No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 September 2014
This article draws on some of the interpretive strategies of the ancient Rabbis as well as the exegetic writings of some modern literary theorists to present the Book of Amos as an unfolding story of a man of titanic courage who excoriates the powerful of society because of their rebellion against the divine will. Living in the eighth century B.C.E., Amos entered the royal sanctuary at Bethel in the Northern Kingdom to deliver his prophetic message. Speaking in the name of the Lord, he condemned the perversion of justice and the disdain of righteousness. He threatened that a day would come in which all the oppressors would be “plucked out of the land” leaving only a remnant of the people Israel. This remnant, however, will know what the Lord requires: that the weak be sustained and the fallen uplifted, that the stranger be protected and the widow and orphan cared for. Henceforth, a new age will prevail, an age in which the soil will be blessed and all will share in the abundance.
1 Handelman, Susan A., The Slayers of Moses (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1982), 42.Google Scholar
2 Rawidowicz, Simon, Studies in Jewish Thought (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1974), 47–48.Google Scholar
3 Handelman, , The Slayers of Moses, 146.Google Scholar
4 Rawidowicz, , Studies in Jewish Thought, 54.Google Scholar
5 Fish, Stanley, Is There a Text in This Class? (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980), 171.Google Scholar
8 Barton, John, Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984), 151.Google Scholar
7 Alter, Robert, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 147.Google Scholar
8 Ibid., 11.
9 See, e.g., Freedman, H. and Simon, M., eds., The Midrash Rabba, Genesis, vol. 1 (New York: Soncino Press, 1977), 482–503.Google Scholar
10 Alter, , The Art of Biblical Narrative, 189.Google Scholar
11 It should be stated that the Rabbis, when interpreting a particular verse or even an entire chapter, did not always follow the order of the text from which the verse or chapter was drawn. They would often skip about, guided more by didactic considerations than by temporal sequence or logical structure. So, too, did I “skip about,” but in the interest of heightening the continuity of the story.
12 There are those who argue, largely on lexical grounds, that Amos was a Northerner. Rosenbaum, Stanley N. (Amos of Israel: A New Interpretation [Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1990])Google Scholar, e.g., points to 7:12 in which Amos is told to “Go, flee away,” rather than to “return,” as might be expected if he were native to Judah. Amos is also accused of having committed “treason” when prophesying in the northern sanctuary of Bethel and given that “treason can only be action taken against one's own government …” (p. 38), Amos must have been a Northerner. I do not find such arguments very compelling and, in any event, I do not think that Amos' place of origin makes much different to his image as a prophet. He was speaking to God's people and, in the Book of Amos, God's lordship transcends the political boundary between Israel and Judah as it transcends all boundaries.
13 Unless otherwise indicated, all translations are from the New Revised Standard Version, 1989.
14 The word bōgēr can be interpreted as a denominative of bāgār, “cattle”; thus I take bōgēr to mean a breeder of cattle.
15 See Andersen, Francis I. and Freedman, David N., Amos: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1989), 778;Google ScholarMays, James L., Amos: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969), 38;Google ScholarPaul, Shalom M., Amos: A Commentary on the Book of Amos (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 248;Google Scholar and Polley, Max E., Amos and the Davidic Empire: A Socio-Historical Approach (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), 10.Google Scholar
16 One can scarcely read even a single commentary on the Book of Amos and remain unaware of the controversy that surrounds this passage. (For a sample of the many attempts at interpretation, see Paul, , Amos, 244–46.Google Scholar) Obviously a choice must be made and, in keeping with the literary approach of the present article, I chose the interpretation that, to my mind, makes the best narrative sense, namely, that Amos is saying that prior to being commanded by the Lord to address the Northern Kingdom he was not a prophet, but once commanded he had no choice but to prophesy and so, in effect, to become a prophet.
17 See von Rad, Gerhard, Old Testament Theology, vol. 1 (New York: Harper & Row, 1962), 370–71, 374.Google Scholar
18 Paul, , Amos, 229–30.Google Scholar
19 Literally, “I will never again pass them by.”
20 The verse actually reads: “On that day I will raise up the booth of David that is fallen” (9:11). Reference to a new Davidic Kingdom as well as the use of the hapax legomenon image of a “booth” rather than a “house” have raised a great many interpretive difficulties, as Paul, , Amos, 290Google Scholar, points out. I know of no entirely satisfactory resolution of these difficulties.
21 Wellhausen, Julius, Die Kleinen Propheten übersetzt und erklärt (Berlin: Reiner, 1898)Google Scholar, as quoted in Paul, , Amos, 288.Google Scholar