The Book of Amos

A Commentary

Jorg Jeremias

• Publisher: Westminster John Knox Press
• Year: 1998
• ISBN:
  9781611645941
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Studies

In this volume, Jeremias suggests that the book of Amos was produced through various stages over time. While he does write from a critical perspective, his creativity offers a sensitivity to literary issues within the text that is often missing from critical work.

The Old Testament Library provides fresh and authoritative treatments of important aspects of Old Testament study through commentaries and general surveys. The contributors are scholars of international standing.

Superscription and Leitmotif
Amos 1:1–2

1	The words of Amos who was among the shepherds of Tekoa, which he saw concerning Israel in the days of King Uzziah of Judah and in the days of King Jeroboam son of Joash of Israel, two years before the earthquake.
2	And he said:

Yahweh roars from Zion,
and utters his voice from Jerusalem;
the pastures of the shepherds mourn,¹
and the top of Carmel dries up.

Bibliography: H. F. Fuhs, “Amos 1,1: Erwägungen zur Tradition und Redaktion des Amosbuches,” in H. J. Fabry, ed., Bausteine biblischer Theologie: Festschrift G. J. Botterweck (Cologne/Bonn: Hanstein, 1977), 271–89; J. Jeremias, “ ‘Zwei Jahre vor dem Erdbeben’ (Am 1,1),” in Hosea und Amos, 183–97; M. Weiss, “Images: Amos 1:2,” in idem, The Bible from Within: The Method of Total Interpretation (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1984), 194–221.

[1:1] The superscription to the book of Amos reflects the history of its growth. The first thing one notices is that the unusual and extremely precise dating “two years before the earthquake” is preceded by an even more extensive one mentioning the reigns of kings. The Judean king Uzziah (presumably 787–736 B.C.E.) stands before Jeroboam II, the king of the Northern Kingdom (presumably 787–747 B.C.E.), even though Amos—as the superscription itself attests—prophesied in the Northern Kingdom and came into conflict with Jeroboam II (Amos 7:10–17); this sequence clearly has later Judean readers in mind. Together with analogous information in Hos. 1:1; Micah 1:1; Zeph. 1:1 (cf. Isa. 1:1; Jer. 1:2), Amos 1:1 in its final form suggests that the Twelve Prophets were collected and redacted in all probability during the exilic period.

The inserted indication of Amos’ occupation comes presumably from the same period. It awkwardly separates the prophet’s name and hometown and clashes especially with the earlier, second relative clause referring to Amos’ words (Wolff). Its content alludes to Amos 7:14f. with a term borrowed from Akkadian nāqidu, referring to the flock owner in contrast to the employed shepherd (cf. King Mesha of Moab in 2 Kings 3:4).²

Yet even the earlier, preexilic superscription “the words of Amos of Tekoa, which he saw concerning Israel, two years before the earthquake” is itself full of tension. Although other prophetic books similarly attest a “seeing of words” (Isa. 2:1; Micah 1:1; cf. Hab. 1:1), they always refer to Yahweh’s words. The unique formulation in Amos 1:1 can probably best be explained as a result of two different, partial superscriptions (“the words of Amos of Tekoa” and something to the effect of “the word that Amos saw concerning Israel . . .”) having been fused together (Wolff, Fuhs). In that case, the latter superscription probably referred primarily to the visionary accounts, even though these use the verb r’h, “to see,” one not customary in superscriptions,³ whereas the former more likely refers to the sayings collection in chaps. 3–6 (cf. Amos in the first-person in 5:1). The collection of oracles against the nations exhibits several literary connections with the visionary accounts;⁴ this is commensurate with the fact that the earthquake, mentioned in the dating and in 1:1 related to this activity of seeing, is mentioned outside the visionary accounts only in the oracles to the nations (Amos 2:13), and not in chaps. 3–6. In this way, Amos 1:1 shows that the book of Amos was formed from two partial collections: chaps. 3–6 and the chapters framing them, namely, chaps. 1–2 and 7–9.

Compared with the superscriptions of other prophetic books, Amos 1:1 contains especially two unusual pieces of information. The first is the reference to “the words of Amos” instead of to “the word of Yahweh” as in other prophetic books. The closest analogy are the collections of sayings attributed to wisdom teachers such as “the words of Agur” (Prov. 30:1) or “the words of Lemuel” (Prov. 31:1). This observation suggests that this piece of information is extremely old, deriving from a period predating the emergence of any specific form of prophetic superscription; it also betrays a highly developed self-consciousness on the part of the prophet, who is also mentioned emphatically by name in the visions (Amos 7:8; 8:2). The name Amos is presumably the abbreviated form of a thanksgiving name whose full form is Amasiah, “Yahweh has carried, supported,” that is, has preserved the child from harm (2 Chron. 17:16). This context also includes the prophet’s place of origin, which is just as important for understanding his message as is the unmistakable name. For Amos comes from the Southern Kingdom, more specifically from a place a good fifteen kilometers south of Jerusalem, where the land drops off to the Judean wilderness (modern Khirbet Teqû῾). His vocation as livestock herder becomes especially comprehensible here, and above all it best explains the striking differences between his proclamation and that of Hosea.⁵ Not least for this reason, the search for a locale with the name Tekoa in the Northern Kingdom,⁶ a search repeatedly undertaken from rabbinic exegesis up till the present, is futile from the very outset.

The second unusual piece of information is the precise date “two years before the earthquake.” Although the reference here is no doubt to an especially serious earthquake (cf. Zech. 14:5), the frequency of earthquakes in Palestine⁷ has rendered impossible all attempts to draw historical conclusions.⁸ This information does, however, show that in contrast to Hosea and Isaiah, Amos prophesied for only a very brief period, probably hardly more than a single year. This information was committed to writing above all, however, because for the tradents the experience of that earthquake itself demonstrated the truth of Amos’ words, though one must point out that this confirmation is not meant primarily as fulfillment, and certainly not at all as fulfillment in the full sense of that word. What this earthquake means for the book of Amos—from the quaking of the temple in Bethel to the quaking of the cosmos itself—is shown by passages such as 2:13 and 9:1, and later specified more closely by 8:8 and 9:5f. The reader is, however, very much encouraged to understand the experience of the earthquake as a first step toward the actualization of the word of God as proclaimed by Amos. It is one of the secret themes of the book of Amos which are resolved only from the perspective of the end, that is, from the perspective of chapter 9, and which expect the reader to read the book carefully all the way to this end.

[1:2] The hymn in v. 2 offers an initial aid to understanding for those reading the book later, after the fall of Jerusalem. It draws on the form of theophany portrayals of the sort Israel used in the earliest period to celebrate its victories as Yahweh’s deeds, who—like the weather god in the surrounding areas—powerfully intervened against his enemies amid the quakings of nature (Judg. 5:4f.; Ps. 68:8f. [7f.E], et passim).⁹ Amos 1:2 gives the impression of a completely contrary experience of God. The traditional statement about the powerful, thundering voice of the weather god is immediately understood as the frightening roar of the lion; the attendant deadly associations (especially the confluence of terrible divine speech and action) are made even more clear in Amos 3:4, 8, 12. This mortal danger, however, is not directed at enemies. Rather, in the following clause the divine roar of the lion directly causes the withering and drying up of the most fertile regions in the Northern Kingdom.¹⁰ Amos’ own vocation perhaps prompted the allusion to the shepherds’ vitally important pasturelands, whose desolation often represents the most terrible disaster during the later period (usually as “pastures of the wilderness,” Jer. 9:9 [10E]; 23:10; Joel 1:19, 20, et passim);¹¹ during this period Mount Carmel, with its dense forests, together with Bashan (cf. Amos 4:1), Lebanon, or the plain of Sharon, stands representatively for the most fertile regions of Palestine (cf. Isa. 33:9; 35:2; Jer. 50:19; Nahum 1:4). The expression “top of Carmel” in particular, however, provides the bridge to the fifth vision (Amos 9:3). Together, these two poetic sentences circumscribe the end of all vegetation (Wolff, Weiss). It is not, however, some foreign power that brings about this devastation—this is the most important statement of the entire verse—but rather “Yahweh of Zion,” who in judgment on his own people demonstrates his power (cf. Ps. 50:2). This prepares the reader for the hymnic sections of the book of Amos (4:13; 5:8f.; 9:5f.) and for the numerous divine predicates such as “Yahweh, God of hosts.” This applies especially, however, to the book’s former concluding doxology in 9:5f. (cf. the introduction), in which the “mourning” of the shepherds’ pastures becomes the “mourning” of human beings in the face of the God who through the destruction of the temple withdraws his own presence from them and yet is still recognized and praised as the Lord of the world.

The introductory hymn thus emphasizes the enduring validity of Amos’ message—even after the destruction of Samaria and of Jerusalem—and by mentioning the “top of Carmel” and the “mourning” of nature creates a bridge to the former conclusion to the book in 9:6. Later redactors, by prepositioning the book of Joel and the close parallel in Joel 4:16 (cf. Amos 9:13 with Joel 4:18), created an additional context prompting the reader to understand not only the book of Amos, but also the book of the Twelve Prophets (or a prior stage of that book) as a whole, that is, as the one word of God delivered through different prophetic witnesses.

1. This somewhat artificial translation (instead of wither, become desolate) is intended to provide a bridge to the identical verb in 8:8 and 9:5, where it refers to human behavior; cf. the analogous juxtaposition of mourning human beings and “mourning” nature in Joel 1:9f. E. Kutsch, “ ‘Trauerbräuche’ und ‘Selbstminderungsriten’ im Alten Testament,” Kleine Schriften zum Alten Testament, BZAW 168 (Berlin/New York: W. de Gruyter, 1986), 88f., following J. Scharbert, Der Schmerz im Alten Testament, BBB 8 (Bonn: P. Hanstein, 1955), 47ff., has shown convincingly that Hebrew attests only one root ’bl.

2. The cultic interpretation of this term, popular during the 1950s and based on Ugaritic texts, has been variously refuted and is no longer advocated.

3. Perhaps one should follow Rudolph’s conclusion that this refers to the visions expanded by the (later) narrative 7:10–17, since the priest Amaziah addresses Amos with the root ḥzh “seer.” Concerning the distinction between the verbs (“to see” for punctiliar vision, and “to view” for basic legitimation), cf. H. F. Fuhs, “Sehen und Schauen.” Forschungen zur Bibel 32 (1978): 177ff., 305ff.

4. Cf. the continuation of the views of Wolff and H. Gese (Komposition, 74ff.) by J. Jeremias, “Völkersprüche und Visionsberichte im Amosbuch,” in Hosea und Amos, 157–71.

5. Cf. in this regard Jeremias, Hosea und Amos, 35–57.

6. Cf. esp. H. Schmidt, “Die Herkunft des Propheten Amos,” in Beiträge zur alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft: Festschrift K. Budde, ed. Karl Marti, BZAW 34 (Giessen: A. Töpelmann, 1920), 158ff., and most recently K. Koch, Amos, part 2.2.

7. D. H. Kallner-Amiran, “A Revised Earthquake-Catalogue of Palestine,” IEJ 1 (1950/51): 223–46; 2 (1952): 48–65, offers an earthquake catalog for the period since 64 B.C.E.

8. Cf., e.g., J. A. Soggin, “Das Erdbeben von Am 1,1 und die Chronologie der Könige Ussia und Jotham von Juda,” ZAW 82 (1970): 117–21.

9. Cf. J. Jeremias, Theophanie, WMANT 10, 2d ed. (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1977).

10. It is worth noting that in the other two passages in which the verbs “mourn (= wither)” and “dry up” stand parallel (Jer. 12:4; 23:10), this natural occurrence is prompted by Israel’s guilt. I think this association is probably being presupposed among the readers and contributed to the disharmonious proportion of the metaphor (the divine roarin...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half title
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Preface to the German Edition
• Bibliography
• Abbreviations
• Superscription and Leitmotif (1:1–2)
• Introduction
• Part I: The Oracles against the Nations (1:3–2:16)
• Part II: The Collection of Amos’ Sayings (chaps. 3–6)
• Part III: The Visions (7:1–9:6)
• Index of Scripture