TWO PROFESSIONAL TRANSLATIONS OF

THE BIBLE IN MALTESE IN THE 20TH

CENTURY
Amos 1,1-10 in Maltese Bibles: An evaluation of
P.P. Saydon's and C. Sant's translations*

Anthony Abela

1 . Preliminaries

This paper is a preliminary attempt at analysis and comparative study of the two
professional translations of Amos I, I-lOin Maltese carried out so far this century. 1
The first one by Professor Peter Paul Saydon was published for the first time in
1952. The second translation to be analysed will be that of Professor Carmel Sant
published in 1984. One should keep in mind though the information given in the
Prezentazzjoni to the Bible by Sant himself on p. XI; there he informs the reader
about the scholars who prepared the first drafts of the various biblical books; Rev.
Vaientin Barbara OP is said to have drafted the basic text for Amos and the other
Minor Prophets. The present writer has to date been unable to consult this original
draft in order to be in a position to give dues respectively to the original translator
and to the general editor who was Professor Sant himself. Professional scholarship
requires that the study of the various redactional stages be made in order to
reconstruct the proper history of Bible translation in Maltese; this task of identifying
the several stages of the final redaction of the text will be left to someone else.

The choice of the Biblical text for this specific study is absolutely subjective.

This study would not take account of Karm Zammit's version Il-Bibbja Mqaddsa. ft-Testment i/-
Qadil71 It t-Tesll1lenl if-Gdid skond if-Veri.jolli Awtoriii.ata maqfllba liliall-Malti mill-flllifif.
Cfrinitarian Bible Society; London I 980?) because as its subtitle professes, it is a translation of a
translation; the translator states in the preface that he made frequent references to "the Greek text".
16 Anthony Abela

2. Texts Used

P.P. Saydon's translation of Amos has appeared no less than three times. The first
time it was published in 1952, Ktieb il-Profeti i-Zgliar, 1, (ll-Kotba Mqaddsa bil-
Malti, 27; The Empire Press, Malta 1952) together with Hosea, Joel, Obadiah,
Jonah, Micah. This translation saw a second printing in 1990 in Bibbja Saydon, 2,
ll-Kotba tal-Glierf u l-Kotba tal-Profeti (Soejeta tad-Duttrina Nisranija; Malta).
In the preface by the Kummissjoni Bibbja Saydon it is said that Rev. Carmel Attard
edited the manuscript which had to be retyped from the original, and wrote both the
introductions and footnotes. Towards the end of 1995 Librerija Preca printed the
whole of Saydon's translation in one elegant volume in order to celebrate the
centenary of the translator's birth (1895-1971). In the Foreword written once again
by the Kummissjoni Bibbja Saydon, we find the editorial options they had to make:
''It-test li gliandekf'idejk huwa l-istess bliall-edizzjoni tal-Bibbja Saydon li s-Soejeta
MUSEUM ippubblikatfi tliet volumi (1976,1982,1990), b'revifjoni minima ta' xi
kelmiet 'I hawn u 'I hinn. Minliabba I-qies tal-ktieb tliallew barra n-noti li jinsabu
f'dik I-edizzjoni u nkitbu introduzzjonijiet u noti godda glial kull ktieb ... " No one is
credited with the notes. So for the purpose of this paper we have three editions of
Saydon's translation which we shall identify as Say1952, Say1990 and Say1995.
The translation which we are identifying with Professor Carmel Sant as the General
Editor was first published by the Malta Bible Society and Media Centre in 1984 in
ll-Bibbja. This Bible became the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church on
the Island. In 1992 the Malta Bible Society set up a revision commi-ssion in order to
go through the 1984 Bible and to prepare a second Editon ofthe same. The Revision
Commission started its work on January 16th, 1992 and has finished its task in
June 1996. The present writer was the co-ordinator of this Revision Commission
as well as its secretary; he was also the General Editor of this new edition. The
minutes of this Commission were taken down but unfortunately their final draft
has not been finished; so that concerning the Commission's revision for Amos he
will be able to say which changes were suggested and why, but cannot yet quote
the volume of the minutes in which eventually they will be written down. In the
near future this service will be given and scholars will be able to make use of this
material for their own studies on this translation of the Bible in Maltese. In 1996, of
course, the Second Edition was available for anyone to compare with the 1984 first
edition. We shall be referring to this latter edition as Sant 1984.
 Two Professional Translations of the Bible in Maltese in the 20th Century 17

3.Pocedure

P.P. Saydon was not a simple pioneer handling materials he could barely manage.
He was a consumate biblical scholar and linguist. 2 Naturally he followed the
prevalent scholarly trend in Bible translation, that of formal reproduction of the
source text into the receptor text. And this will be seen in the short abstract we shall
be studying. What is important for us at this junction is to understand that Saydon
set the paradigm regarding the understanding of the text and its rendering into
Maltese. This means that his translation limited the range of vocabulary that could
be adoperated by later translators and at the same time paved the way for how they
were to interet the Biblical text. In our analysis we shall takeSay1952 andSant1984
as the primary translations, compare them as to their understanding of the Hebrew
text (what modern translation theory would term 'fidelity' and 'proximity' to the
Source Language), as well as to the readability of their translatioin (what today
would be called 'intelligibility' and 'idiomaticity'.3 The two other editions we shall
be considering, Say1990 and Say1995 are not faithful reproductions of Say1952
but re-editions and revisions and have to be evaluated on their own merits. Just to
mention a point of detail. Say 1952 reproduced in Maltese the three cola disposition
of the Hebrew text (formal reproduction). Say1990 and Say1995 follow Sant 1984
in distributing the text in verse form (not stichwise); but their distribution is
sometimes unnatural as can be seen from the treatment of Hebrew v.3c into two
separate lines (not in Sant 1984). Say1990 did not have the constraints of paging as
Say 1995 so that the distribution therein reflects their understanding/
misunderstanding of both Hebrew text and Say1952.

Amos 1,1-2

Saydon's influence on subsequent Maltese exegesis and translation strategies can

2 Cfr. Carmel Sam, Bible Translation and Language. Essays into the History of Bible Translation in
Maltese (Melita Theologica Supplementary Series, 2; Malta 1992) 145-151. I would suggest one
reads Appendixes 1-3 (pp. 267-322) which are essays on Bible translation into Maltese written by
P.P. Saydon himself.
3 Cfr. Ernst R. Wendland. "Culture and the Form/Function Dichotomy in the Evaluaton of Translation
Acceptability" in Johannes P. Louw (ed), Meaningful Translation (UBS Monograph Series 5;
Reading 1991) 8-12.
18 Anthony Abela

be seen in the renderings of Amos 1,1. Say1952 translates the text quite literally, at
times slavishly reproducing the Hebrew original. "Kliem Gliamos li kien mir-
ragliajja minn Tequglia, li hu ra glial Israel", Saydon's exegesis of dibre, words,
would take the term as technical for 'saying'. The same exegesis is echoed in James
L. Mays' commentary: "The term is an accurate classification of the book's contents,
for it is made up primarily of speeches in which Amos delivered the message sent
to Israel by their God."4 But such exegesis would stumble on the verb hazah 'to
see': how can one see a word? Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman saw
the difficulty and interpreted the opening dibre differently. The prophecy of Amos
consists of oracles of Yahweh not sayings of the prophet. Hence the title refers to
the 'matters' of Amos, that is, his 'story', or rather materials connected with his
name .... Thus we conclude that dibd amas means 'the Story of Amos' ,or' Amos'
Record' or 'Amos' Report'. We must then interpret the following clauses in this
fashion: 'The record of Amos - who was one of the sheep raisers from Tekoa - who
had visions concerning Israel' ."5 But Andersen's and Freedman's new translation
of dibre 'amas does not differ at all from Saydon's, Sant's and Mays': "the words
of Amos"!

Say1952 also determined the translation of Hebrew noqedfn "rghajja" [Sant

corrected its morphology 'rghajja'6: Say1990 and Say1995 repeated the mistaken
morphology notwithstanding their radical transformation of Saydon' s orthography].
Mays rendered the term "herdsman" while Andersen and Freedman argued for
"sheep raisers'.7 Saydon was probably following the accepted translation (cfr RSV).
Today I would prefer the more technical "raMal" "herdsman"x even though "raghaj"
is not totally wrong. Saydon correctly parsed the be of bannoqedfm as partitive9 ,
though his translation with two minn's is rather heavy. Sant improved the translation
by substituting the second minn with ta': "li kien mir-rghajja ta' Tekugha". The

4 Amos. A Commentary (SCM Pres; London 1969) 19.

5 Amos. A New Translation with Introducton and Commentary (AB 24A; Doubleday, New York
1989) 184-185.
6 Consult Joseph Aquilina, Maltese-English Dictionary, 2 (Midsea Books; Malta 1990) 1182-1183.

7 Amos, 187.
8 Cfr Aquilina, Dictiollary, 2, 1177.
9 Cfr AndersenlFreednian, Amos, 186-187. Mays parses this be a; locative creating thus an awkward
translation "who was among the herdsman of Tekoa".
 Two Professional Translations of the Bible in Maltese in the 20th Century 19

two subsequent Saydon's editions did !lot feel the need to introduce this
improvement, as they ignored also Sant's spelling of the place-name "Tekugha".
The entire phrase would sound better in current Maltese "li kien raghaj/rahhal minn
Tekugha".

What remains of verse 1 in Say1952 contains also a few problems. There is

first the translation of hazah by the simple verb "ra', "which he saw". Technically
it is not impossible (AndersenlFreedman); but suppose we translate as dibre 'things'
'events' and hazah as the terminus technicus for 'having visions',H) So hazah may
be rendered "li hu kelluf'viijoni" or, if it is taken to refer to Amos, "li kellu 1-
vizjonijiet"; Andersen/Freedman translate "who had visions ... ". The present writer
prefers the second rendering. Sant parses' asher as referring to dibd and introduces
an unnecessary "dwar" to link vv. Ib to la. The 1992 Commission deemed this
'dwar' superfluous and clumsy, and deleted it, starting a new sentence in v.lb
"Dak li ra dwar [zrael fi Zmien ... " But Sant improved over Say1952 in translating
the preposition as 'dwar' 'concerning'll and not 'gnal'; it is true that the preposition
'gnal' in Maltese may carry this nuance,12 but it is not its primary meaning in
current usage. So Sant's 'dwar' is by far superior to Saydon's 'gnal' (repeated in
1990 and 1995). The same may be said about Saydon's translation of the two
occurrences of bfme "in the days of', which he rendered literally "f'jiem". Sant's
"fi zmien" is better understood, is more idiomatic and should have been preferred
by Say1990 and Say1995. Saydon's strategy in translation surfaces in his rendering
Hebrew hara ('ash through the less used (alone) "tehziza", the shaking, quaking, in

10 Cfr Mays, Amos, 19-20. In this study a number of versons of the Bible and other studies will be
referred to by the following signs: **

ABU: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente (1985); BDB: F. Brown/S.R. Driver/C.A. Briggs, A Hebrew and
English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Clarendon Press, Oxfrd 1907, 1974); BHK: R. Kittel (ed.),
Biblia Hebraica (Stuttgart 1937); BHS: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Stutgart 1967, 1987); CCB:
Christian Community Bible (' I 988); CE/: La Bibbia di Gerusalemme (1974); CEV: Holy Bible,
Contemporary English Version (1995); Diodati: La Sacra Bibbia. Traduzione di Giovanni Diodati
(1988); GNB: Good News Bible (1993); GNBD: Die Bibel. Die Gute Nachricht inhelttigen Deutsch
(1982); BJ: La Bible de Jerusalem (1978); KJ: King James Version (1980); Luzzi: La Sacra Bibbia
(Dott. Giovanni Luzzi) (1991); LXX: Septuaginta, Alfred Rahlfs (ed) (1935); MT: Masoretic Text;
Pao/ine: La Bibbia. Nuovissima Versione dai testi originali (Edizioni Paoline); REV: Revised English
Bible (1989); RBV: Revised Berkeley Version (1974); RSV: Revised Standard Version (1946. 1966);
TOB: Traduction Oecwm!nique de la Bible (1991).

11 Cfr Andersen/Freedman, Amos, 190.

12 Cfr Aquilina, Dictionary, 2, 951.
20 Anthony Abela

place of the more common term of Italian origin "terremot" (Sant's incorrect
'terrimot'). The term 'tehiiia' alone hardly expressed in modern Maltese the nuance
of 'earthquake': we usually say "tehiiia ta' terremot", but it reflects Saydon's
strategy of avoiding words of romance etymology: "I have always striven to give a
purely semitic turn to the Maltese construction, avoiding at the same time, as much
as possible, all foreign influences. Hence I have invariably avoided all foreign
words for which there is purely Maltese-Semitic equivalent. .. In order to eschew
as far as possible the use of words of foreign origin I have used words which,
though registered in our vocabularies, are today obsolete, archaic, not easily
comprehensible by the average reader ... ".'3

The·translation of verse 2 is insidious; Saydon steered past hidden pitfalls; the

subsequent versions have not escaped unscathed. The translation of the link-word
wayyo'mer requires of the translator that he defines his exegetical strategy
concerning Amos 1,1-2. Some read these two vv. as introduction to the whole
collection of dibre 'amos for which reason the subject ofwayyo'mer is left vague;
LXX translates kai eipev to be followed by the Vulgate: "Et dixit". One should note
that the modern editions of these two ancient translations distinguish verse 2 from
verse 1 by printing the former on a fresh line. Say1952 follows the standard Hebrew
text (presumably BHK) closely indeed: Saydon translates the wayyo'mer by the
simple "qal": printed in the same line as the closing words of verse 1. The editorial
disposition of the MT and Saydon seems to reflect their understanding ofvv. 1-2 as
one literary unity; the same holds for their leaving the subject of wayyo 'mer vague:
both Yahweh and Amos are equally possible as being referred to. If the former is
meant, the couplet qualifies the opening term dibre seen during Amos' visionary
experiences. If the latter is understood, Amos as the subject is describing the Lord's
revelatory activity through his own ministry.'4 Naturally the contribution of an
editor linked the two vv. together and thus gave verse 2 the double duty of preluding
the entire book and of encasing, together with Amos 3,8, the oracles against the
nations unit.

Saydon's close reproduction ofMT's formal disposition and exegesis was not
followed by either Sant1984 or the two re-editions ofSaydon's work (1990,1995).

13 P.P. Saydon, "The Maltese Translation of the Bible" originally published in Melita Theo/rJNica
XVI (1964). 1-22. Reproduced in Carmel Sant, Bible Translation and LanNlta!(e, 300-322. Forthis
quote cfr p. 312.
14 Cfr Mays, Amos, 21; AnderseniFreedman, Amos, 219.
 Two Professional Translations of the Bible in Maltese in the 20th Century 21

The three follow the general trend of specifying the subject of wayyo'mer: "Hu
qal". Say1990 and 1995 adopt this exegesis but keep the original's printing of the
clause on the same line as verse 1. Santl984 prints verse 2, including the introductory
speech formula, as a separate verse just like LXX and the Vulgate and the rest of
modern versions. One wonders whether the three Maltese versions subsequent to
Say1952 were conscious that the slight changes they were introducing constituted
a fine shift in exegesis.

This two-bicola hymn l5 presented Saydon and Sant (as other versions) with a
number of difficulties. One difficulty concerns the tenses of the verbs, another the
relationship of v.2a to v.2b. Like most versions Saydon took the four verbs as
present; in this he differed from both LXX (aorist) and Vulgate which translates the
verbs in v.2b as preterite. Sant1984 followed Vulgate not realising perhaps that
they are a construct chain:

dbielet il-hdura tal-merghat tar-raghajja

u nixfet il-quccata tal-Karmel

Andersen and Freedman prefer to read the imperfects of v.2a as preterite and the
'perfect' verbs of v.2b as stative,16 and quote LXX translation as their justification.
The writer/editor's wish to draw an Inclusio with 3,8, as we have seen, weighs the
balance in favour of a present/future parsing of all the verbs of the two bicola.
Besides, Saydon defines the relationship of the two bicola by subordinating v.2a to
v.2b

Meta I-Mulej minn Sijon ighajjat

u minn Gerusalem jaghti lehnu,
jitbikkew l-imrag tar-raghajja
u tinxef ras il-Karmel

Sant improves over Saydon's rendering on several points: with most versions he

15 Mays, Amos. 21. For a description of its structure efr AndersenlFreedman, Amos, 222 and D.A.
Dorsey, "Literary Architecture and Aural Structuring Techniques in Amos". Biblica 73( 1992)
305-330.
16 One should note though that neither verb in v.2b is included in a list of the "most common stative
verbs" found ih Paul Jotion/T. Muaoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Subsidia Biblica 14/1;
Pontifical Biblical Institute; Rome 1991) §41f.
22 Anthony Abela

retains the parataxis, leaving the link of the first part to the second to the reader's
imagination. Secondly, his translation ofyish 'ag is more precise: "Il-Mulej irieghed
minn Sijon". "Irieghed", thunders, is closer to the standard rendering "to roar";
however he is incoherent when in 3,8 he translates sha"ag like Saydon: "l-iljun
ighajjat". Sant's, again, is superior to Saydon's translating yitten qolo by "jsemma'
lehnu". Saydon's "jaghti lehnu" is hardly good Maltese idiom (Say1990 and Say1995
saw no need of improvement of the original translation here). Both Sant and the
two subsequent editions of Saydon's had to translate Say1952's rendering of ne'ot,
imrag, meadows, grazelands; "imrag" which is both obsolete and a very rare word,17
and had to be replaced in the more recent versions and editions. Sant thought of
explaining the term and rendered it "il-hdura tal-merghat" (the green grass of the
meadows/pastures). Say1990 kept Say1952 faithfully (including the writing of
"raghajja"). Say1995 followed Sant's modern translation but not to the letter; they
reproduced this colon as "jitbikkew il-merghat tar-raghajja" which is better than
Sant's, I would say; the latter unbalanced the stichometry. Sant translates also the
metaphor in 'abeLU which Say don renders 'jitbikkew' 'moarn' with most versions;
Sant's may be reflecting a textual operation which the frequent combination of the
two verbs 'bi and (y)bsh has suggested;18 he reads "dbielet" (incongruences oftenses,
though, he may be following the Vulgate here: 'et luxerunt speciosa pastorum').
Naturally, neither Saydon nor Sant would consider reading the subject of the verb
'abeLU to be haro'fm, the shepherds, which Andersen and Freedman would deem it
a possible option;19 "the powerful influence of the doctrine of synonymous
parallelism in Hebrew poetry would preclude such an untraditional solution: "and
the shepherds mourn for pastures," ("U jitbikkew ir-raghajja ghall-merghat"). This

17 efr Aquilina, Dictionary 11, 863.

18 "The powerful influence of the doctrine of synonymous parallelism in Hebrew poetry is seen in
many translations and commentaries on this verse. In some, the frequent use of the roots 'b/ and
(y)bsh in similar contexts has suggested secondary meanings or textual adjustments to bring them
closer together here. The verb 'abeta, 'they mourned' can be changed to nabeltl 'withered' ('dry
up' INIVJ, 'scorched' [NEB], or simply given that alternative meaning .... Or,yabesh can be brought
into line by reading yebosh, 'it is ashamed', continuing the figurative language. We do not think
such changes are needed. The doctrine of synonymous parallelism in a bicolon should not be
overstressed. The shift in focus from colon to colon permits both aspects of the disaster to be
included in a single picture. Everything has dried up; people mourn everywhere. There is merism
between the two colons. Not just the meadows and the peak are ruined by drought, but everything
in between as well", Andersen/Freedman, Amos, 227.
19 Ibid., 227.
 Two Professional Translations of the Bible in Maltese in the 20th Century 23

solution would restore the merismus: man and nature (the whole of reality) are all
in pains and would avoid the need for searching secondary meanings for the verb
'bl (cfr Mays' 'dry up'). The main difficulties for such a translation is that ne'{jt is
governed by no preposition ('bl usually takes 'al when motivation for mourning is
indicated)?) One last difference between Saydon and Sant I would comment about
is their translation of ro'sh hakkarmel: as usual the former gives a literal rendering,
"ras il-Karmel", while the latter translates "il-quccata tal-karmel" which constitutes
the precise equivalent in modern Maltese.

The Damascus Oracle (v.3a-c)

Hekk qal il-Mulej:

Minhabba tliet dnubiet ta' Damaskus
u minhabba erbgha, ma nregga' xejn Iura

The opening verses (1-2) introduce the entire Amos anthology; they cap also a
string of eight oracles against the nations who lived on some part of Syrian-
Palestinian territory. The oracles are constructed according to a fixed pattern and
are moving towards a cli matic point in the Oracle against Israel in 2,6-16
(demarcation debated). As we have to steer away from a detailed exegesis of our
text we refer to the commentaries of Mays and Andersen/Freedman for a
comprehensive analysis of the literary form and structure being employed here. 21

Saydon's translation of the Hebrew preposition 'al by causal "minhabba",

though correct, has made the colon rather too long and heavy; Sant's change to the
natural "ghal" has been an improvement, as was his rendering of the second element
of the proverbial form adoperated by the Hebrew poet/prophet:

Dan ighid il-Mulej:

Ghal tliet dnubiet ta' Damasku,
-erbgha anzi-

Saydon's translation of pish' e with the religious term "dnubiet" was retained by

20 Cfr David J.A. Clines (ed) The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, I (Sheffield Academic Press;
Sheffield 1993) 107. Henceforth cited as DCH.
21 Mays, Al11os, 22-28; AndersenlFreedman, Al11os, 206-218.
24 Anthony Abela

Sant; the term derives from the semantic domain of politics and denotes 'rebellion'
'revolt' (cfr lKgs 12, 19; 2Kgs 8,20).22 With only a few possible exceptions (LXX
for instance which renders the word, asebeia), versions usually avoid the
theologically loaded term 'sin' for a more neutral word: transgressions (Kl, REV,
lB)(RSV), 'crimes' (Mays), 'violations' (AndersenIFreedman) , 'misfatti' (Luzzi,
Diodati, eEl), 'prevaricazioni' (Paoline), 'rebellions' (TOB).23 Saydon may have
chosen the term because of its semitic derivation, Sant because of translation
tradition. But he could have chosen the term 'delitti', crimes, very apt to stand for
the sort of actions the prophet is going to denigrate the nations about: cruelty in
war, slave trade, desecration of the dead, and violations of international treaties.
Sant's enclosing within dashes the emphatic "erbgha anzi", improved Say1952; his
translation highlights the prophet/poet's desire to underline the fourth item which
is the only' one to be identified. One should note, though, that Sant's handling
divides the second Hebrew colon into two, putting 10' 'ashbel1lul on a separate line
(the same takes place in Say1990 and 1995 with Saydon 's own translations). Say1952
reproduces the stichometry of the Hebrew text.

Ghal tliet dnubiet ta' Dmasku,

-erbgha anzi-
ma nreggax Iura kelmti

This translation by Sant of the clause 10' 'ashfbenl1Ll constitutes a further departure
from Saydon's "ma nregga' xejn Iura", 'I shall bring nothing back'. While the verb
heshfb is well known and the text offers no textual problems, translations and
exegetes found it difficult identifying the referent to the pronominal suffix. Exegetes
are usually agreed in taking 10' 'ashfbenna as "an expression of strong conviction
and assurance that a decision has been made, and will not be reversed",24 but differed
as to what the pronominal suffix refers to;25 with Andersen and Freedman the present
writer would see it referring to q616 of v.2 uttering judgement on the nations to be

22 CfrGerhard von Rad, Te%t;ia dell'Antico Testamento, I, Teologiadella tradizioni storiche d'lsraele
(Paideia; Brescia 1972) 302-303: "la parola piu grave nel significato di 'peccato', specialmente in
bocca ai profeti".
23 One should also say that the connotation 'sinful behaviour versus God' is not to be excluded especially
in this prophetic text. Cfr von Rad, ibid; Mays, Amos. 27-28: Andersen/Freeman, AlI1os, 230-231.
But in the context this connotation may not be the predominant one.

24 Andersen/Preedman, Amos, 234-233.

25 Ibid., 233-236.
 Two Professional Translations of the Bible in Maltese in the 20th Century 25

mentioned in the series. 26 Saydon chose a likewise vague expression "ma nregga'
xejn Iura" while Sant identifies the "it" with "kelmti", my word, the articulation of
'his voice'. Technically both are possible, although Sant's is more likely to be
understood by the average reader. Saydon's and Sant's rendering of Damascus's
crime as defined in Amos I, 3c (MT) almost coincide: "ghax huma dirsu 'I Gilghad
bi xtabi tal-hadid". Sant simply drops the personal pronoun 'huma' as being
superfluous since the meaning comes out without the need for specifying the subject
of 'dirsu'. This translation follows tradition. 27 Sant follows Saydon as to the formal
disposal of the line into one whole stich: Say1990 and 1995 divide the stich into
two lines without clear criteria for this division.

V.4 Saydon's reproduction in Maltese of the Hebrew text goes so far as to

include grammatical features: the waw consecutive in weshillahtf he renders "u
jien nibghat", and the indefinite 'ish he translates simply "nar". This translation
appears to forget that we are dealing here with a prophetic oracle where the waw
formally corresponds to the more common laken which connects what Klaus Koch2s
would call the "indications of the situations" (v.3) to the "prediction of disaster"
(vv.4-5). The latter editions of Saydon (1990. 1995) corrected the original by
changing the simple conjunction into "ghalhekk" and capitalising (their capitalising
the 'j' of the pronoun 'lien' has been less fortunate). Sant and a number of modern
translations allowed the reader to supply the link between the two parts of the
oracle: "Nibghat in-nar fid-dar ta' Hazajel" (efr Childs; lB and TOB). Saydon's
translation of 'ish with indefinite 'nar' ignores that in a prophetic context it refers
both to the mythical as well as to some "typical actions and outcomes of war" .29
The suppression by Sant of Saydon's personal pronoun 'jien' is also an improvement
as it lightens the verse and makes it flow more smoothly.

Both Saydon and Sant opt to translate the metaphorical in the verb we'akelah
to "consume, eat, devour" (BDB); the former renders the verb "jahraq", the latter

26 Cfr Mays,Al11os, 21-22 for this interpretation of natan qala.

27 Cfr Andersen/Freedman, Amos, 234-239 for a detailed discussion of vocabulary and images used.

28 Cfr Was ist Formlieschic!zte? (Neukirchener Verlag; Neukirchen 1964. 1967). ET: The Growth (!f
the Biblical Tradition: The Form-Critical Method (trans. S. Cupitt) (Charles Scribner; New York
1969); w. Eugene March, "Prophecy" in John H. Hayes (ed), Old Testament Form Criticism (Trinity
University Press; San Antonio 1974) 160.

29 Andersen/Freedman , Al11os, 239.

26 Anthony Abela

"jeqred". Both are possible, of course. But the context would probably favour a
strictly literal translation to maintain the metaphor; besides, the verb 'kiel' in Maltese
is of itself bearer of non-literal meanings. 30 Another change I would make in the
two versions is the translation of 'armen6t. Saydon followed the usual trend and
translated the term "palazzi" [KJ( 1978); REV; Paoline; CEI; lB, TOB]; this rendering
probably reflects the exegesis "that the 'armenot are the lUXury apartments of a
well-stocked harem,"31 nowadays we take the word to refer to "the battlements on
the defensive walls of the city, so well known from Assyrian reliefs. It was part of
the siege warfare to get them on fire by igniting the timbers that were part of the
construction. This reading would follow the assumption that we take the reference
to fire literally; if it is a divine fire sent from heaven it will burn anything and
everything. Alternatively, the movement from wall to citadel could describe the
conflagration of the city from outer defences to -acropolis" .32 The second stich of
v.4, therefore, would read "u jiekol il-fortizzi ta' Benhadad" (the translation of the
waw in we'akelah through relative pronoun "li", preferring subordination to co-
ordination, is not to be excluded; parataxis though would make it clearer that a
sequence of events was intended).

V.S Say1952 set the pattern for both exegesis and translation in colon (a)
"inkisser l-istaneg ta' Damaskus". Sant repeats his predecessor faithfully except in
the transliteration of the place name Damasku (accepted by Say1990. 1995). This
translation implied three basic options: 0) Saydon and Sant have not accepted the
suggestions made by some exegetes to change the order of the cola in V.s. 33 TM
order is to be maintained as it sustains the Inclusio Damascus/Aram.(Andersenl
Freedman). (ii) The term berfah is rendered through the plural 'staneg' without
justification; the choice of the singular has been deliberate: the Qal of shabartf
often takes a singular object;34 besides, "the word can be used by synecdoche for
complete gate-system (Jdg 16,3; lKgs 4,13; Jer 51,30; Lam 2,9)".35 (iii) They

30 Cfr Aquilina, Dictionary, 1,649-650.

31 Cfr T.F.K. Laetsch, Bible Commentary: The Minor Prophets (Concordia; St Louis 1956) 12-13.
32 Cfr Andersen/Freedman, Amos, 243 and DCH, 1,382.
33 J. Morgenstern, "Amos Studies IV", HUCA 32 (1961) 300.314; Mays,Amos, 29.
34 Andersen/Freedman, Amos, 250-252.
35 Ibid.
 Two Professional Translations of the Bible in Maltese in the 20th Century 27

translated the Qal shabartfthrough intensive "inkisser" which is correct.36

Say1952's rendering of the second stich in v.5a "u neqred minn wied Awen, lil
min ighammar hemm" follows tradition in taking y6sheb as referring to the
inhabitants of the locality mentioned. Say1990 follows suit without alterations.
Say1995 divides the stich without clear criteria:

u neqred minn Wied Awen lil min

ighammar hemm

The place-name Wied Awen Say1995 has taken from Say1990 and may well be a
correct rendering of Biq 'at-' awen. Sant has opted for a translation of the term biqCat,
"valley of Awen" "wied Awen", but then incoherently takes its parallel term in the
next stich as Bet-gheden. Both clusters should have been parsed as hyphenated
placenames, with the second name beginning with a small letter as Sant's Bet-
gheden. Sant's translation of the stich plausibly contains a misunderstanding: the
prophet/poet writes that the Lord will cut off y6sheb from Biq"at- 'awen, the emphasis
being on the locality: He is stating that he will depopulate this area, if y6sheb is
taken as meaning "inhabitant". Sant's "u neqred lil dawk lijghammru f'wied Awen"
seems to be focusing on the inhabitants rather than on the locality. Andersen and
Freedman37 propose to read y6sheb as "a title of a human ruler", perfect parallel of
t6mek shebet: "and I will cut off the sovereign from Biq'at-Awen and the scepter
from Beth-Eden". It's normal to consider t6mek shebet as a reference to someone
wielding power, but only Andersen/Freedman take y6sheb as referring to a similar
institution. And yet these two stiches have only the verb wihikrattf, to govern them.
The present writer considers this proposal favourably and would translate: "u neqred
minn BiqCat-awen lil min joqghod fuq it-tron u lil min izomm ix-xettru minn Bet-
gheden". One last comment on the verb 'neqred' to translate Hebrew wehikrattf.
Sant follows Saydon in this translation which agrees rather with LXX's exo
lethreuso, "I will utterly destroy". It is an interpretation rather than a literal
translation. The verb krt is used elsewhere for cutting trees: Dt 19;5; 20, 19.20;
2Kgs 19,23; Jer 6, 6; 10,3. So a metaphorical use of qata', to cut off, may have
been intended by the original writer of Amos: "u naqta' minn BiqCat-awen lil min
qieghed fuq it-tron u lil min izomm ix-xettru minn Bet-gheden". Saydon/Sant's

36 But one should read the study of Andersen and Freedman on pp. 250-252 for this use of Qal
Shabarrf,

37 AI1l0S, 253.
28 Anthony Abela

rendering tones down the force of this verb which means "removal or extermination
by execution, violent or premature death."38

The last stich of verse 5 created a few problems to our translators, the main
one being how to translate the plural Qal perfect wegaZu. Saydon chose a technical
term "sibalseba": (I) "to ravage, to plunder; (2) to snatch away people and carry
them into captivity" .39 This verb created two difficulties: it is a predominantly
transitive verb unlike the Hebrew gZh which technically means "to go into exile".4()
So Saydon had to adoperate the seventh form of the verb sibalseba in order to
translate wegaUi: "u jinseba' l-poplu ta' Aram lejn Qir". Say1990 reproduced this
text without alteration. Sant and Say1995 were .committed to a more functional
translation so they had to translate "jinseba', which is obsolete, into some more
understandable lexical unit. Sant chose the more neutral "jittiehed"; "u l-poplu tas-
Sirja jittiehed f'Kir"; Say 1995 "jingarr"; neither edition specifies further the action
word, allowing the verb to remain vague, and so undertranslate both Saydon's
"jinseba" and Hebrew wegaZu. Actually they could have translated wegaZu "u jmur
fl-ezilju l-poplu tas-Sirja f'Kir". Maybe Sant leaves out the specification "fl-ezilju"
to avoid the slightly awkward construction "u jittiehed fl-ezilju ... f'Kir." But his
option resulted in a translation that is less accurate. Idem for Say1995. Sant's
translation of Aram by Sirja (influenced by RSV?), though it is better understood
by the average modern reader, was not perhaps necessary as elsewhere he normally
leaves this place name untranslated. He was not followed by the later editions of
Saydon in this (nor in the translation of qirii as "Kir" which is better); but Say1990
and Say1995 followed his lead in rendering the concluding formula 'amar Yhwh as
"jghid il-Mulej" over against Saydon's "qal il-Mulej".41

The Gaza oracle (vv. 6·8)

Several elements of this oracle appeared in the Damascus oracle (vv. 3-5) and we
shall refer the reader to the relevant parts there. So except for the place name Gaza
which Say1952 renders "Ghazza" (the two later editions follow Sant's rendering),

38 Ibid., 252.
39 efr Aquilina, Dictionary, 2, 1306.
40 See DCH, ll, 349.
41 AndersenlFreedman opted for this punetiliar translation: "Yahweh has spoken".
 Two Professional Translations of the Bible in Maltese in the 20th Century 29

there is nothing new to say on v.6a-b. The next stich, though, presents us with a
complicated situation for we have no less than three different translations. Say1952
opted for formal lexical reproduction ofthe Hebrew: "ghax huma sbew sibjiet shah".
"Sibjiet shah" recalls the clause hashshibya 'ash er shebftem of 2 Chron 28, 11:
literally "They took into captivity an entire captivity" (AndersenlFreedman). The
term galut is singular; but the original author's intention of intensifying the concept
may well be seen in the unusual combinatiion with the adjective shelema (Andersenl
Freedman). Saydon's plural "sibjiet" therefore is probably meant to capture this
intensifying intent (This translation of gatat shelema is found in some modern
versions: lB "ont deporte des populations entieres"; CEI: "hanno deportato
populazioni intere"; Say1995: "gerrew fl-ezilju popli shah". The intensification by
plural may be correct, but I wonder whether the author was not thinking of an
exemplary event: "The crime specified as an illustration ofGaza's gUilt is an isolated
border raid of the kingdom for which there would hardly be any historical attestation.
Gaza captured and deported the entire population of some place and handed the
captives over to Edom. Whose territory was raided is not said, though the geographic
probability points to Israel's or Judah's".42 So the singular would be preferable in
this case (Mays: "an entire population": TOB: "en masse des deportes"; CCB "They
carried a whole people into captivity"; Paoline: "una deportazione completa").
Sant's rendering, therefore, which not only avoids the obsolete "siba" but captures
the meaning of galut shelema in its entirety, is preferable: "ghaliex kaxkru fl-ezilju
poplu shih". His translation, though, gives rise to a methodological question. He
renders the hiphil infinitive of ga/ah by "kaxkru fl-ezilju", which is probably superior
to "garrew fl-ezilju" of Say 1995. However in v.5 Sant employs the verb "ittiehed"
the sixth verbal form of root "ha" "to take, confiscate, accept, receive, adopt."43
(Saydon J995 maintained the same verb "gafr", to carry away in both instances).
Was Sant to maintain the principle, ferociously followed by Saydon, RSV and
others ,44 to translate terms consistently, by the same terms? I find the verb "kaxkar
tl-ezilju" more colourful than "ittiehed (fl-ezilju)" and would have preferred to see
it used in v. 5. But even if one would normally not opt to render verbs or words in
the source language with consistently the same lexemes in the receptor language,
should that variety appear within such a short.1iterary unit such as Amos 1-2?
The last stich of v.6 sees the three Saydon versions in perfect concord: "biex
jerhuhom lil Edom". Sant h<:ls found a more literal and probably better alternative:
"biex jaghtuh f'idejn Edom". In modern Maltese this is better understood and one

42 Mays"A1110.l',32.
43 Aqilina, Dictionary, 1,461-462.
30 Anthony Abela

cannot understand Say1995's scruples in not adopting this version.

Verse 7 is more or less a repetition of v.4 and I would refer the readers to our
considerations of that verse. As usual Say1952 offered a formal reproduction of the
Hebrew text: "U jien nibghat nar fis-swar ta' ... " This rendering of behomat as
strictly locative45 is less acceptable than "f'dar" of bebet in verse 4. Sant's "fuq is-
swar" "upon the walls" is probably more graphic and suits the immediate context
better given the nature of the building mentioned. Most modern translations reflect
this option (Mays: I will send fire on Gaza's wall: TOB: je betterai le feu aux murs
de Gaza; GNB: I will send fire upon the city walls of Gaza) or they translate the
metaphor altogether (EV: I will burn down the walls ... ; GNBD: "leh lege Feuer an
die Mauern"; ABU: "io daro fuoco alle mura de Gaza"). Though strictly singular,
hOmat has been translated by Saydon and Sant by the plural "swar". In this they are
not alone (cfr TOB; GNB; ABU etc).

What we wrote about verse 5b-c except for place names fits verse Sa-b as well
since they are almost identical. Saydon made a slight change in his translation. In
v.5 he renders yosMb as "min ighammar hemm" while in V.S as "min ighammar
(fiha)". As a literalist translator Saydon nurtured scruples concerning the resumptive
pronoun "fiha" and enclosed it within brackets. The editor of Say1990 and the
revisers of Say1995 had no such scruples: "u neqred minn Asdod 'il min ighammar
fiha". On the other hand they stuck to Saydon' s manner of writing the place names
"Asqalon" (Sant's "Askalon") and "Ghekron," (Sant's "Ekron").

Verse Sc presents a metaphor from the domain of the military (cfr Is 1, 25;
Zech 13,7; Ps SI, 14) or perhaps of agriculture (cfr Jer 6,9). Usually it is either
translated literally (at times woodenly) like Andersen's and Freedman's, "And I
will bring back my hand against Ekron" while in the notes 46 they report the exegesis
translation ofW.R. Harper47 : "strikes with repeated blows" as the precise meaning
of the idiom hashfb yad 'al. Or else the metaphor is simply translated: "I will strike
down Ekron" (CEV); "colpiro duramente la citta Accaron" (ABU); "I will punish

44 cfr Jean-Claude Margot, Traduire sans Trahir (Editions I' Age d'Homme; Lausanne 1979) 23.
45 But of course it is possible, and it has found followers: lB: enverrai le feu dans le rempart..."
Paoline: "mandero fuoco entro le mura di Gaza".
46 Amos, 259.
47 A critical and Exegetical Commentary on Amos and Hosea (ICC; T. & T. Clark; Edinburgh 1906)
26.
 Two Professional Translations of the Bible in Maltese in the 20th Century 31

the city of Ekron" (GNB); "die Stadt Ekron mache ich dem Erdboden gleich"
(GNBD).

The Maltese translators tend to stay within a middle third group of versions
which assume that we have here both a metaphor and an idiomatic expression.
They take it for granted that the reader understands straight away these two options
of our writer and hence offer no clarifications for their translation. Saydon reproduces
the Hebrew text as usual: "U ndawwar idi ghal Gheqron". Sant specifies further the
action involved in the prepositoin 'af: "u ndawwar idejja ghal fuq Ekron" (the
translation "idejja" for yadCi is definitely wrong given the idiomatic character of
hashfb yad). His version of the place name Ekron is superior and one can see no
reason why Say1990 and Say1995 opted to maintain Saydon's original form.

The next stich in verse 8, we'abedCi she'erft pelishtfm has generally been
misunderstood and the two Maltese translations follow the normal uncorrect
rendering. The problem concerns the translation of she'erit which is generally
translated 'remnant': RSV: "and the remnant of the Philistines shall perish"; Say1952:
"ujintemmu fdal il-Filistin'; Sant 1984: "ujintemmu l-fdal tal-Filistin"; lB: "et ce
qui reste des Philistin perira"; TOB: "et le reste des Philistins perira"; REV; "and
the Philistines who are left will perish"; Paoline: "e perira il residuo dei Filistei";
CEl: "e cosl perira il resto dei Filistei"; GNB: "and all the Philistines who are left
will die"; ABU: "e moriranno tutti i Filistei remasti". I quoted this relatively long
list of witnesses coming from different approaches to translation, in order to show
how often traditional renderings stick to their place and no really new approach
that may be termed of the Hebrew text is attempted. These translations take she' erft
as meaning: "ce qui subsiste d'un groupe decime par une catastrophe" as the note
in lB defines it (similar notes will be found in CEl and TOB). Now if these
translations would have taken the suggestion in BDB previous to the one they have
opted for, they could see an element of intensification in the choice of the term
here. In a number oftests, starting with our text, (but adds Is 14,30; Am 9,12; Jer
11,23; 25,20; 50,26; IChr 4, 43 etc.) BDB (p. 984) gleans the remnant as "the last
nuance" ,48 and coming at the end of a list of communities of Philistines that are
going to be decimated, intensification may well have been intended in Amos 1, 8d.
A few versions have captured this nuance. Andersen and Freedman (whose parsing
of the stich is rather queer) read; "and the Philistines will perish, even to the remnant",

48 This suggestion is made by Julius Wellhausen, in Die kleinen Propheten, mit Notizen, (Skizzen und
Vorarbeiten 5; Alfred Topelmann; Berlin 1893)69. Cfr Mays, Amos, 32.
32 Anthony Abela

CEV: "and that will be the end of the Philistines"; GNBD: "kein einziger Philister
soIl mit dem Leben davonkommen". To return to my Maltese translations, I propose
to rephrase v.8d as follows: "u jintemmu I-Filistin, sa l-inqas wiehed."

The Oracle against Tyre (vv. 9-10)

The similarity of v.9b-d to v.6 must have led Prof. Sant and a number of translators
astray. Say1952 translates 'al hasgfram galat shelema of 9c as "ghax huma rhew
sibja shiha lil Edom" which is technically correct. The intensive galat shelema of
verse 6 is now in the singular "sibja shih (In v. 6 it was 'sibjiet shah' and the verb
sgr is once again translated by verb "reha". The subsequent editions of Saydon,
and Sant's translation had to manoeuvre around the obsolete 'sibja'. Say1990
retained the text as the original translatorleft it; Say 1995 were committed to change
the text to modern spoken Maltese and rendered v.9c as follows "ghax huma rhew
poplu shih imur fl-ezilju f'Edom" which is completely wrong. May be they had
Sant's version for model which reads: "ghaliex kaxkru fl-ezilju poplu shih biex
jaghtuh f'idejn Edom";49 this is equally unprecise. It is evident that Sant was misled
by the similarity of this verse to verse 6. In the latter the infinitive construct
expressive of the crime of the culprits is that of verb galah which Sant rendered
"kaxkru fl-ezilju". In the former (v.9) the verb in the same position is sagar "to
hand over". "The Phoenicians 'handed over', suggesting that they were the
middlemen in the transaction, as in so many other trading ventures."50 They
participated in an economic rather than a military transaction: they 'handed over'
[a number of modern translations interpreted the verb as an 'act of business': " ... und
die Bewohner ganzer Dorfer an die Edomiter verkauft" (GNBD); "Ha venduto come
schiava la popolazione di interi villaggi alIa gente de Edom" (AB U)]. In the light of
the above the present reviewer would translate v.9c "ghaliex bieghu folIa shiha ta'
IsieraJeziljati lil Edom".

The last stich of verse 9 gives rise to two questions; one concerns the precise

49 Likewise CEV "and dragged off my people from town after town to sell them as slaves to the
Edomites." The Pheonicians have not done the looting itself but acted as middlemen in the dirty
market of human slaves. The merchandise was "an entire captivity" (AndersenlFreedman: this
phrase makes little sense in modern English; "a whole bunch of prisoners/exiles" would read better.
50 Andersen/Freedman. Amo.l'. 261.
 Two Professional Translations of the Bible in Maltese in the 20th Century 33

translation of the main verb welo' zakaru; the other touches upon the relation of
this violation to that described in the previous stich. The greater part of translations
coordinate the two sentences in line c of verse 9, just as the Maltese translations
did: Say1952: "u ma ftakrux fil-ghaqda tal-ahwa"; Sant: "u ma ftakrux fil-patt ta' 1-
ahwa"; RSV: "and did not remember the covenant of brotherhood"; GNB "and did
not keep the treaty of friendship they had made"; ABU: "e non ha mantenuto il
patto di amicizia che aveva fatto;" Andersen Freedman: "and did not remember the
covenant of brothers". This approach to the text means that Tyre is in fact accused
of both slave-trading and of breaching an international treaty. The welo' construction
would seem to be prompting this interpretation. Other translations instead would
subordinate one action to the other. REV translates: "because, ignoring the brotherly
alliance, they handed over a whole community ... " lB: ... entieres de captifs; sans
se souvenir d 'une alliance entre freres; TOB: " ... ont livre des deportes en masse a
Edom, sans avoir garde la memoire de l'alliance entre freres". One should observe
the footnote(9) to this sentence: "En deportant des Israelites chez des ennemis, les
Pheniciens tenaient pour lettre morte les anciens traites d'alliance qui les unissaient
aIsrael, d' Oll la gravite du forfait". The note then makes reference to lKgs5 ,26;9,13.
A similar note is offered by lB and the standard commentaries on Amos,5l A few
comments are in order: (a) Our prohetic writer left the reference as vague as he
could so that the 'brotherly covenant' involved could simply refer to any international
treaty between Tyre and any of the surrounding nations; this means that while
references to the Scriptural texts mentioned may offer telling parallels of what a
berft 'ahfm could signify, Amos may be referring to a different reality. (b) Although
it is granted that the welo' construction may have been used to distinguish the
misbehaviour as consisting of two separate actions, the adverbial cluster may link
the selling of slaves/prisoners to the forgetting of the brotherly alliance as effect to
its cause (this is clearly stated in REB, tacitly understood in CEVand GNBD). Tyre
is here being accused that they put financial considerations before any other principle.
(c) Rendering zakeru by the verb 'to forget' is not impossible; we should keep in
mind that this verb is technical in international treaties of the ancient Middle East
for breaking the stipulations of a treaty.52 (d) Saydon's "fil-ghaqda ta' l-ahwa"
cannot be taken to mean in modern Maltese 'an international treaty'; 'ghaqda' does
not signify treaty. So one cannot understand how Say1995 has not adopted Sant's

51 Cfr Mays, Amo.l' , 33-34; AndersenlFreedman, Amo.l' , 261.

52 Cfr Michael L. Barn~, 'Treaties in the Ancient Middle East", The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 6
(Double day; New York 1992) 655.
34 Anthony Abela

more modern rendering "fil-patt ta' l-ahwa." Likewise the qualification 'brotherly'
"ta' l-ahwa": it forms part of the jargon of the same literary genre. 53 In modern
Maltese the equivalent could be "ftehim/patt ta' hbiberija". Translation proposed
for v.9c-d: "ghaliex bieghu il Edom folIa shiha ta' eziljati/prigunieri u/billi nsew
(kull) patt ta' hbiberija".

Provisional Conclusons:

a) With such limited extension of the text no one could pretend to arrive to a
definitive evaluation of any of the two translations that have been examined. But
the present writer hopes that narrowness in extension has been counterbalanced by
depth in treatment so that we may have a decent indication of where an investigation
into a wider textual extension would eventually lead to.
b) Our primary concern in this study have been Say1952 and Sant 1984. If we
mentioned the two later editions of Saydon's translation, it was to complete the
Saydon part of the story since these editions are supposed to reproduce the 1952
text as faithfully as possible. The service of a proper professional review of these
editions has not been given yet. This study does not intend to offer this important
critical reviewing to the three volumes of the Bibbja Saydon or of its 1995 one-
volume edition.54
c) From this in-depth reading of Amos 1,1-10 one may provisionally conclude
that both basic translations moved within the parameters of biblical scholarship;
both reflect the scholarly biases of their time.
d) The principles that guided their attempt at translating the original text were
different though. Saydon was guided only by his wish to remain faithful to the
original text as much as he could; so he produced, like his scholarly colleagues in
the first half of the twentieth century, a formal reproduction ofthe Hebrew original.
Sant's translation was influenced by the theory of dynamic equivalent developed
by Eugene Nida of the United Bible Societies. This developed in him and his

53 Ibid., 654.

54 The first draft of this lecture inspired one of the participants in the Second Symposium of Maltese
Biblical Schlars,Mr loe Felice Pace, to write a short paper, "The 1995 (Museum) edition ofSaydon's
translation of the Bible. A Linguistic Comment." A slightly changed edition of this short essay was
published in The Sunday Times, April 14, 1996. This con:ribution provoked reactions from two or
three readers, The Sunday Times 21st. 28th April 1996.
 Two Professional Translations of the Bible in Maltese in the 20th Century 35

colleagues working with him awareness that the translator has to be faithful not
merely to his Sourse Text which the Hebrew Bible or the Greek New Testament,
but also to his eventual readersllisteners. Therefore in the choice of language for
their translation, the scholars in who gave us Sant 1984 had to find words, idioms,
expressions, and syntax which the man in the street could understand without undue
difficulty. Theirs was a translation in the so called "common language." This
difference in options and strategies can be seen also in this short abstract.
e) As Saydon's preceded Sant's chronologically, the former couldn't but
influence the latter in the choice of vocabulary and in exegesis. But the latter reacted
positively and had to find different solutions when fidelity to the targeted audience
demanded that morphology and syntax be adjourned so that the final product will
be of use for the modern Maltese reader. Each one of the two translations may be
considered as a monument to the Maltese language in this century as well as to the
Church who formed these men of calibre.

Department of Holy Scripture

Faculty of Theology
University of Malta
Msida, Malta.

'This paper was read in draft form at the Second Symposium of Maltese Biblical
Schlars held at the Archbishop's Seminary, Tal-virtu, Rabat, Malta, March 25-30,
1996. The author has been editor of Melita Theologica for several years. He is a
graduate from the University of Malta (1970-1974) and the Pontifical Biblical
Institute (1978-1986). Has been Head of the Department of Holy Scripture at the
Faculty of Theology since 1986. Among his publications Kelmet AllafKitbiet il-
Bniedem (Malta 1989) and The themes of the Abraham Narrative (Malta 1989). He
has been General Editor of Il-Bibbja, Second Edition (1996). He is at present
Translation consultant for the United Bible Societies.