(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 .

Does a bird fall in a snare on the earth, when there is no trap for it? Does a snare spring up from the ground when it has taken nothing?/Does a bird get caught in a trap if the trap has not been baited? Does a trap spring unless something sets it off? The snare/trap probably consisted of two rectangular frames flat on the ground and covered with a net. When the bird touched some sort of mechanism, the frames snapped together, holding the bird in the net which was folded around it. A complication which can be seen in some English translations is that possibly the word for trap came into the Hebrew by a copying mistake. The ancient Greek translation does not have any such word. We do not give this information to suggest that the translator not translate the Hebrew as it now is (with trap), but to show where some other translations come from.

Trap/baited. There are four different ways of understanding this word:

(a) “Bait,” “lure.” Most English translations take this meaning. For example, in addition to Good News Translation: “Is a bird brought to earth by a snare when there is no lure for it?” (New American Bible); “Does a bird swoop to a trap on the ground if there is no bait in it?” (The Translator’s Old Testament); “Does a bird drop into the trap unless the trap is baited?” (Moffatt).

(b) The trigger, or mechanism which releases the trap: “Does a bird fall into a trap on the ground if the striker is not set for it?” (New English Bible).

(c) A boomerang or throwing stick. If this is the meaning, then the additional word for trap is impossible, as discussed above: “Does a bird fall on the ground unless a thrown stick has hit it?” (Zürcher Bibel).

(d) A “snare.” “Does a bird fall to the ground when there is no snare for it?” (Smith-Goodspeed).

Although it is recommended that the translator choose (a) or (b) as the meaning of the present Hebrew text, it is impossible to say that one of these meanings is correct and the others not. Translators may even be happy with the range of choice, because each culture will have its own ways of catching birds, and one Hebrew meaning may be easier to translate than another. Even then, some degree of cultural translation may be necessary. If, for example, in a certain culture only bird lime is used, with termites in it as bait, it may be necessary to say something like: “Does a bird swoop to the bird lime unless there are termites in it?” Note that in such a translation local specific items are used for trap and bait. Or if the culture is unacquainted with the type of trap intended in the Hebrew, but knows of other types of snare: “Does a snare move if nothing has fallen in it?” Here a general word “to move” is used for the specific spring up. In such cases, the parallel between “falling down” and “springing up” is lost. But it may be impossible to avoid that.

The consequence-condition relationship may have to be brought out more clearly in some languages than in Hebrew. So in Good News Translation the result of the falling is the consequence: Does a trap spring … and the condition has been indicated by unless: unless something sets it off.

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 .

They hate him who reproves in the gate, and they abhor him who speaks the truth/You people hate anyone who challenges injustice and speaks the whole truth in court. In this verse the Hebrew speaks about the ones who are doing the hating (see Revised Standard Version), but in the next verse changes and speaks directly to them. The Hebrew continues speaking directly to them until verse 13 (which balances verse 10); in verse 13 it speaks about people once more, but they are different people.

Good News Translation simplifies the passage by speaking to the people right from the beginning. This keeps the passage much easier and avoids the problem that in some languages the use of they could mean nothing else than the strong who were destroyed in verse 9. Such a translation would certainly be wrong.

The setting of verse 10 is gate, which means the large space inside the city gate where court cases were judged. Since the place itself is not being emphasized in this context, court makes a better translation in English. Court should be translated in such a way that it indicates local judgment, not the judgment of a far-off national government. In some languages this will be “palaver house” or “village council” or “meeting of the elders,” etc.

The Hebrew has two words, to hate and to abhor, and the translator may want to look for two equivalent verbs if that would be best for the style of the translation. On the other hand, the words mean the same thing except for emotional differences between them, and may be combined into one word, as in Good News Translation.

It is hard to know who is being hated and abhorred in this verse. Probably they are people with the qualities translated in the Good News Translation: anyone who challenges injustice and speaks the whole truth in court. In translating like this, however, in some languages it will be necessary to show whose injustice is intended: “he who shows (reproves) your injustice” (compare Moffatt: “who exposes you”) or “anyone who shows how unjust/unfair you are.”

It is not fully clear whether the person who challenges injustice is the same as the one who speaks the whole truth. More likely they are different (judges who speak out against injustice, and witnesses who refuse to lie), but sometimes it will be easier to translate with only one kind of hated person: “he who shows your injustice in speaking the (whole) truth.”

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 the Lord GOD showed me/I had a vision from the Sovereign LORD. Amos is speaking again; that fact will have to be made clear in some languages. This is also the beginning of a very short story, and in many languages it should start like a story starts: “One time,” “One day,” “It happened,” etc. The Hebrew has Thus in a prominent position at the beginning of the story. The translation should have a similar effect: “Here is what the Lord GOD showed me,” “This is what…” or “Listen to what….” Sometimes it is necessary to be a little more specific and say: “showed me in a vision.”

Behold … and lo. The usage here is slightly different from 2.13, 4.13, and 6.14 because here the expression does not show a concluding, climactic statement, but points to something unusual, something worth seeing. One way of translating this effect in English would be to say “what was he doing but (creating …)” or “he was actually creating….” The translation will be stronger if it has an equivalent effect. Some languages have ways of doing this in the grammar itself.

He (Hebrew: someone) was forming (Hebrew: a swarm of) locusts in the beginning of the shooting up of the latter growth; and lo, it was the latter growth after the king’s mowings/In it I saw him create a swarm of locusts just after the king’s share of the hay had been cut and the grass was starting to grow again. A comparison of Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation will show that in the Hebrew structure (Revised Standard Version) two events (forming and shooting up) happen at the same time, and that additional information is given afterwards to show when this took place. Good News Translation restructures this same information in a very different way. In many languages something which is more like the Hebrew sentence structure may be the more dramatic, effective style.

The person who is doing the forming is not named in Hebrew, because the things formed are being emphasized instead. It is clear, however, that the LORD himself is doing it, and this information must often be stated in a translation. This can be done without a wrong emphasis by saying something like I saw him create a swarm of locusts.

Locusts/a swarm of locusts. The Good News Translation seems to be the correct translation of the single Hebrew word (see all recent English translations). Because this took place in the spring it is possible that these were locusts at the stage before they changed into adult form. They seem to eat more then than at any other time. There are many different Hebrew words for locust, but it is hard to know what their different meanings were.

As far as translation is concerned, see 4.9. In some cases it will be necessary to use the same word as was used there even though the Hebrew term is different. To add something like a swarm of may be helpful.

Latter growth/starting to grow again. The meaning is not certain. It may have meant the crops which came as the result of the rains late in the spring (Moffatt: “spring-crops … royal crop”; The Translator’s Old Testament: “main crop … first crop”; New English Bible “late corn … early crop”) or it may have been what grows after making hay (Smith-Goodspeed: “aftermath … mowings”; grass … hay).

King’s mowings/the king’s share of the hay. Unfortunately such a custom is not mentioned anywhere else in the Old Testament. However it has generally been understood to mean that the king had the first grass of spring cut for his horses. In a later period the Roman rulers of Syria claimed such a right during the months of March-April, and even in modern times the Turkish government required the same from the peasants.

In many languages the translation must say what was mowed, which means choosing between “grain” and “grass.” Although the evidence for “grass” seems to be slightly greater, “grain” is still possible.

Here is a possible restructuring of the whole thing: “(I saw him create a swarm of locusts) just after the grass/grain had been cut (or: the farmers had cut the grass/grain) for the king. It was at the very moment when the new young grass started to grow 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 .

Though/Even if. The impossibility of escape is now shown in exaggerated pictures, which Good News Translation introduces by even if. Other languages can make use of similar wording.

They dig into (Hebrew: break through to)/they dig their way down to. “Force” is one of the important parts of the meaning of the Hebrew: “even if they tried to enter into … with force.”

Sheol/the world of the dead. In the Old Testament Sheol is the common gathering place for all the dead. According to Israelite understanding, there is a relationship between “grave” and “sheol.” Where there is a grave, there is sheol, and where there is sheol there is a grave. However, sheol is not the sum of all the graves. It is often considered as a dark world where the dead gather, deep down under the earth, far deeper than the grave. To take over the Hebrew word is not very meaningful and should be avoided. Some possible translations in English are world of the dead, “Death-land” (Moffatt), “nether world” (New American Bible). Very often it is possible to make use of existing concepts and beliefs in the culture. However, frequently the “land of the dead” or some other local equivalent will not have some important parts of the meaning of Sheol and some kind of note may be necessary. For example, “The Israelites thought that the dead came together in a land under the ground.”

From there shall my hand take them/I will catch them. In some instances, it is possible to keep the picture my hand (which stands for the whole person) in the translation: “My hand will bring them up from there” or “I will catch them with my hand and bring them up from there.” The Hebrew has two events, “catching” and “pulling out.” Sometimes one of the events does not have to be stated directly because it is understood, but sometimes it is better to express both. In some languages it is important to express the upward direction, from below to the speaker above.

Though they climb up to heaven, from there I will bring them down/Even if they climb up to heaven, I will bring them down. Here the directions are reversed. One possible translation would be “I will make them descend to earth.”

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) And their king shall go into exile, he and his princes together/Their king and his officers will go into exile. Their king is, of course, the king of the Ammonites. Because this word is so far from the word to which it refers, in some languages it would be better to state the relationship: “the king of (the people of) Ammon,” or even “the king of Rabbah.”

Officers translates a very general Hebrew term which includes court officials, counsellors, military and other authorities. In many languages a term such as “notables” or “big people” would be the right equivalent.

Exile. See Amos 1.6.

(6) Says the LORD. See Amos 1.5.

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 .

Hear this word, you cows of Bashan, who are in the mountain of Samaria/Listen to this, you women of Samaria, who grow fat like the well-fed cows of Bashan. The most important translation problem is how to handle the picture and comparison cows of Bashan. There is no doubt about the persons to whom the cows are being compared. They are the women of the leading class of the capital. In the translation this must be made clear by saying something like you women of Samaria. If the receptor language has a specific word for women who belong to the upper classes of society (like the British English “lady”), the use of such a special term may be good. However, it may also be unnecessary since the social position of these women is clearly shown in the passage.

The basis of the comparison is not so clear. Nowhere else in the Old Testament are women called cows; perhaps the expression belonged to the stock-breeder’s way of talking. Bashan was very fertile country east of the river Jordan stretching from the river Yarmuk in the south up to Hermon in the north (see map|fig:Map_Amos.jpg ). It was, among other things, famous for its excellent cows.

With this little knowledge, there seem to be several possibilities to provide the basis for the comparison: “nobility,” “excessive demand” (since it is said that the cows of Bashan required much attention from their herdsmen), but most likely “plumpness” or “fatness” (as the cattle of Bashan had been characterized as “fattened cattle” in Ezek 39.18). There is at least some overlapping between the last two possibilities.

It is, of course, impossible to translate the picture and comparison literally in languages in which human beings are never compared to animals, or in which cows are completely unknown, or where they are never thought of as fat or well cared for. The Good News Translation who grow fat like the well-fed cows of Bashan will be a good solution in many cases. If the language has no specific word for “cows,” a more general term for “cattle” or “domestic animals” or “animals fit to be eaten” can be used.

Unfortunately, we cannot be sure what the emotional force of the Hebrew picture was. It sounds scornful in English, but in some other modern languages it would be a compliment, since fatness is a sign of beauty. It is even possible that Amos used a compliment in order to catch the attention of the women before expressing God’s judgment. On the other hand, lack of knowledge makes it impossible to be sure just how faithful any translation is to the original emotional force.

Weak and poor. See 2.6 and 2.7.

Who say to their husbands (Hebrew: lords), “Bring, that we may drink!”/and demand that your husbands keep you supplied with liquor! Whether the women should be quoted directly (as in Hebrew, Revised Standard Version) or not (as in Good News Translation) will depend on the requirements of the language. In either case there may be adaptations needed in the pronouns (see also Moffatt, New English Bible, New American Bible, The Translator’s Old Testament).

Say to/demand. “Saying” in Hebrew means an order here, and so some languages may want to translate it as such.

Husbands. Hebrew “lords” clearly refers to husbands (Revised Standard Version, Moffatt, The Translator’s Old Testament, Good News Translation), but uses a rare word which brings out that these husbands who obeyed the women’s commands were supposed to be “masters” but really acted like servants!

Of course, “your lords” (New English Bible, New American Bible) makes little sense or even gives the wrong meaning in modern English. However, in many languages there are different words for husband, one of which may indicate a “master” relationship. So a term like “master of the compound” may be currently used. If there is one, such a term should be used in translation here.

Bring is addressed to one person in Hebrew, as each woman addresses her own husband. In other languages it will be necessary for the command to be addressed to several people because there is more than one husband. In that case the pronoun will probably have to be changed: “bring (plural) us wine to drink” or “bring us wine that we may drink.” The “us” should not include the husbands if the language has that distinction in pronouns.

That we may drink/keep you supplied with liquor. If what was drunk should be stated, use “wine” if possible (so Moffatt, The Translator’s Old Testament). If there is no term for wine, then a general term for “fermented fruit juice” or even a cultural equivalent can be used in this context.

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 .

I hate, I despise your feasts, and I take no delight in (Hebrew: I cannot smell) your solemn assemblies (Hebrew: your assemblies)/The LORD says, “I hate your religious festivals; I cannot stand them”. Although the Hebrew does not say so directly, the LORD is now speaking and this must be expressed in translation in many languages, especially since Amos is the speaker in the preceding section (verses 18-20).

In Hebrew, when there is a sequence of two verbs (I hate, I despise) without a word relating them, only one event is meant, so Good News Translation uses only one verb I hate, and this will be necessary in many other languages. But the Hebrew repetition is very forceful and produces an emphasis which is important to the whole section. If repetition is not sufficient the translation should have a strong word for hate or should qualify the verb in some way.

Hate. There may be a problem in choosing the right word. In verse 10 the same verb was used of hating a person, which is no problem. But here it is not a person who is being hated, and in many languages it is not possible to use the same word. The translation should be something which means dislike of what people do. There may even be a lively expression like “feel the shudder of repugnance (which runs down one’s spine) at something disgusting.” Or, to use an English idiom which may not be translatable either: “Your feasts make me sick!”

Originally, “smell” was used literally when it was said that the LORD smelled sacrifices (with pleasure) (Gen 8.21; Lev 26.31; 1 Sam 26.19). Here it is clearly used as a picture. If the translator cannot keep the picture with the same meaning or replace it by a similar one, he will have to say something like I cannot stand, “I cannot bear/tolerate.”

Feasts and assemblies. The two words mean about the same thing here. Good News Translation therefore uses only one term, religious festivals. It is necessary to say religious in cultures where there is a distinction between those feasts which are religious and those which are not. In other cultures feasts are normally religious and there is no need to add the information, especially since the context shows that these feasts are of a religious character.

The translator should choose strong terms or restructure the sentence so that it is as forceful as possible. Repetition or use of synonyms often leads to forcefulness in modern languages, as it does in Hebrew. One possibility in English (not Good News Translation style) would be “I loathe your religious festivals, and your pious meetings make me sick!”

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 .