For the special character of this verse and its poetic structure, see 7.7.

The high places of Isaac/The places where Isaac’s descendants worship. High places refers to places of worship which are located on hills. Originally the high place was simply a burial mound with worship related to dead people, but later this developed into a fertility cult. The Israelites took over the custom of worshiping at the high places from the Canaanites with the difference that they did not worship Baal but the LORD.

Isaac stands for the people of the northern kingdom of Israel, and there will be misunderstanding if it is not translated as Isaac’s descendants.

High places of Isaac means the places where Isaac’s descendants worship and this will have to be spelled out in most languages. It may also be necessary to say whom they are worshiping: “me” (that is, God).

Worship. There are often good equivalents, such as “to cut one’s personality down before,” “to rub (earth) on one’s body” (an expression of homage and a recognition of kingship), etc.

Shall be made desolate/will be destroyed. Many translations will have to say something like “Someone (or: people/the enemy) will destroy the places where the descendants of Isaac worship me/(their) God.” It is not the location on the hills which is important here, so Good News Translation may be right in not mentioning high places. Another possibility, however, is “the places on the top of the hills where Isaac’s descendants worship.”

And the sanctuaries of Israel shall be laid waste/The holy places of Israel will be left in ruins. These are the more important state places of worship in the northern kingdom. Sanctuaries of Israel means “the sanctuaries in Israel.” (Note the difference from high places of Isaac just above.)

Holy. This is difficult to translate as was pointed out in 4.2. Sometimes a short descriptive phrase like “houses of God” or “houses where people worship God” can be used. In other cases there may be cultural equivalents like “festival longhouse (of God),” etc.

And I will rise against the house of Jeroboam with the sword/I will bring the dynasty of King Jeroboam to an end. Rise against may often be translated “attack” or “defeat” (see 6.14).

With the sword. See 1.11.

It would be helpful to many readers to show that Jeroboam was a king.

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 .

By the sword/in war—. See 4.10.

Who say/all those who say. Whether or not the first part of this verse is combined with verse 9, the translator must be careful of the relationship between it and what goes before. It continues the theme begun in verse 7 that the LORD is not treating the people of Israel any differently from the other nations in spite of the fact that they are “my people.”

It may be helpful to start a new sentence and translate something like “You/These are the same sinners who say…”

Evil shall not overtake or meet us (Hebrew: You will not let disaster come near us or overtake us)/God will not let any harm come near us. If there is a problem with a quotation inside another quotation, the translation can easily say something like “that God will not let any harm come near you.”

Revised Standard Version has changed the Hebrew here, but in this case it would be better to follow such translations as New English Bible and The Translator’s Old Testament (“You will not let any harm overtake us or meet us”), except that it may be necessary to show who the “you” refers to. The most likely reference is to God himself, which is in keeping with the theme of 9.7-10, that Israel is wrong in thinking God will spare it because the people are God’s own people. Good News Translation is a good model: God will not let any harm come near us. The two verbs in Hebrew (overtake and meet) represent two parts of the same event, and should be translated according to what is natural and effective in the language.

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 .

Before them/for your sake. In contrast to what has been done in most modern translations, the Hebrew should be understood as showing the reason for God’s action (like the Good News Translation), not the place (like the Revised Standard Version); (compare Hos 10.15; Gen 6.13; Deut 28.20).

Destroyed. In translation the term must be one which can be used for people. This destruction is that of war: death, loss of home and possessions, exile.

Amorite/Amorites lived in Canaan at the time when the people of Israel conquered it. Where it is helpful, the translation may say “your/ their enemies, the Amorites.”

Whose height was like the height of the cedars, and who was as strong as the oaks/men who were as tall as cedar trees and as strong as oaks. Such full comparisons are usually not hard to translate except for the terms cedar trees and oaks.

In either case, where the specific kind of Biblical tree is not known, the best solution is probably to take a general word for “tree” (provided it includes the possibility of tall trees and strong trees), and to build the comparison around it. Something like “as tall as the tallest trees, and strong as the greatest trees” might do. Or the two comparisons can be combined: “as tall, as strong as the greatest tree.”

A second possible solution would be to borrow the words cedar and oak and write them according to the sound patterns of the language of the translation: “tall as the tree called cedar,” etc. Still a third possibility is to take local trees which are tall and strong. Such a solution would not be as good if this were a particular tree of historical importance, but as a basis for comparison like this, it is a possibility. Still another possibility is to say something like “strong as big trees like the mahogany tree.” Or yet again, some of the information could be put in a footnote so that the kind of tree could be better understood without including inaccurate information in the text.

I destroyed his fruit above, and his roots beneath. This picture is not kept in the Good News Translation but included in the earlier use of totally destroyed because this was a standard Canaanite and Hebrew idiom, and the meaning of the expression as a whole should be translated and not the meanings of the individual words. If the Hebrew idiom can be replaced by an equivalent idiom in your language, it should be done. In English we could say: “I destroyed them root and branch” (Robinson, The Translator’s Old Testament); in German: “ich rotte sie mit Stumpf und Stiel aus,” etc. If it is not possible to find an equivalent idiom, the meaning of the total expression should be translated in a general way, as TEV has done.

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 paragraph is about two disasters which are closely connected with each other: disease and war. Perhaps the structure of this paragraph is parallel to that of 3.6-8 where famine was mentioned first, though it was clearly the result of the drought talked about afterwards. In the same way disease can be seen as the result of war, more particularly as caused by the rotting bodies at the battlefield camps.

As was the case in the first paragraph(s), the relationship will need to be expressed by a different order of the sentences in some languages. For example, the first sentence could be put after the picture of decaying bodies in camp, with something to show the connection. However, for some languages the rather unconnected series of pictures may help to give the feeling of the chaos of war and a people taken by a widespread disease.

I sent among you a pestilence after the manner of Egypt/I sent a plague on you like the one I sent on Egypt. After the manner of Egypt may be understood in two different ways: (1) “an Egyptian plague” (so Moffatt, The Translator’s Old Testament) in the sense that Egypt had an unhealthy climate with infectious illnesses; or more probably (2) one of the ten plagues of Egypt (compare Exo 9.3-9, 15). There is no advantage in this case to translating in so general a way that more than one meaning is possible. It is better simply to use the best knowledge we have. This gives a translation such as I sent a plague on you like the one I sent on Egypt.

Plague refers to the bubonic plague, a severe disease spread from rats to people by fleas. If the language has a word for such a violent form of illness, it should be used. Sometimes the plague itself is known but may be referred to by some indirect or euphemistic term which can be used in translation. If, on the other hand, there is no specific word for the plague, a more general term such as “epidemic” can be used.

I slew your young men with the sword; I carried away (Hebrew: with the captivity of) your horses/I killed your young men in battle, and took your horses away. Sword represents battle, and such a picture may be quite clear in some languages. In others it should be changed to a more direct I killed your young men in battle, or, more exactly, “I made (caused/gave) your young men (to) die in battle.”

The reference to the horses can be understood in two ways: either the horses were captured and killed (so Smith-Goodspeed: “I slew your young men with the sword, together with your captured horses,” and basically Moffatt, New English Bible, The Translator’s Old Testament), or they are only captured (so Revised Standard Version, New American Bible, Good News Translation). The latter seems much more probable because horses were rare and very expensive! So a translation might be “I gave your horses as booty (to your enemies)” or “I let your horses be captured” (compare New American Bible).

If there is a specific word for “war-horses” in the language, it should be used.

I made the stench of your camp go up (namely) into your nostrils/I filled your nostrils with the stink of dead bodies in your camps. This sentence can be restructured according to the needs of the receptor language as in the Good News Translation, or as “I made (caused/did) you smell the bad odor of the dead bodies/corpses in your camps.”

For the repeated parts of this paragraph, 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 .

Pass over to Calneh, and see; and thence go to Hamath the great; then go down to Gath of the Philistines. Are they better than these kingdoms? Or is their territory greater than your territory?/Go and look at the city of Calneh. Then go on to the great city of Hamath and on down to the Philistine city of Gath. Were they any better than the kingdoms of Judah and Israel? Was their territory larger than yours? Two main interpretations have been given for this verse: (1) That these are Amos’ own words addressed to the leaders of Israel, as a warning to remember nations which were greater than theirs and yet had met their doom. This is probably not the correct meaning. (2) It is a quotation put by Amos in the mouths of the rulers to show their unlimited boasting. The leaders tell the people to compare how well off Israel is in comparison with other nations. The translator will have to make a choice between these meanings. In many languages he cannot simply reproduce the questions and so maintain a vague meaning. In fact, he often has to provide definite answers to the questions or express the meaning in statements.

Good News Translation is not a good model to follow here. The best solution is to make a statement like: “You say to your people: go and look at the city of Calneh; then go on to the great city of Hamath, and on down to the Philistine city of Gath. See how none of these countries is as strong and as large as the kingdoms of Judah and Israel!” Or, “You say: let our people go … and see how….”

It will be necessary to pay special attention to the choice between “come” and “go,” particularly in languages with a highly developed directional system (see Translating Amos, Section 3). Hamath was a city-state in upper Syria on the Orontes River. Unfortunately, the city of Calneh has not yet been found. All we know is that it was north of Hamath. With Bethel as the viewpoint place of the book of Amos, the movement is first to the north (Calneh), from there to the south (Hamath), then further to the south and even slightly to the southwest, since Gath is located southwest of Bethel.

The usual translation better may be misleading, because the Hebrew word does not have a moral meaning here. Something like “prosperous” or “strong” (The Translator’s Old Testament) is more suitable.

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 the special character of this verse, see 8.1; 7.7-9.

On that day. For the special meaning of this expression, see 2.16. Good News Translation has done some restructuring by putting the expression at the beginning, since it is the time setting of the whole verse (so also New English Bible, The Translator’s Old Testament). This will also be the natural position in many other languages as well.

Says the Lord GOD has been omitted in Good News Translation because there is no change of speaker. Other translations should not necessarily do this, but in some languages it may be better to put it at the end of the verse to show the end of the unit (so The Translator’s Old Testament). If verse 3 is printed as a separate paragraph according to the suggestion in 7.7-9, “The Lord GOD says” may be used as an introductory sentence before the time setting.

The songs of the temple shall become wailings/the songs in the palace will become cries of mourning. This gives the traditional interpretation of the Hebrew (except for the palace), but it is probably not right. Because of the context the great majority of scholars change the Hebrew text slightly to “the singing women in the palace shall howl” (New English Bible, and the same interpretation in The Translator’s Old Testament). This is the interpretation which should be followed. A possible translation is “The women who were singing in the palace will wail instead.”

The dead bodies shall be many; in every place they shall be cast out in silence/There will be dead bodies everywhere. They will be cast out in silence. This gives the reasons for the mourning. There are so many dead and not enough place to bury them. Good News Translation has combined these two ideas into There will be dead bodies everywhere. New English Bible takes these to be the words which the women were wailing.

In silence. (Hebrew: Silence! or Hush!) Compare 6.10. But who is speaking? The LORD? The singing women (New English Bible)? Or a reader who expressed his feelings in a marginal note? It seems impossible to know. The best way to make some sense out of this might be to say “not a sound will be heard.”

Quoted with permission from de Waard, Jan & Smalley, William A. A Handbook on Amos. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1979. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

(1) Thus says the LORD: (Hebrew: thus the Lord said)/The LORD says. In some languages it may be useful to keep the Hebrew past tense in translation in order to show the difference between the actual speech of Amos and an earlier experience in which Amos received God’s message. On the other hand, the message is a timeless warning with present and future meaning. The translation should reflect this fact, as is done with the use of the present tense in many English translations.

The expression “thus the LORD said” or others similar to it is used in the prophetic books of the Old Testament to declare God’s authority for the message. The translation should not be as flat as the LORD says. The expression is not a simple introduction to a quotation. The words should have the sound of authority in the translation: “Listen to what the LORD says,” “Here is the word of the LORD” (compare New English Bible: “These are the words of the LORD”), “This is what the LORD has to say.”

The expression used here should be something which will sound well when repeated many times in the Old Testament. Part of the strong tone of the prophetic books depends on the frequent repetition of this expression and others very much like it. The expression does not have to be repeated in the translation every time it occurs in the Hebrew, of course, but to have to leave it out because it is a weak expression and sounds weak and repetitive is much less valuable than to have the repetition itself make the message more urgent and powerful.

(2) For three transgressions of Damascus, and for four/The people of Damascus have sinned again and again. As is clear from verses 4 and 5, Damascus stands for both the rulers and the inhabitants of the city of Damascus, and they can be taken together in a general way as The people of Damascus or “the people of the city of Damascus.” The city of Damascus itself stands for the people and rulers of the whole country of Syria (verse 5). Syria is the heading in Good News Translation for that reason. Damascus and Syria should not sound like different places in the translation. If the confusion of Damascus and Syria is a problem, one solution is to use “Syria” for “Damascus” right from the beginning except for verse 5, where its relationship to Syria should be clear in context. Another solution would be to translate “Damascus in Syria” or “Damascus, the capital of Syria,” etc., in verse 3.

It should be clear, furthermore, that Damascus is a city well-known to the people of Israel. The translation should not sound like “a city called Damascus” but like “the city of Damascus (that you know about).” This kind of difference was discussed under 1.1.

Transgressions are things that people do, and so are usually better translated with a verb: have sinned. In Amos the Hebrew noun here translated transgressions is used only for sins against people. The word or expression in the translation should be one with the strong meaning of “to commit a horrible crime.” Neither a weak word such as “to make a mistake” nor a highly specialized theological one such as “to disobey God” is adequate here. The difficult problems in translating words for “sin” are discussed in other Translators Handbooks.

In for three transgressions … and for four the numbers should not be taken either symbolically or literally. The progression from three to four expresses a climax or increasing intensity. In languages where numbers have only a literal value, a literal translation of this sequence would give rise to a wrong meaning. On the other hand, some attempts at idiomatic translation such as “many” are also misleading. Only translations such as “the people of Damascus have committed crime upon crime” (compare Moffatt) or have sinned again and again are adequate in English. Translators should look for something to give this meaning of piling sin upon sin.

I will not revoke the punishment (Hebrew: cause it to return or reverse/revoke it)/ I will certainly punish them. “It” refers either to the punishment announced immediately afterwards (Revised Standard Version) or to the word of God (New American Bible: “I will not revoke my word”). However, the word of God is a word of judgment in the context of these messages. Also, in many languages a negative statement as in the Hebrew is weak or does not have the positive meaning the Hebrew has here. That is why Good News Translation has I will certainly punish them.

The punishment is the result of the sin, and the clause I will certainly punish them is connected as the result of what precedes (sinned again and again) and what follows (They treated …). Furthermore, the kind of punishment is shown in verse 4. In some languages such moving back and forth between reason and result may not be fully natural or clear. In such cases the order of I will certainly punish them and They treated … may have to be changed, or some other restructuring employed. Then I will certainly punish them may have to be introduced with a word equivalent to “so.”

Some languages do not use quotations in which I means the person quoted (the Lord), not the immediate speaker (Amos). In such cases the use of I here might even mean whoever is reading in the local situation. In that case, the quotation often cannot be a direct one but must be something like “The LORD’s message is that … he will punish”; or the language may have other ways of making the meaning clear. In some cases a noun would be used even though the Lord is speaking of himself: “The LORD will certainly punish them.” This problem, if it exists, will carry through the whole book and need regular attention.

The shift in style which will be necessary in some languages when God begins to speak has already been mentioned (1.3–3.2). In some languages God should also use words or grammar which show that he is speaking disrespectfully of the people of Damascus. In many languages, some pronouns are respectful and some pronouns are disrespectful. In that case it might be best to translate as “the people of the city of Damascus, they have sinned again and again,” with the word for “they” one which indicates the speaker’s disapproval.

(3) Because they have threshed Gilead with threshing sledges of iron/They treated the people of Gilead with savage cruelty. Gilead probably stands for the people of Gilead or “the inhabitants of the country of Gilead.”

Threshing sledges of iron were flat wooden platforms which were studded with iron knives and pulled by animals across the harvested grain to cut up the straw and separate the grain from the stalks: “threshing-sledges spiked with iron” (New English Bible). As there is no direct evidence from elsewhere of doing this to people, the expression can best be taken as picture language, to show cruelty by the picture of the violence with which grain is threshed. The picture should often be translated as a comparison: “because they destroyed the people of Gilead like someone threshes grain with iron chariots.” For other possibilities see Translating Amos, Section 5.

Quoted with permission from de Waard, Jan & Smalley, William A. A Handbook on Amos. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1979. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Does a lion roar in the forest, when he has no prey? Does a young lion cry out from his den, if he has taken nothing?/Does a lion roar in the forest unless he has found a victim? Does a young lion growl in his den unless he has caught something? These two pictures are not exactly the same. The lion’s roar in the first picture is the ferocious roar with which the lion attacks an animal he is going to kill and eat. When someone hears this roar, he knows that the lion has found his victim. In the second picture, however, it is the lion’s contented growl when he has dragged his food to his den.

Translation problems are mainly in vocabulary. In Hebrew there are two distinct nouns for a lion and a young lion, the first one a general term, the second more specific. The young lion is not a cub or whelp (for which there is also a specific term in Hebrew); he is old enough to go hunting. Many languages, like English, will not have a range of specific terms for lions, so the translator will have to use some word like “young” if he wants to bring out the distinction. However, in Hebrew the age of the lion is not important. There is no reason against translating a lion twice, if that sounds better. This is exactly what has been done in The Translator’s Old Testament, which adds a footnote: “Hebrew has two different words for a full-grown lion here. The second indicates one which is younger than the first.” Such a note, however, is not necessary. In some cases, translating as lion twice will sound better because the two questions will be more balanced, or, if young lion has an adjective, then the other term should have an adjective, too, like: “old lion,” or “mature lion.”

Finally, if the language has no word for lion, a more general term for “wild beast” can be used. It would be possible to add some comparative description such as “wild beast like a leopard,” but such a description may be disturbing rather than helpful, especially if the translation is in poetic form.

The Hebrew word translated by forest is a rather general term covering such specific terms as “scrub,” “bush,” “thicket,” and “forest.” In this context “scrub” is meant. If the receptor language has no specific word for this type of vegetation, a more general equivalent of “savannah” can be used.

The Hebrew term translated as den is a general term for “dwelling place,” used here for the place where a wild beast lives. The lion’s den is a hollow in the ground, hidden behind shrubs. Again, if the language lacks a specific term the translator may use a more general word for dwelling place, as in Hebrew.

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 .