are unknown, or plowing with oxen is unknown, the translator may have to use the name of another, somewhat related animal or even an entirely different animal, but one which can be used for plowing, or he may say simply “Do you plow the sea?” In other cases, he may be obliged to use a borrowed word, showing that it is the name of an animal, and then explain something about the animal in a footnote, such as: “An ox is an animal about (so many times) the size of (another animal of the receptor culture). It is taken care of by men and is used to pull heavy loads and plows.”

Where animals are not used for agricultural work and plows are unknown, a possible translation would be: “People do not make a garden in the sea/water/river (do they?)” or “Animals do not work for men in the sea.” A short explanation of Hebrew farming custom may then be put in a footnote if necessary.

But you have turned justice into poison/Yet you have turned justice into poison. See the similar statement in 5.7 However, there justice was turned to wormwood and here wormwood comes at the end of the next statement. Here it is not fully clear from the Hebrew just what justice is turned into. The Hebrew word occurs elsewhere as the name of a plant which people thought was, and may have been, poisonous. It is also used with the meaning “snake poison.” Poison, therefore, is the meaning which should be translated.

And the fruit of righteousness into wormwood/and right into wrong. Wormwood. See 5.7. A parallel solution may be found here. There is a slight difference, however, since in 6.12 there are two pictures, fruit and wormwood: “Righteousness, which is like a pleasant tasting fruit, is changed into bitter wormwood.” It may sometimes be possible to give a rather literal translation of the Hebrew in which a particular bitter plant known to the readers is used for wormwood. However, in that case the meaning of the picture must still be clear. In other cases it will be necessary to translate the meaning directly. Good News Translation understands fruit as a metaphor for “result” and translates and right into 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 .