The Book of Amos in Emergent Judah (Forschungen Zum Alten Testament 2.Reihe) 9783161501142, 3161501144

Citation preview

Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe Edited by Bernd Janowski (Tübingen) · Mark S. Smith (New York) Hermann Spieckermann (Göttingen)

45

Jason Radine

The Book of Amos in Emergent Judah

Mohr Siebeck

Jason Radine, born 1972; 1994 BA, University of Michigan (Philosophy); 1999 MA, and 2007 PhD, University of Michigan (Near Eastern Studies, specializing in Ancient Israel/Hebrew Bible); Assistant Professor of Biblical and Jewish Studies, Department of Religion, Moravian College, Bethlehem, PA., USA.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-151143-1 ISBN 978-3-16-150114-2 ISSN 1611-4914 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 2. Reihe) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. © 2010 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Nehren on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

To my parents and grandparents for their unending support

Preface This monograph presents my doctoral dissertation completed in June 2007 at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan, in the Department of Near Eastern Studies. Some material from the dissertation has been rearranged and slightly revised, and select publications that have appeared since its completion have been incorporated. I owe a deep debt of gratitude to my teacher and dissertation advisor, Professor Brian Schmidt, who taught me so much about critical biblical scholarship and the history of ancient Israel in its ancient Near Eastern context. I am also deeply grateful to the other members of my dissertation committee, Professors Gabriele Boccaccini, Gary Beckman, and David Potter. The diverse faculty at Michigan provided me with a multi-faceted education that allowed me to see biblical literature in diverse ways. I am grateful to the editors of the series Forschungen zum Alten Testament II, Professors Bernd Janowski, Mark Smith, and Hermann Spieckermann, for accepting this work for publication. I also want to thank Dr. Henning Ziebritzki at Mohr Siebeck for encouraging me to submit my dissertation to FAT II, and Ms. Ilse König at Mohr Siebeck for her technical guidance as well as Ms. Leslie Rubin for compiling the indices. While I was participating with my students from Moravian College at the Ramat Rachel excavation in Israel, many scholars working and visiting there generously gave of their time in discussing with me the issues presented here. In particular I want to thank Professors Oded Lipschits, Gary Knoppers, and Israel Finkelstein as well as Tel Aviv University doctoral student Ido Koch for their challenges and advice. Last but not least, I have benefitted from solid family support without which this project would not have been possible. I want to particulary thank my grandmother Ethel Welch who provided both material support and a roof over my head for so long, and to my parents, Dr. Lawrence and Glenda Radine, for their support in every way, including intellectual guidance. The responsibility for any and all errors remains my own. Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, May 2010

Jason H. Radine

Contents Preface .................................................................................................. VII

Introduction: Outline of Plan and Contents .................................... 1 Chapter One: Unity, Disunity, and Problems of Dating in the Book of Amos ............................................................................ 7 1.1. Introduction ................................................................................................7 1.2. Superscription .............................................................................................7 1.3. The Oracles against the Nations ..............................................................11 1.3.1. The Form of the Oracles against the Nations .................................11 1.3.2. The Accusations in the Oracles against the Nations ......................12 1.3.3. The Oracle against Judah (Amos 2:4–5) ........................................15 1.3.4 The Broad Structure of the Oracles against the Nations ..................18 1.3.5.The Oracle against Israel ................................................................21 1.4. Exodus Traditions in the Book of Amos ..................................................22 1.5. Disputed Passages in Amos 3–4 ...............................................................24 1.6. The Doxologies in the Book of Amos ......................................................27 1.7. Disputed Verses and Chiastic Structuring Amos 5 ..................................29 1.8. Problems and Solutions in Amos 6 ..........................................................31 1.9. The Vision Reports ..................................................................................37 1.10. The Narrative Interlude .........................................................................38 1.11. The Conclusion of the Book and Amos‘s Place in the Book of the Twelve .........................................................................40 1.12. Conclusion .............................................................................................44

Chapter Two: The Date of the Earliest Level of the Book of Amos ......................................................................................46 2.1. Introduction .............................................................................................46 2.2. The Historical Setting in Amos 1:1 ..........................................................46 2.2.1. Uzziah in II Kings and II Chronicles .............................................46 2.2.2. Inscriptional Evidence for Uzziah .................................................48

X

Contents

2.2.3. Shema, Servant of Jeroboam .........................................................50 2.2.4. The Earthquake and the Eclipse......................................................52 2.3. Dating the Earliest Stage of the Book of Amos after the Assyrian Conquest of Israel .....................................................................................54 2.3.1. Amos 6:2: Assyria on the March ...................................................56 2.3.2. Sikkût and kiyyûn ...........................................................................60 2.3.3. ʾAšmat šōmrôn ........................................................................ 67 2.3.4. Specific Dating ....................................................................... 69 2.4. Other Post-760s Proposals for the Earliest Compilation of the Book of Amos ........................................................................ 72 2.5. Conclusion ....................................................................................... 78

Chapter Three: ―I am not a Prophet, nor the Son of a Prophet‖: Genre of the Book of Amos ................................... 80 3.1. Introduction .................................................................................... 80 3.2. ―Prophetic‖ Literature ............................................................................81 3.2.1. Definitions of Prophecy .......................................................... 82 3.2.2. Messenger Formulae .............................................................. 85 3.2.3. Prophetic Titles ....................................................................... 88 3.2.4. Ecstasy ................................................................................... 90 3.2.5. Social Criticism in Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy ................. 94 3.2.6. Public Proclamation ............................................................. 101 3.3. Poets not Prophets .......................................................................... 103 3.4. Conclusion ..................................................................................... 108

Chapter Four: The Book of Amos as a Literary-Predictive Text .............................................................................................................110 4.1. Introduction ............................................................................................110 4.2. The ―Akkadian Prophecies‖ ...................................................................111 4.2.1. Text A ..........................................................................................111 4.2.2. Text B ..........................................................................................112 4.2.3. The Marduk Prophecy ..................................................................113 4.2.4. The Shulgi Prophecy.....................................................................114 4.2.5. The Uruk Prophecy .......................................................................115 4.2.6. The Dynastic Prophecy .................................................................116 4.3. Genre Classifications ..............................................................................117 4.4. Possible Non-Mesopotamian Literary-Predictive Texts ........................121 4.4.1. Egyptian Prophecies .....................................................................121 4.4.2. The Deir ‗Alla Text.......................................................................123 4.5. The Composition of the Book of Amos in the Light of Comparative Study .............................................................................123

Contents

XI

4.6. Conclusion .............................................................................................128

Chapter Five: The Purpose and Function of the Earliest Stage of the Book of Amos ...............................................................................130 5.1. Introduction ...........................................................................................130 5.2. Archaeological Context for the Earliest Stage of the Book of Amos .............................................................................131 5.2.1. Literacy ........................................................................................137 5.3. Amos and the City Laments ...................................................................140 5.3.1. The Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur .............142 5.3.2. The Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur ...............................144 5.3.3. The Lamentations over the Destructions of Uruk and Eridu .......146 5.3.4. The Nippur Lament ......................................................................146 5.3.5. Later Laments: Balags and eršemmas ..........................................147 5.4. Relationship of the Mesopotamian Laments to Biblical Texts .............148 5.5. Woe Oracles ..........................................................................................154 5.6. Amos and Divine Disaster Texts outside of the City Laments .............157 5.6.1. The Curse of Agade .....................................................................158 5.6.2. Tikulti-Ninurta Epic .....................................................................161 5.6.3. The Seed of Kingship ..................................................................162 5.6.4. The Poem of Erra .........................................................................164 5.6.5. Esarhaddon‘s Rebuilding of Babylon ..........................................165 5.6.6. Adad-Guppi and Cyrus ................................................................167 5.7. Concluding Remarks on Amos and Non-Lament Texts ........................167 5.8. Conclusion .............................................................................................168

Chapter Six: The Last Additions to the Book of Amos .................170 6.1. Introduction ...........................................................................................170 6.2. Oracles against the Nations ...................................................................170 6.2.1. Damascus .....................................................................................172 6.2.2. Philistia ........................................................................................175 6.2.3. Tyre ..............................................................................................178 6.2.4. Edom ............................................................................................179 6.2.5. Ammon ........................................................................................180 6.2.6. Moab ............................................................................................182 6.3. The Amaziah Narrative (Amos 7:10–17) ..............................................183 6.3.1. The Book of Amos and the History of Bethel .............................184 6.3.2. Jeroboam III? ...............................................................................188 6.3.3. A Bethel Origin for the Book of Amos? ......................................190 6.3.4. Anti-Prophecy ..............................................................................193 6.4. The Amos Epilogue (Amos 9:11–15) ....................................................198 6.4.1. The sukkāt dāwîd ................................................................. 199

XII

Contents

6.4.2. Amos and Zechariah ............................................................ 205 6.5. Conclusion .................................................................................... 210 Conclusions and Implications ........................................................................212 Appendix: Amos 6 Chiasm Chart .................................................................221 Bibliography .................................................................................................223 Ancient Sources Index ...................................................................................255 Modern Authors Index ..................................................................................261 Subject Index .................................................................................................264

Introduction

Outline of Plan and Contents The book of Amos presents itself as the prophecies of a Judahite prophet active around the 760s BCE, addressed to the northern kingdom of Israel, predicting its destruction. It will be proposed here that the earliest form of the book of Amos was composed after, not before, the fall of Israel to the Assyrians, that it was addressed to an audience living in Judah, not Israel, and that it is not a work of ―prophecy‖ at all. It is argued here that the book of Amos was a largely political tract first written in the late eighth or early seventh century BCE, after the fall of Israel but before the fall of Judah, with additions added after the fall of the southern kingdom. The late eighth century may be more likely than the early seventh, since there is no clear indication of Sennacherib‘s siege of Jerusalem in the earliest layer of the book. The purpose of the earliest stage of the book is to explain and justify Yahweh‘s destruction of the northern kingdom, and prevent the same fate from happening to Judah. The book of Amos refers to the destruction of the northern kingdom with a certainty that reflects the probability that the event had already occurred before much of the book was written. While such certitude could simply be the confidence of a prophet, the book‘s specific references go beyond mere threat or prediction. The references to the destructions of Calneh and Hamath in 6:2, the exile ―beyond Damascus‖ in 5:27, and others (such as the frequent predictions of exile), suggest a later date than conventionally assumed. There is no need to remove such references to a later redaction if the first layer of the book as a whole was written after the 720s BCE. The specificity of references to the destruction of Israel coupled with the almost total lack of references to Judah‘s destruction suggest a date fairly close to the downfall of the northern kingdom for the book‘s initial composition. So, the late eighth or possibly the early seventh century is the best date for the first stage of the book. The purpose of composition of the book at this time can now be better understood with recent developments in archaeology. This study presents a new view of the book of Amos partly based on new understandings of Israelite history. The Iron Age in Israel, particularly the tenth through seventh centuries BCE, has been the subject of significant debate and reassessments in recent years, and the implications of this

2

Introduction

for non-historiographic biblical literature have not yet been fully explored. Compelling arguments have been made that the biblical description of the tenth century United Monarchy, the empire of David and Solomon stretching from the Gulf of Aqaba at least as far north as southern Syria, is largely a biblical fiction or at best an exaggeration. Archaeological reassessments in the last two decades have shown that heavily fortified sites at Gezer, Megiddo, and Hazor, previously attributed to Solomon, were more likely developed under the Omrides in the ninth century. This brought the evidence of Jerusalemite control of the north into serious question. Jerusalem itself appears to have been a relatively small city during the tenth century, lacking new fortifications to match those of the supposed Solomonic cities in the north. It thus seems unlikely that a government based in tenth century Jerusalem controlled the north at this time, and the possibility seems more likely that Israel and Judah may have developed separately. Thus, it appears that Iron Age Israel developed first, under the Omrides (ninth century), and this kingdom dominated Judah until the late eighth century. Judah developed into something that might be called a state only after the fall of the northern kingdom to the Assyrians in the late eighth century BCE, at which time Judah‘s population grew, and Jerusalem became a much larger city with new fortifications. This growth of population probably consisted in large part of refugees, most of whom would have come from the North (Israel). Thus, Jerusalem in the wake of the Assyrian invasions would have had a large northern immigrant population. This new understanding of the eighth and seventh centuries has significant implications for the books of the so-called ―eighth-century prophets.‖ It now appears that Judah went through a profound change in the aftermath of the fall of Israel. It became something like a ―state‖ for the first time, with centralized authority based in a relatively large capital city. For about a century and half previous to this, Judah had existed as a small, poor country in the shadow of its wealthier and more powerful northern neighbor, Israel. Now that Israel had been destroyed, Judah was growing rapidly. At this time, the beginnings of a national literature might have been produced, including the earliest portions of the books of the so-called ―eighth-century prophets.‖ It will be argued here that the earliest stage of the book of Amos was composed in this context, as a partly political piece of literature dealing with the events of its time. The possible political content of the book of Amos has been observed before, particularly in view of the book‘s intense criticisms of Israel with virtually none for Judah. This seems to have been first advocated by Hugo Winckler in the late nineteenth century, who dated the activity of the prophet to the Syro-Ephraimite war, and proposed that Amos was carrying out a policy of Ahaz to undermine Pekah‘s authority and urge Israelite

Outline of Plan and Contents

3

reunification with Judah under Assyrian supremacy. As Winckler saw it, Amos‘s focus on the Northern Kingdom almost exclusively can be explained best thusly: ―Nichts anderes als dass er, der Judäer, der auffälliger Weise im Nordreiche predigt, im Sinne von Ahas‘ Politik tätig war, dass er bezweckte, das Volk des Nordreiches gegen Pekach aufzuhetzen und für die Idee der Vereinigung mit Juda zu gewinnen.‖ 1 In Winckler‘s view, Amos worked on behalf of Ahaz similarly to the political activity of Elisha on behalf of Jehu. Winckler was followed with some variation by J.J.P. Valeton,2 Eberhard Schrader,3 and Wilhelm Erbt.4 These scholars were opposed by Johannes Hempel, who argued against the later dating employed by these proposals, especially since some of them sought to argue that Jeroboam II was still alive late enough for the Assyrian invasions to occur during his lifetime. 5 Hempel further pointed out that political effect or reception by a prophet does not mean that there was political intention by the prophet. This was Hempel‘s principle, ―Das Gesetz der Inkongruenz von politischer Absicht und politicher Folge im Bereich des Religiösen.‖6 While the details of Winckler‘s proposal are not supported here, it will be argued that his basic insight of a political component in Ju dahite/Israelite relations in the book of Amos does have merit, as does dating the book later than the superscription would indicate. There have been more recent proposals as well for political purposes in the book of Amos. While still following the traditional dating of the book, G. Henton Davies argued that the prophet Amos was a Judahite nationalist, urging the northerners to return to Davidic rule. Instead of dating the book‘s ―motto‖ at 1:2 to a later time period, G.H. Davies argued that it fits with the book as a whole, and reflects the book‘s Jerusalem-centered ideology. With Jerusalem as the place from which Yahweh ―roars,‖ G.H. Davies interpreted the ―seek me‖ passages in Amos 5:4, 6 as urging the northerners to seek Yahweh at the only place he could be sought, in Jerusalem.7 This then would fit with Amos‘s condemnations of regional shrines at places such as Bethel and Gilgal. He saw the epilogue of the book, 9:11– 15, as original to the prophet, and the ―fallen booth of David‖ in 9:11 as a reference to the Divided Monarchy. Then, the paradisiacal imagery at the end of the book would portray the future possible for Israel if it would rejoin the Jerusalem-based kingdom in the south.

1

WINCKLER 1895:91. VALETON 1898:1–15. 3 SCHRADER 1903:266–268. 4 ERBT 1906:129. 5 HEMPEL 1938:29–30. 6 HEMPEL 1938:47. Hempel‘s arguments were accepted by SOGGIN 1987:8. 7 G.H. DAVIES 1980–1981:198. 2

4

Introduction

G.H. Davies was followed in this line of thinking by Max Polley, who also argued that the book was written to urge the North to rejoin the South. Polley used comparative ancient Near Eastern evidence to show that ―correct kingship‖ consisted of performing the roles of defending the nation, preserving the cult, and establishing justice. 8 Polley viewed Amos‘s criticisms of the northern cult and social injustices in the North as part of his critique of the North‘s political leadership. Regarding the Davidic dynasty as ―correct kingship,‖ the prophet Amos would have been trying to persuade Northerners to join a reconstituted Davidic kingdom. 9 A more recent advocate of the view of Amos as a pro-Davidic nationalist is Marvin Sweeney, who argued that the main purpose of the book was to urge the rejection of the Jehu dynasty and the Bethel shrine, and to return to Davidic rule over all Israel. 10 He suggested that Amos might have been a Judahite agriculturalist bringing tribute to Israel, which had been oppressing Judah. Sweeney saw the conclusion of the book of Amos as original to the prophet, and reflected Amos‘s hopes for a renewed Davidic kingdom. Sweeney further suggested that Amos 7:10–17 was added in the reign of Hezekiah, in support of his reform policies aiming at the elimination of regional shrines and the reacquisition of the North. 11 All of these proposals of nationalism in the book of Amos share the common assumption that Judah had once controlled the North in the context of a Davidic empire, and thus that the condemnations of Israel would have served the purposes of reunification of this supposed United Monarchy. Not only has recent scholarship cast the existence of this United Monarchy seriously in doubt, but there is in fact no clear reference in Amos to such a large political entity, and there are no clear statements in Amos which assert that Israel was expected to join or re-join Judah. The United Monarchy should no longer be assumed as a historical fact, and likewise it should not be assumed that it was a universal biblical tradition.12 The tradition of such a monarchy seems to be a largely Deuteronomistic idea (subsequently borrowed by the Chronicler), intended to integrate the North into the South, perhaps under Josiah. It is mostly absent in

8

POLLEY 1989:112–126. POLLEY 1989:14–16, 126–131. 10 SWEENEY 2006:178. 11 SWEENEY 2001:285–286. 12 SWEENEY 2006:184 argued that ―It matters little whether David and Solomon were relatively minor chieftains; Amos‘s view of the early Davidic monarchy would be informed by Judean tradition that remembers them as imperial monarchs who brought wealth and power to the region by exercising control of northern Israel.‖ But the book of Amos evinces no such tradition. 9

Outline of Plan and Contents

5

biblical prophetic literature, and is also absent in the book of Amos. 13 Even the depiction of restoration in Amos 9:11–15 portrays the ―fallen booth of David‖ as possessing all the nations, with Edom, not Israel, singled out. The political purpose of the book of Amos should be identified without importing United Monarchy ideas that are not present in the book itself. Chapter One will discuss the redactional growth of the book of Amos from its beginnings to its present shape. It will examine disputed verses and outline which portions of the book go with which stage in its composition. This will establish what is being referred to as ―the book of Amos‖ at the various stages of its growth. Chapter Two will present in detail the arguments for dating the earliest layer of the book of Amos to a time after the fall of the Northern Kingdom. This chapter will expand upon the comments made above concerning the book‘s retrospective knowledge of some of the details of Israel‘s fall. Chapter Three will turn to genre, arguing that the book is not a work of ―prophecy‖ in the sense of what prophecy was in the ancient Near East. Chapter Four will propose another genre designation for the book, as a ―literary-predictive text,‖ that is, as a poetic text written as if it were a prophecy. Chapter Five will discuss the purpose and function of the text. There it will be shown that the book uses lamentation themes, and functions in political ways similar to national laments. Finally, Chapter Six will explore the later additions to the book of Amos that had been identified in Chapter One. These will be placed in their most reasonable historical context, and the chapter will discuss the functions of these additions in the continuing use of the book of Amos in exilic and postexilic Judaism.

13

Traditions of David of course abound in biblical prophetic literature, but specific attestations of David having controlled the North are relatively rare (cf. Isaiah 7:17, which may refer to the secession of Israel under Jeroboam I, or to some other later event, such as Israel‘s joining the Syro-Ephraimite coalition. It could also be a later addition.)

Chapter One

Unity, Disunity, and Problems of Dating in the Book of Amos 1.1. Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to explore the question of the unity or disunity of the book of Amos; that is, whether or not the book reveals a redactional history. The various frequently disputed portions of the book will be examined in loosely canonical order, with the ―motto‖ at 1:2 dealt with at the end of the section on the Oracles against the Nations. Virtually every word in Amos has been disputed in scholarship; this chapter makes no attempt to cover each and every disputed letter, word or verse, but to focus on those most frequently and reliably challenged. Attention will be given in particular to passages that will be relevant in the discussions about dating in the following chapters. It will be argued that the book does indeed have a redactional history, but that its earliest stage post-dates Assyria‘s conquest of Israel in the 720s. 1 However, more precise datings of the separate stages of the book‘s composition will be resolved in turn in the fol lowing chapters that deal with the different historical settings of those portions of the book.

1.2. Superscription G.M. Tucker defined a superscription as ―a statement prefixed to a written work, such as a book, a song, a collection, or individual prophetic sayings.‖2 He distinguished superscriptions from narrative introductions, 1

Although the book of Amos is biblically dated (on internal grounds) to around the 760s, the position taken here is that the book is not the product of a prophet and/or author working at that time. Thus, the question of which parts of the book are ―authentic‖ is rendered meaningless, since none of the book in the view taken here can reliably be considered ―authentic‖ to Amos, the supposed prophet of the 760s. The term ―authentic‖ will thus be used only in terms of scholars‘ theories that use that term. 2 T UCKER 1977:58. For superscriptions having their origin in narrative introductions, cf. W ATTS 2000. For superscriptions having their origins in the colophons at the ends of Mesopotamian texts, cf. G EVARYAHU 1975.

8

Chapter One

which form an inherent part of the narratives they introduce (that is, they are not prefixed or added separately), which are in turn different than a title, which is ―a word or concise phrase that constitutes the name of a particular literary work.‖3 Tucker wrote that superscriptions ―tend to presuppose that the work of the prophet has ended,‖ and thus post-date the prophet‘s career, on account of their use of the third-person and their retrospective character.4 The superscriptions were added to their texts as a stage in the canonization process, whereby the prophetic texts were given authority as being derived from divine revelation. In line with the idea of superscriptions as later than their texts, commentators who assign nearly the entire book of Amos to a prophet named Amos who lived in the 760s or 750s nonetheless usually identify the superscription (Amos 1:1) as post-dating the activity of the prophet. J.L. Mays, B. Vawter, J.H. Hayes, F.I. Andersen and D.N. Freedman, and S. Paul all ascribed this verse to later editors, usually fairly early. 5 The verse has been seen to have some signs of editorial layering, with multiple relative clauses. Mays suggested that the portion, ―The words of Amos of Tekoa which he saw two years before the earthquake‖ derived from the first collectors of the Amos material, a sort of Amos-school that he called ―sympathetic contemporaries,‖ and that the regnal synchronism was added by deuteronomistic (dtr) editors.6 Andersen and Freedman wrote that the superscription was written soon after the earthquake, which they viewed as occurring shortly after Amos‘s death.7 Others, however, connect a kernel of the title to Amos himself. H.W. Wolff ascribed the portion ―the words of Amos from Tekoa‖ to the earliest phase, the authentic words of Amos himself, and suggested that this portion was originally attached to the oracles of chapters 3–6.8 Wolff explained the unusual ―words of Amos‖ instead of the expected ―words of Yhwh which came to Amos,‖ as being similar to the ―words of Agur‖ and ―words of Lemuel‖ of Proverbs 30:1 and 31:1 respectively. 9 This in turn was used by Wolff to support his general view of Amos‘s words as derived from clan wisdom. Wolff credited the editorial stage of the book with the portion, ―which he viewed concerning Israel two years before the earthquake.‖ This he connected with the ―old school of Amos,‖ Wolff‘s third of 3

T UCKER 1977:58–59. T UCKER 1977:65. 5 VAWTER 1981:29–30, J. HAYES 1988:41, P AUL 1991:33. 6 MAYS 1969:13 and 18–20. 7 ANDERSEN and FREEDMAN 1989:193–196. 8 W OLFF 1977:119, followed by SOGGIN 1987:24–27. 9 W OLFF 1977:119. Wolff suggested that as the core of Amos 1:1 could be the oldest biblical prophetic superscription, its wisdom-like form may indicate that the standard ―words of Yhwh‖ format had not yet developed. 4

Unity, Disunity, and Problems of Dating in the Book of Amos

9

six stages. He argued that it is not likely from Amos himself because it uses ḥzh instead of Amos‘s preferred rʾh. This would have been added soon after the earthquake, which would have served to support the book‘s veracity, and may have motivated its redaction. Wolff argued that this stage must have been within the eighth century, as ―Israel‖ is mentioned, meaning that it still existed as a kingdom at that time. The regnal synchronism was ascribed by Wolff to his fifth level, the dtr stage. While Mays, Wolff, Soggin and Jeremias10 regarded the regnal formula as dtr, it should be noted that the Judahite king is usually referred to as Azariah in the Deuteronomistic History (DtrH),11 although the name ―Uzziah‖ is also used.12 In Wolff‘s view, the occupational portion ―who was among the sheep-breeders‖ post-dates the Amaziah narrative (Amos 7:10–17) because it follows the statements of Amos there. However, 1:1 refers to Amos as being among the nōqĕdîm while in 7:14 Amos claims to be a bôqēr.13 Wolff ascribed this portion also to the dtr stage, with the use of the term hyh placing the events in the closed past. Wolff was followed in most of this by Soggin and Jeremias. 14 However, if part or all of the superscription in Amos has an origin separate from the verses immediately following, the question arises as to where the added material ends and the older text begins. While Tucker wrote that superscriptions are not grammatically connected with what follows, and are thus grammatically detached, he noted that Amos 1:2 provides the only exception.15 There, the superscription is directly linked to the so-called ―motto‖ of the book by the verb wayyōʾmar, ―and he said.‖ Does this mean that the superscription dates to the same time as the motto of 1:2, and if 1:2 is as old as the oldest level of the book, which it could be, then is the superscription original to the oldest stage as well? Amos 1:2 is generally 10

JEREMIAS 1998:11–14. II Kings 14:21; 15:1, 6, 7, 8, 17, 23, 27. 12 II Kings 15:13, 30, 32, 34. COGGINS 2000:83 saw the regnal synchronism as ―a deliberate allusion to what we know as 2 Kings,‖ yet he does not classify the contributor to the superscription as dtr. The name Uzziah is the standard name for this king in II Chronicles, and is used in Isaiah 6:1; so other, non-dtr connections are possible. 13 There has been extensive discussion about the profession of Amos; see for example R. STEINER 2003. Because the trees that Amos supposedly tends in 7:14 do not grow in Judean Tekoa, KOCH 1983:70 suggested that Amos might have been from another Tekoa in Galilee. A similar view was extensively pursued by S. Rosenbaum, who pointed out that the medieval exegete Rabbi David Kimhi located Amos‘s Tekoa in the northern kingdom, ROSENBAUM 1990:3. While the issue of the ―person of the prophet‖ is not relevant to the book as a post-720s work, it will be shown below that the political and ideological themes in the book show its likely Southern (Judahite) origins. On the history of Judahite Tekoa, cf. HEICKSEN 1970. 14 SOGGIN 1987:26–27, JEREMIAS 1998:11–14. 15 T UCKER 1977:59. 11

10

Chapter One

interpreted as a hymnic passage drawn from older Israelite liturgy and/or song.16 Wolff saw 1:2 as deriving from his Josianic stage because Zion and Jerusalem play no role in Wolff‘s view of the original Amos work, and Amos does not predict a real drought (but rather only one of Yahweh‘s communication, at 8:11). 17 On the other hand, Paul argued that it is authentic to Amos because of its similar vocabulary to 3:4, 3:8 and 9:3, as well as the pastoral, shepherding references. 18 Whether the Amos 1:2 is original to the oldest level of the book or not, its relation to the superscription remains controversial. It is interesting to see how Wolff and Paul, for instance, handled the translation of wayyōʾmar. Wolff rendered it with the conjunction, ―And he said (etc.),‖ while Paul omitted the conjunction, producing a new sentence, ―He proclaimed (etc.).‖19 Paul‘s translation provided a clear disconnect, obscuring the Hebrew grammatical connection between the superscription and the motto. Another disconnect was proposed by Andersen and Freedman, who suggested joining the ―two years before the earthquake‖ to the motto, so that it would read something like, ―two years before the earthquake, he said (etc).‖20 However one organizes or translates the verses in question, Paul pointed out that there are several very similar constructions elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible that feature a narrative superscription followed immediately by wayyōʾmar and then the main material of the passage. 21 Yet, these citations do not clear up the question of whether or not this is as old the oldest parts of the book of Amos, because they could simply be common features of editorial work. This tension between the ―authentic words of Amos‖ and a third-person, retrospective superscription can be eliminated if the entire book of Amos is seen as retrospective, which is the view taken here. If the earliest phase of the book was produced after the reigns of Uzziah and Jeroboam II, then 16

W OLFF 1977:118, MAYS 1969:21–22, SOGGIN 1987:29–30, ANDERSEN and FREEDMAN 1989:222, JEREMIAS 1998:13, COGGINS 2000:84–85. This verse is identical or nearly so to Joel 3:16 (4:16 Eng) and Jeremiah 25:30. Wolff and Jeremias saw the Amos verse as primary, Mays and Andersen and Freedman saw all these verses as independent of each other, all dependent on a common source, while Coggins saw Joel‘s verse as pri mary. Nogalski‘s views on 1:2 will discussed below, in regard to 1:2 being a product of the stitching together of the Book of the Twelve. 17 W OLFF 1977:121–122. Jeremias and Coggins also saw 1:2 as a product of later redactors, even if drawn from older traditional material. 18 P AUL 1991:36–37. More recently, LUNDBOM 2007 has supported Paul‘s view, noting that 1:2 and 3:8 both feature roaring lions, and has suggested a rhetorical structure with seven-unit structures between these passages linking them together. 19 W OLFF 1977:116, P AUL 1991:33. 20 ANDERSEN and FREEDMAN 1989:196–197. They did not, however, render their translation this way; instead they retained the reading of v.2 as ―and he said.‖ Ibid., p. xxv. 21 Deut 33:2, II Sam 22:2, Hos 1:2 and Ps 18:2; P AUL 1991:36 fn 37.

Unity, Disunity, and Problems of Dating in the Book of Amos

11

there is no problem with the original composer(s)/compiler(s) of the oldest level of the book of Amos producing a third-person, retrospective superscription as part of the book in the first place. Then the question of the chronological relationship between the superscription, the motto, and the connecting waw-consecutive verb do not need to be problems at all. Although the exact history of 1:1–2 cannot be determined with certainty, the superscription and the motto could have been originally connected, and they could date to the first phase of the book‘s composition.

1.3. The Oracles against the Nations The first large section of the book of Amos is a set of ―oracles against the nations,‖ 1:3–2:16. This type of literature appears in all three of the major prophetic books (Isaiah 13–23, Jeremiah 25:15–38; 46–51,22 Ezekiel 25– 32) and in briefer forms elsewhere (Obadiah can be considered an oracle against a single nation); thus the general literary genre can be considered part of the standard repertoire of biblical prophetic literature. 23 There has been extensive discussion of the anthropological and literary backgrounds of this genre as a whole, but this material will be discussed in later chapters except where it bears directly on the dating issues discussed there.24 1.3.1. The Form of the Oracles against the Nations The Oracles against the Nations in the book of Amos consist of eight oracles against separate nations, each beginning in the same way, culminating with an extended oracle against Israel. Each of these oracles begins with the phrase ―Thus says Yahweh: For three transgressions of X and for four I will not turn it back,‖ followed by a description of the offending nation‘s crime and Yahweh‘s punishment of it, which always involves Yahweh sending fire onto the nation‘s capital or fortresses. Beyond this, however, differences appear. The seven oracles before the one against Israel can be divided into two sets on the basis of form. The oracles against Damascus (1:3–5), Gaza (1:6–8), Ammon (1:13–15), and Moab (2:1–3), all 22 LXX Jeremiah rearranges some of the oracles and places them togethe r with those in ch. 25, such that all three major prophetic books would have their Oracles against the Nations in the center of each book. 23 RAABE 1995:237 calculated that 13.6% of the material in all the Latter Prophets consists of Oracles against the Nations. 24 For example, B ENTZEN 1950 compared the Oracles against the Nations to Egyptian Execration texts, and RAABE 1995 discussed their rhetorical effect, particularly how they might have been heard by non-Israelites/Judahites. B ARTON 1980 discussed some of the rhetorical effects and cultural context issues regarding the Oracles against the Nations of Amos.

12

Chapter One

feature very brief accusations followed by extended descriptions of the punishments Yahweh will inflict. These four are each concluded by the formula ―thus says Yahweh.‖ On the other hand, the oracles against Tyre (1:9–10), Edom (1:11–12) and Judah (2:4–5), all have longer accusations and then cut off after the incendiary punishment. These three oracles lack the extended details of punishment after the mention of fire, as well as the concluding formula, giving them a truncated appearance. The question is whether or not these differences indicate a separate origin for the two sets. While considering the three truncated oracles as later additions, Mays conceded that this difference alone is insufficient evidence of the disunity of the two sets. 25 Paul argued that the differences of form are precisely an indicator of unity, not disunity, for any even semicompetent scribe attempting to add more oracles to an earlier set would be able to follow the given pattern, and keep all the oracles formally consistent.26 Thus, these variations in form would simply be the ―imperfections‖ of a single writer, although why any single writer would vary the format is unknown. It will be proposed here and in Chapter Six below that all of the oracles except that against Israel (that is, Amos 1:3–2:5) were composed in the exilic or post-exilic period, probably as a single set, and added to the growing book of Amos at that time. 1.3.2. The Accusations in the Oracles against the Nations Some of the arguments for disunity in the Oracles against the Nations focus on content in addition to form, particularly on the nature of the crimes that the nations are accused of committing. First of all, the oracle against Tyre contains the same accusation, using the same vocabulary, as does the immediately preceding oracle against Gaza, namely, a complete exile of people to Edom. The imitative nature of the Tyre oracle on the Gaza oracle rather than the other way around becomes more probable when the geographical logistics of the crimes are considered, in that it is more feasible to imagine captives being sold to Edom from Philistia rather than from as far away as Phoenicia (unless Phoenicia would have been selling slaves via Edomite trade routes extending northwards). For this reason, the slight emendation of Aram in place of Edom has been suggested, making this exile or slave selling a transaction between neighboring nations. 27 Additionally, the Septuagint read ‫ שלמה‬in both the Gaza and Tyre oracles (1:6 and 1:9) as   (of Solomon), reading it as a proper name 25

MAYS 1969:41. P AUL 1991:26. But see against this BRETTLER 2006:107, for arguments that later additions to biblical and extra-biblical texts are not always smooth. 27 B OTTERWECK 1958:179; cf. also P AUL 1991:59. If this was the case, the reading ―Edom‖ may have arisen as part of the exilic/post-exilic polemic against that nation. 26

Unity, Disunity, and Problems of Dating in the Book of Amos

13

rather than as an adjective meaning ―complete.‖ 28 Based on this, it has been proposed that gālût be emended to gĕbûl, creating the sentence gĕbûl šĕlōmōh laʾăram,‖ ―to Aram the border of Solomon.‖ 29 This border of Solomon would then be the twenty cities given by Solomon to Hiram of Tyre (I Kings 9:11b–13, where Hiram addresses Solomon as ―my brother‖), which would then have been given or surrendered to Aram by Tyre, perhaps alluded to in the narrative of Ben-Hadad‘s conquest of northern Israelite cities in I Kings 15:20. 30 This elaborate reconstruction moves far beyond the MT and the other versions. Scholars who argue for the authenticity of this oracle as dating from the eighth century BCE have generally taken it as it is in the MT. S. Paul noted that Tyre is elsewhere associated with the slave trade, in Ezekiel 27:13 and Joel 4:6–7 (3:6–7 Eng). It is not doubted that the mercantile Phoenicians dealt in human merchandise; it is the singling out of Edom as the recipient of that sale that seems imitative of the preceding oracle. In the absence of any identifiable historical context for Tyre‘s offense, the oracle is better read as portraying a generic crime.31 Additionally, if the Tyre and Gaza oracles both derive from the exilic or post-exilic periods, the singling out of Edom would fit with the role Edom plays in the literature of those eras. 32 The other distinct feature of this oracle is the accusation that Tyre did not remember the ―covenant of brothers.‖ This has been seen as referring to the treaties between Solomon and Hiram in the tenth century, as well as the marriage between the Israelite king Ahab and the Phoenician princess Jezebel in the ninth (I Kings 16:31). It should be observed, however, that the victims of Tyre‘s crime are not specified, so connecting it with Israelites may not be necessary. Edom also is accused of breaking fraternal bonds, and this led Wolff to argue that it is not Tyre‘s brotherhood with Israel that is alluded to, but rather Edom‘s, and that the Tyre oracle refers to Edom as breaking the bonds of brotherhood by accepting Israelite slaves.33 It is, however, not clear if a change of subject for zākrû is intended in the text. Wolff did, however, consider this oracle to be later than the historical Amos. Wolff noted that the expression ―remember a covenant‖ (‫ )זכר ברית‬is typical of the Priestly source, but pointed out that ―the expression ‗covenant of brothers‘ used here is unattested elsewhere in the 28

This reading of ―Solomon‖ is not followed by Symmachus, Theodotian, or the Vulgate; W OLFF 1977:129 n.m. 29 SELLIN 1929a:204–205, following in part by B OTTERWECK 1958:179–180. 30 SELLIN 1929a:205, B OTTERWECK 1958:180. 31 W ARD 1969:99 fn 4 argued that the similarity of these two oracles ―may be due to historical facts rather than to editoral (sic) imitation.‖ This cautiously claims a historical basis without speculating on what that might be. 32 The literary role of Edom will be discussed in Chapter Six below. 33 W OLFF 1977:159.

14

Chapter One

Old Testament and in documents from the ancient Near East.‖ 34 Yet Wolff argued that the concept of Edom as Israel‘s brother is dtr and so concluded that ―the whole sentence corresponds to the theological and salvationhistorical language and thought of circles trained in the Deuteronomistic tradition‖35 in the sixth century. 36 Further considerations of the date of this oracle must be examined in tandem with the following oracle against Edom. This oracle also features the violation of fraternal relations, in this case the relentless pursuit of ―his brother‖ with the sword. Several arguments for the early date of these two oracles have been based on an interpretation of ―brother‖ as referring to international treaties, which Israel could only have had while the kingdom existed, that is, prior to 722/1. Pointing out that ―brotherhood‖ is part of Hittite treaties and appears in the Iliad in a similar sense, Priest argued that the ―covenant of brothers‖ refers to the political treaty between David and Solomon with Hiram. 37 He suggested further that the Tyre and Edom oracles were originally of the same length as those against Damascus, Gaza, Ammon, and Moab, but that the original endings of the two shorter oracles dropped out through the process of oral transmission for mnemonic purposes.38 Fishbane expanded the treaty connection by including the phrase wĕšīḥēt raḥămāyw (Amos 1:11b) in the technical language, arguing that it means ―and he utterly destroyed his allies/friends.‖ 39 Yet even with the treaty idea, it has been difficult for scholars to determine what events are specifically referred to here. Schoville suggested that the crimes were reactions by Gaza, Tyre and Edom against Israel in the ninth century because of Jehu‘s pro-Assyrian policy, which alienated Israel‘s former allies. 40 Such a reaction is purely hypothetical, however, and is not even biblical. A more biblical explanation was proposed by Fishbane, who connected the Edom accusation with Edom‘s war of independence in the ninth century mentioned in II Kings 8:20. 41 Bartlett considered this incident as the time when the stories of Esau‘s relationship with Jacob had become established, placing Edom in a second-class posi34 W OLFF 1977:159. In footnote 192, Wolff listed the attestations of ‫ זכר ברית‬in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Ezekiel. 35 W OLFF 1977:159–160. 36 W.H. SCHMIDT 1965:176 also considered this oracle as later than the set of four. Soggin 1987:39–40, while normally following Wolff, considered the question of the Tyre oracle‘s authenticity as remaining open. 37 PRIEST 1965:403. 38 PRIEST 1965:406 admitted that ―this argument may not prove convincing.‖ 39 F ISHBANE 1970. B ARRÉ 1985 followed Fishbane, rendering ―his brother‖ in Amos 1:11 as ―his treaty-partner.‖ 40 SCHOVILLE 1974. 41 FISHBANE 1970:317.

Unity, Disunity, and Problems of Dating in the Book of Amos

15

tion.42 However, Bartlett argued that Edom is not referred to as a ―brother‖ in a treaty sense.43 An explanation using both biblical and extrabiblical evidence was offered by Cazelles, who pointed out that the Phoenician cities allied themselves with Assyria in 735, and that the Nimrud letters relate that Assyrian officers in Phoenicia had relations in Moab. From this he speculated that in the expanded regional trade environment provided by the Assyrian empire, Phoenicians sold slaves with Assyrian consent to Edom.44 The Edom oracle was dated by Cazelles somewhat earlier, to the time when, according to II Kings 16:6, Edom45 acquired Elath from Judah while Jerusalem was besieged by King Rezin of Aram during the SyroEphraimite war.46 Thus, Tyre broke its treaty dating back to Solomon by selling (presumably Israelite) exiles to Edom, while Edom itself violated its vassal status to Judah by seizing its Red Sea port. The difficulties with all of these proposals are that they assume both that real historical incidents must be referred to by the oracles, and that the victims of the crimes must be Israelites and/or Judahites. These are probably simply generic war crimes, and may not refer to any specific incidents at all, nor have any specific victims. 47 However, the oracle against Edom does seem to fit particularly well in the exilic or post-exilic period. As Wolff pointed out, Edom‘s behavior is expressed in similar terms in other more definitely post-586 BCE biblical texts. 48 Ezekiel 35:5 accuses Edom of cherishing an ―eternal enmity‖ (in different words than in Amos), and of attacking the people of Israel with the sword. And of course Obadiah features similar themes, portraying Edom as Israel‘s brother (Ob 10), and taking captives (Ob 14). Although it is possible that these citations are dependent on Amos (although the wording is not the same), while in Amos the Edom reference may have been generic like the other oracles, a post586 context for the Edom oracle does seem most fitting in this case. Before making a judgment on the literary relationships of the other oracles, the Judah oracle will be presently examined. 1.3.3. The Oracle against Judah (Amos 2:4–5) The Judah oracle is most distinctive for accusing the nation in question of rejecting the ―torah of Yahweh‖ (tôrat yhwh), of not observing Yahweh‘s 42

B ARTLETT 1977:21. B ARTLETT 1977:10–16. 44 CAZELLES 1977:76. 45 Emended from MT ―Aram‖ in agreement with LXX. 46 CAZELLES 1977:76. 47 This is not to say that the destructions of the various cities are fictitious or rhetorical; only that the crimes are not verifiable as of yet, and may not ever be if they are only rhetorical. 48 W OLFF 1977:160. 43

16

Chapter One

statutes, and of following after the lies which their fathers had followed. The appearance of ―torah‖ here was seen by W.H. Schmidt and others as a sign of dtr production, 49 especially since the verb mʾs is a frequent dtr term for rejection of the torah. 50 This verse has been very important in identifying a dtr hand in this book, as Lohfink wrote of 2:5, ―This is the cornerstone of the edifice of proofs for the Deuteronomistic redaction of Amos.‖51 W.H. Schmidt cited I Samuel 8:7, 10:19 and II Kings 17:15 as examples of the use of mʾs in the context of rejecting Yahweh, 52 to which Wolff added I Samuel 15:23, 26. 53 The II Kings reference refers to rejecting the ḥuqqîm, ―statutes‖, while I Samuel 15 features māʾastā ʾet dĕbar yhwh, rejection of Yahweh. Yet Lohfink argued that the vocabulary of this oracle is not necessarily dtr, writing that ―to reject the teaching [torah] of Yahweh‖ is ―a prophetic expression,‖ and cited Isaiah 5:24, Jeremiah 6:19, 8:8–9 and Hosea 4:6.54 Only the Isaiah and Jer 6:19 references actually have the phrase in a form similar to Amos 2:5: ―for they have rejected the torah of Yahweh of hosts‖ in Isa. 5:24, and ―my torah they rejected‖ in Jer 6:19. The verb mʾs is used with dĕbar yhwh in Jer 8:9, with wĕtôrat yhwh ʾīttānû in the previous verse, and Hosea 4:6 has wattiškaḥ tôrat ʾĕlōhêkā in parallel with kî ʾattāh haddaʿat māʾastā. So, while this phrase may not be dtr, it should not be considered a ―prophetic expression‖ either, as it does not appear very often in prophetic literature. It may yet be dtr, as the prophetic phrases similar to Amos 2:4 may themselves be dtr, especially those in Jeremiah. Lohfink argued that the phrase ―tôrat yhwh‖ is not dtr, as the books considered to be dtr consistently use the phrase ―tôrat mōšeh,‖ torah of Moses.55 While W.H. Schmidt argued that the parallelism of torah with ḥōq is dtr, citing Deut 17:19 and II Kings 17:37, Lohfink countered that there are 19 exceptions to this. W.H. Schmidt cited Deut 6:14, 8:19, 4:3 and elsewhere as examples of the dtr nature of ―following other gods,‖ which Lohfink accepted as dtr, but Amos 2:4 has the Judahites following ―lies,‖ which Wolff considered as non-dtr.56 Additionally, Lohfink pointed out that some of the phraseology in Amos 2:4 is also found in material tra49

W.H. SCHMIDT 1965:177. W OLFF 1977:164. 51 LOHFINK 1999:44. 52 W.H. SCHMIDT 1965:177. 53 W OLFF 1977:163 fn 255. 54 LOHFINK 1999:44. Lohfink was arguing that the identification of dtr elements in Amos (W.H. Schmidt and his followers) was a case of ―Pan-Deuteronomism,‖ the phenomenon of finding dtr in too many places in the Hebrew Bible. For this issue cf. PERSON 1993, referenced below and more extensively in Chapter Six. 55 LOHFINK 1999:44. 56 W OLFF 1977:164, LOHFINK 1999:44. 50

Unity, Disunity, and Problems of Dating in the Book of Amos

17

ditionally considered part of the Priestly material, such as Leviticus and Ezekiel. 57 In view of all this, it must remain uncertain whether some or all of the Oracles against the Nations were produced by dtr writers. R. Person has warned against an overly rigid typology of what is and is not dtr, arguing that ―dtr‖ should be thought of as a broad literary tradition (or traditions) that went through various permutations and modifications. 58 So, perhaps Lohfink‘s arguments may be demanding more literary consistency than should be expected from dtr writers. A more agnostic stance is all that can be taken here, as the lack of precise similarity with dtr language leaves the question of dtr authorship of the Judah oracle open but not certain. Yet the most striking feature of the oracle is not its dtr-like language or its targeting of Judah, but instead that it holds Judah accountable for not following the torah, while this crucial charge is not once leveled against Israel in the entire book. Unless Israel was somehow not considered under torah authority while Judah was, this oracle, at least as it exists now with the ―torah‖ reference, must be separate from the condemnations of Israel in the rest of the book. This oracle most likely derives from a later time, when the concept of ―torah‖ had taken hold at least in some circles as representative of Yahweh‘s will. This oracle was probably added after Jerusalem‘s destruction in order to apply the condemnations in Amos to Judah. Being that the Edom oracle also seems to reflect conditions after Jerusalem‘s destruction and has the same form as the Judah oracle, this one too probably comes from the exilic or post-exilic period, probably from the same hand. Additionally, the Tyre oracle, with its apparent near-literal borrowing of the accusation from the Gaza oracle and again the same form as the Edom and Judah oracles, could also be from the same author. Yet, the similarities between the Tyre and Gaza oracles might not be an instance of borrowing, but of the same phrase being used by the same author. Thus, these may also be from the same hand, regardless of the Gaza oracle‘s longer ending. As noted above, the different endings of the oracles do not mean that they are from different hands. As will be argued below in Chapter Six, all seven oracles from 1:3 to 2:5 are probably secondary to the book of Amos as a whole.

57 A more complex view of the dtr nature of the Judah oracle was proposed by G OSSE 1988. He suggested that Dtr imitated Amos‘s oracles against Aram and Israel, and then applied this type to its narrative of the destruction of Judah. Dtr‘s Judah material was then applied to Amos. This raises the possibility of multidirectional influence between Dtr and Amos. 58 PERSON 1993:98.

18

Chapter One

1.3.4. The Broad Structure of the Oracles against the Nations There has been much discussion about the number of original oracles and how removing one or more of them affects the original. The most sophisticated argument for the literary necessity of retaining the first six oracles was made by Paul, who argued that all of these oracles are linked together inextricably in a ―concatenous literary pattern.‖ 59 The Damascus oracle is linked to the Gaza oracle by the phrases ―I will cut off the inhabitants from…and him that holds the sceptre from…‖ The Gaza and Tyre oracles are of course linked by the exiling of a whole population, and the Tyre and Edom oracles are linked by the brother theme, with the Ammon and Moab oracles linked by a shouting theme. The Ammonites are accused of the war atrocity of ripping open pregnant women, while Edom is accused of pursuing his brother while stifling his mercy (wĕšīḥēt raḥămāyw). Paul interpreted raḥămāywin view of the word rḥm, ―womb,‖ as ―women.‖ He took šīḥēt as ―destroy,‖ reading the phrase as ―he destroyed his women.‖ 60 As Paul says, ―The choice of this unique phrase creates the contextual literary link between the crimes committed by Edom and Ammon: both nations wielded the sword in order to kill womenfolk.‖61 A view of these oracles as having separate origins could argue that the links between the Damascus and Gaza oracles on the one hand and the Tyre and Edom oracles on the other are explicable by each pair having been composed by separate authors, while the Gaza-Tyre linkage could be explicable by the Tyre oracle‘s dependence on that against Gaza. Paul‘s theory of a concatenous pattern is dependent on the linkage between the Edom and Ammon oracles, which he granted ―is admittedly the only one that does not contain an exactly identical word or phrase.‖ 62 As the Ammon oracle does not use rḥm, the linkage is more interpretive than literal. Yet with these considerations in mind, Paul‘s concatenous pattern may suggest some of the compositional methodology of the author(s) of Amos 1:3–2:3 and perhaps unity among them. Paul also argued that removing any of the oracles breaks up the numerical 7+1 scheme. He listed a series of cases from biblical and extrabiblical ancient Near Eastern material to show how ―in the pattern of seven-eight, eight functions as the paired number with seven in an ascending staircase parallelism and, similar to seven, may even express the concept of culmi59

P AUL 1971 and P AUL 1991:13–15. P AUL 1991:64–65. 61 P AUL 1991:65. However, B ARTLETT 1977:12 noted that the victimization of women even in the Ammon oracle is not secure, as NEB translated Ammon‘s crime as ―because in their greed for land they invaded the ploughlands of Gilead.‖ This would make the parallel more solid between the ripping action and the expansion of territory. 62 P AUL 1991:14. 60

Unity, Disunity, and Problems of Dating in the Book of Amos

19

nation or climactic finish.‖63 However, if the oracles against Tyre, Edom and Judah are removed, five oracles remain, which Jeremias argued would balance the five visions, concluding with utter destruction upon Israel. 64 Yet, it is unclear what would have motivated an author to write oracles against only some of the surrounding nations (Aram, Philistia, Ammon, Moab) and not the others (Phoenicia, Edom, Judah). It should be noted that the non-Israel oracles are all more similar in form to each other than to the oracle against Israel (which shares only the beginning in common with the rest), and it has already been seen that the Judah oracle most likely dates to the exilic or post-exilic periods. Thus, a better explanation is that all seven are a set from the same literary stratum, as will be further argued in Chapter Six below. The non-Israel oracles have been viewed by some as having a separate origin from the rest of the book. Kaufmann, for example, considered all the oracles except those against Judah and Israel as a pre-Amos series adopted into the book.65 Würthwein proposed that the oracles except for that against Israel derived from Amos‘s earlier career as a cultic Heilsprophet, and that the Israel oracle was added by the same prophet later. 66 More similar to the view taken here is that of Fritz, who argued that all of Amos 1:3–2:5 was composed after Amos‘s condemnations of Israel seemed to come true in 722, after which Amos‘s message was enlarged as part of the theology of the universal god. 67 He argued that the crimes against humanity referred to in the various oracles are stereotypical and not historical, and he observed literary differences between the Oracles against the Nations and the rest of the book of Amos, particularly the formal, structured style of the oracles. Fritz also noted that Kir appears as the Aramean homeland in Amos 9:7, but also as a destination of Aram‘s exile in 1:5. Fritz suggested that the author(s) of 1:5 drew upon II Kings 16:9, which describes Tiglath-pileser‘s deportation of Arameans in 734, suggesting again that these oracles are from a time after the Assyrian invasions of the late eighth century. 68 Thus, Fritz presented all of 1:3–2:5 as a vaticinium ex eventu, or postdiction prophecy, dating shortly after the fall of Israel. 69 What then is the effect of removing Amos 1:3–2:5? This provides for a closer semantic link between the ―motto‖ of 1:2 with the beginning of the Israel oracle in 2:6. The motto presents the ―voice,‖ qôl, of Yahweh being 63

P AUL 1991:22. JEREMIAS 1998:21. 65 KAUFMANN 1960:364. 66 W ÜRTHWEIN 1950:35–40. 67 FRITZ 1987, esp. pp. 37–38. Fritz considered much of this material to derive from dtr tradition, which is certainly possible, as discussed above. 68 FRITZ 1987:34–37, also HARAN 2008:256. 69 Against F RITZ, see Pfeifer‘s response at P FEIFER 1988. 64

20

Chapter One

uttered from Jerusalem, causing the shepherds‘ pastures and the top of Carmel to wither and dry up. This qôl, the voice that damages Carmel, can then be identified with the mysterious ―it‖ of the ―I will not cause it to return‖ (lōʾ ʾăšîbennû) of 2:6.70 Qôl is masculine, as is the suffix of lōʾ ʾăšîbennû, and if all the other oracles were originally absent, the text moves directly from the anti-Carmel, pro-Jerusalem motto to the oracle at 2:6. Thus, the text would read, ―Yhwh roars from Zion, and utters his voice from Jerusalem, the pastures of the shepherds whither, and the top of Carmel dries up. For three transgressions and for four, I will not cause it (Yhwh‘s qôl) to return (to Zion/Jerusalem).‖ The dry land in 1:2 can be compared to the dust of the earth in 2:7, 71 and Carmel of 1:272 can be compared to the wine of 2:8. It is typical in studies of these oracles to imagine Amos‘s hypothetical Northern audiences getting drawn in by the condemnations of foreign nations, only to be victims of a rhetorical bait-and-switch, as they are surprised by the unexpected appearance of Israel at the end. 73 The removal of these other oracles would eliminate that surprise, which could seem to take out a major rhetorical technique in this section of the book. However, if 1:2 is considered original, this surprise is impossible, since Carmel 74 is already specifically singled out as a victim of Yahweh‘s wrath coming from Jerusalem. If a historical Amos was publicly delivering all this as a speech, there would be no chance of drawing in a Northern audience after beginning with 1:2. Also, the element of surprise would be gone after the first reading or telling anyway and, as Philip Davies argued, these texts were probably spoken and read over and over again. 75 The similar introductory sections of the other seven oracles to that against Israel do not mean that they are of contemporary origin. Most likely, the earlier seven oracles were composed specifically for the book of Amos, and are based on the pattern of 2:6a for their beginnings, but then have a fairly consistent structure all of their own. These oracles do have 70 Cf. KNIERIM 1977 for the proposal that the ―it‖ refers to Yahweh‘s anger, his ʾāp, which burns like the fire that consumes the palaces and strongholds. LINVILLE 2000:416– 417 points out that interpreting the ―it‖ as referring to the voice ―has the strength of pro viding a clear referent for the suffix prior to its first occurrence.‖ 71 For an alternate reading of the ―dust of the earth‖ passage at Amos 2:7, cf. B EWER 1903. For another reading, that the rich are kicking dust in the faces of the poor who walk behind them (at least figuratively), cf. O REL 1997:408–411. 72 While meaning ―new grain‖ or ―orchard,‖ this toponym may be derived from (and understood as related to) kerem, ―vineyard.‖ Cf. MULDER, esp. p. 336. 73 E.g., B ARTON 1980:1–4. 74 There is another Carmel, in Judah, eight miles southeast of Hebron ( DEVRIES 1992:873). However, the Carmel of Amos 1:2 is generally read either as the mountain itself or the northern kingdom in general. 75 P. DAVIES 2000.

Unity, Disunity, and Problems of Dating in the Book of Amos

21

accusations against the nations for crimes against humanity that mark them as different from the Oracles against the Nations in other prophetic books. This again shows that they were probably tailor-made for the book of Amos, condemning the nations in a way that Amos might have condemned them (although these condemnations are never referenced again in the book of Amos). So, with all this in consideration, it is argued here that Amos 1:3–2:5 is a separate composition that was added to the book of Amos in the exilic period, and it will be shown in Chapter Six below that they probably date after 553 BCE. The lack of any hope or sense of restoration for Judah suggests that they may date to a time before the Persian support for the rebuilding of Jerusalem, and thus may indicate that 1:3–2:5 dates to between 553–538 BCE. The removal of the oracles against foreign nations from the earliest layer of the book of Amos can serve to connect 1:2 with the oracle against Israel, and explain the ―it‖ of that oracle, which would have been subsequently imitated in the other oracles when they were added. 1.3.5. The Oracle against Israel There are a few verse fragments in the oracle against Israel that have been seen as later additions. Amos 2:7 has an awkwardly-phrased verse that seems to read, ―who trample 76 on the dust of the earth in (or on) the head of the poor.‖ The ―on the dust of the earth‖ portion has been seen by some as a later addition, leaving the original as, ―they trample upon the head of the poor.‖77 Bewer suggested a haplography of the characters ‫ ר‬and ‫ש‬, such that the verse would read, ―who trample (crush) to the dust of the earth and oppress the poorest of all.‖ 78 Some emendation like this may be called for, but the verse as it is communicates a consistent message of crushing the poor (in)to dust. The awkwardness of this verse is not compelling enough to remove any of it to a later redaction. In the same verse, the phrase ―in order to profane my holy name‖ was also considered to be later by Wolff, since this phrase ―belongs to the language of Ezekiel and the Holiness Code‖ with lĕmaʾan being similar to Dtr. 79 Paul argued that the verse should be retained, saying that it serves the context well. 80 He cited Lev 18:21, where a similar phrase follows a list of sexual crimes, as the pas-

In line with LXX  , taking the root as šwp (tread), not šʾp (gasp, pant over). 77 W OLFF 1977:133. 78 B EWER 1903:116. Bewer reads rōʾš dallîm not as ―head of the poor, but the very poorest.‖ 79 W OLFF 1977:133–134. See also JEREMIAS 1998:38. 80 P AUL 1991:83 76

22

Chapter One

sage in Amos follows one apparently dealing with a sexual crime. 81 This could then suggest attributing both 2:7b and c to a Priestly redactor or simply the presence of a Priestly-type phrase in even the oldest layer of the book of Amos. While probability on literary grounds could suggest that the verse or verse fragment is an addition from a later Priestly tradition, it could also have been a similar phrase original to its context in the book of Amos. The phrases, ―beside every altar‖ and ―in the house of their god,‖ were seen as later additions by Wolff, as interpretations based on Hosea 4:13–14.82 These fragments pose no problem as they are, and criticisms of altars are common in the book of Amos.

1.4. Exodus Traditions in Amos The recitals of Israel‘s exodus and settlement history at Amos 2:10–12 and 3:1b were identified by W.H. Schmidt as separate and dtr in origin. W.H. Schmidt pointed out that 2:9 addresses Israel in the third person plural along with the rest of the Oracles against the Nations, whereas it is addressed in the second person plural in 2:10. 83 Additionally, 2:9 deals with the conquest, whereas 2:10 deals with the exodus, such that they are chronologically in reverse order. 84 Amos 3:1 also has a change in person, whereby Yahweh is in the third person in the first half of the verse, and in first person in the second half. 85 Additionally (and less convincingly), ―children of Israel‖ is spoken of in the first half, whereas the term ―tribe‖ or ―clan‖ (mišpāḥā(h)) is used in the second half. In W.H. Schmidt‘s view, 3:1a is dtr, on the basis of the phrase ―the word of Yahweh which he spoke,‖ which appears in numerous instances in the books of Kings. This phrase is not used in the similar headings to chapters 4 and 5. He argued further that the description of the exodus in 2:10 is similar to that in 3:1 and that the mention of the forty years in the wilderness appears again only in Deut 29:4a (5a Eng), and that the phrase ―to possess the land‖ is dtr. 3:1b anticipates 3:2 in its use of the first person for Yahweh and the catch word mišpāḥā(h), linking it with 3:2, which also uses that word. Schmidt saw the mišpāḥā(h) phrase as a traditional election formula. 86 The division of 3:1 into two halves with 3:1b as an addition is almost universally agreed to, such that even S. Paul seemed to include this in one 81

P AUL 1991:83. There has been some discussion of the nature of this crime; e.g., Bronznick 1985 demonstrated the use of hlk (―go‖) in sexual contexts. 82 W OLFF 1977:134. 83 W.H. SCHMIDT 1965:180. 84 W.H. SCHMIDT 1965:180. 85 W.H. SCHMIDT 1965:172. 86 W.H. SCHMIDT 1965:172–173.

Unity, Disunity, and Problems of Dating in the Book of Amos

23

of his few instances of additions to Amos. 87 The secondary nature of 3:1a has not been generally accepted, 88 and as Paul points out, removing it would destroy the inclusio with 3:8, where there is again the connection between yhwh and dībber.89 Nonetheless, the dtr status of 2:10–12 and 3:1 has been challenged. The verb used for Yahweh‘s removal of the Israelites from Egypt is ʿlh in Amos whereas it is yṣʾ in all but one instance in Deuteronomy (20:1), and in the DtrH the two terms are used about equally. 90 The phrase ―I brought you up (ʿlh) out of Egypt‖ appears also in non-dtr sources.91 So, the phraseology in Amos 2:10 and 3:1b is not necessarily Deuteronomistic. It should be noted, however, that Wolff offered the explanation that the dtr texts use ʿlh instead of yṣʾ in retrospective statements about the gift of the land to Israel and references to conflicts with Israel‘s enemies.92 So, since both terms were available to Dtr, Wolff argued that the choice of ʿlh here is appropriate to the context. Yet ʿlh is used again in the exodus theme in Amos 9:7, a passage which Wolff considered ―unquestionably older‖ 93 and dated to the school of Amos of the late eighth century. The exodus motif appears again in 5:25, wherein the Israelites are said to have given no sacrifices in the forty year journey in the wilderness, and was considered dtr by both W.H. Schmidt and Wolff,94 as well as the following verse 26 (which will be revisited below). However, the idea of a wilderness experience devoid of sacrificial worship is foreign to Dtr, with the possible exception of Jeremiah 7:22. Jeremias considered Amos 5:25 to be influenced by Hosea, in line with that book‘s criticisms of the belief in the automatic efficacy of excessive sacrifices. 95 In consideration of the above, it appears possible but not certain that the exodus references are dtr in origin. Amos 3:1b, with its inclusion of the ―whole family that I brought up from the land of Egypt,‖ was most likely a later addition to the original 3:1a, possibly dtr in origin, that served to ex pand the book‘s target around the same time the Oracles against the Nations were added with their condemnation of Judah.

87

P AUL 1991:100. W OLFF 1977:174 considered 3:1a original, 3:1b Dtr. 89 P AUL 1991:100. 90 HOBBS 1969:384–387 and LOHFINK 1999:42–43. 91 LOHFINK 1999:42 cites Exod 3:8,17; Lev 11:45; Mic. 6:4 and Ps. 81:11. 92 W OLFF 1977:169–170. 93 W OLFF 1977:169 and 346–347. 94 SCHMIDT 1965:188–199, WOLFF 1977:259–262. 95 JEREMIAS 1996:105. 88

24

Chapter One

1.5. Disputed Passages in Amos 3–4 Another verse that has attracted scholarly attention for possibly being an addition is 3:7. This verse seems to interrupt a series of rhetorical questions with the declarative statement that ―indeed my lord Yhwh does not do anything without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets.‖ This verse was considered a dtr addition by W.H. Schmidt, particularly since the description of prophets as ―servants‖ of Yahweh is very frequent in dtr literature.96 Wolff generally followed W.H. Schmidt in this regard, 97 although both stated that the verse is not entirely dtr, in that the phrase ―‘to reveal a plan [or secret]‘ (glh swd) is otherwise at home in proverbial wisdom.‖98 This had earlier caused Terrien to ascribe this expression to a sapiential background.99 However, W.H. Schmidt and Wolff nonetheless argued that this was dtr, based on the sôd yhwh, or ―council of Yahweh‖ in Jeremiah 23:18, 22.100 Other scholars have disputed both this verse‘s separate origin and its dtr authorship. On the issue of a separate origin, Gitay has argued that the verse serves an important function in the discourse in that it asserts the prophet‘s authority in the face of questions of how he can know that the listed sequences of events really mean what he claims they mean. 101 After the series of rhetorical questions, the poet breaks out of poetry into prose for dramatic, emphasizing effect, asserting his authority as a prophet who receives God‘s information. Gitay argued that ―the verse in its context and its style has a significant rhetorical function, and in this light it may be authentic.‖102 However, the fact that the verse can serve a function in the chapter does not mean that it is original to the surrounding material in the chapter. Paul attempted to link it more closely to its context by pointing out its linguistic similarities with its context, in the presence of God‘s act ing (ʾśh) from 3:6 and the mention of prophets, as in 3:8. This argument uses the same methodology that Paul used to argue for the integrity of the disputed oracles in the Oracles against the Nations by means of a ―concatenous literary pattern.‖ Yet a disputed verse‘s linguistic links with its 96

W.H. SCHMIDT 1965:183–187. W.H. Schmidt on p. 185 cited the phrase ―seine Knechte, die Propheten‖ at II Kings 17:13, 23; 21:10; 24:2; Jer 7:25; 25:4; 26:5; 35:15; 44:4 and elsewhere. 97 W.H. Schmidt considered 3:8 to be separate from 3:3–6, while Wolff regarded 3:3– 6, 8 as an integral whole. 98 W OLFF 1977:187 cited Proverbs 11:13; 20:19, and 25:9. 99 TERRIEN 1962:112. 100 W.H. SCHMIDT 1965:186 and W OLFF 1977:187. For a recent argument that a divine council is addressed in Amos 3:13, cf. BOKOVOY 2008. 101 GITAY 1980:304–305. 102 GITAY 1980:305.

Unity, Disunity, and Problems of Dating in the Book of Amos

25

context can just as easily be explained by a redactor‘s imitating the context to enmesh the new passage. Gitay may be correct in saying that the fact that the verse is a break from poetry into prose does not alone make it separate from its context. Additionally, the question of the verse‘s source, since it has both dtr and wisdom language in it, presents another problem for how this verse is to be regarded.103 Auld observed an interesting phenomenon regarding the phrase ―his servants the prophets,‖ in that while this phrase is indeed common in dtr literature, the phrase is surprisingly missing in the parallel passages of II Kings in II Chronicles where it would be expected. Auld noted that there is no reason why this phrase would not have been used by the Chronicler, since it is both common in the DtrH and consistent with Chronistic views of Yhwh‘s relations with Israel. Thus, Auld argued that the edition of the DtrH available to the Chronicler must not have contained this phrase, so Auld proposed a later post-Chronistic redaction of the DtrH that inserted the phrase. 104 In line with this, Auld proposed that Amos 3:7 is also a product of this ―his servants the prophets‖ redaction, which Auld dated to the time of the composition of Ezra, Nehemiah, and the newer introduction to Zechariah. This redactional level added this passage to Amos 3 in order to assert that Amos was indeed a prophet, despite Amos‘s disclaimers to the contrary (in 7:14, which Auld considered to be earlier).105 In this view, Amos 3:7 is thus not exactly deuteronomistic, but part of a late redactional process which also worked on II Kings, and may have also made use of sapiential phraseology. If Auld‘s view of the post-dtr usage of this phrase is correct and yet if this phrase is original to a text dating to the late eighth-century or early seventh-century, then this verse presents a very early instance of the phrase. As will be discussed below, Amos‘s rejection of prophetic status in 7:14 is dated to the post-exilic period in a climate of ―anti-prophecy‖; so, this apparently pro-prophetic passage is probably earlier. There is no compelling reason here to separate Amos 3:7 from its context. The next disputed passage for consideration here is Amos 4:6–11. In line with the trend in mid-twentieth-century scholarship to locate the biblical prophets within Israelite professions and particularly in the cult, Reventlow noted the similarity between this passage and the series of curses at the end of the Holiness Code in Leviticus 26, especially involving the refrain ―I for my part.‖106 Reventlow argued that Amos 4:6–11 was pat103 While LOHFINK 1999 challenged the view of dtr redaction of Amos, he only discussed 2:4–5, 2:10, and 3:1. Lohfink did not address the other arguments for dtr redaction from this point on. 104 AULD 1991: 8. 105 AULD 1991:12–13. 106 REVENTLOW 1962:83–84.

26

Chapter One

terned after these covenant curses, and that Amos delivered his version in his position as a cultic prophet. Brueggemann accepted this, and expanded the passage to include 4:4–5 and 4:12–13. While Reventlow considered the satire at 4:4–5 as a separate unit, Brueggemann argued that it served as an integral introduction to the larger passage in that it condemned the ineffective ways in which the Israelites were trying to confirm the covenant.107 This becomes more appropriate when considered in view of the conclusion at verse 12, which Brueggemann saw not as contradictory to the preceding material, but as showing that a covenantal relationship with Yahweh was possible if approached correctly, and not as the Israelites were doing in 4:4–5.108 He argued that 4:12 was ―a liturgic formula of preparation for covenant-making or renewal which includes both threat and call to repentance,‖ in comparison with Exodus 19 and 34. 109 Brueggemann wrote that the parallels in Exodus suggest that ―the climax of the curse recital is not destruction, but the invitation to Israel that she may repent…and thereby confront the God of Sinai and remake the covenant which she had dissolved by disobedience.‖ 110 Yet these ―parallels‖ are not very close, and 4:12 is consistent with the general theme in Amos that Israel is finished. Also, Lev 26 is not the only place where such a series of curses appears. The end of the Deuteronomic law code, at Deut 28, also features a similar list of curses.111 This verse presents no difficulty if dated after Israel‘s fall, as does the entirety of the book of Amos in the view taken here. Wolff followed Reventlow in seeing 4:6–11 as separate in origin from 4:4–5, which Wolff ascribed to the first, original stage of Amos. Wolff interpreted 4:6–11 in light of I Kings 8:33–35 and ascribed it to the BethelExposition of the Josianic age. 112 In Wolff‘s view, 4:6–11 refers to Josiah‘s actions against Bethel. Wolff argued that 4:6–11 is foreign to Amos‘s thought, in that Amos elsewhere compares Israel‘s behavior with Yahweh‘s acts of deliverance, not punishment, and that Israel‘s guilt is never elsewhere in Amos viewed as obduracy against Yahweh‘s earlier threats. 113 Wolff noted that Amos 4:6–11 is different from Lev 26 and Deut 28 in that those curse lists are directed to the future as punishments by Yahweh to the 107

BRUEGGEMANN 1965:8–10. BRUEGGEMANN 1965:1–8. 109 BRUEGGEMANN 1965:2. 110 BRUEGGEMANN 1965:2. 111 W OLFF 1977:213. 112 W OLFF 1977:111–2 and 212–215. WOLFF 1977: 213 has a chart comparing Amos 4:6–11, Lev 26, Deut 28, and I Kings 8. Wolff‘s Josianic layer of the book consists of expansions of criticisms of Bethel, which Wolff suggested were part of Josiah‘s desecra tion of the Bethel shrine, and performed at the site of shrine. 113 W OLFF 1977:214. 108

Unity, Disunity, and Problems of Dating in the Book of Amos

27

people if they disobey. Wolff argued that only at I Kings 8:33–37 is there a theme of ―return‖ as in Amos 4:6–11. This view was supported by Jeremias, who noted that I Kings 8 portrays the punishments as already having taken place (if viewed retrospectively) in a comparable sequence (famine and drought are reversed). 114 One line of the passage, ―as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah‖ (Amos 4:11), appears verbatim in Isaiah 13:19 and Jer 50:40, both times in comparison with Babylon, and similarly in Jer 49:18 regarding Edom and in Deut 29:22(23 Eng) regarding Israel in general. In view of the probable exilic dates of these texts and of Lev 26 and Deut 28, Jeremias argued that the entire pericope of Amos 4:6–11 ―takes its orientation from a penitential ritual of the exilic community.‖ 115 However, hunger, war and disease are a stock triad in ancient Near Eastern curses, and appear frequently in treaties. Fensham has provided numerous examples of similar types of curses in ancient Near Eastern treaties, such as drought and locusts, 116 and the overturning of the transgressors‘ dwellings is particularly evident in the Esarhaddon treaty. 117 As none of the above-cited biblical passages similar to Amos 4:6–11 are exactly like it, and since the themes in this passage are present in such disparate texts as the Holiness Code and dtr texts as well as in extrabiblical material, 4:6–11 may not be dependent on any of the other biblical instances. While Wolff thought that this passage was foreign to Amos, as stated above, there is no reason why the book could not include statements that Yahweh‘s past actions were ignored.

1.6. The Doxologies in the Book of Amos Chapter 4 concludes with the first of three ―doxologies‖ in the book of Amos (4:13, 5:8–9, and 9:5–6). These are hymnic sections which proclaim Yahweh‘s absolute cosmic sovereignty over nature with participial forms, each concluding with ―Yahweh is his name.‖ While scholarship before World War I saw these sections as marginal remarks by later readers, they have since been seen as sections of a single hymn. 118 Attempts at reconstructing the original hymn have focused on similar passages elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. In the prophetic literature, similar passages appear in Isaiah 47:4; 51:15; 54:4–5, and in Jeremiah 10:12–16 (=51:15–19), 31:35;

114

JEREMIAS 1998:70–72. JEREMIAS 1998:72. 116 FENSHAM 1963:168–169. 117 FENSHAM 1963:162–165. WOLFF 1977:213 was aware of this article. 118 JEREMIAS 1998:76. 115

28

Chapter One

32:18; 33:2, and 50:34. 119 Yet the most striking similarity is at Job 5:8–16 and especially 9:4–10 (yet both of these passages lack the ―Yahweh is his name‖ refrain that appears in the prophetic passages cited above). Since these references in Deutero-Isaiah, Jeremiah and Job are apparently from post-exilic settings, the doxologies have often been seen as post-exilic in origin.120 However, the doxologies in Amos are not exactly like those cited in the other biblical passages, and it is possible that all of these passages are different manifestations of an older hymnic genre. Thus, some scholars have argued that all or at least some of this material derives from the historical Amos or at least from the pre-exilic period. 4:13 has been seen as integrally related to 4:6–12, and connected with it.121 Watts and Paul thus attributed 4:13 to Amos himself, as they had with 4:6–12. Watts saw this as performed during an autumnal new year‘s festival (the feast of Tabernacles), with the other two doxologies added to the book of Amos when it was being collected into a fixed form, either orally or written. 122 The second doxology seems out of place to some, however, since it interrupts a sustained indictment of Israel. 123 Others have seen the locations of all three doxologies in the book as being of significance. Koch noted that the first doxology deals with the fall of cultic high places as does the rest of ch. 4, the second doxology mentions constellations at 5:8 that uphold justice (5:7), and the third features a theophany leading to destruction (a theme picked from 8:4ff.).124 He proposed that each of the doxologies was a conclusion to a partial collection, with the last doxology forming the original conclusion to the entire book. Further, Koch included 1:2 in the pattern, arguing that shepherds‘ pastures in that verse point toward the kingdoms in the Oracles against the Nations.125 Another view that the contextual locations of the doxologies in Amos are important for their interpretation is that of Wolff, who noted that the first two doxologies are in close proximity to passages mentioning Bethel, and that the last one refers to Bethel indirectly by following upon the vision of the destroyed altar. Wolff thus saw the doxologies as expansions on accusations against Bethel, produced during Josiah‘s reign as part of his reform program. 126

119

W OLFF 1977:216 fn. 39. Notably J EREMIAS 1998:76–77. 121 W ATTS 1997:10, JEREMIAS 1998:77, P AUL 1991:153. 122 W ATTS 1997:24–27. 123 For example, P AUL 1991:167–170. 124 KOCH 1974. 125 The association of the shepherds in 1:2 to the kings in the Oracles against the Nations was made also by K APELRUD 1961:19. 126 W OLFF 1977:111 and 224–225. 120

Unity, Disunity, and Problems of Dating in the Book of Amos

29

While these doxologies and the similar passages in Job, Deutero-Isaiah, and Jeremiah may be later representations of a much older hymnic tradition, the presence of this type of material in exilic or post-exilic contexts does suggest that the doxologies in Amos may also be post-exilic. However, this is far from certain. Since the doxologies may be intrusive and are not essential to their literary contexts in the book of Amos, their dating may not affect the dating of the remainder of the book.

1.7. Disputed Verses and Chiastic Structuring in Amos 5 The fifth chapter of the book of Amos has numerous problems, with several cases of disputed verses. The condemnation of pilgrimages to Beersheba in 5:5 can appear to be a later addition on the grounds that Bethel and Gilgal are given punishments in that verse whereas Beer-sheba is not; however, as will be shown below, the retention of Beer-sheba makes good sense considering the book‘s historical situation and polemics. While both Bethel and Gilgal are condemned in 5:5, only Bethel is attacked in 5:6, and this latter verse refers to Israel as the ―house of Joseph,‖ a term somewhat unusual in Amos. The focus on Bethel alone in this verse led Wolff to conclude that this was another Josianic addition. 127 Then of course the doxology in 5:8–9 is disputed, and even the order of passages within the doxology is questioned, since the ―Yahweh is his name‖ refrain is at the end of verse 8 while the doxology continues into verse 9. 5:14–15 have been seen as a separate unit as well, and this unit also contains a reference to Joseph. Small chiasms have been observed in some of these units, such as at 5:4–5 and 5:14–15. 5:25–26 reflects conditions at least after the fall of Israel to Assyria, as it refers to the god Sakkuth, which could be the same as the deity ―Succoth-benoth‖ imported into Samaria by Assyria in II Kings 17:30.128 This section was seen as dtr by W.H. Schmidt, particularly 5:26 on account of the presence of an apparently Assyrian deity in a text supposedly predating the Assyrian conquest. In order to keep this verse in a 760s BCE context, Paul argued that the worship of Sakkuth could have been imported into Israel via contact with Arameans, who in turn had closer contacts with Assyria. 129 This historical difficulty is of course eliminated by dating the entire earliest level of Amos to a date after the Assyrian conquest of Israel, as is done here. Additionally, 5:27 states that Israel will be exiled ―beyond Damascus,‖ seemingly aware of conditions after Israel‘s 127

W OLFF 1977:240. The historical issues regarding this deity‘s appearance in the book of Amos will be discussed more extensively in section 2.3 below. 129 P AUL 1991:197. 128

30

Chapter One

fall, around four decades after the prophet Amos supposedly lived. Again, a later dating fixes this problem, and this will be examined further in the next chapter. Despite the apparent redactional chaos in this chapter, larger chiasms have been observed that could pull the entire section 5:1–17 together into a single composition, complete with its doxology. J. De Waard proposed a large chiastic structure for this whole section, centering on the doxology itself.130 Amos 5:1–3 mirrors 5:16–17 in that both involve lamentation and wailing, 5:4–6 mirrors 5:14–15 in that both involve seeking Yhwh and both refer to Joseph. 5:7 mirrors 5:10–12 in that both mention justice and righteousness, and 5:8 mirrors 5:9 in that they are both hymnic doxological passages. The entire chiasm centers on the ―Yahweh is his name‖ invocation in 5:8, thus explaining why this is in the middle and not at the end of the doxology. 131 Thus, 5:1–17 is a ring composition framed by lamentation and centered on Yahweh‘s sovereignty and identity as the source of the punishment. This observation of a large chiasm was expanded by Rotzoll, who proposed a larger chiasm overarching all of 1:2–9:6, centered, like De Waard‘s chiasm, at 5:8. De Waard stated that he was making no claims regarding the date of his chiasm in ch. 5, as his was essentially a final-form argument.132 Rotzoll proposed a twelve-stage redaction of the book of Amos, formed into an overarching chiasm belonging to a stage in the first half of the fifth century BCE, and that 5:9 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in 586. 133 These proposals of chiastic structuring however beg the question of exactly what later redactors had to work with, and whether or not they actually created complex chiasms from extant material with new additions. Such chiasms could instead point toward whole cloth compositions, designed to be chiastic from the outset, without the added task of creating a chiasm where there was none before. A chiasm longer than a biblical chapter would probably be too long to be noticed by hearers or readers. 134

130

DE W AARD 1977. If this doxology is a later intrusion, its absence would still not disrupt the chiasm, since the central portion of a ring composition can be removed without affecting the parallel structures. 132 DE W AARD 1977:173. 133 ROTZOLL 1996:287–288. For a recent proposal of a chiasm that includes the whole final form of the book of Amos, cf. GARRETT 2008:7. 134 CARR 2003:64–65 warns that in ancient oral cultures, readers did not usually sit and read books from beginning to end, so overly-complex structures may not have been apparent to them. 131

Unity, Disunity, and Problems of Dating in the Book of Amos

31

1.8. Problems and Solutions in Amos 6 5:1–17 is followed by a series of so-called ―woe‖ oracles from the rest of chapter 5 to all of ch. 6. This series is broken up into two sections, each headed by ―hôy‖ (―alas, woe‖), creating the units 5:18–25, 6:1–14.135 The second of these ―woe‖ oracles, 6:1–14, has presented problems in dating, in that 6:2 seems to refer to the defeats of Calneh, Hamath and Gath. Calneh and Hamath were conquered by the Assyrians in 738 BCE, while Gath (the only member of the Philistine pentapolis absent from the oracle against Philistia in 1:6–8) was not defeated by the Assyrians until 711. This can be a problem for those who date the book to the 760s, but not if there is a more convincing historical explanation or the date is moved down to after the Assyrian invasions of Palestine. This will be further discussed in the next chapter. A more literary problem appears at 6:1, where Zion is mentioned in parallel with Mount Samaria as ―the notables of the first of the nations, and the house of Israel goes to them.‖ This, along with the heavily disputed oracle against Judah (2:4–5), is the only apparently anti-Judah statement in the entire book of Amos, unless the various ―sons of Israel‖ and ―house of Israel‖ passages are read as referring to both kingdoms. 136 This seems to conflict with 1:2, where Zion is clearly praised as the source of Yahweh‘s voice, and 7:15, where Amos seems to say that he was commissioned to prophecy against Israel, and not Judah. Also, aside from this instance at 6:1 and 2:4–5, every time any specific place is criticized in the book of Amos it is always Samaria, Bethel, and Gilgal, except for the references to Beer-sheba in 5:5 and 8:14 which, as will be discussed below, refer most likely to religious pilgrims going to illegitimate shrines. If false worship at Jerusalem were intended there, it probably would have appeared. To all this it has been said that ―why should not Amos, a Judean, be allowed in

135 RSV and NRSV insert another ―alas‖ without comment at the beginning of 6:4, creating another woe section. This was followed by COGGINS 2000:134, where he labeled Amos 6:4–7 as ―Another lament introduced by hoi.‖ COGGINS 2000:8 is openly based on NRSV, as he said, ―what is offered here is a commentary upon the Masoretic Hebrew text in its traditional form, normally as represented by the…NRSV.‖ COGGINS apparently had only the NRSV and not the Hebrew in consideration regarding 6:4, or he should at least have noted that NRSV departs from the Hebrew there. KJV and JPS do not have any ―alas‖ or ―woe‖ at 6:4. NKJV and W OLFF 1977:272 insert a ―woe‖ at 6:3, but both make it clear that it is not in the Hebrew. 136 Cf. M CCONVILLE 2006 for arguments that both the northern and southern kingdoms are intended in the book of Amos. While the term ―Israel‖ does come to refer to the ―whole‖ nation over time, when the book of Amos refers to ―Israel‖ with any specificity, it is generally directed towards Samaria and the north.

32

Chapter One

the course of his address to touch on his own homeland?‖137 Yet, on a literary level, Zion is included with Samaria as one of the places to which the house of Israel goes. 138 House of Israel (bêt yiśrāʾēl) is more definitely referring to the northern kingdom than children of Israel (bĕnê yiśrāʾēl); if so, Amos 6:1 seems to portray the northern kingdom as looking toward Zion as well as Samaria in some way. Yet, part of the entire theme of the book of Amos is that the northerners are going to Bethel and Gilgal, and apparently not Jerusalem. This could be a political reference, referring perhaps to Israel‘s attempts at survival in the face of Assyrian invasions. Perhaps the house of Israel ―going‖ to Zion is a reference to the SyroEphraimite war, in which Israel attempted to compel Judah to support it militarily. Yet this does not then explain who are those ―at ease‖ (hašaʾānannîm) in Zion. Maybe these would be pro-northerners in Zion to whom Israelites were appealing, or anti-northerners who were at ease in Zion, staying out of the Syro-Ephraimite coalition, confident that by staying neutral Assyria would not destroy them. In this sense, Israel would be appealing to Judah‘s unhelpful leadership as well as its own northern leadership, which huddles for safety in the walled city of Samaria while the rest of the country suffers the Assyrian onslaught. Is this then a criticism of Judah‘s lack of support for Israel, a policy advocated by Isaiah? It will be shown in Chapter Five below that Jerusalem after the Assyrian conquest of Israel most likely had a large population of northern refugees; in a post-722 context, this passage could be referring to those Israelites finding refuge in Zion as being ―at ease‖ there. Because of the difficulties here, many emendations have been suggested. For example, in place of Zion it has been suggested that originally the text read ―ʿIyyûn‖, which is an alternate reading for MT‘s ―Zion‖ in Psalm 133:3 in parallel with ―Hermon,‖ and thus would refer to Israelites being over-secure about the security of their northeastern border. 139 Nontopographic nouns have been suggested, such as bāʾîr, ―in the city,‖140 bĕgaʾôn, ―in pride‖ (in line with the ―pride of Jacob‖ in 6:8), 141 bĕṣiyûn, ―in the rock,‖ and babbiṣṣārôn, ―in the fortress,‖ in line with Zech 9:12, where this may be an epithet of Samaria.142 In these views, an original term was later replaced by ―Zion.‖ Others have left it as it is, but interpreted the terms differently. Hašaʾānannîm has been interpreted as ―those who are 137 Samuel Oettli, Amos und Hosea (1901), cited in WOLFF 1977:269 and P AUL 1991:200. 138 KJV ―came,‖ NRSV ―resorts,‖ JPS ―pin their hopes.‖ 139 VON SODEN 1990:214–216, 219. For a comprehensive study of how Amos 6:1 has been handled by both modern commentators and ancient versions, cf. LÖSSL 2002. 140 SELLIN 1929a:241, yet he left his translation unemended in this edition. 141 Cf. M AAG 1951:37 and 205. 142 RUDOLPH 1971:214–215.

Unity, Disunity, and Problems of Dating in the Book of Amos

33

proud of Zion,‖143 and Zion itself has been interpreted as referring to Samaria, as northern Israel‘s ―Zion.‖ 144 Neither of these suggestions works well, as they force the terms into meanings that they have nowhere else. Others, such as Marti, have suggested redactional processes, arguing that the reference to Zion was a later addition designed to make the message of Amos applicable to Judah, along with 2:4–5 and 3:1.145 Marti was followed by Wolff, who proposed removing the phrases ―who are secure in Zion‖ and ―and the house of Israel comes to them,‖ and assigning them to a dtr redaction to update Amos to post–586 conditions.146 Yet this destroys the parallelism in 6:1. In addition to breaking up this parallelism, there is a larger reason why removal of entire clauses from 6:1 does not work, and why Zion must be left as it is or at least have originally been a different place name. There is a chiasm throughout all of ch. 6 which has gone unnoticed up to now. 147 6:1 features two toponyms, Zion and Samaria, as does 6:14, in this case Lebo-Hamath and Wadi Arabah. 148 Both verses feature the ―house of Israel‖ and ―nation(s)‖: gôyîm in v.1, gôy in v.14. While the house of Israel goes to Zion and Samaria, the first of the nations, Yahweh in response will also move, raising up a nation to wage war against the house of Israel, dominating it from north to south, showing how Yahweh can control a much larger area that dwarfs these capitals. 6:2 has three more places which were conquered (Calneh, Hamath, and Gath), despite being stronger than Israel. This verse together with 6:3 has rhetorical questions, asking Israel if it really is as strong as it thinks. 6:13 also has more toponyms (LoDebar and Karnaim), mocking Israel‘s confidence, and again has a rhetorical question, this time put into the mouth of Israel. Thus, 6:2 and 6:13 demonstrate together how Israel prides itself on its small conquests, while major city states are destroyed around it. The diatribe against conspicuous consumption in 6:4–6 portrays lavish dining and drinking of wine, and this is contrasted with its mate, 6:12, in which justice is turned to poison and righteousness to wormwood. Note that 6:12 is very similar to 5:7, in which again justice is turned to wormwood. In De Waard‘s chiasm, 5:7 connects with the diatribe against wealth in 5:10–13. Here as well, ch. 6‘s wormwood passage connects with a dia143

WEISER 1929:229–231. FOHRER 1971:295. 145 MARTI 1904:198. 146 W OLFF 1977:270. HADJIEV 2009:174 regards the Zion reference as a post-722 Judahite addition. 147 See Appendix for a chart of this chiasm. 148 HADJIEV 2009:172–173 suggested that 6:2 forms an inclusio with Lebo-Hamath in 6:14, as part of his overall argument for the removal of 6:2. But 6:1 and 6:14 also have much in common. 144

34

Chapter One

tribe against wealth. Both connections, the one in ch. 5 and that in ch. 6, involve the wealthy eating and drinking, with 5:7 and 6:12b featuring poison and wormwood. While the rich enjoy good drink, their actions make bad drink.149 In 6:4, the wealthy eat animals raised for use by people, while their actions are compared to the impossible use of animals for absurd purposes in 6:12a.150 While the connection may seem unbalanced, with one verse, 6:12, connecting with a set of verses, 6:4–6, it should be noted that 5:7 also connects with a larger set of verses. In ch. 5 the short wormwood verse appears first, with the larger diatribe later, whereas the arrangement is reversed in ch. 6, presenting a balanced arrangement with the ch. 5 chiasm. In 6:7 the people are punished with exile, and in 6:8 Yahweh invokes his own name and expresses his hatred of Jacob‘s strongholds. This connects with 6:9–11, as in 6:9–10 the social relations are not revelry but desperate survival.151 At the core of the chiasm, while Yahweh invokes his own name at 6:8, the survivors dare not invoke it at 6:10. The only other proposals of chiasms that deal with ch. 6 attempt to find chiasms in the larger units, with less success. Dorsey proposed a chiasm extending from 5:18–6:14, which has reversals of fortune (5:18–20; 6:11– 14), Yahweh‘s hatred of Israel‘s religious activity and noise (5:21–25) connected with Yahweh‘s hatred of Israel‘s strongholds and the people being quiet (6:7), with threats of exile (5:26–27; 6:7) centered around a sevenfold woe (6:1–6).152 In a somewhat similar way, Noble has proposed a model in which 6:2–14 forms the concluding framing section of a chiasm extending back to 3:9. 153 Larger chiasms than this have also been proposed, especially by Bovati and Meynet. They proposed a chiasm incorporating Amos 3–6 centering on 5:1–17, which is surrounded by excess cult (4:4–13; 5:18–27), corrupt wealth (3:9–4:3, 6:1–7) and speech and disputation (3:1–8) connected with poison of the house of Israel (6:8–14).154 Yet these chiasms are less precise than the one proposed here for ch. 6, and 149 MCGARRY 2009:563 translated Amos 6:6 in a medical way, as ―[Alas for those] who drink wine from bowls, and anoint themselves with the finest oils, but feel no pain over the wound of Joseph!‖ McGarry proposed that the wine and oil are a double entrendre, representing both revelry and medicine; that is, that they dull themselves with medicine against the pain of their nation. McGarry‘s medicinal reading works well with the pairing proposed here of Amos 6:6 with the poison and wormwood of 6:12. 150 For the problems involved with the image in 6:12a, cf. ALLEN 2008, who opts for ―Do horses run on crags? Or does the wild ox plow in the valley?‖ in order for the passage to have the same structure as other rhetorical questions in the book of Amos. 151 It is typical to consider Amos 6:1–7 as a discreet unit (e.g., ROBERTS 1985:155 and 162 fn. 1); this chiasm does not necessarily contradict that view, because here 6:1–7 forms the first half or ―wing‖ of the chiasm, with 6:8 forming part of the core, paralleling 6:11. 152 DORSEY 1992:316–317. 153 NOBLE 1995:210–217. 154 MEYNET 1998:325–326.

Unity, Disunity, and Problems of Dating in the Book of Amos

35

Dorsey even expressed reservations about his own argument for a chiasm.155 The chiasm proposed here for 6:1–14 can account for more details, is more precise, and mirrors the chiasm at 5:1–17 more closely. As for 5:18–27, there is probably no chiasm here nor does it participate in a chiasm with ch. 6. Instead, it is simply a series of statements with many of the same themes as the chiasms that surround it. This chiastic structure of chapter 6 means that Wolff‘s emendation of 6:1 is most unlikely, because it would destroy the chiasm. The chiasm also means that 6:1 must include two toponyms, although it is possible that Zion was an exilic replacement of another name, perhaps Bethel, Jezreel or Carmel. Bethel is of course a frequent target in Amos, Jezreel appears to have been a seasonal palace along with Samaria and may be one of the palaces referred to in 2:15. Carmel is described as a mountain on which the Israelites seek refuge in 9:3, and this would make a good parallel with those who trust in Mount Samaria in 6:1. While all of these suggestions are possible, none of them has textual support. There is, however, textual support for a different verb in 6:1a. The LXX renders this as ―those who despise Zion‖ (   ) instead of ―who are at ease in Zion.‖ Wolff explains that LXX, which ―nowhere else translates ‫ שאנן‬in this way, apparently recognized the difficulty of this reference to Zion in the context of Amos‘s oracles and so interpreted ‗those who despise Zion,‘ against the literal meaning of the Hebrew.‖156 There is no clear reason why LXX would change this, since it has no qualms about the anti-Judah oracle at 2:4–5. In fact, LXX makes Amos even more anti-Judah than the MT, in that its version of the superscription says that these words were said ―concerning Jerusalem,‖ not Israel alone as MT has. It is possible that LXX misread the Hebrew or had a different Vorlage. In Gelston‘s list of LXX readings in Amos, he suggested that the LXX translators misread ‫ השאננים‬as ‫השאטים‬.157 This would be an odd misreading, since a nûn would have to be read as a ṭêt, and these letters look nothing alike in either paleo-Hebrew or Aramaic block letters (unless the two nûns together looked like a ṭêt). It is possible that this may have been in LXX‘s Vorlage, but this would have been unusual since šʾṭ as ―scorn‖ or ―despise‖ appears only in Ezekiel 25:6, 15, and 36:5, and in those instances only as substantives and not in connection with Zion speci fically. 155 DORSEY 1992:316–317: ―One wonders…whether 6,8–10 and 6,11–14 indeed echo 5,18–20 and 5,21–25.‖ 156 W OLFF 1977:270. 157 GELSTON 2002:495. GLENNY 2007:543–545 has suggested that this LXX reading may have been based on a LXX reading of Psalm 123:4, and may also have been a theo logical choice as a polemic against the Samaritans at the time of the translator.

36

Chapter One

If LXX was correctly translating a different Hebrew word, it was probably śnʾ.158 This word has the same letters as the word in MT, just arranged differently. While šʾṭ does not appear as a participle nor in direct contact with Zion, śnʾ does both, in Psalm 129:5. There, qôl śônʾê ṣiyyôn, ―all the haters of Zion,‖ are condemned to wither like grass. While this instance uses the construct form of the participle, Amos 6:1 may have originally had hôy haśśônîm ʾet ṣiyyôn wěhabbôṭēḥîm běhar šômrôn, ―woe to those who hate Zion and those who trust in Mount Samaria.‖ The ―notables of the first of the nations‖ would still be referred to in both halves of 6:1a, because the haters of Zion and trusters of Samaria would be the same people. Also, having the ―first of the nations‖ be one nation, Israel, rather than two, works better. This would turn the synonymous parallelism into an antithetical one, which would seem to conflict with its parallel in 6:14, which is not antithetical. However, 6:14 is not really a parallelism in the same sense, but rather a merism for the whole area. In this sense, the framing inclusio of the chiasm would then say that while the Israelites have their petty regionalism, hating Zion while trusting in Samaria, their land will be lost on a scale far larger than their local concerns. Additionally, this reading would make a good link with 6:8, so that the chapter would say that while the Israelites hate Yahweh‘s stronghold Zion, Yahweh hates Israel‘s strongholds in return. Also, there is no problem with the pro-Zion tone of 1:2 any longer. Finally, at some point haśśônîm was misread as or intentionally changed to hašaʾānannîm, creating the version present in MT. As with all emendations, this cannot be certain, but it is the only proposal that has textual support and resolves the problems of 6:1. Yet, even as it is in the MT, the passage can be read in a post-722 setting as condemning northerners finding refuge in Zion. The presence of organized poetic sections of the book of Amos has implications for the compositional history of the book. In some parts of the book, it is possible that some portions were removed or censored for whatever reasons in later centuries. Without textual support, it is impossible to reliably identify what if any portions of the book did not survive. However, the presence of chiasms in 5:1–17 and 6:1–14 suggest that at least parts of the book are intact from their initial composition. It is more likely that these chiasms were composed whole-cloth (possibly using older sayings), rather than constructed from an existing, but different, text. While these chiasms suggest intact unities, it is also possible that other unities were disrupted by removal of passages over time. For the purposes here, it can be said that 5:1–17 and 6:1–14 are intact parts of the first layer of the book‘s composition. Without any historical reason for its removal, 5:18–27 can also be considered as belonging to the same first layer. 158

Cf. SMITH 1989:196.

Unity, Disunity, and Problems of Dating in the Book of Amos

37

1.9. The Vision Reports The next major section of the book of Amos is the series of five visions, where in the first two, Amos is able to successfully intercede on Israel‘s behalf, and then in the last three, Yahweh‘s will becomes unanswerable. A narrative encounter between Amos and an Israelite priest, Amaziah, is set between the third and fourth visions. These visions have been divided and dated in different ways, and a few recent proposals that give a sense of the diverse options in this area will be discussed here. Waschke saw the fifth vision as being distinctly different from the others, with its different introduction (the other four have ―this is what the Lord God showed me‖ whereas the fifth has ―I saw Yahweh standing‖), and comic scenes of fruitless attempts to escape. In Waschke‘s view, the fifth vision was a post-exilic addition applying Amos‘s message to contemporary circumstances. 159 Bergler argued that the first, second and fourth visions were original to Amos, whereas the third and fifth visions, with their theophanies of Yahweh on a wall or altar, are a separate pair. Bergler compared these with the call vision in Isaiah 6, and dated the third and fifth visions of Amos to the late seventh century at the earliest, and suggested that they refer to the danger experienced by Jerusalem and the southern kingdom during the Babylonian advances. 160 Becker saw the visions, particularly the first four, as early post-exilic exegesis on the core of Amos, chapters 3–6.161 The visions serve to explain how Amos, despite his appeals to Israel in 3–6, was unable to save the people. Becker compared the visions to Abraham‘s failed attempt at intercession with Yahweh on behalf of Sodom in Genesis 18:22–33. In this view, although Yahweh has an almost inexhaustible patience, when sinful people are totally unrepentant, no human intercessor can save them. These theories tend to view the fatalism of the visions, or at least the last three, as conflicting with Amos‘s hopes for Israel (―seek me and live‖), or as ―explaining‖ the demise of Israel despite his efforts. However, when the book of Amos is seen as a post-720s book altogether, it becomes clear that Israel‘s destruction is in mind throughout the entire book, and thus the visions do not present a logical problem with the rest of the book. Seen in this way, even Amos‘s efforts, such as the ―seek me and live‖ passages, are not real exhortations, but explanations that Israel was given due warning and yet ignored it, proving that Israel‘s destruction was justified. 159

W ASCHKE 1994. BERGLER 2000. 161 B ECKER 2001. Linville 1999 also dealt with the theme of Amos as intercessor, but highlighted how the reader identifies with Amos, and then is drawn into the failure to intercede, and led to agree with Yahweh that punishment is needed. 160

38

Chapter One

In the view taken here, all five visions are integral to the earliest layer of the book in general.

1.10. The Narrative Interlude However, a different situation obtains regarding two other passages: the Amaziah narrative between the third and fourth visions (7:10–17), and the positive conclusion to the whole book (9:11–15). As the narrative in 7:10– 17 is prose while the vast majority of the book is poetry, most scholars have acknowledged that this is probably not by Amos himself, and so it is attributed to the next best thing, the hypothetical ―school of Amos.‖ 162 Thus, Amos‘s confrontation with Amaziah was an event either witnessed by followers of Amos or related to them by the prophet at another time. Some scholars have seen the placement of the narrative within the overall book as providing information about Amos‘s life. Andersen and Freedman, for example, argued that this incident was a turning point for Amos, in that it killed his hope. While Amos had previously held out hope for Israel, after his rebuff by the royal priest Amaziah, Amos condemned Israel to certain doom.163 On a general level, Andersen and Freedman‘s view that the order of the sections in the book of Amos can be used to reconstruct Amos‘s career not only involves a great deal of historical speculation, but also is not supported by the text itself, which nowhere gives an indication that the various oracles were to be associated with specific times in Amos‘s work. On the more specific level, this view does not work because Amos already ceases attempting to intercede on Israel‘s behalf before this. Amos intercedes in the first and second visions, and by the third vision Israel‘s fate is sealed, and then follows the confrontation with Amaziah. Another attempt at a link between the narrative and its context within the visions was offered by Williamson, who proposed a word play between ʾānākfrom 7:8 in the third vision, and the threefold repetition of ʾānôkî in 7:14, in the narrative. 164 In this view, Amos is the ʾānāk, the weapon or standard of judgment against Israel. Other proposals have focused on 7:9, which appears to be a linking verse between the third vision and the narrative. Clements proposed a redactional process extending from the third vision to the narrative, arguing that the oldest passage was 7:7–8, wherein 162

E.g., W OLFF 1977:108. ANDERSEN and FREEDMAN 1989:8. W ILLIAMSON 1990:117–118. This is only a minor point in Williamson‘s article, which deals largely with the meaning of ―ʾānāk‖ as tin rather than a plumb line. Cf. also the interpretation of the term as a northernism for ―sigh‖ by NOVICK 2008, discussed below. 163 164

Unity, Disunity, and Problems of Dating in the Book of Amos

39

Amos predicts some vague, non-specific disaster for the leading institutions of Israel. 165 When the Jehu dynasty was overthrown by Shallum‘s coup that ended Jeroboam II‘s reign, 7:9 was added to apply Amos‘s original oracle to this event. 166 Finally, when Assyria destroyed Israel entirely, 7:10–17 was added to show how this event too was a result of the divine wrath that Amos had warned about. 167 In support of this view, Clements noted the differing terminology in 7:9 and 7:10–17. In 7:10–17, the reference to ―high places of Isaac‖ in 7:9 is changed to ―house of Isaac‖ in general, and the reference to the ―house of Jeroboam‖ in 7:9 is changed to just ―Jeroboam.‖ Clements argued that ―house of Isaac‖ and ―Jeroboam‖ came to be synonymous with ―Israel.‖ 168 Thus, the condemnation of a specific dynasty in 7:9 is expanded to a condemnation of the entire nation in 7:10– 17. This is notably different from Ackroyd‘s view that 7:9 is a linking passage composed after both 7:7–8 and 7:10–17 to link them together. 169 It is also possible that 7:9–17, either as a whole or in parts, originated separately from the rest of Amos. As far back as Wellhausen 170 it has been noticed how the Amaziah narrative is similar to the story in I Kings 13 of the unnamed prophet coming out of Judah to predict that Jeroboam I‘s new shrine at Bethel will be destroyed by Josiah. In the view of Wellhausen and those who followed him, since the superscription of Amos dates the book (internally) before the point at which the books of Kings conclude (Babylonian exile), Amos 7:10–17 provided the original story on which I Kings 13 was based. Others have suggested that both passages were placed in their contexts by the same Deuteronomists. 171 A theory of a redactional progression of several of these kinds of stories was proposed by Ackroyd, who compared I Kings 13 and Amos 7:9–17 with II Chronicles 25:14–16, wherein an anonymous prophet denounces the Judahite king Amaziah for adopting the gods of his recently defeated enemy, Edom. Ackroyd noted that all three of these narratives are stories of prophets speaking out against powerful people, with the powerful attempting to silence the prophets. In Ackroyd‘s view, these are all part of a common tradition of the outsider prophet being silenced for speaking out against a powerful figure. 172 He noted that a king Jeroboam is attacked in I Kings 13, and again in Amos another king Jeroboam is attacked, this time through his priest Amaziah. Ackroyd suggested that ―the natural inference is that the Chronicler was 165

CLEMENTS 1991:62. CLEMENTS 1991:55–56, 62–63. 167 CLEMENTS 1991:63. 168 CLEMENTS 1991:62. 169 ACKROYD 1987, discussed below. 170 WELLHAUSEN 1963b:277–278. 171 E.g., W ILLIAMSON 1990:119. 172 ACKROYD 1987:202–203. 166

40

Chapter One

making use of a form of the same tradition which we have in the other two passages; this tradition preserved the name of Amaziah, and so the Chronicler attached it in a suitable position to his account of that name.‖ 173 If Ackroyd‘s view is correct that the book of Amos is the first place in which the tradition of the silenced prophet involves a figure named ―Amaziah,‖ it may be that this name originated specifically in the book of Amos. The name ―Amos‖ is apparently a shortened form of ―Amasyah;‖ so, Amaziah may be a fictional character whose name is simply another form of Amos.174 Thus, Amaziah could be the flip side of the coin from Amos, a sort of anti-Amos. This is impossible to know, since the priest Amaziah is an otherwise unattested personage. It is also possible that the reverse of Ackroyd‘s theory is the case, whereby the Chronicles version of a prophet facing King Amaziah was imported into Amos, keeping the name, but demoting Amaziah to a priest to allow the king to be northern. However, the Amos narrative shows closer links with I Kings 13, which might itself be the source for Amos 7:9–17 as well as II Chronicles 25:14– 16. Ackroyd may be correct at least in general in that these may be cases of a stock tradition of the silenced prophet. In any case, it seems fairly clear that the Amaziah narrative interrupts the series of vision reports; for this reason, it is probable that the narrative was added later.175 It will be demonstrated in Chapter Six below that Amos 7:10–17 is a product of changing ideas of the role of ―prophet‖ in the exilic or post-exilic periods.

1.11. The Conclusion of the Book and Amos‘s Place in the Book of the Twelve The last vision leads into an extended oracle about how none of the Israelites will be able to escape Yahweh‘s wrath, followed by the last doxology (9:5–6), which is followed in turn by a rejection of Israel‘s status as an elect nation. After all this, the book takes a sudden radical shift in the last five verses, announcing that the ―booth of David‖ will be repaired, and that 173

Ibid. The name ―Amos‖ may mean ―burden‖; on the meaning of the name, cf. STAMM 1980. The root ʾms appears in various contexts in the Hebrew Bible; cf. Zech 12:3. There is a rabbinic tradition suggesting that the name refers to Amos being heavy o f tongue, a stutterer, reminiscent of Moses in Exodus 4:10; cf. LEVEY 1984:56–57 and NEUSNER 2007:59 for references. 175 BULKELEY 2009 has argued that the narrative has cohesion with its surroundings (7:1– 8:3) in terms of language and lexical stock, despite differences in genre and point of view. It is possible that the narrative was crafted to have some resonance with its surroundings, if it did not already. 174

Unity, Disunity, and Problems of Dating in the Book of Amos

41

―they‖ (apparently Judeans) will possess the remnant of Edom, and the land will be fecund and rich (9:11–15). Wellhausen, in a line now famous in Amos studies, referred to this contrast as ―Rosen und Lavendel statt Blut und Eisen.‖176 The reference to the fertility of the fields and the mountains dripping wine (9:13) contrasts or connects with 1:2, where the voice of Yahweh causes the shepherds‘ pastures to wither and Carmel (God‘s vineyard) to dry up. The reference to the fallen booth of David has seemed to many scholars to be a reference to Jerusalem after 587/6, and the singling out of Edom among the nations seems, like the oracle against Edom in the Amos 1:11– 12, to reflect the particular hostility toward Edom as that country took advantage of Judah‘s fall. For these reasons this section (along with 9:8c) has frequently been seen as a post-exilic addition, and that is agreed to here. To consider the section as original with the rest of the book requires taking the book‘s otherwise total fatalism less seriously, to dismiss it as prophetic hyperbole. Also, while the rest of book seems to be targeting only the northern state, the ending refers to the revival of Judah, which at that time seems to be associated with ―my people Israel‖ in 9:14. As will be argued further below in Chapter Six, this section probably dates to the mid-fifth century BCE. This final addition has played a significant role in the most important recent development in biblical prophetic studies of the Minor Prophets: research on the production of the ―Book of the Twelve.‖ This area of research has raised the possibility that both Amos 9:11–15 and 1:2 were part of an overall process of tying the various small books together to make one coherent ―Book of the Twelve.‖ Diachronic approaches to the Twelve have suggested that the set slowly grew from a small kernel. Jeremias has pointed to numerous similarities between Amos and Hosea, arguing that these books influenced each other. 177 He argues that Hosea was the earliest, and that the book of Amos was written under the influence of the book of Hosea. The book of Hosea in turn was later influenced by the book of Amos, and all this was for the purpose of harmonizing the prophetic message. Jeremias argued that this may explain why Hosea appears first in all attested orders of the Twelve, even though the dating scheme in the superscriptions place Amos as the earliest. Schart and Nogalski have argued that Amos was part of a dtr quartet of books that included Hosea, Micah and Zephaniah. 178 All four of these 176

WELLHAUSEN 1963 A:96. JEREMIAS 1996. 178 To this could be added A LBERTZ 2002, who argued that the Book the Four is an intentional composition with a theme of Yahweh purifying Israel and Judah through dis asters. 177

42

Chapter One

books, they argued, were gathered together in a dtr redaction that predated the ―Book of the Twelve.‖ 179 Schart followed his teacher Jeremias‘s theory of a Hosea-Amos interrelation, suggesting that Amos 3–6 is the oldest portion of Amos, which was later expanded into Amos 1–9 before being incorporated into the dtr quartet. 180 Nahum and Habakkuk were added next, followed by Haggai and some or all of Zechariah with a salvific redaction of Amos that consisted of Amos 9:11, 12b, 13a, 14–15. Later still, Joel and Obadiah were added with Amos 9:13a,b and 4:9, with the whole collection finally completed with the additions of Jonah and Malachi. Like Schart, Nogalski proposed a dtr quartet, which was joined with a Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 corpus. Unlike Schart, however, Nogalski saw all of the books of the Twelve as linked by catchwords intentionally placed in those texts by redactors for the purpose of establishing theological linkages and making the Book of the Twelve into a coherent whole. He saw the first two collections as joined with Nahum, Habakkuk and Malachi, with Joel and Obadiah being compositions designed to bind all of this material together in the post-exilic period. This entire collection was then completed with the additions of Jonah and Deutero-Zechariah (Zech 9–14).181 Nogalski argued that Joel 4:15 (Heb 3:15), is a borrowing from Amos 1:2, and that the Oracles against the Nations in Amos were imitated in the end of Joel. Like many other scholars, Nogalski considered Amos 9:11–15 to be a later addition, but in his view, it has passages drawn from Joel and Obadiah. Specifically, Nogalski proposed that Amos 9:13, with the appearance of mountains dripping sweet wine, is drawn from Joel 4:18 (Eng 3:18), where the same phrase appears. He proposed further that the odd mention of Edom in Amos 9:12a points toward Obadiah 17–21.182 So, Nogalski developed a complex picture of Amos influencing Joel, and being influenced in turn by Joel and Obadiah in later redactions. Nogalski‘s reconstruction of the development of the Twelve, however, is based on the MT order alone. The Septuagint has Hosea, Amos and Micah appear together, uninterrupted by Joel, with Joel and Obadiah following Micah. Additionally, although with less impact on Amos, the Qumran text 4QXIIa features only the last three books, but has Jonah as the last in the series. Nogalski was aware of these different orderings, but dismissed them as secondary to MT‘s original order. 183 Thus, MT preserves the original order, in Nogalski‘s view, and the other two attestations are essentially 179

Recently WÖHRLE 2008 has argued that the Book of the Four, while dependent on Dtr, is nonetheless opposed to the DtrH, in that the Four consider social offenses, and not just cultic ones, to be the cause of divine wrath. 180 SCHART 2000:42–45. 181 NOGALSKI 1993b:274–280. 182 NOGALSKI 1993a:74–122. 183 NOGALSKI 1993a:2–3.

Unity, Disunity, and Problems of Dating in the Book of Amos

43

mistakes. Barry Jones argued that these different attestations are not mistakes, but reflect the fluidity of the canonical sequence in the Hellenistic and Roman periods.184 He pointed out that the LXX presents not just a different order, but some significantly different wordings as well. Where MT Amos has Judah acquiring Edom in 9:13, LXX Amos has ―humanity‖ instead of ―Edom.‖ This appears to reflect a different vocalization, reading 185 ‫ אדם‬as ʾādāmrather than as ʾēdôm. Thus, in LXX Amos, there is no link between Amos and Obadiah, which in the LXX order appears three books later. Jones suggested that LXX was following a different Hebrew Vorlage. Since all the books of the Twelve were essentially complete by the time of the LXX, Jones argued that the MT order simply reflects a different tradition that may have had no role in the formation of the individual books. The abundance of intertextuality among the books of the Twelve suggests that some of these duplicated or similar passages were either drawn from earlier books to later ones, and/or reflect across-the-board redactions that inserted some of them simultaneously. However, the different attestations of the order of the books of the Twelve discussed by Jones suggests that, while catchwords probably affected the MT ordering of the books, they may not be the product of an intention to have Joel and Obadiah frame Amos. That is, the book of Joel may have drawn from the book of Amos, and the reading of ‫ אדם‬as Edom may have been affected by Obadiah, but not necessarily for reasons of canonical ordering. It is more likely, however, that the reading ―Edom‖ is original to the conclusion of the book of Amos, as tensions with Edom (politically and/or literarily) were particularly acute in the exilic/post-exilic periods. The question of priority and motivation, that is, which attestation is older and for what reason one text was cited by another, is a difficult matter. There are intertextual interconnections ranging throughout prophetic literature, especially among Amos, Hosea, Micah and Isaiah. This is to be expected in a relatively limited genre of literature; it is possible that some duplicates are not one text quoting another, but simply two texts drawing from a common pool of the literary prophetic repertoire. Nogalski‘s view that Amos 1:2 appeared first in Amos and secondarily in Joel is the view taken here. The verse‘s priority in Amos is supported by the references to lions roaring in 3:4 and 3:8 (while lions appear in Joel 1:6, they are not roaring), as well as the appearance of Carmel in 9:3. Nogalski‘s view that Joel is a later book that draws from other prophetic books is probably correct, and Joel may have also borrowed 4:18a from Amos 9:13b, or they may be contemporary with each other. Amos 1:2 can 184 185

JONES 1995:221–242. JONES 1995:170–191.

44

Chapter One

be seen as predating or contemporary with Amos 9:13–14, as the blessings in the latter passage reverse the curses in the former. However, 9:13–14 could also just as easily have been long after 1:2 as a reversal of 1:2‘s curses. 1:2 is often dismissed as later than the bulk of the book of Amos, on the presumption that Amos does not speak about Judah. But this is not a necessary assumption, and if the book was originally a pro-Judahite poem, 1:2 would be consistent with that message. The datings and other issues with the ending of Amos will be spelled out historically in Chapter Six below. For the purposes here, there is no literary reason to consider 1:2 as separate from the oldest material in the book. In fact, as illustrated above, 1:2 fits very well with the Israel oracle, which it would immediately precede if 1:3–2:5 is considered to be a later addition, as is done here. In fact, it may be almost necessary in order to explain what the object is of lōʾ ʾăšîbennû in 2:6.

1.12. Conclusion The position taken here is comparable to the results of Wolff and similar scholars in regarding certain frequently challenged sections of the book as being of separate origin from the earliest layer. However, the historical chronology for the book‘s stages employed by these scholars is quite different from the one advanced here. Wolff, for example, proposed six stages: Amos himself (largely 3–6), the fixed form of the oracles by Amos later on (the Oracles against the Nations and visions), the old school of Amos in the eighth century, anti-Bethel expansions in the Josianic period, a Deuteronomistic redaction, and a post-exilic redaction. If the dating of the book to a time after Israel‘s fall is correct, there would have been no stages before that, so Wolff‘s stages ascribed to Amos or his ―school‖ are not followed here. The original form of the book of Amos, produced in the late eighth or early seventh century perhaps as an oral poem, would have consisted of most of the book, with the exception of the Oracles against the Nations (except that against Israel) as well as possibly some of the exodus tradition materials, in addition to the Amaziah narrative and the positive conclusion. So, the first layer of the book of Amos would have been: 1:1– 2; 2:6–7:9; 8:1–9:10, with the possible exceptions of 3:1–2, 4:13, 5:8–9, and 9:5–6. Some of the (especially later) material in the book of Amos may have been dtr in origin, particularly the Oracles against the Nations. As Person has shown, however, the deuteronomistic tradition(s) and/or movement(s) changed over time, and had some flexibility. So, while dtr elements may be present in some portions of the book of Amos, it has not been heavily af-

Unity, Disunity, and Problems of Dating in the Book of Amos

45

fected by the same dtr tradition that produced the negative evaluations of the northern kingdom in the DtrH. The books of I and II Kings condemn Israel for secession from Jerusalem (part of the ―sin of Jeroboam son of Nebat which he caused Israel to commit‖), 186 as well as the erection of competing shrines at Bethel, Dan, and elsewhere. While some of these shrines are condemned in the book of Amos, remarkably the charge of secession from Jerusalem is never leveled against Israel in spite of all of the book‘s polemics against the northern kingdom. The first layer of the book of Amos was probably written before the United Monarchy idea developed, as the book nowhere suggests that Israel was once ruled from Jerusalem (even 1:2 does not state that). Even later additions to the book appear to be independent of such a tradition, as the book nowhere features that charge. This shows how limited the United Monarchy idea may have been (it is rare in the biblical prophetic literature in general), which raises questions about its historical veracity. Further historical issues, including the dates and purposes of the various portions of the book of Amos, will be explored in the following chapters.

186

I Kings 14:16 and frequently elsewhere in I and II Kings.

Chapter Two

The Date of the Earliest Level of the Book of Amos 2.1. Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to propose that the composition of the earliest stage of the book of Amos was completed not during the reigns of Uzziah and Jeroboam II, as the superscription claims, but after the fall of the northern kingdom of Israel to the Neo-Assyrian empire in 722 BCE. This chapter will begin by examining the nature of superscriptions and that of Amos in particular, before turning to examine the inscriptional evidence for the two kings Uzziah and Jeroboam II. Following this, several key verses that resist dating before 722 BCE will be studied, namely Amos 5:26, 8:14 and 6:2. After this, it will be argued that beyond these three verses, there are abundant indications in the book of Amos of Israel suffering a catastrophic military defeat followed by exile. Various other proposals for a post-722 production of the book of Amos will be examined there as well.

2.2. The Historical Setting in Amos 1:1 2.2.1. Uzziah in II Kings and II Chronicles The clearest information for dating presented within the book of Amos itself is the regnal synchronism in the superscription, in which Amos‘s activity is dated to the reigns of ―Uzziah king of Judah and Jeroboam son of Joash king of Israel, two years before the earthquake‖ (Amos 1:1). Both of these kings appear elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible and possibly in the archaeological record, but ambiguities are present in every case. Both of these kings are portrayed as benefiting from the advice of religious leaders, the prophet Jonah son of Amittai in Jeroboam II‘s case (II Kings 14:25), and a certain Zechariah in Uzziah‘s case (II Chronicles 26:5; his occupation is uncertain). The presentation of Uzziah is quite divergent in II Kings and II Chronicles. II Kings 15:1–7 provides remarkably little information on this king who is presented as having reigned (either alone or with his son Jotham)

The Date of the Earliest Level of the Book of Amos

47

for fifty-two years (II Kings 15:2). 1 The dtr evaluation of him is generally positive, although he is faulted for not removing the bāmôt. Uzziah is stricken with the skin condition ṣāraʾat,2 which forces him to live in a separate house, while Jotham governs the people. On the other hand, the Chronicler provides much more material on this king, presenting him as a leader who succeeded in military campaigns and domestic development projects before contracting the disease (II Chron. 26:3–15). Almost all of this information is lacking in II Kings, such that the Chronicler must have had either a separate source or created this narrative anew.3 In Japhet‘s view, the accounts of Uzziah‘s actions are reasonable and possible, and archaeologically supported. 4 Additionally, she noted that at 26:5, the Chronicler elaborates on Uzziah‘s piety and his instruction by Zechariah (whom Japhet considered likely a priest).5 Japhet wrote, ―The Chronicler‘s need to elaborate on Uzziah‘s righteousness is another indication (if such is needed) that he possessed information about Uzziah‘s enterprises, for which he felt that a more convincing theological basis must be provided.‖6 On the other hand, all of this could be an elaboration on the vaguely positive evaluation in II Kings 15, the expansion of which could provide a stronger literary and theological contrast with Uzziah‘s fall that follows. As for Uzziah‘s fall, Japhet argued for a two-stage development of this pericope. Before the Chronicler, there was a story of Uzziah‘s confrontation with the priest Azariah, which the Chronicler expanded by including a group of eighty priests with Azariah. 7 This expanded narrative of Uzziah‘s religious offense is included by the Chronicler to explain why Uzziah suffered something that must have been, in the Chronicler‘s view, a punishment for something.8 However, without any textual Vorlage for this preChronicles Uzziah/Azariah confrontation, this must remain hypothetical. 9

1

In the II Kings 15 narrative Uzziah is called Azariah. Traditionally ―leprosy.‖ On the translation history of this term cf. H ULSE 1975. For the medical nature of ṣāraʾat, cf. K INNIER W ILSON 1982, esp. p. 354–358 and 363–364, and ZIAS 1991:149–152. 3 On the distinctive Chronistic language used in this narrative, cf. B EENTJES 2000. 4 J APHET 1992:877. 5 J APHET 1992:878. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid 877, but against this, BEENTJES 2000:66. 8 J APHET 1992:876. 9 It is notable that Uzziah has a confrontation with a priest whose name is essentially the same as Uzziah‘s other name, while Amos has a confrontation with a priest whose name, Amaziah, may be related to Amos‘s name. 2

48

Chapter Two

2.2.2. Inscriptional Evidence for Uzziah Outside of the Hebrew Bible, these two kings may appear on seals belonging to their servants. The name ʿzyw appears in two seals now in Paris. One of the seals, at the Louvre, bears the inscription lšbnyw ʿbd ʿzyw(―belonging to Shebanyau servant of ʿUzziyau‖) on the reverse. 10 The other, at the Bibliothèque Nationale, bears the inscription lʾbyw ʿbd ʿzyw (―belonging to Abiyau servant of ʿUzziyau‖).11 Although these seals have generally been understood as referring to the Judahite king Uzziah who appears in the Hebrew Bible, there are some difficulties. While the paleography of the inscriptions on these seals does not conflict with an eighth century date, their provenance is unknown.12 The spelling of what is likely the theophoric element for Yahweh at the end of the name is not identical to that of the Judahite king of Amos 1:1, in that the seals have ʿzyw whereas Amos 1:1 has ʿzyh. Sass noted that the spelling on these and some other Judahite seals is not consistent with normal Judahite practice, where ―-yhw‖ is preferred.13 Longpérier had initially read the reverse of the first seal as lšbnyhw br ʿzyh ―Schebeniah, fils d‘Ozziah,‖ which would preserve both the expected Judahite spelling of the seal owner‘s name as well as the spelling of Uzziah‘s name found at Amos 1:1. 14 Longpérier‘s reading is only possible by taking the wāw characters as hē characters and including the ʿayin character on the first line (which is cut off by the border), as a wāw (even though this is not present on the obverse). Longpérier‘s misreading required him to speculate on why the Aramaic term for ―son‖ was used, and to suggest that this Uzziah was someone other than the king, since no such son is known from the Hebrew Bible. With all these difficulties, this seal is now read as transliterated above, as referring to a ―servant‖ not a ―son‖ of ʿzyw. But, it must be granted that Longpérier‘s suggestion that this does not refer to the biblical figure is possible, in that the name ʿzyw is not defined as a king. However, no Israelite/Judahite seal defines any name as being that of a king, and seals defining their owners as ―servant of the king‖ (ʿbd

10

LONGPÉRIER 1863:358–359, but read differently (see below), AVIGAD 1997:50. SASS 1993:199 transliterated the name as ―Shubnayaw.‖ 11 AVIGAD 1997:51. 12 SASS 1993:249 and 252. 13 SASS 1993:199; Sass considered the differences between Israelite and Judahite spel ling to be sometimes inconsistent, and so he did not consider the orthography as a significant strike against the authenticity of the seal. This king appears as ʿuzziyyāhûin II Chronicles 26 and in Isaiah 6:1. 14 LONGPÉRIER 1863:358.

The Date of the Earliest Level of the Book of Amos

49

hmlk), never name the king. 15 Šbnyw appears alone in another seal supposedly from Gezer, now at the Israel Museum, dated to the eighth century.16 The term ―servant‖ always appears with ―of the king‖ or the personal names Uzziyau, Jeroboam and Ahaz, with the exception of one ―servant of yhwh.‖17 From this handful of seals, however, it is impossible to state with any degree of certainty whether names following ―servant of…‖ must always be those of kings. As it stands, considering the unknown provenance (and thus uncertain authenticity) of these seals, Uzziah‘s historicity can be considered plausible but not certain. Even if Uzziah was a real historical figure, this of course does not mean that stories or references to him in the Hebrew Bible are historical. There is another, quite strange, inscriptional occurrence of the name ―Uzziah‖ on a marble plaque found by E.L. Sukenik in the Russian archaeological museum on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem. 18 The plaque reads lkh hyty trny ʿwzyh mlk yhwdh wlʾ lmptḥ ―here were brought the bones of Uzziah, King of Judah, and not be moved.‖ 19 What is strange about this plaque is that it was clearly made much later than the eighth century, in that it features a plene spelling of the name and is written in the Aramaic script of the Roman period. Thus, it has been understood as a replacement for some earlier gravestone, when Uzziah‘s bones (or bones thought to be Uzziah‘s) were reburied. II Chronicles 26:23 implies that Uzziah was buried in a separate location near the other royal tombs, so it is conceivable that this tomb alone would have been moved without the others. In any case, this inscription, both unprovenanced and from an entirely different era than the eighth century BCE, can reveal only that there was a site for this king‘s grave (possibly just a memorial cenotaph), if that, but nothing about the king himself. Another formerly proposed inscriptional occurrence of Uzziah that is highly ambiguous is the so-called ―Azriyau episode‖ from the annals of Tiglath-pileser III. Tiglath-pileser III‘s annals at his palace at Calah describe the defeat of a coalition of nineteen districts of Hamath apparently led by a figure named ―Azriyau.‖ 20 This text was associated with K 6205 (the Azekah Inscription), which describes a war against a certain […i]a-au KUR Ia-u-da-a-a21. Due to the association of these two texts, it appeared 15

There are seals belonging to servants of Jeroboam and Ahaz as well, where these figures are not defined as kings. The Jeroboam seal has a number of problems of its own, which will be looked at below. 16 AVIGAD 1997:151, S ASS 1993:207–208. 17 AVIGAD 1997:59, bought in Jerusalem, now at the Harvard Semitic Museum. 18 BibArch 1938:8–9. 19 MILLER and HAYES 2006:357. 20 T ADMOR 1994:58–65, catalogued as ―Ann. 19.‖ 21 K6205, translated at C OGAN 2000:304–305 (COS 2.119D).

50

Chapter Two

that Tiglath-Pileser III had fought a coalition of Syrian kingdoms led by ―Azriyau of Judah,‖ who was identified with biblical Azariah, Uzziah‘s other name. Thus, Tadmor argued that after the death of Jeroboam II, Uzziah acquired control over northern Israel and exerted influence over the Syrian kingdoms around Hamath. 22 Uzziah‘s power and political importance were so high in the 730s, according to Tadmor, that he was the leading figure in the coalition defeated by Tiglath-pileser III. This defeat then caused a wane in Judah‘s power. 23 This view of Uzziah‘s tremendous power exceeds even the Chronicler‘s portrayal of him, and stretches credibility on its own. In any case, Na‘aman argued instead that K6205 should be associated with 82-3-23, and that this text describes Sennacherib‘s campaigns in Judah in 701 BCE, and that the […i]a-a-u KUR Ia-u-da-a-a refers to Hezekiah of Judah. 24 Thus, the view has generally been accepted that Azriyau is someone completely different with no connection to Judah, and is not to be identified with Uzziah/Azariah. 25 In view of the above, there is no unambiguous reference to the king Uzziah outside of the Hebrew Bible; as such, the king‘s historicity can be regarded as plausible but not certain. 2.2.3. Shema, Servant of Jeroboam The other king listed in the superscription of the book of Amos is Jeroboam son of Joash, or Jeroboam II. 26 The depiction of Jeroboam II‘s reign in II Kings 14:23–29 contrasts with how the political situation appears in the book of Amos. In II Kings 14:28, the text says, strangely, that Jeroboam II ―recovered Damascus and Hamath for Judah in Israel.‖ 27 This in itself makes little sense, suggesting that the text may be corrupt at this point. One could imagine that as the weaker state at the time, Judah was considered to be essentially ―in‖ Israel (perhaps as a southern province), and that these conquests benefited Judah in some way. NRSV simply changes the text, rendering instead, ―he recovered for Israel Damascus and Hamath, which had belonged to Judah.‖ Because Jeroboam II was not 22

T ADMOR 1961, esp. 238–239. So also ROBERTS 1985. 24 NA‘AMAN 1974. 25 E.g., Younger and Cogan in COS II, and D ONNER 1977:424. Note that while DALLEY 1990 also followed Na‘aman, she argued that the name ―Azriyau‖ is one of sev eral pieces of evidence that support her claim that Yahweh was worshipped by native, non-Israelite/Judahite, Syrians. Later, T ADMOR 1994:274 seemed to remain agnostic on the identification of Azriyau. 26 The fact that Jeroboam and not Uzziah is given a patronymic in Amos 1:1 demon strates that at some stage of the composition of this superscription, the scribe was aware of or believed in a different Jeroboam, presumably Jeroboam son of Nebat. 27 Hēšîb ʾet dammeśeq wěʾet ḥămāt lîhûdah běyiśrāʾēl. 23

The Date of the Earliest Level of the Book of Amos

51

technically king of Judah, Lipiński suggested that ―Il faut donc interpreter lyhwdh au sens de lěhôdō, ―pour sa gloire.‖28 Whatever one makes of this verse, it seems to present Jeroboam as being at least at one point in control of Damascus and Hamath. 29 Against this, Amos 1:3 presents Damascus as very much independent, and Amos 6:2, while it does not specify Hamath‘s political status, does not provide any indication that it was controlled by Israel. Earlier in the dtr presentation of Jeroboam II, he is portrayed as having control of ―Lebo-Hamath,‖ or ―the entrance to Hamath,‖ to the sea of the Arabah (II Kings 14:25), which is more reasonable and may have some relation to the same borders in Amos 6:14. Like Uzziah, Jeroboam also seems to appear in an inscribed seal, the seal of šmʾ ʿbd yrbʿm, or ―Shema servant of Jeroboam.‖ 30 Unlike the two seals discussed above, this seal is provenanced, as it was found in situ during the excavations at Megiddo in March 1904. 31 This Jeroboam is generally identified with Jeroboam II, the same monarch as in Amos 1:1. 32 However, Ahlström and Ussishkin have argued separately that this seal belonged to a servant of the tenth-century monarch Jeroboam I, not II. The seal was found in a destruction layer in debris about 0.5 to 1.5 meters above the courtyard floor of Gate 1567 (stratum VA–IVB), which was dated to the tenth century by these scholars.33 The question is where in the chronology of the site this seal entered the debris. Ahlström and Ussishkin argued that the seal is from a time fairly close to the destruction of this building, which they attributed to Shoshenq‘s invasion of Palestine. As such, the seal would be attributable to Jeroboam I, who was ruling at the time of the invasion. Ahlström also argued that the paleography of the seal is similar to that of tenth- and ninth-century inscriptions, such as the Gezer calendar and the Mesha stele.34 If all this is correct, then this seal would represent, as Ahlström wrote, ―the first non-biblical reference to the existence of the state of Israel of the tenth century BC.‖ 35 However, as Avigad noted, the stratigraphy for this area of Megiddo is ambiguous, and the corpus of tenth- and ninth-century Hebrew inscriptions is too small to make a definitive dating on paleographic grounds. 36 Avigad added that for what 28

LIPIŃSKI 1991:171. HARAN 1967 posited a meteoric rise in Jeroboam II‘s political profile late in his reign. 30 LIDZBARSKI 1908a:140. Also, W ATZINGER 1929:64–67. 31 LIDZBARSKI 1908a:140. 32 AVIGAD 1997:49. L IDZBARSKI 1908a:144 discussed it on paleographic grounds and declared it unclear to which Jeroboam it refers. 33 Cf. USSISHKIN 1994:421 for the conflicting data in the reports. 34 AHLSTRÖM 1993:213. 35 AHLSTRÖM 1993:215. 36 AVIGAD 1997:50. 29

52

Chapter Two

information there is, the paleography is similar to other eighth century seals, as is the lion design. 37 Again, with the caveat about this possibly not being a king at all, the identification of the king with Jeroboam son of Joash of the eighth century BCE is probably to be preferred. As in the case of Uzziah, there are no unambiguous non-biblical references to King Jeroboam II, so the historicity of this figure must remain plausible but uncertain until more evidence surfaces. 2.2.4. The Earthquake and the Eclipse The difficulty with pinning down a more precise date for the activity of Amos derives from the very long reigns of both Jeroboam II and Uzziah, who are biblically presented as having reigned for forty-one years (II Kings 14:23) and fifty-two years (II Kings 15:2) respectively, both from the 780s into the 740s or 730s. This dating is narrowed down in the superscription with the datum that Amos saw his words (or ―things‖ dibrê ʾāmôs), ―two years before the earthquake‖ (Amos 1:1; the earthquake may appear again at 9:1).38 This is probably the earthquake referred to in Zechariah 14:5: ―You shall flee as you fled from the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah.‖ Zechariah 14:5 could be a historical memory of an actual earthquake, or possibly a tradition borrowed from Amos 1:1. 39 Archaeologically, evidence for an earthquake has been seen at the contemporary strata of Hazor VI, Lachish IV, and at Gezer, dated to the eighth century.40 Josephus linked this earthquake with the Chronicler‘s story of Uzziah‘s contraction of ṣāraʾat: ―a great tremor shook the earth, and, as the temple was riven, a brilliant shaft of sunlight gleamed through it and fell upon the king‘s face so that leprosy at once smote him‖. 41 This would time the earthquake with the beginning of Jotham‘s governing 42 the people, which may be around 760. When Yadin discovered the above-mentioned evidence for earthquake damage at Hazor VI, he dated it to around 760, 37 AVIGAD 1997:50. W ATZINGER 1929:64 had described the lion design as resembling similar north-Syrian/Hittite designs. 38 For the view that the earthquake, as a confirmation of Amos‘s prophecies, was a key event in the development of biblical literary prophecy, cf. F REEDMAN and WELCH 1994. 39 The relationship between Zechariah 14 and the book of Amos is explored in Chapter Six below. 40 DEVER 1992. 41 Antiquities IX.X.4 (MARCUS 1978:119). On the possibility that Josephus had a separate Hellenistic source for his Uzziah story, cf. B EENTJES 2000:71. The waw-consecutive at the beginning of II Kings 15:5 implies a direct connection between Azariah/Uzziah‘s contraction of the skin disease and his failure to stop illicit worship. Note that the use of incense is specifically mentioned in II Kings 15:4, just as Uzziah was of fering incense illicitly at II Chronicles 26. 42 The term used in II Kings 15:5 is šôpēt, ―judged.‖

The Date of the Earliest Level of the Book of Amos

53

probably in accord with Josephus, and thus the other sites‘ damage was dated then as well.43 However, Josephus‘ linkage of the earthquake with the end of Uzziah‘s active rulership has no biblical or non-biblical evidence to support it (and could itself be dependent in part on the books of Amos and Zechariah), so the dating of the earthquake of Hazor VI must remain somewhat open. Another, more precisely datable natural occurrence is the possible reference to an eclipse in Amos 8:9: ―I will make the sun set at noon and I will darken the earth in broad daylight.‖ 44 It is unclear if this refers to an actual historical eclipse, or if it is instead just a prophetic phrase portraying the effects of divine wrath. An eclipse was recorded in the Assyrian eponym for the year 763, dated to the month of Siwan. 45 The proximity of this eclipse to the expected date of around 760 for the earthquake, both events being in the overlapping reigns of Uzziah and Jeroboam II, leads to the most common dating for the activity of Amos, the late 760s BCE. However, this eclipse noted in Assyria was only a partial eclipse over Palestine, so it probably would not have darkened the day very much.46 In any case, Amos 8:9 might not refer to an actual historical eclipse, but may instead be just one of many instances of imagery drawn from natural upheavals illustrating the power and wrath of Yahweh, so common in the book of Amos. All in all, the superscription of the book of Amos provides a historical setting, the reigns of Jeroboam II and Uzziah, as well as an earthquake and perhaps an eclipse, that place the activity of the prophet around the mideighth century BCE. However, to evaluate this data, it is necessary to understand the nature of superscriptions. Regarding the historical information included in the superscription, Mays wrote that ―the sayings are to be read and understood as words for a particular time and place through one individual man. Rather than an embarrassment, their historicality is a key to their meaning.‖47 To go one step further, Ben Zvi suggested that superscriptions should be seen as part of the texts in which they are found, not necessarily separate from them, and should not be taken as any more factual than the rest of the texts with which they appear. 48 He argued that superscriptions create a scenario in which the book is to be read and interpreted.49 He further warned that readers who place too much historical 43

YADIN 1972:113, 179–181, 198; YADIN 1974:150–151; DEVER 1992. While this eclipse reference is not in the superscription, it is dealt with here as part of the dating discussion. 45 MILLARD 1992 A:58. 46 STEPHENSON 1975:118–119. 47 MAYS 1969:20. 48 BEN ZVI 1995, esp. 130–135. 49 Also, DAVIES 1995:58–59 argued that the purported historical settings of prophetic books serve to historicize and contextualize statements that may derive from a quite dif44

54

Chapter Two

trust in these superscriptions are following a ―pre-ordained script,‖ a circular argument that causes them to accept the superscriptions as factually accurate. Then readers interpret any given prophetic book on the basis of what is known about the time period indicated in the superscription (and vice versa). If the book of Amos is entirely retrospective, as will be argued here, then it would have been crucial to set the book in a certain historical time period, or ―scenario.‖ Thus, the book would have been essentially pseudepigraphical; that is, a later writing attributed to a figure (real or imagined) from the past. In a similar vein, Möller suggested that the superscription sets Amos‘s career before the fall of the northern kingdom, which demonstrates the authenticity of his prophecies, with warning implications for Judah.50 The reign of Jeroboam II was the last high point of Israelite wealth and power before the invasions of Tiglath-pileser III. By setting the prophet‘s career in that time period, the book demonstrates that Yahweh gave Israel fair warning well in advance of the Assyrian invasions, and thus Israel‘s total demise was no fault of Yahweh‘s nor did it show any weakness on his part. In this sense, the book‘s internal setting in a specific time period is indeed a key to its meaning, but not a key to its actual historical origins.

2.3. Dating the Earliest Stage of the Book of Amos after the Assyrian Conquest of Israel When the dating presented by the book‘s superscription is set aside, the contents of the book itself can be seen to be replete with references to a military defeat of Israel by a foreign adversary that results in exile, with no future and no escape. Yahweh declares that he will raise up a nation to dominate Israel (6:14), and that this enemy will strip Israel of its defenses and plunder its strongholds (3:11). Israel is presented as suffering a military defeat, with catastrophic casualties (5:3), such that even the best sol diers flee (2:14–16), and all who are left will be killed by the sword (9:1). This will result in massive destruction, both of the important religious and political establishments (3:14–15; 7:9), but also the entire city (of Samaria) ferent time. B EN ZVI 2006 viewed most of the books of the Twelve as dehistoricized, except for the later books (such as Haggai and Zechariah) that deal with a major historical event. This includes for Ben Zvi the book of Isaiah‘s historicization in t he Sennacherib invasion. While Ben Zvi considers the book of Amos as an exception to the generally dehistoricized early books of the Twelve (p. 42), the Assyrian invasions of the northern kingdom can be seen as the key historical event for a historicized b ook of Amos. 50 MÖLLER 2003:169–170.

The Date of the Earliest Level of the Book of Amos

55

and all that is in it (6:8). The people will be exiled, starting with the leading citizens (4:2–3; 5:5; 6:7; 7:17; 9:4), to some place ―beyond Damascus‖ (5:27). There will be no escape from this, no matter where anyone would run (9:2–3, 9). Israel‘s defeat is total, with no future, destroyed from the face of the earth (9:8a). It is at an end (8:1), fallen, never to recover (5:2; 8:14). All that is left is the tiniest remnant, the pitiful condition of which only serves to demonstrate the totality of the destruction (3:12). 51 A lament is sung over Israel, perhaps by this remnant; Israel is mourned like a dead person (5:1, 16–17; 8:3, 8, 10).52 These verses present the northern kingdom of Israel as utterly destroyed by a military conflict with a foreign invader who is exiling the leading members of the population. This situation is exactly that which faced Israel in the late eighth century, but not during the reigns of Uzziah nor Jeroboam II. The idea that Israel was in immediate mortal danger of destruction and exile ―beyond Damascus‖ (5:27) suggests that Assyria was in mind. Prior to the Assyrian return to the Palestinian area in the 730s, Israel‘s only serious enemy in the eighth century was Aram, 53 but Aram is not elsewhere associated with any exile ―beyond Damascus.‖ Exile was of course known as a technique of conquest before Tiglath-pileser III, and Wolff pointed out that Urartu exiled captive populations before Tiglathpileser III. 54 While it is true that exile was a part of the martial landscape of the time, the portrayal of exile as a very near and immediate threat upon Israel suggests the real exile of thousands of Israelites 55 as the background to this material. In addition to the overall tone of the book of Amos, in which Israel‘s destruction and exile are treated as a fait accompli, there are three key verses with specific information that suggest a later dating: 5:26, 6:2, and 8:14.

51 As HADJIEV 2008:663 wrote, ―The survival of a few Israelites will be a testimony to the death of Israel.‖ 52 This could lend support to the argument by SMEND 1963 that the book of Amos‘s ―no‖ is absolute. There has been a continuing debate on this topic, with PFEIFER 1989, HASEL 1991, and ASEN 1993 opposing Smend‘s view in various ways, and with NOBLE 1997 and HADJIEV 2008 in more or less agreement with Smend. Hadjiev‘s view is that some of the original oracles stated an absolute ―no‖, although they were recontextualized as the text grew over time. 53 LIPIŃSKI 2000:403 suggested that Damascus had made significant territorial gains in Gilead towards the end of the reign of Jeroboam II. However, this is based partly on Amos 1:5. The Tel Dan inscription demonstrates the threat that Aram posed to Israel in the ninth century. 54 W OLFF 1977:89. 55 Sargon II claimed 27,280 exiled Israelites in Nimrud Prism D; YOUNGER 2000:295.

56

Chapter Two

2.3.1. Amos 6:2: Assyria on the March The most revealing verse with specific information relevant to dating is Amos 6:2, which reads, in part, ―Cross over to Calneh and see, from there go to Great Hamath, then go down to Gath of the Philistines.‖ The purpose of the passage is apparently to tell the Israelites that just as these other cities were (or will be) destroyed, so would Samaria be. This verse is very similar to Isaiah 10:9: ―Is not Calno [Amos‘s ‗Calneh‘] like Carchemish? Is not Hamath like Arpad? Is not Samaria like Damascus?‖ 56 The theme of comparison with other defeated kingdoms also appears in the Rabshakeh‘s speech in Isaiah 36:18–20, and its parallel in II Kings 18:33–35. The difficulty for an early dating of the book of Amos is the destructions of these cities are generally associated with Assyrian campaigns that occurred after the reigns of Uzziah and Jeroboam II had ended. Calneh is identified with Akkadian Kullani (Tell Tainat), capital city of the state of Unqi in Syria, which was conquered along with Hamath by Tiglath-pileser III in 738.57 The conquest of Calneh was of such importance to Assyria that it appeared in the eponym for that year (738): ―Adad-belu-ka‘‘in, governor of the land, Kullani conquered.‖ 58 Tiglath-pileser III defeated Kullani after its king, Tutammu, apparently broke his loyalty oath to Assyria. The Assyrian king captured and plundered the city and annexed it as an Assyrian province with Assyrian governors. 59 The conquest of Hamath was the aftermath of the rebellion led by Azriyau, which was discussed above. The city was destroyed with a fire so hot that it caused some basalt sculptures and bowls to partly melt. 60 Together, the references to Calneh and Hamath point to two of the most important conquests by Assyria on the way toward Israel, indicating that since these two powerful cities were taken by Assyria, Israel did not stand a chance. Calneh and Hamath were also subjugated again by Sargon II in 717 and 720 respectively. 61 As for Gath, this Philistine city (the only one not mentioned in the oracle against

56 The standard (though not unanimous) emendation of the remainder of this verse is followed here, reading ―are you better than those kingdoms, is your territory greater than theirs?‖ 57 Tiglath-pileser III‘s Calah annals 25, 19, 13; cf. T ADMOR 1994:58–59 for an explanation of the linguistic relationship between the Akkadian and Hebrew pronuncia tion of Kinalia/Kullani/Calneh/Calno. On this event in general, cf. M EIER 1992a:823– 824, B UHL 1992:34. H AWKINS 1972–1975, H AWKINS 1980–1983, N A‘AMAN 1974:37. 58 MILLARD 1992 A:59. 59 Annals 25, T ADMOR 1994:56–59. 60 B UHL 1992:35, but see ROBERTS 1985:158, where Roberts wrote that Hamath was not destroyed; only reduced severely in importance. 61 Cf. the various inscriptions of Sargon II in YOUNGER 2000:293–299.

The Date of the Earliest Level of the Book of Amos

57

the Philistine cities at Amos 1:6–8), was conquered by Assyria in 712/711 during Sargon II‘s campaign against Azuri, king of Ashdod. 62 There have been two major ways of handling the appearance of these references to Calneh, Hamath and Gath in Amos 6:2. The redactional approach has been to separate this verse from Amos‘s time and ascribe it to a later writer based on form and content. In regard to form, the use of imperatives seems to break up the typical use of participial phrases in woecries. However, direct address also appears immediately after the woe-cry at Amos 5:18b;63 if 5:18b can be considered part of the woe-cry, it demonstrates that there is some flexibility in this form. Even if it is not to be considered part of the woe-cry, it is doubtful whether the writer at Amos 6 can be expected to maintain precisely the standard form of woe-cries throughout each woe periscope. 64 In regard more to content, Wolff ascribed this verse to his third stage, the disciples of Amos, which Wolff dated to the period between 738 and 733. Amos‘s disciples, active at a time when the ―ruin of Joseph‖ (6:6, ascribed to the same editorship by Wolff) was imminent, used current events of their time to demonstrate the accuracy of Amos‘s predictions.65 As for Gath, Wolff considered it to be essentially subjugated during Tiglath-pileser III‘s campaign into the Philistine coastal area in 734. Wolff speculated that these Amos disciples were speaking to Israelites on their way to a pilgrimage at Beer-sheba, challenging their sense of national security. Wolff‘s attempt to keep some layer of the book of Amos in the 760s thus required him to separate this verse and connect it with a hypothetical Amos-school active in the 730s. On the other hand, other scholars have retained the authenticity of the verse as dating to a pre-Tiglath-pileser III Amos, by identifying the destructions of those cities with earlier events. S. Paul suggested the invasions of Shalmaneser III in the mid-ninth century that ―may still have been recalled in the days of the prophet.‖ 66 He suggested as an alternative the coalition against Zakkur, king of Hamath and Luash; yet this resulted in Hamath apparently withstanding the attack, and in any case the verse in 62

SEGER 1992:909. RUDOLPH 1971:215–216 removed the Gath portion of this verse. WOLFF 1977:271–272. 64 ROBERTS 1985:163, fn. 8 argued that ―In fact, the Anredestil or vocative address is found in every possible occurrence of the hôy oracle in Amos‖, and cited 5:11 and 6:13 in addition to 5:18. He further rendered 6:1 as a direct address with the participles referring to the addressees (ROBERTS 1985:155–157). Cf. also JANZEN 1972:47–48, fn. 18 for other similar cases of direct address in woe oracles elsewhere in the prophetic corpus; against Janzen see HADJIEV 2009:172–173 who counters that none of Janzen‘s citations are exact parallels to Amos 6. Precise formal similarity in hôy statements seems in any case too much to expect. 65 W OLFF 1977:274–275. Also, B LUM 1994 suggested ascribing Amos 6:1aα, bβ, 2, and 6b to a leading circle of Amos-tradents in Judah between 711–705 BCE. HADJIEV 2009:172 ascribed it to a late 8 th century Judahite scribe who also inserted Zion in 6:1. 66 P AUL 1991:203. 63

58

Chapter Two

Amos seems to suggest a fate common to both Hamath and Calneh. Finally, Paul left it as ultimately unknown, saying that ―In any case, the message was clear enough to the people of Israel.‖ 67 Regarding Gath, Paul suggested that it could refer to the Aramean King Hazael‘s conquest of the city mentioned in II Kings 12:18 (Eng 12:17), or to its conquest by Judah in the Chronicler‘s expanded treatment of Uzziah‘s reign, in II Chronicles 26:6.68 The Chronicles reference has the advantage that it takes place during the time when a 760s prophet Amos would have been active. N. Na‘aman has attributed the downfalls of each of these three cities to Hazael.69 Two horse harness ornaments found at Greek shrines bear inscriptions stating that Hazael had taken them from Unqi, the state of which Calneh was the capital. 70 Further, Na‘aman observed that the material culture of Tell Tainat changes from Hittite to Aramean objects during the ninth century BCE.71 Na‘aman attributed the downfall of Hamath to a conquest by Hazael followed by a temporary decline, followed in turn by Zakkur moving the capital of the region away from Hamath to Hadrach. Furthermore, A. Maeir has argued on the basis of a trench around the site of Tell eṣ-Ṣafi that Gath underwent a protracted siege and destruction in the late ninth century BCE, which Maeir identified with the conquest of Gath carried out by Hazael in II Kings 12:17.72 The city then recovered somewhat and disappears from history after being conquered by Sargon II in 711. So, both Na‘aman and Maeir have argued that Amos 6:2 should be dated according to the conventional dating of the first half of the eighth century BCE, and that it is referencing Hazael‘s actions. This would suggest that it was primarily Aram that the author of Amos 6:2 was concerned about. There are, however, historical, literary, and rhetorical problems with this thesis. Historically, the evidence of Hazael‘s conquest of Calneh is slim, and it is unclear how exactly he acquired the inscribed objects. Even if it was taken by force, it was not necessarily a result of a serious catastrophe for Calneh that Amos 6:2 seems to be referencing. Eph‘al and Naveh cautiously warned that the extent of Hazael‘s activities in north Syria 67

Ibid. P AUL 1991:203–204. 69 NA‘AMAN 1996B:173–178, NA‘AMAN 2002:210–212, NA‘AMAN 2008:60. 70 EPH‘AL AND NAVEH 1989. 71 NA‘AMAN 2002:211. 72 MAEIR 2004. Na‘man (NA‘AMAN 1996B:177 and NA‘AMAN 2002:210) suggested that Gath lost its independence after Hazael‘s invasion, and came under Philistine control after that, citing E. Hammershaimb. However, in the view of HAMMERSHAIMB 1970:98 Gath had not been independent, but had been under Judahite control since Solomon, and that Hazael‘s attack on it was an attack on Judah itself, and that after that Gath came under Philistine control. 68

The Date of the Earliest Level of the Book of Amos

59

is not provided in any detail by the inscriptions. 73 All that can be said is that by the time of Hazael‘s war against Zakkur, Calneh was in a coalition led by Hazael‘s son Bar-Hadad. Furthermore, whatever success Hazael had against Hamath was short-lived and, as stated above, Hamath apparently survived the Aramean attack led by Bar-Hadad during Zakkur‘s reign. On the other hand, Calneh and Hamath suffered severely at the same time during the Assyrian campaign of 738 BCE. Since the two cities appear as a pair in Amos 6:2 (and Isaiah 10:9), this historical event, when they both fall in the same year, is more likely what is referenced. As for Gath, the military identification of the trench around the city has recently been disputed by D. Ussishkin, 74 who has suggested that it is a natural feature and not a man-made trench after all. Additionally, there was also an Assyrian campaign in the region in 734 BCE (referenced in the eponym for that year) and Sargon II‘s attack on Gath in 711. To determine which of these are referenced, the literary and rhetorical problems must be examined first. Even if Calneh and Hamath were conquered by Hazael, this raises serious questions of memory and relevance. If Amos 6:2 is dated to its traditional dating of around the 760s BCE, it is questionable if the activities of Hazael in Syria in the ninth century would have been in the memories or historical knowledge of most the original hearers and readers. But if the earliest layer of the book is dated to the late eighth-century, as proposed here, events from the 730s would have easily been in the living memory of many of the original hearers and readers. On the issue of relevance, it is questionable what the point would have been of citing these activities of Hazael decades later in the 760s BCE. At that time, Israel was under no real threat. This is often seen as part of the point of the book of Amos, that it warns of disaster during a time of complacency. But if the purpose of 6:2 was to warn that the Arameans might invade at some point, then why would the author not mention the various attacks on Samaria carried out by Arameans throughout the ninth century? The Aramean siege of Samaria by Ben-Hadad in II Kings 6:24–7:20 is described as being so serious that people resorted to eating their own children. Rhetorically, to cite the victories of Hazael specifically would have little rhetorical impact on Israelites, since Hazael conquered cities in Syria as well as Gath and parts of the Israelite Transjordan, but the city of Samaria was unaffected.75 The residents of Samaria could respond to such an historical example by saying that they had survived Aramean incursions 73 EPH‘AL AND NAVEH 1989:199 –200. Note also p.196, where Eph‘al and Naveh explain that earlier cases of kings crossing ―the river‖ and setting up a monument do not mean that the king had control over the region. 74 USSISHKIN 2009. 75 A possible exception is if the Tel Dan stele relates the killing of an Israelite king by Hazael.

60

Chapter Two

before and would again if necessary. But if the verse is referring to the Assyrian advances of Tiglath-pileser III, the rhetorical impact is much stronger. The Assyrians were a more serious threat than ever before, the attacks of Shalmaneser III in the ninth century having failed to penetrate into Palestine. But having crushed Calneh and Hamath in the late eighth century, the Assyrians had emerged into a serious threat to Israel. In the framework of a late eighth century text, the historicized prophet whom the text places in the 760s would be telling the Israelites to go see what will happen to Calneh and Hamath, and that a similar fate awaits Israel as well. The late eighth or early seventh century hearers and readers, of course, would know full well what happened. The destructions of Calneh and Hamath were part of the same series of campaigns that destroyed Samaria, and are thus far more relevant to Israel‘s demise. In view of all of these considerations, Tiglath-Pileser III‘s campaign through Philistia in 734 BCE is the most likely reference for the mention of Gath in the verse. A possible alternative is Sargon II‘s strike there in the aftermath of Azuri‘s rebellion, but this occurred after the fall of Samaria, so it would have little relevance in the historicized scenario of a prophet warning of Israel‘s fall in advance. We cannot know why Gath is singled out in this verse as opposed to the other Philistine cities; perhaps it lost significance after the 734 campaign, as it appears as a satellite city to Ashdod in Sargon II‘s account of his invasion there in 711. The verse as it stands seems to suggest some sort of impending doom for the entire region that even powerful cities cannot resist. This is not just a case of prophetic hyperbole, because the specific references to Calneh and Hamath, destroyed by the Assyrians in the same year, reflect knowledge of these events. The best historical reference for this verse is the Assyrian invasions by Tiglath-pileser III and possibly Sargon II in the late eighth century, but after the deaths of Uzziah and Jeroboam II. It has been demonstrated above that 6:2 forms an essential part of a chiasm in 6:1–14, thus it cannot be removed without disrupting the chiasm. If the entire core layer of the book of Amos is dated to a time after the fall of Samaria, this verse presents no chronological difficulties at all. 2.3.2. Sikkût and kiyyûn In addition to the historical references in Amos 6:2, other portions of the book make references to Mesopotamian deities that also suggest an authorship dating to a time after the Assyrian occupation of the former kingdom of Israel. Amos 5:26 seems to say, ―Take up sikkût your king and kiyyûn, your images, your star god(s) [or ―star of your gods‖], which you made for yourselves.‖ If sikkûtis a deity, it is usually identified with the Babylonian

The Date of the Earliest Level of the Book of Amos

61

god Sakkut (Sag-kud), a cupbearer of the gods connected with the city of Der, bordering on Elam. 76 Kiyyûn is often identified as ―Kaiwan,‖ from ―Kajjamanu,‖ literally, ―the steady one.‖ 77 This deity was identified with Saturn, on account of Saturn being the slowest moving and thus steadiest of the planets (from an earthly perspective). The association of Kiyyun with Saturn has been known for centuries, and it appears in the medieval commentary of Abraham ibn Ezra (1089–1164), who wrote concerning Amos 5:26 that, ―the word kiyyun is known in Arabic and Persian, for it is ‗Kaiwan,‘ that is, Saturn.‖ 78 These two deities seemed to appear together in a list of deities in Šurpu II 180, where Sag-kud appears to be immediately followed by a deity identified as SAG.UŠ or Kajjamanu. So, Sakkut and Kajjamanu (Kaiwan) seemed to appear as a pair in a list of gods, and that Kaiwan was an astral deity. However, Borger pointed out that the text actually reads not SAG.UŠ but simply UŠ, that is, the god Nita, a deity that along with Sakkut is connected with Ninurta. 79 This new reading broke the extra-biblical pairing relation between these two deities, but this does not mean that these were not both Mesopotamian deities, nor did Borger claim that. 80 ―Sikkût‖ in this verse has been identified with the ―sukkôt běnôt‖ of II Kings 17:30, a deity apparently introduced into Israel by Babylonians ex iled to Samaria by Assyria following Samaria‘s fall in 722. 81 If the date of the composition of the earliest level of Amos is identified with the reigns of Jeroboam II and Uzziah, this verse would then have to be removed and ascribed to a time period after the fall of Samaria. 82 W.H. Schmidt ascribed this passage to the post-exilic dtr redactor, and was followed in this by Wolff.83 If the earliest level of the book of Amos post-dates the fall of Samaria, there is no historical problem with this verse. Others, however, have argued that these deities could have been worshipped in Israel before the Assyrian invasions of the eighth century, 76 STOL 1999b:722. HARPER 1905:139 suggested that the MT vocalization is derived from śiqqûṣ, ―detestable thing.‖ 77 STOL 1999a. . 78 S IMON 1989:229: ‫' והוא שבתי‬, ‫ כי הוא 'כיואן‬, ‫ומלת כיון ידועה בלשון ישמאל גם פרס‬ 79 B ORGER 1988. 80 JEREMIAS 1998:105 proposed a redactional development of this verse, starting from a core reference to Mesopotamian astral deities. He argued that the verse is an import from later post-Hoseanic thought, which ―shifts the text‘s accusation to the level of wor ship of foreign gods in a way Amos himself never did.‖ 81 But see B EEK 1948:140 for the view that 5:25–26 means that the Israelites carried these gods with them in the wilderness. 82 As did W ELLHAUSEN 1963A:84. Cf. also W ILLI-P LEIN 1971:37–39, who placed the verse after the exile, and followed W EISER 1929:225 in reading massēkôt, ―cast images,‖ instead of sikkût. 83 W.H. SCHMIDT 1965:188–191 and W OLFF 1977:262.

62

Chapter Two

which would make possible the retention of this verse in a pre-Assyrianinvasion composition. McKay wrote that, ―unless this oracle does not derive from the time of Amos himself and has been inserted by an editor, these gods were already in Palestine before the time of Tiglath-pileser‘s campaigns to the west.‖ 84 Similarly, Cogan wrote that, ―Prior to Assyria‘s move into Syria-Palestine under Tiglath-pileser III, the prophet Amos had already inveighed against Israelite veneration of Mesopotamian stellar deities, Sakkut and Kaiwan.‖ 85 As an explanation for Mesopotamian deities appearing in Israel prior to Tiglath-pileser III‘s invasions, Cogan wrote that, ―We suspect that astral cults popular in north Syria penetrated Israel ite practice through Aramean mediation.‖ 86 Yet these views are dependent on reading Amos 5:26 traditionally, before the Assyrian invasions. If these are Mesopotamian deities, without further evidence that they were worshipped in Israel before the Assyrian invasions, their veneration remains more likely after the invasions. A look at how Assyrian religion functioned in the Assyrian provinces can aid in understanding 5:26. One of the chief ways in which Assyrian religion was used to absorb conquered peoples into the Assyrian population was through the use of the kakki Aššur, the ―weapon‖ or ―symbol‖ of Assur. 87 This practice was used only by the Assyrian kings Tiglath-pileser III, Sargon II and Sennacherib. 88 The kakki Aššur was apparently a military standard or emblem, used at important religious and political occasions, such as oaths. Cogan argued that, ―since these weapons played a part in the legal and cultic life of the NeoAssyrian period, their display in new provinces probably served as more than just a reminder of reverence due Assyrian gods; a cult in their honor was likely instituted.‖89 However, Holloway has argued that the ―symbol of Assur‖ was used only for loyalty oaths, without any lasting cultic practice.90 Holloway argued that there are no references in any Assyrian documents to the continued use of these symbols within the provinces for local worship; instead, they were one-time-use devices that placed the Assyrian religious stamp on the oaths. 91 Also, he noted that these symbols sometimes were of various gods, and not just of Assur. 92 Furthermore, he ob84

MCKAY 1971:68. A similar view was held by P AUL 1991:195. COGAN 1974:104. 86 Ibid. 87 COGAN 1974:53. 88 COGAN 1974:53. 89 COGAN 1974:55. 90 HOLLOWAY 1992:160–178. 91 HOLLOWAY 1992:163–164. HOLLOWAY 1992:177: ―I am inclined to believe that these images were used in the administration of oaths to peoples of bo th client and provincial status – and little else.‖ 92 These included non-Assyrian gods, H OLLOWAY 1992:174–176. 85

The Date of the Earliest Level of the Book of Amos

63

served that they are used almost always in provinces at the edge of the empire, right before some of the local inhabitants are exiled. 93 This could help explain Amos 5:26. This passage could refer to religious emblems of these gods, used in a loyalty oath of Israel when it was on the fringe of the empire, perhaps in 721. 94 The ṣalmêkem, ―your images,‖ could refer to the emblems ―of your gods,‖ ʾēlohêkem, which may in turn refer to just these two gods, or to the whole assemblage of the deities brought to bear on the oath. Perhaps the name ―Assur‖ is avoided (as it is absent throughout the book), in order to prevent the listener or reader from thinking that a deity other than Yahweh had accomplished the destruction of Israel. ―Assur‖ would then be replaced by ʾēlohêkem. Kôkab could refer to the stellar deities, or be a rendering of Akkadian kakki Aššur.95 In this case, the verse would be sarcastically advocating that Israelites should ―lift up‖ their emblems to swear an oath to Assyria affirming their subjugation. This defeat was not accomplished simply through Assyrian military superiority, but by the Israelites' own actions; they have, as it were, made their emblems themselves (ʾăšer ʿăśîtem lākem). Just as in six out of the seven known instances of the kakki Aššur being used in such an oath, the population is exiled; so 5:26 is immediately followed by a declaration of exile ―beyond Damascus.‖ At the end of this verse, Yahweh asserts that it is he (and therefore not any other deity) who has done this. However, the identification of the terms in 5:26 remains unclear, and the ancient versions demonstrate an early confusion about their meanings. The extraordinary variety of differences in the versions, as well as the obscurity of the references in the MT, caused Barstad to describe this verse as ―without hesitation…the most difficult passage in the whole Book of Amos.‖96 LXX translates sikkût as ― ,‖ ―tents,‖ apparently reading the word as ―sukkat.‖ This is followed by Symmachus, Syriac and Vulgate. LXX further read MT malkěkem as the familiar biblical god Moloch, producing ―take up the tent of Moloch,‖ with Vulgate following with ―tabernaculum Moloch vestro,‖ ―tabernacle of your Moloch.‖ 97 Aquila, 93 HOLLOWAY 1992:163. In six out of the seven attested usages of the symbol, a population resettlement was carried out by Assyria. 94 JEREMIAS 1998:105 suggested that they could be ―emblematic standards.‖ 95 Assur was however not a stellar deity. 96 B ARSTAD 1984:119. HARPER 1905:140–141 listed thirteen interpretations of 5:26. 97 This view was followed in part by W EINFELD 1972:150, who argued concerning the ―your king‖ in Amos that, ―It is clear that the reference is to the worship of a foreign god named melekh.‖ He suggested that ―the verse in Amos is to be understood against the background of a procession in which there were carried in a sukkah the image of the king (Hadad/Adad) and the symbol of the queen (the queen of heaven=Ištar), which was a star.‖ Weinfeld suggested that the presence of this verse in Amos pushes back the date of the worship of the host of heaven earlier than would be expected (the time of Ahaz). If

64

Chapter Two

however, has ―Molchom‖ instead of Moloch, probably referring to the Ammonite god Milcom. Theodotion and Symmachus follow MT in reading malkěkem as ―your king.‖ LXX rearranges the verse segments, producing ―take up the tent of Moloch and the star of your god,‖ and reads kiyyûn as Raiphan, apparently due to inner-Greek morphological changes. LXX is followed by Acts 7:44: ―you took along the tent of Moloch and the star of your god Rephan, the images that you made to worship.‖ 98 A reading probably dependent on that of LXX (or a Vorlage of LXX) also became a subject of exegesis in the Damascus Rule (CD), a text known from the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Cairo Genizah. 99 CD 7:14–21 (from the Cairo Genizah) cited Amos 5:26 as ―I will deport the Sikkut of your King and the Kiyyun of your images away from my tent to Damascus.‖100 CD interpreted this in an entirely different way from the versions, viewing it not as a sentence of exile, but as a statement of hope, with allegorical readings. The ―Sikkut of your King‖ was interpreted in CD as ―booth of the king‖ (‫ )סוכת המלך‬referring to the Books of the Law, and was related to the sukkat dawîd in Amos 9:11. The ―king‖ was identified with the assembly (‫)הקהל‬. The ―Kiyyun‖ appears then in plural ( ‫ )ביניי הצלמים‬and again in singular ( ‫)כיון הצלמים‬,101 which are then identified with the Books of the Prophets, despised by apostates. This has been defined as ―the plinths (or bases) of the images,‖ 102 apparently from the Hebrew root ‫כון‬, meaning something stable, firm, or secure, as in the noun kēn, meaning a basin stand or mast housing. Although CD does not include the ―star‖ in its translation, it interprets it as an ―Interpreter of the law who will come to Damascus.‖103 The community that produced this text regarded Damascus (either the real city or a figurative term), as their spiritual exile, until their messianic return. CD presents a history based in part on Isaiah 7:17, saying that when Ephraim departed from Judah, ―all the renegades were delivered up to the sword, but those who remained steadfast escaped to the land of Weinfeld was correct about the divinities identified, the later dating proposed here would eliminate this chronological incongruity. 98 NRSV. 99 VERMES 1987:81. 100 GARCÍA-M ARTÍNEZ and T IGCHELAAR 1997:561, with Hebrew text on p. 560. GARCÍA-M ARTÍNEZ 1994:37–38 contains the error ―Kiyyum‖ instead of ―Kiyyun.‖ The final letter is a final nun, cf. the photograph of the original in B ROSHI 1992:22. This is typed correctly in G ARCÍA-MARTÍNEZ and T IGCHELAAR 1997. The pronunciation of the terms in question (as well as the capitalization of ―King‖) is conjectural. 101 BROSHI 1992:23 considered this as a case of dittography, but it could be a reference back to the citation. 102 ―Plinths‖ is used in G ARCÍA-MARTÍNEZ 1994:38, ―bases‖ in V ERMES 1987:89, and simply ―Kiyyune of the images‖ in G ARCÍA-MARTÍNEZ 1997:561. 103 GARCÍA-MARTÍNEZ 1994:38. For Qumran, cf. G ARCÍA-M ARTÍNEZ 1994:68 and GARCÍA-M ARTÍNEZ and T IGCHELAAR 1997:586–587.

The Date of the Earliest Level of the Book of Amos

65

the north,‖ that is, Damascus. 104 In this way, CD interpreted the Amos verse essentially as ―I will exile the Books of the Law of the Congregation and the Books of the Prophets from my tent (Jerusalem?) to Damascus.‖ This group of righteous exiles will be accompanied by a ―star,‖ or interpreter of the law, who along with a prince of the congregation will lead a messianic victory. 105 This unusual interpretation provides an exegesis of the terms, bringing them into the theological concerns of the CD community. In addition to the obscurity of the deities possibly mentioned, and the variety of textual attestations, this verse has puzzled scholars because it does not seem to be poetry, and because it targets idolatry, a topic otherwise not addressed by Amos. Isbell used the LXX version to emend the Hebrew to bring the passage into a poetic structure. Isbell proposed the translation: ―You will take up the tabernacle of Milcom, the star of your god (which is) Kiyyun, Your images which you have made for yourselves.‖106 Here Isbell has adopted the LXX reading of SKT as ―tent,‖ but has read malkěkem not as LXX ―Moloch‖ but as Aquila‘s ―Milcom.‖ Isbell also reads ―Milcom‖ for the malkěkem in the oracle against Ammon in 1:15, along with Aquila and Symmachus. In any case, the presence of prose passages (as in the vision reports beginning in 7:1) does not mean that these passages must be later additions. A similar reading, but without trying to make the verse poetically metered, was proposed by Gevirtz. On the basis of the equation of qittul with mqtl, Gevirtz read sikkût and kiyyûn as ―mskt‖ and ―mkwn‖ respectively. Mskt in Phoenician is ―shrine,‖ with the root SKT related to the Arabic root SGD, from which is derived ―masgid,‖ French and English ―mosque.‖ Mkwn in Hebrew can be ―abode,‖ so Gevirtz connected this with the ṣalmêkem as ―abode of your images.‖ Like LXX, Gevirtz viewed malkěkem as referring to a deity, which he left undefined as ―your (god) MLK.‖ So, in total, Gevirtz translated the verse as ―But you bring/carry (these things) to the shrine of your (god) MLK, and to the abode of your images—the host of your gods that you have made for yourselves!‖ 107 Other scholars have read the term sikkût both ways, seeing it as referring to a deity as well as alluding to sukkoth. Eric Burrows, for example, interpreted the verse as drawing a connection between the name of the god Sakkut and sukkoth, huts. Burrows read 5:25, the rhetorical question, ―did you bring me sacrifices and oblations in the desert for forty years?‖ as be104

GARCÍA-MARTÍNEZ 1994:37. On the religious background of CD concerning this passage, that the community‘s new places of worship have replaced the temple, cf. DAVIES 2000:35. 106 ISBELL 1978:97. 107 GEVIRTZ 1968:276. 105

66

Chapter Two

ing answered ―yes,‖ meaning that the performance of sacrifices cannot prevent long-term desert wanderings. Amos then would be telling his audience that ―This time you shall carry during your wanderings Sakkut or Sukkat instead of the tabernacle of the God of hosts.‖ 108 A similar view was proposed by Schniedewind, who argued that while Amos 5:26 does refer to a deity Sakkuth, Amos 9:11, a late eighth-century verse in his view, interpreted sikkût as sukkoth. Thus, Schniedewind proposed that the redactor of 9:11 was asking, ―‘Who is your legitimate king (‫ ‘?)מלככם‬and ‗What is the ‫ ‘?סכות‬The legitimate king must be David, and the fallen ‗hut‘ of David ( ‫ )סכת דויד הנופלת‬is the division of the kingdom that now will be mended.‖ 109 Schniedewind‘s view combines the reference in 5:26 as being a god, while also showing how there could be a reinterpretation of this term within the final form of the book of Amos. These various proposals indicate the difficulty of the verse, with some adopting readings from MT and others from LXX, or both. The view taken here is that the MT is to be preferred over the LXX, as the lectio difficilior. That is, the MT vocalizes skwt as sikkût, not sukkôt, whereas the LXX read skwt as the much more standard Hebrew term sukkôt. LXX did recognize divine names in this verse, such as Raiphan and Moloch (contrary to MT). LXX probably identified deities where any were recognizable (whatever ―Raiphan‖ might have meant), and not being aware of the Mesopotamian god Sakkut, translated it as a known Hebrew noun. CD was probably dependent on this reading. MT likely preserves an older understanding, referencing the Mesopotamian gods Sakkut and Kaiwan, which were probably unknown to the LXX translators. The different vocalizations of these divine names in MT from their Mesopotamian names could have been based on śiqqûṣ, ―detestable thing,‖110 or this vocalization could simply be how this god was known in Israel/Judah. If these terms do refer to Sakkut and Kaiwan, it is possible that they were worshipped in Israel before the Assyrian invasions, although the Assyrian invasions provide a more likely source for the introduction of these Mesopotamian deities into Israel. 111 The arguments made above concerning the use of the kakki Aššur suggest that the verse is probably mocking the Israelites for bearing up oath standards on their way into exile, reflect ing a post-722 perspective. If these gods were introduced at this time, Sakkut may be reflected in the sukkôt běnôt deity introduced into Israel by the Assyrians in II Kings 17:30. All in all, this verse most likely mocks the 108

B URROWS 1927:184–5. SCHNIEDEWIND 2003:391. The ―booth of David‖ will be extensively discussed in Chapter Six below. 110 HARPER 1905:139, as noted above. 111 These deities were however not major deities in Mesopotamia itself. 109

The Date of the Earliest Level of the Book of Amos

67

Israelites for worshipping deities introduced into Israel by the Assyrians as they went into exile, and thus dates to a time after the Assyrian invasions. 2.3.3. ʾAšmat šōmrôn Another possible case of post-Assyrian-invasion religion in Amos is the ʾašmat šōmrôn of Amos 8:14, which has been interpreted in a variety of ways. Of particular importance for the purposes here is the possible identification of this with the deity Ashima (ʾăšîmāʾ) imported by exiles from Hamath after the Assyrian conquest of Samaria in II Kings 17:30, along with Sukkoth-benoth as discussed above. 112 This would create the same chronological problem reviewed above for the traditional dating of the book, as Amos would be condemning a religious practice that had not yet entered Samaria. Identifying these two terms as referring to the same deity has required commentators who date the origin of the book to a prophet Amos who lived before the Assyrian conquest of Samaria to regard 8:14 as a later addition.113 Otherwise, the passage from Amos can be preferred and II Kings 17:30 can be discounted. 114 If the entire first stage of the composition of the book of Amos is dated after the fall of the northern kingdom, there is again no chronological problem between Amos 8:14 (or 5:26, as discussed above) and II Kings 17:30. Having so said, the precise identity of this deity, if it is Ashima of II Kings 17, is not well known. The only extra-biblical attestation of this deity in exactly the same way as it appears in II Kings 17:30 is in a temple building inscription discovered at Tayma in 1979 and dated to around 400 BCE.115 This deity is listed with two other deities, Ṣalm and Śengalla (‫צלם‬ and ‫ שנגלא‬respectively), as ―the gods of Tayma.‖ 116 Another inscribed block was found with this one, depicting a winged sun-disc, a crescent, and a Venus star117 above a scene involving a priest worshipping at an altar surmounted by a bull‘s head. 118 Beyer and Livingstone suggested that the three gods of Tayma might correspond to these three astral symbols, and further that the Mesopotamian lunar god Sin might be in the name ―Śengalla.‖119 Thus, they suggested that Ṣalm might in turn be the solar

112

Among others arguing for this identification, BARSTAD 1984:157–181. E.g., MAYS 1969:149. 114 As did B ARSTAD 1984:159–167, who pointed out various problems with the II Kings verse. 115 BEYER and LIVINGSTONE 1987:286–288. 116 On these as the triad of top deities of Tayma, cf. T EIXIDOR 1977:71–76. 117 BEYER and LIVINGSTONE 1987:287 identified this star as Venus. 118 ATLAL 3, 1979, plate 49. 119 B EYER and L IVINGSTONE 1987:288, but cf. T EIXIDOR 1977:75, who identified Ṣalm as the moon god. 113

68

Chapter Two

deity. This would leave Ashima as Venus, which would fit well with the possibility of astral deities preserved in Amos 5:26. While this deity is known from Tayma, not from Hamath, it has been suggested that Arabs caravanning in Hamath may have adopted a native Hamathite deity into their own pantheon.120 However, there are possible attestations of this deity in Aramaic texts. The divine name Ešembetʾel or ―Eshem-Bethel‖ has appeared in two of the Aramaic letters of Elephantine,121 and the theophoric element ʾašim appears in several different Aramaic names.122 Even though Elephantine is in Egypt, this Aramaic theophoric may reflect Levantine usage. This theophoric may be present in the Greek name Συμβετύλως, found on an inscription from Kafr Nebo in Syria.123 Thus, if these theophoric elements can be identified with Ashima, then this deity had a presence in Syrian religion. 124 However, this is not always read as a deity at all. As it stands, ʾašmat šōmrôncan simply be translated as ―the guilt of Samaria,‖ which could be a play on or a theological correction of the name Ashima 125 or a reference not to any foreign deity, but to a localized form of Yahweh. 126 While the noun ʾašmāh appears only in post-exilic texts in the Hebrew Bible, primarily Chronicles, Wolff noted that the verb ʾšm, with the meaning ―to be guilty,‖ does appear in Hosea 4:15 and 13:1. 127 Wolff further argued that ʾašmat šōmrôn is not a deity because neither of the other oaths in this verse refers to other gods. The exact meaning of ʾašmat šōmrôn is uncertain, but the view cited above that this is a play on the name of a deity Ashima with 120

COGAN 1999:105. PORTEN and LUND 2002:425. 122 GRELOT 1972:464. These divine names, like the passage in Amos 8:14, do not reflect the precise spelling ʾăšîmāʾ that appears in II Kings 17:30, and may reflect flexibility in the orthography of this name. B ARSTAD 1984:164–165 has pointed out how the Amos 8:14 spelling may be older than that in II Kings 17:30, as the Amos term may be written defectively, and that the final ʾalep in II Kings 17:30 may be a later Aramaism. Also, B ARSTAD 1984:165–166 has argued that the construct form resembles such names as yhwh ṣbʾwt and the Ugaritic atrt ym and atrt ṣrm. Since, as B ARSTAD 1984:166 pointed out, the people from Hamath ―made an Ashima‖, this could account for the construct form, as well as the word being rendered as ―guilt‖ at some point in the textual transmission. 123 LIDZBARSKI 1908:323–324. 124 Other deities have been suggested as well, particularly Eshmun and Asherah. For rejection of the former on the grounds that the nun is always present in this name, cf. COGAN 1999:105. For questioning of the latter on the grounds that Asherah nowhere else is rendered in this way, cf. VAN DER TOORN 1992. 125 VAN DER TOORN 1992:91 leaned towards it being a theological correction of a di vine name. 126 W OLFF 1977:331–332. WELLHAUSEN 1963 A:93 suggested that the term refers to the golden calf. He was followed in this by M ARTI 1904:219–220, who proposed, ―Sie, die bei dem Gott von Bethel schwören.‖ 127 W OLFF 1977:331–332. 121

The Date of the Earliest Level of the Book of Amos

69

the word for ―guilt‖ is probably to be preferred. The appearance of the divinity Ashima in II Kings 17:30 along with sukkôt běnôt suggests that this may be another foreign deity that was brought into Israel as it was being conquered in the late eighth century, after the traditional date for the book of Amos. If there is any historical reality behind II Kings 17:30, this may serve as another piece of evidence for the post-722 origin of the first stage of the book of Amos. The phrase ―as the derek of Beer-sheba lives‖ in Amos 8:14 has been interpreted as a divinity, which would support reading ʾašmat šōmrôn as a deity as well.128 Beer-sheba was a major site of international trade before its destruction by Sennacherib at the end of the eighth century BCE. 129 In fact, Herzog and Singer-Avitz have argued that the lowland regions of Judah (including Beer-sheba) developed in the Iron Age earlier than the hill country sites like Jerusalem, and a power shift occurred to Jerusalem after Sennacherib devastated the lowland regions. 130 Considering the fears about outside influences that pervade so much of the biblical literature, it can be expected that ideologues in Jerusalem might be concerned about the amount of traffic moving through Beer-sheba. This traffic would have consisted partly of Northerners (Israelites), and some Northern pottery has been found in Beer-sheba.131 But more importantly, the possibility of Northern religious pilgrimages into the Negev is evidenced by the reference to ―Yahweh of Samaria‖ at Kuntillet ʿAjrud.132 So, Amos 8:14, as well as 5:5, may well be a polemic against Northern religious visits to Beer-sheba. If the initial layer of the book of Amos was composed during or after Sennacherib‘s invasion, the fall of Beer-sheba may be referred to in those verses; but even if not, the verses could still refer to northern pil grimages into Judah. 2.3.4. Specific Dating This ensemble of factors, including the assumption of Israel‘s military defeat and exile by an invading nation, as well as references to apparent conquests of specific cities, in addition to the references to Mesopotamian deities, combine to suggest that the book of Amos was produced later than its 128 Cf. discussion in B ARSTAD 1984:191–201 and OLYAN 1991. SOGGIN 1987:140–141 translated this as ―Power‖ on the basis of LXX ό Θεός, Ugaritic drkt. RUDOLPH 1971:206–208 removed 5:26b altogether. 129 SINGER-AVITZ 1999. 130 HERZOG AND SINGER-AVITZ 2004. 131 SINGER-AVITZ 1999:12, 32; FINKELSTEIN 2008:509. 132 SINGER-AVITZ 2006 dated the pottery assemblage at Kuntillet ʿAjrud to the late eighthcentury, whereas FINKELSTEIN 2008:508 dated it earlier in the same century. It makes no difference for the thesis here; the point is that ―Yahweh of Samaria‖ was venerated by someone deep in the Negev in the 8th century.

70

Chapter Two

superscription claims. The references to conquered cities in 6:2 in particular makes a dating of this passage in the reigns of Jeroboam II and Uzziah highly implausible, as there would be no way to explain the author‘s singling out of these cities. These factors give reason for a date after Calneh, Hamath, Gath (and therefore after 711 BCE) and, of course, Israel were conquered by Assyria. But determining a more precise date is difficult. Several factors, however, can aid in narrowing down the best options. Judah is scarcely mentioned in the book, and never in undisputed passages. As discussed in the previous chapter, the two or three anti-Judah statements in Amos are most likely not original, or least not as they appear in the MT. These passages were added or updated to apply the book to Judah‘s sixth-century destruction, and assume Judah‘s fall. Without these changes, the book of Amos presents a doom that befalls Israel and not Judah. This suggests a pre-exilic date for the earliest layer of Amos, when Judah had not yet shared Israel‘s fate. The focus on the events of the Assyrian conquest in Syria and Israel suggests both a familiarity with those events as well as a time when these events would have been of relevance. Particularly the references to Calneh, Hamath, and Gath in 6:2 suggest a familiarity with these events, and assume that the readership/hearership of this stage of the book shared that familiarity. If the audience of this stage of the book did not know that Calneh and Hamath were major cities that were conquered just before Israel, this passage‘s mockery of Israel‘s overconfidence would have had less rhetorical impact. Additionally, the book of Amos contains references to specific details of the northern kingdom, which may reflect knowledge of the kingdom of Israel from when it still stood, before it was destroyed by Assyria. These include the summer and winter palaces as well as the ivory inlays at Samaria (Amos 3:15), recovered at the site by modern archaeologists. However, these are normal accoutrements of royalty, and one might not have needed to be aware of Israel‘s internal structures to expect such luxuries. 133 As discussed in Chapter One above, the book of Amos does not share the view of history so prominent in the DtrH, in which Israel was perceived as a secessionist state. Thus, the earliest stage of the book of Amos could preserve a view of the northern kingdom that predates the view in the DtrH, and thus might suggest a pre-exilic or even pre-Josianic dating.134 It should be noted that the view of Israel as a secessionist state may 133

K ING 1988:64–69 pointed out that seasonal palaces and ivory ornamentation were common in the ancient Near East. King was attempting to provide archaeological background to Amos, not to deal with the question of the author‘s familiarity with historical Samaria. 134 Dating texts around the dtr accounts of Josiah is risky, as he is not known outside of the Hebrew Bible (with the possible exception of an ostracon, for which see B ORDREUIL, I SRAEL, and P ARDEE 1998.)

The Date of the Earliest Level of the Book of Amos

71

be uniquely dtr (and chr), as this view rarely appears in even the latest biblical prophetic books, nor for that matter in the later additions to the book of Amos. The dtr view might never have held sway as the universally-accepted view of Israel‘s history, but might have been only one view, with little influence outside of Chronicles. But if the dtr view of history ever did predominate, it is notable that the accusation of Israel‘s secession is absent in the book of Amos. While the book lacks the United Monarchy ideology of the DtrH, it bears strong similarities with the probable earliest layers of Isaiah. The similarity between Amos 6:2 and Isaiah 10:9–11 has already been noted above, and to this could be added striking similarities between Amos 5:21– 24 with Isaiah 1:10–17, Amos 1:2 with Isaiah 2:3b, Amos 2:7 and 8:4 with Isaiah 3:15, and Amos 4:1 with Isaiah 3:16. Amos has two or three ―woe oracles,‖ and Isaiah 5:8–24 has another woe series, again with numerous similarities to Amos. These and many more remarkable similarities with Isaiah are useful only insofar as the date of the Isaiah passages is known, but if they are considered to be late eighth or early seventh century in origin, this can assist in dating comparable passages in Amos. Another possible aid in narrowing down the date for the initial composition of the core of Amos is if there is any indication that Assyria was still an active power at the time of composition. One indicator might be if the book reflects a pro-Assyrian position, which would be unlikely if it postdated Assyria‘s withdrawal from the region in the 620s BCE. 135 Assyria is apparently referred to obliquely in Amos 3:11 and 6:14 without disapproval, and elsewhere the invading danger is equated with Yahweh himself. The book of Amos lacks any criticism of Assyria for imperial hubris, as is seen, for example, in Nahum regarding Assyria, and in Habakkuk regarding Babylon. Again, as with comparisons with the earliest layers of Isaiah, those of Amos seem to reflect an earlier ―stage‖ of biblical prophetic literature, but this is dependent on whether or not a diachronic development of biblical prophecy from works like Amos and Isaiah down to works like Haggai and Zechariah is accepted. Yet, while none of these factors is sufficient alone, in combination they suggest that a date fairly close to the Assyrian conquest of Israel would best fit the statements made in the book of Amos. In Chapter Six below, it will be argued that various statements in the book of Amos best fit the situation of Judah as an emerging state recently relieved of northern, that is, Israelite dominance. A time from around the end of the eighth century to the early seventh century 135

There has been a recent discussion about how pro-Assyrian ancient Judah was. For the most recent statement, cf. D ALLEY 2004, where she argued that Judah and Assyria were very close, and that the Judahite and Assyrian royal families even had marital al liances.

72

Chapter Two

is probably the best choice for the initial composition of the earliest level of the book of Amos.

2.4. Other Post-760s Proposals for the Earliest Compilation of the Book of Amos 136 The contrast between the relatively peaceful days of Jeroboam and Uzziah on the one hand and the violent aftermath of that era on the other was used by Milgrom as a tool for dating portions of the book of Isaiah. 137 Milgrom argued that Isaiah 1:10–6:13 should be dated to the time of Uzziah, because it lacks any specific threat to Israel, and instead presents the country as living in peace and prosperity. Thus, Milgrom proposed that this passage must predate the invasions of Tiglath-pileser III. Milgrom argued further that the preceding material (1:2–9) must date after these invasions, because it speaks of a ―remnant.‖ Amos also presents Israel as living in peace and prosperity, but followed by disaster, with only a remnant remaining. Thus, by Milgrom‘s criterion, Amos should date to a time after disaster had struck Israel, as the book contains very specific threats against Israel.138 It is, of course, possible that an author writing during Israel‘s era of peace and prosperity could warn of coming disaster even when it seemed remote, but the specific details in the book of Amos listed above make a date after the Assyrian invasions much more likely. Koch expressed the difficulty with dating the book of Amos early, before the Assyrian invasions: For a peasant farmer from Tekoa, in peaceful times, to prophesy years in advance the approach and the complete success of the Assyrian army borders on the unfathomable. Did Amos run a kind of institute for strategic studies all on his own? This prophet possessed unbelievable clairvoyance, which he himself put down to a voice which forced itself compellingly on him (3.8). Are there any explanations except parapsychological ones?139

Cripps attempted to retain the references to Jeroboam II as well as account for an Assyrian invasion by dating the book to the very end of Jero136 Only datings within the pre-exilic period will be discussed in this section. Several scholars have proposed a Persian-period setting for the composition of most of the book, such as LORETZ 1992, DINES 2001, and LINVILLE 2008:8–9, 13–37. This possibility will be discussed below in section 4.5, in regard to Loretz‘s views in particular. 137 MILGROM 1964. 138 M ILGROM 1964 maintained an earlier date for Amos, writing that the ―seek me and live‖ passages in Amos were similar to comparable passages in his Uzzianic Isaiah, and his early level of Isaiah and Amos both have temple visions at or near the end (Isaiah 6, Amos 9). 139 KOCH 1983:68.

The Date of the Earliest Level of the Book of Amos

73

boam II‘s reign, which he dated later than others have. As Cripps wrote, ―In his Commentary the present writer [Cripps] placed Amos after 745 B.C. in order to allow for the rise of the great Tiglath-pileser III, who usurped the throne of Assyria in 745 B.C., and for some progress in his conquests.‖140 Cripps pinned down the activity of Amos to 742–741, dating the earthquake to 740–739.141 However, whether or not Jeroboam II lived this late, Tiglath-pileser III did not reach Israel itself until around 738. Thus, Jeroboam II still did not live long enough even in Cripps‘s reconstruction to allow for the Assyrians to begin invading Israel and exiling parts of the population. A date after the death of Jeroboam II for the composition of the bulk of the book of Amos would better fit the historical progress of the Assyrians over Israel. Such a later date was proposed by Robert Coote, who placed the earliest stage of the composition after the death of Jeroboam II, but still during the reign of Tiglath-pileser III. This dating allowed time for Tilgath-pileser‘s conquest of Kullani and Hamath in 738 (Amos 6:2). Since it was only around this time that Assyria began deporting populations out of the Levant,142 Coote argued that, ―All in all, indications are that Amos prophesied not during the reign of Jeroboam II but rather during that of his successors, the contemporaries of Tiglath-pileser III.‖ 143 This date seems to be in the mid to late 730s, although Coote did not attempt to pin down an ex act year. As for Jeroboam II, Coote proposed that his appearance is a product of the Josianic ―B-stage‖ redaction, in which a literary linkage was established between Jeroboam II and Jeroboam I, the founder of the Israelite Bethel cult.144 J.J.M. Roberts proposed a way to accommodate the 738 dating of 6:2 as well as the references to Jeroboam II, by suggesting that the prophet‘s activity began during the reign of Jeroboam II but continued for some time after the king‘s death. He pointed out that Hosea 1:1 names only Jeroboam II in the northern kingdom, but also names Azariah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah in the southern kingdom, creating a situation wherein Hosea is portrayed as being active during the reigns of Judahite 140

CRIPPS 1955:xxi. Cf. CRIPPS 1955:xxi–xxiii and 34–41 for full discussion. CRIPPS 1955:41. 142 Cf. ODED 1979:19 for this development, and Younger 1998. 143 COOTE 1981:22. HARAN 2008 proposed that Amos‘s activity began during the reign of Jeroboam II, but continued into the time of the Assyrian incursions into Israel. He read the ―remnant of Joseph‖ passage in 5:15 as referring to a reduced Israel as parts of the country were taken over by Assyria (HARAN 2008:257). 144 Coote‘s three stage process begins with Stage A, the works of Amos himself, probably transcribed by a scribe in the 730s. This stage ―condemns and announces disaster.‖ Stage B is the ―Bethel editor,‖ from between the reigns of Hezekiah and Josiah, and it ―admonishes and offers a choice.‖ Stage C is the ―closing editor,‖ from the late 6 th century, either late exilic or early post-exilic. This stage ―promises a restitution.‖ COOTE 1981:6–8. 141

74

Chapter Two

kings who reigned after the death of Jeroboam II. Thus, Roberts proposed that a similar situation likely obtained in Amos‘s case, whereby Amos was active during as well as after the reign of Jeroboam II. 145 In any case, the total disaster presented in the book of Amos did not happen in Israel until after the reign of Tiglath-pileser III. As discussed above, the images in Amos correspond best after the total defeat of the northern kingdom in the 720s. Dates in the Hezekian period have been recently proposed by M. Sweeney, W. Schniedewind, and K. Möller. An earlier work which hints in this direction is the commentary by H. Rösel (a follower of Koch‘s ideas), who wrote that ―according to one idea, the book was edited by a Deuteronomist editor. We prefer another understanding, according to which an author in Judah adopted the prophecies of Amos and turned them into a book.‖146 However, Rösel did not commit to a specific date. 147 Sweeney proposed that the book of Amos reached its final form in the reign of Hezekiah, but that this Hezekian edition was mostly derived from the words of a real Amos who lived in the reigns of Uzziah and Jeroboam II. Sweeney portrayed the historical Amos as a Judahite prophet and farmer who was required by dominant Israel to pay tribute to the latter at the sanctuary of Bethel.148 Frustrated by this taxation, Amos condemned Bethel, the entire kingdom of Israel, and longed for the reestablishment of Davidic rule over the north, according to Sweeney. Even though Wolff and his followers (Soggin and Coote) placed the anti-Bethel material in a Josianic redaction due to Josiah‘s attack on the shrine in II Kings 23:15, Sweeney countered that this was not a Josianic production: ―Nevertheless, none of these considerations justifies the identification of anti-Beth-El passages in the book of Amos as the products of Josianic redaction.‖ 149 In general, Sweeney argued that none of the texts ascribed by Wolff and his followers to a Josianic redaction 150 were from Josiah‘s time. Concerning the oracles against Philistia, Phoenicia and Edom, Sweeney argued that there are numerous biblical attestations of tensions between Israel and/or Judah and these other three nations from the ninth and eighth century, and 145

ROBERTS 1985:158–159. RÖSEL 1990:10: , ‫ אנחנו מעדיפים תפישה אחרת‬. ‫תפישה אחת נערך הספר עריכה דבטרונומיסטית‬ . ‫ולפיה מחבר בארץ יהודה ליקט את נבואותיו של לפי עמוס וחברון לספר‬ 147 Cf. SWEENEY 2004:763, who suggested that Rösel‘s views on Amos fit well with a Josianic setting. 148 SWEENEY 2001:281. 149 SWEENEY 2001:282. However, S WEENEY 1995 nevertheless seemed to connect the anti-Bethel and pro-Davidic parts of the book of Amos with the Josianic period. SWEENEY 1995:124: ―In such a scenario, the intention of the present form of the book of Amos would be to support Josiah‘s policies.‖ 150 Cf. WOLFF 1977:111–112 for his Josianic layer of the book of Amos. 146

The Date of the Earliest Level of the Book of Amos

75

that no later events are needed to explain these oracles. The order of these oracles, Sweeney argued, although typical of an expected invasion strategy from the north, was followed by no known invasion. Thus, Sweeney argued that they derive from Amos himself, who lived before any of the Assyrian invasions and thus would not have known the actual routes of attack that really did occur under Tiglath-pileser III and his successors.151 Even the Judah oracle with its charge of rejecting Torah law is not of Josianic origin, according to Sweeney, although he allows that it may have been reworked in the Josianic period. Instead, Sweeney pointed out that rejections of Torah appear in Isaiah 1:10, 5:24 and 30:9, which he dated to the late eighth century. Thus, the torah accusation also is dated to the historical prophet Amos.152 All in all, Sweeney dated the entirety of the book to the prophet Amos who lived around the 760s, except for 1:1 and 7:10–17, which he ascribed to a Hezekian redaction. In his words, ―Although the poetic oracles that constitute the bulk of the book appear to derive from Amos himself, the narrative material in Amos 1:1 and 7:10–17 appears to derive from the reign of Hezekiah, when concern with the exile of Israel would have been paramount.‖153 The reference to the earthquake in 1:1, with its tone of familiarity, suggests a date close to the earthquake. The explicit references to the fall of Israel and its exile in the Amaziah narrative of 7:10–17 were connected by Sweeney to the Hezekian revolt against Assyria, with past knowledge of Israel‘s exile. In Sweeney‘s view, this Hezekian revolt occurred partly out of frustration that Assyria did not grant Judah any land in the former northern kingdom, in spite of Ahaz‘s support of Assyria. 154 Even 9:11–15 was ascribed to Amos himself by Sweeney, who argued that ―the placement of this oracle in the book of Amos simply indicates the reestablishment of Davidic rule over the north.‖155 As for Josiah, Sweeney argued that the book of Amos would have lent ―authoritative prophetic support to Josiah‘s destruction of the Beth-El altar and his attempts to reassert Davidic authority over the territory of the former northern kingdom of Israel.‖156 The role of the book in Josianic times influenced the 151

SWEENEY 2001:284–285. Yet even if the torah concept did exist in the late eighth century, which is questionable, it was observed in Chapter One above that northern Israel is never accused of rejecting Torah. This suggests that the torah accusation against Judah is of separate origin than the material which follows it in the book of Amos. 153 SWEENEY 2001:285. 154 SWEENEY 2001:281–282. 155 SWEENEY 2001:280. However, this oracle indicates the establishment of Davidic rule not over the north, but over Edom and ―all the nations who are ca lled by name,‖ cf. Amos 9:12. Amos 9:11–15 is discussed extensively in Chapter Six below. 156 SWEENEY 2001:286. This was misunderstood in the review of Sweeney‘s book by LAATO 2002:264, who wrote that, ―Sweeney puts forward the view often emphasized by 152

76

Chapter Two

composition of I Kings 13, in Sweeney‘s view, although this does raise the question of the absence of Amos himself in the books of Kings. Although Sweeney ascribed only the superscription and the Amaziah narrative to the Hezekian period (with the rest of the book being pre-Hezekian), his work can be included with that of other scholars dating at least part of the production of the book of Amos to the immediate aftermath of the fall of Israel.157 Another scholar who has proposed a Hezekian date for the final form of the book of Amos is Schniedewind, who contextualized the final form of this book to the absorption of northern refugees in the rapidly expanding Jerusalem of the late eighth century. In contrast to Andersen and Freedman and Paul‘s early dating of the book of Amos, Schniedewind correctly noted that, ―In order to arrive at this conclusion, one must dance around rather unequivocal references pointing to the late eighth century.‖ 158 In particular, Schniedewind highlighted the mention of Gath in Amos 6:2, which was destroyed in Sargon‘s invasion in 712 BCE. Like Sweeney, Schniedewind also included the conclusion (Amos 9:11–15) in the original form of the book,159 which is not the view taken here. Schniedewind‘s work here is not an in-depth treatment of the book of Amos, but is included in his paper on the production of large amounts of biblical material during the rise of Judah in Hezekiah‘s reign. A different proposal dating the bulk of the book to a post-722 date was made recently by J.L. Rillett Wood. She argued that the first written form of the book of Amos was composed as a series of songs to be performed at a marzē(a)ḥ in Jerusalem during the reign of Manasseh. 160 According to her, Amos was condemning the revelers at this marzē(a)ḥ for not grieving over the destruction of the northern kingdom of Israel; in this she was fol lowing Amos 6:6.161 Rillett Wood argued that the marzē(a)ḥ was equivalent to the Greek symposium, and she compared the poetry of the book of Amos with classical Greek poets. 162 Rillett Wood‘s proposal is similar to the one made here in terms of a post-722 dating and a largely Judahite auscholars that the books of Isaiah (chaps. 1–39), Amos, Hosea and Micah contain a redactional layer which was written to support Josiah‘s religious and political program.‖ Sweeney wrote that the book of Amos supported Josiah‘s program, but not that it was written for that purpose or in that time. 157 For more on S WEENEY‘s views on Amos, cf. SWEENEY 2000:191–276. There, he is less precise about the dating, but still ascribes everything except the superscription and Amaziah narrative to Amos himself. Cf. SWEENEY 2000:195 for the post-Amos uses of the book. 158 SCHNIEDEWIND 2003:390. 159 SCHNIEDEWIND 2003:390–391. 160 R ILLETT W OOD 2002:113. 161 R ILLETT W OOD 2002:107. 162 R ILLETT W OOD 2002:100–101.

The Date of the Earliest Level of the Book of Amos

77

dience. It differs in its use of Greek comparative evidence and the details of the reconstruction of the book‘s usage in seventh-century Judah. Another recent work proposing a post-722 date for the composition of the book of Amos is that of K. Möller, who argued that the book was a compilation of statements made by a historical Amos, put together by anonymous Judahite writers after the fall of the northern kingdom. 163 In Möller‘s view, the book presents a pre-722 prophet engaged in debate with a hypothetical northern audience, for the purpose of warning Judah against repeating Israel‘s mistakes. The compilation must postdate Israel‘s destruction, in Möller‘s view, because only then can the rhetorical effect have any impact. That is, the book presents the prophet Amos as correctly predicting the destruction of Israel, and thus demonstrates the accuracy of his prophecies.164 Also, in Möller‘s view, the warning serves no effect after Judah had itself already fallen, and so the book must date before 587. Within this pre-exilic timeframe, Möller leaned early, placing the book‘s compilation shortly after the historical career of the prophet Amos. 165 Like Sweeney and Schniedewind, Möller included the conclusion of the book at 9:11–15 in the original version, saying that it functions as a message of hope for Judah, that Judah can succeed if the book‘s advice is followed. 166 Although Möller‘s work is similar in its dating proposals to the other works discussed above and to the view proposed here, his book is primarily a rhetorical-critical study of the book of Amos as presenting a prophet in debate, not primarily dealing with historical issues. 167 Also, Möller‘s thorough treatment of the book of Amos covers only the first four chapters, such that passages important for dating (e.g., 5:26, 6:2 and 8:14), are out side the purview of his book. 168 Möller‘s view is similar to the view taken here, but with several differences. Here, the Hezekian period is the not the time of the final form of the book of Amos; it is the time of the initial composition of most, but not all, of the book. Also, it will be argued in Chapter Five below that the rhetorical purpose of the book vis-à-vis the northern kingdom is different than the view taken by Möller. That is, while Möller argued that the book was written to warn Judah against repeating Israel‘s mistakes, it will be argued below that it was written to justify and legitimate Yahweh‘s behavior towards Israel and to prevent a similar disaster from affecting Judah. If the 163

MÖLLER 2003:120. MÖLLER 2003:169–170 suggested that the fall of Israel itself served as more proof than the earthquake that Amos‘s predictions were authentic. 165 MÖLLER 2003:109 and 119–120. 166 MÖLLER 2003:145–147. 167 MÖLLER 2003:118. 168 Although some of this material is treated in a briefer form in M ÖLLER 2003:120– 152. 164

78

Chapter Two

text had been written primarily to warn Judah, one would expect more references to Israel‘s misdeeds being imitated in Judah (as one sees in Micah 1:9).

2.5. Conclusion It has been proposed here that the book of Amos presents the northern kingdom of Israel as devastated by a total military conquest followed by an exile of its population. While the book of Amos certainly has vivid scenes of destruction that derive from prophetic hyperbole, the book also refers to very concrete experiences of military defeat and exile that fit well with Israel‘s actual experiences in the 720s. While the absolute dating of a biblical prophetic book can never be certain, 169 the ensemble of factors assembled here suggests that a date after the fall of the northern kingdom best fits the overall content of the book of Amos. In addition, several verses that suggest a post-Assyrian-invasion dating have been examined. These include references to deities in 5:26 and 8:14 that may have been imported into Israel after its conquest by Assyria. Amos 6:2 seems to refer to a known historical event that took place after the deaths of both Uzziah and Jeroboam II. Dating the initial composition of the book of Amos after these events eliminates the need to remove these verses based on content. The superscription provides a historical setting for the book of Amos, the rhetorical effect of which will be examined in more detail in Chapter Five. Various other proposals for dating the composition of the book of Amos after the fall of the northern kingdom have been examined, and it has been noted that they all place the conclusion of the book, 9:11–15, in the Hezekian period at the latest. In Chapter Six, on later additions to the emerging book of Amos, the issue of this section of the book will be explored. Additionally, it has been argued here that on both literary and historical grounds, the Oracles against the Nations from 1:3–2:5 date to the exilic period. This issue will be explored further in Chapter Six below. The dating for the composition of the first level or stage of the book to the aftermath of the Assyrian conquest of Israel brings the book into the era of the turn from the eighth to the seventh centuries BCE. In Chapter Five below, it will be shown how recent changes in the understanding of the development of Judah at this time can allow for a reinterpretation of the book of Amos as a historical reflection on the fate of the northern kingdom with implications for emergent Judah. Additionally, the genre of the book will be questioned, and comparisons of the book of Amos with 169

MELUGIN 1995.

The Date of the Earliest Level of the Book of Amos

79

Mesopotamian prophetic material as well as city lament literature will be explored.

Chapter Three

―I am not a Prophet, nor the Son of a Prophet‖: The Genre of the Book of Amos 3.1. Introduction The biblical prophetic books (including the book of Amos) appear to be one of the most unique biblical literary genres, apparently having no close parallel in ancient Near Eastern literature, unlike biblical historiography, psalms, or wisdom literature. 1 This distinctiveness has also in the past led to Israelite prophets being thought of as different from prophets elsewhere in the ancient Near East. The discovery of written prophecies at Mari and Neo-Assyrian libraries has led to debates about the relationship between these texts and ancient Israelite prophets as well as biblical prophetic books. It will be argued here that the ancient Near Eastern prophetic texts are fundamentally different than biblical prophetic literature, but that the former does indicate the social ―reality‖ of ancient Near Eastern as well as Israelite prophecy. That is, the Israelite prophets were more similar to the ancient Near Eastern depictions of prophets than the biblical prophetic books would suggest. The biblical prophetic books represent a very different phenomenon than ―real‖ prophecy, even in ancient Israel itself. Recent scholarship on biblical prophetic books has generally been moving away from reconstructions of the historical prophets and towards the prophetic text as text.2 However, the issue of what kind of text the biblical prophetic books are, remains in dispute. Generally the view has been that they originate in the speeches of actual prophets, but that they have been supplemented extensively. However, these works probably never went back to any actual prophets, but instead represent a different type of literature altogether. They are comparable to the ―literary-predictive texts‖ in the ancient Near East, independent of any actual prophets, although they may have made use of some ―real‖ oracles.3 1 HALLO 1966:231. B EN ZVI 2003:296 described this unique genre as a Judean ―identity marker,‖ analogous to midrash in Judaism and gospel in Christianity, which he described as also unique literary genres. 2 E.g., BEN ZVI 2003:276–277, NISSINEN 2005:153–154. 3 This term was coined by E LLIS 1989; more on that below.

“I am not a Prophet nor the Son of a Prophet”

81

After a discussion of genre, this chapter will begin with prophets and move on to texts. It will start with definitions of prophecy and intermediation, and proceed to characteristic terms for and behaviors of prophets. The issue of social criticism in ancient Near Eastern prophecy will be explored, followed by a discussion of challenges to the genre label ―prophecy‖ for the biblical ―prophetic‖ books. An alternative understanding will be proposed, following a study of ―literary-predictive texts.‖ The chapter will conclude with the implications of this study for the composition of the book of Amos.

3.2. ―Prophetic‖ Literature The use of the term ―genre‖ is not intended here to suggest that literary classifications are (or were in antiquity) rigid or clearly delineated. Instead of imposing distinct and discrete literary ―types‖ onto ancient literature, it is better to consider literature as consisting of a number of themes, motifs, forms, and other traits that can combine and overlap to form ―genres.‖ As Dobbs-Allsopp defined it, ―Genre comprises the set of codes and conventions which form a tacit contract between writer and reader and make literary communication possible.‖ 4 Similarly, Todorov wrote that ―Genre represents, precisely, a structure, a configuration of literary properties, an inventory of options.‖5 Longman argued for a ―communicative-semiotic‖ understanding of genre: The reader in fact approaches a text with certain expectations that arise at the beginning of the reading process and are grounded in previous reading experience. When a reader begins reading, a conscious or unconscious genre identification is made that br ings along 6 with it certain expectations concerning the whole of the text.

So, genre can be considered the assemblage of literary properties that create certain expectations and interpretations in the reader. 7 It will be proposed in this and the following chapters that while the book of Amos contains some of the literary properties of prophecy (predictions and visions) it is not in fact a work of prophecy as that phenomenon is known in the ancient Near East. That is, it is proposed here that the book of Amos has a different Sitz im Leben from ―actual‖ prophecy, because the book shares far more literary properties with other works of literature, such as laments and other texts dealing with divine abandonment or divine wrath. The book 4

DOBBS-ALLSOPP 1993:16. T ODOROV 1973:141. 6 LONGMAN 1991:7. 7 GRICE 1990:150–151 referred to statements that create expectations by implication as ―conversational implicatures.‖ 5

82

Chapter Three

includes predictive elements and vision reports in order to create expectations in readers/hearers that it is a work of ―prophecy,‖ and thus is the kind of text that Ellis called a ―literary-predictive text.‖ Thus, the book gives signals to its readers/hearers that it is a prophecy, while also giving signals that allow its messages to be understood in its fictionally prophetic perspective. As the first part of this extended argument, ―prophecy‖ must be understood in order to make clear why the book of Amos is not an instance of it. 3.2.1. Definitions of Prophecy Definitions of prophecy in the past history of scholarship have tended to be drawn from the biblical texts, partly because comparative ancient Near Eastern material was until recently not available in sufficient quantity to be useful. These older, biblically-based definitions included the notions of prophecy as prediction, or charismatic authority, or social criticism. 8 However, the increased availability of comparative material as well as more recent work on biblical prophecy has shown too many exceptions to the older definitions for them to survive. Work of the past few decades has focused on the prophet as an intermediary between the divine and the human, without necessarily having any predictive, social-critical or charismatic qualities to him or her.9 After analyzing anthropological cases of figures variously called ―prophets,‖ ―shamans,‖ ―mediums,‖ and ―diviners,‖ Wilson identified intermediation as the one common denominator that unites them all.10 This was not to say that all these roles are the same kind of intermediation, only that this is the basic category in which all these roles overlap. Intermediation implies an audience or addressee of the message, whether an individual or a group. Overholt‘s anthropological work has followed on this side of the issue, looking at the social function of prophecy in practice, as an act of intermediation to a human audience. 11 The older definitions increasingly came to be replaced by ―intermediation,‖ such as Huffmon‘s definition, in which prophecy is taken as ―inspired speech at the initiative of a divine power, speech which is clear in itself and commonly directed to a third party.‖ 12 Grabbe noted the problems in this definition, asking how public such a speech must be, what 8

HUFFMON 1992:477. For prediction as not being the primary feature of at least biblical literary prophecy, cf. HALLO 1966:234: ―Prediction was, emphatically, not the principal business of the literary prophets.‖ 10 W ILSON 1980:27–28. Wilson exempted priests from this category, saying their uniqueness necessitated a separate treatment. 11 E.g., OVERHOLT 1989, esp. 4–5. 12 HUFFMON 1992:477. 9

“I am not a Prophet nor the Son of a Prophet”

83

―clear‖ means, and whether ―speech‖ means it must be in oral form. Grabbe suggested instead that ―the common denominator…is that the prophet is a mediator who claims to receive messages directly from a divinity, by various means, and communicates these messages to recipients.‖ 13 This definition adds the concept of the mediator‘s ―claim‖ to receive divine messages, which may be debatable, and will be examined in the discussion of messenger speech below. For now, it can be noted that a similar definition appeared at the same time by Vanderkam: ―It refers to that consciousness and conviction held by men or women that God or the gods have selected them, for a specific occasion or a longer duration, to convey otherwise inaccessible information to an individual or group.‖ 14 Like Huffmon, Vanderkam also considered the divine messages to arrive ―by a variety of means,‖ which for Vanderkam included ―more mechanical media such as divinatory techniques.‖15 These definitions seem to leave no room for any distinction between prophets and diviners, which is consistent with the general development in recent scholarship to see prophecy as divination or a type of divination. 16 ―Divination‖ can be here defined as the acquisition of information (using any number of means) from a divine source, whether about the past, present, or future. The understanding of prophecy as at least a type of divination fits much better with the ancient Near Eastern material that will be examined below, but runs the risk of obscuring prophecy‘s distinctness as a type of divination that might not be identical with all other types of divination. The ancient Near Eastern texts discussed below show that the figures identified as ―prophets‖ did not perform such actions as inspecting livers, and that their ―prophetic‖ messages were subject to checking by those who did (extispicists, etc.). It seems fairly clear from these texts, especially those from Mari, that prophecy is a type of divination with some differences from the other types. In line with this, Manfred Weippert produced a definition that has become something of a standard. Bei religiöser Offenbarungsrede ist dann von P. zu sprechen, wenn eine Person (a) in einem kognitiven Erlebnis (Vision, Audition, audiovisueller Erscheinung, Traum o.ä.) der Offenbarung einer Gottheit oder mehrerer Gottheiten teilhaftig wird und ferner (b) sich durch die betreffende(n) Gottheit(en) beauftragt weiß, das ihr Geoffenbarte in sprachlicher Fassung (als ―P.‖, ―Prophetenspruch‖) oder in averbalen Kommunikations-

13

GRABBE 1995:107. VANDERKAM 1995:2083. 15 Ibid. 16 On prophecy as divination, cf. E LLIS 1989:145, ―In Mesopotamia the prophetic oracle is or can be closely connected with the diviner‘s craft.‖ Also, OVERHOLT 1989:140–147, B ARSTAD 1993:47–48 GRABBE 1995:150–151, VANDERKAM 1995:2083, and in general C ANCIK-K IRSCHBAUM 2003. 14

84

Chapter Three

akten (―symbolischen‖ oder ―Zeichenhandlungen‖) an einen Dritten oder (Dritte), den (die) eigentlichen Adressaten, weiterzuleiten. 17

In this definition, the cognitive experience is defined as consisting of vi sions, auditions, an audiovisual appearance, a dream or the like. This makes the distinctiveness of prophecy, as opposed to other forms of divination, its intuitive or non-inductive methods of receiving the divine messages.18 However, it still has the concept of the prophet having a conviction of being given a divine message to transmit, similar to the definitions of Huffmon and Vanderkam. Petersen pointed out that information on the prophets‘ self-consciousness is rare in ancient Near Eastern texts, and that even in the Hebrew Bible, only the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Amos have anything reflecting a sense of call. 19 Additionally, Petersen argued that the prophetic ―experience‖ raises questions of how one could know if someone had had such an experience, especially in texts that do not report them. In Petersen‘s view, Weippert‘s definition goes back to the earlier view of the prophet as someone who has a distinct personal experience, like an ecstatic. 20 Nissinen argued that Weippert‘s definition portrayed prophecy as a one-way communication, and that the social environment should be taken into account. 21 Yet, for all its problems, the non-inductive aspect of Weippert‘s definition serves to situate prophecy in a discrete place within divination, without attempting to define prophecy as something other than divination. As Nissinen argued, ―If classified as a form of divination, prophecy, together with dreams and visions, clearly belongs to the non-inductive type, which does not presuppose exhaustive studies in the traditional omen literature and experience in observing material objects like celestial bodies and the entrails of animals.‖22 The ancient Near Eastern textual evidence does seem to indicate a difference between a prophet (āpilum or maḫḫûm) and other mantic professionals such as astrologers and extispicists (e.g., the bārûm), in that exticispicists were often consulted to confirm the statements of prophets. Biblical texts such as Deuteronomy 18:10–11 seem to suggest that a distinction between inductive and non-inductive acquisition of divine information would have made sense to the Deuteronomist at least. But on a more theoretical level, Cicero in De Divinatione drew a distinction between inductive and non-inductive divination, saying ―I fol17 WEIPPERT 1997:197. An earlier form of this definition appears in W EIPPERT 1988:289–90. On this definition as a standard, cf. Petersen 2000:39 and NISSINEN 2004:20. 18 Noted by B ARSTAD 1993:46. 19 PETERSEN 2000:40. 20 PETERSEN 2000:39–41. 21 NISSINEN 2004:20–21. 22 NISSINEN 2004:21.

“I am not a Prophet nor the Son of a Prophet”

85

low the opinion that is both very old and is corroborated by the unanimity of all peoples and nations: that is, there are two kinds of divination, the one involving a technique, the other involving nature.‖23 Of the former he wrote that it was ―for those who have learned what happened in the past by observation, and pursue the future by conjecture.‖ 24 This is the learned diviner, who interprets based on observation. Cicero contrasted this with the non-inductive type, on whom he commented, ―those who lack art sense the future not through reason and conjecture on the basis of known and observed signs, but through a certain excitement or loose and free movement of the soul.‖25 Thus, this distinction between inductive and non-inductive divination is not entirely a modern invention, but has ancient forerunners. 26 So, the definition that will be used here is that prophecy is a non-inductive type of divination, divination being defined as the acquisition or reception of divine information and/or messages. Prophecy can involve acquisition and not just reception, in that prophecies could be solicited and not just waited for. That is, the prophet was not always a passive recipient. The definition used here makes no assumptions about the experiences of the prophet or his or her self-consciousness or conviction of being under orders by a divinity to transmit the information. The issue of a third-party recipient is a difficult one, because while all the ancient Near Eastern texts portray the prophets as giving reports of the divine messages, it is questionable if any hypothetical divine messages received by a prophet that were not to be transmitted to a third party would be recorded. This issue is also important for biblical prophecy, since the third party (implied reader?) of the literary prophetic texts in the Hebrew Bible is not clear. The intended audience of the book of Amos is one of the major issues that will be dealt with in Chapter Five below. However, as said above, all ancient Near Eastern texts that have prophetic statements feature them as reported to some third party. One way that readers can know that a text is reporting a message purportedly from a deity is that the text will state explicitly that a divine message was spoken. This leads to the issue of ―messenger speech,‖ and the so-called ―messenger formula.‖ 3.2.2. Messenger Formulae Both the book of Amos and most of the ancient Near Eastern prophetic texts have what can be called a ―messenger formula,‖ that is, ―thus says DN.‖ The ―messenger formula‖ was first identified in the 1920s by Köhler and Lindblom independently. Lindblom had identified it as a typical fea23

WARDLE 2006:49. De Divinatione 1.18.34, cited in P OTTER 1994:15. 25 De Divinatione 1.18.34, cited in P OTTER 1994:22. 26 Cf. the commentary on the Cicero passages in WARDLE 2006:126–7. 24

86

Chapter Three

ture of prophetic speech, 27 while Köhler presented it as the defining feature of biblical prophecy, and maintained that the prophets should be thought of first and foremost as messengers. 28 Köhler may have gone too far, as Tucker has shown that this formula is not restricted to messages nor always present with messages. Nonetheless, it is perhaps as indicative as any literary feature for the presence of something purporting to be a prophetic message.29 The formula serves a rhetorical effect, as Koch noted: ―This messenger formula…legitimises the speaker and compels the hearer to accept the words he utters as coming from the sender of the message. It could be said to have its parallel in the official stamp on a letter today.‖ 30 The formula has been seen as identifying the speaker who possessed a message from a deity or a divine council. 31 Yet this could just be a stereotypical scribal form attached to prophetic statements that the scribe heard spoken, which may or may not have been used by speaking prophets. 32 Westermann, who produced the most extensive treatment of the messenger formula, argued that the form accompanied a particular type of messenger speech: ―Obviously, any ordinary speech cannot be made into a message by inserting it into the framework of a messenger‘s speech, thus prefacing it with the aforementioned formula; the speech itself which is to be transmitted assumes, as a message, definite, fixed forms which first make it into a message.‖33 This has, however, been disputed, as Koch has shown that this formula is used for a wide variety of different kinds of messages with widely diverse forms. 34 So the presence of this formula in such a wide variety of texts can nullify its interpretive value, but the appearance of this formula in texts with messages said to come from one or more deities could suggest that the texts were produced to be taken as oracular in nature. This formula is quite common in the book of Amos, wherein the expression kōh ʾāmar yhwh appears eleven times, and five of the passages beginning with this formula conclude with the formula ʾāmar yhwh.35 The formula is also very common in ancient Near Eastern prophetic texts. For example, in the Mari text A.1968, an act of prophecy is indicated with the 27

LINDBLOM 1962:103–104, 148–165. KÖHLER 1923:102–105. 29 T UCKER 1971:59–60. 30 KOCH 1988:190. Italics his. 31 So ROSS 1987. 32 GRABBE 2000:25–28 warned about the effects of traditional scribal forms on prophetic statements. 33 WESTERMANN 1991:111. Italics his. 34 KOCH 1988:216–217. 35 The eleven kōh ʾāmar yhwh formulae appear in 1:1, 6, 13; 2:1, 6; 3:11, 12; 5:3, 4, 16; 7:17. The concluding formulae appear in 1:5, 8, 15; 2:3; 5:17. Cf. W OLFF 1977:92 for discussion of the formulae in these passages. 28

“I am not a Prophet nor the Son of a Prophet”

87

following: Abīya āpilum ša dIM bēl ḫala[b] illikamma kīam iqbêm ummāmi dIM-ma etc, that is, ―Abiya, respondent of Adad, lord of Aleppo, came to me and said, ‗Thus says Adad:‘‖. 36 Again, in ARM 26.194, the text has umma āpilum ša Šamšīma umma Šamašma, that is, ―Thus says the respondent of Shamash: ‗Thus says Shamash:‘‖ 37. While these formulae are not found in all the texts, they are common enough to be called typical. These present the āpilum as a messenger speaking on behalf of a deity, just as in the biblical prophetic texts. Auld argued that the messenger formula was usually added secondarily to the biblical prophetic texts to make them seem more ―prophetic.‖ 38 As it will be argued below that the book of Amos is not really a work of ―prophecy‖ technically speaking, Auld is probably correct that this archetypically prophetic phrase was used to give non-prophetic texts a prophetic style, but this could have been part of some of these texts from the start. That is, some of the messenger formulae in the book of Amos could be as old as their surrounding material in the book if, as argued here, the various layers of the book of Amos were written to have a prophetic style from the start. This ―prophetic style‖ is the literary phenomenon of casting messages that do not originate in an actual ―prophet‖ into a form that resembles or mim ics the statements made by ―real‖ prophets, such as the use of predictive statements. This ―prophetic style‖ will be demonstrated more fully in the discussion of literary-predictive texts in Chapter Four below. But before resolving the problem of the categorization of the book of Amos as prophecy or not, the phenomenon of ancient Near Eastern prophecy and, more importantly, texts reporting prophecy, must first be examined. Full explications of ancient Near Eastern prophecy can be found elsewhere, so for the purposes here it is sufficient to indicate that ancient Near Eastern prophetic texts have been found mainly from two major contexts: eighteenth-century BCE Mari, along the Syrian/Mesopotamian frontier along the Euphrates River, and the Neo-Assyrian royal libraries from the seventh-century BCE. 39 The Mari texts are mainly official reports by royal officials notifying the king of Mari about (among a great variety of other topics) the statements of various diviners outside Mari. The Neo36 N ISSINEN 2003:21. The transcription is from N ISSINEN 2003:21, with the DN left as a Sumerogram as in D URAND 2002:134. 37 NISSINEN 2003:24. 38 AULD 1988:246–248. Against this, B ARSTAD 1993:42, fn. 14 wrote: ―This, in my view, is the weakest part of Auld‘s argument. Ever since L. Köhler…studies on the prophets as ‗divine messengers‘ have belonged to one of the more established accomplishments of prophetic research, and it certainly takes more than mere allegations to disintegrate this and related vocabulary from the ‗prophetical‘ books.‖ 39 On Mari prophecy in general, cf. D URAND 1988:377–396 and CHARPIN 2001. On Neo-Assyrian prophecy in general, cf. P ARPOLA 1997:xiii–lxxv and V ILLARD 2001.

88

Chapter Three

Assyrian texts by contrast are collected statements by prophets kept in the royal libraries. Many of these texts have to do with the Assyrian kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal. While these texts were generally not written by prophets themselves, they provide a window into the actual practice of prophecy in the ancient Near East. 3.2.3. Prophetic Titles The use of prophetic titles can be an important indication of when a prophet is spoken of in a text. One of the major problems in comparing biblical and Israelite prophecy to ancient Near Eastern prophecy is the differences in terminology, as there is very little overlap in the titles for prophets. At Mari, the most common terms are āpilum (masc.)/āpiltum (fem.), meaning ―answerer,‖ and muḫḫûm (masc.)/muḫḫūtum (fem.), ―ecstatic.‖ In addition to these, other terms include assinnum, ―cult singer,‖ and qammatum (meaning uncertain).40 In Neo-Assyrian prophetic texts of a millennium later, the term maḫḫû, ecstatic, is the more formal term, used mostly in cultic and other formal texts; this term may have been archaic by then. The more common term in the Neo-Assyrian texts was raggimu/raggintu, ―proclaimer,‖ which was apparently more colloquial in usage, appearing in administrative texts as well as personal letters, and in the colophons in prophetic texts.41 In addition, the term šēlūtu, ―votaress,‖ appears among the Neo-Assyrian documents. These terms are not self-referential, as the only information available on ancient Near Eastern prophets was written by scribes who were reporting the prophecies, rather than by the prophets themselves. 42 In the biblical texts, on the other hand, the standard terms for prophets are nābîʾ ―prophet,‖ ʾiš hāʾělōhîm ―man of god,‖ ḥōzeh ―visionary,‖ and rōʾeh ―seer.‖ Petersen proposed that these terms referred to different types of prophets, each expressed in a corresponding literary form. 43 In Petersen‘s classification, the term rōʾeh refers to a diviner who receives divine messages on request of a solicitor, similar to the ancient Near Eastern prophetic figures discussed above. In the Hebrew Bible, the statements of a rōʾeh are presented in narrative reports of the diviner‘s actions and/or statements, in what Petersen called a ―divinatory chronicle.‖ The ḥōzeh in Petersen‘s classification was the visionary, whose visions were not necessarily solicited, and ended up being expressed in vision reports. The ʾiš hāʾělōhîm was the powerful miracle-working holy man, whose actions are 40 This term may refer to a distinctive hairstyle, or be a personal name, cf. H UFFMON 2000:49. 41 NISSINEN 2000:90–95. 42 HUFFMON 2000:57. 43 PETERSON 1981 in general, and PETERSEN 1997:23–30 more briefly.

“I am not a Prophet nor the Son of a Prophet”

89

presented in legends. The nābîʾ was the recipient of Yahweh‘s word, who uttered it to others, and whose statements were recorded in ―prophetic speech,‖ which could have either Yahweh speaking in the first person (divine oracle), or the prophet speaking (prophetic saying). Yet, such a classification may be too clear-cut for the biblical evidence. I Samuel 9:9, for example, presents the relationship between the rōʾeh and nābîʾ as a diachronic one, not necessarily a functional difference. Also, as Petersen acknowledges, the book of Amos has two of these terms in the same book. 44 The two terms used in the book of Amos that refer to prophesying are: nābîʾ (3:8, 7:12) and ḥāzāh (1:1); the former apparently meaning ―one who is called,‖45 and the latter ―he saw (a vision).‖ In the Mari letters associated in scholarship with prophecy, the term nabiʾ appears only in AEM 1/1, 216, where they appear as a group, similar perhaps to the group of prophets in I Kings 22:6. In this letter, they are referred to as nabî ša ḥanê, Hanean prophets, the Haneans being a West Semitic population. Northwest of Mari, at Emar, the term ―house of the lú.mešna-bi-i‖ appears in place of the temple of Išḫara in a text relating to the kissu festival. Also, the term munabbiātu appears in another ritual text from Emar.46 Noting that the common Mari terms āpilum and muḫḫûm do not appear in Northwest Semitic texts, while nabi appears to refer to Westerners in the Mari texts, Durand suggested that the root NBʾ may be a specifically Northwest Semitic designation.47 He suggested further that some nabûtum might have been scribally ―corrected‖ to bārûtum (extispicists), but he nonetheless considered the term bārûm to be closer to the rōʾeh. Durand cited a text in which a royal functionary compared being appointed a task by his master to being one called (nabûm) by a god.48 The nabûs do not seem to be different in function from any other prophet, as in ARM 26.216 the official Tebi-gerišu says, ―I asse[mbl]ed the nabûs of the Haneans, and I had them deliver an oracle for the well-being of my lord.‖ The response of the nabûs is in a broken section, but after the break Tebi-gerišu advises his master to

44

PETERSEN 1997:30. F LEMING 1993a and 1993b suggested that the term should be read actively, as ―one who invokes‖ rather than ―one who is called.‖ But HUEHNERGARD 1999 argued that the term should be read passively, as ―one who is called.‖ 46 FLEMING 1993. 47 DURAND 1988:377–378. On the ―western hypothesis‖ in the study of prophetism in general, cf. G ORDON 1993:64–67. In support of such a view, it could be pointed out prophecy was unknown in Sumerian civilization, Mari itself was on the northwestern fringe of Mesopotamia, and prophecy does not appear in significant amounts in central Mesopotamia until the Neo-Assyrian period, and may have been a result of western influence. 48 DURAND 1988:379. 45

90

Chapter Three

be cautious.49 So, like the āpilums and the muḫḫûms, the nabûs seem to have answered specific questions on request. However, if the term nabû is just a Northwest Semitic equivalent to the other prophetic terms, it is surprising that it appears very rarely in Iron Age Northwest Semitc texts. In the Deir ‗Alla inscription, Balaam is referred to as a ḥzh. The Zakkur inscription reports prophecies delivered by people holding the title of ḥzyn and ʾddn, ―visionaries.‖ 50 Outside of the Hebrew Bible, the only appearances of the term nabi are Lachish Ostraca 3, 6, and 16, where prophets are mentioned in the context of military dispatches during the Babylonian invasion of Judah. Does this mean that the term nabi was only a Judean term by this time? This is unanswerable with the limited amount of textual information available. In any case, it can be seen that the various titles for prophets emphasize their communication with the divine, as well as their experiences of this communication. 3.2.4. Ecstasy These titles revive some aspects of a classic question in the study of bibli cal prophecy: the role of trance or possession, or ―ecstasy.‖ Various ancient Near Eastern texts suggest the unusual, or ―ecstatic,‖ behavior of the maḫḫûtum, including some lexical lists. In Lú Recension A, muḫḫûm and muḫḫūtum are listed along with psoriatics (naqmu) and frenzied people (zabbu).51 In Lú = ša, Tablet 1, short recension 1, maḫḫû is listed with a variety of religious personnel, with zabbu adjacent to maḫḫû.52 Maḫḫû is listed adjacent to zabbu again in Lú = ša, Tablet IV. 53 While some of these lists are relating words only on the basis of linguistic relationships, there does seem to be a connection between maḫḫû and zabbu.54 However, a much more vivid indication of possible ecstatic behavior on the part of muḫḫûms is in the ―righteous sufferer‖ text from Ugarit (RS 25.460), which describes mourning for someone who is nearly dead or already dead. The relevant portion reads, ―my brothers bathe in their blood

49

NISSINEN 2003a:50–51. On the possible relationship of the term ʾdd and the name Oded from II Chron. 15:8, cf. B ARSTAD 2003, who argued that there is no relation. 51 NISSINEN 2003a no. 120. This list also contains a brewer and innkeepers. 52 NISSINEN 2003a no. 124. 53 NISSINEN 2003a no. 125. No. 126 lists maḫḫû simply with other titles. 54 A possible example of unusual behavior from a Mari prophecy may be seen in ARM 26.206, in which a muḫḫûm devours raw lamb in front of the city gate. It is not clear, however, whether this symbolic act was performed in an altered state of mind. Also, ARM 26.207 and 26.212 mention a drink given to people to make them prophesy; this might be some sort of drug. The verb immaḫḫu is used in 26.213, where a prophet goes into a trance. 50

“I am not a Prophet nor the Son of a Prophet”

91

like prophets.‖55 Roberts has compared this to I Kings 18:28–29, where the prophets of Baal perform self-laceration in the contest against Elijah on Mt. Carmel.56 Roberts suggested that this text was from a locale more easterly than Ugarit, most likely in the area of Aleppo and Mari, as this was where most of the Akkadian texts dealing with prophecy originated. However, he also noted that self-laceration was not clearly attested at Mari. Yet, prophecy does appear in Northwest Semitic documents such as the Amman Citadel and Zakkur inscriptions and the Deir ‗Alla text, so it is unlikely that prophecy was somehow absent from Ugarit. This Ugaritic text can be taken to indicate something of the unusual and perhaps frenzied behavior of prophets. In the modern study of biblical prophecy, Hermann Gunkel was one of the earliest to propose an ecstatic component to Israelite prophecy. Gunkel argued that prophets received their information from divine inspiration, which came in the form of ecstatic experiences, sometimes imposed by force from Yahweh.57 These experiences included visions and auditions, sometimes in very vivid, specific forms. These experiences were of a type that would be understood in modern times as mental illness or nervous derangements, according to Gunkel. In Gunkel‘s view, the biblical literary prophets exhibited a less drastic manifestation, but nonetheless he held that they did receive their information through ecstatic experiences. These experiences were sometimes most intense at the initiatory call, but continued throughout the prophet‘s career as a constant way of perceiving the world. The early literary prophets, like Amos, communicated the content of the message they learned rather than details of the experience itself (such communication happening after an ecstatic experience), which became more characteristic of later literary prophecy and apocalyptic. This classic exposition of ecstasy in biblical prophecy was followed by other studies, most prominently that of Hölscher, who argued that ecstatic prophecy was not original to Israelite society, but was adopted from the Canaanite environment amongst the early Israelite tribes. 58 On the other hand, Lindblom argued that ecstatic prophecy is a human cultural constant, to be expected in most cultures, and that ancient Israel did not adopt it from some other culture. 59 He argued further that ―Amos may appropriately be described as an ecstatic,‖ 60 especially in regard to the visions in the book and the impression he made on Amaziah. While acknowledging 55

NISSINEN 2003a no. 122, line 11. ROBERTS 2002:102–103. For discussion of these passages, cf. B. SCHMIDT 1996:166–178. 57 GUNKEL 1969:48–55. 58 HÖLSCHER 1914:140–143. 59 LINDBLOM 1962:32–33 60 LINDBLOM 1962:107. 56

92

Chapter Three

that ecstatic behavior was not always present with all prophets in all sociocultural contexts, Wilson argued that the root nbʾ, especially in hithpael, refers to ―acting in a prophetic manner,‖ which often referred to ecstatic or trance behavior.61 On the other side of this debate, some scholars have argued that there is little to no evidence of ecstatic behavior among the biblical (literary) prophets. At first, this argument seems to have derived from a Jewish and Christian religious concern to separate the biblical prophets from the image of raving madmen. So Heschel argued that the biblical prophets were not ecstatics, but instead had a divine consciousness that allowed them access to ―the divine pathos.‖ Heschel presented this ―pathos‖ as ―a living care…no mere contemplative survey of the world, but a passionate summons.‖62 Also Cripps wrote from an evolutionary perspective that ―Although Amos can see visions, yet evidence is entirely absent that the primitive or lower kind of ecstasy, which was the distinguishing feature of earlier ‗prophecy,‘ was part of Amos‘ equipment.‖ 63 Further, Cripps argued that the divine inspiration received by Amos and his successors ―seems to have been almost entirely of a high order, having its analogy somewhat in that of the Christian mystic; it is difficult to understand how it could be compared with that which is common in a primitive religion.‖ 64 From a more anthropological standpoint, Parker argued that possession trances were not mediumistic; that is, they did not result in the transmission of divine information, and thus are to be separated from biblical prophecy. He suggested that such ecstatic behavior was present in Phoenician culture and influenced Israelite institutions especially in the Omride period (such as the Baal prophets on Mt. Carmel), and could be used as an insult to Israelite prophets. 65 Petersen followed Parker in seeing minimal evidence for ecstatic behavior among biblical literary prophets, but suggested that the prophets may have performed certain roles for the conveyance of their messages, such as what would appear as unusual behavior, including ―histrionic neurosis‖ in some cases, in the context of role enactment.66 As has been shown above, heightened psychological states were typical of ancient Near Eastern prophetic behavior; however, there is little evi61

W ILSON 1979, esp. p. 336. Lindblom and Wilson both produced typologies of ecstasy; for another typology, cf. U FFENHEIMER 1988. Cf. also R OBERTS 1971:251 for the expression ―hand of Yahweh‖ as denoting ―some kind of ecstatic experience of the prophet.‖ For more on nābîʾ as an ecstatic term cf. JEREMIAS 1997, esp. 698–702. 62 HESCHEL 1962:224. 63 CRIPPS 1955:18. 64 CRIPPS 1955:19. 65 P ARKER 1978, esp. 285. 66 PETERSEN 1995.

“I am not a Prophet nor the Son of a Prophet”

93

dence for it in the biblical literary prophetic texts. Such behavior certainly appears in the narrative texts, such as Saul acting as an ecstatic prophet in I Sam 10:5–13, and the above-mentioned prophets of Baal in I Kings 18:28– 29. Like many biblical prophetic books, the book of Amos features vision reports, but it is unclear in what state of mind Amos is to be imagined as having. Perhaps the closest statement in the book is 3:8, ―Lord Yahweh has spoken, who can not prophesy?‖ This could suggest some sort of divine compulsion, but it is not clearly a case of ecstasy. But this is only one of several ways that the book of Amos is different from ancient Near Eastern prophecy; another is the book‘s relation to the cult. The relationship of prophecy and cult is beyond the scope of this chapter, 67 but for the time being it can be noted that most ancient Near Eastern prophets appear in the Mari and Neo-Assyrian texts as being connected to particular shrines. In the book of Amos, the prophet appears at the shrine of Bethel (7:13), but is clearly not a member of Bethel‘s temple personnel, and is of course not even a welcome visitor. Amos 1:2 may suggest a relationship with the Jerusalem temple, but Amos never is described as visiting it much less working there. In Amos‘s professional declaration (7:14–15), he seems to deny having any religious profession at all. So, the book of Amos does not clearly present its prophet as an ecstatic (like the band of prophets that meet Saul) or a temple or political functionary (like the prophets who counsel Jehoshaphat in I Kings 22:6). But there are two other ways that the book of Amos differs from texts recording prophecies from elsewhere in the ancient Near East. One is the length of the book; at nine chapters even a ―minor‖ prophetic book like the book of Amos is much longer than the brief prophetic reports known from the ancient Near East. The Mari letters preserve very short prophetic oracles, usually only a few sentences long at most. It could be argued that these are simply excerpts or summaries produced by the officials who conveyed them to the king, like Amaziah‘s very brief paraphrase of Amos‘s message in Amos 7:11. So, it is possible that if any of the Mari prophets had composed their own texts, they might have been longer. 68 However, the Neo-Assyrian records preserve collections of prophecies independent of other material; that is, without the various other matters related in the epistolary framework of the Mari letters which reported prophecies. The Neo-Assyrian prophecies were placed one after another (apparently by scribes, rather than the prophets themselves), each with the name of the 67 For a brief survey of the history of the issue of Amos and the cult, cf. C ARROLL R. 2002:12–14. 68 As SASSON 2006:35–36 argued: ―In most cases, we are not likely to have the original form of any prophecy, although we surmise that King Zimri-Lim did occasionally hear more complete versions of the message, either directly from the prophets or from messengers transmitting an oral version of the original.‖

94

Chapter Three

respective prophet, in collections apparently for future reference. Yet even here the prophecies are not much longer than the Mari reports. This suggests that the claim made by Nur-Suen in A.1121+A.2731 (line 34) may be sincere, when he said, ―when I was still residing in Mari, I would convey every word spoken by a prophet or prophetess to my lord.‖ It appears that ancient Near Eastern prophecies were generally brief statements concerning very specific situations (just like the prophecies described in I Kings 22:6 and 17), not the long, complex, and reflective analyses of the religious and social conditions of the community like biblical literary ―prophetic‖ books such as the book of Amos. 69 This leads to the last major difference between prophecy in the ancient Near East and biblical ―prophetic‖ literature: social criticism. 3.2.5. Social Criticism in Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy Criticism of governments and populations for social and religious abuses is a hallmark of much of biblical literary prophecy, and of the book of Amos in particular. The book of Amos condemns the aristocracy and to some extent the entire people of the northern kingdom of Israel for social abuses, primarily exploitation of the poor, as well as religious wrongs. In the Amaziah narrative, and perhaps implicitly in all attacks on the wealthy, the book presents Amos as condemning the Israelite leadership, which in the final form of the book is identified as being headed by Jeroboam II. There are thus three issues here: 1. Criticism of a king with authority over the prophet, 2. criticism of a foreign king, and 3. criticism of an entire people or nation. In the available evidence of ancient Near Eastern prophecy, these three features are rare and much more limited than in the book of Amos. On the issue of social and religious criticism of a king with authority over the prophet, the Mari letters present a mixed picture. The majority of the recorded prophetic statements are supportive of the king, with only a handful offering any criticism (most of which are discussed below). This may not be a completely accurate depiction of reality, however, since all the prophetic statements were transmitted by royal officials, who may have chosen not to report every comment they heard critical of their king. However, it appears that the prophets themselves might have been to some degree self-regulating (or regulated by their governments), as appears in the loyalty oath, AEM 1/1, 1. While the oath promises not to conceal bad omens from the king, it also promises not to inquire of the gods for an 69

The brevity of prophecies is known also outside of the ancient Near East, including the ancient Aegean region as can be seen (in narrative context) in Herodotus‘ History (e.g., the enigmatic warning that Croesus‘ war against Cyrus will ―destroy a mighty empire‖ in Herodotus 1.53; GRENE 1987:55).

“I am not a Prophet nor the Son of a Prophet”

95

enemy of the king. It reads, in part: ―The word of anyone whomever who [speaks] with hostile intent, and [who wants] ora[cles taken] in preparation for an evil rebellion or [for an assassination] of Zimri-Lim, my lord, for any such person, whomever it is, I will not d[o it].‖70 This oath further has the diviner or prophet swear to not conceal information about an enemy of the king consulting the gods for the purpose of rebellion against the king. 71 Yet without ever fomenting rebellion, the king is criticized in some of the letters, and from this it has been argued, primarily by M. Nissinen and less so by R. Gordon, that Mari prophecy at least did have a critical dimension to it.72 These scholars have focused primarily on two themes: accusations of the king for neglect of shrines, and warnings to the king to adhere to justice. Several Mari letters have prophetic accusations of the king for neglect of shrines. For example, in AEM 1/1, 215 an official named Lanasûm quotes a muḫḫûm of Dagan as saying, ―How long shall I not drink pure water? Write to your lord that he may give me pure water to drink.‖ 73 Similarly, AEM 1/1, 218 reminds King Zimri-Lim that he had promised a sacrifice and a sacred object 74 for a monument when he returned to Mari, but upon returning, had neglected to provide these. As this text referred to expectations of the king in the past, likewise AEM 1/1:219 features an āpilum criticizing the king for ignoring previous requests for something: ―Once, twice, three times before Zimri-Lim I made my request, but he did not give [me anything].‖ 75 Sometimes the severity of these texts is blunted by divine forgiveness of the king‘s neglect, or at least a positive message from the god or goddess in spite of such neglect. For example, AEM 1/1, 214 reports a servant girl named Aḫatum as falling into a trance and saying, ―Zimri-Lim, even though you have neglected me, I will bend over you in love. Your enemies I will deliver into your hand. And the men who rob me I will seize, and to the destruction of Belet-ekallim I will gather them.‖76 Likewise, AEM 1/1, 217 reminds the king that the god (unstated) 70

ROBERTS 2002b:253. On possible governmental repression of prophecies, cf. ROBERTS 1997. 72 NISSINEN 2000 and especially 2003b, and G ORDON 1993. 73 ROBERTS 2002:179. On the forcefulness of the ecstatic‘s complaint and Lanasûm‘s endorsement of it, cf. S ASSON 1994:311 and NISSINEN 2003b:6–7. On the cultic setting of this oracle, cf. Parker 1993:55 and van der Toorn 2000:81–82. On this prophet‘s unusual hair style, cf. GORDON 1993:68–69. CROWELL 2002:54–57 suggested that Zimri-Lim was particularly attentive to the diviners of Dagan in Terqa in order to secure his hold on that area. 74 ROBERTS 2002b: 235 followed D URAND 1988:447 in reading saparrum as ―chariot,‖ but NISSINEN 2003a:53 left this word untranslated. 75 ROBERTS 2002b:237. The tablet is badly damaged, and what the āpilum was requesting is missing. 76 ROBERTS 2002b:193. 71

96

Chapter Three

had always treated the king with kindness, ―but my request that I ask of you, you do not give me. [N]ow [sen]d up to Naḫur and my request, [about which I spok]e to you, give to me.‖ 77 But this is followed with a promise of victory and prosperity for the king, although this might have been conditional on providing whatever it was the king was to send to Naḫur.78 On the other hand, these prophecies can be quite explicit, as in AEM 1/1, 198. In this text, a certain Šelebum is quoted as saying, ―[They took away] the idatum beer from Annu[nitum]. When [I requested] f[lour] for the fire, then barl[ey soup] they gav[e to me] in the container as flour. I had to lo[ok] to myself. Twice, since I went to the ene[my], (and) now a thir[d time], they are inhabiting the house, while I am inhabiting nothing but shit and piss, [and] I eat the reeds of the enclosure.‖ 79 Elsewhere on the tablet, the official made it clear that what he wrote was at the dictation of Šelebum, perhaps to explain why such explicit language was used in the text.80 As can be seen, Mari prophets were quite capable of criticizing the king for neglect of their shrines. Nissinen argued that charges of neglect of shrines was in fact a criticism of social abuses, because the temples served a charitable role in Mesopotamia, and thus that neglect of the temples was tantamount to neglect of the poor. As Nissinen wrote, Der Tempel war ein Symbol der gesellschaftlichen Identität und zugleich eine soziale Institution, die unter Umständen die Außenseiter und Unterprivilegierten der G esellschaft in ihre Obhut nahm…Somit hat die prophetische Kritik an der unvollkommenen Tempelpflege, wenn sie auch in den uns bekannten Fällen meist auf kultische 81 Handlungen gerichtet ist, auch ein gesellschaftskritisches Potential.

Ancient Mesopotamian temples did indeed perform charitable work, including offering interest-free loans of barley in times of famine, and purchasing poor and/or illegitimate children and orphans, presumably to be cared for by the temple. 82 But temples also were involved in a myriad of other economic activities, including real estate, farming, herding, etc. With the complexity and extent of economic activity of an Old Babylonian-era Mesopotamian temple, requests by prophets for support for these temples could have any number of purposes. Most importantly, none of the Mari prophetic letters indicate in any way that the prophets want more help for

77

ROBERTS 2002b:232. On the use of the past in this prophecy, cf. S ASSON 1994:214. On the official‘s recommendation that this prophecy be checked by omens, cf. P ARKER 1993:64. 79 ROBERTS 2002b:221. 80 CHARPIN 2001:32. 81 NISSINEN 2003b:9. 82 NEMET-NEJAT 1998:188. 78

“I am not a Prophet nor the Son of a Prophet”

97

the temple‘s charitable activities. The prophets complain of their own living and working conditions, but not those of anyone else. However, there are a pair of letters that deal with social justice in the context of prophetic statements. These letters were written by an official named Nur-Suen at Aleppo, who reported prophecies from Adad that bear the closest similarity among any of the Mari letters to the book of Amos. 83 In A.1121+A.2731, Nur-Suen quotes a certain Alpan as insisting that Zimri-Lim provide the zukrum and some cows to Adad, as the king had been asked several times before. 84 Like text 217 above, this letter presents the god as having supported the king in the past, and even of having installed him on the throne. Yet this letter also contains an explicit threat: ―Now as I returned him to the throne of his father‘s house, I will take the inheritance away from this house if he does not give. I am lord of throne, land, and city. What I gave I will take away.‖ 85 After this, Nur-Suen states that he has always been responsible in sending prophecies to the king, and that he would be remiss and be blamed if he failed to transmit this prophecy as well. 86 This text also contains another statement from an āpilum of Adad at Aleppo, asking nothing but justice from the king, in return for which Adad will expand Zimri-Lim‘s kingdom. It reads in part: ―I do not ask anything from you. When an oppressed man or an oppressed woman cries to you, step forth and render their judgment. This is what I request of you.‖ 87 This letter is interesting for having two similarities to the book of Amos: both a warning of withdrawal of divine support should the god‘s wishes not be heeded, and an insistence on justice on the part of the government. Similar to this is another letter from Nur-Suen, A.1968, which also urges social justice.88 It reads in part: ―When someone who has a lawsuit calls to you saying, ‗I have been wronged!‘ stand up and judge his lawsuit. Justly answer him. This is what I desire from you.‖ 89 Like Nur-Suen‘s other letter, this one also has themes of divine abandonment of a king. It provides a brief history of Mari from the point of view of the god Adad: 83 On the literary history of the Nur-Suen letters, cf. S ASSON 1994:312–316. On the social location of the prophet, cf. W ILSON 1980:100–102. On the relation of Nur-Suen to Mari, cf. C HARPIN 2001:28–29, 44–45. 84 ―Once, twice, even five times‖ R OBERTS 2002b:173, is similar to the ―once, twice, three times‖ in text 219 above. 85 ROBERTS 2002b:175. 86 On the risks for the official reporting this message, cf. P ARKER 1993:66–67 and SCHART 1995:83–84. 87 ROBERTS 2002b:175. On the ethical content of this letter, cf. G ORDON 1993:76–78, W EINFELD 1995:49, H 2000:54–55. 88 On the textual relationship of this letter to the previous one, cf. S ASSON 1993:314– 316 and MALAMAT 1998:151–156. 89 ROBERTS 2002b:169. On social justice in this letter, cf. H UFFMON 2000:54–55.

98

Chapter Three

―The whole land I gave to Yaḫdun-Lim, and thanks to my weapons 90 he had no rival. But he deserted me, and the land which I had given to him I gave to Šamši-Adad.‖91 After a break, it reads, ―I returned to you. To the thron[e of your father‘s house] I returned you. The weapon[s] with which I fought with the sea I gave to you.‖ 92 Both of these letters are striking for their themes of responsibility in judgment for the king, the threat of divine abandonment, and the theme of a god giving the country over to someone else. Both of these letters have similarities with Amos. They both feature statements that the god had deposed earlier kings and had installed the current king in power. This is reminiscent of Amos 2:9–10, in which Yahweh declares how he brought the Israelites to power in Canaan over the Amorites. The adjurations to uphold justice in the courts is similar to Amos 5:10–17, where Amos condemns the corrupt justice system of Israel. 93 The statement of the god‘s power over the sea is similar to the doxologies in the book of Amos, particularly 5:8 and 9:6, where Yahweh rules over the sea.94 Noting that these two letters show how the king was expected to uphold justice as part of his commission by the gods who provided him with his power, Nissinen argued that these exhortations to do justice with warnings of withdrawal of divine support show the critical potential in Mari prophecy. 95 Yet while kings are sometimes exhorted to render justice, there is no condemnation of a king for any specific social injustice here. If there was some problem with injustice that the prophets are referring to, it is not stated, and there is no indication that so far the king has not been just. This is very different than the accusations of injustice that are so common in the book of Amos. Nissinen acknowledged that biblical prophetic books such as the book of Amos are far more aggressively critical than ancient Near Eastern prophecy, and speculated that there may have been some aspect of Israelite culture responsible for that. However, he suggested a literary explanation, saying that the critical stance of biblical literary prophecy may be a postexilic redactional creation, and warned that caution must be used when trying to read through the biblical texts into the real phenomenon of prophecy in pre-exilic Israel and Judah. So, Nissinen argued that the his90

On the weapons, cf. VAN DER TOORN 2000:85. On the use of the past in this letter, cf. C HARPIN 1998. 92 ROBERTS 2002b:167–169. 93 Also, the statement ―I do not ask anything of you‖ in A.1121+A.2731 is similar to Micah 6:8, a passage that would be well at home in Amos. 94 On the god‘s power of the sea, cf. B ORDREUIL and P ARDEE 1993:69–70 and MALAMAT 1998:17–18. 95 NISSINEN 2003b:14–23. 91

“I am not a Prophet nor the Son of a Prophet”

99

torical ancient Israel and Judah may not have had that much more sociallycritical prophecy than other comparable areas of the ancient Near East.96 A similar view was advanced by Loretz, who argued that ancient Syrian and Canaanite culture held the king responsible for social justice, but that the kind of wide-ranging social criticism found in the biblical literary prophetic books is a product of post-exilic scribal work. 97 Loretz cited the Nur-Suen letters discussed above as well as the Keret epic to show the old, pre-biblical traditions of the judicial responsibilities of the king in the ancient Syrian and Canaanite environment. In Loretz‘s view, the Jewish reaction to the exile drew on these ancient traditions, and ―democratized‖ them on to the public at large. 98 This post-exilic social criticism, in Loretz‘s view, served to explain the national catastrophe, and thus became doom prophecy. The role of the king was absent as a real person, and instead the role of the just king was projected onto a messianic figure. Thus, in Loretz‘s view, biblical prophetic social criticism was not a new phenomenon beginning with Amos, but was a post-exilic reshaping of ancient, pre-Israelite traditions. 99 The presence of critical prophecies is even less in the other large corpus of ancient Near Eastern prophetic texts, those in the archives of Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal. One text, however, is critical of Esarhaddon in a manner very similar to the accusations of cultic neglect in the Mari letters. SAA 9 3.5, speaking for Ishtar of Arbela, rhetorically asks if the goddess had not helped the king in the past, and then directly accuses him of not providing food and drink for her. 100 A more ambiguous case appears in SAA 13 144, in which a woman is reported to have prophesied, ―why have you given the (wooden object), the grove and the…to the Egyptians?‖ 101 Other than these two, the recorded Neo-Assyrian prophecies seem to lack the criticisms that appear in the Mari letters. As pointed out by Nissinen, however, this could be more a result of the nature of the written sources rather than the social reality of Neo-Assyrian prophecy. The majority of Neo-Assyrian prophecies that are available now were transcribed onto large tablets that collected them together, perhaps for future reference 96

NISSINEN 2003b:29–32. LORETZ 2003. Cf. also LORETZ 1992:196–198. 98 LORETZ 2003:289. 99 Cf. also in this regard JEREMIAS 1994, who suggested that it was specifically the rejected prophecies that were written down; finding no receptive oral audience, they were committed to writing for a more receptive audience later on. As he wrote, ―So sind es paradoxerweise gerade der Ungehorsam und die Hörunwilligkeit der ersten Adressaten gewesen, die die Niederschrift der ersten Prophetenworte herbeigeführt haben‖ (JEREMIAS 1994:489). 100 NISSINEN 2003a:122–124. 101 NISSINEN 2003a:169. 97

100

Chapter Three

or for application to future kings. The archival nature of the selection and preservation of individual prophecies probably would have resulted in keeping only those prophecies which served the royal administration, not those that were critical of it. Other Neo-Assyrian texts do show, however, that prophets did criticize or attack the king, at least from colonized countries. In the Succession Treaty of Esarhaddon, subjects are told, ―If you hear an evil, ill, and ugly word that is mendacious and harmful to Assurbanipal…..from the mouth of a raggimu, a mahhû, or an inquirer of divine words….you must not conceal it but come and tell it to Assurbanipal…‖ 102 There is also a letter in which a servant of Esarhaddon explains that he informed the king about signs and omens that other officials were blocking from the king‘s knowledge. 103 There is also a letter that reports a prophetess condemning Sennacherib and promoting a man named Sasî to the kingship. This unnamed prophetess is quoted as saying, ―This is the word of Nusku: The kingship is for Sasî! I will destroy the name and seed of Sennacherib!‖104 This is reminiscent of the prophets in support of Adonijah‘s and Solomon‘s claims to the throne in II Kings, but is not a criticism for anything in particular that Sennacherib had done. So, Neo-Assyrian prophecy is largely devoid of recorded prophecies critical of the Assyrian king. However, criticism of foreign kings is a different matter. If the book of Amos was written from a southern perspective, Jeroboam II and other northern leaders might have been thought of as foreign, and perhaps denunciations of foreign kings in ancient Near Eastern prophetic texts might provide a more precise parallel. Since most ancient Near Eastern recorded prophecies were favorable to the local king, it should come as no surprise that enemy kings or countries would be predicted to fail. For example, an āpilum of Dagan reportedly prophesied: ―Babylon, what are you constantly doing? I will gather you into a net and…The dwellings of the seven accomplices and all their wealth I give in the hand of Zimri-L[im].‖105 This is followed by a prophecy concerning Hammurabi on the same tablet. Another prophecy connected to Dagan says that ―[H]ammurabi, [king o]f Babylon […is ru]shing to his complete undoing.‖106 A foreign god, Tišpak, god of Eshnunna, is condemned in ARM 26 196, wherein Dagan declares to him ―From Šinaḫ you have ruled the 102

NISSINEN 2003a:150–151. Cf. also H UFFMON 2000:62 on the duty to inform. SAA 10 109, NISSINEN 2003a:152–155. 104 SAA 16 59, NISSINEN 2003a:171. Cf. also H UFFMON 2000:61–62. 105 AEM 1/1, 209; R OBERTS 2002b:211. On the relation of this to the Oracles against the Nations, cf. J. HAYES 1968:84–85 and ROSS 1970:18–19. On the relation with biblical doom prophecy, MALAMAT 1998:70. On this letter in general, MALAMAT 1998:90–94. 106 ARM 26, 210, NISSINEN 2003a:45. The end of this line can also be read, ―I will precipitate his complete undoing.‖ Other enemies of Zimri-Lim, the Yaminites, are also condemned in ARM 26 200. On the failure of this prophecy, cf. G RABBE 2000:30–31. 103

“I am not a Prophet nor the Son of a Prophet”

101

land. Now your day has passed. You will confront your day like Ekallatum.‖107 Naturally, predictions of the king‘s victory over his enemies are normal for these prophecies, but nonetheless there is no reason given for the defeat of the enemy, just the divine favor to Zimri-Lim. That is, there are no ethical or even cultic justifications given for the defeat of an enemy nation, unlike the Oracles against the Nations of the book of Amos, for example. Also, there is no judgment on the behavior of the everyday citizens of the condemned nations, again unlike the book of Amos. As will be seen below, social justice was a major theme in ancient Mesopotamian literature, just not in the recorded prophecies. This is partly because the prophecies in the ancient Near East were not social commentaries or reflective theological texts. They were generally oracular responses to ad hoc queries and situations; brief, to the point, and without further analysis. 3.2.6. Public Proclamation There is one last issue which will be looked at briefly here, and that is the question of whether there is any evidence of prophets giving public proclamations like Amos appears to be doing in the Amaziah narrative. An unauthorized publicly-proclaimed prophecy could affect public moral and pose political risks for the government, and is typical of biblical prophet literature.108 ARM 26 371 is a very interesting report which has some similarities with the Amaziah narrative. An official named Yarim-Addu reports an incident that occurred when the king of Ekallatum, Išme-Dagan, was in exile at Hammurabi‘s palace in Babylon. An unnamed āpilum stood at the gate of the building where Išme-Dagan was staying, and incessantly proclaimed, ―Išme-Dagan will not escape the hand of Marduk. That hand will tie together a sheaf and he will be caught in it.‖ 109 This prophet further denounces Išme-Dagan for giving Babylonian wealth to Elam for peaceful relations.110 Yarim-Addu reported that no one said anything to this prophet. This highly unusual report of a publicly-proclaimed, unsolicited prophetic statement against a foreign king being sheltered by the local king bears similarities to many stories of prophets in the Hebrew Bible,111 and

107

NISSINEN 2003a:27. This is somewhat reminiscent of the Day of Yhwh theme in Amos. On the presence of a divine council in this letter, cf. G ORDON 1993:72. 108 Cf. ROBERTS 1997:137 in regard to Amos 2:12, and also p. 141 in regard to 7:10. 109 N ISSINEN 2003a:73. On the tense and dangerous political background to this text, cf. ROBERTS 2003. 110 On nationalistic messages in this prophecy cf. C HARPIN 2001:49. Sasson 1994:212 compared this to II Kings 20:12–19, the story of Hezekiah showing Jerusalem‘s treasures to emissaries of the king of Babylon. 111 On the similarities, cf. G ORDON 1993:78–79.

102

Chapter Three

this prophet even gives a reason for Marduk‘s displeasure at Išme-Dagan.112 There is one other text that describes an extraordinary public speech by a prophet, but from a much later time than the texts studied here. A Babylonian astronomical diary dealing with the year 133 BCE describes a man called Boatman who made a number of proclamations during the akītu festival in Babylon and Borsippa. 113 He proclaimed that Marduk was entering Babylon and Nanaya was entering Borsippa, to the joyful acclaim of the people. However, Boatman got into trouble when he announced ―I have been sent on behalf of the strong, hitting god, your god.‖ 114 Temple council authorities who had been watching him for some time then spoke out against him and told his followers to return to their homes and not endanger the city. Boatman argued back that he was not endangering the city, to which the temple authorities told the crowd, ―Do not listen to the words of that fanatic! [Save] your lives, [protect] yourselves!‖115 The people ignored the temple authorities, and after this it is unclear what happened, but some people were killed, suggesting a riot had taken place. This remarkable story bears clear similarities to many biblical prophetic confrontation stories, such as Jeremiah‘s and Amos‘s conflicts with priests. However, again these public prophecies lack the broad scope of biblical literary prophecy, which deal with large and complex social and religious problems in ancient Israel and Judah. So, as has been seen, biblical literary prophetic texts like the book of Amos simply do not match up with the phenomenon of prophecy as it is known from the ancient Near East. Even within the biblical historiographic texts, prophetic figures appear more like the ancient Near Eastern examples than the biblical literary prophets; for example, the prophets in I Kings 22 are very much what one would expect, judging from the ancient Near Eastern information. Texts like the book of Amos are to be understood as literary productions, and not as actual attestations of ―real‖ prophecy. 116 The approach taken here thus far has been comparative, 112 There are two other letters which present prophets as giving speeches to mo re than one person. ARM 26 206, mentioned earlier in the context of the lamb-eating symbolic act, describes this event as being performed at the city gate in front of the elders. Another symbolic act involving the making of mudbricks (analogous to Ezek 4:1 –3), was carried out in public by a prophet in ARM 26 208, but the prophet‘s verbal message was appar ently spoken only to the royal official present at the scene. 113 The text is AD 3 B r.25-u.e.5. Transliteration, translation, and commentary are in N ISSINEN 2002. 114 NISSINEN 2002:66. 115 Ibid. 116 This is not to imply that the stories of prophets in narratives such as I Kings 22 are to be taken as historical, only that they reflect the social phenomenon of prophecy in a similar way to what can be learned from the ancient Near Eastern texts that report prophecies.

“I am not a Prophet nor the Son of a Prophet”

103

but several scholars have argued for a similar conclusion on the basis of inner-biblical study. This led to an important debate in the study of Hebrew Bible prophetic literature, the ―Poets not Prophets‖ debate. 117

3.3. Poets not Prophets Based on biblical evidence, A.G. Auld suggested that the contents of the biblical ―prophetic‖ books were originally not considered ―prophetic‖ at all, but that this label was only attached to them over time. Auld was interested in the contradictory attitudes toward prophecy in the Hebrew Bible, and he sought to explain the various comments found throughout the Hebrew Bible that are harshly critical of prophets en masse, while at the same time elevating certain prophets like Moses, Elijah and Elisha as well as the literary prophets to the high level of primary interlocutors between Yahweh and humanity. Not satisfied with the earlier explanations of these differing views of prophecy being merely the distinction between ―true‖ and ―false‖ prophecy, Auld took a diachronic approach, tracing a development whereby prophecy slowly gained respect in Judean society, such that prophets from Israel‘s past came to be seen as ―prophets‖ in the more respectful sense of the term. Auld differentiated three distinct phases in the book of Jeremiah, each representing a diachronically improving image of the role of ―prophet.‖ Taking the poetic portions of the book of Jeremiah as the oldest level, Auld pointed out that prophets are generally viewed negatively, and that nowhere is Jeremiah called a prophet. At this early stage, however, the verb ―to prophesy‖ is viewed neutrally, whereas ―prophets‖ are viewed negatively. 118 Thus, ―prophesying‖ was acceptable, but ―prophets‖ were not.119 In the LXX level, prophets are viewed more positively, although Jeremiah is still not considered to be one, whereas Hananiah is. At the latest, Masoretic level, additional prose material portrays both prophecy and prophets more positively, and Jeremiah is referred to as a prophet. This argument is based on Auld‘s conviction that the LXX preserves an older Vorlage than the MT version. In Auld‘s view, at the same time that Jeremiah was ―re-presented‖ as a prophet, various other texts in the Hebrew 117

Most of this debate was carried out in JSOT articles, which have been gathered together in book form in DAVIES 1996a. The phrase ―Poets not Prophets‖ was applied to the debate by Overholt, based on the title of C ARROLL 1983. 118 AULD 1984:69–70. 119 This could be comparable to the modern distinction between a ―political figure‖ versus a ―politician.‖ Also, the book of Amos seems to feature prophesying positively in 3:8, but being a ―prophet‖ negatively in 7:14.

104

Chapter Three

Bible received pro-prophetic editing, including the DtrH. 120 Auld thus argued that the pre-exilic speakers on whom the pre-exilic literary prophetic texts are based were not originally viewed as prophets, but as some other type of speaker, referred to with terms such as ―Man of God‖ and ―Messenger of Yahweh.‖ Thus, the historical Amos was not considered a prophet until much later: ―Amos was a critic of the community of classic proportions….But he was not a prophet till the descendants of his community made him one, nor did he purvey the word of God till his successors discerned that quality in his words. He only became a good prophet when he was a dead one.‖ 121 The questions that Auld raised about the ―prophetic‖ genre of the book of Amos and similar texts point in the same direction as the argument that will be made here, but there are some problems with his proposals. Auld‘s chronological development of the improvement in the perception of the term ―prophet‖ is based on a complex historical reconstruction based on the LXX, MT, and supposed Vorlagen. It is also not clear when each of these stages should be dated. In its final form, the book of Amos seems to fit with Auld‘s first stage (prophesying is good, prophets are not), in that prophesying seems to be referred to positively in Amos 3:8, while Amos denies being a prophet in 7:14, in the Amaziah narrative. Auld has not clearly dated these two passages, which would be important for understanding them in his proposed model. He considered the Amaziah narrative in Amos 7 to be dependent on I Kings 13 and II Chronicles 25:14–16, and thus later than at least some form of both of them. 122 As for 3:8, Auld has been ambivalent about its authenticity, but said that if it is authentic, then it democratizes prophecy, saying that it is available to all, not just to the ―prophets.‖123 Whatever one makes of the meanings of 7:14 and 3:8, the difficult task of securing the dates of these passages would be important for using Auld‘s model to understand these portions of the book of Amos. Additionally, as can be seen from the above discussion, Auld did have a historical man ―Amos‖ in his view of the text. All we have is a text; we have no other evidence or information on the ―Amos‖ to whom this text is 120

In Auld‘s view, the reason the books of Chronicles lack the Elijah/Elisha narratives is because they preserve an older, anti-prophetic Vorlage of the books of Kings, that lacked these narratives. The Elijah/Elisha narratives were then added to the books of Kings as part of the rehabilitation of the image of the prophet in the post -exilic era. W ILLIAMSON 1983 argued against this view, calling the pre-Chr DtrH Vorlage a ―phantom‖ text. Williamson defended the continued validity of the common argument that the Elijah/Elisha narratives are largely excluded from Chronicles because they are mostly Northern (Israelite) stories. 121 AULD 1988:246–247. 122 AULD 1986:27–29; 1988:247. 123 AULD 1986:30–35.

“I am not a Prophet nor the Son of a Prophet”

105

ascribed. Any historical Amos, if he existed at all, is essentially unreachable. Last but certainly not least, Auld made virtually no use of ancient Near Eastern comparative material. So, when Auld makes reference to the ―ancient Israelite category‖ of prophecy versus the biblical category, 124 it is not clear what this would be. However, the ancient Near Eastern material examined above can support some of Auld‘s arguments concerning the non-prophetic genre of the biblical ―prophetic‖ books. Joining Auld‘s criticism of too-easy connections between ancient speakers and the later ―prophetic‖ texts attributed to them, Robert Carroll described the actual pre-exilic speakers on whom the biblical ―prophetic‖ books were based as poets, not prophets. 125 Carroll did say that there was a social reality to prophets in ancient Israel, similar to those found in ancient Near Eastern texts, but that they were not authors of the biblical ―prophetic‖ books. In Carroll‘s view, the biblical redactors/editors made their characters appear prophetic. 126 Carroll wrote that ancient Israelite prophets can be thought of as intermediaries with the divine, but that the biblical prophets spoke their own minds, and were thus not really ―prophets‖ at all, but were merely cast in that role in the later books. The real speakers or writers behind the biblical ―prophetic‖ texts were poets who were possibly intellectuals and radical social critics (although he acknowledges that their messages could be affected by later editing). 127 In Carroll‘s view, scholarship on the prophets has suffered from an ―illegitimate transfer of meaning,‖ whereby elements in biblical literature have been illegitimately assumed to apply to the real world of ancient Israel. This creates circular reasoning in which the biblical prophets are interpreted on the basis of the so cial reality of ancient Israel, which is construed from the biblical prophetic texts. Carroll‘s views are more similar to those taken here than Auld‘s; but while both Auld and Carroll posit a transformation of earlier, pre-prophetic texts into ―prophetic‖ texts, they do not have a clear cause for this transformation to have taken place. Like Auld, Carroll held that a historical poet did underlie the original texts. In order to understand the biblical ―prophetic‖ literature for itself, Carroll wrote, one should look to the time when these poets were turned into prophets to find the reason why this change took place, such as the crisis of the exile and post-exilic reconstruction of Judaism.128 The transformation of an earlier non-prophetic text 124

AULD 1983b:41. CARROLL 1983. CARROLL 1990. 127 CARROLL 1983:26–27. 128 CARROLL 1983:28–29. AULD 1988:248 suggested that the elevating of Moses as the supreme prophet led to the transformation of the literary ―prophets‖ into prophets. 125 126

106

Chapter Three

into a prophetic one by post-exilic redactors, proposed by both Auld and Carroll, was difficult for them to pin down in terms of date and cause. This debate has been updated in more recent years by Philip Davies, who noted how little information there is on the supposed prophets even within their own books. Davies argued that this would be strange if the prophets‘ sayings were recorded by disciples. One would expect that the disciples would relate more stories about their master, in Davies‘s view. 129 Davies thus suggested that the prophets themselves had little or nothing to do with the books associated with them, which were post-exilic literary productions. In Davies‘s view, the production of biblical ―prophetic‖ scrolls was a process of archiving, by which scraps of ―real‖ prophecy from ancient pre-exilic Israel had been archived together under the names of real prophets during the monarchic period. In the Persian period, these records would then have been gathered by the post-exilic scribes and drawn from in order to make new scrolls that addressed the concerns of their own (post-exilic) days. Like Auld and Carroll, Davies‘s proposal is similar to the one advanced here in that he considered the biblical ―prophetic‖ books to not be ―real‖ prophecy, but he differed from Auld and Carroll in that he did see ―real‖ ancient Israelite prophets underlying the biblical material, but so remotely that even the post-exilic redactors knew virtually nothing about them. Like Auld and Carroll, there is a minimum of comparative work on ancient Near Eastern prophecy in Davies‘s works on this subject; the comparative analysis done here can support some of Davies‘s proposals. There have been two kinds of response to these proposals, anthropological and historical. T. Overholt has produced the most thorough anthropological response, pointing out examples of ―prophets‖ from a wide variety of world cultures that resemble the biblical literary ―prophets.‖ Avoiding rigid definitions of prophecy, Overholt identified prophets more by their social role than the content of their sayings. 130 In that sense, a ―prophet‖ for Overholt was someone who had an intermediary role between the human and divine realms; but the nature of these roles varied and overlapped with other roles. Overholt questioned how one can consider somebody as ―prophesying‖ but not a prophet. 131 However the socalled prophets viewed themselves, in Overholt‘s opinion, they seem to have been viewed by their contemporaries as prophets, as performing the prophetic social role. 129 DAVIES 2000:66–69. But against this assumption it could be pointed out that the Christian ―sayings sources,‖ such as the Gospel of Thomas and the hypothetical Q, have little to no biographical information. 130 OVERHOLT 1989:4–5. Cf. DEIST 1989, who suggested that future prophetic research will focus more on the social context of prophecy. 131 OVERHOLT 1990a:9. Cf. also OVERHOLT 1990b.

“I am not a Prophet nor the Son of a Prophet”

107

The problem with this argument is that we do not have direct information from the contemporaries of supposed pre-exilic prophets. On the literary level, while Carroll has argued that without the colophons, we wouldn‘t even consider these texts to be ―prophetic,‖ Overholt argued that the colophons can serve as evidence that some people with these names composed at least parts of the books ascribed to them, and that in any case their works look like prophecy even without the colophons. This depends on the redactional relationship one assumes for these colophons, but even if they are as old as the oldest parts of these texts, this does not mean that they should be taken as fact. As for the material looking like prophecy, that depends on how one defines ―prophecy;‖ as has been shown above, the biblical literary prophetic texts do not look very much like the phenomenon of prophecy as known from the earlier ancient Near Eastern texts. Overholt also asked why a non-prophetic text would be labeled as prophetic if it were not so originally. 132 This remains a problem in the works of Auld and Carroll, as Auld in particular did not explain why the scribal view of prophecy changed over time. Davies avoided this problem by suggesting that the biblical ―prophetic‖ books did have real prophetic origins, however remote they are from the later biblical books. As stated above, Overholt compared numerous world cultures to ancient Israel in order to show that the biblical literary prophets were indeed prophets. But these cultures are from widely different times and places; ancient Israel can be better understood from within the context of the ancient Near East. This has been the approach of the second major response, that of Hans Barstad. Barstad argued that the evidence for prophecy at Mari shows close similarities to what we see in the Hebrew Bible, suggesting that biblical literary ―prophecy‖ was from the social reality of prophecy. 133 Barstad cautiously avoided making too many claims about the social reality of prophecy based on texts, arguing that comparative work using textual material must be primarily on the literary level.134 Yet, Barstad noted that the scribes of Mari wrote down prophecies and filed them, suggesting that the biblical literary ―prophetic‖ books could also be a product of comparable scribal work in ancient Israel. He pointed to the story of Baruch writing down Jeremiah‘s statements as suggestive of this procedure.135 Additionally, we can see from Mari that many of the prophecies had to do with wars and feared disasters, as does much of the biblical material. Barstad suggested that the Oracles against the Nations may de132

OVERHOLT 1990b:51–53. B ARSTAD 1993:117–118. B ARSTAD 2000:11. 135 B ARSTAD 1993:125–126. SCHART 1995 suggested that the writers of some of the Mari letters altered the original meanings of prophecies by combining more than one prophecy in a single report, and Schart compares this this to Baruch‘s practice in Jeremiah 36. 133 134

108

Chapter Three

rive from ―divine cursing‖ formulae in the context of holy wars. Also, he noted that the prophetic role of intercessor has ancient Near Eastern parallels (without pointing out any, though). Barstad was not arguing that the biblical ―prophetic‖ books were historically accurate, but that they reflect a socio-historical reality of ancient Israelite prophetism, and that this is how they would have been understandable. 136 Yet, as Davies has pointed out, this can be a result of later canonizing rather than their original function. It has been argued above that the biblical ―prophetic‖ texts are too different from ancient Near Eastern prophetic texts to be considered the same phenomenon, but it will be seen that the biblical texts were written to resemble prophecy, a phenomenon which does have ancient Near Eastern parallels. However, the authors of the biblical ―prophetic‖ books were not only poets, as they used a variety of genres. 137

3.4. Conclusion It has been argued in this chapter that the book of Amos is not a work of ―prophecy‖ as the phenomenon is known in the ancient Near East. Prophecy was defined above as a non-inductive type of divination; that is, as a form of ascertaining divine will without the use of tools. Prophecy can be identified in texts by use of messenger formulae, prophetic titles, and typi cal prophetic behavior such as ecstatic trances. The first two of these occur in the book of Amos, but there are no clear indications of ecstasy there. However, the content of the prophetic statements in ancient Near Eastern texts in comparison with the book of Amos are significantly different. Whereas ancient Near Eastern texts portray prophets as giving short, oracular responses to specific questions, they lack the lengthy diatribes and extended social and religious critiques typical of biblical ―prophetic‖ literature. Biblical ―prophetic‖ literature is more works of critical poetry rather than prophecy, and in this regard the views of Auld, Carroll, and Davies in the ―Poets not Prophets‖ debate receive some support. So, there are extra-biblical and intra-biblical reasons for seriously questioning if the biblical prophetic books can be considered ―prophecy‖ as this phenomenon is known from the ancient Near East. But if they are not in the genre of ―prophecy,‖ what are they? Carroll considered them works of poetry, but they are definitely unusual poetry in that they have a predictive form. That 136 HEINTZ 1997 held a similar view to Barstad‘s, arguing that the NBʾ root and the lamb-eating symbolic act in Mari prophecy discussed above show that biblical prophetic texts report a real phenomenon. However, as is argued here, the important distinction is at the textual level. 137 Cf. P ETERSEN 1997:32–33.

“I am not a Prophet nor the Son of a Prophet”

109

is, they are non-prophetic works of literature that purport to predict future events as a prophet would, but with much more length, sophistication, and with a broad range of topics. There are several pieces of literature from the ancient Near East that bear a closer comparison to biblical texts like the book of Amos, and these are the ―literary-predictive texts‖ explored in the next chapter.

Chapter Four

The Book of Amos as a Literary-Predictive Text 4.1. Introduction As has been shown above, prophecy in Mesopotamia generally appeared in textual form as brief prophetic reports, usually responding to specific, ad hoc questions or situations. These texts are, with very few exceptions, lacking in broader, evaluative or critical judgments or comments on governments or the reigns of kings. On the other hand, biblical texts such as the book of Amos are much longer literary texts that address the broad topic of a country‘s religious and political condition. A much closer comparison to biblical literary ―prophetic‖ texts such as the book of Amos can be found in the so-called ―Akkadian prophecies,‖ a group of texts that present surveys of the past in predictive form. Yet these are literary texts, with no indication that they were the product of actual prophetic speech. For this and other reasons, the term ―prophecies‖ has been disputed for these texts, and Ellis‘s designation ―literary predictive texts‖ is the most accurate designation for the group. 1 They are not the products of prophecy, but instead literary texts in predictive form; this feature is precisely what makes them similar to biblical prophetic texts. Their predictive style comes partly from their use of phrases commonly found in omen apodoses, although it is unknown if the ―literary predictive texts‖ have any relationship to actual omens interpreted in relation to the topics dealt with in the texts themselves. 2 In this chapter, these texts as well as several similar texts will be examined, and it will be shown that they are much more similar to the book of Amos than are the ancient Near Eastern prophetic reports.3 This comparative study will then aid in understanding the book of Amos as a ―literary-predictive text.‖ 1

ELLIS 1989. This term is used also by NISSINEN 2003c:134. GRAYSON and LAMBERT 1964:7. 3 In reference to the literary-predictive texts, DEJONG 2007:35 wrote: ―These texts however have hardly been exploited in a comparative study to prophecy.‖ GRABBE 1995:94 wrote that, ―Unfortunately, the literary prophecies are often dissociated from OT prophetic literature precisely because they are literary. This ignores the fact that much OT prophetic literature may well be literary in origin rather than merely the recording of oral prophecies.‖ 2

The Purpose and Function of the Earliest Stage of the Book of Amos

111

4.2. The ―Akkadian Prophecies‖ 4.2.1. Text A The first of these texts was published in 1926 by Ebeling as a ―Sammlung von Prophezeiungen,‖ thus giving the text the ―prophetic‖ label from its first publication.4 The text was edited in English by Grayson and Lambert in their seminal article ―Akkadian Prophecies,‖ where they gave the text the designation ―Text A,‖ the name it has had ever since. 5 Text A is on a late Assyrian tablet found at Assur, ―not later than 614 B.C. then, and not likely to be more than a century older.‖ 6 The beginning and end of Text A are lost to damage, so it is difficult to determine what purpose the author or scribe had in mind in producing it. The body of the text consists of evaluative summaries of a series of reigns of unnamed kings. These reigns are described as good or bad (not consistently in alternating order), with some reigns having peace and prosperity for the country and others resulting in suffering and hardship. While the kings are not named, the lengths of reigns are enumerated, with each section beginning with ―a prince will arise and rule for X years.‖ The presence of these time indicators, and obscure references to certain events, has made possible some reasonable suggestions for identifying the kings in question with historical figures. Weidner suggested that the first kings listed in the extant portion of the text are the last four Kassite kings, beginning with Meli-šipak II (12th century BCE), but an error had to be assumed for the first regnal time period for this to work. 7 Hallo proposed a somewhat later dating, identifying the kings with the last six kings of the second dynasty of Isin, beginning with Marduk-nadin-ahhe (early 11 th century). 8 This proposal works without emendation of the first regnal periods as they are in Text A, although some emendation is needed for the later reigns, but there are lacunae there. Hallo‘s dating has been defended in detail and expanded by Longman, producing a reasonable argument that the events described in Text A do bear on some historical reality. 9 Since Text A presents a ―prediction‖ of a series of historical events, it would have been written after the fact, and is 4

EBELING 1926:283–284. GRAYSON and LAMBERT 1964:7. 6 LAMBERT 1978:10. 7 W EIDNER 1940:236. Weidner was followed by LAMBERT 1978:10 and 18, fn. 13, contra Hallo. 8 HALLO 1966:235–239. 9 LONGMAN 1991:154–162. VAN SETERS 1997:97 also follows H ALLO. B IGGS 1967 and Ringgren were skeptical, but R INGGREN 1983:380, while not considering Hallo‘s proposal convincing, nonetheless commented that the lack of an alternating good/bad sequence indicates that the text is based on some historical sequence rather than an artifi cial pattern. 5

112

Chapter Four

thus a vaticinium ex eventu. Not a report of an ad hoc prophecy, this text is a literary evaluation of historical events in predictive form, and in that sense is analogous to biblical texts like the book of Amos. 4.2.2. Text B Another text, pieced together from a number of fragments and labeled ―Text B‖ by Grayson and Lambert, is a more contested member of this group. Like Text A, Text B lists a series of good and bad reigns, in this case in alternating sequential order of good and bad. These include an order from the gods to establish justice (mīšaru), a king who causes his land to complain, disorder and restoration of order. Unlike Text A, Text B contains a mythological beginning with divine counsels, 10 and the listed reigns are devoid of regnal years or any information of use for connecting them with historical events, if any such references were intended. The mention of Iamutbal and Eshnunna suggests a connection with the first dynasty of Babylon, perhaps around the time of Hammurabi. 11 The historical vagueness of the text, its mythological content, and the use of phrases similar to omen literature, led Biggs to suggest that Text B was an astrological omen with no reference to real historical events. 12 In Biggs‘s view, the mythological beginning of the text is an observable astronomical event, the consequences of which are spelled out in the remainder of the text. Lambert disagreed, pointing out that Biggs has to supply an omen protasis in the first line, which prejudices the whole reading, and that the prediction of alternating reigns is too long and complex for a single omen apodosis. 13 One crucial difference in translation is that Grayson and Lambert rendered lines 26–27 as ―Indeed, the great gods will consult one another and …[…] [There will be] an Amorite attack against the land, against …[…].‖ 14 However, Biggs had ―Either the great gods will consult one another and the rule of the king will be short(?),…[…] or there will be an Amorite attack against the land later on‖ etc. 15 The difference is in their translations of šum-ma…šum-ma, which can mean ―either…or‖ as Biggs translates it, or ―truly…truly‖ as Lambert rendered it. If Biggs‘s reading is correct, then Text B really is a prediction and cannot be describing past events. 16 In any 10 R INGGREN 1983:379 suggested that Text A may have also had a mythological introduction, based on the presence of Ishtar and Anu in the first few broken lines. 11 GRAYSON and LAMBERT 1964:9. 12 B IGGS 1987. 13 LAMBERT 1970:176. However, Biggs seems to have based his restored protasis on the complete protasis that appears in line 32 (B IGGS 1967:123), which was on another fragment that Biggs had connected with the rest of Text B. 14 GRAYSON and LAMBERT 1964:18. 15 B IGGS 1967:123. 16 LAMBERT 1970 did not deal with this particular difference in translation.

The Purpose and Function of the Earliest Stage of the Book of Amos

113

case, the uncertainties involving Text B have caused it to generally be left out of discussions of this group of texts. 17 4.2.3. The Marduk Prophecy A text with a clearer setting is the Marduk Prophecy, which has been connected with the recovery of the Marduk statue from Elam by Nebuchadnezzar I. 18 This text includes Grayson and Lambert‘s ―Text D,‖ but additional fragments joined to it by Borger have allowed it to be more fully understood. There was a copy of it in the ―House of the Exorcist,‖ a private library in Assur with dated texts ranging from 713–612 BCE.19 The text is framed as a first-person address by Marduk to an assemblage of gods, in which Marduk relates that he traveled to Hatti, Assyria (Baltil) and Elam, and that he will soon be returning to Babylon. Borger identified Marduk‘s sojourn in Hatti with the defeat of Babylon by the Hittite king Mursilis I around 1595 BCE, the god‘s stay in Assyria with Babylon‘s defeat by Tukulti-Ninurta I in the late thirteenth or early twelfth century BCE, and Marduk‘s stay in Elam with Elam‘s victory under Kudurnahhunte, around 1160 BCE. Yet, the text portrays Marduk as fully in control, and these defeats are all portrayed as having been solely the results of Marduk‘s independent will. Marduk‘s sojourns in Hatti and Assyria are portrayed as good times for both those countries and for Babylon, as trade relations resulted in well-being for all. However, Marduk‘s stay in Elam results in catastrophe. Marduk leads the other gods in abandoning Babylon, which results in agricultural stoppages, sickness, social disruption, attacks from lions and dogs, and widespread death. 20 So far, the text was written in the past tense, but at this point it turns to future, and the predictive element begins. Marduk announces that he will return again to Babylon, and that a new king of Babylon will arise. This king will restore the sanctuaries and their proper functions, and Marduk will renew agricultural prosperity and rectify wickedness. The new king, identified by Borger as Nebuchadnezzar I, will defeat Elam and destroy its fortresses. The text concludes with a list of sacrifices. 17

E.g., LONGMAN 1991:131; cf. also E LLIS 1989:151 and NISSINEN 2003:135. It is absent in the discussion in V ANDERKAM 1995:2091–2094. However, B IGGS 1992:19–20 has argued that all of these texts are akin to astronomical omen texts, and as such Text B should be included in this group, and that all of them can be considered ―prophecies,‖ not because they were solicited from a prophet, but because they express divine will con cerning the future. 18 B ORGER 1971. For English translation, cf. FOSTER 1995:215–217. 19 ELLIS 1989:167–168. This library contained texts that ―reflect on the problem of the desecration or destruction of cult cities and the absence of a city‘s deity in exile,‖ ELLIS 1989:168. The commonalities of this with many biblical prophetic works is obvious. 20 On the divine abandonment theme here, cf. B LOCK 2000:22–24.

114

Chapter Four

While Borger‘s setting of the text has been generally agreed upon, the purpose of it is less clear. Borger suggested that the text was a priestly vaticinium ex eventu ―Heilsprophetie‖ that showed how Marduk had ordained Nebuchadnezzar I‘s victory over Elam, and that the king should now support the sanctuaries listed in the text. Thus, Borger saw it as a ―Wunschliste‖ from the priests of these shrines to the king. 21 This can be supported by the fact that the king‘s restoration of cult at the shrines precedes the promise of Marduk‘s restoration of prosperity and order, suggesting that Marduk‘s blessings are a result of the king‘s support of the temples. On the other hand, as Borger also suggested, the text could have preceded Nebuchadnezzar‘s Elamite campaign. This view was promoted by Roberts, who suggested that the text was written prior to the campaign, in order either to garner support among nervous nobles, soldiers, or citizens for the campaign, or to give the king encouragement to carry it out. 22 Roberts argued that the text‘s insistence on Marduk‘s control of history during his sojourns in other countries would not have needed stating after Nebuchadnezzar‘s victory over Elam. Also, the future-tense ―prophecy‖ portion of the text only begins with the successes of Nebuchadnezzar. In Roberts‘s view, then, ―the text would appear to be a genuine ‗prophecy of salvation‘ seeking credence by an appeal to past history,‖ in support of Nebuchadnezzar‘s risky campaign against Elam. 23 Whether the text is entirely a vaticinium ex eventu or a ―real‖ prediction, it presents a survey of selected historical events, casting them all as being the result of the free will of an all-powerful god. In this respect it is far more similar to biblical prophetic texts, including the book of Amos, than any of the prophetic texts from Mari and Assyria discussed above. 4.2.4. The Shulgi Prophecy The Marduk Prophecy was found by Borger to end with anāku dŠulgi, the catchword of another relevant text, the ―Shulgi Prophecy,‖ which contains Grayson and Lambert‘s ―Text C.‖ This text was thus part of the same series as the Marduk Prophecy, and followed it immediately on the tablets that Borger was using (and thus also was found at the House of the Exorcist in Assur). This text is in much worse shape than the Marduk Prophecy, making interpretation difficult. Very few lines of the Shulgi Prophecy are completely extant, and of an estimated 232 lines in the text, 113 do not have a single sign still legible. 24

21

B ORGER 1971:21. ROBERTS 2002a:85–88. 23 ROBERTS 2002a:88, followed by LONGMAN 1991:141. 24 LONGMAN 1991:145. 22

The Purpose and Function of the Earliest Stage of the Book of Amos

115

From what can be read, it begins in the first person with the divine Shulgi relating that he has received messages from Shamash and Ishtar, and that he founded Nippur and followed the instructions of Enlil and Ninlil (cols. i–ii). After this, the text describes catastrophes afflicting Babylon. There is a future king who will neglect the citizens of Nippur and Babylon, and render no righteous judgment. That king will suffer, and Babylon will be conquered by the Hittites (col. iii). Borger suggested that this may refer to the Hittite sack of Babylon in 1595 BCE, as in the Marduk Prophecy. 25 Under some other king, Babylon will suffer social disorder, in stereotyped language similar to the Marduk Prophecy (brother will devour brother….husband will forsake wife, wife will forsake husband, mother will bar her door against daughter, etc.). Babylon will be conquered by Assyria, which may refer to the victory of Tukulti-Ninurta I against Kaštiliašu IV of Babylon in 1225 BCE. 26 This is followed by further disaster, friends turning on friends, and the total destruction of the land. Nippur will be cast down, an event that Borger suggested could refer to the destruction of that city by the Elamites under Kidin-Ḫutrutaš.27 The king of Babylon‘s reign will end by the command of Enlil, and a good king will arise, who will restore the shrines of the gods. The setting for this period is uncertain, but could be late Kassite or Isin II. 28 While the historical allusions in the text are less certain due to its poor condition, it is similar to the Marduk Prophecy in showing divinely-ordained chaos and destruction in what is probably a historical context, followed by a good king who will restore order. The function of the text is difficult to determine, but it has been suggested that it was composed to elevate the status of the cities of Nippur and Babylon when their status was being challenged. 29 Like the Marduk Prophecy, it is a literary text that bears more similarities to bibli cal prophetic texts than do the Mari and Assyrian prophecy reports. 4.2.5. The Uruk Prophecy Another text in this set is the Uruk Prophecy, discovered in 1969 in the collection of an exorcist/diviner named Anu-ikṣur, whose library included texts generally dating to the fifth century BCE. 30 The reverse of the tablet contains another series of reigns like the other texts discussed above, but these are all in future tense. Not alternating, the Uruk Prophecy lists a series of evil kings, including one who removes the lamassu from Uruk to 25

B ORGER 1971:23. B ORGER 1971:23, LONGMAN 1991:145. B ORGER 1971:23. 28 GRAYSON 1975:16. 29 GRAYSON 1975:16, also W ILSON 1980:122. 30 ELLIS 1989:169, fn. 200. 26 27

116

Chapter Four

Babylon and replaces her with a foreign lamassu. Hunger and Kaufman identified this king as the eighth-century king Eriba-Marduk, whose biography fits the description in the text. 31 The text describes this king as imposing heavy taxes on the people, devastating the city, filling the canals with mud and abandoning the fields. He is followed by several evil kings who do not provide justice or make the right decisions. After this, a good king arises who establishes justice, returns the lamassu to Uruk, restores the cult, renews the city, and brings prosperity. His son is predicted to become very powerful, followed by an eternal dynasty. Hunger and Kaufman identified the good king who restored the lamassu as Nebuchadnezzar II, and the son as Amel-Marduk. In their view, the purpose of the text was to muster support for Amel-Marduk, who faced serious opposition and was assassinated only two years after his father‘s death. 32 However, Lambert argued that the son was Nebuchadnezzar II, preceded by his father Nabopolassar, founder of the Neo-Babylonian empire. 33 Another suggestion was proposed by Goldstein, who argued that the text is not a vatinicium ex eventu, but a prediction and hope for the near future. He identified the father as Marduk-apla-iddina II, and dated the text to the eleven year reign of this king (721–710 BCE), before he left Babylon in the face of Sargon II‘s advances.34 Beaulieu suggested that the text was intended for the Seleucid monarch Antiochus I, in order to encourage him to respect and support Babylonian culture and religion. 35 However, it is not important for the purposes here which particular kings the text has in mind, except that it probably does refer to some real events in the eighth to sixth centuries BCE as a postdiction. Like the texts discussed above, the Uruk Prophecy also features a survey of history and a prediction, in a literary form similar to biblical prophetic literature. 4.2.6. The Dynastic Prophecy The last text in this group is the ―Dynastic Prophecy,‖ which presents Babylonian history from the Neo-Assyrian Empire to the Seleucid period, painted in broad strokes, but all in predictive form. 36 The text is archaizing, using ―Elamites‖ for Persians and ―Haneans‖ for Macedonians. Several of the kings mentioned are easily identifiable, such as Nabonidus (ii 11–16) and Cyrus (ii 17–24). Both Nabonidus and Cyrus are portrayed in a nega31

HUNGER and KAUFMAN 1975:374. HUNGER and KAUFMAN 1975:374, followed by LONGMAN 1991:147–149 and C LIFFORD 1998:13. Cf. also K AUFMAN 1977, esp. pp. 224–225. 33 LAMBERT 1978:11. 34 GOLDSTEIN 1988:46. 35 BEAULIEU 1993:49–50. 36 GRAYSON 1975:24–37. 32

The Purpose and Function of the Earliest Stage of the Book of Amos

117

tive light, as oppressing (literally, being stronger than) the land. Oddly, the text portrays Darius III as recovering from defeat by Alexander, and defeating the Macedonian forces (iii15–23). This results in happiness for the land. As Ringgren pointed out, if the text ended here, we would consider it most likely a text composed to encourage the Persians to fight on against Alexander in spite of initial losses. 37 However, the text continues with obscure references to later, presumably Hellenistic, reigns, concluding with a bad reign. The description of this last reign (iv 4–6) is badly broken, and only ―[…will attack] and seize the land‖ and ―will be extinguished‖ remain.38 Grayson identified this final, bad king with Seleucus I, and suggested that the text was a product of anti-Seleucid sentiment on the part of Babylonian scribes resentful of Seleucus I‘s capture of Babylon. 39 The text concludes with a command to keep its contents secret, and that it should not be shown to the uninitiated. As Grayson noted, this text has strong similarities with the book of Daniel, and thus it may represent an early stage in the development of apocalyptic literature. 40 While this text is clearly later than any proposed dating for the book of Amos, it is relevant because it is another example of the use of predictive language in fairly long literary texts for what are probably political, propagandistic purposes.

4.3. Genre Classifications Having looked at these texts individually, the question remains as to how these texts should be understood as a group, if they can at all. Some of the earlier fragments of these texts were first grouped together by Güterbock, who placed them in a larger category called narû literature.41 This category consisted of ostensibly historical, royal inscriptions that were inscribed on stelae (narûs). Grayson referred to this category as ―historical-literary texts,‖ which he divided into three ―genres,‖ those being ―prophecies,‖ ―historical epics,‖ and ―pseudo-autobiographies,‖ the latter category containing most of Güterbock‘s original narû texts.42 While the usage of these categories has shifted both in Grayson‘s own work and in the work of other scholars, the texts discussed above have generally been labeled ―Akkadian prophecies,‖ both because of the initial labeling of Text A as a ―prophecy‖ by Ebeling, and the title of Grayson and Lambert‘s seminal publication of 37

R INGGREN 1983:383. GRAYSON 1975:37. GRAYSON 1975:17–20. 40 GRAYSON 1975:21–22. 41 GÜTERBOCK 1934:19–21. 42 GRAYSON 1975:5. 38 39

118

Chapter Four

Texts A–D.43 While the designation ―prophecies‖ has been frequently and sometimes justly challenged, Grayson‘s definition of the category is nonetheless useful for understanding these texts, especially in comparison with biblical literary prophecy: An Akkadian prophecy is a prose composition consisting in the main of a numbe r of ―predictions‖ of past events. It concludes with either a ‗prediction‘ of phenomena in the writer‘s day or with a genuine attempt to forecast future events. The author, in other words, uses vaticinia ex eventu to establish his credibility and then proceeds to his real purpose which might be to justify a current idea or institution or to forecast future doom for a hated enemy. 44

Setting aside the word ―prophecy‖ for a moment, it can be seen that this definition is much closer to the book of Amos than any of the prophetic reports from Mari or Assyria discussed above. It has been argued in Chapter Two above that the book of Amos consists of retrospective ―predictions‖ of the fall of Samaria. It will be argued in Chapter Five below that the book was written to justify and explain this action, as well as to predict that the former northern kingdom will never recover. It will also be argued in Chapter Five below that the text is Judahite in origin and reflects a Judahite point of view, in which the northern kingdom was depicted as a ―hated enemy.‖ The genre classification of these texts must first be settled. As noted above, Grayson‘s attribution of the label ―prophecy‖ to these texts has been challenged. Ellis pointed out that ―Nothing in the sources available to us indicates that Akkadian literary ‗prophecies‘ were originally generated as a direct result of prophetic or cultic activity.‖ 45 As has been noted by most of the scholars discussed above, some of these texts bear strong resemblances to apocalyptic literature. This led Hallo to argue that these texts should not be called ―Akkadian prophecies‖ at all, but should be labeled ―Akkadian apocalypses.‖ 46 Hallo identified an eschatological character to these texts (working primarily with Text A), which he defined as follows: ―Although our text does not preserve any ‗Messianic‘ portions, it espouses a cyclical view of history which may very well have culminated in a final, catastrophic time of troubles leading into a final and permanent Heilszeit under the aegis of a saviour-king.‖47 While, as stated above, most scholars dealing with these texts have acknowledged their similarities to apocalyptic literature, 48 the categorization of these texts as belonging to 43

GRAYSON and LAMBERT 1964. GRAYSON 1980:183, also 1975:6. 45 ELLIS 1989:147. 46 HALLO 1966, esp. 240. 47 HALLO 1966:241. 48 LAMBERT 1978:13–17 goes so far as to argue that the author of the book of Daniel may have consciously drawn on some of these texts. 44

The Purpose and Function of the Earliest Stage of the Book of Amos

119

that genre has been disputed. Kaufman argued that these texts should not be considered apocalypses, because the periodization of reigns is typical of ancient historiography in general, and that the dualism and eschatology of apocalyptic literature is weak or absent in these texts. 49 Yet, as Kaufman noted, definitions of apocalypticism are varied, so the applicability of these texts to that genre depends on which definition one is using. 50 Hallo suggested the texts published by Grayson and Lambert may have formed a single series (in the order C-B-A-D), and when assembled in this way, they form what could look like a complete apocalyptic text. 51 Yet Borger has shown that Text C (Shulgi Prophecy) followed immediately upon Text D (Marduk Prophecy), thus breaking the chain that Hallo suggested for a single apocalyptic composition.52 With all the problems both of the definition of ―apocalyptic literature‖ and these texts‘ relationship to it, it is best not to define these texts as ―Akkadian apocalypses.‖ Hallo may have betrayed a bias in his comment that, ―the texts which Assyriologists have in recent years regarded as Akkadian prophecies in no wise challenge the uniqueness of biblical prophecy.‖ 53 He may have been inclined to move these texts out of the category of ―prophecy‖ in order to prevent biblical prophetic literature from falling into another category of common ancient Near Eastern literature, like historiography, hymnic poetry, or wisdom texts. Other genre proposals have been offered as well. As mentioned above, Biggs considered all of these texts to be essentially astronomical omens. As he wrote, ―The ‗prophecies‘ must, I believe, be considered simply a peculiar part of the vast Mesopotamian omen tradition, from which the ‗prophecies‘ appeared to differ only because they lacked protases.‖ 54 It has been widely recognized that these texts, especially Text B, have phrases that are the same as or similar to astronomical omen texts. 55 However, with the further information and new texts that have emerged since Biggs‘s original assessment, it now appears that the use of astronomical omen phrases is a literary borrowing only, as there is no evidence of the texts 49

KAUFMAN 1977:225–227. KAUFMAN 1977:225. GOLDSTEIN 1988:44 warned that definitions of apocalyptic literature tend to be read backwards from the New Testament book of Revelation, but also rejected the ―apocalyptic‖ label for these texts. B IGGS 1992:18 also questions the use of the ―apocalyptic‖ label for these texts, as does C LIFFORD 1998:14. Cf. also the discussion in V ANDERKAM 1995:2092–2094. 51 HALLO 1966:239–242. 52 B ORGER 1971; see also VAN SETERS 1997:98, fn 163. 53 HALLO 1966:242. 54 B IGGS 1967:117. 55 P ONGRATZ-LEISTEN 1999:53 identified some of the exact omen texts that share phrases with Text B. 50

120

Chapter Four

going back to any actual divinatory practices or practitioners. 56 Thus, the texts would have drawn on prognostic language without being themselves astronomical omen texts. Another proposal, perhaps with roots in the pseudo-autobiographical texts in the narû literature, is the proposal by Longman that all of these texts should be considered pseudo-autobiographies with a prophetic ending. Longman supported Hallo‘s designation of the texts as ―apocalypses,‖ both because they share several traits with apocalyptic texts, and in order to distinguish them from Akkadian omens and the Mari and Neo-Assyrian oracles.57 Longman faced difficulties, however, in trying to define all five (except Text B) of the texts as pseudo-autobiographies, in that only the Marduk/Shulgi pair is clearly expressed in the first person (and these are the only texts with preserved beginnings). Thus, Longman tried to fit the other texts into this frame by pointing to occasional second-person references (some of them ambiguous), as well as an argument of generic probability with the Marduk and Shulgi prophecies. 58 But with three texts made to fit with two others, the generic probability is not very probable. So, unless the lost beginnings of Text A and the Uruk and Dynastic Prophecies turn up, they cannot all be considered pseudo-autobiographical texts. Rather than attempt to place these texts into some other genre of Mesopotamian literature, it would be better to be more cautious about the use of genres. In a comprehensive study of these texts, Ellis warned against assigning genre designations to this group of texts. 59 As she noted, ―The texts known as Akkadian ‗prophecies‘ are literary manifestations that have been assigned to a single modern text category to which a modern name has been given.‖60 After a discussion of the various debates about the genre location of these texts and subgroupings among them, Ellis argued that the texts may have a sufficient number of differences between them that they could each be understood on their own, sui generis.61 In her view, modern classifications are designed for modern scholarly convenience, and may prejudice readings of the texts as well as obscure other related texts that should be compared. However, she did regard these texts as having enough in common to merit some sort of label, but not any pre-existing scholarly category. She 56

GRAYSON 1975:15–16, NISSINEN 2003c:136. LONGMAN 1991, esp. 177–178. 58 E.g., LONGMAN 1991:162–163. By ―generic probability‖ Longman meant that when two texts appear to be of the same genre, they can be expected to have other traits in common that may have been lost to damage on the tablet. 59 See also Longman‘s warnings about modern genre categories in L ONGMAN 2003:193–194. 60 ELLIS 1989:146–147. 61 ELLIS 1989:154. 57

The Purpose and Function of the Earliest Stage of the Book of Amos

121

proposed the term ―literary-predictive texts,‖ which has the advantage of being accurately descriptive without forcing the texts into a pre-conceived category in which they do not belong. The literary-predictive texts are literary constructs that draw on divinatory, historiographic, and chronographic material for their own phraseology. They are the work of learned scribes, and are not products of actual prophesying or divination. Ellis noted that most of these texts were found in the private libraries of diviners (e.g., the House of the Exorcist and the library of Anu-iḳsur), and that these scholars would have had access to the kinds of source material that were utilized in composing the literary-predictive texts. The use of the predictive form, in Ellis‘s view, demonstrates how oracular messages had taken on a life of their own. As discussed above, it is clear that Neo-Assyrian scribes kept earlier prophecies for posterity and possible re-use. In like manner, the authors of the literary-predictive texts could have drawn on traditional prophetic and/or omen language and imagery, as well as historiographical records at their disposal. As has been seen above, prophecies were often solicited by government officials on questions of political importance. Due to the political relevance of some prophecy, the written form of prophetic oracles became of use for political influence. Thus, in Ellis‘s view, learned scribes drew on a prophetic style in order to produce political texts that drew on historical example, framed in a predictive way, in order to produce a political result. As Ellis wrote, ―The distinguishing characteristic of a literary predictive text is that it has an agenda that can be associated with specific political purposes. These are served by predicting, as good, a future soon-to-be-present.‖62

4.4. Possible Non-Mesopotamian Literary-Predictive Texts 4.4.1. Egyptian prophecies This type of literary-predictive text with political purposes is not unique to Mesopotamia, however. There are at least two texts from ancient Egypt that are similar, the Admonitions of Ipuwer and the Prophecy of Neferti. 63 Both texts feature speeches by a sage speaking to the king, describing the conditions of the land. Both texts describe the conditions of the country as being catastrophic, with widespread shortages and social upheaval. These traits are similar to the descriptions of chaos and disorder in the Mesopotamian literary-predictive texts, including role-reversals, whereby the formerly higher-status people become poor, and are demoted below the newly 62 63

ELLIS 1989:156. English translation, SHUPAK 1995 (COS).

122

Chapter Four

elevated lower-status people. The Egyptian texts naturally have concerns specific to Egypt, such as the Nile drying up and invasions by Asiatics, but otherwise their descriptions of chaos are stereotypical, and feature many of the same images as the Mesopotamian texts. The Admonitions of Ipuwer blames an unnamed Egyptian king for the catastrophes, saying to the monarch, ―It is your doing that brought those things to pass, you have told lies.‖64 This is similar to the accusations of government guilt and responsibility for disasters that is apparent both in the Mesopotamian texts as well as the book of Amos. After lengthy descriptions of social and ecological disaster, both of the Egyptian texts conclude with a redeemer-king, who is expected to set things right. In the Prophecy of Neferti, this king is named ―Imeny,‖ that is, Amenemhet I, first king of the Twelfth Dynasty (1990– 1960 BCE).65 As the Prophecy of Neferti is set during the reign of Pharaoh Snefru of the Fourth Dynasty, this text is probably a political piece designed to show that Amenemhet I‘s reign has brought or will bring order and prosperity to the formerly troubled land. In her study comparing these and similar Egyptian texts 66 with biblical prophetic literature, Shupak found that the Egyptian ―prophetic‖ texts bore numerous literary similarities with Egyptian wisdom literature. Shupak argued that the Egyptian texts are not to be considered prophecy of the ―biblical‖ type, largely because they do not make claims to divine revelation.67 She argued instead that these texts were produced by learned sages in a court setting, like wisdom texts, and that these sages could use their knowledge of literary imagery and traditional lore to write tracts that could serve a pro-monarchic propagandistic function, or to criticize the government in the guise of a voice from the distant past. 68 These Egyptian texts are thus similar to the Mesopotamian literary-predictive texts in that they are literary creations addressing political and social concerns using traditional knowledge and imagery. And in that sense, they are somewhat comparable to the book of Amos. However, these texts‘ lack of claims of divine revelation as well as the absence of predictive elements are significant differences from the book of Amos.

64

SHUPAK 1995:97. SHUPAK 1995109. 66 Shupak studied several other Egyptian texts which she considered relevant because they contain social criticism; however, they lack any ―prophetic‖ or predictive qualities other than that, and so they are not discussed here. VANDERKAM 1995:2084 also restricted himself to the two texts discussed here in his discussion of pre -Hellenistic Egyptian prophecy. 67 SHUPAK 1989-1990, esp. 24. 68 SHUPAK 1989-1990:28, 34. 65

The Purpose and Function of the Earliest Stage of the Book of Amos

123

4.4.2. The Deir „Alla Text Much closer to ancient Israel and Judah, the Deir ‗Alla text 69 may also fit in the category of literary-predictive texts. Like Text B and the Marduk and Shulgi Prophecies, the Deir ‗Alla text presents a ―prophecy‖ that is transmitted from a divine counsel. Like most of the literary-predictive texts, some sort of disaster is predicted, with images of reversals of both social and natural relations. Combination I follows a title and narrative introduction that is very reminiscent of biblical prophetic books like the book of Amos. There is, however, no discernible political content to this plaster inscription, except for a couple mentions of a ―king‖ on the badly damaged Combination II. Combination II breaks off enigmatically at ―I have punished the king‖ (wʾnšty.lmlk); but this might not refer to any actual event past or future. The Deir ‗Alla text (or texts) are severely broken and as such various conclusions have been reached about the genre of this text. For example, M. Weippert identified it as a prophetic apophthegma, that is, ―a narrative told in order to introduce and hand down to posterity sayings of some important person, a god, prophet, philosopher and the like.‖70 Weippert compared this genre to the Amos/Amaziah confrontation story of Amos 7:10–17.71 The Deir ‗Alla text certainly has similarities with biblical prophetic literature, such that Dijkstra observed that it shares the genres of prophetic doom announcement, vision report, and prophetic disputation, with the biblical prophetic books. 72 But the fact that the Deir ‗Alla text shares many features with biblical literary prophecy should not lead one to consider Balaam a real historical prophet. This text may be another literary-predictive text, predicting dramatic future events, but not necessarily a product of ―real‖ prophecy.

4.5. The Composition of the Book of Amos in the Light of Comparative Study As has been shown, the texts discussed above share some fundamental, but sometimes isolated, features with the book of Amos. In terms of format, they are literary compositions that consist of or contain predictive elements, yet are much longer and more complex than texts reporting ―real‖ prophecies from the ancient Near East. While the Mari letters may simply 69 Editio Princeps HOFTIJZER and VAN DER KOOIJ 1976. For a more recent translation, cf. Seow in N ISSINEN 2003a:207–212. 70 WEIPPERT 1991:164; cf. also p. 177. 71 WEIPPERT 1991:177. 72 DIJKSTRA 1995:62–64. Dijkstra pointed out that the Balaam of the Deir ‗Alla text is more similar to the biblical literary prophets than the Balaam of Numbers 22–24.

124

Chapter Four

be scribal summaries of longer prophecies (perhaps analogous to Amaziah‘s summary of Amos‘s message in 7:11), the Neo-Assyrian prophetic documents purportedly preserve the messages as proclaimed by the prophets themselves, and even these are much shorter and simpler than the literary-predictive texts. Likewise, the book of Amos, as well as all of the other biblical prophetic books, is a much longer, more complex work than the prophecy reports from Mari and Assyria. Aside from the miracleworker stories of Elijah and Elisha, the practice of prophecy as described in the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles is very much like what would be expected in the ancient Near East. 73 So, it is not that Israelite prophecy was so different from prophecy in Israel‘s region; rather, biblical prophetic literature is different from the practice of prophecy even in ancient Israel. As O. Loretz noted, ―Allein die Länge des Amos-Buches von neun Kapiteln scheint jede Parallelisierung mit den nur wenige Sätze umfassenden außerbiblischen Prophetietexten zu verbieten.‖ 74 The question then is, if the book of Amos is not a work of prophecy as far as this is known from the ancient Near East, what is its relation to any historical Amos? In Loretz‘s view, the book of Amos has virtually no relationship to any historical individual named Amos, who would have spoken only in short oracles like ancient Near Eastern prophets.75 In his view, the whole book was built around the kernel of the prophetic legend of the confrontation of Amos with Amaziah, minus Amos‘s poetic response. This part of the book of Amos most resembles ancient Near Eastern prophecy, in that Amaziah reports Amos‘s message in a very brief form. 76 Loretz argued that the visions and poetic statements grew around this legend, such that the book finally crystallized by the exilic or post-exilic period. There was thus no ―Amos-Urtext‖ that was later supplemented; the book was composed for the first time in the exilic or post-exilic period to refer to the fall of Jerusalem, and finally to give hope for the future. 77 Loretz thus argued that the book of Amos should not be seen as a book of ―prophecy,‖ but rather is to be understood in the spirit of exilic or post-exilic Jewish scribal learning.78 These learned Jewish scribes used traditional material, which Loretz suggested can help explain the confusing nature of the text going back and 73

For example, the consultations of prophets in I Kings 22, or the consultation of Huldah in II Kings 22:14–20. 74 LORETZ 1992:185, 205–206. 75 LORETZ 1992:206. 76 See recently COUEY 2008, who argues that the Amaziah narrative depicts a state confrontation rather than a religious one; that is, that Amaziah is acting in a manner typical of an ancient Near Eastern royal official, reporting a prophecy that he heard. 77 LORETZ 1992:193–194. 78 LORETZ 1992:196.

The Purpose and Function of the Earliest Stage of the Book of Amos

125

forth between Judah and Israel, as well as its messages of absolute doom combined with a chance for a happy future. 79 Loretz‘s argument that the book of Amos is very different from ancient Near Eastern prophetic attestations is congruent with the proposal advanced here, however Loretz‘s dating is problematic. Dating was the topic of Chapter Two above and will be discussed further in the next two chapters, but a few more words will be said here. If the book of Amos was initially composed to address the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile, and then to give hope for the future, it could hardly be less clear about it. Jerusalem rarely appears in the book in its final form, and even where it does, its appearances are ambiguous. If Jerusalem is to be seen on analogy with Samaria, the confusion of the final form of the book remains problematic, since Samaria is doomed forever in the book of Amos, with the positive ending addressing the ―booth of David‖ (9:11). The ―remnant of Joseph‖ that will survive (5:15) is best explained simply as northern survivors or refugees in Judah rather than exiled Judahites. The book is best understood as a redaction of various materials or large blocks of text rather than as a single composition of the exilic or post-exilic time period. This issue will be dealt with more in the following chapters. Returning to the central topic of this chapter, the relationship between the book of Amos and prophecy, Kratz has recently taken on this problem in a way somewhat similar to the view taken here. Kratz emphasized the lack of critical statements in ancient Near Eastern prophecy; that is, the absence of the divine judgment motif. Kratz argued that ancient Near Eastern prophecy, even when it appears somewhat critical, is at base supportive of the ruling elite system, always aiming for stabilization of that system. 80 So, if there was a prophet named Amos who would have appeared like any other ancient Near Eastern prophet, he would probably not have made judgment speeches. Since a very large proportion of the book of Amos consists of judgment speeches, the remainder that would go back to such a prophet Amos would be very small, and through redaction-critical study Kratz identified what he considered the original Amos speeches. 81 This small collection of original Amos sayings is consistent with the small size of ancient Near Eastern prophecies, if taken individually. In Kratz‘s reconstruction, the prophet Amos spoke during the Assyrian advance but before the fall of Samaria, and simply expressed this impending doom with a few images and sayings in a lament-like way, but without any analysis or 79 KNAUF 2004 A:454 suggested that the different locations in the book of Amos reflect different compositional stages, as these places became important to Judean religious con cerns at different times in history. 80 KRATZ 2003 A:66. 81 KRATZ 2003 A:73. Kratz‘s original Amos portions are 3:12, 15; 4:1–3; 5:2, 3, 7, 10– 12, 16–17, 18–20; 6:1, 3–6a, 7, 12, 13–14.

126

Chapter Four

judgment.82 Thus, contrary to the traditional view of Amos as a prophet of judgment, Kratz stated that ―Der historische Amos war demnach kein Gerichtsprophet.‖83 Being that the biographical information about Amos is not original in Kratz‘s view, he wrote that it is unclear from Amos‘s original sayings whether he was speaking sympathetically from the perspective of the north, or critically from the southern perspective against a hated enemy, because the prophet himself made no judgment speeches. 84 Kratz argued that his reconstruction of the historical Amos behind the literary text better situated the prophet in the context of ancient Near Eastern prophecy. As Kratz argued, ―Anders als der literarische hält der rekonstruierte historische Amos dem religionsgeschichtlichen Vergleich mit den einschlägigen altorientalischen Analogien stand.‖ 85 The ―book‖ of Amos postdates the prophet, in Kratz‘s view; and was written for the first time after the fall of the northern kingdom. Kratz did not give a precise date, but placed the beginning of the compositional process between 722 and 587 BCE. As he wrote: Setzt man den historischen Amos – in etwa gleichzeitig mit Hosea und Jesaja – im ausgehenden 8. Jh., zur Zeit des syrisch-ephraimitischen Krieges oder etwas später, an, fügt es sich gut, die Überlieferungsbildung nicht erst nach 587, sondern bald nach dem Untergang Israels 722 v. Chr. beginnen zu lassen. 86

Kratz wrote that this time period fits the book whether it is read in terms of opposition or unity between Israel and Judah: Beide wird aus der spannungsvollen, mehrdeutigen Situation zwischen 722 und 587 v. Chr. verständlich, als es Israel nicht mehr gab und Juda übriggeblieben war und derselbe Gott, Jhwh, von denselben Gegnern, die wenigstens bis 701 v.Chr. auch Juda bedrohten, besiegt worden und in Juda unbesiegt geblieben war. 87

Thus, Kratz saw the book of Amos as a literary product that postdates the fall of Israel, and was written as a reflection on it, expanded extensively from the small core of the prophet Amos‘s original sayings. In his view, the group that produced and preserved the Amos materials may have existed on the margins of Judean society, because of their message of doom for Judah. Only after the fall of Jerusalem could they come out more in the open, vindicated by historical events. 88 The book may have been committed to writing at that time. 82

KRATZ 2003 A:81, 87. KRATZ 2003 A:87. 84 KRATZ 2003 A:76, 78, 81, 82. 85 KRATZ 2003 A:86. 86 KRATZ 2003 A:85. 87 KRATZ 2003 A:85. 88 KRATZ 2003 A:88. Cf. KRATZ 2003B for his wider view of biblical prophecy in general. There he suggests that what is innovative in biblical prophecy is that it presents an 83

The Purpose and Function of the Earliest Stage of the Book of Amos

127

Kratz thus presented the book of Amos not as a prophetic record in large part but rather as a literary work reflecting on the original words of Amos and their subsequent history. He noted that ancient Near Eastern prophecies generally were not expanded and expounded upon, but were written down either for immediate use or later reference and application. So, he suggested that the so called ―Akkadian Prophecies‖ make a better comparative analogy to the book of Amos. As he wrote concerning them, ―Falls man sie noch unter die Prophetie zählen darf, sind sie die nächsten Parallelen zu den alttestamentlischen Prophetenbüchern.‖ 89 As can be seen, Kratz‘s views are similar to those advanced here, in terms of the date of the book of Amos, its not being a work of ―prophecy,‖ and its similarity with the Akkadian literary-predictive texts. While acknowledging that the text does not allow the reader to reach behind it to a particular known individual, Kratz did connect a few passages from the book to a historical prophet Amos. However, the Mesopotamian literary predictive texts cannot be associated with any actual prophets, 90 so on analogy with those, the book of Amos may likewise not go back to any actual prophet. While a historical prophet Amos may have existed, such a person may not be identifiable from the biblical text. Likewise, actual spoken prophecies may not be easily distinguishable from non-divination texts modeled on typical prophetic speech. An argument against Kratz has been made by Andreas Scherer, who argued that the book of Amos must derive from the time of the traditional dating, before the fall of the northern kingdom. Scherer pointed to the Balaam (Deir ‗Alla) inscription as indicating that doom prophecies in the area of ancient Israel existed before the fall of the northern kingdom. 91 He also showed how the Deir ‗Alla inscription and the book of Amos share some similar vocabulary and imagery, such as the ―darkness and no light‖ passages in Amos 5:20. 92 As has been shown above, disaster ―prophecies‖ from before the end of the eighth century did exist, so in that sense Scherer is correct. However, he further argued that the message of Amos could only make sense in the time of the danger of advancing Assyria, not after earlier covenant as having been broken, in order to argue for a renewed covenant. There Kratz also suggests that biblical prophetic literature played a major role in how Judahites (or at least Judahite intellectuals) came to think of themselves as Israelites after the fall of Samaria (particularly KRATZ 2003B:19–22). LEENE 2003 argued against Kratz that the origins of the salvation history idea are broader than the prophetic literary corpus. 89 KRATZ 2003 A:64. 90 NEUJAHR 2006:42, ―these texts are literary productions; they belie no hint of oral composition, nor is there reason to suppose these are the work of a prophetic figure such as a muḫḫû or āpilu.‖ 91 SCHERER 2005:10. 92 SCHERER 2005:12–13.

128

Chapter Four

the fall of Samaria. In Scherer‘s view, the genre of doom prophecy only makes sense before the disaster has arrived; as he wrote: Die unbedingte Unheilsgewißheit als solche hat ihren historischen Ort aber vor der Katastrophe. Das ist die einzige geschichtliche Perspektive, die ihrer Anstößigkeit voll gerecht wird, und aus der heraus sie zugleich nicht anachronistisch und von Anfang an obsolete wirkt.93

Scherer argued that only in the face of imminent disaster does doom prophecy have a function, that is, a possibility of averting the disaster. However, texts like the literary-predictive texts and similar writings examined above show that ancient Near Eastern writers sometimes looked back on the past and wrote about it in the form of predictive compositions, and this more adequately applies to the book of Amos.

4.6. Conclusion The written records of prophecy in the ancient Near East reveal what was probably the ―real‖ phenomenon of individuals, generally connected with temples, who claimed to be intermediaries with the divine. These individuals typically experienced divine contact in an ecstatic state, and would give fairly brief statements of encouragement, warning, or demands. This is probably what prophecy looked like in ancient Israel as well. However, the biblical prophetic books present a very different picture, as they are lengthy tracts that reflect on the religious and social condition of the country, and give complex explanations of Yahweh‘s reaction to it. In the study of ancient Near Eastern texts above, it has been argued that biblical prophetic literature can best be understood not as a product of ―actual‖ proph esying but analogous to the ―literary-predictive texts.‖ These texts present retrospective ―predictions‖ of the past that sometimes provide rationales for the fates of earlier kingdoms. The book of Amos can best be understood as a literary-predictive text explaining the conquest of Israel by Assyria after the fact, and thus provides evidence not of any historical prophet in ancient Israel, but of scribal thought on an important historical event. The choice of the predictive form, as in some of the literary-predictive texts, served both to cast it in the form of prophecy, which was a respected method of communicating the divine will in the ancient Near East, and to demonstrate that Yahweh was in complete control of history and was responsible and justified in allowing the northern kingdom of Israel to be destroyed. The next chapter will explore the historical context, motivations, and ideology behind the pro93

SCHERER 2005:16.

The Purpose and Function of the Earliest Stage of the Book of Amos

129

duction of the oldest form of the book of Amos as a literary-predictive text composed after the events it describes.

Chapter Five

The Purpose and Function of the Earliest Stage of the Book of Amos 5.1. Introduction It was argued in Chapter Three above that the book of Amos is so different in length, style, and content from known attestations of ancient Near Eastern prophecy that it should not be considered a member of that genre. The question then remains, if the book of Amos is not a work of ―authentic‖ prophecy, then what is it? It was argued in Chapter Four above that it should be considered a ―literary-predictive text‖; that is, a retrospective, vaticinia ex eventu text, relating past events as if it were predicting them. The examples of literary-predictive texts discussed in Chapter Four show that there are other ancient Near Eastern examples of texts that use a future, and perhaps quasi-―prophetic‖ orientation to their material. Yet this only accounts for the text‘s future-oriented, ―prophetic‖ style. It remains to discuss the book‘s content, with which genre(s) it better fits, and, most importantly, what its original functions were. The text of Amos that is discussed here is that which was identified as the earliest layer of the book, which has been defined above as most of Amos 2:6–9:10. Looking at this material, it is apparent that it consists largely of predictions of Israel‘s destruction for its people‘s wrongs. Throughout the book of Amos, Yahweh is portrayed as punishing Israel to the point of total destruction, cutting off all care for it forever. Yahweh abandons Israel, as is written in Amos 5:2: ―Fallen, no more to rise, is mai den Israel; forsaken on her land, with no one to raise her up.‖ This major theme of divine destruction and abandonment appears in several other ancient Near Eastern texts, and it is these, rather than the ancient Near Eastern prophetic texts, that provide not only interesting parallels, but also possible tools for interpreting the original function of the book of Amos. Of these comparable ancient Near Eastern texts, among the most similar are communal- or city-laments, and in some ways the book of Amos can be thought of as a city-lament for Samaria (both as city and nation). The book of Amos also has similarities with various other ancient Near Eastern texts outside of the lament genre that also feature the divine abandonment theme in large measure; these can also aid in determining the original function of

The Purpose and Function of the Earliest Stage of the Book of Amos

131

the book. Generally speaking, the functions of the various divine abandonment texts are either apotropaic or legitimizing, or both. That is, these texts served to acknowledge and justify a god‘s destruction of some place or thing, which could either function apotropaically to prevent the god(s) from striking again, or to legitimize a successor to the destroyed institution. It will be argued here that the book of Amos functioned in both of these ways: it served to acknowledge and justify Yahweh‘s destruction of Samaria to prevent the same from happening to Judah, and to legitimize Judah‘s new role as Yahweh‘s sole nation. Before beginning, a caveat about methodology is in order. It will be argued here that the book of Amos has a thematic relationship to other divine abandonment texts, not a historically dependent relationship to them. That is, it will not be argued that the book of Amos derives from actual copies of non-biblical texts, such as Sumerian city-laments of a millennium before and hundreds of miles away. What will be argued here is that the book of Amos shares enough thematic and stylistic similarities to these other texts to justify a comparable function, just as biblical wisdom and hymnic texts can serve the same roles as Mesopotamian equivalents without having necessarily any historical connection with them. So, the fact that the texts examined in this chapter are arranged in chronological order is not meant to imply that there is any diachronic evolution relating them to each other, or to the book of Amos.

5.2. Archaeological Context for the Earliest Stage of the Book of Amos As has been demonstrated above in Chapter Two, the core of the book of Amos was most likely written after, not before, the conquest of the northern kingdom in the 720s BCE. Also, the book‘s focus on the destruction of the northern kingdom as well as naming specific incidents in late eighthcentury history (such as the Assyrian conquests of Calneh and Hamath in Amos 6:2),1 suggest that the core of the book was composed within a few decades after the fall of the North, when such references would have been recognizable to the book‘s initial audience. This time period, the late eighth-early seventh centuries BCE, was a time of dramatic change in Judah which relates closely to the purpose for initial composition of the book of Amos.

1

DAICHES 1915 took the verse to refer to the nobles of those cities, in line with 6:1, rather than to the kingdoms themselves.

132

Chapter Five

The Assyrian conquest of Israel coupled with Judah‘s survival as a vassal to Assyria resulted in an upsurge of population in Jerusalem and Judah in general. It is in this period, and not before, that Judah developed into a status that could be considered ―statehood.‖ In the tenth century BCE, the time of the biblical ―United Monarchy,‖ Jerusalem appears to have been a small to mid-sized city not much different from what it had been in the Late Bronze Age, governing what Na‘aman has called a prestate, ―polymorphous chiefdom.‖2 Judah developed slowly in the ninth century, with increased development of Lachish, Beth-shemesh, Beer-sheba, and Arad.3 Northern Israel also developed at this time, but at a much more intensive rate, with heavy rebuilding and fortification at Hazor, Megiddo, Gezer, and other sites. Yadin had identified the simultaneous redevelopment of these three sites with Solomon‘s building projects of I Kings 9:15, 4 but Finkelstein argued in his ―Low Chronology‖ view that this redevelopment is to be dated to the Omride period in the mid-ninth century. 5 The post-tenth century date for the refortifications of these three northern cities, as well the relatively small size and lack of new fortifications at Jerusalem (as well as other factors), strongly suggest that the biblical depiction of a ―United Monarchy‖ is a patriotic fiction. 6 The ninth century was a time of prosperity and power for the north, as evidenced by the heavy construction just mentioned, hundreds of ivory inlays at Samaria,7 and the Samaria ostraca showing evidence of economic organization.8 The North was dominant over the South, which is portrayed as well in some of the Dtr material. 9 This prosperity and dominant power of Israel would most likely have produced resentment from Judah; condemnation of Israel‘s relative wealth appears in vivid literary form throughout the book of Amos. 10 While ninth and early-to-mid eighth century Israel had well-constructed capitals at Samaria and Jezreel, as well as large, fortified cities with elabo-

2

NA‘AMAN 1996 A:25. F INKELSTEIN 2003 argued that since these sites developed before Jerusalem‘s redevelopment in the late eighth century, it was Omride rather than Davidide authority that fostered economic development of those four cities. 4 YADIN 1975. 5 E.g., FINKELSTEIN 1999. 6 GELINAS 1995, FINKELSTEIN and S ILBERMAN 2006. For the views of Finkelstein in contrast with the more conservative views of Amihai Mazar on this topic, cf. the publi cation of their debate in Detroit edited by B. SCHMIDT 2007:99–139. 7 CROWFOOT and CROWFOOT 1938, KENYON 1971:82. 8 RAINEY 1967. 9 E.g., in the story of Judah‘s ill-fated confrontation with Israel in II Kings 14:8–14. 10 For an example of wealth and social stratification in Shechem in relation to the book of Amos, cf. CAMPBELL 1994. 3

The Purpose and Function of the Earliest Stage of the Book of Amos

133

rate water systems at Hazor and Megiddo, 11 Judah was in a much poorer condition.12 The city of Jerusalem was small, limited to the approximately 6 hectare area of the ―City of David‖ ridge, 13 with small settlements in the countryside. While various Northern sites had received new fortifications under the Omrides, Jerusalem remained with only Middle Bronze Age fortifications, not to be replaced until the late eighth century. 14 This is not to say that there were no large constructions within pre-722 Iron Age Jerusalem, as can be seen with the so-called ―Stepped-Stone Structure‖ and the newly-discovered ―Large-Stone Structure.‖ The date of the Stepped-Stone Structure, a large structure running along part of the eastern slope of the ridge and thought to have supported a long-gone fortress at the summit, has been vigorously debated. A. Mazar and Cahill have argued that it dates to the tenth century, thus showing the power of the United Monarchy. 15 Finkelstein and M. Steiner have argued that it was built in various stages over several centuries, including the ninth and pos sibly eighth centuries. 16 The ―Large-Stone Structure‖ was dated to the tenth century by its excavator E. Mazar, who argued that its location just north of where the supposed fortress supported by the Stepped-Stone Structure was located, fits well with the biblical accounts of King David‘s palace being above the fortress of Zion. 17 Finkelstein and others have pointed out serious problems with dating the remains at that site, due primarily to the lack of a discernible floor, and have suggested that most of the structures found there date to the Hellenistic period. 18 In any case, there is no difficulty with tenth or ninth century Jerusalem having large buildings in it; the decisive factor for the lack of a United Monarchy is the lack of new fortifications in the capital to go along with those in the North, and the relatively small size of the other Judahite towns. Jerusalem does not appear to have been enough of a city in the tenth century for it to control a territory extending as far north as Hazor. It makes no sense why a Jerusalem-based monarchy would develop the northern sites so well while almost completely neglecting the defenses of its own capital. It makes better sense that the northern sites were developed by a northern 11

SHILOH 1992:290–291. T HOMPSON 1992:412–413. 13 SHILOH 1984:3. 14 USSISHKIN 2003. 15 A. MAZAR 1997, CAHILL 2003. 16 FINKELSTEIN 2003, M. STEINER 1994, 2003. 17 E. MAZAR 2007:52–66. Eilat Mazar has also recently claimed to have found a 10 th century wall in the City of David excavations, but as of this monograph going to press that information was only available in media press releases. 18 F INKELSTEIN AND S ILBERMAN 2006:262 initially suggested a ninth-century date based on the remains, and then F INKELSTEIN, HERZOG, S INGER -AVITZ AND USSISHKIN 2007 proposed the Hellenistic date. 12

134

Chapter Five

administration, separate from Jerusalem. Far from being an imperial center, pre-Hezekian Jerusalem appears to be the capital of a poorer sister to Israel, a small, weak country under the shadow of its richer and more powerful northern neighbor. However, Jerusalem received a jolt of new economic and demographic activity with the Assyrian invasions of the Levant in the last third of the eighth century BCE. The integration of Jerusalem into the regional Assyrian economy during the invasions of Tiglath-Pileser III in the 730s brought new prosperity to Judah. 19 But even more importantly, the Assyrian conquest of Israel under Sargon II resulted in a massive surge in Jerusalem‘s population, which increased anywhere from four to ten times its previous size just a couple of decades earlier.20 The city expanded to around 60 hectares, including the ―Mishneh‖ quarter to the west, which alone was larger than the entire ―City of David‖ ridge. But most importantly, new fortifications were built, including two walls on the eastern slope and another on the western slope measuring seven meters thick. Jerusalem‘s water system was redirected, with the construction of the new Siloam Tunnel. Evidence of increased literacy also appears at this time, with the Siloam Tunnel Inscription, 21 lmlk jar handles,22 and far more seals than in the previous centuries.23 Commercial and industrial activity increased as well, with new standardized weights,24 large-scale olive oil production, 25 and mass production of pottery. 26 The dramatic increase of population in Judah was beyond natural growth rates, even in a time of increased economic activity. M. Broshi explained this as a result of the influx of large numbers of Israelite refugees, probably from the parts of the former Northern Kingdom that were nearest to the Judahite border. 27 It has been observed that the population of the southern portion of the former Northern Kingdom decreased significantly between the Assyrian invasions and the Persian period (from 34,000 to 9,000 people), while the population of the northern part of the country de19 VAUGHN 1999:169–181 argued that Judah may have become even more powerful in this time than reflected by the DtrH, as II Chronicles 29–32 may preserve some authentic memories of Hezekiah‘s power absent from the DtrH. 20 BROSHI 1974, BROSHI AND F INKELSTEIN 1992, REICH and SHUKRON 2003, GEVA 2003, but see NA‘AMAN 2007. 21 NORIN 1998. 22 NA‘AMAN 1979, 1986; T USHINGHAM 1992, and in detail VAUGHN 1999:81–167. 23 NAVEH 1987:71 noted that ―The fact that most of the private stamps and seals of the late seventh and early sixth centuries do not bear any figures may also, perhaps, indicate that people could identify the ownership of the seal by reading it.‖ 24 KLETTER 1998:138, KING 1988:14. 25 EITAM 1987. 26 ZIMHONI 1997:170–172. 27 BROSHI 1974.

The Purpose and Function of the Earliest Stage of the Book of Amos

135

creased much less so. 28 This could partly be due to the proximity of the culturally somewhat similar kingdom of Judah, as well as the possibility that Assyrian deportation and repopulation was more intensive in the south of Israel.29 Both for fear of deportation and possibly of the new immigrants, Israelites flowed into Judah in such numbers as to outnumber the local Jerusalemites and possibly even the residents of other Judahite towns. However, Na‘aman has recently challenged the Israelite refugee theory, arguing that Jerusalem grew more slowly, and was already becoming a relatively large city before the Assyrian invasions.30 Na‘aman pointed out the lack of destruction layers at Judahite sites for many decades before 701, which makes the dating of expanded urban growth difficult. He nonetheless granted that Jerusalem experienced growth due to refugees, but only from elsewhere in Judah, not Israel, because (in Na‘aman‘s view) Hittite treaties reveal that ancient Near Eastern empires would not tolerate people leaving their territories without permission. 31 Thus, Na‘aman regarded it as highly unlikely that Isaelites would have crossed the new Assyrian frontier into Judah after the 720s BCE. Finkelstein countered that Jerusalem did indeed expand quickly, pointing out the paucity of Iron IIA finds on the city‘s Western Hill.32 Finkelstein further pointed out that the treaties (many of which are from the second millennium BCE) regarding people leaving an empire‘s territory refer to the repatriation of wanted fugitives (sometimes individuals), not masses of refugees.33 Also, these northern refugees may have fled in advance of the Assyrian armies, not necessarily after Assyria conquered Samaria. While Na‘aman had argued that although there were refugees in late eighth-century Jerusalem, there is no archaeological way to identify these as Israelites, 34 Finkelstein countered there is such distinguishing evidence, and that beyond that, Israelite refugees would have come from nearby southern Israel, and thus would be materially indistinguishable.35 While the exact pace of Jerusalem‘s growth is debatable, 28

FINKELSTEIN AND S ILBERMAN 2006:268. FINKELSTEIN AND S ILBERMAN 2006:268. 30 NA‘AMAN 2007:24–27. See also FAUST 2005, especially 109 fn. 16: ―It is impossible to attribute the entire population growth to refugees from the kingdom of Israel…It was probably a gradual and long process, and the late 8th century refugees only joined in. 31 NA‘AMAN 2007:31–35. For some of the treaties, cf. BECKMAN 1996. 32 FINKELSTEIN 2008:510–505. 33 FINKELSTEIN 2008:506–507. These fugitives would have included people of all classes who were fleeing their obligations to their suzerain; cf. BECKMAN 2006:285, 296. 34 NA‘AMAN 2007:37. 35 FINKELSTEIN 2008:509. Finkelstein argued there that indications of Israelite presence and influence in Judah can be seen in such cases as industrialized olive oil production and certain seals and bowls. NA‘AMAN 2007:37 had argued that a small number of northern indicators do not suffice to indicate a large northern population. But, as stated above, the refugees would not have come far in moving to Jerusalem. 29

136

Chapter Five

it does appear in the late eighth century to reach a size unprecendented in the Iron Age, and this growth was most likely due to an influx of refugees. This refugee population would most likely have included large amounts of northerners, along with Judahite refugees coming later during and after Sennacherib‘s campaign. Both before and after the Sennacherib campaign, the presence of northerners in Jerusalem would have been more of a profound change than the presence of other Judahites even if they were not the majority of the population. The growth of Jerusalem would inevitably have resulted in dramatic changes in Judahite life, which had for so many decades been quieter, poorer, and emptier than that of the North. Finkelstein and Silberman made some suggestions for how this sudden change may have affected Judahite governmental and religious policy. 36 They argued that Hezekiah‘s biblical ―cult reform‖ is supported by the archaeological evidence, and that it was carried out to consolidate religious authority in the government by restricting sacrificial worship to the Jerusalem temple. Noting that most of the northern refugees had come from the area around Bethel, Finkelstein and Silberman suggested that part of the purpose of dismantling regional shrines and restricting worship to Jerusalem was to prevent northerners from going back to Bethel. 37 Thus, the nature of late eighth-early seventh century Judah and Jerusalem can now be understood as being a newly emergent state undergoing significant challenges both to its political sovereignty as well as its cultural identity. Jerusalem at around 700 BCE may have been populated mostly by families of immigrant refugees from the formerly powerful Northern Kingdom, whose loyalties and cultural integration into Judahite life would have been seriously in question. This mixed population in Jerusalem may necessitate new interpretations of portions of the so-called ―eighth-century prophets‖ that deal with the city. 38 A visceral reality may now be seen in texts like Micah 1:9: ―For her wound is incurable, it has come to Judah; it has reached the gate of my people, up to Jerusalem.‖ In light of this population upheaval (wherever the refugees were from), it is likely that the Jerusalem government would have gone on the ideological offensive (or defensive), producing political rhetoric to handle this new situation. 39

36

FINKELSTEIN AND S ILBERMAN 2006:269–275. FINKELSTEIN AND S ILBERMAN 2006:274–275. In this light, Amos 6:1 could remain unemended as it is and still be consistent with a pro-Judah ideology. 39 F INKELSTEIN AND S ILBERMAN 2006:275–279 argue that this period, the time of Hezekiah, marks the beginning of dtr historical writing. 37 38

The Purpose and Function of the Earliest Stage of the Book of Amos

137

5.2.1. Literacy This political rhetoric would have manifested itself in a variety of ways, one of which would have been literature, but in a very limited way. As stated above, the Siloam Tunnel inscription, as well as stamped jar handles and an increased number of seals with words only (no images), suggests an increased level of literacy in the late eighth century. Schniedewind has argued that this increase in literacy was a direct result of the Assyrian presence. As he put it, ―The spread of writing accompanies the rise of the empire.‖40 Schniedewind is most likely correct that writing was one of the numerous consequences of the Assyrian presence in Israel and Judah. He saw literacy as increasing later in the monarchic period: ―As writing spread throughout Judean society, literacy broke out of the confines of the closed scribal schools, the royal court, and the lofty temples.‖ 41 However, the extent of literacy at this time should not be exaggerated, and there can be a tendency in recent scholarship to replace a grandiose Solomon with a grandiose Hezekiah. The epigraphic evidence, as well as biblical citations of writing, 42 has been used to argue that ancient Israel was a society with mass literacy at nearly all class levels and in all historical periods. Millard claimed that ―writing was theoretically within the competence of any ancient Israelite, not the prerogative of an elite professional class…it was, in fact, quite widely practiced.‖43 Demsky argued that ancient Israel (as well as classical Greece and Rome) was more literate than ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, claiming that Israel had a large lay literati as opposed to the literacy in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia that was more limited to scribal circles. 44 It has been argued that the use of alphabets made mass literacy possible. As Albright wrote, The 22 letter alphabet could be learned in a day or two by a bright student and in a week or two by the dullest; hence it could spread with great rapidity. I do not doubt for a moment that there were many urchins in various parts of Palestine who could read and write 40

SCHIEDEWIND 2004:65. SCHIEDEWIND 2004:91. J AMIESON-DRAKE 1991 argued that literacy was more widespread in the late monarchic period than the Persian period. SCANLIN 1978 suggested that written prophecy begins in the eigth century because of increased literacy. 42 Num 5:23; Deut 6:9; 11:20; 17:18; 24:1–3; Judges 8:14; Isaiah 8:1; 10:1–2, 19; Ezek 37:16; Hab 2:2. 43 M ILLARD 1972:111. Millard later retracted some of this as ―perhaps…too optimistic a reaction to the commonly held idea that writing was limited to a smal l scribal class.‖ (MILLARD 1985:306). He still held to a view of widespread literacy in later years, however; cf. MILLARD 1992 C and 1998. NAVEH 1985:354, in response to MILLARD 1985, argued that Millard hadn‘t gone far enough in his assessme nt of mass literacy, and that ancient Israel in the late monarchic period was ―a literate society.‖ 44 DEMSKY 1985:350 and 352. 41

138

Chapter Five

as early as the time of the Judges, although I do not believe that the script was used for formal literature until later. 45

Others have argued that literacy was much more restricted. Warner pointed out that alphabetic scripts only seem easier from the Western point of view, and that societies using non-alphabetic scripts, such as China, have been able to achieve widespread literacy at different times in spite of their complex pictographic and ideographic scripts. 46 Literacy levels in classical Greece and Rome have perhaps also been exaggerated; Young argued that ancient Athens may have had around a 10% literacy rate. 47 Even in the biblical references, Young found that the biblical personae who are described as writing are almost all of high class.48 An important issue for literacy is the existence of sufficient support structures in the society for education. Lemaire has suggested that ancient Israel had scribal schools which after around 800 BCE extended beyond family and the highest officials.49 Mention of a school in Ben Sira as well as the existence of schools in Egypt and Mesopotamia led Heaton to argue that ancient Israel had an education system (at least for the upper classes) that did involve writing. 50 To the contrary, Crenshaw argued that the absence of references to schools in biblical wisdom literature (and critical statements in that literature about writing) as well as Josiah‘s reforms‘ reliance on oral instruction suggests that education in ancient Israel was carried out orally. 51 The existence of scribal schools in monarchic Judah has been challenged by P. Davies, who countered that scribal schools would have been a Persian and Hellenistic phenomenon in Judea, and that there is insufficient evidence for scribal schools in Iron Age Judah.52 Davies argued that the Tel Dan and Mesha inscriptions should not be considered indicators of scribal training in Israel, since those texts were not Israelite. However, it is not clear why Judahites under Assyrian dominance a century and a half later could not have produced texts like those, or like the eighth century Deir ‗Alla text. Niditch also regarded scribal education in ancient Israel as extremely limited, and that this is reflected in the biblical texts themselves. 53 She ar45

ALBRIGHT 1960:123. W ARNER 1980:84. 47 YOUNG 1998 A:243; see also W ARNER 1980:83. 48 YOUNG 1998 A:250. 49 LEMAIRE 2001:211–212. 50 HEATON 1994, esp. 24–41. HEATON 1994:99–101 wrote that the prophet Amos was probably educated in a school in Jerusalem, and that the interrogative dialogues with Yahweh in the visions reflect a pedagogical style. 51 CRENSHAW 1998, esp. pp. 279–283. 52 DAVIES 1998:74–88. 53 NIDITCH 1996:69–71. 46

The Purpose and Function of the Earliest Stage of the Book of Amos

139

gued that biblical texts should be understood on an oral basis, that is, that the presence of traces of oral speech and performance reveal the oral roots of biblical texts.54 She posited an oral-literary continuum on which texts could be placed, and that most biblical texts were near the oral end of this continuum. She cited Amos 5 as an example of cultic language that suggests that it was intended for public performance. 55 Yet the use of oral forms does not necessarily indicate an originally orally composed text. Russo argued that ancient poems were aural if not oral, and proposed the category of ―aural-performance poetry.‖ 56 That is, a poetic text could have been transcribed from an orally-delivered poem, or produced in writing from the first, but either way it would have been intended for reading aloud to a listening audience that did not need to be literate. Thus, the presence of poetic structures such as chiasms in the book of Amos suggests its aural character, that it was likely an ―aural-performance‖ poem. David Carr proposed that biblical texts were written not for wide readership, nor even to be read to a large audience, but for the education, sociali zation, and enculturation of elites. 57 This marked off educated elites from others, but could also train those elites to educate the nonliterate public through performances of the content of the texts. Not all of the elites were masters of the tradition, or even literate; the texts would have been used to educate elites for cognitive if not literary mastery. As Carr put it, ―The ideal, at least, was the writing of the tradition ‗on the tablet of the heart.‘‖58 Carr agreed with Schniedewind and Jamieson-Drake that literacy increased after the Assyrian invasions, but saw the level of literacy as being much more restricted than they saw it. Prophets, who originally stood apart from the rest of the populace, became normalized at this time and later, in Carr‘s view. The whole curriculum came to be considered ―prophetic,‖ and the Torah and Prophets (as growing bodies of literature) came to ―mark Israel as a whole off from other nations as a uniquely special and wise people…and reinforce their resolve not to be ‗like the nations.‘‖ 59 Thus, this growing literature educated and enculturated the elites into thinking of their identity and that of their countrymen as being a people with a unique relationship with the divine. Carr argued that in the Hellenistic period was there an attempt to spread this education toward urban free citizens. This was a reaction to Seleucid anti-Jewish persecution, during

54

NIDITCH 1996:8–24. Against this cf. VAN SETERS 1998. NIDITCH 1996:118. 56 RUSSO 1992:17, 21. 57 CARR 2004:287–288. 58 CARR 2004:288. 59 CARR 2004:167. Carr cited Amos 3:7 as one of several examples of passages showing the high role of ―prophets‖ in this literature. 55

140

Chapter Five

which Jewish elites responded to Hellenism with a counterliteracy in Jewish texts.60 In view of the above, it can be said that literacy and the production of literacy did increase starting in the late eighth century, but even then only in a limited way. While various people may have had a kind of functional literacy that allowed them to read very simple texts such as personal seals or even receipts or brief notes, the ability to handle larger pieces of literature was restricted to a very small elite throughout the entire period under discussion here. As a piece of literature, the earliest level of the book of Amos was composed for a very small readership, but likely for the purposes of public dissemination as a work of ―aural-performance‖ poetry. The book of Amos stridently attacks the fallen northern kingdom of Israel, condemning its citizens both for worshipping at northern shrines and for the wealth that had been the source of their power. If the book was written in Judah after the fall of Samaria, as argued in Chapter Two above, it could well have had two audiences: Judahites, and new Israelite immigrants. It would have served a variety of purposes, including explaining the fall of the northern kingdom, strongly combating northern worship, and condemning the wealth of a people who would have recently lost most of their property and had moved into a formerly poorer country. In terms of techniques used in the book, it employs numerous themes of divine wrath, abandonment, and lamentation. It will be shown below that these techniques have been used throughout ancient Near Eastern literature, and that the employment of these techniques generally served two purposes: to legitimate a new political power, and to avert the continuation or repetition of the disaster. Thus, comparison of the book of Amos with similar ancient Near Eastern texts will reveal two other purposes behind the composition of the book: to legitimate Judah as the new sole nation of Yahweh, and to avert the spread of Yahweh‘s wrath to the South.

5.3. Amos and the City Laments The book of Amos and various other ancient Near Eastern texts share lamentation themes. These themes pervade the book of Amos, and are a key to understanding the text. But what makes up ―lamentation themes‖ must be examined, and for that purpose some of the classic ancient Near Eastern laments will be explored. Five Sumerian texts survive which describe in great detail the destruction of various Sumerian cities by Enlil and other gods. These are gener60

CARR 2004:253.

The Purpose and Function of the Earliest Stage of the Book of Amos

141

ally referred to as ―city laments,‖ although that designation has been chal lenged as arbitrary and perhaps misleading. Michalowski argued that ―Except for the fact that they depict in great detail the fall and destruction of cities and states, as well as a decision by the gods to undo the disaster, they have little in common.‖ 61 Likewise, as Krecher pointed out concerning laments in general, Die herkömmlich als K. [Klagelied] bezeichneten Kompositionen (selbständigen literarischen Einheiten) sind formal weder durch Eigenheiten des Wortlauts noch durch Unterschrift noch durch ihre Verwendung oder andere in jedem Falle gegebene Kriterien von anderen Kompositionen abgrenzbar. Gemeinsam ist ihnen nur, daβ sich der Inhalt ganz oder überwiegend dem Begriff ―Klage‖ zuordnen läβt, sei das nun eine explizite Klage (―sie weinte‖, ―der Tempel klagt‖, ―ich stöhne‖) oder ein Bericht über beklagens werte Ereignisse oder Zustände (―das Kultgemach ist zu einem Schemen geworden‖, ―Ama‘ušumgalanna lebt nich mehr‖, ―mein Name wird nicht mehr genannt‖). Dieser formalen Unbestimmtheit des Klagelieds entspricht der Umstand, daβ das Thema der Klage nicht auf die K.er [Klagelieder] beschränkt ist. Die Klage um eine Stadt ist freilich sonst die Ausnahme (Marduks Klage um Babylon in der IV. Tafel des Erra-Epos).62

So, while the genre ―city lament‖ is a modern designation, these texts do share in common the major theme of destruction of cities, as well as various ―lament‖ themes that the ―city laments‖ share with other literature designated in modern times as ―laments.‖ Also the grouping of these texts together may not be entirely modern, as Tinney has shown that they may be listed together in two Old Babylonian curriculum catalogues. 63 Thus, these texts will be considered together, as they all have similarities in themes and motifs with the book of Amos. Historically, these five texts also share a chronological feature, in that they all apparently date from soon after the fall of the Ur III dynasty, and they all focus in whole or in part on the destruction accompanying the fall of that dynasty. As will be discussed further below, these texts may have been written apotropaically to appease the gods while demolishing and rebuilding destroyed Sumerian temples, as were the more generic balag compositions.64 61 M ICHALOWSKI 1989:5–6. Note, however, that Michalowski retained the term ―lament‖ and follows V ANSTIPHOUT 1986 in seeing some generic relationship between these texts. See discussion of the difficulties of genre and the category ―city laments‖ in T INNEY 1996:11–25. 62 KRECHER 1984:1. 63 T INNEY 1996:22. 64 J ACOBSEN 1941:222–223, followed by HALLO 1995:1871. T INNEY 1996:24–25 suggested that a possible royal ritual use may tie these texts together. Balags are discussed below. In regard to the Sumerian city laments, SASSON 2006:30 wrote, ―Ostensibly describing the destruction of diverse cities, this literature was above all prophylactic, in that it liturgically sought to avoid duplication of devastation, real or imagined, that overtook communities.‖

142

Chapter Five

5.3.1. The Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur This text will be looked at first, because it may be the earliest. 65 Michalowski suggested that it was written to legitimize the new power of IšbeErra over Ur, in the aftermath of its destruction by various eastern peoples. Išbe-Erra had been an official in charge of Isin under the authority of the Ur III administration, and in Michalowski‘s view, this Lamentation portrayed him as saving Ur from its attackers and driving them out of the city. Michalowski acknowledged that Išbe-Erra is not mentioned by name in this text (although he is in two other city-laments), and so he allowed that the text could have served to legitimize the Isin dynasty in general. 66 Michalowski also suggested that it might have been written in some relation to the earlier Curse of Agade (discussed further below), except that the victim in the Lamentation is not guilty, simply unfortunate, in that his time had come. Thus, the curse is turned away from the victims and towards the aggressor.67 In terms of motifs, the Lamentation (hereafter called LSUr) shares several in common with the book of Amos. LSUr features the last Ur III king, Ibbi-Sin, taken to Elam in fetters, the priests as well, and the people made to live in exile (LSUr 31–37, 71, 153, 184, 446; cf. exile themes in Am. 4:2–3;68 5:5;69 5:27;70 6:7; 7:17;71 9:4). The destruction of Ur is wide-

65

Following the order of VANSTIPHOUT 1985:7–9. MICHALOWSKI 1989:7–8. 67 MICHALOWSKI 1989:1–9. 68 Amos 4:3 refers to the gluttonous Samarians being flung haharmônāh. The meaning of this has been widely debated, for which see P AUL 1991:135–136; possibilities range from toponyms to other words. The identification of this with a location northeast of Israel would fit with the Assyrian exile after 722 BCE, and fit with the exile ―beyond Damascus‖ in Am 5:27. FREEDMAN and ANDERSEN 1970 suggested Mt. Hermel near Kadesh on the Orontes. The Vulgate could be correct in reading this as Armon, that is, Mt. Hermon. This is followed by W OLFF 1977:207, and NRSV. P AUL 1991:128 leaves it untranslated, and NWAORU 2009:463–464 reads it as ―towards Harmon‖, but regards ―Harmon‖ as unidentified, and thus exile is threatened ―towards an unknown location.‖ 69 Here there is an alliteration of gālōh yigleh with haggilgāl. 70 The exile ―beyond Damascus‖ can again fit well with a post-722 date. W ELLHAUSEN 1963 A:84 identified this with the Assyrian exile when he wrote, ―Über Damaskus hinaus‖, eine bezeichnend unbestimmte Angabe, die aber doch klar erkennen lässt, dass Amos die Assyrer im Auge hat.‖ W OLFF 1977:266 noted that it is not clear from this verse that Assyria is in mind, as it is never specified as the enemy that attacks Israel. However, Babylon is never mentioned in Lamentations, where it is certainly in mind. The point of this is probably that the specific enemy is not important to the poet; it is Yahweh who is bringing the disaster, using the enemy as a tool. In any case, it is possible that ―Assyria‖ is meant in 3:9 as in LXX, instead of ―Ashdod‖ as in MT. SNYMAN 1994 has argued that ―Ashdod‖ is appropriate in pairing with Egypt to signify the exodus and conquest traditions. 66

The Purpose and Function of the Earliest Stage of the Book of Amos

143

spread, with a total cessation of agricultural activity (LSUr 38–51, somewhat like Am. 4:6–9), and there shall be no more pleasant singing (LSUr 43, cf. Am. 6:6–7; 8:10).72 Ur was confident, but disaster was imminent (LSUr 52, Am. 6:2; 9:10). The decision to destroy Ur was made by the gods, whose power is limitless (LSUr 55–64; compare the doxologies in Am 4:13; 5:8–9; 9:5–6). The gods hand Ur over to foreign armies (sometimes characterized as a ―storm,‖ 73 LSUr 63, 75, 166, 172, and elsewhere), as does Yahweh regarding Israel (Am 3:11, 6:8, and elsewhere). Darkness falls upon the land, and the ―day‖ that is coming will be a terrible one (LSUr 80–84; compare the ―Day of Yahweh‖ motif coupled with the darkened day in Am 5:18–20; 8:9).74 There will be piles of corpses (LSUr 93– 94, compare the stench in the camp in Am 4:10, and also 8:3) and a fearful silence (LSUr 59, Am 5:13, 6:10). 75 The wealthy will have to leave their possessions behind, and the ruler will live in poverty (LSUr 97–98, 304– 317, Am 3:15,76 5:11, 6:4–8). There are scenes of reversals, where the formerly happy city is contrasted with the later destruction (97–103, Am 6:4– 8). The second kirugu77 features the gods abandoning their shrines, and their shrines being defiled and/or destroyed (compare Am 9:1). The gods lament for their shrines, crying about the devastation (Am 5:1, 16–17). In the third kirugu, the god Su‘en cries out to Enlil, asking why this calamity has happened, and asking for recovery (LSUr 340–342, 352–356; compare 71 Although this verse was considered in Chapter One to be part of a later addition to the oldest stratum of the book of Amos, it demonstrates that lament themes were also used in the later additions, as would be appropriate when adding to a text replete with these themes. 72 For an understanding of the hapax ‫ פרט‬as ―singers,‖ cf. MONTGOMERY 1906. 73 The characterization of military attack as a ―storm‖ appears in Amos 1:14, although this verse has a separate dating in this study along with the rest of Amos 1:3 –2:5. 74 For the ―Day of Yahweh‖ motif in general, cf. B ARSTAD 1984:89–110, who associated it with lamenting. K.A.D. SMELIK 1986 argued that the Day of Yhwh in 5:19 was directed not at the population in general or at the leadership, but at false prophets who claimed that the Day would be a time when Yahweh would destroy Israel‘s enemies. FLEMING 2010 associated the Day with a New Moon rite. 75 For 6:10, note W.F. SMELIK 1999, who suggested that the relative is not saying not to mention the name of Yahweh, but just not to swear on it. 76 As stated above, the mention of the winter and summer houses may indicate an awareness of the two palaces of Samaria and Jezreel (I Kings 21:1), and thus some proximity to the time when those palaces were still in use. This can also be a stereotyped expression, since seasonal palaces appear elsewhere and could have been a typical fea ture of aristocratic power. Bar-Rakib complained of the lack of seasonal palaces (YOUNGER 1997:161, COS 2.38), and there was apparently a ―summer palace‖ of Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon (Roux 1992:391). For more on this cf. P AUL 1978 A. Regarding the bāttîm rabbîm, cf. GLANZMAN 1961, who suggested that this should be read not as ―great houses‖ or ―many houses,‖ but ―houses of the important (people).‖ 77 A kirugu is a division of the text, which may have had a musical component, per haps a sort of chorus.

144

Chapter Five

Amos‘s pleas to Yahweh in Am 7:2, 5). Ur suffers a military defeat, and those who are not killed in one way are killed in another (LSUr 388–389, Am 9:2–4).78 The people console each other and ask questions of each other (LSUr 397–402, compare Am 6:10). 79 Su‘en pleads again with Enlil (LSUr 451–458), and Enlil promises restoration of Ur (LSUr 460–477a). The poem ends with a prayer that the disaster may afflict Ur‘s enemies and that Ur be restored (LSUr 483–518). As stated above, Michalowski interpreted this poem as a propaganda piece for Išbe-Erra, wherein Enlil promises restoration for Ur and the turning of his wrath onto Ur‘s destroyers. There is perhaps even a literarypredictive element to Enlil‘s promise in LSUr 461–474 and the concluding prayer. This text also features many standard themes of national destruction, several similar to those used in the book of Amos. Of course, the text has a very different cause for the destruction; whereas the book of Amos has Yahweh destroy Israel because of its people‘s wrongdoings, in LSUr Enlil simply rules that Ur‘s reign is not eternal, and that its time had come (LSUr 361–370). Yet as has will be shown in regard to the Curse of Agade and later texts below, the theme of divine destruction on a nation for moral wrongdoings is by no means unattested in other texts of divine abandonment. 5.3.2. The Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur The Lamentation over the destruction of Ur (LU) was considered to represent the ―definitive ‗format‘‖ for a Sumerian city lament by Vanstiphout, and to have been written later than LSUr. 80 Like LSUr, LU features divine abandonment and lamentation. Ningal pleads for her city, in vain (LU 199, compare Am 7:2, 5). The doomsday theme appears again in LU 137–144. There are again contrasts of abundance with poverty in LU 115 and 133. The ―storm‖ here burns with fire (187, 189, 259–260; compare Am 7:4),81 it causes the day to darken (190–191), and it overwhelms cele-

78

VANSTIPHOUT 1980:86–87 associated the theme of death in other means, as well as the piles of corpses mentioned above, with disease. He suggested that the collapse of the Ur III state, that concerns so many of the city laments, was caused and accompanied partly by a pandemic plague. 79 Note suspension of justice in LSUr 62, 439. 80 VANSTIPHOUT 1986:8. Edition from KRAMER 1940. Portions of this appear in Klein 1997, where it is misleadingly labeled ―Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur.‖ 81 Cf. MONTGOMERY 1904 for the view that the ―land‖ that is consumed by the fire in Amos 7:4 is to be read as the whole ―created world‖ in relation to the ―deep,‖ earlier in the verse.

The Purpose and Function of the Earliest Stage of the Book of Amos

145

bratory feasts and banquets (192; compare Am 6:4–7).82 This ―storm‖ is again probably metaphorical for military defeat, and as in LSUr, the enemies are specifically identified (LSUr: Gutians; LU: Sutians and Elamites). Former good times are contrasted with current destruction and corpses (LU 213–216). Warriors are impotent, and the strong and weak perish alike (LU 219–227, Am 2:14–16).83 Those who escape one threat are killed by another (LU 226, Am 5:19). Thus, warrior and elderly alike are destroyed, both those who stand to fight and those who run away; there is no escape (Am 9:1–3). Familial ties are broken, social order is destroyed (LU 228– 235, Am 6:9–10), and children are carried away like fish (LU 229; compare imagery of people being taken away with fishhooks in Am 4:2). 84 Ningal abandons Ur, its abundance is destroyed, and she laments her city (238–240). Agricultural productivity has ceased, possessions are carried off, and precious metals and stones are used by others (LU 269–285; Am 4:6–9).85 The people are exiled, strange houses are built where earlier ones used to be (LU 289–302; Am 5:11). Celebrations are turned to mourning, music to lamentation (LU 355–360, Am 5:23; 8:3, 10), meat from the stalls is not prepared (LU 361–365, compare Am 6:4). Finally, light is cut off (LU 395–396, Am 5:18, 20). LU concludes with a prayer that the storm may pass away and become history, and that the city be restored and made safe. Unusual for a Sumerian city lament, however, LU 429–436 asks the gods to undo sins, purify evil hearts, and says that the people may have either committed or suffered evil. This may be an attribution of human blame for the disaster; however, LU 119 and 324–325 describe the city as ―righteous‖ and plead for its innocence. So, as with LSUr, LU shares a large number of lament themes in common with the book of Amos, suggesting that the book can be read as a work replete with lament themes. This will be further borne out below in comparisons with three more city laments.

82 The marzē(a)ḥ in 6:7 has been seen as having funerary connotations on the basis of its use in Jer 16:5, but B. Schmidt 1996:144–147 has argued that the use of this term in Amos has no funerary meaning. For a discussion of banqueting in the ancient Near East in regard to the Amos passage, cf. GREER 2007. 83 For a suggested rearrangement of these verses, cf. Rendtorff 1973. Against this, cf. P AUL 1991:95. 84 This verse has been read in a variety of ways. The people being carried off with fishhooks is a common rendering (so NRSV), but other options have been suggested. Paul 1978b suggested ―fisherman‘s pots‖ instead, W OLFF 1977:203–204, 206–207 translated ―ropes‖ (in connection with the ―cows of Bashan‖ in 4:1). NWAORU 2009:466–468 argued for ―hooks‖ in line with the fishing hooks that appear later in the verse. 85 Klein 1997:537 compared the dried up pastures of LU 274 with Am 1:2.

146

Chapter Five

5.3.3. The Lamentations over the Destructions of Uruk and Eridu Vanstiphout placed the Uruk and Eridu Laments (LUr and LE respectively) 86 next in his chronological scheme. In LUr, the disaster does have human causes, but it is human overpopulation rather than behavior that causes the disaster. The gods decide to make a monster to destroy Uruk; this may also be a metaphor for an invading army. The first verse of LUr relates the gods deciding to wipe the city clean, perhaps reminiscent of Am 9:9. There are many motifs similar to those discussed above, such as no escape in kirugu 1, line 16. People are crumpled down like haystacks, and the city leader falls and goes to an enemy land (compare people pressed down like a laden cart in Am 2:13, 87 and the exile verses in Amos listed above). The gods abandon Uruk, and the destructive monster overturns water and mountains (LUr 3:15–16; and compare the doxologies in Amos). Fools will watch the destruction joyfully, but the wise will lament it (3:18– 31; note people observing the fall of Samaria in Am 3:9, and the prudent keeping quiet in Am 5:13). 88 Great warriors are slaughtered (LUr 4:13– 19,89 compare Am 2:14–16), and Uruk‘s pride before its fall is illustrated (LUr 5:10).90 Finally, the gods ―put an end‖ to Uruk (5:25, 33; Am 3:15b and elsewhere). The Eridu Lament (LE) also has the motif of daylight turned to darkness (1:22–24),91 as well as celebration turned to disaster (kirugu 3). The gods destroy the temples in LE, but do not abandon them (kirugus 2 and 6). LE ends with a plea for the gods to return (kirugu 7). 5.3.4. The Nippur Lament Perhaps the latest of the classical Sumerian city laments, 92 the Nippur Lament (NL) also has many of the same motifs noted above. The shrines and worship services, formerly happy, are now empty (kirugu 1). As in the oth86

The abbreviation ―LUr‖ can be confused with the Lamentation over Ur, and perhaps ―LUk‖ would be preferred for the Lamentation over Uruk, but ―LUr‖ is the customary abbreviation for this lament in the scholarly literature. For LUr and LE, cf. GREEN 1984 and GREEN 1978 respectively. 87 The exact meaning of this verse is disputed; for the problems cf. MÜLLER 1971. 88 SELLIN 1929 B:142–143 suggested that it is the ―song‖ not the ―prudent‖ who are in mind, while SMITH 1988 argued that it is the ―prosperous‖ and not the ―prudent‖ who should keep silent. J ACKSON 1986:435 associated the verse with lamentation, and translated ―Therefore the successful/prosperous person will wail/lament at that time, for it will be a time of disaster.‖ Recently GOFF 2008 has suggested that the verse refers to shocked, stunned silence. 89 GREEN 1984:272. 90 GREEN 1984:273. 91 GREEN 1978:133. 92 VANSTIPHOUT 1986:8–9, but see T INNEY 1996:47 for alternative datings. Cited edition is T INNEY 1996.

The Purpose and Function of the Earliest Stage of the Book of Amos

147

er texts discussed above, sweet song is turned into mourning (NL 69). Enlil and the other gods abandon the city (NL 75, 89), and a question of why Enlil has allowed the city to suffer is followed by descriptions of devastation in stereotypical terms (kirugu 3). Yet NL is really only half lament, for it has an unusually long and detailed second half about restoration. The city laments its own fate, and the cries of its goddesses and singers, instead of falling on deaf ears, cause Enlil to have mercy. Enlil declares that he will restore all the cities of the land, and give legitimate power to Isin, led by Išme-Dagan (kirugus 6–8). Utopian conditions are described for the future day, with cleansing of ritual objects as well as ethical and moral restoration. Proper social order will be restored, and peace, kindness and safety will prevail among all people (kirugus 9–11). The political purposes of NL are exceptionally clear in its promises of divine favor for Išme-Dagan. Thus, according to Tinney, ―the exaltation of Išme-Dagan as saviour and restorer of Nippur would have served to validate his claims as protector of the religious heritage of Sumer and support his moves to extend the hegemony of Isin throughout the land.‖ 93 Tinney identified the text‘s techniques as ―restoration rhetoric,‖ and suggested that it may have been written with the Curse of Agade in mind. Whereas Naram-Sin had undertaken temple renovation without permission in the Curse of Agade, Išme-Dagan had been chosen by Enlil for the task. Thus, IšmeDagan appears as a kind of ―anti-Naram-Sin.‖94 In Tinney‘s view, NL would have been written for a very limited audience of people who could understand Sumerian, which was only a literary language at this time. He sees it as having been originally written as a text for a ritual in which the king was present. The text also served Nippur‘s interests, as the need for divine approval for work in Nippur would have given its local authorities a voice in such a policy. After its initial use, Tinney suggests that it was copied in the scribal schools both for literary practice as well as ideological education on respect for kingship and good leadership.95 So, in Tinney‘s presentation of NL, it is a text that served both a political-propagandistic purpose as well as a ritual use. A similar pair of purposes could well have motivated the initial composition of the book of Amos. 5.3.5. Later Laments: The balags and eršemmas The Sumerian city laments do not appear past the Old Babylonian period, most likely because their focus on specific historical events made them inapplicable for later ritual purposes. 96 Yet the lament genre continued in 93

T INNEY 1996:44, 83. T INNEY 1996:84–85. 95 T INNEY 1996:81–85. 96 HALLO 1995:1872. 94

148

Chapter Five

Mesopotamian literature in the form of the balag (harp song) and eršemma, ―tambourine lament,‖ which were often placed one after the other on tablets.97 Unlike the city laments, these texts were composed for centuries, from the Old Babylonian period up to the Seleucid period.98 These songs had many of the same themes as the city laments, yet without specific historical references. Thus, they served as multi-purpose songs whose main purpose was to assuage the gods‘ anger before razing and restoring shrines, and possibly renovating ritual objects. 99 These laments were recited by the gala priests, and could also be read on regular, cyclical occasions to avert any possible divine anger. 100 These texts could serve as both an acknowledgement of divine anger and a sort of performative venting of that anger, which directs the danger into a safe, ritual action. Mesopotamian laments also entered the personal sphere, with laments for private trouble and anxieties. R. Achenbach demonstrated how personal lament prayers drew upon general prophylactic incantations that functioned as defenses against magic of known or unknown origin. 101 He showed that many of these texts also have a cursing effect, as the threat or problem that the petitioner has is to be removed from him and directed to an enemy. So, he proposed that some lament prayers have their roots in exorcisms and aversion of curses. This is in line with the general function of city laments, to keep disaster away by reciting them verbally. In view of this, the book of Amos could have served a similar function in the aftermath of waves of Assyrian attacks against both Israel and Judah.

5.4. Relationship of the Mesopotamian Laments to Biblical Texts Before continuing with other related texts, it is necessary to stop here and consider exactly what relationship, if any, the book of Amos has to lament literature in general and to the Sumerian city laments in particular. A possible bridge in this connection would be the biblical book of Lamentations.102 In the first place, there are some passages in the book of Amos 97

A related genre is the ―raising of the hand,‖ (ŠU.ÍL.LA) song, which served the same purposes. For an example, cf. COOPER 1970. 98 For a very early balag contemporary with the time when Sumerian city laments were still being copied, cf. KUTSCHER 1975. 99 COHEN 1988:14–15. 100 COHEN 1988:14–15. 101 ACHENBACH 2004:372–373. 102 For recent research on the biblical book of Lamentations, cf. C.W. MILLER 2002. B OASE 2006 contrasted the accusatory, judgmental tone of biblical prophetic literature

The Purpose and Function of the Earliest Stage of the Book of Amos

149

that feature obvious lament traits and references, most clearly 5:1–3, 16– 17; 8:2, 8, 10; and possibly 1:2. 103 Amos 5:1 introduces a call to lament with šimʾû, as does Lamentations 1:18.104 Amos 5:2 has been identified as being in the qinah meter used in some biblical lament texts, in the 3+2 pattern.105 In terms of the theme of the fallen victim, Wolff compared this verse to Lam 2:21, but says that ―Only the identification of the deceased, the ‗virgin Israel,‘ falls outside the scope of the usual funerary laments.‖ 106 However, the image of the weeping personified female city is a standard in the city laments,107 and fits with the ―daughter Zion‖ theme in Lamentations.108 Further, Wolff wrote that ―While the funerary ‗lament‘ ( ‫ )קינה‬elsewhere may depict in sweeping and lyric tones the happenings, the effects, the contrast of once and now, and other motifs, Amos hardly embellishes at all.‖109 Yet these effects, as well as the reversals between then and now so characteristic of laments, are everywhere in the book of Amos as has been shown above. Hillers saw the lament theme continuing into the next verse (5:3), maintaining its qinah meter.110 He drew a connection between this passage and the city laments, saying, ―Here we may have, in a tiny compass, early evidence for a city lament, or nation lament; if so, we would not need to resort to a tradition of funeral songs to explain its form and sense.‖ 111 It remains an important question, whether there is a historical, direct connection between the Mesopotamian city laments and a biblical book such as Lamentations that might allow for a connection between the Sumerian lament tradition and the book of Amos. This question will have to be answered in the negative as far as historical, dependent connections are concerned. What is more suitable is a broader thematic similarity, rather than historical dependence; and the use of independent, native genres. To

with the sympathetic tone of the biblical book of Lamentations; eg, BOASE 2006:241– 242. 103 For themes of mourning tied with dryness in Amos 1:2, cf. K.M. HAYES 2002:19– 35. 104 And also, in different contexts, Am 3:1 and 4:1. 105 On this meter, cf. J AHNOW 1923:90–92. Cf. also J AHNOW 1923:165–168 on this verse as a transformation of the funeral dirge. 106 W OLFF 1977:236. There he also points out that the root ‫ נטשׁ‬connotes divine abandonment. 107 KRAMER 1983. 108 On this theme in Lam., cf. BERLIN 2002:10–12. 109 W OLFF 1977:237. 110 HILLERS 1992:37. 111 H ILLERS 1992:38. KAPELRUD 1952:37–38 noted similarities between ancient city laments and the book of Amos, but argued that a key difference was that Amos predicted the lamentable events in advance. However, with the literary-predictive texts discussed above, it is apparent that there is not such a large difference as literary phenome na.

150

Chapter Five

explore this question it is necessary to examine the debate on the relationship between Sumerian and biblical laments. Noting the remarkable similarities between the Mesopotamian city laments and the biblical book of Lamentations, Kramer argued that there was a historical connection going from the Mesopotamian city laments through Lamentations and into biblical prophetic literature. As he stated, ―there is little doubt that it was the Sumerian poets who originated and developed the ‗lamentation‘ genre…and that the Biblical Book of Lamentations as well as the ‗burden‘ laments of the prophets, represented a profoundly moving transformation of the more formal and conventional prototypes.‖ 112 C.J. Gadd argued that Lamentations was written under the direct influence of the Mesopotamian tradition, which Judean scribes would have encountered during the exile. 113 H.J. Kraus produced a small catalogue of parallel terms and themes that unite Lamentations to the city laments. 114 Against this, McDaniel argued that Kraus‘s themes are universal for descriptions of defeated cities. Hunger, famine, pestilence, social disintegration, destruction of the city, taking of spoils, captivity, weeping, crying, and mourning would characterize any detailed description of such a calamity. 115 Beyond these ubiquitous themes, McDaniel argued that the city laments have significant differences from the biblical book of Lamentations, and that many traits of the book of Lamentations appear in non-lament material in the Hebrew Bible. Specifically, McDaniel noted that in the Sumerian city laments, the city‘s goddess weeps for her city, whereas in Lamentations it is the personified city Jerusalem which weeps. 116 Likewise, desolate gates and roads are personified in Lamentations but not in the city laments. The reasons for divine abandonment are different; in Lamentations it was caused by the people‘s sinfulness, while the Sumerian cities are attacked by the gods through no cause of their own, but due to divine reasons, such as the city‘s time simply being up. The city laments often portray the attacking danger as an ―evil storm,‖ an image not used in Lamentations (but see below). The Lamentations traits that appear elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible include fire from on high (note Amos 7:4), and spreading a net for one‘s feet, which McDaniel found also in Hosea and Ezekiel.117 The wrath of God is also a common theme, and McDaniel found the theme of Yahweh treating his own people as an enemy in Exodus and Isaiah. The personification of city walls is in both the city laments and Lamentations, but 112

KRAMER 1959:201 fn. 1. GADD 1963:61 KRAUS 1956:8–11. 115 MCDANIEL 1968 A:200–201. 116 MCDANIEL 1968 A:201. 117 MCDANIEL 1968A:203. 113 114

The Purpose and Function of the Earliest Stage of the Book of Amos

151

McDaniel also found this theme in Isaiah and Hosea. 118 Likewise the cancelation of joy and music is common to both, but appears also in Ezekiel and Jeremiah.119 However, if biblical prophetic literature in general uses lament themes like the book of Amos (as argued here), then the presence of these themes in biblical prophetic texts would not negate the possibility that these traits go back to Mesopotamian traditions. Lastly, McDaniel noted the very long time gap between the Sumerian city laments of the early second millennium and the sixth century book of Lamentations. Even if there was some survival of this genre into the NeoBabylonian era available for Judeans to imitate, McDaniel argued that ―there is no evidence that the Israelites were in a mood, so shortly after the fall of Jerusalem, to adopt a foreign form to express the loss of national treasures in lieu of their own rich local literary traditions.‖ 120 Any such similarities would be only natural, in McDaniel‘s view, and ―at most the indebtedness would be the idea of a lamentation over a beloved city.‖ 121 Against this, Gwaltney argued in favor of a direct connection, noting that the eršemma and balag laments continued all the way up to Seleucid times.122 He suggested that all of these texts have enough themes in common to unite them as a common genre with a historical relationship. These themes included the total destruction of the city determined by a conscious decision of the gods in the assembly, abandonment of the city by its suzerain-god, mention of or presumed restoration, the return of the chief god to his city with his entire company, and concluding prayers to the concerned god.123 These features would then be modified according to monotheistic exilic theology for adoption into biblical lament literature, including featuring personified parts of the city rather than crying goddesses. McDaniel is probably correct that the similarities are too vague to assert a historical relationship of dependence; however, the similarities are close enough to indicate a common genre. Ferris and Dobbs-Allsopp have proposed that biblical lament texts in Psalms and Lamentations are products of a native Judean genre of literature that is part of the same general genre as the Mesopotamian city laments without necessarily having any historical connection to them. Ferris studied the structure of laments, and argued that it is content rather than form, style, or precise wording which holds the genre together. Laments generally have a ―detailed complaint‖ which places ultimate responsibility onto the god(s), while portraying enemy ar118

MCDANIEL 1968A:205. MCDANIEL 1968A:206. MCDANIEL 1968 A:209. 121 Ibid. 122 GWALTNEY 1983:197. 123 GWALTNEY 1983:202–203. 119 120

152

Chapter Five

mies as having only mediate responsibility. 124 The god‘s decision to destroy is often referred to as his ―word.‖ This is followed by the ―lament proper,‖ and stock exclamations are used, such as ―oh,‖ ―woe,‖ and ―alas for.‖125 There is usually a divine intercession in the Sumerian laments, with a claim of innocence on behalf of the city. The biblical laments in the Psalms have a somewhat similar structure, featuring at least an invocation, the lament proper, and an appeal. The book of Lamentations, however, has very little of the appeal theme or statements of hope for the future. 126 Historically, Ferris saw the communal lament as a natural development from individual laments and funeral dirges. 127 He pointed out that funeral dirges often were communal, with mourners‘ guilds singing for the deceased, as in Amos 5:16. 128 From this came the communal lament, which Ferris saw as a cathartic expression of a community, in which ―the theme is that of complaint and mourning over some sort of public calamity accompanied by an appeal for relief.‖ 129 In Ferris‘ view, the appeal is natural to the lament, and ―indeed, the communal lament is in part a kind of peti tion‖ of relief from the troubles and their causes. 130 Similarly, F.W. Dobbs-Allsopp argued that ancient Israel and Judah had their own native city lament genre that is comparable to though independent of the Mesopotamian city lament genre. This genre of course has the topic of a destroyed city and uses a somber mood, but is also characterized by various authorial points of view. The city and some of the gods speak in the Mesopotamian exemplars, and personified Jerusalem (the ―Daughter of Zion‖) and the poet speak in Lamentations. As will be discussed below, there are also changes of speaker in the book of Amos. Dobbs-Allsopp noted that Yahweh is not one of the speakers in Lamentations, 131 but it can be noted here that Yahweh is definitely a speaker in the book of Amos. The poetic techniques of this genre include the themes of contrast and reversal, which, as has been pointed out above, are also quite present in the book of Amos. Lists of destroyed places also appear in the Mesopotamian laments but not in Lamentations; Dobbs-Allsopp finds this theme however in the Oracles against the Nations of the biblical prophetic books. 132

124

FERRIS 1992:46–47. FERRIS 1992:42–43. 126 FERRIS 1992:151. 127 For a more recent study focused on the mourning background of Lamentations, cf. P HAM 1999. 128 FERRIS 1984:73–74. On professional mourners, cf. OLYAN 2004:49–51. 129 FERRIS 1984:153. 130 FERRIS 1984:152. 131 DOBBS-ALLSOPP 1993:37. 132 DOBBS-ALLSOPP 1993:100–133. 125

The Purpose and Function of the Earliest Stage of the Book of Amos

153

A very common theme is of course the destructive power of the gods and the consequences of divine abandonment. There is usually a divine agent of destruction, which the Mesopotamian texts characterize as a storm. Dobbs-Allsopp argued against McDaniel who had regarded the ―storm‖ as a crucial difference; Dobbs-Allsopp equated this with the divine wrath and military attacks more generally, and noted that clouding and darkness appear in the biblical laments as well. 133 Further themes that Dobbs-Allsopp identified that are also present are the ―day‖ of wrath, Sodom and Gomorrah (in Lamentations), the taunting of passersby, destruction of sanctuaries, no escape, and exile. 134 Additionally, the themes of disruption of social, religious, and political customs are also common. DobbsAllsopp noted that while the themes of restoration and return of the gods is common, it is absent in the Curse of Agade and is barely present in Lamentations.135 He suggested that these texts may be subverting the usual expectations of laments that return would be promised. Sometimes these texts can lament and curse the same subject, such as the Curse of Agade and the Oracles against the Nations. In the view taken here, the book of Amos does the same, both lamenting and cursing the Northern Kingdom. The scarcity of hope in Lamentations led Dobbs-Allsopp to question whether it was written to accompany the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple,136 suggesting instead that ―it seems more likely that the poems of Lamentations were composed to give voice to the community‘s profound grief and to protest the injustice of the city‘s destruction and the people‘s suffering.‖137 In any case, Dobbs-Allsopp argued that there was a city lament genre in ancient Israel that was similar to but historically independent of the Sumerian city laments. He argued further that Amos 5:1–3, 16–17, and possibly 18–21 are part of this native Israelite city lament genre. 138 So while ancient Israel may well have had a city-lament genre of its own, there is no demonstrable relationship of dependence with Mesopotamian examples. If there were a relationship, however, it might have been an instance of Israelite scribes including techniques from the dominant As-

133 DOBBS-ALLSOPP 1993:57–58. MIDDLEMAS 2004 suggested that the form of the book of Lamentations was designed to evoke the shape of a violent storm in the shape of a whirlwind. 134 While Dobbs-Allsopp did not draw these connections, the theme of the ―Day‖ appears in Am 5:18 and 6:1, Sodom and Gomorrah in 4:11, taunting of passers-by in 3:9. Themes of no escape and exile were listed above. 135 DOBBS-ALLSOPP 1993:94. 136 As suggested by GWALTNEY 1983:209. 137 DOBBS-ALLSOPP 1993:94. 138 DOBBS-ALLSOPP 1993:143–146.

154

Chapter Five

syrians in their scribal education, perhaps even as an act of affirming their own identity. 139

5.5. Woe Oracles The theme of lament over the dead may appear also in the so-called ―woe oracles‖ of Amos (5:18 and 6:1). 140 These sayings feature the word hôy followed by one or more participles, usually arranged in parallel phrases, and sometimes several hôy sayings appear in series. The hôy sayings appear over fifty times in the Hebrew Bible, almost exclusively in the prophetic literature, where they generally condemn social abuses. Despite never being used in Lamentations, these sayings appear to have some sort of lamenting quality to them, as will be discussed below. The proper understanding of the hôy sayings has occasioned some debate, and it will be argued here that their presence in the book of Amos supports the mourning view taken here for the book. One of the earliest proposals for the understanding of hôy was that it was derived from curse formulae. Westermann pointed out that the format of hôy sayings, utilizing participles for the targets and appearing in series, resemble common forms of curses, with one hôy saying appearing especially curse-like in Zech 11:17. 141 Westermann presented the curse as ancient and powerful, saying that ―The power of the curse and the blessing is, in itself, nonhistorical, and is like a kind of magic power that can be made effective in any way desired by the one who possesses it.‖ 142 This curseturned-woe was then adopted into legal language for unpunishable or private crimes, and thence into prophetic messenger speech. Westermann‘s view was countered by Gerstenberger, who argued that the hôy sayings derive not from curses, but from the wisdom tradition. Gerstenberger suggested that curses must come from authority figures, whereas woes could be pronounced by anyone. 143 He also noted that wisdom literature shares many of the social concerns that characterize the hôy sayings. He noted that the tone of the wisdom texts, their unofficial air, moral authority without coercive power, and their outlook on the world,

139

See the discussion of David Carr above. Possible woes that might have dropped out have been proposed for 6:4 (NRSV) and 6:7 ( VAN LEEUWEN 1974:113). 141 WESTERMANN 1991:193–194 (first published in 1960). 142 WESTERMANN 1991:195. 143 GERSTENBERGER 1962:259. Yet Gerstenberger did not say how prophets were not authority figures, and includes Balaam (whom he calls a ―recognized magician‖) as one of these authority figures. 140

The Purpose and Function of the Earliest Stage of the Book of Amos

155

are similar to that of the woe sayings. 144 Additionally, the impersonal nature of address in the hôy sayings also drew connections to wisdom literature in Gerstenberger‘s judgment.145 In his view, ―The knowledge of woeprovoking behavior was to guard a member of ancient Semitic society from any steps which might endanger himself and his group.‖ 146 He suggested further that the prophets adopted the hôy sayings from the wisdom material, as they sought to affirm and reinforce traditional social values. The problem with Gerstenberger‘s views, as pointed out by Wanke and Clifford, is that hôy sayings are never used in the biblical wisdom literature.147 Gerstenberger had great difficulty explaining this, and provided several possible solutions, 148 but the problem remains that not one hôy saying appears in any biblical wisdom text. Several scholars since Gerstenberger have provided a more reasonable solution; that the hôy sayings derive from a funerary background. Clifford pointed out that the only nonprophetic use of a hôy saying is in a funerary context, in I Kings 13:30. 149 Also, hôy sayings appear in a clearly funerary form in Jer 22:18, where hypothetical laments for King Jehoiakim are described. 150 In the original funerary meaning of the hôy saying, it lacked any denunciatory meaning, but was simply an objective cry of grief without judgment or bitterness. The original use of hôy sayings in prophetic literature was a ritualistic response to God‘s deadly decisions regarding his people, in Clifford‘s view, not necessarily an emotional response. 151 Only later in the history of prophecy did the hôy sayings take on the denunciatory style, and thus resemble curses and wisdom sayings. Williams also argued that hôy sayings have a funerary background, noting the similar hô hô in Amos 5:16.152 Williams also noted that these cries ―always conclude with a decree of catastrophe and punishment.‖ 153 He argued further that the hôy sayings are used when there is no further hope for the one condemned, that doom is certain and the condemned is as if dead already. In his view, Hosea, the only eighth-century prophet without hôy sayings, lacks them because he alone holds out hope for Israel. Williams 144

GERSTENBERGER 1962:258–259. H ILLERS 1983 countered that the addressees of hôy sayings were not always portrayed impersonally. 146 GERSTENBERGER 1962:262. 147 W ANKE 1966:216, CLIFFORD 1966:459; following them, ROBERTS 1985:163, fn. 8. 148 GERSTENBERGER 1962:262. 149 C LIFFORD 1966:459. I Kings 13 is a chapter with strong prophetic themes and some affinity to the book of Amos in particular, such that prophetic style could have influenced its composition. 150 Jer 34:5 also has hôy in a funerary context; J ANZEN 1972:1. 151 CLIFFORD 1966:464. 152 W ILLIAMS 1967:88–89. 153 W ILLIAMS 1967:90. 145

156

Chapter Five

suggested further that Amos himself was the first to introduce the hôy sayings into prophecy. 154 The most thorough study of the connection between the hôy sayings and the mourning cries was done by W. Janzen, who observed that similar woe sayings have mournful tones in ancient Near Eastern literature, such as the Curse of Agade, city laments, and the Poem of Erra. Janzen attempted to bridge the gap from funerary mourning to denunciatory condemnations by suggesting that woe cries moved from sorrowful cries to calls for vengeance. He wrote: ―This shading over from sorrowful funerary lament on the one hand to invective against, yes, curse of, the guilty on the other embraces the whole range of content and mood found in the hôy-passages.‖155 This ―mourning-vengeance pattern‖ is typified by reversal imagery, where the very crime of the condemned comes back to punish them. In spite of this transformation of the meaning of the hôy sayings, the prophets remained aware of their funerary background, in Janzen‘s view, as can be seen by the close association of the hôy sayings in Amos 5:17 with the lamentation in the previous verse. 156 The condemnatory tone of the prophetic hôy sayings featured the condemned as over-confident in their own abilities (instead of relying on Yahweh), and that Yahweh will visit them on the Day of Yahweh. Janzen noted that mourning and lamenting are also associated with the Day of Yahweh in non-hôy passages, suggesting further that the Day theme was the point of entrance of the funerary hôy sayings into prophetic literature. He proposed that the hôy sayings continued to transform, becoming associated with Holy War themes in Isaiah, and eventually became further associated with the Day of Yahweh and Holy War themes, losing any apparent connection to their funerary roots. 157 Clements argued against the funerary associations, and revived Gerstenberger‘s association of the hôy sayings with wisdom literature. 158 Clements challenged Janzen‘s scheme of a transformation of the hôy sayings from lamenting the death of someone to calling for punishment of someone. Clements argued instead that ―hôy‖ could be a more generic exclamation expressing a variety of emotions, including grief, vengeance, and others. Thus, the different uses of hôy sayings do not necessarily reflect points on a diachronic timeline, but instead simply unrelated occasions where a hôy exclamation might be uttered. Further, Clements argued that they are not

154

W ILLIAMS 1967:14. J ANZEN 1972:27. Italics in original. 156 J ANZEN 1972:41. 157 J ANZEN 1972:48–49. 158 CLEMENTS 1982. 155

The Purpose and Function of the Earliest Stage of the Book of Amos

157

used in a funerary sense in the prophetic literature, but instead draw on wisdom themes.159 While it is true that the expression ―hôy‖ may not have been limited to mournful uses, its clear association with mourning both in I Kings 13:30 and the Jeremiah passages, as well as its connection with mourning in Amos 5:16–18, suggests that a funerary background may underlie these sayings. The denunciatory style in the book of Amos relates to mourning as a pitying, mock dirge over the condemned.

5.6. Amos and Divine Disaster Texts Outside of the City Laments Ferris and Dobbs-Allsopp have found a reasonable middle ground between McDaniel and Gwaltney; ancient Israel probably did have a native communal lament genre that could be called a ―city lament‖ genre. The book of Amos participates in that genre, using numerous themes and motifs that are typical and even indicative of laments, as well as woe oracles. Yet, as McDaniel demonstrated, the themes that characterize laments do appear outside of that genre. D. Bodi and D. Block have also shown that there are several other texts that feature extensive depictions of divine abandonment in response to human misdeeds, to which they have compared the book of Ezekiel.160 Like the lament texts discussed above, both the book of Amos and the Mesopotamian literary-predictive texts present society as plagued by major problems, and as suffering intense catastrophes. The book of Amos and the literary-predictive texts also often share the feature of blaming evil leadership that is sometimes considered a cause or a result of the catastrophes. These features allow the literary-predictive texts to be seen in the context of other texts that also share some or all of these features; and so by exten sion, they may help in understanding the book of Amos. M.J. Ellis noted that the Marduk and Uruk Prophecies in particular relate ―closely to the various literary ‗Curse‘ compositions and the so-called ‗pseudo-autobiographies,‘ which bewail the fact that gods had forsaken a city, and thereby inform us that in the view of the composer of the text the (previous) king had been ineffectual or had acted in an inappropriate manner.‖ 161 Ellis did not pursue this further, but for the purposes here a review of some of the 159 HILLERS 1983 also questioned the association of hôy sayings with a funerary background, but also argued against a wisdom connection because of the personal orientation of some of the hôy sayings‘ addresses. 160 B ODI 1991:201–206, B LOCK 2000:21–31. 161 ELLIS 1989:173.

158

Chapter Five

Mesopotamian texts that deal with the issue of destruction of a city and the culpability of human leadership may be helpful. 5.6.1. The Curse of Agade Although the latest copies date to the Old Babylonian period, at least a thousand years before the book of Amos could have first been written, the Sumerian ―Curse of Agade‖ 162 (abbreviated ―CA‖) has numerous similarities to both the literary-predictive texts and to the central body of the book of Amos; that is, excluding the Oracles against the Nations and the concluding addendum. Like the book of Amos, the Curse focuses on the destruction of a powerful and prosperous kingdom due to offences committed by its leadership against a deity. The Curse begins with the rise of the doomed kingdom as an act of divine benevolence (CA 1–53), but disfavor seems to arise from Naram-Sin rebuilding Inanna‘s temple in Akkad without Enlil‘s permission, such that Inanna withdraws from the city. 163 This is followed by a foreboding situation (CA 55–93), with a statement of an offense committed (CA 94–148). The deity summons a mysterious army to ravage the land (CA 149–209, compare Amos 6:14). There is an attempt to placate the angry deity (CA 210–211), which results in an agreement by the gods to condemn the offending kingdom irrevocably while limiting the devastation to just that kingdom, sparing the rest of the land (CA 212– 281). Both the Curse of Agade and the book of Amos employ much lamentation language to illustrate the disasters befalling the offending kingdom, as would be expected for descriptions of calamities. Both texts feature the decline of sanctuaries (Amos 7:9, 3:14 || CA 60–77, 193–195), famine (Amos 4:6–9 || CA 170–175), people dying at home without burial (Amos 6:9–10 || CA 181–184) and public, professional lamentation (Amos 5:16–17, 8:3 || 196–208).164 There is also the theme of reversal, wherein the offending kingdom‘s prosperity is used as a foil for its destruction (Amos 2:8, 14–16, 5:11, 6:4–7 || 245–254, 260–261). The combination of lament-type material with passages resembling historical texts prompted Cooper to define the Curse of Agade as a combination of the literary-historical genre and the lament genre. 165 The Curse of Agade is apparently polemical and propagandistic, most likely a product of an Ur III nationalist view of the fall of Ur III‘s prede-

162

COOPER 1983. On divine abandonment themes here, cf. B LOCK 2000:19–20. 164 Both texts feature changes in prices, as a result of exploitation in the case of Amos 8:4–6 and inflation in CA 177–180. 165 COOPER 1983:20. 163

The Purpose and Function of the Earliest Stage of the Book of Amos

159

cessor, Sargonid Akkad. 166 An analogous motivation may be applicable to the book of Amos, as a Judahite, anti-Israelite propagandistic text giving a nationalistic view of the fall of the previously dominant political entity. Both the Curse of Agade and the book of Amos portray the divine abandonment of the doomed city as a deserved response to some calamitously bad leadership. Güterbock used the term Unheilsherrscher for a king who brings about national disaster due to his own actions, and this may be comparable to the depiction of the leadership of Israel throughout biblical literature.167 Naram-Sin appears again as an unfortunate king in the ―Cuthean Legend,‖ wherein he solicits oracles for permission to launch counter-attacks against enemy hordes. When he gets a negative answer, he attacks the hordes anyway, suffering massive casualties. 168 Naram-Sin‘s grandfather Sargon appears as an Unheilsherrscher in the Weidner Chronicle, in which the formerly favored king of Akkad commits sacrilege by removing earth from Babylon and building a new city, also called Babylon, in front of Akkad.169 For this Enlil afflicts Sargon with rebellions and insomnia. This story probably relates to the historical Sargon II‘s construction of a new capital, Dur-Sharruken, and his controversial military actions against Babylon. Sargon II was already a controversial king, as he appears to have seized power with questionable legitimacy during a violent power struggle after the death of Shalmaneser V. 170 The story in the Weidner Chronicle appears in a similar form in ―The Chronicle of Early Kings,‖ another first-millennium text, in which Sargon of Akkad built a counterpart to Babylon near Akkad, earning the wrath of Marduk in the form of famine, rebellion, and insomnia. 171 Sargon II had several texts

166

COOPER 1983:9 clarified that the Curse of Agade is only politically, not ethnically, anti-Akkadian, saying: ―If, by anti-Akkadian, one means anti-Agade, then the text, with its unambiguous doxology glorifying the destruction of Agade (l. 281), leaves no doubt in the reader‘s mind that it is very anti-Akkadian indeed.‖ 167 GÜTERBOCK 1934:75–76. EVANS 1983 compared Naram-Sin in the Curse of Agade with Jeroboam I as depicted in the books of Kings. COOPER 1983:19, n.14 discussed the phenomenon of blame for a kingdom‘s fall on a successful king who was not historically the last king of the kingdom in question. Perhaps Manasseh can also be considered an Unheilsherrscher in II Kings 21:10–15. 168 W ESTENHOLZ 1997:317–319, lines 72–87. Naram-Sin appears in this highly damaged text to be repeating the offenses of Enmerkar, who may have also ignored divine will in lines 11–24. The Cuthean Legend first appeared in the Old Babylonian period, but was copied well into the Neo-Assyrian period, with six copies discovered at Nineveh; W ESTENHOLZ 1997:263. 169 MILLARD 1997:469. VAN DE MIEROOP 1999:72–73 suggested that there may have been some confusion in the text between Akkad and Babylon. 170 YOUNGER 2002:290–291, KUHRT 1995:497. 171 VAN DE MIEROOP 1999:73.

160

Chapter Five

composed that praised him by comparison with his namesake, 172 but that namesake could also be used in texts that criticized him and his policies. Sargon II was criticized on his own standing in the ―Sin of Sargon‖ inscription, in which his successor Sennacherib employed divination to determine that Sargon II met his ignominious death on the battlefield without burial due to his disrespect for Babylon. 173 So, these texts share with the literary-predictive texts the theme of divine abandonment and punishment of a polity for the misbehavior of its leadership. As has been seen above, while the Mari prophecy reports do show ―real‖ prophets warning kings of disaster if they do certain things, these reports lack the lengthy, literary expositions of a polity‘s fall due to the actions of its king that are so common in the other texts discussed here, as well as in the book of Amos. However, injustice plays a larger role in the literary-predictive texts (and of course in the book of Amos) than in the Curse of Agade or the other Unheilsherrscher texts discussed with it. Generally, the disastrous king is disastrous because of disrespect for the gods rather than mistreatment of the poor in his care. Nonetheless, even outside of the literary-predictive texts, ethics and care for the weak were always a part of Mesopotamian royal ideology, as can be seen for example in the various law codes. The late Neo-Babylonian ―King of Justice‖ text praises an unnamed king for his concern for justice.174 This text extols the king for stopping the perversion of justice by the strong against the weak, particularly in the areas of bribing judges (compare Amos 5:12) and the crushing effects of debt, interest, and seizure of property (compare Amos 5:11, 2:6– 7). The themes of social justice and the Unheilsherrscher seem to come together in the Cyrus cylinder, which blames the fall of Babylon (in part) on the mistreatment of the poor by the king. 175 This text accuses Nabonidus of sacrilege against Marduk, and of oppressive corvée work (lit. ―yoke‖) imposed on his people, as well as their poor housing conditions. This text says that Marduk chose Cyrus to replace Nabonidus as king of Babylon, for Marduk‘s sake and for the sake of the Babylonian people. 176 Cyrus claims to have ended the corvée policy, as well as to have improved their dilapidated housing and prevented his own troops from terrorizing the populace. These texts show that explanations of disastrous times for kingdoms on the basis of royal wrongdoing has a broad literary context, and was some172

These texts include the birth legend of Sargon, the ―Sargon Geography,‖ and texts which do not survive, such as ―Sargon the glorious‖ and ―Sargon the strong.‖ VAN DE M IEROOP 1999:69. 173 T ADMOR, LANDSBERGER and P ARPOLA 1989. 174 FOSTER 1995:208–211. 175 KUHRT 1995:601–602. 176 On divine abandonment themes here, cf. B LOCK 2000:30–31.

The Purpose and Function of the Earliest Stage of the Book of Amos

161

times framed in predictive form. They have been seen to have often served politically propagandistic purposes in their own times, and were copied and recopied in later times presumably to serve later purposes. It is in relation to texts like these, rather than ―real‖ prophecy, that the book of Amos is to be properly understood. 5.6.2. Tukulti-Ninurta Epic Some of the themes discussed above appear in the Tukulti-Ninurta epic, which portrays the Assyrian conquest of Babylon in the thirteenth century BCE as a divinely-ordained action. This text is similar to the Curse of Agade and different from the city laments (with the possible exception of LU) in that the divine abandonment has a human cause. The Kassite Babylonian king Kashtiliash is portrayed as having violated a divinely-witnessed treaty with Assyria, prompting a negative divine response. The Epic lists a series of gods abandoning and cursing their home cities, in a manner similar to the city laments. 177 Machinist argued that that the description of the gods abandoning Kashtiliash draws clearly enough from the city laments to strongly suggest that traditions of these laments continued past the Old Babylonian period.178 After a series of communications and skirmishes between Kashtiliash and Tukulti-Ninurta, they engage in a final battle, in which Kashtiliash is completely crushed and the Assyrians plunder Babylon, including taking written tablets. While the Epic does not portray the scenes of chaos and disaster that the city laments do, the battlefield scenes are graphic and demonstrate vividly the kind of catastrophe that follows on divine abandonment. 179 In addition to the Epic‘s placing blame on the victim of the disaster, it also differs from the city laments in that it takes the perspective of the perpetrator of the attack. As Machinist noted, ―The Epic, however, is the work of a victor, aiming to justify and explain his king‘s conquest. For him, victory is on the way when the gods of the enemy abandon that enemy.‖ 180 Yet this may not be such a strong difference, since the city laments appear to legitimize a later king (Išbe-Erra or Išme-Dagan), who is presented as the savior of the city. While this is not exactly taking the perspective of the eastern hordes, it does take the view of an outsider who benefited from the city‘s destruction. Machinist analyzed the purpose of the Epic in the context of Assyria‘s mixed relationship with Babylon. He noted that Babylonian culture was both tempting and foreign to Assyria, and that Assyria 177

Lines 32–48 in the edition in FOSTER 1995. MACHINIST 1976:462–464 compared the Epic with nearly parallel passages in LU and LSU. 179 Especially lines 230–244, 311–334. 180 MACHINIST 1976:464. See also B LOCK 2000:21–22. 178

162

Chapter Five

experienced a Kulturkampf with it.181 He showed further how Tukulti-Ninurta adopted a variety of Babylonian cultural traits, such as new royal titles, and engaged in a controversial building program. He suggested that the Epic was written to convince opponents of Tukulti-Ninurta‘s Babylonization of Assyria, by showing how it benefited Assyria. 182 The Epic showed how the Mesopotamian cultural center shifts from South to North with the movement of the gods away from their shrines, and the taking of cultural spoils from Babylon. The Epic itself is part of the process, being a mix of Babylonian and Assyrian literary styles. Machinist compared this to the ―Yahwist Epic‖ relating to the building projects of David and Solomon. He suggested that the selection of a Canaanite metropolis as the capital, as well as bringing the ark into a Canaanite-style temple, would have been controversial and needing justification.183 Without getting into the issue of the ―Yahwist Epic,‖ it is important to note that the Tukulti-Ninurta epic bears several similarities with the view of the book of Amos taken here. The epic places the blame for the divine abandonment and defeat of a kingdom squarely on that kingdom‘s leadership. Also, the book of Amos was likewise written from the point of view of an outsider to that defeated kingdom, both in the book‘s own indications (1:1–2 and 7:12, although this latter verse is dated later in this study), and in the view taken here. Although the kingdom of Judah did not conquer the Northern Kingdom, divine favor withdrew from the North, and remained with the South. Divine favor moved away from an older, formerly more affluent and powerful neighbor and rival to a formerly weaker, but now rising, other kingdom. There is unfortunately too little known about native Northern (―Israelian‖) literary traditions to know if there was a Kulturkampf in Judah that plays out in the book of Amos, but it is possible, and would be an interesting topic for further study. 184 5.6.3. The Seed of Kingship A particularly interesting text for the human immorality/divine abandonment theme is ―The Seed of Kingship,‖ a Sumerian/Akkadian bilingual which celebrates Nebuchadnezzar I‘s recapture of a Marduk statue from 181

MACHINIST 1976:470. MACHINIST 1976:470–477. 183 MACHINIST 1976:478–482. 184 The presence of ―Israelian‖ Hebrew has been argued for in the book of Hosea, which is often attributed to Northern authorship, although the book itself gives no geo graphical provenance to the man Hosea. On the whole question of ―Israelian‖ Hebrew in the book of Hosea, cf. SWEENEY 2005:16–17. FINKELSTEIN and SILBERMAN 2006:278 fn. 17 followed SCHNIEDEWIND 2003:390–393 in seeing the integration of the books of Amos and Hosea into the canon as indications of the adoption of Northern literature. 182

The Purpose and Function of the Earliest Stage of the Book of Amos

163

Elam.185 According this text, ―At that time, in the reign of a previous king, conditions changed. Good departed and evil was regular. The lord became angry and got furious, he gave the command and the gods of the lands abandoned it….its peoples were incited to commit crime.‖ 186 Unlike most of the city laments, this text seems to place the blame for divine wrath and abandonment squarely on the shoulders of the people and their wrongdoing. 187 The relation of causation, however, is not entirely clear, as the people are ―incited‖ to do wrongdoing perhaps also after the gods abandon them. Line 19 of the poem states that ―The guardians of peace became furious and went up to the dome of heaven, the spirit of justice stood aside.‖ So, the people may have committed some crimes before the divine abandonment, but without divine monitoring, they behaved even worse. 188 As the people behave badly, ―like those who have no god,‖ 189 the Elamites destroy the country under the observation of Marduk. This is followed by a praise of Marduk‘s tremendous power and irresistibility, somewhat similar to the doxologies in Amos: ―The earth did not support his foot-step….at his roaring the seas trembled, the rocks did not sustain the placing of his foot, the gods of the universe bowed down to him.‖ 190 The remainder of the text is badly damaged, but the reverse seems to refer to Marduk as ―the merciful, who saves the down-trodden.‖ The lamentation theme appears here also, as Nebuchadnezzar I laments the sufferings of Babylon. 191 Finally, Nebuchadnezzar defeats the Elamites, and there is much celebration in Babylon.192 All in all, this text‘s concern for social justice, and the theme of the god abandoning his people to a rapacious invader because of the people‘s crimes, has much in common with such themes in the book of Amos. This text seems to justify Marduk‘s actions, explaining that he allowed his statue to be taken due to the people‘s misdeeds, and legitimating the new king as divinely appointed to make things right. This text can thus show again how the theme of divine abandonment and destruction, here coupled with human misdeeds, can serve to legitimate a new political ruler or power. 185 The classic study of this is LAMBERT 1967. The name of the Babylonian king is not mentioned in the surviving texts, but LAMBERT 1967:126–127 identified him as Nebuchadnezzar I. Lambert‘s article is primarily concerned with that king‘s claims of descent from the antediluvian king/diviner of Sippar, Enmeduranki. There is a longer, more recent translation in FOSTER 1995:197–201. 186 LAMBERT 1967:130, ll. 15–18. 187 B LOCK 2000:23 considers the text‘s blame of humanity as ―explicit.‖ 188 Perhaps comparable to the terrifying absence of the word of Yahweh in Amos 8:11–12. 189 Line 20. 190 Lines 28–29, compare Amos 4:13; 5:8; 9:5–6. 191 Foster‘s edition only; FOSTER 1995:200. 192 FOSTER 1995:200–201.

164

Chapter Five

5.6.4. The Poem of Erra This Babylonian poem (again featuring Marduk‘s statue) is another portrayal of divine abandonment and disaster, possibly based on a human cause. The god Erra is urged by his warriors to wreak havoc on the world, and Erra says that his cult is not sufficiently honored by humanity. 193 In order to bring destruction on the world, Erra needs to convince Marduk to abandon his people. So, Erra tells Marduk that his image is sullied, and that he must get it repaired. Bodi saw Erra as representing the forces of chaos that are unleashed during Marduk‘s absence and abandonment. 194 While Marduk has his image repaired (or afterwards; the text is not clear), Erra attacks the world with a variety of disasters. These include darkness, famine and drought, urban and natural destruction, warfare, social disorder, and social reversals. 195 Marduk laments the devastation of his land,196 and other gods also abandon their peoples. Ishtaran curses his city Der, saying it will have no morality, those who escape one form of death will die by another, and those who build houses will not live in them. 197 Finally Erra‘s counselor Ishum succeeds in calming him down, and the destruction stops, with Erra blessing Babylon. The poem ends with a prophylactic statement that whoever honors the poem shall not suffer from Erra.198 Cagni understood this work as a poem (not an epic or myth) lamenting the sufferings of Babylon and hoping for a resurrection of its fortunes. 199 The dating of the poem is uncertain, with proposals ranging from the 12 th century to the 760s BCE, the latter dating of course being the same as the traditional dating of Amos. Cagni had proposed a ninth-century date, but leaned later toward a 760s date, while remaining generally agnostic on the matter.200 Cagni argued that it ―pertains to the concept of either didactic or cultic poetry,‖ didactic in that the poet had a pro-Babylonian ―patriotic-religious orientation.‖201 If Cagni‘s view of the patriotic-religious orientation of the poem is correct, then it bears some similarity with the political view of the book of Amos argued for here. This poem could also be similar to the book of Amos and biblical prophetic literature in general by its ascrip193

FOSTER 1995:138, lines 121–124. B ODI 1991:213. 195 FOSTER 1995, Tablet II lines 114–145, Tablet III lines 1–26, Tablet IV lines 6–35. 196 FOSTER 1995, Tablet IV lines 36–44. 197 FOSTER 1995, Tablet IV lines 71–129; HEINTZ 1979:432 compared this to Amos 5:19. 198 FOSTER 1995, Tablet V lines 49–61. For more on its prophylactic purposes, see below. 199 CAGNI 1977:6–14. 200 CAGNI 1977:20–21. 201 CAGNI 1977:13–14. 194

The Purpose and Function of the Earliest Stage of the Book of Amos

165

tion of human causes for the divinely wrought destruction. Bodi drew a connection between the Poem of Erra and the book of Ezekiel, suggesting that the book of Ezekiel was composed in the aftermath of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, in line with a Mesopotamian tradition that included the Poem of Erra. He wrote that the relationship between the book of Ezekiel and the Poem of Erra was ―a literary emulation,‖ creatively using traditional material, including the Poem of Erra. 202 Bodi‘s work is similar in its comparative aspects to the proposals on Amos done here, but there will be no argument here that the book of Amos is emulating any particular text. One last interesting issue with regard to the Poem of Erra is its popularity and apotropaic use. Cagni attributed its wide distribution not to scribal schooling, but to its prophylactic and cultic use. He noted that copies of it appear on household amulets with holes for hanging on walls, and that it ―came to be considered and used widely as an apotropaic device in exorcisms.‖203 It has been noted above that the city laments also could have served an apotropaic function, appeasing the gods so that they will not strike the city‘s new inhabitants for razing and rebuilding destroyed or damaged shrines. The appearance of the Poem of Erra on amulets provides the most vivid case of a poem of divine destruction being used prophylactically, to defend individuals or groups from supernatural harm. This is the second of the two major uses of divine destruction texts discussed throughout so far: legitimization of a change in political authority, and prophylactic defense from supernatural harm. Just as the city lament could vent and justify divine wrath, so likewise the book of Amos could have been used in that way. 5.6.5. Esarhaddon‟s Rebuilding of Babylon A text with a clearer political goal, and one that is contemporary with the general time period in which the earliest layer of the book of Amos has been dated here, relates Esarhaddon‘s rebuilding of Babylon. 204 The complex intellectual relationship between Assyria and Babylon has been discussed above in the context of the Tukulti-Ninurta Epic. Sennacherib‘s conquest of Babylon was controversial in Assyria, and Esarhaddon sought to resolve the situation by rebuilding the city and providing a religious explanation for Sennacherib‘s actions. This text places the blame for Babylon‘s fall to Sennacherib squarely on the Babylonians themselves, saying that they behaved immorally, and squandered the trea202

B ODI 1991:319. CAGNI 1977:14. 204 LUCKENBILL 1989:242–264. 203

166

Chapter Five

sures of the Esagila on paying the Elamites for aid against Assyria. 205 This enraged Marduk, who ruined the city, making the Arahtu canal overflow its banks. The gods and goddesses all went up to heaven like birds, abandoning the city, and the people were enslaved and/or exiled (the historical role of Assyria in this is not mentioned). Then Marduk changed his mind, and Esarhaddon was ordained for the task of restoring the city. Favorable signs appeared, and Esarhaddon sought full reassurances from Marduk before engaging in his task. Receiving these, Esarhaddon restored the city and liberated the people. 206 Cogan cited this text as an example of the Assyrian technique of accrediting foreign gods for Assyria‘s actions toward them. He suggested that this Assyrian ideological technique began with Sennacherib, who claimed that the gods of his conquered enemies helped him win their lands.207 Cogan proposed further that this idea derived originally from Assyrian spoliation of divine images after conquests. In Cogan‘s view, the Esarhaddon text was written to appease the Babylonians and pro-Babylonian northerners who were appalled at Sennacherib‘s destruction of the city. By having Marduk ordain both the destruction and restoration, it clears Assyria of blame and places Esarhaddon as favored by the chief god of Babylon. Albrektson suggested that these texts were written to placate the Babylonians,208 but Brinkman questioned how large an audience a text like this could be expected to have had, with the limited literacy in ancient Assyria. Brinkman instead argued that it was written not to deceive, but ―to satisfy the predilections of an elite group of literates who formed a fellowship of authors and readers.‖ 209 In Brinkman‘s view, the divine control of history in this text would have appealed to Esarhaddon and his scribes, who were exceptionally interested in omina and divination. This is why, in Brinkman‘s view, the text was dehistoricized, with the Assyrian role not mentioned. This would not have been to hide that fact, as it would have been obvious to any who knew the recent history of Babylon. Instead, the text presented ―the former debasement of the city and its abandonment by god and a man…as a perfect literary foil for its glorious resurrection under Esarhaddon and the restoration of its exiled deities and citizens.‖210 This was done under the view of total divine control. The text functions on the pattern of alienation – deconstruction: reconciliation – reconstruction, 205 LUCKENBILL 1989:243. Weinfeld 1977:194 compared the language of social disorder in one of these inscriptions to Micah 7:1. 206 LUCKENBILL 1989:247. 207 COGAN 1971:12–13. This is comparable to Sennacherib‘s claim (spoken through the Rabshakeh) that Yahweh had called him to conquer Judah in II Kings 18:25. 208 ALBREKTSON 1967:102. 209 BRINKMAN 1983:41. 210 BRINKMAN 1983:42.

The Purpose and Function of the Earliest Stage of the Book of Amos

167

and was written to answer the question ―why‖ this happened, rather than ―how.‖ So, the text provides a theological ―explanation‖ for a recent disaster, and uses that to legitimize and justify the later political conditions; in this case, Babylon remaining under Assyrian control while being rebuilt by Assyria. 5.6.6. Adad-Guppi and Cyrus Two other texts merit a brief look here, as they continue the theme of divine anger at human beings. The Neo-Babylonian fictional autobiography of Adad-Guppi, mother of Nabonidus, relates how she saw the devastation and restoration of Harran in her long lifetime. Sin ―became angry with his city and his house, and went up to heaven (with the result that) the city and its people were transformed into a ruin.‖ 211 The cause of the anger is unclear, but cultic neglect may be in mind with the anger at his house. 212 Adad-Guppi relates how she diligently cared for the shrines during that time and that the gods had appointed her son Nabonidus to restore the city. This text thus serves as another example of divine anger apparently caused by human behavior. Lastly, the Cyrus cylinder (discussed above, 5.6.1.) also presents this theme, with obvious political purposes. 213 This text accuses Nabonidus, an ―incompetent person,‖ of sacrilege against Marduk, and of oppressive corvée work imposed on his people, as well as the poor housing conditions of the people. Marduk and the other gods then became furious and abandoned Babylon. The text gives no details of what befell Babylon during this time, except that it resulted in an abundance of corpses. Marduk then had a change of heart, and chose Cyrus to replace Nabonidus as king of Babylon, for Marduk‘s sake and for the sake of the Babylonian people. This text is similar to the book of Amos in featuring divine anger stemming from human causes; and is more similar than the other texts discussed above in that social justice is a major factor. Like so many of the other texts discussed above, this text also serves to legitimize a new politi cal order.214

5.7. Concluding Remarks on Amos and Non-Lament Texts The various texts discussed above show that non-lament texts featuring depictions of divine devastation inflicted on a guilty king or nation often 211

LONGMAN 1991:225. B LOCK 2000:30. 213 Translation used is COGAN 1997. 214 On the political uses of these two texts, cf. T ALON 1993. 212

168

Chapter Five

feature some of the same features and serve similar purposes as the city laments. In Daniel Block‘s comparison of these texts with the book of Ezekiel, he stated that Ezekiel has more in common with these texts than any other prophet, partly because he lived in Babylon and was writing to Jews also living in Babylon. 215 Block noted how both Ezekiel and many of the texts discussed above feature human provocation resulting in the deity abandoning his city to the predations of enemy armies who destroy the sanctuary. Block argued that the writer Ezekiel may have adapted Mesopotamian ideas to Jewish theology, most importantly by omitting the divine image that features so often in the Mesopotamian texts. 216 Further, Block pointed out that many of these texts feature the god(s) returning to the devastated land and rebuilding. In light of that, Block argued that the depiction of Yahweh‘s return in the later chapters of Ezekiel is not a later addition, but an expected, ―almost inevitable‖ part of a text at least partly based on Mesopotamian exemplars. 217 It could thus be argued that the positive conclusion to the book of Amos would also be a natural fit in line with the ancient Near Eastern texts. However, Amos 9:11–15 does not feature Yahweh returning to the North, but rebuilding the fallen ―booth of David.‖ This fits better with a post-586 date, which will be explored in the next and final chapter. It will be argued there that the lament/divine disaster theme could have continued in the later additions, including the Oracles against the Nations and the conclusion of the book. The core of the book of Amos, however, fits better nearer to the destruction of the Northern Kingdom; otherwise Yahweh‘s destruction of Judah and not Israel would have been the natural topic, for the rebuilding of Jerusalem. It will be shown in the next chapter that later additions to the text served to provide hope and encouragement for the rebuilding of the Judean sanctuary and society.

5.8. Conclusion While Block is correct that the book of Ezekiel has many features in common with the ancient Near Eastern texts discussed here, the purposes of Ezekiel and these texts are comparable but somewhat different. If the purpose of Ezekiel could be summed up most briefly, it would be that in Yahweh‘s abandonment of Jerusalem, his divine presence has not abandoned his people, and he remains with the exiled population, waiting to bring them home. This gives legitimacy to the exiled population, which 215

B LOCK 2000:17–18, 34. B LOCK 2000:34–38. The omission of divine images could be as much a literary license on Ezekiel‘s part as a theological aniconism per se. 217 B LOCK 2000:41. 216

The Purpose and Function of the Earliest Stage of the Book of Amos

169

would later assert its authority over those who had remained in Yehud. The ancient Near Eastern texts reviewed here also feature define abandonment and sometimes a longing on the part of a deity to return home, but they also have to do with legitimizing new political authorities and averting di vine danger. It has been argued here that the fact that the book of Amos shares numerous features with ancient Near Eastern lament and divine disaster texts suggests that it also shares their purpose. The book would have promoted an ideology of legitimization for Judah as Yahweh‘s sole kingdom and host of thousands of northern refugees, as well as providing a literary venting and acknowledgement of Yahweh‘s just wrath. If the text was initially written, it may have been a government-sponsored enterprise, as literacy was still very limited at this time. The initial composition of the book of Amos had thus both political and prophylactic purposes. The latter purpose suggests that the poems in the book might have been performed in some way, perhaps in a ritual. It has been mentioned above that the Sumerian city laments, as well as the book of Lamentations, feature multiple speakers. Nancy Lee has recently suggested that the poems of Lamentations may have been performed by multiple singers, with different singers taking the different roles. 218 Likewise, the book of Amos has at least two speakers: the character Amos the prophet, and Yahweh. In the same way, the poems of the book of Amos might have been performed aloud for a listening audience, perhaps by more than one speaker. 219 These speakers would have communicated the book‘s various messages to their mixed audiences of Judahites and Israelites. They would have communicated that Yahweh‘s destruction and abandonment of the former Northern Kingdom was justified, and that his favor has focused on the Southern Kingdom. The wealth that had been Israel‘s pride has become its undoing, and northern immigrants should participate honestly in the new economy of Judah. Worship must not be done at regional shrines like Bethel, for Yahweh roars forth from Zion (1:2). Judahites must not be tempted to imitate their new Israelite neighbors, but should stay with their own traditions. As the divine wrath against Israel was justified, so by performing the actions of god and prophet, any further danger might be averted. Thus, ―it may be that Yahweh will be gracious to the remnant of Joseph‖ (5:15) and to their new hosts.

218

LEE 2002:44–45. As discussed above, W OOD 2002 suggested that the book of Amos was written for public performance. Cf. also DOAN AND G ILES 2005 for another view of performative aspects in the book of Amos. 219

Chapter Six

The Last Additions to the Book of Amos 6.1. Introduction In previous chapters, it has been shown that the book of Amos is not a unity, but a composite work that consists of different layers from different times (Chapter One). The earliest layer was begun around the late eighth or early seventh centuries BCE, after the fall of Israel to the Neo-Assyrian invasions, and not before (Chapter Two). This work was not a product of ―real‖ prophecy (Chapter Three), but was instead a literary-predictive composition, a poetic retrospective on the past composed in a futureoriented, prophetic manner (Chapter Four). The purpose of this composition was originally to justify the fall of the Northern Kingdom, with the implication that Yahweh‘s favor was solely on the emergent Southern Kingdom, and to apotropaically prevent Yahweh from striking Judah in the way he had destroyed Israel (Chapter Six). There are three large blocks of text that date to later times than the earliest layer of the book, and were not produced by the same authors as each other. The first of these later additions were the Oracles against the Nations from Amos 1:3–2:5, and it will be argued here that they relate to the Babylonian invasions of the Levant. The second major block is the Amaziah narrative (7:10–17); it will be argued here that this derives from the Jerusalem/Bethel rivalry in the sixth and fifth centuries BCE. Finally, the epilogue (9:11–15) was added last of all; it will be demonstrated here that intertextual contacts with other texts, such as the book of Zechariah, reveal that it was added as part of a scribal process with eschatological themes that also assembled the Book of the Twelve.

6.2. Oracles against the Nations On an internal level within the book of Amos, it has already been argued in Chapter One that the oracle against Judah must be later than the rest of the book, because it accuses Judah of disregarding the torah. This charge would be expected against Israel, yet it never appears, suggesting that the idea of ―torah‖ as the obligations of Yahweh‘s nation does not develop un-

The Last Additions to the Book of Amos

171

til after most of the rest of the book was composed. If the Judah oracle, which most likely refers to the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, dates from the exilic period, this raises questions about the rest of the oracles. The other oracles against foreign nations are more similar in form to the Judah oracle than to the Israel oracle, which shares only the beginning in common with the rest. In Chapter One, the literary issues concerning the Oracles against the Nations were examined; here the historical issues will be explored. This portion of the book of Amos, making up almost two of the book‘s nine chapters, has been notoriously difficult to pin down historically. Opinions have ranged from dating the historical referents to events in the ninth century,1 or contemporary with the supposed historical Amos, to dating some of them (particularly the oracles against Tyre, Edom and Judah) to the era of Nebuchadnezzar‘s conquests, 2 to regarding the entire set as ahistorical prophetic rhetoric for which the search for historical bases is fruitless. 3 The view that will be advanced here is that the entire set of oracles against foreign nations (not including Israel), all of Amos 1:3–2:5, date as a complete set to the last years of the exilic period, between 553–538 BCE. This hypothesis is based on an assumption that the oracles generally refer retrospect ively to real destructions, just as the rest of the book of Amos does regarding Israel. It will be shown, however, that the dating that results from this assumption can help clarify several issues involving the Oracles against the Nations of Amos. First, the case for earlier dates will be examined. The possibly historical content of the Oracles against the Nations of the book of Amos (minus that against Israel) consists of seven cities or nations being burned or at least defeated in a martial manner, as punishment for war crimes. As noted in Chapter One, some of these accusations are identical. Both Aram and Ammon are accused of violence in Gilead, 4 and both Phoenicia and Philistia are accused of delivering peoples to Edom (or ―Aram‖, depending on the reading). 5 Moab is accused of desecrating the 1 E.g., P AUL 1991:45–99, esp. 54. SCHOVILLE 1974 and 1977 argued that these oracles reflect the retaliations of the anti-Assyrian coalition of the mid-9 th century against Jehu for withdrawing from the alliance (as discussed above, 1.3.2.). 2 E.g., W OLFF 1977:112–113. WOLFF 1977:149–150 placed the other five oracles in the eighth century setting of Amos (before the Assyrian invasions). 3 E.g., COGGINS 2000:87, although he did discuss various dating options. For a full survey of opinions regarding these oracles up to 1980, cf. B ARTON 1980. 4 On the negative connotation of ―ripping open of pregnant women‖ in the Hebrew Bible in contrast with the use of it in a poem for Tiglath-pileser I, cf. COGAN 1983. For the proposal that ―pregnant women‖ are not here at all, but instead ―stony tract‖ is in tended, cf. Reider 1954:279. 5 HARAN 1968:206–207 argued in favor of the ―Aram‖ reading instead of ―Edom.‖ For Haran‘s views on the historical setting of these oracles in general, cf. HARAN 1967.

172

Chapter Six

body of the king of Edom, Edom is vaguely accused of relentlessly pursuing its brother with the sword, and Judah is accused of disregarding the torah law. No attempt will be made to find historical referents for these crimes. However, other factors suggest an exilic date for this set. Before turning to the historical issues, there are literary reasons for dating the Oracles against the Nations of the book of Amos to the exilic period. There has long been a common view that these oracles derive from very old, pre-Amos traditions of holy war, lamentation, or cultic songs, that were drawn upon by the prophet Amos. 6 While this may be, all other comparable series of Oracles against the Nations in the Hebrew Bible are in prophetic material that date to the late seventh century at the earliest, and are often exilic: Isaiah 13–23, Jeremiah 46–51, Ezekiel 25–32, Zephaniah 2:4–15, Zechariah 9:1–8.7 There are no such oracles in Hosea, Micah, or the oldest parts of Isaiah. If the Oracles against the Nations of Amos are kept in the eighth century, this would make Amos the exception to the rule; more likely, Oracles against the Nations series are an exilic or possibly late pre-exilic genre. At this point, the historical arguments for dating Amos 1:3–2:5 to the late Neo-Babylonian period will be spelled out, followed by a return to literary considerations, demonstrating what effect the removal of this material has on the reading of the book of Amos. Each of the oracles will be considered in their canonical order. 6.2.1. Damascus The oracle against Damascus (Amos 1:3–5) seems the most amenable to a pre-exilic date, because Aram‘s military activities and its defeat by Assyria in 738 are well known. There have been two major ways of handling this oracle: placing it in the ninth century or the eighth, corresponding to two periods of Aramean strength. The first of these was after Aram‘s successful repulsion of Shalmaneser III at the battle of Qarqar in 853 BCE until the close of the ninth century, when Aram lost battles to Zakkur, Adadnirari III (who besieged Damascus in 796), and Joash of Israel (II Kings 13:24–25), followed by his son Jeroboam II (II Kings 14:25, 28). 8 In this first period, Hazael of Damascus is explicitly depicted as conquering

For a proposal that Edomites were the victims rather than the recipients of this slave trade in the aftermath of a civil war, cf. GORDIS 1979. 6 Cf. B ARTON 1980:8–15. 7 Obadiah and Nahum could be considered individual oracles against an individual nation. Cf. the chart in RAABE 1995:237. 8 P ITARD 1992. Shalmaneser III claimed victory at Qarqar (e.g., Kurkh Monolith, COS 20113A), but this is widely seen as a stalemate. For Adad-nirari III‘s siege of Damascus, cf. the Saba‘a stela, COS 2.114E. For Zakkur, cf. the Zakkur inscription at COS 2.35.

The Last Additions to the Book of Amos

173

Gilead in II Kings 10:32–33,9 and the term ―threshing‖ (‫ )דוש‬is also used for Aram‘s violence against Israel at this time (II Kings 13:7). The second proposed period of Aram‘s strength arose after the death of Adad-nirari III when Assyria was generally not engaged with Damascus until Tiglathpileser III‘s invasions in the 730s. Šamši-ilu fought against Hezion of Damascus and apparently extracted tribute from him in 773/2, but Damascus appears to have remained independent. 10 This period, the middle two quarters of the eighth century, was proposed by Wolff as the most probable setting for the oracle against Damascus.11 Wolff pointed out that Israel had recovered from Aram‘s ninth-century victories, so there would have been little rhetorical effect in accusing Aram of crimes that had since been requited; he suggested instead that contemporary events are more likely indicated in the ―authentic‖ oracles. 12 The real strength of Aram during the first half of the eighth century is uncertain, however, and there is no record of Aram attacking Gilead in that time. It is unclear when in Jeroboam II‘s reign he achieved the victories described in II Kings 14:25 and 28; Jeremias differed with Wolff on this point and presented Jeroboam II as having ―finally put an end to the wars with the Arameans‖ in the middle of his reign.13 With the biblical traditions of Jeroboam II‘s successes against Aram as well as the possible victory of Šamši-ilu over Damascus in 773/2, it is questionable exactly how strong Aram was at this time. Various historical figures have been associated with the figures apparently referred to in the oracle against Damascus.14 ―The one who holds the scepter at Beth-Eden‖ in Amos 1:5 was identified as Šamši-ilu by Malamat, who followed the identification of Beth-Eden with the northeast Syrian state of Bit-Adini.15 From around 780 to the 740s, Bit-Adini was an Assyrian province ruled by the powerful turtanu Šamši-ilu. This commander appears alongside the Assyrian king Shalmaneser IV on the reverse of the Pazarcik stela, and he appears alone in the stone lions inscription at his capital of Til-Barsip (renamed Kar-Shalmaneser, modern Tell Ahmar), 9 BRIGHT 2000:254 associated this period with Amos‘s oracle against Damascus. Also, GALIL 2000:36. 10 Pazarcik stela, COS II:283–4. COHEN 1965:158 suggested that Hezion may have been the aggressor in this conflict, seeking to take advantage of Assyria‘s difficul -ties with Urartu. 11 W OLFF 1977:150. 12 Ibid. COHEN 1965:155 noted that the narratives in II Kings 13 suggest that Aram had fought within cisjordanian Israel, raising the question of why Amos would have ac cused Aram of threshing Gilead, but not Israel, if this oracle relates to the ninth century. 13 JEREMIAS 1998:25. 14 As HÖFFKEN 1982 pointed out, the ―house of Hazael‖ in Amos 1:4 probably refers to the nation of Aram in a dynastic sense, not to the individual Hazael; likewise for Ben Hadad in this verse. 15 MALAMAT 1953.

174

Chapter Six

where his achievements are described with no mention of the Assyrian king.16 In Malamat‘s view, Šamši-ilu had become semi-independent of Assyria, until he was reined in by Tiglath-pileser III. Thus, although Šamši-ilu was an Assyrian, Malamat suggested that he nonetheless would have suffered at the hands of Assyria. However, there is no evidence of the circumstances of Šamši-ilu‘s demise.17 Millard argued that it would be strange for Šamši-ilu to be included in an oracle against Damascus, since he attacked the city in 773, and also strange that he would be in parallel with the one who sits at Biq‘ath Aven, whoever that is.18 Millard argued against Malamat that Beth Eden is not Bit Adini (which he wrote was not controlled by Damascus in any case), but instead is ―house of pleasure,‖ based on the root ‫עדן‬, meaning ―waters richly‖ in the Tell Fekheriyeh inscription. This would be similar to the reading in Theodotian followed by the Vulgate, as ―house of pleasure‖ instead of ―Beth-Eden.‖ Biq‘ath Aven was read as ―valley of iniquity‖ by Symmachus.19 Millard argued that while these may be real toponyms, they are probably a symbolic pair. 20 Hayes accepted Malamat‘s argument for the identification of Šamši-ilu in Amos 1:5, and further proposed identifying the one ruling the valley of Aven as Pekah, the usurper from Gilead who seized control of Israel in the late 730s.21 In Hayes‘s view, Amos was speaking during the decline of Jeroboam II‘s kingdom, and was indicating the growing threats on the borders of Israel, including Pekah. In line with the chronology of Pekah, Hayes identified the ruler of Damascus itself with Rezin, although this pushes the date close to if not beyond the end of the lifetime of Šamšiilu.22 However, contextualizing this oracle within the context of the SyroEphraimite war leaves open the question of why no aggression against Ju16

For these two inscriptions, cf. COS 2.116 and 2.115A respectively. T IMM 2004:182 fn. 98. 18 MILLARD 1993. 19 W OLFF 1977:129. 20 For the view that Bit-Adini was controlled by Damascus during the reigns of Hazael and his son Ben Hadad, cf. GALIL 2000:37. For the view that the terms are a merism representing all of Aram, cf. W AZANA 2008. 21 J. HAYES 1989:76. Hayes was followed by KUAN 1995:132–133 (see also KUAN 2001:149–150), who likewise saw the rise of Rezin and Pekah as the background for the Oracles against the Nations of Amos. 22 This has been followed by LIPIŃSKI 2000:403, in the case of the valley of Aven: ―The ‗ruler from the Valley of Wickedness‘, mentioned in Am. 1,5 after Hazael and Bar Hadad II, must be Rasyan, the last king of Damascus, whose reign had begun around 750 B.C. and who apparently reconquered the whole area towards the end of Jeroboam II‘s reign or after the latter‘s death.‖ Lipiński dated the Amos text to the time of Tiglathpileser III‘s invasions in the area; LIPIŃSKI 2000, fn. 307. In keeping with the Šamši-ilu dating, T IMM 2004:181–2 proposed that Rezin‘s predecessor, Hesion II, was the king in mind in Amos 1:5. 17

The Last Additions to the Book of Amos

175

dah is indicated in the oracle, while Damascus ravages Gilead instead. This too is odd in Hayes‘s reconstruction, because Rezin‘s ally Pekah was presumably dominant in the Gilead. 23 Perhaps Rezin‘s attack on Gilead served to strengthen Pekah. In any case, this dating has the advantage of placing the events in range of an actual destruction of Damascus, that being the attack by Tiglath-pileser III in 732. In addition to this conflict, Damascus fought against Assyria one last time in 720, but it was defeated at Qarqar by Sargon II. 24 The years 732 or 720 could serve as dates for the punishment of Damascus in Amos 1:4–5, but the fate of Damascus during the Babylonian invasions is unknown. As shown above, there are several possibilities for dating this oracle before the date proposed for the initial composition of the book of Amos here. While none of these solutions are without difficulties, this oracle is the best candidate for an eighth century date among the non-Israel oracles in Amos. However, as has been noted above, all other Oracles against the Nations series are in later texts, and it will be shown below that the other remaining oracles fit better in the sixth century than in the eighth. Although there is no known destruction of Damascus in the sixth century, the Babylonian conquest of Syria is fairly well known. It was at Carchemish and Hamath in 605 BCE that Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar defeated the Egyptian army that was occupying Syria, opening the way for Babylonian conquest of the Levant. 25 The definitely exilic or post-exilic Oracles against the Nations series all contain oracles against Damascus, 26 suggesting that the inclusion of Damascus was standard form for these series, and/or that they refer to Babylon‘s conquest of Syria and perhaps to an unknown destruction of Damascus itself. 27 6.2.2. Philistia The next oracle is against Philistia (Amos 1:6–8), focused initially on Gaza. Archaeological remains from the site identified as Gaza (Tell Harube) are meager for pre-Hellenistic levels, yet the city appears frequently in the inscriptional evidence. 28 Military campaigns are known from Assyrian sources against Hanno, king of Gaza, under Tiglath-pileser III in 23

LIPIŃSKI 2000:403 suggested that Gilead was under Aramean rule at this time, based on Amos 1:3–5. 24 Cf. COS 2.118A and 2.118E for the relevant inscriptions of Sargon II. 25 LIPSCHITS 2005:34–35. 26 Isaiah 17:1–3, Jeremiah 49:23–27, Zechariah 9:1–4. 27 Nebuchadnezzar received tribute from Damascus in 604; cf. B ETLYON 2003:264– 265. 28 The identification of this site is uncertain (DOTHAN 1982:35). On the meager remains, cf. KATZENSTEIN 1992:914.

176

Chapter Six

734 and Sargon II in 721/720. 29 While these were both defeats for Gaza, it is not known if the city was destroyed. Despite these rebellions, Gaza was never annexed, and was left as a vassal state by Assyria, probably to facilitate trade and serve as a buffer against Egypt. After Hanno‘s second rebellion at Sargon II‘s accession, Gaza remained loyal to Assyria and seems to have been peaceful. II Kings 18:8 states that Hezekiah ―overran Philistia as far as Gaza,‖ but his rebellion largely failed. The loyalty of Gaza and the other Philistine cities was rewarded with Judahite cities. Either of the attacks by Assyria listed above could serve as the reference in Amos 1:7, but there are other possibilities. Gaza was fought over and changed hands several times between Babylon and Egypt in the late seventh/early sixth centuries. In 616 Gaza became an Egyptian vassal, but it was conquered by Nebuchadnezzar II in his campaign in 604. Egypt reacquired it in 601, but lost it again to Babylon in 598, this time without a struggle. 30 One of these events (or all of them collectively) could be behind the oracle against Gaza; but if a violent destruct ion at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar is behind some of these oracles, then his campaign of 604 would be more likely than his peaceful seizure of the city in 598.31 Ashdod, Ashkelon, and Ekron, which appear together in Amos 1:8, have different political conditions until the end of the seventh century, when they meet the same fate from Nebuchadnezzar II. Ashkelon is conquered before the others, the former falling to Tiglath-pileser III in 734, the latter two to Sargon II in 712. On his first campaign, Tiglath-pileser III collected tribute from Mitinti, king of Ashkelon, while on his second campaign he captured the city and collected tribute from Mitinti‘s son Rukibtu. 32 As for Ashdod, it revolted against Assyria in 713 under its king Azuri, who was replaced on the throne by Ahimetu, Sargon II‘s appointee.33 Yamani, who had made himself king of Ashdod, fled to Egypt. 34 The city was at least partially destroyed by Sargon II, as may be evidenced in the destruction

29 For Tiglath-pileser III, cf. Summary Inscription 4 at TADMOR 1994:138–141. For Sargon II, cf. his annals at COS 2.118A (YOUNGER 2000:293). 30 KATZENSTEIN 1992:914. 31 However, KATZENSTEIN 1992:914 associated the dominance of Egypt‘s Psammetichus I rather than Nebuchadnezzar in the oracle against Philistia in Zephaniah 2:4, where the order of the cities is south to north: Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Ekron. Except for the reversal of Ashkelon and Ashdod, this order is the same as at Amos 1:7–8. 32 For the Assyrian records for this, cf. T ADMOR 1994:83, 171. ESSE 1992:488 connected this period with Amos 1:8. 33 On problems with the historical reconstruction of Assyrian involvement with Ash dod, cf. Roberts 2003. 34 Sargon‘s Annals at YOUNGER 2000:294, 296–297. (COS).

The Last Additions to the Book of Amos

177

layer of Stratum VIII. 35 Ashkelon remained loyal to Assyria during this socalled ―Yamani affair.‖ Ashkelon‘s loyalty ended in 701, when the usurper Sidqia joined Hezekiah in revolt against Sennacherib, and together Sidqia and Hezekiah overthrew Padi, king of Ekron, Mitinti, king of Ashdod and Sillibel, king of Gaza. 36 Sennacherib, upon defeating the revolt, placed Rukibti‘s son Sharruludari on the throne. For the rest of the Assyrian period, both Ashkelon and Ashdod remained loyal to Assyria. 37 At Ashdod, a destruction layer dating from around 600 BCE (end of Stratum VII) has been attributed to either Psammetichus or Nebuchadnezzar.38 The city suffered a decline in Stratum VI, indicating that it was largely abandoned.39 Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Ashkelon by the winter of 604, claiming to have turned it into a tell; 40 its king Aga and several other Ashkelonites were exiled to Babylon. 41 Ekron was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in 603, and this can be seen in the destruction layer of Stratum 1B, after which it was abandoned. 42 This time period is the only time when all three cities were destroyed nearly simultaneously. 43 Again at the risk of being overly precise, the abandonment of Ashdod may be compared to the statement in Amos 1:8 that the inhabitants of Ashdod will be cut off, and the ―one who holds the scepter‖ of Ashkelon may be tentatively identified with Aga. The danger faced by Ekron can possibly be seen in the appeal for Egyptian aid in the ―Adon Letter.‖ 44 Lastly, the absence of Gath in the oracle against the Philistines is conspicuous. Gath was conquered in 711 by Sargon II in his campaign against the Ashdodite king Azuri (which may be referenced in Isaiah 20), 35 DOTHAN 1992:481. DOTHAN and DOTHAN 1992:187 attributed the destruction only to Nebuchadnezzar II. 36 Rassam cylinder, Morechai Cogan at COS 2:119B, pp. 302–303. For cautions regarding the literary nature of the Rassam cylinder (and Assyrian historiographic texts in general), cf. YOUNGER 2003. 37 For a recent discussion of Ashkelon‘s prosperity in the seventh century, cf. MASTER 2003. On the conditions in Ekron in the seventh century, cf. NA‘AMAN 2003. For the preferential treatment of Philistine cities by Assryia in the eighth and early seventh centuries, cf. T ADMOR 1966. 38 DOTHAN and DOTHAN 1992:187–188. 39 DOTHAN and DOTHAN 1992:188. 40 W ISEMAN 1956:68–69: ala ana tili u kar-me ut-tir, ―He turned the city into a mound and heaps of ruins.‖ 41 ESSE 1992:489, MASTER 2003:61, BETLYON 2003:268, VANDERHOOFT 2003:240– 241, LIPSCHITS 2005:40–41. 42 DOTHAN and GITIN 1992:419, but see against this LIPSCHITS 2005:41 fn 19. 43 STERN 2001:304. 44 PORTEN 1981. But cf. KRAHMALKOV 1981, who argued that the letter should be dated a century earlier, related to the invasion of Sennacherib. The origin of this letter, whether from Ekron or another city, is disputed; cf. STERN 2001:304 and VANDERHOOFT 2003:240.

178

Chapter Six

and this is the last historical mention of the site. 45 The precise archaeological identification of this site is uncertain. 46 The absence of Gath in Amos 1:6–8 has suggested to some that this oracle must postdate Sargon‘s campaign in 712/711, but various solutions have been offered to explain this away. 47 These range from it being an accident, Gath being referred to in the ―remnant of the Philistines,‖ or that the city had already been conquered by Hazael or Uzziah. Paul noted that if Sargon‘s campaign were in mind, then it makes little sense that Gath would be excluded, since Ashdod and Ekron were also attacked in the same campaign, as noted above. Additionally, Paul pointed out that Gath does not appear in other oracles against Philistia in Jeremiah 25:20, 47:5, Zephaniah 2:4 and Zechariah 9:5–7.48 All of this can be solved by understanding the oracle against Philistia as exilic in date. The listing of Ashdod and Ekron (as well as Gaza and Ashkelon) without Gath would apply accurately to one event only: the campaign of Nebuchadnezzar II in Palestine in the late seventh century. Gath was either abandoned or too unimportant to merit mention at this time. The prophetic literature cited by Paul also dates to the late seventh century at the earliest, and so is of no help in reconstructing the eighth century for this purpose. The presence of Gath at Amos 6:2 also illustrates the chronological gap between the Oracles against the Nations and other parts of the book of Amos.49 6.2.3. Tyre The oracle against Tyre presents some of the same difficulties with studying the history of Damascus, Amman, and Jerusalem, in that these are all major cities in the modern Middle East, severely limiting excavation. Historically, like Gaza, Tyre was never annexed to the Assyrian empire, but did pay tribute.50 Like Damascus, Tyre‘s encounters with Assyria began earlier than in Palestine, starting with Shalmaneser III in the mid-ninth century, and after a long suspension, it paid tribute again to Tiglath-pileser III, although it received favorable treatment. 51 Due to the city being situated on an island, the city was notoriously hard to conquer, although the Assyrians did occupy the mainland near Tyre. Tyre was besieged for five years under Shalmaneser V, and the mainland was reoccupied by Senna45

Sargon II‘s annals, YOUNGER 2000:294. SEGER 1992:909. Tell es-Safi is a possibility. 47 P AUL 1991:17. 48 P AUL 1991:16. 49 Note that Gath also appears in Micah 1:10 (identical with the statement about Gath in Amos 6:2), which, like the earliest level of Amos, may be preexilic. 50 B ONDI 2001:43, AUBET 2001:54–60. 51 Ibid., EDWARDS 1992:689. 46

The Last Additions to the Book of Amos

179

cherib. In none of these military maneuvers is the condition of the city of Tyre itself known for certain; it does not appear to be damaged. During the Assyrian campaign in Sargon II‘s reign throughout Phoenicia and Palestine, ―Sargon always deliberately drew back from a final destruction of the island of Tyre.‖ 52 While Tyre was later blockaded by Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal in 671–667 and 663, ―In spite of everything, Tyre was not destroyed like the other Phoenician cities in the north and she even preserved a certain commercial and maritime autonomy in the eastern Mediterranean for a time.‖53 The collapse of the Tyrian monarchy finally occurred as a result of Nebuchadnezzar‘s lengthy siege of the city beginning in 585, and ―This time the siege of Tyre had catastrophic repercussions,‖ resulting in the ex ile of the Tyrian royal house to Babylon. 54 While Tyre seems to have avoided a direct invasion of its island until Alexander‘s land bridge to the city in 332, Tyre‘s semi-autonomy was at an end. The damage to the city itself during Nebuchadnezzar‘s siege is unknown, so it is possible that the city‘s walls may not have been literally burned, in which case the depiction of a conflagration in Amos 1:10 may be a literary depiction of Tyre‘s fall in line with the other oracles. No historical event from the Assyrian conquests fits this any better than Nebuchadnezzar‘s siege; this siege was probably more threatening to Tyre than any Assyrian assault on the mainland. 6.2.4. Edom If the destructions of cities listed in the Oracles against the Nations of the book of Amos refer to real destructions, as proposed here, an eighth-century date cannot be accepted for the oracles against the Transjordanian countries. The Assyrian practice on the east side of the Jordan was quite different from that on the west side. Whereas the Assyrian kings Tiglathpileser III, Shalmaneser V, Sargon II and Sennacherib pursued full military conquest with urban destruction along the Aramean/Israelite corridor up to western Judah, the Transjordan south of Gilead was apparently controlled without violence. The Assyrians established three provinces in the northern Transjordan (Qarninah in Bashan, Gala‘adah in Gilead, and Haurinah in Hauran), but collected tribute from Ammon, Moab and Edom without conflict. As Stern wrote, ―Tiglath-pileser did not wage war on the Ammonites and did not penetrate their territory.‖ 55 Likewise, Assyrian military inva52

AUBET 2001:57, cf. also STERN 2001:305 and LIPSCHITS 2005:66–67. AUBET 2001:58. 54 AUBET 2001:59. The siege was thirteen years long (585–573/2) according to Josephus and Philostratus. 55 STERN 2001:237. 53

180

Chapter Six

sion was apparently unnecessary in Moab and Edom, which are listed in Assyrian inscriptions as providing tribute. The only possible exception to this was in the 660s, when Assurbanipal entered Edomite territory, but to fight against Arab tribes, not against Edom. 56 The period of Assyrian domination of the Levant was evidently a relatively peaceful and prosperous time for the whole Transjordan.57 However, this changed under Neo-Babylonian rule in the sixth century.58 Evidence of burning and limited destruction has been found at Buseirah, identified with biblical Bozrah (Amos 1:12), in Bennett‘s excavations.59 This destruction has been identified with Nabonidus‘ campaign to Tayma in 553, in which he seems to have fought against Edom. 60 This may be supported by the Sela inscription, which, although illegible, has been interpreted as a victory stele of Nabonidus. The chronology of the fire damage at Buseirah has been revised by Bienkowski, who clarified that Phase 3 at Buseirah was the level damaged by Nabonidus. 61 Additionally, he proposed that fire damage at Umm el-Biyara and Tell el-Kheleifeh could be attributed to Nabonidus‘ campaign. 62 After this, new buildings were built over the destroyed parts of Buseirah, and the area continued as an active part of the Neo-Babylonian and later Persian empires. There is no evidence of destruction during the Assyrian invasions, and none after the mid-sixth century until a massive destruction in 300/200 BCE. 63 The destruction apparently caused by the campaign of Nabonidus could provide the historical background for Amos 1:12, depicting fire devouring the strongholds of Bozrah. The mid-sixth century is the only time before the Hellenistic era when this oracle could have any historical bearing. 6.2.5. Ammon The situation north of Edom is more ambiguous. The only textual reference to any Babylonian violence in this area is from Josephus, Antiquities 10.9.7, in which Nebuchadnezzar II is said to have invaded Ammon and Moab in 582. According to Josephus, this Babylonian invasion was in response to the assassination of the Babylonian-appointed governor of Judah, 56

MILLARD 1992 B:37. For the conditions in Ammon during the Assyrian period, cf. KLETTER 1991. 58 Cf. STERN 2001:307. 59 BENNETT 1983:17. 60 LINDSAY 1976:32–39. BRIANT 2002:45: ―His [Nabonidus‘] long stay at Teima can be explained in large part by a desire for control of the region.‖ See also LEMAIRE 2003:290. 61 B IENKOWSKI 2001:206–209, 2002:477–478. 62 B IENKOWSKI 2001:211. 63 B IENKOWSKI 2002:482 (where Bienkowski discussed the various possibilities for the cause of this late destruction) and the chart on p. 476. 57

The Last Additions to the Book of Amos

181

Gedaliah, in which the assassin, Ishmael, was supported by the Ammonite king Baalis. The story of this assassination, and of Baalis‘ involvement in it, is related in Jeremiah 40:13–41:18, and is probably the source of Josephus‘ account. However, this story, and a Babylonian military response, may have historical value. A seal belonging to a servant of ―Baal-yasha‖ has been identified as belonging to a servant of the same Baalis as in Jeremiah, 64 and if this king did support an assassination of a Babylonian appointee, a Babylonian military response could be expected. Unfortunately, evidence of any Babylonian military action at the Ammonite capital Rabbah is unknown, because the site has been minimally excavated, due to the presence on top of it of the modern city of Amman. In this vacuum of evidence, there has been debate recently on the scale of this invasion, questioning if it happened at all. Pointing out evidence of growth at `Umayri and the surrounding area in the sixth century, Herr argued that this area developed as a wine-making region to pay tribute to the Babylonian invaders. However, Herr argued that this invasion did not involve destruction, because of the prosperity and productivity of the `Umayri area. 65 On the other hand, Lipschits argued that sixth-century destruction is visible in northwest Ammon, where Building 300 was destroyed by fire at Tall Mazar, and Tall asSaidiya was abandoned in the sixth century. 66 So, Lipschits proposed that the Babylonians attacked from the northwest and may have subjugated Ammon, resulting in the Ammonites building the wine-making region in the south to support the tribute. Lipschits‘s view is to be preferred, as it takes the southern development into account as well as the destruction or abandonment of the two northwestern sites. Herr was arguing against the view of Landes, asserting that ―there was little to no break at the time of the Babylonian captivity of Judah.‖67 Herr argued that recent archaeological work suggested ―strongly that the Ammonites continued to inhabit their region long after the Babylonians conquered the area and did not seem to have disappeared. But scholarly theories, especially those with biblical connections, die hard.‖ 68 But wholesale deportation of the entire population did not happen in Judah, either, and is not to be expected. To equate a violent, military invasion by Babylon with a near-total elimination of the general population is to fall victim to the ―myth of the empty land,‖ that the conquest of Judah by Babylon involved a wholesale removal of the population at large. The expe64

HERR 1999:230 made this identification. HERR 1999. Although Herr argued for no destruction, he nonetheless agreed that Josephus‘s invasion took place, HERR 1999:232. 66 LIPSCHITS 2004, esp. 42–43. 67 HERR 1999:227. 68 HERR 1999:228. 65

182

Chapter Six

riences of military conquest apparently suffered by Edom and Ammon did not involve a scorched-earth policy by the Babylonians; such a policy would have been wasteful. The view taken here is that there probably is some historical reality behind Josephus‘s account, and that Nebuchadnezzar II invaded Ammon around 582 from the northwest, and may have attacked the capital. This would be the best candidate for Amos 1:14, which depicts fire on the wall of Rabbah. At the risk of being overly precise, the king who goes into exile in Amos 1:15 could be identified with Baalis. 69 Herr and Lipschits suggested that the Babylonians did not exile Ammonite royalty after this rebellion, but retained Baal-yasha as king. 70 This is possible, and it is equally reasonable to speculate that he may have been deported. At this point, it cannot be determined. While the lack of sufficient Babylonian textual material on Ammon and the near-total lack of Iron Age excavation at Amman make this reconstruction uncertain, it is suggested here that a violent invasion of Ammon in the sixth century can be tentatively proposed. 6.2.6. Moab The situation is even more uncertain regarding Moab. If Josephus‘ account can be regarded as historical, a Babylonian invasion of Moab along with Ammon can be supposed, although the reasons for that are less clear. It is not known if Moab supported the assassination of Gedaliah or not. However, Moab appears together with several other kingdoms (including Ammon and Edom) in Jeremiah 27:3 as involved in Zedekiah‘s rebellion against Babylon, so an anti-Babylonian policy by Moab could be supposed. Alternatively, Nabonidus could have campaigned through Moab en route to Edom. Whatever the cause, the results in Moab in the sixth century are more dramatic on the level of the general population. As Routledge wrote, Moab as a state identity seems to dissolve rather rapidly following the sixth century. In contrast with Ammon…, there is no evidence for its continued use as an administrative designation under Persian or Hellenistic rule. Similarly…Moab contrasts with both Ammon and Edom in its lack of evidence for settlement and external trade contacts in the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.E. 71

No specific urban destruction is known, but it should be noted that Amos 2:2 depicts ―fire on Moab‖ in general, which devours the strongholds of Kerioth. The site of the latter is unknown, and it has been debated whether it is a specific city or not. In any case, if Routledge is correct, something

69

Although several Greek manuscripts read this as Milcom; cf. W OLFF 1977:131–132. Cf. LIPSCHITS 2004:44. 71 ROUTLEDGE 2004:212. 70

The Last Additions to the Book of Amos

183

either threatening or catastrophic happened in Moab in the sixth century, and this is probably reflected in Amos 2:2–3. In sum, it has been argued here that the non-Israel Oracles against the Nations were written in the sixth century BCE. As demonstrated in Chapter One above, the Oracles against the Nations up to 2:3 have more in common with the Judah oracle than with the Israel oracle beginning at 2:6. It was argued there that these oracles probably had a common origin with the Judah oracle, and that the reference to ―torah‖ and the destruction of Jerusalem suggested an exilic or post-exilic date. While the accusations against the nations cannot be historically identified, it has been shown in this chapter that the disasters that struck these nations fit best in a sixthcentury context. It is here argued that the Oracles against the Nations from 1:3–2:5 were added to the growing text of Amos in the exilic period, to apply to messages of the book to Judah in the aftermath of regional disaster.

6.3. The Amaziah Narrative (Amos 7:10–17) Amos 7:10–17 features a confrontation between the prophet Amos and an official priest of the northern shrine of Bethel. The priest of Bethel, Amaziah, reports to a king Jeroboam that Amos is conspiring against the kingdom, saying that Amos is predicting the violent death of the king and the exile of the nation (7:10–11). Amaziah expels Amos from Bethel, ordering him to ―eat bread‖ in Judah, whereupon Amos apparently denies his prophetic status, then prophesies a horrible fate for Amaziah, his family, and his country (7:12–17). This vignette is fraught with difficulties; the reasons for both its placement in an overall well-flowing series of visions, as well as its date, not to mention its meaning, are notoriously difficult issues. Some of the views of this passage have been discussed above, such as Andersen and Freedman‘s suggestion that it is a real biographical event in the life of the prophet between his third and fourth visions, after which he held out no further hope for Israel. 72 Jeremias saw this as a later addition custom-made for the earlier book of Amos but, as with Andersen and Freedman, it serves to explain why Amos can no longer intercede for Israel in the vision reports. 73 As noted in Chapter One, the narrative may not have had to do with Amos‘s lack of intercession, as he already refrains from interceding in the third vision, unless it is supposed that the Amaziah 72

ANDERSEN and FREEDMAN 1989:8. For a recent (conservative) discussion of the mission of Amos against Bethel, including the view that Amos himself wrote the Ama ziah narrative, cf. GOMES 2006:142–158. 73 JEREMIAS 1998:137.

184

Chapter Six

confrontation occurred (or was thought to occur) before Amos had a chance to plead Israel‘s case before Yahweh. The narrative interrupts the flow of the visions with material of a completely different genre, so the views that it is a later addition make more sense in the overall context. Clements, Williamson, and others have shown that it has close linguistic contacts with other parts of the book; 74 as Jeremias argued, however, this does not mean that it is original to those other parts, but that it was designed with the book of Amos in mind. The question then is, when and why. 6.3.1 The Book of Amos and the History of Bethel To begin with, the narrative features the prophet being rebuked by official leadership of the shrine of Bethel, which the priest Amaziah identifies as a royal sanctuary. A first step in understanding this passage is to examine the history of Bethel itself. Bethel was identified with Tell Beitin by E. Robinson in 1838 based on the name and references in Eusebius. 75 It was first excavated by Albright, then more completely by Kelso from 1934– 1960.76 It is a difficult site, as modern houses left only about four acres available for excavation. 77 The archaeology of the site is further muddled by problems in Kelso‘s excavation and publication methods, lack of stratum designations and other pertinent data, and an excessive reliance on biblical information.78 A reevaluation of the archaeological picture of Bethel has recently been carried out by Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz, including an examination of unpublished material at the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and the Albright Institute in Jerusalem. 79 From what can be learned, it appears that Bethel was an important site in the Bronze Age, but was destroyed in the thirteenth century. Kelso attributed this destruction to the biblical conquest of Joshua and ensuing conflicts at Bethel, such as the near-annihilation of the tribe of Benjamin related in Judges 19–20. The evidence from the Iron II period is unclear, but it seemed to Kelso to have been a relatively poor site, recovering slowly from its Late Bronze/Iron I fall. While II Kings 12 says that Jeroboam I built a shrine at Bethel in what would have been the late tenth century, ―no

74

As discussed in Chapter One above. KELSO 1993:192. 76 The full report is KELSO 1968. 77 KELSO 1993:192. 78 DEVER 1997:300. 79 FINKELSTEIN AND SINGER-AVITZ 2009. I thank Dr. Finkelstein for providing me with an advance copy of this article prior to its publication. 75

The Last Additions to the Book of Amos

185

trace of that sanctuary has been found so far.‖ 80 The absence of any archeological evidence for the temple of Jeroboam has been explained by suggesting that the cultic center was east of the city itself, 81 but there is no archeological evidence for this. 82 The city continued to recover in the Iron II period, until being destroyed by the Assyrians in the late eighth century.83 This may have been in the mind of the authors of the first edition of the book of Amos, and could have been referenced in Amos 9:1. In Kelso‘s reconstructions, information about the site becomes clearer in the late seventh century, when it was revived. Knauf has argued that the area of Benjamin was annexed to Judah in the late seventh century; 84 this may correspond with the site‘s recovery. Benjamin was populous and more agriculturally productive than Judah; 85 as such, Knauf argued that it would have served as a breadbasket region for Judah‘s burgeoning population, and that the union of the two areas would have further supported Benjamin‘s economy. Knauf suggested two possible dates for this: 662, as an Assyrian reward for Manasseh‘s loyalty, or 640/630, when Assyria lost its grip on the southern Levant. 86 So, in Knauf‘s view, the revival of Bethel as a city may have been a result of its inclusion into Judah, with either Assyrian or Juda-hite financial support, or both. In Kelso‘s reconstruction, the importance of Bethel only increased in the sixth century, and Bethel rose to a very significant status. As will be seen shortly below, Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz have a completely opposite view, and what follows should not be considered inclusive of their view until the end of this section. As the Benjamin region did not participate in the revolt against Babylon in the 580s, Bethel was spared the devastation that struck Jerusalem. 87 As a result of Bethel‘s survival, it became the preeminent shrine in the country, eclipsing ruined Jerusalem.88 Political power moved northward, with Bethel‘s neighbor Mizpah becoming the provincial capital of Yehud. 89 This was evidently resented, and particularly the installation of the pro-Babylonian Gedaliah on the throne. 80 KELSO 1993:192. Cf. also KELSO 1968:50–51. KNAUF 2004B:2 suggested that a shrine may have been built by Jeroboam II, as Knauf argues that the Benjamin region was too unstable earlier. 81 Cf. discussion in P AKKALA 2002:91. 82 P AKKALA 2002:91. 83 KELSO 1968:51 suggested 724 BCE. 84 KNAUF 2006:296–297. 85 For comparisons between Yehud and Benjamin, cf. CARTER 1999:246–248. 86 KNAUF 2006:297. 87 For the contrast between the relatively prosperous Benjamin region in contrast to the devastation suffered in Judah proper, cf. LIPSCHITS 2003, esp. pp. 346–355. 88 P AKKALA 2002:92. For Bethel at this time in general, cf. B LENKINSOPP 2003. 89 KNAUF 2006:296 noted that the location of the government center at Mizpah suggests that the northern border of Yehud was north of Mizpah.

186

Chapter Six

Evidence from seals suggests that he may have claimed royal titles; 90 in any case, II Kings 25:22–26 and Jeremiah 40–43 report that he was assassinated by other Jews conspiring with Ammon. A conspiracy to kill a king in the former North, based in a capital associated with a priesthood at Bethel, could suggest a context for Amos 7:10–17. That is, Gedaliah could have been portrayed as a new Jeroboam, with his illegitimate worship site at Bethel. Amaziah telling Amos to go ―eat bread‖ in Judah (Amos 7:12) may be comparable to Gedaliah telling his subjects to go home and gather their produce (Jer 40:10). Amaziah then would be telling Amos essentially the general message of Gedaliah‘s administration: Go home, make your living, and do not make trouble. Gedaliah specifically mentions qāyiṣ, summer fruit, in Jer 40:10. The Amaziah narrative is immediately followed in the book of Amos by the vision of the summer fruit, using the same word (8:1).91 So, the reference to Jeroboam in 7:9 (if older than the narrative in general) as well as the summer fruit reference in 8:1 may have contributed to the placement of the narrative at the end of chapter 7. However, another possibility, not necessarily exclusive of the Gedaliah option, is that the Amaziah narrative could reflect rival priesthoods. The Aaronite priesthood is associated with Bethel, through Aaron‘s fashioning of the golden calf in Exodus 32:4, which is related to Jeroboam I‘s golden calf at Bethel. In Exodus 32:28, the Levites kill those who participated in the ritual. Also, when Jeroboam I establishes his own ritual system at Bethel, he staffs it with a non-Levitical priesthood (I Kings 12:31). These stories reflect post-exilic tensions between Aaronite and Zadokite priesthoods.92 Blenkinsopp pointed out that the ―man of God‖ who condemns the Bethel shrine in I Kings 13 is paralleled by another anonymous ―man of God‖ who condemns the Shiloh shrine in I Samuel 2:27–36.93 With the strong similarities of the Amaziah narrative with these narratives (especially I Kings 13),94 the best explanation for the narrative is as another shot fired at Bethel and its Aaronite priesthood, written by an author sympathetic with Zadokite claims. 90 KNAUF 2006:296. Cf. LIPSCHITS 2005:86–87 on some questions regarding the interpretation of seals referencing Gedaliah. 91 LIPSCHITS 2005:99 fn. 224 discusses this word‘s appearance in several places in the Hebrew Bible, but not Amos 8:1. 92 B LENKINSOPP 2003:102–103. For a history of the development of these groups especially in Zadokite intellectual polemics, cf. B OCCACCINI 2001:43–72. 93 B LENKINSOPP 2003:103. 94 LEVIN 1995 argued that the ―Jeroboam‖ referred to in the Amaziah narrative is Jeroboam I, not Jeroboam II. He suggested that the superscription‘s identification of this Jeroboam as Jeroboam ben Joash (i.e., Jeroboam II), was a mistake. He further suggested that the prestige of Isaiah led the editor of the book to associate Amos, Hosea, and Micah with the time of Isaiah.

The Last Additions to the Book of Amos

187

According to Knauf, Bethel was destroyed or at least heavily damaged somewhere between the completion of the Second Temple in 515 and the mission of Nehemiah in 445, although due to the aforementioned problems of excavation, the dates and causes of the destruction are unknown. 95 It could have been due to this inter-priestly conflict,96 or the general instability in Persia‘s western provinces in the early fifth century BCE, 97 or both. The Amaziah narrative in this case could have been written shortly after Bethel‘s fall, reading the past into contemporary events. To return now to the reevaluation by Finkestein and Singer-Avitz, they reexamined what remains of the pottery excavated at Beitin by Albright and Kelso, and concluded that the pottery that Kelso and Albright had dated to the sixth century should be placed in the eighth. Thus, the decline of Iron Age Bethel should be attributed not to the post-exilic period, but to the late eighth to early seventh centuries. As they wrote, ―All one can say is that Bethel declined in the late 8 th century or sometime during the first decades of the 7th century BCE...Whether this was a result of the Assyrian take-over or of a later event is impossible to say.‖ 98 The city then experiences a revival in the late Hellenistic period, but in Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz‘s view, ―it was probably uninhabited or almost deserted in the Babylonian and Persion Periods.‖ 99 In view of this, Amos 7:10–17 could, like most of the rest of the book of Amos, refer to the Assyrian conquest of Israel. The redating of the strata by Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz may suggest that the Amaziah narrative should be considered as old as the rest of the book, and may lend support to the view of Loretz, who had suggested that the Amaziah narrative was the oldest part of the book. 100 However, the narrative appears intrusive, interrupting as it does a series of vision reports. This secondary appearance does suggest a date later than the surrounding material. Additionally, Amos‘s enigmatic denial of prophetic status at 7:14 will be shown below to have connections with the post-exilic book of Zechariah, and the narrative can best be dated in regard to that book. As for Bethel itself, it may be best to regard as does Köhlmoos (discussed below), as more of an idea in prophetic literature than a real place.

95

KNAUF 2006:306–307. B LENKINSOPP 2003:104. STERN 2001:576–577. 98 FINKELSTEIN AND SINGER-AVITZ 2009:44. 99 FINKELSTEIN AND SINGER-AVITZ 2009:45. 100 LORETZ 1992, discussed above in section 4.5. 96 97

188

Chapter Six

6.3.2. Jeroboam III? It should be noted that only here and in the superscription is Amos placed in the specific historical setting of the reign of Jeroboam II. Otherwise the book of Amos is a general diatribe against Israel without any specific kings or dates set. As has been stated, it is the view here that even the earliest phases of the book date to after Israel‘s destruction by Assyria; so the question must be raised why the book is set when it is, in the reign of Jeroboam II in particular. Setting the book before the Assyrian conquest of Israel of course makes it seem like an accurate prediction of known events, but the narrative creates the problem that it predicts the violent death of Jeroboam II, who dies peacefully at II Kings 14:29. For this reason some have argued that the book really is from Jeroboam II‘s reign, because otherwise the author would not have had the king die in a way that he did not.101 However, most scholars who date this passage later have seen the reference to Jeroboam II as referring to his dynasty or to the nation as a whole rather than to the man himself. Still the question remains why Jeroboam II is chosen. A good possibility is that Jeroboam II was selected because of the success of his reign; the book of Amos of course presents Israel as having a highly successful elite. It could also be a retrojection of Jeroboam I, the founder of the northern state according to the DtrH, and the subject of I Kings 13. Or, Jeroboam I, a character unattested outside of the Hebrew Bible and biblically located in the now heavily disputed tenth century, could himself be an echo of the eighth century Jeroboam II. There was apparently a third Jeroboam, whose possible connection with Amos has not been noticed before. This third Jeroboam appears nowhere in the textual evidence but does appear on several Samarian coins dating from the fourth century BCE at the latest. Five silver coins, all different, are inscribed with the name ―Jeroboam‖ in lapidary Aramaic characters. 102 Two of these were published first by Arnold Spaer, who proposed that this ―Jeroboam‖ was the issuer of these coins, and thus a governor of Samaria or a Samari(t)an high priest. 103 Three more coins, published by Meshorer and Qedar, were later identified as having Jeroboam inscriptions.104 Before the publication of these latter three coins, Meshorer discussed the entire set 101 P AUL 1991:240, fn. 15; L. SCHMIDT 2007 made a similar argument in reference to the Amaziah narrative, saying further that it provides indirect evidence that th ere was a historical Amos active during Jeroboam II‘s reign. 102 SPAER 1979 and SPAER 1980 each feature one Jeroboam coin. The proposal of Jeroboam‘s status is in SPAER 1980:3. 103 The academic usage of the term ―Samaritan‖ is increasingly being limited to a specific religious group centered around Shechem/Mt. Gerizim, particularly beginning in the fourth century BCE, rather than to the entire North from the exile on, as before. On recent scholarship on Samaritans, cf. HJELM 2004. 104 MESHORER AND QEDAR 1999:24–25.

The Last Additions to the Book of Amos

189

and proposed identifying this Jeroboam with the Jerusalem priest Menasheh, whose story is told in Josephus‘s Antiquities XI:301–309. According to Josephus, during the reign of Darius III (336–330 BCE), Menasheh was barred from priestly duties because of his marriage to Nikaso, daughter of the Samarian governor Sanballat. Menasheh subsequently fled to Samaria, where this Sanballat installed him as a priest in a new temple at Mount Gerizim.105 According to Meshorer, the Samaritans, after the marriage of Nikaso to a Jewish priest failed to ease longstanding tensions with the Jerusalem priests, finally set up a temple of their own and appointed a leader who was named or more likely renamed ―Jeroboam,‖ symbolic of their break from Yehud. Meshorer suggested that Menasheh was this figure, while advising caution. 106 Meshorer noted that one of these coins features two men together in a building, which Meshorer interprets as a shrine, possibly the new Shechem temple. 107 If the Amaziah narrative was produced during the reign of this third Jeroboam, several features of the narrative can be illuminated. The narrative‘s theme of the contestation of an illegitimate worship site would correspond well with the construction of the new shrine by or with the third Jeroboam. The appearance of the name ―Jeroboam,‖ attested in Amos only here and in the superscription, would thus link the contemporary third Jeroboam with Jeroboam II. This stage of Amos would then be engaging Menasheh‘s taking on of the Jeroboam name; the Amos author(s) would then be accepting this name, and responding that as Jeroboam II was sinful, so is the third Jeroboam. Also, the targeting of Jeroboam‘s wife in Amos 7:17, saying that she will become a prostitute, could refer to Nikaso, the woman whose marriage to Menasheh cost him his place in Jerusalem. Perhaps the warning that Jeroboam will be exiled from his land could allude to Menasheh‘s exile from Yehud, or to the general theme of exile common in the book of Amos. While the identification with Menasheh is intriguing, Meshorer admits that it is difficult to prove or even support. First, the coins are all from the antiquities market, and thus their provenance is uncertain.108 This makes any positive statements about their historical status questionable. Se105 This story has been suspected of being based on Nehemiah 13:28; cf. discussion in CROSS 1998:195–196, who regarded Josephus‘s story as historical, based on the appearance of further leaders named ―Sanballat‖ in the numismatic evidence. 106 MESHORER 1982:32–34, MESHORER AND QEDAR 1999:24–25. 107 MESHORER 1982:34; this coin is in MESHORER AND QEDAR 1999, plate 7, #45. Coin #44 on the same plate shows two men standing together in a pose similar to that on #45, but without the building. 108 SPAER 1979:218 for the first coin; SPAER 1980:2 wrote that the second coin was purchased at Sebastiyeh in May 1970, and that it was ―allegedly a local find.‖ MESHORER 1982:32 wrote that the others were found near Samaria, but did not specify further.

190

Chapter Six

condly, the name ―Jeroboam‖ never appears in the textual evidence from Achaemenid Samaria. Thirdly, Josephus never says that Menasheh was renamed ―Jeroboam,‖ a fact which would probably interest Josephus. This figure is only known from these five coins, and may even be more than one person, as Meshorer and Qedar note. 109 However, the fact that several coins exist that carry this name led Meshorer and Qedar to argue that at least it can be surmised that there was a leader in Samaria who was called Jeroboam. The only other option is if these coins depict one of the other two Jeroboams, but it is unusual for ancient coins to depict long-past historical (non-divine) figures. So, the verdict on the existence of a third Jeroboam, and any possible connection with the book of Amos, would have to await more evidence. This is raised here only as a possibility, but the third Jeroboam option is too uncertain to be held as the setting for the narrative. 6.3.3. A Bethel Origin for the Book of Amos? The power and fall of the late monarchic and exilic shrine at Bethel may underlie much of the rhetoric concerning the city throughout biblical literature, both in favor of and opposed to worship there. Bethel undoubtedly had religious traditions of its own, and Pakkala suggested that Bethel itself was the source of many of the positive biblical stories about the city. 110 These included parts of the patriarchal narratives, in which Bethel plays a prominent role; Genesis 31 and 35 even portray it as being named by Jacob himself, after his dream there. Knauf has argued that these traditions entered Judah when Bethel became the preeminent shrine of Judah. 111 The books of Kings report the existence of prophets at or near Bethel: the prophet who meets the man of God in I Kings 13:11, and the prophets who talk to Elisha in II Kings 2:3. As discussed in Chapter Three above, P. Davies argued that biblical prophetic books began with brief reports of prophecies, which then served as the springboards for longer poetic compositions. 112 He suggested that the book of Amos began with such a prophecy report, originally kept at Bethel. To quote this part of his argument in full: First, we can reasonably assume that a collection of ―words of Amos‖ formed the starting point: here were oracles that denounced Israel‘s depravity and were probably preserved in Bethel, the royal sanctuary; it was, after all, the custom for prophetic oracles to be ad dressed to the king and to be deposited in the royal archives (as mentioned earlier). There is, correspondingly, little reason for them to have been kept anywhere else (except possi 109

MESHORER AND QEDAR 1999:25, n. 45. P AKKALA 2002. 111 KNAUF 2006. 112 DAVIES 2000, esp. 72–75. 110

The Last Additions to the Book of Amos

191

bly Samaria) – certainly not in Jerusalem; Amos the prophet had no message for Judah and his message for Israel had little relevance in Judah. 113

The Amos prophecy report then gradually grew into a prophetic book after Bethel was absorbed into Judah, with the condemnations of Northern shrines and the epilogue portraying the restoration of Jerusalem added later on.114 In a similar vein, Knauf proposed that the book of Amos began as a small scribal note, consisting originally of only the prophecy of 9:1, with an earlier version of 1:1 as a title. 115 This proposal would fit with the appearance of Neo-Assyrian prophecies, which usually consist of a small prophecy about the length a single biblical verse or two, preceded by a superscription giving basic information on the prophet. 116 This would have been a brief prophecy that a shrine will be destroyed by an earthquake, of the length and style that would be appropriate to ancient Near Eastern prophecy. Knauf argued that this prophecy would have been delivered in regard to the Jerusalem temple, and transcribed for safe keeping in Jerusalem.117 After that temple was destroyed in 586, the book moved with the Jerusalem archives to Mizpah and/or Bethel, where it was expanded along with Hosea, Micah, and possibly Zephaniah, forming a ―book of the four.‖ When the seat of power moved back to Jerusalem in the mid-fifth century, the book was expanded further with anti-Bethel and anti-Samaria ma113

DAVIES 2006:129. DAVIES 2006:129–130. 115 KNAUF 2004 A:453–4. Knauf wrote that 9:1 is the only verse besides 1:1 which mentions an earthquake; but this depends on how one interprets 4:13 and 9:5, and possibly 9:9. 116 KNAUF 2006:292 fn. 12. 117 Yet KNAUF 2006:318 considered the term rʾš (earthquake) to be a northern spelling, while the Judahite spelling would have been rʾś. He wrote there that the use of this northernism would be ―not a problem if the preexilic tradition of Amos was never trans mitted to a temple, school, or library/archive other than Bethel.‖ But 1:1 is one of the few parts of the book that he considered to be originally from Jerusalem in KNAUF 2004 A; and besides, the Amos tradition would not have entered Bethel until after 586 anyway by his reconstruction. Cf. KNAUF 2006:292 fn. 12, where he seems to lean in the direction of Bethel as the place of initial composition. In support of the argument of a northern origin of the prophecy of a southern prophet, cf. NOVICK 2008, who suggests that the term ʾnk in Amos 7:8 is a northernism for the 1 st person singular independent pronoun, or (in Novick‘s preference) for ―sigh.‖ In Novick‘s view, the southern prophet Amos would have been unfamiliar with this term, and thus is trapped into placing ―sighing‖ into the midst of Israel, in line with the literary trap involving qāyiṣ/qēṣ in Amos 8:1. Regarding the unusual spelling of ―Isaac‖ in Amos 7:9, 16, R. STEINER 1977:116–117 argued that the spelling used in Amos is not a northernism as sometimes assumed, but is a later form than the spelling used in the Pentateuch. If Steiner is correct, that could support dating the Amaziah narrative (and possibly also 7:9) later than the earliest part of the book. Cf. also NOVICK 2008:126. 114

192

Chapter Six

terial.118 Thus, Knauf suggests, the travels of Amos from Judah to Israel and back again (although his return is never stated), are the travels of the book, not of the man, who might never have set foot outside of Judah. The proposals of Davies and Knauf both view the book of Amos as based on some original actual prophecy. But as argued above in Chapters Three and Four above, the book was most likely never a ―real‖ prophetic text, even in part; like the literary-predictive texts from Mesopotamia, it was probably written as a polemical poem from the start. So there is no need to try to excavate the text for the ―original‖ prophecy. Knauf‘s identification of the original prophecy with the earthquake is arbitrary and too reliant on the superscription. His proposal is unique in seeing the superscription (or at least part of it), and only one other verse as the oldest layer; almost universally the superscription has been thought of as later than most of the rest of the book, even if only added by an ―Amos school‖ a short time after the supposed prophet‘s activity. The direction of influence of Uzziah‘s earthquake in Amos 1:1 and Zechariah 14:5 is not certain, as will be seen below. Additionally, Knauf has not parsed out exactly which parts of the book belong where, and how then to deal with long poetic (and sometimes chiastic) speeches that might be broken up by such division. Davies‘s argument that the book must have had its origins in Bethel or Samaria because it has nothing to say to Judah in its original form is strange in view of Oracles against the Nations, so prevalent in biblical ―prophetic‖ literature. The book of Obadiah, for example, condemns Edom exclusively, yet it is most unlikely that it was composed in Edom. As has been argued in Chapter Five above, the book of Amos is almost entirely a diatribe against the North, and this had much to say to the South. Also, like Knauf, Davies has not defined where the Bethel prophetic report ends and the Jerusalem redaction begins. As argued in Chapter Two above, the earliest level of the book of Amos would have been composed after the fall of the North and the plundering of Bethel by the Assyrians. As a polemic composed for emergent Judah in the late eighth or early seventh century BCE, it would not have ever been in Bethel. The book‘s later additions, most importantly the Amaziah narrative discussed above or the epilogue discussed below, also were written by and for (some) Judeans, and not in Bethel.119

118

KNAUF 2004 A:454. In this connection it should be added that W OLFF 1977:111–112 suggested that his Josianic redaction was composed as part of a liturgical condemnation of Bethel per formed in Bethel itself, in the context of Josiah‘s destruction of the shrine. See against this KOENEN 2003:70–71, who argued that even if there was a layer of Amos associated with a Josianic attack on Bethel, there is no need for it to have been composed and/or performed in Bethel. 119

The Last Additions to the Book of Amos

193

The role of Bethel in the book of Amos is however not as important as one might think. Outside of the Amaziah narrative, the name appears only four times in the remainder of the book. 120 It is not singled out in two of these appearances, but is listed with one or more other shrines. 121 M. Köhlmoos has argued that in many biblical appearances of Bethel, it is a matter of Bethel the idea rather than Bethel the city.122 Bethel becomes not a real place, but a symbol of violation of Yahweh‘s will. This begins with the (in her view) eighth century prophets Amos and Hosea, whose works are supplemented over time along with changing views of the meaning of Bethel. She dated the Amaziah narrative to the sixth century reign of Manasseh, as a retrospect on the fall of Israel in the 720s. Following (in part) Jeremias‘s ideas of redactional interplay between the books of Amos and Hosea, she suggested that this narrative draws on the themes of state cult in Hosea.123 In the sixth century, this theme was picked up by dtr authors for their cult centralization program, and expressed in I Kings 13. While the dating of the Amaziah narrative is here placed later, roughly contemporary with I Kings 13 or later, Köhlmoos‘s proposal that Bethel becomes more concept than reality is an important warning against tying biblical references too closely to the history of the actual city at Tell Beitin. 6.3.4. Anti-Prophecy If the Amaziah narrative is exilic, or better yet post-exilic, it may explain the most baffling anomaly of this passage, Amos‘s apparent denial of his own prophetic status. In 7:14, Amos says lōʾ nābîʾ ʾānōkî welōʾ ben nābîʾ ʾānōkî, and then in the immediately following verse, says that he was called from his rural occupation to prophesy, and then prophesies against Amaziah. Part of the difficulty is that this is a verbless clause, so the tense of it is unclear. If rendered past tense, it could form a sort of call narrative, especially in view of 7:15. The most common explanation for this is that the passage serves to dissociate Amos from professional prophets, particularly in view of Amaziah‘s charge that Amos should earn his bread (lit. ―eat bread‖) in Judah. This view is also supported by Amos‘s listing of his double profession of shepherd and fruit tree dresser; Wolff argued that this meant that Amos was declaring his financial independence and lack of need to prophesy for profit. 124 It is interesting that some who disagree with 120

Amos 3:14, 4:4, 5:5, 6. Samaria is mentioned five times. Amos 4:4, 5:5, and possibly 5:6. 122 KÖHLMOOS 2006:120–121. 123 KÖHLMOOS 2006:109–110. 124 W OLFF 1977:313–314. Wolff saw Amaziah‘s role not as hostile to Amos, but as being a bureaucrat caught between his duty to his king and his duty to respect an authen tic prophet of Yahweh. Thus, Amaziah was simply advising and warning Amos to go 121

194

Chapter Six

the ―I am not a (professional) prophet‖ reading seem yet to return to that understanding. Rowley argued that Amos could not have been repudiating the profession of prophet, since prophets are praised in 3:8 as recipients of all of Yahweh‘s future plans. 125 Yet Rowley then wrote that ―What Amos says in effect in his indignant reply is ‗It is not money I prophesy for. I am a prophet by divine constraint.‘‖ 126 So, Rowley considered Amos to be asserting his prophethood as not for profit, and also independent of any prophetic guild; essentially, Amos is denying that he is a professional prophet. Likewise, Paul argued that Amos could not have been denying that he was a member of a prophetic guild, since Amaziah had not accused him of that; and that ―there are no grounds…to interpret navi here as a ‗prophet by profession.‘‖ 127 Yet on the next page Paul wrote, ―Amos is obviously denying that he is a professional prophet and that he makes his living by such a calling…Thus, although he formerly had no connections with any prophets or prophetic guilds, he now is a prophet of Yahweh, and Yahweh‘s authority supersedes Amaziah‘s.‖ 128 Various other suggestions have been made to resolve this difficult problem, including that Amos is denying that he is an ecstatic, or a false prophet, or that he is not making any denials at all, but is using lōʾ as an asseverative, asserting that he is a prophet.129 If the Amaziah narrative is placed in the exilic or post-exilic period, another possibility presents itself. The Amaziah narrative would then have been written at a time when prophets were viewed negatively in at least some sectors of Jewish society. Zechariah 13:5 presents a prediction that on the Day of Yahweh, prophets will be ashamed, and ―each of them will say, ‗I am no prophet, I am a tiller of the soil; for the land has been my possession since my youth.‘‖ This is generally understood as a paraphrase of Amos 7:14, used in a completely different way. 130 However, it is possible that these texts have more in common, and use the denial of prophecy in a similar way. Instead of trying to explain away Amos‘s rejection of the title ―prophet,‖ it is possible that this passage comes from the same general milieu as Zech 13:5. This has been suggested by Coggins: ―Commentators on the Zechariah passage have often speculated on the possibility that that is a quotation of Amos, but it may be that the two passages should each be

back home. T SEVAT 1993 also sees the phrase as present tense, and referring to Amos‘s denial of any professional prophetic status. 125 ROWLEY 1947:197. 126 ROWLEY 1947:198. 127 P AUL 1991:246. 128 P AUL 1991:247. 129 For the argument that it is an asseverative, cf. RICHARDSON 1966. 130 MEYERS AND MEYERS 1993:380–381, P ETERSEN 1995:127.

The Last Additions to the Book of Amos

195

seen as a (conventional?) disclaimer of prophetic status in the Second Temple community.‖ 131 To understand how this phrase is being used, the so-called ―end of prophecy‖ in post-exilic Judaism must be understood. 132 The canonical Bibles of later Judaism and then eventually Christianity seem to have no prophetic books internally dated later than Zechariah and Malachi. 133 The proximity of the apparent decline in prophecy at the fall of the monarchy may suggest that they are connected. Cross suggested that, ―It is fair to say that the institution of prophecy appeared simultaneously with kingship in Israel and fell with kingship.‖ 134 Post-586 prophecy transforms into apocalypticism, with books like Ezekiel and Zechariah showing this change, in his view.135 Eric Meyers associated the decline of prophecy with the increased Persian support for Nehemiah and his temple/priesthood system. The new leadership in Yehud was focused on the priesthood, with a Davidic monarchy projected into the future. Prophetic writings of the past were canonized, but prophets were viewed with suspicion if still alive. 136 Wilson suggested that by the Deuteronomic standard of prophecy being confirmed by its coming true, past prophets of judgment were respected and their writings canonized, but prophecies predicting a good future had failed to fully materialize. This disappointment led to dissipation of public support for prophets, and the institution was eventually replaced by apo-

131 COGGINS 2000:145. MASON 2003:171 (originally 1973) and NURMELA 2003:246 questioned whether these two passages were related. Nurmela wrote, ―In my judgment, in both passages somebody denies that he is a prophet, but on highly different grounds. In both passages this is said in the most elementary way, and therefore the similarity can be merely due to chance.‖ However, the coupling of the exact same phrase with a claim of being an agriculturalist would make the pairing probably too close for coincidence. 132 Of course, the phenomenon of prophecy does not end at all (cf. B LENKINSOPP 1996:195–196, and especially 228–229). There is a change in the status of literary prophecy from this time forward, as further prophetic writing appears as additions to existing books rather than as the work of later prophets. This is a separate issue from that of true or false prophecy, which was also of major concern in exilic and post -exilic Judaism. B RETTLER 2006 suggested that Amos 2:4, 3:7, and 8:11 are similar to phrases used in Jeremiah, and reflect the problem of false prophecy that was of concern at that time. 133 By ―internally dated,‖ this includes the book of Daniel (2 nd century BCE), which is set in the 6 th century BCE. 134 CROSS 1973:223. 135 CROSS 1973:223 fn. 15, and p. 343. 136 E. MEYERS 1995. B LENKINSOPP 1996:154 considered both the absence of royal patronage following the fall of the Davidic dynasty as well as the rise of a powerful priest hood in the time of Nehemiah as both being factors in the change in the status of prophecy. See also NISSINEN 2006:35–38 for the wished-for (by the author of Zech 13:2– 6) displacement of actual prophets by interpreters of biblical prophetic literature.

196

Chapter Six

calypticism, which pushed the positive hopes into the indefinite future, beyond the reach of disappointment. 137 Prophecy as a social phenomenon did continue, as is attested by Nehemiah 6:10–14, and implicitly by Zechariah 13 itself. Overholt argued that prophecy waxed and waned in acceptability (in various forms) throughout the history of Second Temple Judaism and later, including Christianity. Thus, prophecy is a human constant, but the social acceptance of it is not.138 A proposal from a later historical period was made by Greenspahn, who pointed out that rabbinic literature generally portrayed the activity of the ―Holy Spirit‖ (the source of prophecy) as ceasing to be active in human beings around the time of Zechariah and Malachi. Greenspahn argued that the purpose of this was primarily political; to maintain rabbinic authority and squelch unauthorized religious inspirations. This also served to maintain public safety, as the delegitimization of prophets in the Roman period who might prophesy independence for Judea served to marginalize dangerous prophets who might provoke conflicts with Rome. 139 Greenspahn argued that since the rabbinic tradition placed the decline of prophecy around the time of Zechariah and Malachi, this may have served a similar role when Yehud was under Persian occupation. 140 This could well have been the case, but this would not prevent temple-sanctioned prophets from proclaiming that Persia was doing Yahweh‘s will (such as perhaps Isaiah 45:1). Perhaps a combination of these factors would best explain the change in the role of prophecy. In the context of Zech 13:5, E. and C. Meyers suggested that it may fit in with the changing view of prophets, and that in this future time, there will be no need for prophets, for everyone will have equal access to Yahweh. 141 All of these factors probably had a role to play in the changing status of prophecy in exilic and post-exilic Judaism. But another factor may also have been at work. It was argued above in Chapters Three and Four that the book of Amos, and by implication biblical prophetic literature in general, is not a literary manifestation of the actual phenomenon of prophecy. 137 W ILSON 1980:306–308. PETERSEN 1995:127–128 wrote that the canonization process of biblical prophetic literature was a contributing factor in the acceptance of prophecy as a continuing phenomenon. 138 OVERHOLT 1989:149–161. 139 GREENSPAHN 1989:48–49. 140 GREENSPAHN 1989:49. BERQUIST 1995:178–179 suggested that the poor might have considered prophets to be too close to the ruling classes, and/or that the ruling classes thought of the prophets as too critical of them. 141 MEYERS AND MEYERS 1993:403, also MASON 2003:170. Similarly, SCHWEITZER 2006:258 suggested that the end of prophecy is desired by the author of Zech 13:5 as part of a utopian future of Yhwh‘s direct involvement with the future kingdom. CONRAD 1997 suggested that the future direct divine involvement was viewed to occur through the activity of angels, who replace prophets.

The Last Additions to the Book of Amos

197

It was shown in Chapter Three above that ―real‖ prophecy consisted of short statements usually (but not always) given in response to solicited questions, lacking the length and most of the messages of biblical literary ―prophetic‖ texts. In Chapter Four above it was proposed that biblical ―prophetic texts‖ should be understood as ―literary-predictive texts,‖ which take the form of predictions to make comments about the past and its signi ficance. In ancient Israel, prophecy was probably a prestige medium, such that poets (either independently or with state support) who wanted to make theological and social comments about their environment would cast their ideas in the form of prophecies. This type of literature grew to large proportions, especially in the late monarchic and exilic periods. It then underwent various periods of canonization, becoming sacred literature. All the while ―real‖ prophecy continued, with mantic specialists giving brief responses to people‘s questions. With the growth in size, prestige, and authority of ―prophetic‖ literature, the dual phenomena of this sacred literature and ―real‖ prophecy would have experienced a collision. There would have been a dissonance between ―real‖ prophets of the everyday world and the elegant and sophisticated ―prophetic‖ literature. Perhaps at this time regular mantic professionals, the ―real‖ prophets, may have sought to increase their importance by speaking in ways imitative of prophetic literature. 142 At this point, authors of ―prophetic‖ literature may have sought to distance themselves from ―real‖ prophets, portraying them as illegitimate or irrelevant. ―Prophetic‖ literature had now outgrown its old model of ―real‖ prophecy. In other words, ―prophetic‖ poets had originally aspired to be read as ―real‖ prophets; but now ―real‖ prophets may have been aspiring to be read as ―prophetic‖ poets. In this context, an anger is apparent in Zech 13:3–6, which predicts that parents will pierce their children if they prophesy, and the prophets are satirized for dressing absurdly 143 and lacerating themselves. Amos 7:10–17 portrays the prophet condemning the leadership of the illegitimate shrine at Bethel, using prophecy to do so; but here Amos eschews the title, denying being a prophet, professional or otherwise, associated with a guild or independent. In the view of the late sixth/early fifth century author, Amos was endowed by Yahweh with messages to prophesy, but he was no prophet. 142 Something like this may underlie the Jeremiah/Hananiah conflict of Jer 28. Also, JEREMIAS 1994:492–494 discussed how Zechariah 13 could indicate a concern about new prophets claiming messages that overlaid the older ones. 143 Perhaps as a poor imitation of the miracle worker Elijah in I Kings 19:13 and II Kings 1:8, but see P ETERSEN 1995:127 who suggested that it may refer to the garment that Jacob wore to deceive Isaac into granting him Esau‘s birthright. NISSINEN 2006:36– 38 suggested that while there are intextual connections, the reference in Zechariah is probably to an actual practice, as known from the Mari texts.

198

Chapter Six

6.4. The Amos Epilogue (Amos 9:11–15) As discussed in Chapter One above, the epilogue to the book of Amos is extremely positive, contrasting sharply with the almost relentless accusations and condemnations in the rest of the book. 144 The integrity of this section with the rest of the book of Amos has been debated since the beginning of critical analysis of the book, and the discussion continues actively today. There are proposals for the integrity of the epilogue from both pre-exilic and post-exilic datings. From the pre-exilic perspective, Sweeney argued that it is required by the negativity of the rest of the book. In his view, the book‘s absolute condemnations of people while offering no possibility of recovery results in a morally questionable portrayal of Yahweh.145 He supports his argument with the ―seek me and live‖ passages of Amos 5:4, 6. He suggested that the purpose of the eighth-century book of Amos is to urge the rejection of Bethel and the Jehu dynasty and a return to Davidic rule over all Israel, whether such Davidic rule was real or imagined.146 P. Davies raised the important question of why a Northern audience would be interested in a Judean resurgence. As Davies put it, ―to present rule under a member of the Davidic dynasty as a reward for repentance would have been tactless and counter-productive in the eighth century B.C.E.‖147 Arguing that the final form of the book of Amos is postexilic, he also viewed the epilogue as important for the message of the book as a whole. He argued that the purpose of the final form of the book is to support Judah‘s taking of the mantle of ―Israel,‖ and ―to justify Jeru salem‘s triumph over Bethel and Judah‘s over Israel.‖ 148 Certainly a positive epilogue is possible and reasonable in a book consisting mostly of doom prophecies. G.M. Tucker viewed the epilogue as separate from the rest of the book, yet nonetheless pointed out that, ―These lines should not be considered secondary because the prophet would have been incapable of announcing salvation after announcing judgment, but mainly because of their historical perspective.‖ 149 Positive endings appear in other prophetic books, and many of the divine abandonment texts discussed in Chapter Five above have positive conclusions. The reason why the epilogue nonetheless may be judged to have been added later is because it is clearly post-exilic whereas much of the rest of the book is not. 144 NEL 1984:84 described it thusly: ―The pronouncements of doom seem to be no more than a bad dream. One wakes up in what seems like a fairyland.‖ 145 SWEENEY 2006. HOUSE 1995:184 argued from a literary-critical perspective that the book‘s ―plot‖ required a positive resolution at the end. 146 SWEENEY 2006:183–185. 147 P. DAVIES 2006:119. 148 P. DAVIES 2006:131. 149 T UCKER 2006:97.

The Last Additions to the Book of Amos

199

The dating of much of the rest of the book of Amos to the monarchic period has been argued for above in Chapter Two. In essence, the focus on the northern kingdom without any reference to the fall of Jerusalem (ex cept for the exilic 2:4–5), suggests that Israel and not Judah had been conquered at that time. The ―fallen booth of David‖ assumes that some catastrophe has happened in Jerusalem, and the rest of the epilogue is replete with post-exilic language similar to that found in Zechariah and Joel. The epilogue does indeed draw on other parts of the book of Amos, but this is because those themes are picked up and reversed in a post-exilic context. The post-exilic nature of the epilogue is explored below, beginning with the ―fallen booth of David.‖ 6.4.1. The sukkāt dāwîd The sukkāt dāwîd is one of the most enigmatic terms in the book of Amos, which has prompted much speculation. One proposal for the interpretation of sukkāt has been to read it not as ―booth,‖ but as the name of the Transjordanian city ―Succoth.‖ Yadin suggested reading sukkôt in II Sam 11:11 and I Kings 20:12, 16 as this city, arguing that it served a vital tactical role as David‘s main base for military activities in northern Transjordan. 150 H.N. Richardson extended Yadin‘s proposal to the sukkāt of Amos 9:11, arguing that it too refers to the city. Richardson traced the history of Succoth, showing how it would have been an abandoned ruin during the reign of Jeroboam II. Thus, the rebuilding of Succoth would serve as a necessary prelude to the recovery of David‘s large kingdom extending to the northeast.151 So, Richardson suggested translating the whole verse as, ―On that day – I will restore David‘s fallen Succoth. I will block up the gaps in its wall; Its ruins I will restore and I will rebuild it as in former days.‖ 152 However, the identification of sukkāt with Succoth in Amos 9:11 is not supported by any other versions, and the MT spelling of it lacks the hōlem wāw that would be expected. Richardson proposed that Amos 9:11 preserves a defective spelling from the eighth century, which was later misunderstood as ―booths.‖ 153 This could be, but the following word, dāwîd, is spelled plene; however, the phenomenon of full and defective spellings in the same verse does appear in the Hebrew Bible. Also, Richardson‘s proposed translation of the verse does not take the various pronominal suffixes into consideration. 150 YADIN 1955:337; YADIN 1963:274–275, 305–306. Yadin‘s proposal has been challenged by HOMAN 1999 (without reference to the arguments concerning Amos in R ICHARDSON 1973). 151 R ICHARDSON 1973:381. 152 R ICHARDSON 1973:376. 153 R ICHARDSON 1973:377.

200

Chapter Six

The variation of suffixes in 9:11 is a puzzling problem which raises questions about what the verse refers to. Literally, it seems to read, ―On that day I will raise up the fallen booth of David, and I will wall up their [f.pl.] breaches and its [or his, m.s.] breaches I will raise, and I will (re)build it [or her, f.s.], as in the days of old.‖ The LXX smoothed all this over by rendering all the suffixes the same, as feminine plurals. However, Nogalski argued that MT should be preferred on the principle of lectio difficilior.154 He suggested that sukkāt should be understood as a collective, to go with the plural ―their breaches;‖ the plural being associated with the ruined cities (fpl) in Amos 9:14.155 The third-person masculine suffix on ―his ruins‖ then refers to David himself. Nogalski also connected the thirdperson feminine suffix on ―I will rebuild it [or her]‖ with the supposedly collective sukkāt, suggesting that here the suffix is singular to refer to the word itself.156 However, it is not clear why the text would suddenly switch to the singular; it would seem more consistent to say ―I will rebuild them‖ if sukkāt refers to the ruined cities. Another proposal for understanding the sukkāt dāwîd was made by P. Davies, who suggested that dāwîd is a later scribal correction of a deity called Dwd.157 This proposal derives from the enigmatic dwd in the Mesha stele, the interpretation of this as a divine name, and then the application of the same idea to the bytdwd in the Tel Dan stele. Just as the bytdwd would then be the shrine of the god Dwd, so Davies suggested that the swkt dwyd in Amos 9:11 could be a shrine to this god. 158 However, the identity of this god is totally unclear, unless it is just an epithet for Yahweh; even if so, a shrine by this name is otherwise unknown in the Hebrew Bible. Davies argued that dwyd must have been changed to dāwîd in the Persian period at the earliest, but this would imply that the verse has some pre-Persian period history. More work would have to be done on the deity Dwd and its shrine in order for this proposal to hold more weight. 159 The sukkāt dāwîd has usually been interpreted with a focus on the presence of the name David. Thus, it has generally been read as referring to the Davidic kingdom (the United Monarchy), the Davidic dynasty, or both.160 154

NOGALSKI 1993:414. Cf. NOGALSKI 1993:415, where he argued that the singular passive participle ―fallen‖ might have originally been plural, looking the same as the singular in defective con sonantal orthography. 156 NOGALSKI 1993:416. Nogalski interpreted the whole section of Amos 9:11–15 as dating from the (post)exilic period. 157 DAVIES 1994. 158 DAVIES 1994:24. 159 However, DAVIES 2009 presents a different view more similar to the proposal that will be advanced here; see below. 160 For an argument that it expresses hope for a revived Davidic empire, cf. MAUCHLINE 1970. 155

The Last Additions to the Book of Amos

201

These interpretations often draw from the theme of the building of a ―house‖ for David in II Samuel 7, and place the phrase either in the mouth of the eighth century prophet Amos or through the hand of an exilic or post-exilic redactor. Pre-exilic datings of this passage draw support from the participle hannōpelet, which can mean ―falling‖ in addition to ―fallen,‖ thus suggesting that the booth of David has not yet fallen. 161 The view that Amos 9:11–12 refers to pre-exilic hopes for the recovery of Davidic political power was given a historical context by J.H. Hayes. Hayes argued that the setting provided by the book‘s superscription (1:1) gives a fitting historical context. 162 According to Hayes‘s historical reconstruction, Judahite power declined sharply after Uzziah contracted a skin disorder, forcing him to step aside and allow Jotham to rule. During Jotham‘s reign, Judah lost control over the Shephelah and the coastal plain, faced rebellion from formerly Judahite cities, and was further threatened by Assyria. As Hayes put it, ―From Uzziah to Ahaz, the Davidic house ruled over an ever diminishing realm.‖ 163 This, Hayes argued, is the context for the ―falling‖ booth of David. Hayes interpreted the ―breaches,‖ pirṣêhen, as ―breakaways,‖ that is, as the insurrection of Judean cities. 164 Likewise, he interpreted the hapax ―harisah,‖ as rebellion. As for the ―days of old,‖ Hayes argued that this does not suggest a time long distant from the Judean monarchy, but simply refers to the days before the abdication of Uzziah. So, Hayes saw the whole passage as hoping for a restoration of the Davidic kingdom; if not to the glories of the United Monarchy, at least to the conditions of the reign of Uzziah, which would include the ―remnant of Edom,‖ Elath. 165 This limited hope for restoration of Uzziah‘s Judah is peculiar to Hayes; Paul interpreted the passage as expressing hope for the restoration of the Davidic Empire in full, with the splitting of the United Monarchy in view.166 However, Wolff noted that there is no reason to think that the restoration of the United Monarchy is intended either in this passage or anywhere else in the book of Amos in general. Wolff observed, as has been discussed above, that for all the criticisms of the Northern Kingdom, the classic Deuteronomistic charge of breaking away from the South is never leveled against it. As Wolff rhetorically asked, ―Where, however, does Amos so much as intimate that he condemns the northern kingdom on ac161 B UDDE 1925:115–116 argued that the use of the participle indicates that the pas sage predates 586 BCE. Cf. also RUDOLPH 1971:280. 162 J. HAYES 1988:223–227. 163 J. HAYES 1988:224. Hayes dates the book of Amos later than normally done, to the 730s. 164 J. HAYES 1988:225. 165 J. HAYES 1988:225. 166 P AUL 1991:290, followed by FIRTH 1996:379 and TERBLANCHE 1997:315–136.

202

Chapter Six

count of its secession from Jerusalem?‖167 Yet, one page later Wolff seems to have accepted the United Monarchy restoration idea, when he wrote that, this witness is dominated by the confident expectation that a Davidic imperium, long since demolished, would be the focal point of the coming global reign of Yahweh. The restored imperium would correspond in splendor to that of the empire ‗as in days of old‘ and would embrace the remnant of the arch-enemy Edom, but also of all the other nations.168

This latter view of Wolff‘s is typical of scholars who interpret the passage as post-exilic, as Wolff did. The interpretation of the passage as referring to post-exilic hopes for a restored Davidic kingdom have been espoused by many scholars, such as Mays 169 and Martin-Achard.170 The ―booth‖ itself could then refer to the kingdom or dynasty, or the destruction of Jerusalem under Nebuchadnezzar, or the fall of the Temple specifically.171 The identification of the sukkāt dāwîd with the land of Judah or the city of Jerusalem can be supported by Isaiah 1:8, where ―Daughter Zion is left like a sukkāh in a vineyard.‖ As discussed in Chapter Four above, the feminine personification of a city is typical of biblical lament literature. So here, Isaiah 1:8 is probably comparing Jerusalem (or the nation of Judah which it leads) to a weak structure out in the fields. Another expression similar to Amos 9:11 is in Isaiah 16:5, where hope is expressed for a throne of a righteous king erected běʾōhel dāwid, that is, ―in the tent of David.‖ Presumably, this throne would be established in the city of Jerusalem, or in a palace within it. An urban identification of the sukkāt dāwîd is further supported by the rest of Amos 9:11, which consists of images of rebuilding. However, the understanding of the Isaiah references depends on their date; if seen as pre-exilic, they can support the usage of booth and tent imagery with Jerusalem in the context of Sennacherib‘s attacks on the city. If post-exilic, they can apply to the reconstruction of Jerusalem in the Persian period (which they can also do even if originally pre-exilic). In line with all of these arguments, Pomykala argued that Amos 9:11 best fits with the time period between the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 and the rebuilding of its walls under Nehemiah in 445.172 The post-exilic dating of this passage is also supported by the presence of similar passages in more reliably post-exilic portions of biblical prophetic lite167

W OLFF 1977:352. W OLFF 1977:353. 169 MAYS 1969:163–165. 170 MARTIN -ACHARD 1984:66–68. 171 COGGINS 2000:155 was open to both identifications. He also placed this passage in the post-exilic period, the time period which he took as his interpretive lens for reading the book as a whole. 172 POMYKALA 1992:61–63. 168

The Last Additions to the Book of Amos

203

rature. There is very similar language of rebuilding in the Deutero-Isaianic passage Isaiah 58:12, and Obadiah 19–21 as well as Joel 3:18 (Heb 4:18) have similarities with the rest of the Amos epilogue. Also, the phrase ―as in days of old‖ in Amos 9:11 may work better in a date further removed from the monarchic period. However, the David component of the sukkāt dāwîd has perhaps led scholars to focus too much on the idea of the Davidic kingdom, monarchy, or city, without paying sufficient attention to the sukkāh. The appearances of this term and the ―tent of David,‖ in Isaiah are ambiguous, and do not clearly indicate what is being referred to. Commentaries on Amos and studies on this passage tend to neglect the full use and meaning of the term sukkāh, missing the important fact that it frequently appears in the context of temples. The closest parallel to the fallen (or falling) sukkāh is not in Isaiah, but in Lamentations 2:6, where Yahweh is described as having broken down his booth as in a garden, 173 with the parallel half-verse featuring the destruction of the tabernacle. Here the sukkāh is compared to the tabernacle tent-shrine. This passage in Lamentations continues with Yahweh abolishing his festivals and his sanctuaries, and measuring daughter Zion with a line for its destruction; all themes very familiar from the book of Amos. Interestingly, this theme appears in a similar way in the Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur: My house founded by a righteous man, like a garden hut verily on its side has caved in… Like a tent, the house where the crops have been…to wind and rain verily has been 174 exposed.

This description of a caved in, or fallen, hut in Lamentations and LU fits better with Amos 9:11 than the Isaiah passages, and in fact the appearance of this theme in Lamentations and LU may help elucidate the use of the term in Isaiah, but this is beyond the scope of this study. As for the epilogue of Amos itself, the appearance of a theme found also in lament literature may suggest that the conclusion to the book also drew on lament themes, as does so much of the rest of the book. Even the term sukkāh may have sanctuary connections etymologically, as Nägele has argued that the term is linguistically related to Akkadian sukku, ―sanctuary,‖ a Sumerian loanword. 175 The association of sukkāh 173 Reading ―as in a garden‖ with ALBREKTSON 1963:95–96. RE‘EMI 1984:94 read ―like a gardener,‖ ganan, instead of MT ―garden,‖ gan, with the image being of a farmer dismantling his temporary field shelter. Provan 1990 followed MCDANIEL 1968:36–37 in rendering śakkô as ―branch‖ rather than ―booth,‖ but he still considered the verse to be referring to Sukkoth. 174 LU 122–129, KRAMER 1940:31. Cf. also DOBBS-ALLSOPP 1993:69–70, where a balag is also cited with this image. 175 NÄGELE 1995:236.

204

Chapter Six

with shrines is also biblically supported, for example in Psalm 27:5, where this term is used in association with the temple of Yahweh. The shelter and protection of Yahweh is depicted as a sukkāh in Ps. 31:21, 42:5, and 76:3, where the phrase ―wayehî bešālēm sukkô‖ appears, placing Yahweh‘s sukkāh in Jerusalem.176 Nägele, who has produced the strongest argument for the association of the sukkāt dāwîd with the temple, argued that the epilogue is authentic to the rest of the book of Amos, and dates to the late eighth century. She proposed that after the fall of Samaria and yet the survival of Jerusalem under Sennacherib‘s attack, Judahites became overconfident in the inviolability of the Jerusalem temple. Nägele argued that the prophets stepped in at this point in time to warn the Judahites against such confidence, predicting that the Temple would eventually be destroyed as well.177 Throughout biblical literature, the term sukkāh appears in relation to shrines, particularly in the context of the festival Sukkoth. The dedication of the temple of Solomon takes place on Sukkoth (I Kings 8:2, 65–66), and Haggai gave a prophecy of the rebuilding of the temple on the festival (Hag 2:1). The rebuilding of the altar is associated with Sukkoth in Ezra 3:4, and he ordered the public reading of the Torah during the festival (Neh 8:13–18).178 Also, the Second Temple was rededicated by the Maccabees on Sukkoth (II Macc 1:18, 10:6). The Sukkoth festival is also particularly relevant to the Amos epilogue, as it was a festival of harvest and fertility. 179 Deut 16:13 ordains that the festival is to be kept when the people gather in the produce from the threshing floor and the wine press. This autumnal harvest festival is associated with the first fruits of the crops (Ex 23:16), and particularly with wine.180 Amos 9:13–15 is loaded with imagery of bumper crops and wine flowing from everywhere. The festival itself was of paramount importance, as Kronholm wrote, ―Since time immemorial, the autumnal festival/Feast of Booths was the most significant festival in Israel, ‗the festival‘…or ‗the

176

Cf. also Ps 15:1, where Yahweh‘s sanctuary is described as a tent. NÄGELE 1995:237. See most recently D AVIES 2009, who also identifies the sukkāt dāwîd with the Jerusalem Temple. Davies pointed out that the various other shrines condemned in the book of Amos are condemned for their mere existence, and has suggested that the exclusion of Jerusalem from these condemnations demonstrates that the book of Amos in its final form speaks positively of the post-exilic Jerusalem temple in its rivalries with other shrines in Benjamin and elsewhere. Davies‘s post -exilic dating of this passage is similar to what will be proposed here below. 178 The celebration of Sukkoth is portrayed as emerging from the people‘s will, rather than Ezra‘s dictum; GRABBE 1998:54–55. 179 On the festival‘s fertility components, cf. RUBENSTEIN 1995:20–25. 180 KRONHOLM 1999:247–249. He cited Judges 9:26–29 as a Canaanite example, and 21:19–21 as a later Israelite expropriation. 177

The Last Additions to the Book of Amos

205

feast of Yahweh.‘‖181 While the festival‘s relation to the New Year is debated, it became associated with royal power, perhaps representing the ability of both the earthly and heavenly king to provide. In post-exilic literature, it sometimes took on an atonement aspect, 182 which would bring about Yahweh‘s forgiveness. This too fits with the tone of Amos 9:13–15, which speaks of the restoration of Israel‘s fortunes and of Yahweh‘s return. The images of ―on that day‖ (Amos 9:11), and ―the time is surely coming‖ (Amos 9:13), with the images of extraordinary harvest, especially of wine, would best fit the theme of the Sukkoth festival. 6.4.2. Amos and Zechariah With the shared imagery of the Sukkoth festival and the Amos epilogue, the second half of the book of Zechariah (Zech 9–14), or ―Deutero-Zechariah‖, presents itself as another text with strong similarities which can contribute much to an understanding of the conclusion of Amos. Zechariah 14 predicts that ―on that day‖ (Zech 14:6, 8, 9, 13, 20, 21), a massive plague will afflict the nations, the survivors of which will all gather at Jeru salem (forever secure) to celebrate Sukkoth. If they do not, rain will be withheld from them, and they will suffer drought and famine, as well as more plague.183 This passage fits well with Amos 9:11, where ―all the nations who are called by my name‖ will be possessed by Yahweh and his people, and perhaps by the sukkāt dāwîd. It is interesting also that Zech 14:5 is the only other biblical text to mention the earthquake of Amos 1:1.184 It is possible that the authors of Zech 14 and Amos 9:11–15 may have been roughly contemporary, or that one may have been influenced by the other, and both by the earlier book of Amos. The issue of intextuality and the relationship between texts with identical or similar phrasing is a complex one, especially for Deutero-Zechariah. Meyers and Meyers wrote that, ―It may not be an exaggeration to suggest that Zechariah 9–14 surpasses any other biblical work in the way it draws from existing tradition.‖185 There are various methodologies for understanding the copious intertextual connections that Deutero-Zechariah has with other biblical literature, as Petersen has demonstrated. He discussed observations of allusion, ex181

KRONHOLM 1999:247. KRONHOLM 1999:250–251. 183 HARRELSON 1968 viewed this passage as predicting a time of the removal of the sacred/profane line, allowing the inclusion of foreigners into Yahweh‘s covenant without themselves having to become Israelites. 184 MASON 2003:181–182 suggested that Uzziah became emblematic of unauthorized persons who usurp the Temple. 185 MEYERS AND MEYERS 1993:35. 182

206

Chapter Six

egesis, intertexuality, and tradition history, preferring the approach of ―literature in the second degree,‖ where one text uses others in a way that forms a sort of literary palimpsest. 186 Floyd suggested that parallels in rhetorical function can be more informative than verbal parallels. 187 One of the most distinctive proposals for intertextuality in Deutero-Zechariah was proposed by R. Person, who has argued that it draws particularly from the Deuteronomistic tradition, such that he suggested that it was the work of late Deuteronomistic scribes. 188 Noting that the MT DtrH contains dtr elements absent in the LXX, Person argued that dtr literary work continued through the time period of the production of the LXX, and thus into the Hellenistic period. This opened up the possibility of dtr roles in post-exilic literature, past the exilic time-frame when dtr editorial work has generally been seen as concluding. 189 Noting the presence of dtr themes and phraseology in Deutero-Zechariah, Person argued that this was added to First Zechariah by post-exilic Deuteronomist scribes. In his historical reconstruction, dtr scribes were sent with Zerubbabel under Persian auspices to Jerusalem to support the rebuilding of the temple and to preserve, transmit, and produce a Judean literature using earlier Judean texts, such as the book of Amos. 190 These scribes portrayed international wars and politics as the work of Yahweh, and maintained that Yahweh had sent Persia to support Judah and restore its exiled leadership, eventually leading to sovereignty. Disappointed by the weakness and lack of sovereignty of Second Temple Yehud, dtr scribes became disillusioned with the temple system and became increasingly eschatological in their outlook, placing hopes of Judean sovereignty out of human hands, and into divine agency. It is in this context that Person places the composition of Deutero-Zechariah. With the lessening of the dtr pro-Persian attitudes, and numerous military problems throughout the Persian Empire, Ezra and Nehemiah were sent in the mid-fifth century to restore pro-Persian control over the Jerusalem temple system. This group of returnees produced the books of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, partly as a counterpoint to dtr literature. The taking of power of this group over the temple led to the decline of the Deuteronomists, eventually leading to their disappearance. 186

PETERSON 2003:221–224. FLOYD 2003. 188 P ERSON 1993:13ff. The problem of ―Pan-Deuteronomism‖ has been discussed above in Chapter One. PERSON 2002:13–16 pointed out that this may not be as large of a problem as it may seem, since not all scholars proposing dtr additions to texts agree on all the proposed dtr additions, and Person himself also does not hold to all of them. Additionally, the use of slightly different wording in two different texts does not necessarily rule out their both being dtr, especially in an oral culture; cf. PERSON 1993:98. 189 PERSON 2002:34–50. 190 PERSON 1993:172–173. 187

The Last Additions to the Book of Amos

207

Meyers and Meyers regarded Person‘s proposal as informative, but pointed out that ―By the postexilic period, however, Deuteronomic literature was surely already merged with other authoritative texts; thus the using of correspondences to suggest a Deuteronomic redaction to Second Zechariah may be unwarranted.‖ 191 The numerous dtr correspondences found by Person had likely been part of the rich repertoire of literary themes and imagery available to post-exilic Jewish scribes in general. No argument for dependence is here claimed for the book of Amos and Deutero-Zechariah; instead, the similarities between the Amos epilogue and the last few chapters of Zechariah suggest that they both come out of the same religious/ideological milieu, enriched by a variety of sources, including older parts of the book of Amos itself. At almost every line of the Amos epilogue, commonalities with Deutero-Zechariah can be observed. The epilogue begins with ―on that day‖ (Amos 9:11), a stock Deutero-Zechariah phrase. This phrase appears seven times in Zech 12, three times in Zech 13, and again seven in Zech 14. This phrase is so common in Deutero-Zechariah that it ―can thus be understood as a characteristic of the diction of II Zech.‖ 192 As Meyers and Meyers put it, ―Nowhere else in Hebrew prophecy is there such an oft-repeated invocation of stereotyped terminology heralding God‘s final judgment of all the world.‖ 193 The theme of Sukkoth appears in a distinctive way in DeuteroZechariah. After a final battle when all the nations attack Jerusalem, Yahweh will defeat them with plagues. The survivors of these plagues will then go up annually to Jerusalem to worship Yahweh at the festival of Sukkoth. The penalty for not doing so will be a withholding of rain, which fits well with the fertility and harvest themes of the festival. The Sukkoth festival played an important role in Second Temple literature, particularly in association with the rebuilding of the temple. Nehemiah 8:17 states that Sukkoth was celebrated in a way unlike any since the days of Joshua son of Nun; this late tradition perhaps contributed to the ―as in the days of old‖ in Amos 9:11. Meyers and Meyers argued that since Sukkoth became associated with fundamental features of Israelite national identity, i.e. covenant and Torah, that the involvement of foreigners in the holiday meant that they will ―in some sense share in that identity.‖ 194 They pointed out further

191 MEYERS AND MEYERS 1993:39. Cf. also T IGCHELAAR 2003:261, ―it is not at all clear whether the authors or editors of Zech. 9–14 ‗used‘ (a version of) the book of Jeremiah.‖ 192 PERSON 1993:93. 193 MEYERS AND MEYERS 1993:316–317. 194 MEYERS AND MEYERS 1993:470. WEYDE 2004:210–236 argued that Sukkoth was probably not celebrated with such eschatological orientations in post -exilic Judaism. The Sukkoth of Zech 14 was an eschatological image for the ―acknowledgement of YHWH as

208

Chapter Six

that Deutero-Zechariah is unique in depicting the eschatological future with the foreign nations gathering in Jerusalem for a specific festival. 195 This distinct image in Deutero-Zechariah can further support the argument of there being a link between the Amos epilogue and Deutero-Zechariah. Person noted that the term ―feast of booths‖ is generally, but not exclusively, dtr, and suggested that the use of this term in Deutero-Zechariah supported his argument for dtr authorship.196 Petersen pointed out that the vision of all nations celebrating Sukkoth contrasts sharply with Nehemiah 8, where not only are Jews alone permitted to celebrate it, but only returning exiles.197 This difference between Deutero-Zechariah and Nehemiah can support Person‘s argument for those two works being the products of two competing schools of thought. The association of the sukkāh with David rather than Solomon has generally led scholars to dismiss the association of this structure with the temple. However, the Chronicler transferred much of the credit for the establishment of the temple bureaucracy from Solomon to David. 198 Yet even more informative for an understanding of the sukkāt dāwîd is the role of David in Second Temple Judaism. David assumes a theological role, such that visions of the return of the house of David are no longer political but eschatological; no longer hopes for a real Davidic king, but for a paradisiacal future.199 This is evident in Deutero-Zechariah, where (after the appearance of the ―tents of Judah‖ in Zech 12:7), the author envisions that ―the house of David shall be like God, like the angel of the Lord‖ (Zech 12:8). This is clearly more than just a human dynasty, but something beyond. Thus, the sukkāt dāwîd could refer to a future Temple under a superhuman ruler. It is interesting that a similar phrase occurs in II Sam 14:17, where David is compared to an ―angel of God.‖ The speaker of this high compliment is the wise woman of Tekoa, Amos‘s hometown. In line with the depiction of the foreign nations gathering for Sukkoth, Amos 9:12 states that the remnant of Edom and ―all the nations over whom my name is called‖ will be possessed, apparently by the Judeans. Various King and…an all-pervasive holiness…together with prophetic expectations of the day of YHWH‖ p. 236. 195 MEYERS AND MEYERS 1993:471. 196 PERSON 1993:89. 197 PETERSEN 1995:157. 198 Jarick 2005 discussed the re-orientation of the Temple to David, and it was portrayed as replacing the rival site of Bethel, esp. Jarick 2005:373–376. 199 MEYERS AND MEYERS 1993:331–332. B LENKINSOPP 1995:80 wrote how ―the priesthood had acquired some of the aura and trappings of the monarchy.‖ B OCCACCINI 2001:56–60 discussed how Zadokite priests essentially superseded the Davidic monarchy. B ERQUIST 1995:156 wrote that in Chronicles, ―The leadership of ancient politi cians, even the great David and Solomon, is reduced until all that is left is their contribu tions to the building of the temple.‖

The Last Additions to the Book of Amos

209

historical reconstructions for the singling out of Edom here have been proposed, ranging from the loss of Elath in the eighth century 200 to Edomite participation in the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem and subsequent occupation of southern Judah in the sixth.201 In view of the general postexilic eschatological nature of the Amos epilogue, it is best to read this reference in a Persian period context. C. Mathews has pointed out that the historical referents to biblical prophetic condemnations of Edom are uncertain and, to a certain extent, irrelevant. Whatever Edom did or did not do to Jerusalem in the sixth century, condemnation of Edom became a literary theme in biblical prophetic literature. As she wrote, ―Once expressed in prophetic literature this anti-Edomite sentiment seems to have taken on a life of its own such that some of the Edom passages arose purely under literary influence.‖202 Mathews noticed that prophecies of Israel‘s restoration follow directly upon prophecies of Edom‘s desolation in Isaiah 34– 35 and Ezekiel 35–36. However, she followed Paul in seeing Amos 9:12 as pre-exilic, and thus ruled it out as an example of the post-exilic theme of Edom‘s punishment leading to Israel‘s recovery. 203 Yet the depiction of the remnant of Edom being possessed followed immediately by a dramatic recovery of Israel‘s fortunes shows that the Amos epilogue too features the Edom/Israel theme that she identified in other post-exilic passages. As for the precise phraseology of Amos 9:12, the choice of the wording ―remnant of Edom‖ may have drawn from the ―remnant of the Philistines‖ of Amos 1:8, which in turn (along with 9:12), may have drawn from the ―remnant of Joseph‖ in 5:15. The theme of possessing a remnant does not appear in Deutero-Zechariah, although Zech 8:12 features a future of abundant agricultural produce and peace, in which Yahweh ―will cause the remnant of this people to possess all these things.‖ It is possible that this verse too played a role in the word choice of Amos 9:12. In Deutero-Zechariah, a particular nation is singled out in the scene of the foreign nations coming to celebrate Sukkoth: Egypt. 204 Yet this may simply be another literary arch-enemy, another Edom; in fact, both Egypt and Edom appear together, followed by the restoration of Judah, in Joel 3:19–20. Mathews noted that Ezekiel also has an oracle against Egypt in Ezek 29–32, a few chapters before the oracle against Edom. 205 So, both Deutero-Zechariah

200

MAYS 1969. W OLFF 1977. 202 MATHEWS 1995:117. 203 MATHEWS 1995:107–108. 204 P ETERSEN 1995:158 suggested that Egypt is singled out here because the inundat ing Nile River made rain unnecessary, such that a threat of withdrawal of rain would be ineffectual. 205 MATHEWS 1995:115–116. 201

210

Chapter Six

and Amos 9:12 may share the theme of an individual nation singled out as a foil or contrast to Judah/Israel. The next phrase, ―all the nations,‖ is similar to ―all the nations of the earth‖ in Zech 12:3, and ―all the surrounding nations‖ in Zech 14:14. Person identified these as dtr phrases, pointing out that the latter phrase appears only in I Kings 5:11, Jer 25:9, and Zech 14:14. 206 The phrase ―all the nations of the earth,‖ as Person noted, appears in DtrH and Jeremiah, and three times in Genesis, suggesting a non-exclusive usage by Dtr, but usage nonetheless.207 In Amos 9:12, ―all the nations‖ is followed by ―on whom my name is called.‖ The specific pairing of ―šēm‖ with ―qārāʾ‖ was identified by Person as dtr (without reference to Amos 9:12), as they appear in many cases throughout DtrH and Jeremiah, and this pairing appears in Zech 13:9.208 Amos 9:13b is word-for-word identical with Joel 3:18 (4:18 Heb), and the next two verses also bear resemblances to scenes of abundance in Joel, Zechariah, and Obadiah. It thus becomes apparent that the epilogue to the book of Amos was most likely composed as part of the overall process of creating the ―Book of the Twelve,‖ which was discussed in Chapter One above. Schart proposed that the Amos epilogue is comprised of a salvation redaction and a later eschatological redaction. The salvation redaction would have included Amos 9:11, 12b, 13aα, 14–15, along with portions of Haggai and Zechariah, while the eschatological level had Am 9:13aβb as well as parts of Joel and Obadiah. 209 As Schart and others who have worked on the Twelve have shown, these are contemporaneous strata of composition across different books, not necessarily dependent texts spanning centuries.

6.5. Conclusion The original book of Amos‘s strident anti-Northern tones, attacking Judah‘s wealthier northern neighbor, struck a chord in the exilic and early post-exilic periods. At this time Judah was crippled from Babylonian attacks, its capital city ruined, its temple destroyed. In this context, the emerging book was applied to the destruction of Judah in the context of the Babylonian invasions of the Levant. This renewing of the book of Amos was accomplished through the writing of the Oracles against the Nations

206

PERSON 1993:88. PERSON 1993:96. 208 PERSON 1993:92–93. 209 SCHART 1998:99–100. 207

The Last Additions to the Book of Amos

211

from 1:3–2:5. At this point also 3:1b was likely added, broadening the book‘s message to ―the whole family,‖ and not just to Northerners. At this time Bethel may have replaced Jerusalem as the primary Yahwistic shrine, but may have itself been replaced when the Jerusalem temple was rebuilt. In this context, a story of the prophet Amos condemning a priest of Bethel may have been written, in the style of other confrontations between prophet and priest in the Hebrew Bible. It has been argued here that the Amaziah narrative (Amos 7:10–17) probably dates to the sixth or early fifth century BCE. Later on, as Jewish authors turned more towards eschatological hopes, the book of Amos received a new epilogue (Amos 9:11–15), which shared in the fantastic hopes for a better future that were being simultaneously written into the books of Zechariah and Joel. With the addition of these sections, the book of Amos took on its present shape, and a book originally written in the dangerous days of the Assyrian invasions became an expression of unconditional promise for new readers.

Conclusions and Implications It has been argued here that the book of Amos began as a text produced in Judah for a mixed Judahite/refugee Israelite audience, for the purpose of explaining and justifying the fall of the Northern Kingdom and averting a similar fate from happening to Judah. This historical view differs from the traditional dating of the beginning of the book of Amos in the activity of a prophet by that name active in Israel around the 760s BCE. Chapter One established the contents of this first layer of the book of Amos. There the Oracles against the Nations from 1:3 to 2:5 were argued to be later than the earliest form of the book. Arguments for dividing this set into two smaller sets based on form were surveyed, but not found convincing. Various proposals for the historical referents of the crimes committed by the nations were examined, and it was argued that the accusations against the nations may not have had any historical basis. The oracle against Judah showed possible deuteronomistic elements, but more importantly, its accusation that Judah did not follow the ―torah,‖ an accusation never leveled at Israel throughout the book, suggests both that the Judah oracle was separate from the later material in the book, and that it had an exilic or post-exilic origin. In terms of form, the Judah oracle has much more in common with the preceding oracles than with the one against Israel starting in 2:6, suggesting that the preceding oracles probably had a common exilic/post-exilic origin with the Judah oracle. The removal of the oracles from 1:3–2:5 would connect the book‘s ―motto‖ at 1:2 with the oracle against Israel, serving to explain the ―it‖ that will not be turned back from Israel. Various disputed verses from 2:6 through the central chapters of the book were examined as well. The presence of dtr themes in the Exodus traditions of the book were seen as possible, and 3:1b was noted as being likely originally separate from its context, added after the fall of Judah to the Babylonians. Amos 3:7; 4:6–11; and the doxologies (4:13; 5:8–9; 9:5– 6) were discussed, and it was argued that 3:7 and the doxologies could have been dated later, while 4:6–11 was probably original. Nonetheless, the possibility that these verses are original to the earliest layer would not affect the overall thesis here. The chiasm at 5:1–17 proposed in earlier scholarship was agreed to, as it resolves some of the questions regarding disputed verses in that section. A similar chiasm was proposed here for the first time encompassing Amos 6:1–14, and it was argued that this chiasm

Conclusions and Implications

213

was structured partly in a parallel relationship with the chiasm at Amos 5:1–17. The chiasm of Amos 6 showed that the presence of the toponym ―Zion‖ in 6:1 was probably original, and two proposed explanations were offered. One was to read the phrase as ―those who despise Zion‖ in line with LXX, or to keep it as MT has it, and understand it as referring to Israelites finding refuge in Jerusalem. The vision reports were examined, and it was argued that they are stories of the prophet‘s attempt to save Israel, rather than as historical experiences of a real prophet Amos. The Amaziah narrative (7:10–17) interrupts the vision reports, and so it was regarded as a later addition. Finally, the conclusion or ―epilogue‖ of the book, 9:11–15, was also seen to be a later addition. It was argued that this section was added to the growing book of Amos as part of the compiling of the ―Book of the Twelve‖; however, divergent orders of these books in the versions suggest that the MT canonical order was probably not a guiding principle of the compilers of this set of books. So, all in all, it was argued that the following portions of the book of Amos were most likely later additions: 1:3–2:5; 3:1b; 7:10–17; 9:11–15. The following portions were also regarded as later additions, but with less certainty: 3:7; 4:13; 5:8–9; 9:5–6. There has been no attempt made here to absolutely rule out other portions of the text as later additions, but the verses that have been examined include all those that have a strong bearing on the overall arguments made about the book of Amos here. The verses not listed above are considered to be original to the earliest level of the book of Amos. The dating of this earliest level was the subject of Chapter Two. In Chapter Two, it was argued that the earliest level of the book of Amos was produced after the fall of the northern kingdom of Israel to the Assyrians in 722/1 BCE. There may not have been any historical prophet Amos, but only a text eventually cast in his name. So, there is no need to make redactional arguments on the basis of third-person portions (such as 1:1) versus first-person portions (such as the vision reports). Thus, the superscription could have been original to the rest of the earliest layer. The superscription‘s own dating of the prophet‘s activity to a time before the fall of the northern kingdom casts its critique of Israel in the form of a prediction of its downfall. The extra-biblical evidence for the existence and activities of the two kings listed in the superscription, Uzziah and Jeroboam II, were also examined in this chapter. It was found that while there are seals mentioning both of these names, the historical evidence for the existence of these two kings remains ambiguous but likely. References to an earthquake and an eclipse in the book of Amos were also explored, and it was argued that while there was an earthquake and an eclipse at the traditional period of the prophet Amos‘s activity, it is unverifiable if these

214

Conclusions and Implications

natural events are referred to in the book, or if they are literary themes without historical bases. Most informative for a post-722 dating of the earliest layer of the book of Amos are specific references to deities or events that are associated with the Assyrian invasions. Amos 5:26 makes references to sikkût and kiyyûn, and it was argued in Chapter Two that these terms refer to the Mesopotamian gods Sakkut and Kaiwan. It is further argued that these gods would more likely have entered Israelite religion during or after the Assyrian invasions, rather than before. The mention of these gods might have been a mocking reference to Assyrian surrender procedures for defeated foes, in this case Israel. Amos 8:14 may also contain a reference to Assyrian religion. The most compelling piece of evidence for the late dating of the book of Amos is 6:2, where Calneh, Hamath, and Gath are mentioned. These three cities were conquered by the Assyrians, the first two in the same year (738 BCE), and Gath in 734 and again in 711. It had already been argued in Chapter One that Amos 6 is a chiasm; as such, no verse can be removed from this chapter without disrupting its chiastic structure. Thus, 6:2 should not be separated from its context and attributed to a post738 (or post-711) editor; instead, the verse is integral to its chapter, and the whole should be attributed to a time after the Assyrian invasions. It was argued in Chapter Two that a dating after the Assyrian invasions best fits with the book as a whole, as the book repeatedly presents a total doom on the northern kingdom, with no hope for the future (with the exception of the added 9:11–15). Yet this is not just a case of prophetic or literary hyperbole; the references in 5:26 and 8:14 and more importantly 6:2 give specific indications of its post-invasion date. It was further argued that the date was not more than several decades after the fall of the northern kingdom, as its specific references in 6:2 as well as references to Israel‘s summer and winter palaces and possibly the ivory at Samaria suggest that some familiarity with the events and conditions in Israel‘s last days was assumed in the book‘s audience. Even if the descriptions of opulence in Israel were stereotypical themes, the absence of any reference to the fall of Judah (outside of the portions argued to be later additions), suggests that Judah had not yet fallen. The pre-exilic date of the earliest level of the book is supported by its focus on the northern kingdom rather than on Judah. If the book had been composed to argue that Judah was bound to fall like Israel had before it, such a message is absent from the book. It also lacks the theme of the United Monarchy, and of Israel‘s secession from it; this suggests a date before this idea gained some prominence, or at least that the book was independent of such a historical belief. In the last part of the chapter, other proposals for dating the earliest layer

Conclusions and Implications

215

of the book to a date during or after the Assyrian invasions were examined and compared with the proposals advanced here. In Chapter Three it was argued that the book of Amos was not a work of ―prophecy‖ as that phenomenon was known throughout the ancient Near East. Chapter Three presented definitions of prophecy, and the definition that was preferred was that it was a non-inductive type of divination; that is, the acquisition of divine information without the use of tools. Beyond this phenomenological definition, the issue was explored of how prophecy could be identified in texts. A typical indicator was the use of ―messenger formulae,‖ that is, explicit statements that a person is speaking as a mes senger of a divinity. Also, the use of prophetic titles and descriptions of ecstatic trances were also discussed as indicators of prophecy in texts. Messenger formulae and prophetic titles are used in the book of Amos, but there is no clear reference to ecstatic trances. But much more important is the content of prophetic statements. Ancient Near Eastern prophets (and even prophets as they are often depicted elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible itself), give short, oracular answers to specific questions, rather than the long, complex critiques of the nation‘s social and religious problems that so characterize biblical ―prophetic‖ literature. Examples of social criticism and proclamations to a large audience (such as a whole nation) are rare in ancient Near Eastern literature depicting prophets; examples of these were examined as well. Overall, the phenomenon of ancient Near Eastern prophecy is significantly different than the literary work that makes up the book of Amos, and in this regard, the ―Poets not Prophets‖ debate was discussed. This debate raised the possibility that biblical ―prophetic‖ literature should be considered poetry, but not prophecy. Chapter Four proposed that the category of texts that Ellis defined as ―literary-predictive texts‖ provides a much closer comparison with the book of Amos than ancient Near Eastern prophetic texts. The so-called ―Akkadian Prophecies‖ were studied in this chapter, as well as similar texts from outside Mesopotamia. These literary-predictive texts are postdictions or vaticinia ex eventu texts, that is, texts that purport to predict certain future events, but were written after the events had already taken place. These texts, as well as others depicting disastrous kings, served the purpose of legitimating and justifying the events that had taken place. Chapter Five explored the archaeological setting for the earliest stage of the book of Amos, in order to understand the events that the book describes, and why it would describe them. The Assyrian invasions in the late eighth century had momentous consequences for Judah politically, economically, and demographically. The government in Jerusalem centralized authority and fortified the city, Judah became more prosperous as a result of its trade being opened up to Assyrian markets, and Jerusalem‘s popula-

216

Conclusions and Implications

tion grew with huge influxes of refugees from both North and South. These refugees would have come partly from the Shephelah, but perhaps even more so from southern Israel. This wave of immigration transformed Jerusalem from a relatively small capital of a weak kingdom into the relatively large capital of a stronger polity on the border of the Assyrian empire. This rapid change would have generated a response from the government and/or leading groups of people in Jerusalem, particularly in regard to the large number of newcomers in the city. Thus a literary-predictive text was produced (the earliest level of the book of Amos), cast as a ―prophecy‖ predicting these recent events. The way this ―prophecy‖ worked was the topic of the rest of Chapter Five. It was argued there that the authors of the book of Amos drew on themes of divine abandonment often found in lamentation texts. A wide variety of texts featuring this theme were explored, including the Curse of Agade, Sumerian city-laments, and numerous other comparable ancient Near Eastern texts. It was found that these texts almost always had legitimation of new political situations as at least one of their purposes. That is, they express lamentation for the fall of a former polity, which serves to legitimize a god‘s decision to destroy it, which in turn legitimizes a new political arrangement. Also, it was found that some of these texts served apotropaic purposes, whereby the divine wrath was ―vented‖ by the readers or performers of these texts, in order to avert a similar divine attack from striking the new political or religious establishment. Biblical examples of these themes were examined, and while a genetic relationship of dependence between biblical and Mesopotamian lament texts is unlikely, they do seem to share a common genre. The book of Amos is replete with these lamentation themes, in particular the use of ―woe oracles.‖ It was argued that the book of Amos contains not only these themes, but also served comparable purposes: To legitimize Judah as the new sole nation of Yahweh, and to avert such divine wrath from afflicting it in the future. This text could well have been composed while the Assyrian Empire was still occupying Judah, as the book never places the blame for Israel‘s destruction on its attackers, but rather on its people themselves. Any disasteraversion techniques it would have used would also have been inoffensive to the Assyrians, as they expressed no antagonism toward foreign powers. Chapter Six brought the emerging book of Amos up to its final form. In the aftermath of the Babylonian invasions of the Levant, the text was supplemented with new material to apply it to the new situation. The destruction of Jerusalem (2:4–5) was placed even before the destruction of Israel (2:6ff, with the exception of 1:1–2). Judah was accused of not following Yahweh‘s torah, an accusation never leveled against Israel. While it is arguable that Israel was accused of violating codes of conduct that can be

Conclusions and Implications

217

found in the torah legislation, nonetheless Israel is never specifically accused of rejecting torah. The destruction of Jerusalem in 2:5 was part of a literary portrayal of an overall regional devastation throughout 1:3–2:5, which it was argued was another ex eventu ―prediction‖ of events that had already taken place. These events would make the best sense in the sixth century BCE, so it was proposed that 1:3–2:5 dates from the late sixth century. The history of Bethel was explored to better understand the Amaziah narrative (7:10–17), and it was found that Bethel may have served as the primary worship site in Yehud until after the building of the Second Temple (although this is currently being challenged). If Bethel was a primary worship site at that time, it makes it likely that a Jerusalem-Bethel rivalry played a role in the composition of this text. Various options for the ident ities of the characters in the narrative were examined, such as a possible reference to Gedaliah or a third Jeroboam. The identification of the ―Jeroboam‖ known from coins with a fourth century Samari(t)an priest named Menasheh is intriguing, but this was found to be based on too thin evidence for historical reliability. Identifying the characters with historical figures from post-exilic Yehud proved to be fruitless, but the possibility of a late date helped to explain the enigmatic denial of prophecy in 7:14. It was found that there was a critical attitude toward contemporary prophecy among some during the post-exilic period, most notably Deutero-Zechariah. Thus, it was argued that Amos‘s denial of being a prophet dates from around the same general time as the denial of prophecy in Zechariah 13:5, and that both texts reflect a suspicion toward people claiming to be prophets. It was further suggested that this antipathy toward prophets derived from ―actual‖ prophets trying to imitate the literature that had been imitating them, and making longer statements that went beyond their role as oracular specialists. There thus developed an interest in closing the ―canon‖ on prophecy, to restrict it to literary figures of the past. Even though Amos would have been a prophet from the past, he is nonetheless shown to be declining the title of ―prophet.‖ With the current doubts about Bethel‘s status in the sixth century, a more precise dating with the exilic or early post-exilic period is as yet impossible. Finally, the Amos epilogue (9:11–15) was examined, beginning with the enigmatic sukkāt dāwîd. Various proposals for the identification of this ―booth of David‖ were discussed, and it was concluded that it refers to the fallen Jerusalem Temple, not the Davidic empire or dynasty. Sukkoth, booths, were found to be associated with temple building and dedication throughout the Hebrew Bible, and it was also noted that the First Temple was associated with David sometimes more than with Solomon in the postexilic period. The depiction of a god‘s destroyed shrine as a fallen garden

218

Conclusions and Implications

hut is present also in other lamentation texts, such as the city-lament for Ur. Thus, the usage of lamentation themes continued in the later conclusion to the book of Amos, which may have also led to the composition of a positive ending. One of the Sukkoth/temple connections was found to be in Zechariah 14, and numerous other connections between the ends of the books of Amos and Zechariah were identified. They included such phrases as ―on that day,‖ the mention of the earthquake of Uzziah, as well as the theme of the nations submitting to Jerusalem. The Amos epilogue singles out Edom, which it was argued fits with the antipathy towards Edom in exilic and post-exilic biblical literature. It was shown that this antipathy may not have been towards any real ―Edom,‖ but that it had become a literary motif of a hated enemy. Other intertextual connections with the conclusion of Zechariah, as well as with other late biblical books such as Joel, suggested that the epilogue to the book of Amos was part of the process of the compilation and composition of the Book of the Twelve. At this point the book of Amos reached its final form, and became part of the Book of the Twelve. These proposals have two main implications beyond the study of the book of Amos itself; historical and literary. In view of the polemical nature of the book of Amos, it should not be relied upon as a source of accurate information for the historical reconstruction of social conditions in ancient Israel. The reverse is possible though, in that knowledge about such social conditions can illuminate some of the references in the book.1 But even here caution is necessary, as it has been shown that the book uses stock themes typical of laments from various places and periods in the ancient Near East. So, some of its criticisms may be more generic than historical, although the book‘s occasional specific references, such as 6:2, can connect the book with history. In addition to standard themes, the book‘s intensely polemical tone suggests that its descriptions of Israelite life are at times more rhetorical than historical. Clines warned against modern readers buying too much into the book‘s description of Israelite social conditions, pointing out that the book is giving polemical messages rather than objective reportage.2 It has also been argued here that the book began in post-722 Judah, so the author or authors of even its earliest phase were most likely not living in the kingdom of Israel. The book‘s information on Israel is from the perspective of outsiders in terms of both space and time. With this factor, as well as the book‘s stock themes and rhetoric, it is more useful for understanding some Judahites‘ views of Israel rather than for the history of Israel itself. 1

Cf. especially J ARUZELSKA 1998. C LINES 1993. In addition to Clines‘s hermeneutic of suspicion, cf. also the warnings about bias in prophetic critiques in Moore 2006:29. 2

Conclusions and Implications

219

This study also has implications for the composition of biblical prophetic literature in general. Just as the book of Amos is fundamentally different from ―real‖ prophetic activity as it is known in the ancient Near East, the same could be said of much of the rest of biblical ―prophetic‖ literature. Thus, the implication of this study is that much of biblical prophetic literature in general might not always go back to actual ―prophets‖ at all. While it is argued here that the traditions attributed to Amos were first written after the fall of the northern kingdom, this is not to deny the possibility that earlier traditions were used, possibly even stemming from a historical prophet named Amos. It can also be argued that the rhetoric of the book would have had a greater impact on its hearers if it drew from actual known prophetic oracles, possibly even stemming from pre-722 Israelite traditions. However, any ―real‖ prophetic oracles from earlier in Israelite history that might have been preserved in the emerging book of Amos are now impossible to reliably isolate from the rest of the book. P. Davies and Nissinen had argued that biblical prophetic literature is largely the product of scribal composition based on archived prophecies. 3 Nissinen rejected the idea that biblical prophetic literature has no connection to ancient Hebrew prophecy, saying that ―It is difficult to believe that the production of the prophetic books could ever have begun without written sources, the editing of which triggered off the literary enterprise and resulted in the prophetic books.‖ 4 He compared this process to the reuse of prophecy reports in the Neo-Assyrian material discussed above, citing Jeremiah 36 and the Deir ‗Alla text as examples of prophecies writ ten down.5 Being based on actual archived prophecies, Nissinen argued that biblical prophetic literature was written from the start, and was not orally transmitted by hypothetical prophetic disciples. This was, in his view, a unique process, without close parallel in the ancient Near East. As he wrote, To the best of our present knowledge, this development is one of a kind. Nowhere else has the prophetic process of communication been prolonged by means of scribal activity over such a long period and with such authority that the ―original‖ communication situa tions, that is, the oral performances in the initial stages of this process, fade into the background.6

Yet it is argued here that biblical prophetic literature is not such a unique process, because it might not go back to actual prophets. Much of 3 DAVIES 2000a, NISSINEN 2005. See also VAN SETERS 2006:391–401 for the argument that biblical literature should be thought of as the products of authors composing new texts using older material, rather than of ―editors‖ of that material. 4 NISSINEN 2005:162. 5 NISSINEN 2005:162–166. 6 NISSINEN 2005:161.

220

Conclusions and Implications

biblical prophetic literature is comparable to the ―literary-predictive‖ texts known from the ancient Near East; the Deir ‗Alla text may likewise be such a text. Jeremiah 36 may be a fictional story of a ―prophet‖ in action, like Amos 7:10–17, or a historical account of a political literary-predictive text being suppressed. It is however agreed here with Nissinen that much biblical prophetic literature was probably written from the start, and also that the readership was very limited. 7 As Carr argued, with literacy rates in ancient Judah so low, biblical literature would have been readable by a small portion of the population, who then would have learned it ―in the heart‖ and passed it on to others by word of mouth. 8 Likewise, the book of Amos should not be thought of as a pamphlet with mass distribution in ancient Judah; instead, it was a text that provided a guide for spoken and performative dissemination to elites and possibly through them to at least some of the wider population. The predictive elements in the text, as well as possibly re-used older prophecies, signaled that it should be read (and heard) as ―prophecy‖ in order to give it divine authorization. But in reality it was a piece of political literature framed as prophecy, a literary-predictive text that said much more than ―real‖ prophets are known to have said. It is possible that the book of Amos, as well as other ―prophetic‖ texts written in the shadow of Assyrian domination of the region, were the beginnings of the process of the creation of such a literature in ancient Judah. The composition of this type of literature continued for centuries in ancient Judah, well past the traditional closing of the biblical canon. This literature became identified with actual prophets to such an extent that it overshadowed the reality of ancient prophecy. Only now with unprecedented access in the last century to records of ―actual‖ prophecies can ―real‖ ancient Near Eastern prophecy be revealed, and only now can the actual nature of biblical ―prophetic‖ literature be understood for what it is.

7 8

NISSINEN 2005158. CARR 2005:288

Appendix Amos 6 Chiasm Chart A: Two toponyms, ―nations,‖ House of Israel (6:1) B: Conquered toponyms, rhetorical questions of strength (6:2–3) C: Consumption of good drink and animals (6:4–6) D: Destruction of strongholds and city (6:7–8) E: Yahweh‘s name cannot be invoked (6:9–10)) D‘: Destruction of houses (6:11) C‘: Creation of bad drink, absurd use of animals (6:12) B‘: Conquered toponyms, rhetorical question of strength (6:13) A‘: Two toponyms, ―nation,‖ House of Israel (6:14)

Bibliography ACHENBACH 2004: REINHARD ACHENBACH, ―Zum Sitz im Leben mesopotamischer und altisraelitischer Klagegebete, Teil I: Zum rituellen Umgang mit Unheilsdrohungen in Mesopotamien‖, ZAW 116:364–178. ACKROYD 1987: PETER R. ACKROYD: ―A Judgement Narrative between Kings and Chronicles? An Approach to Amos 7:9–17‖, in Peter R. Ackroyd, Studies in the Religious Tradition of the Old Testament, London: SCM (originally published in 1977 in G.W. Coats and B.O. Long, eds., Canon and Authority: Essays in Old Testament Religion and Theology, Philadelphia: Fortress, 71–87), 195–208. AHLSTRÖM 1993: GÖSTA W. AHLSTRÖM , The History of Ancient Palestine (2 nd ed.), Minneapolis: Fortress. AHLSTRÖM 1994: GÖSTA W. AHLSTRÖM , ―The Seal of Shema`‖, SJOT 7.2:208–215. ALBERTZ 2002: RAINER ALBERTZ, ―Exile as Purification: Reconstructing the Book of the Four (Hosea, Amos, Micah, Zephaniah)‖, Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 41:213–233. ALBREKTSON 1963: BERTIL ALBREKTSON, Studies in the Text and Theology of the Book of Lamentations with a Critical Edition of the Peshitta Text, Lund: CWK Gleerup. ALBREKTSON 1967: BERTIL ALBREKTSON, History and the Gods: An Essay on the Idea of Historical Events as Divine Manifestations in the Ancient Near East and in Israel, Lund: CWK Gleerup. ALBRIGHT 1960: W ILLIAM FOXWELL ALBRIGHT, discussion in ―The Development of Culture in the National States‖ in Carl H. Kraeling and Robert M. Adams (eds.), City Invincible: A Symposium on Urbanization and Cultural Development in the Ancient Near East, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 61–164. ALLEN 2008: SPENCER L. ALLEN, ―Understanding Amos vi 12 in Light of his other Rhetorical Questions‖, VT 58:437–448. ANDERSEN AND FREEDMAN 1989: FRANCIS I. ANDERSEN AND DAVID NOEL FREEDMAN, Amos: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, New York: Doubleday (Anchor Bible 24A). ASEN 1993: BERNHARD A. ASEN, ―No, Yes and Perhaps in Amos and the Yahwist‖, VT 43/4:432–441. AUBET 2001: MARIA EUGENIA AUBET, The Phoenicians and the West: Politics, Colonies and Trade (2 nd ed.), Mary Turton (trans.), Cambridge: University of Cambridge. AULD 1983 A: A. GRAEME AULD, ―Prophets through the Looking Glass: Between Writings and Moses‖, JSOT 27:3–23. AULD 1983 B: A. GRAEME AULD, ―Prophets through the Looking Glass: A Response to Robert Carroll and Hugh Williamson.‖ JSOT 27:41–44. AULD 1984: A. GRAEME AULD, ―Prophets and Prophecy in Jeremiah and Kings‖, ZAW 96:66–82. AULD 1986: A. GRAEME AULD, Amos, Sheffield: JSOT. AULD 1988: A. GRAEME AULD, ―Word of God and Word of Man: Prophets and Canon‖, in Lyle Eslinger and Glen Taylor (eds.), Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical & Other Studies in Memory of Peter C. Craigie. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 237–251.

224

Bibliography

AULD 1990: A. GRAEME AULD, ―Prophecy in Books: A Rejoinder‖, JSOT 48:31–32. AULD 1991: A. GRAEME AULD, ―Amos and Apocalyptic: Vision, Prophecy, Revelation‖, in D. Garrone and F. Israel (eds.), Storia e Tradizione de Israele (Festschrift J.A. Soggin). Brescia: Paideia, 1–13. AVIGAD 1997: NAHMAN AVIGAD, Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals (Revised Ed.), Jerusalem: Hebrew University. B ARRÉ 1985: MICHAEL B ARRÉ, ―Amos 1:11 Reconsidered‖, CBQ 47/3:420–27. B ARSTAD 1984: HANS M. B ARSTAD, The Religious Polemics of Amos: Studies in the Preaching of Am 2, 7B–8; 4,1–13; 5,1–27; 6, 4–7; 8,14, Leiden: E.J. Brill (VT Sup 34). B ARSTAD 1993: HANS M. B ARSTAD, ―No Prophets? Recent Developments in Biblical Prophetic Research and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy‖, JSOT 57:39–60. B ARSTAD 2000: HANS M. B ARSTAD, ―Comparare necesse est? Ancient Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy in a Comparative Perspective‖, in Martti Nissinen (ed.), Prophecy in its Ancient Near Eastern Context: Mesopotamian, Biblical, and Arabian Perspectives, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 3–11. B ARSTAD 2003: HANS M. B ARSTAD, ―The Prophet Oded and the Zakkur Inscription: A Case of Obscuriore Obscurum?‖ in J. Cheryl Exum and H.G.M. Williamson (eds.), Reading from Right to Left: Essays on the Hebrew Bible in Honour of David J.A. Clines, Sheffield: JSOTSup 373, 25–37. B ARTLETT 1977: J.R. B ARTLETT, ―The Brotherhood of Edom‖, JSOT 2:2–27. B ARTON 1980: J OHN B ARTON, Amos‟s Oracles against the Nations: A Study of Amos 1.3–2.5, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (SOTSMS 6). B EAULIEU 1993: P AUL–ALAIN B EAULIEU, ―The Historical Background of the Uruk Prophecy‖, in Mark E. Cohen, Daniel C. Snell, and David B. Weisberg (eds.), The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo, Bethesda: CDL Press, 41–52. B ECKER 2001: UWE BECKER , ―Der Prophet als Fürbitter: zum Literarhistorischen Ort der Amos-Visionen‖, VT 51/2:141–165. B ECKMAN 1996: GARY BECKMAN, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, Atlanta: Scholars Press (SBL Writings from the Ancient World Series 7). B ECKMAN 2006: GARY BECKMAN, ―Hittite Treaties and the Development of the Cuneiform Treaty Tradition‖ in Markus Witte, Konrad Schmid, Doris Prechel and Jan Christian Gertz (eds.), Die Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke: Redaktionsund religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur “Deuteronomismus” – Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten, Berlin: de Gruyter. B EEK 1948: M.A. BEEK, ―The Religious Background of Amos II 6–8‖, OTS 5:132–141. B EENTJES 2000: P ANCRATIUS C. B EENTJES, ―‗They Saw that his Forehead was Leprous‘ (2 Chr 26:20): The Chronicler‘s Narrative on Uzziah‘s Leprosy‖, in M.J. H.M. Poorthuis and J. Schwartz (eds.), Purity and Holiness: The Heritage of Leviticus. Leiden: Brill, 61–72. B ENTZEN 1950: A. B ENTZEN, ―The Ritual Background of Amos i 2–ii 16‖, OTS 8:85–99. B EN ZVI 2003: EHUD BEN ZVI, ―The Prophetic Book: A Key Form of Prophetic Literature‖, in Marvin A. Sweeney and Ehud Ben Zvi (eds.), The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First Century, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 276–297. B EN ZVI 2005: EHUD B EN ZVI, Hosea, (FOTL 21A/1) Grand Rapids, Eerdmans. B EN ZVI 2006: EHUD B EN ZVI, ―De-Historicizing and Historicizing Tendencies in the Twelve Prophetic Books: A Case Study of the Heuristic Value of a Historically Anchored Systemic Approach to the Corpus of Prophetic Literature‖ in Brad E. Kelle and Megan Bishop Moore (eds.), Israel‟s Prophets and Israel‟s Past: Essays on the

Bibliography

225

Relationship of Prophetic Texts and Israelite History in Honor of John H. Hayes, New York: T&T Clark (LHB/OTS 446). B ERGLER 2000: SIEGFRIED B ERGLER , ―‗Auf der Mauer – Auf dem Altar‘ Noch Einmal die Visionen des Amos‖, VT 50/4:445–471. B ERLIN 2002: ADELE B ERLIN, Lamentations: A Commentary, Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox Press. B ERQUIST 1995: J ON L. B ERQUIST, Judaism in Persiaʾs Shadow: A Social and Historical Approach, Minneapolis: Fortress. B ETLYON 2003: J OHN W. BETLYON, ―Neo–Babylonian Military Operations Other Than War in Judah and Jerusalem‖, in Oded Lipschits and Joseph Blenkinsopp (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 263– 283. B EWER 1903: J ULIUS A. B EWER, ―Critical Notes on Amos 2:7 and 8:4‖, American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 19.2:116–117. B EYER AND LIVINGSTONE 1987: KLAUS B EYER AND ALASDAIR LIVINGSTONE , ―Die neuesten aramäischen Inschriften aus Taima―, ZDMG 137.2:285–296. B IBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST 1938: Author unknown, ―A Gravestone of Uzziah, King of Judah‖, BA 1.2:8–9. B IENKOWSKI 2000: P IOTR B IENKOWSKI, ―New Evidence on Edom in the Neo-Babylonian and Persian Periods‖, in J. Andrew Dearman and M. Patrick Graham (eds.), The Land that I Will Show You: Essays on the History and Archaeology of the Ancient Near East in Honour of J. Maxwell Miller, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 198–213 (JSOTSup 343). B IENKOWSKI 2002: P IOTR B IENKOWSKI, Busayra: Excavations by Crystal-M. Bennett 1971–1980, Oxford: Oxford University. B IGGS 1967: ROBERT D. BIGGS, ―More Babylonian ‗Prophecies‘‖, Iraq 29/2:117–132. B IGGS 1987: ROBERT D. B IGGS, ―Babylonian Prophecies, Astrology, and a New Source for ―Prophecy Text B‖, in Francesca Rochberg–Halton (ed.), Language, Literature, and History: Philological and Historical Studies presented to Erica Reiner, New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1–14. B IGGS 1992: ROBERT D. BIGGS, ―The Babylonian Prophecies‖, Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 23:17–20. B LENKINSOPP 1995: J OSEPH B LENKINSOPP, Sage, Priest, Prophet: Religious and Intellectual Leadership in Ancient Israel, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. B LENKINSOPP 1996: J OSEPH B LENKINSOPP, A History of Prophecy in Israel, Revised and Enlarged, Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox Press. B LENKINSOPP 2003: J OSEPH B LENKINSOPP, ―Bethel in the Neo–Babylonian Period‖, in Oded Lipschits and Joseph Blenkinsopp (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the NeoBabylonian Period, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 93–107. B LOCK 2000: DANIEL I. B LOCK, ―Divine Abandonment: Ezekiel‘s Adaptation of an Ancient Near Eastern Motif‖, in Margaret S. Odell and John T. Strong (eds.), The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 15–42. B LUM 1994: ERHARD B LUM, ―‗Amos‘ in Jerusalem: Beobachtungen zu Am 6,1–7‖, Henoch 16:23–47. B OASE 2006: ELIZABETH B OASE, The Fulfillment of Doom? The Dialogic Interaction between the Book of Lamentations and the Pre-exilic/Early Exilic Prophetic Literature, New York: T&T Clark International (LHB/OTS 437). B OCCACCINI 2001: GABRIELE B OCCACCINI, Roots of Rabbinic Judaism: An Intellectual History, from Ezekiel to Daniel, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

226

Bibliography

B ODI 1991: DANIEL B ODI, The Book of Ezekiel and the Poem of Erra (OBO 104), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. B OKOVOY 2008: DAVID E. B OKOVOY, ―‫שמעו והעידו בבית יע קב‬: Invoking the Council as Witnesses in Amos 3:13‖, JBL 127/1:37–51. B ONDI 2001: SANDRO FILIPPO B ONDI, ―The Course of History‖, in Sabatino Moscato (ed.), The Phoenicians, London: I.B. Tauris, 30–46 B ORDREUIL AND P ARDEE 1993: P IERRE B ORDREUIL AND DENNIS P ARDEE, ―Le combat de Baʾlu avec Yammu d‘après les texts ougaritiques‖, MARI 7:63– 70. B ORDREUIL, ISRAEL, AND P ARDEE 1997: P IERRE B ORDREUIL, FELICE ISRAEL, AND DENNIS P ARDEE, ―King‘s Command and Widow‘s Plea: Two New Hebrew Ostraca of the Biblical Period‖, NEA 61.1:2–13 B ORGER 1971: RYKLE B ORGER , ―Gott Marduk und Gott–König Šulgi als Propheten‖, BiOr 28/1/2:3–24. B ORGER 1988: RYKLE B ORGER, ―Amos 5,26, Apostelgeschichte 7,43 und Šurpu II, 180‖, ZAW 100/1:70–81. B OTTERWECK 1958: G. J OHANNES B OTTERWECK, ―Zur Authentizität des Buches Amos‖, BZ (Neue Folge) 2:176–189. BRETTLER 2006: MARC ZVI BRETTLER , ―Redaction, History, and Redaction–History of Amos in Recent Scholarship‖, in Brad E. Kelle and Megan Bishop Moore (eds.), Israelʾs Prophets and Israelʾs Past: Essays on the Relationship of Prophetic Texts and Israelite History in Honor of John H. Hayes (LHebrew Bible/OTS 446), New York: T&T Clark, 103–112. BRIANT 2002: P IERRE BRIANT, From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire, Peter T. Daniels (trans.), Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. BRIGHT 2000: J OHN BRIGHT , A History of Israel (4 th Ed), Louisville: Westminster/John Knox. BRINKMAN 1983: J.A. BRINKMAN, ―Through a Glass Darkly: Esarhaddon‘s Retrospects on the Downfall of Babylon‖, JAOS 103/1:35–42. BRONZNICK 1985: NORMAN BRONZNICK, ―Nore on hlk ʾl‖, VT 35/1:98–99. BROSHI 1974: MAGEN B ROSHI, ―The Expansion of Jerusalem in the Reigns of Hezekiah and Manasseh‖, IEJ 24/1:21–26. BROSHI 1992: MAGEN BROSHI, The Damascus Document Reconsidered, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. BROSHI AND F INKELSTEIN 1992: MAGEN BROSHI AND ISRAEL F INKELSTEIN, ―The Population of Palestine in Iron Age II‖, BASOR 287:47–60. BRUEGGEMANN 1965: W ALTER B RUEGGEMANN, ―Amos IV 4–13 and Israel‘s Covenant Worship‖, VT 15/1:1–15. B UDDE 1925: KARL B UDDE, ―Zu Text und Auslegung des Buches Amos (Schluß)‖, JBL 44:1/2:63–122. B UHL 1992: MARIE-LOUISE B UHL, ―Hamath‖, ABD III:33–36. B ULKELEY 2009: T IM B ULKELY, ―Amos 7,1–8,3: cohesion and generic dissonance‖, ZAW 121:515–528. B URROWS 1926-1927: E. B URROWS, ―Cuneiform and the Old Testament: Three Notes (I. Sakkût in Amos)‖, JTS 28:184–185. CAGNI 1977: LUIGI C AGNI, The Poem of Erra, Malibu: Undena. CAHILL 2003: J ANE M. CAHILL, ―Jerusalem at the Time of the United Monarchy: The Archaeological Evidence‖, in Andrew G. Vaughn and Ann E. Killebrew (eds.), Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 13–80.

Bibliography

227

CAMPBELL 1994: EDWARD F. CAMPBELL, ―Archaeological Reflections on Amos‘s Targets‖, in Michael D. Coogan, J. Cheryl Exum, and Lawrence E. Stager (eds.), Scripture and Other Artifacts: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King, Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 32–52. CANCIK-K IRSCHBAUM 2003: EVA CANCIK-K IRSCHBAUM , ―Prophetismus und Divination – Ein Blick auf die keilschriftlichen Quellen‖, in Matthias Köckert and Martti Nissinen (eds.), Propheten in Mari, Assyrien und Israel, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 33–53. CARR 2003: DAVID M. C ARR , ―Moving Beyond Unit: Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives on Prophetic Literature‖, in Irmtraud Fischer, Konrad Schmid, Hugh G.M. Williamson (eds.), Prophetie in Israel: Beiträge des Symposiums “Das Alte Testament und die Kultur der Moderne” anlässlich des 100. Geburtstags Gerhard von Rads (1901–1971) Heidelberg, 18.–21. Oktober 2001, Münster: LIT, 59–93. CARR 2005: DAVID M. CARR , Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature, Oxford: Oxford University Press. CARROLL 1983: ROBERT P. CARROLL, ―Poets not Prophets: A Response to ‗Prophets through the Looking Glass‘‖, JSOT 27:25–31. CARROLL 1990: ROBERT P. CARROLL, ―Whose Prophet? Whose History? Whose Social Reality? Troubling the Interpretative Community Again. Notes Towards a Response to T.W. Overholt‘s Critique‖, JSOT 48:33–49. CARROLL R. 2002: M. DANIEL C ARROLL R., Amos: The Prophet and His Oracles, Louisville: Westminster John Knox. CARROLL R. 2003: M. DANIEL C ARROLL R., ―Review of Möller, Karl, A Prophet in Debate‖, Biblical Interpretation 12.4:433–435. CARTER 1999: CHARLES E. CARTER , The Emergence of Yehud in the Persian Period: A Social and Demographic Study, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press (JSOTSup 294). CAZELLES 1977: HENRI CAZELLES, ―L‘arriere–plan historique d‘Amos 1,9–10‖, Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1:71–76. CHARPIN 1998: DOMINIQUE CHARPIN, ―L‘évocation du passé dans les letters de Mari‖, in Jiři Prosecký (ed.), Intellectual Life of the Ancient Near East, Prague: Oriental Institute, 91–110. CHARPIN 2001: DOMINIQUE CHARPIN, ―Prophètes et rois dans le Proche Orient amorrite‖, in André Lemaire (ed.), Prophètes et rois: Bible et Proche–Orient, Paris: Cerf, 21–53. C LEMENTS 1982: RONALD E. CLEMENTS, ―The Form and Character of Prophetic Woe Oracles‖, Semitics 8:17–29. C LEMENTS 1991: RONALD E. C LEMENTS ―Amos and the Politics of Israel‖, in D. Garrone and F. Israel (eds.), Storia e tradizioni di Israeli (Festschrift J.A. Soggin), Brescia: Paideia, 49–64. C LIFFORD 1966: RICHARD J. CLIFFORD, ―The Use of Hôy in the Prophets‖, CBQ 28/4:458–464. C LIFFORD 1998: RICHARD J. CLIFFORD, ―The Roots of Apocalypticism in Near Eastern Myth‖, in John J. Collins (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism Vol. 1: The Origins of Apocalypticism in Judaism and Christianity, New York: Continuum, 3–38. C LINES 1993: DAVID J.A. C LINES, ―Metacommentating Amos‖, in H.A. McKay and D.J.A. Clines (eds.), Of Prophets‟ Visions and the Wisdom of Sages (Festschrift R.N. Whybray, JSOTSup 162), Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 142–160. COGAN 1974: MORDECHAI C OGAN, Imperialism and Religion: Assyria, Judah and Israel in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries B.C.E., Missoula: Society of Biblical Literature and Scholars Press.

228

Bibliography

COGAN 1983: MORDECHAI COGAN, ―‗Ripping Open Pregnant Women‘ in Light of an Assyrian Analogue‖, JSOT 103.4:755–757. COGAN 1997: MORDECHAI COGAN, ―Cyrus Cylinder (2.124)‖, COS 2:314–316. COGAN 1999: MORDECHAI COGAN, ―Ashima‖, DDD 2 nd ed., 105–106. COGGINS 2000: RICHARD COGGINS, Joel and Amos, The New Century Bible Commentary, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. COHEN M 1988: MARK E. COHEN, The Canonical Lamentations of Ancient Mesopotamia (Vol 1), Potomac: Capital Decisions Ltd. COHEN S 1965: SIMON COHEN, ―The Political Background of the Words of Amos‖, HUCA 36:153–160. CONRAD 1997: EDGAR W. CONRAD, ―The End of Prophecy and the Appearance of Angels/Messengers in the Book of the Twelve‖, JSOT 73:65–79. COOPER 1970: J ERROLD S. C OOPER, ―A Sumerian ŠU–ÍL–LA from Nimrud with a Prayer for Sin-Šar-Iškun‖, Iraq 32:51–67. COOPER 1983: JERROLD S. COOPER , The Curse of Agade, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University. COOTE 1981: ROBERT B. COOTE, Amos among the Prophets: Composition and Theology, Philadelphia: Fortress. COUEY 2008: J. B LAKE COUEY, ―Amos vii 10–17 and Royal Attitudes Toward Prophecy in the Ancient Near East‖, VT 58:300–314. CRENSHAW 1970: J AMES L. CRENSHAW, ―A Liturgy of Wasted Opportunity (Am. 4,6–12; Isa. 9,7–10,4; 5,25–29)‖, Semitics 1:27–37. CRENSHAW 1997: J AMES L. CRENSHAW, Education in Ancient Israel: Across the Deafening Silence, New York: Bantam Doubleday. CRIPPS 1955: R ICHARD S. CRIPPS, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Amos (Revised Ed.), London: SPCK. CROSS 1973: FRANK MOORE CROSS, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel, Cambridge: Harvard University. CROSS 1998: FRANK MOORE CROSS, From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins. CROWELL 2002: BRADLEY L. CROWELL, ―The Development of Dagan: A Sketch,‖ JANER 1:32–38. CROWFOOT AND CROWFOOT 1938: J OHN W. CROWFOOT AND GRACE M. CROWFOOT, Early Ivories from Samaria, London: Palestine Exploration Fund. DAICHES 1915: SAMUEL DAICHES, ―Amos vi.2‖, Expository Times 26/12:562–563. DALLEY 1985: STEPHANIE DALLEY, ―Foreign Chariotry and Cavalry in the Armies of Tiglath-Pileser III and Sargon II‖, Iraq 47:31–48. DALLEY 1990: STEPHANIE DALLEY, ―Yahweh in Hamath in the 8 th Century B.C.: Cuneiform Material and Historical Deductions‖, VT 60.1:21–32. DALLEY 2003: STEPHANIE DALLEY, ―Recent Evidence from Assyrian Sources for Judaean History from Uzziah to Manasseh‖, JSOT 28/4:387–401. DAVIES G. 1980-1981: G. HENTON DAVIES, ―Amos – The Prophet of Re-union‖, Expository Times 92:196–200. DAVIES P. 1994: PHILIP R. DAVIES, ―Bytdwd and Swkt Dwyd: A Comparison‖, JSOT 64:23–24. DAVIES P. 1996 A: PHILIP R. DAVIES (ed.), The Prophets: A Sheffield Reader, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. DAVIES P. 1996 B: P HILIP R. DAVIES, ―The Audiences of Prophetic Scrolls: Some Suggestions‖, in Stephen Breck Reid (ed.), Prophets and Paradigms: Essays in Honor of Gene M. Tucker, Sheffield: JSOT Press, 48–62 (JSOTSup 229).

Bibliography

229

DAVIES P. 1997: P HILIP R. D AVIES, Scribes and Schools: The Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. DAVIES P. 2000 A: P HILIP R. DAVIES, ―‘Pen of iron, point of diamond‖ (Jer 17:1): Prophecy as Writing‖, in Ehud Ben Zvi and Michael H. Floyd (eds.), Writings and Speech in Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 65–81. DAVIES P. 2000 B: P HILIP R. DAVIES, ―The Judaism(s) of the Damascus Document‖, in Joseph M. Baumgarten, Esther G. Chazon, and Avital Pinnick (eds.), The Damascus Document: A Centennial of Discovery, Leiden: Brill, 27–43. DAVIES P. 2006: P HILIP R. DAVIES, ―Amos, Man and Book‖, in Brad E. Kelle and Megan Bishop Moore (eds.), Israelʾs Prophets and Israelʾs Past: Essays on the Relationship of Prophetic Texts and Israelite History in Honor of John H. Hayes, New York: T&T Clark (LHB/OTS 446), 113–131. DAVIES P. 2009: P HILIP R. DAVIES, ―Why Do We Know About Amos?‖ in Diana V. Edelman and Ehud Ben Zvi (eds.), The Production of Prophecy: Constructing Prophecy and Prophets in Yehud, London: Equinox, 55–72. DEIST 1989: FERDINAND E. DEIST, ―The Prophets: Are We Heading for a Paradigm Switch?‖ in V. Fritz, K.-F. Pohlmann, and H.-C. Schmitt (eds.), Prophet und Prophetenbuch: Festschrift für Otto Kaiser zum 65. Geburtstag (BZAW 185), Berlin: De Gruyter, 1–18. DEJ ONG 2007: MATTHIJS J. DE J ONG, Isaiah among the Ancient Near Eastern Prophets: A Comparative Study of the Earliest Stages of the Isaiah Tradition and the Neo Assyrian Prophecies, Leiden: Brill (VTSup 117). DEMSKY 1985: AARON DEMSKY, Response to MILLARD 1985, in Biblical Archaeology Today: Proceedings of the International Congress on Biblical Archaeology: Jerusalem, April 1984, Israel Exploration Society, 349–353. DEVER 1992: W ILLIAM G. DEVER, ―A Case-Study in Biblical Archaeology: The Earthquake of ca. 760 BCE‖, Eretz Israel 23:27–35. DEVER 1997: W ILLIAM G. DEVER, ―Bethel‖, in Eric M. Meyers (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East (Vol. 1), New York: Oxford University Press, 300–301. DEVRIES 1992: LAMOINE F. DEVRIES, ―Carmel‖, ABD 1:873. DE W AARD 1977: J AN DEW AARD, ―The Chiastic Structure of Amos 5:1–17‖, VT 27/2:170–177. D IJKSTRA 1995: MEINDERT DIJKSTRA, ―Is Balaam Also Among the Prophets?‖ JBL 114/1:43–64. D INES 2001: JENNIFER M. D INES, ―Amos‖, in John Barton and John Muddiman (eds.), The Oxford Bible Commentary, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 581–590. DOAN AND G ILES 2005: W ILLIAM DOAN AND T ERRY GILES, Prophets, Performance, and Power: Performance Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, New York: T&T Clark. DOBBS-ALLSOPP 1993: F.W. DOBBS-ALLSOPP, Weep, O Daughter of Zion: A Study of the City-Lament Genre in the Hebrew Bible, Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico. DONNER 1977: HERBERT DONNER , ―The Separate States of Israel and Judah‖, in John H. Hayes and J. Maxwell Miller (eds.), Israelite and Judean History, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 381–434. DORSEY 1991: DAVID A. DORSEY, ―Literary Architecture and Aural Structuring Techniques in Amos‖, Bib 73/3:305–330. DOTHAN M. 1992: MOSHE DOTHAN, ―Ashdod‖, ABD 1:477–482. DOTHAN T. 1981: TRUDE DOTHAN, The Philistines and their Material Culture, New Haven: Yale University.

230

Bibliography

DOTHAN AND DOTHAN 1992: TRUDE DOTHAN AND MOSHE DOTHAN, People of the Sea: The Search for the Philistines, New York: Macmillan. DOTHAN AND G ITIN 1992: TRUDE DOTHAN AND SEYMOUR GITIN, ―Ekron‖, ABD 2:415– 422. DURAND 1988: JEAN-M ARIE DURAND, Archives épistolaires de Mari I/1 : Archives royales de Mari XXVI, Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations. DURAND 2002: J EAN-MARIE DURAND, Le Culte dʾAddu dʾAlep et lʾaffaire dʾAlahtum. NABU 8, Florilegium marianum VII, Paris: SEPOA. EBELING 1926: ERICH EBELING, ―Sammlung von Prophezeiungen‖, in Hugo Gressmann (ed.), Altorientalische Texte zum Alten Testament, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 283– 284. EITAM 1987: DAVID E ITAM , ―Olive–Oil Production During the Biblical Period‖, in M. Heltzer and D. Eitam (eds.), Olive Oil in Antiquity: Israel and Neighbouring Countries from Neolithic to Early Arab Period. Haifa: University of Haifa, 16–36. ELLIS 1989: MARIA DEJ ONG E LLIS, ―Observations on Mesopotamian Oracles and Prophetic Texts: Literary and Historiographic Considerations‖, JCS 41/2:127–186. EPH‘AL AND NAVEH 1989: ISRAEL EPH‘AL AND J OSEPH NAVEH, ―Hazael‘s Booty Inscriptions‖, IEJ 39/3-4:192–200. ERBT 1906: W ILHELM ERBT, Die Hebräer, Berlin: Louis Lamm. ESSE 1992: DOUGLAS ESSE, ―Ashkelon‖, ABD 1:487–490. EVANS 1983: CARL D. EVANS, ―Naram-Sin and Jeroboam: The Archetypal Unheilsherrscher in Mesopotamian and Biblical Historiography‖, in William W. Hallo, James C. Moyer and Leo G. Perdue (eds.), Scripture in Context II: More Essays on the Comparative Method, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 97–125. FAUST 2005: AVRAHAM FAUST, ―The Settlement of Jerusalem‘s Western Hill and the City‘s Status in Iron Age II Revisited‖, ZDPV 121/2:97–118. FENSHAM 1963: F. CHARLES FENSHAM, ―Common Trends in Curses of the Near Eastern Treaties and Kudurru–Inscriptions Compared with Maledictions of Amos and Isaiah‖, ZAW 75/2:155–175. FERRIS JR. 1992: P AUL W AYNE FERRIS J R., The Genre of Communal Lament in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, Atlanta: Scholars Press. F INKELSTEIN 1999: ISRAEL F INKELSTEIN, ―State Formation in Israel and Judah: A Contrast in Context, A Contrast in Trajectory‖, NEA 62/1:35–52. F INKELSTEIN 2003: ISRAEL FINKELSTEIN, ―The Rise of Jerusalem and Judah: The Missing Link‖, in Andrew G. Vaughn and Ann E. Killebrew (eds.), Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 81– 101. F INKELSTEIN 2008: ISRAEL F INKELSTEIN, ―The Settlement History of Jerusalem in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries BC‖, RB 2008:499–515. F INKELSTEIN, HERZOG, S INGER -AVITZ, AND USSISHKIN 2007: ISRAEL F INKELSTEIN, ZE‘EV HERZOG, SINGER -AVITZ, AND DAVID USSISHKIN, ―Has King David‘s Palace in Jerusalem been Found?‖, Tel Aviv 34:142–164. F INKELSTEIN AND S ILBERMAN 2006: ISRAEL F INKELSTEIN AND NEIL ASHER S ILBERMAN, ―Temple and Dynasty: Hezekiah, the Remaking of Judah and the Rise of the Pan–Israelite Ideology‖, JSOT 30/3:259–285. F INKELSTEIN AND S INGER -AVITZ 2009: ISRAEL F INKELSTEIN AND LILY S INGER -AVITZ, ―Reevaluating Bethel‖, ZDPV 125/1:33–48. F IRTH 1996: DAVID G. FIRTH, ―Promise as polemic: Levels of meaning in Amos 9:11– 15‖, Old Testament Essays 9/3:372–382.

Bibliography

231

F ISHBANE 1970: MICHAEL F ISHBANE , ―The Treaty Background of Amos 1:11 and Related Matters‖, JBL 89/3:313–318. FLEMING 1993 A: DANIEL F LEMING, ―The Etymological Origins of the Hebrew nābîʾ: The One Who Invokes God‖, CBQ 55/2:217–224. FLEMING 1993B: DANIEL F LEMING, ―Nābû and Munabbiātu: Two New Syrian Religious Personnel‖, BASOR 113/2:175–183. FLEMING 2010: DANIEL F LEMING, ―The Day of Yahweh in the Book of Amos: A Rhetorical Response to Ritual Expectation‖, RB 117/1:20–38. FLOYD 2003: MICHAEL H. FLOYD, ―Deutero-Zechariah and Types of Intertextuality‖, in Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd (eds.), Bringing out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9–14 (JSOTSup370), Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 225–244. FOHRER 1971: GEORG FOHRER, ―Σιών κτλ, Zion-Jerusalem in the Old Testament‖, TDNT 7:293–319. FOSTER 1995: BENJAMIN R. FOSTER , From Distant Days: Myths, Tales, and Poetry of Ancient Mesopotamia, Bethesda: CDL Press. FOSTER 2005: B ENJAMIN R. FOSTER, Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature (3 rd ed.), Bethesda: CDL. FREEDMAN AND ANDERSEN 1970: DAVID NOEL FREEDMAN AND FRANCIS I. ANDERSEN, ―Harmon in Amos 4:3‖, BASOR 198:41. FREEDMAN AND ANDERSEN 1989: DAVID NOEL FREEDMAN AND FRANCIS I. ANDERSEN, Amos: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible 24A), New York: Doubleday. FREEDMAN AND WELCH 1994: DAVID NOEL FREEDMAN AND ANDREW WELCH, ―Amos‘s Earthquake and Israelite Prophecy,‖ in Michael D. Coogan, J. Cheryl Exum and Lawrence E. Stager (eds.), Scripture and Other Artifacts: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King, Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 188– 198. FRITZ 1987: VOLKMAR FRITZ, ―Die Fremdvölkersprüche des Amos‖, VT 37.1:26–38. GADD 1963: C. J. GADD, ―The Second Lamentation for Ur‖, in D. Winton Thomas and W.D. McHardy (eds.), Hebrew and Semitic Studies Presented to Godfrey Rolles Driver, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 59–71. GALIL 2000: GERSHON GALIL, ―The Boundaries of Aram–Damascus in the 9th–8th Centuries BCE‖, in Gershon Galil and Moshe Weinfeld (eds.), Studies in Historical Geography and Biblical Historiography, Presented to Zecharia Kallai (VTSup. 81), Leiden: Brill, 35–41. GARCÍA-M ARTÍNEZ 1994: FLORENTINO GARCÍA-M ARTÍNEZ, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English, Leiden: Brill. GARCÍA-M ARTÍNEZ AND TIGCHELAAR 1997: FLORENTINO GARCÍA-MARTÍNEZ AND EIBERT J.C. T IGCHELAAR , The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (Vol. 1), Leiden: Brill. GARRETT 2008: DUANE A. GARRETT, Amos: A Handbook on the Hebrew Text, Waco: Baylor University Press. GELINAS 1995: MARGARET M. GELINAS, ―United Monarchy-Divided Monarchy: Fact or Fiction?‖ in Steven W. Holloway and Lowell K. Handy (eds.), The Pitcher is Broken: Memorial Essays for Gösta W. Ahlström, Sheffield: Almond, 227–237. GELSTON 2002: ANTHONY GELSTON, ―Some Hebrew Misreadings in the Septuagint of Amos‖, VT 52/4:493–500. GERSTENBERGER 1962: ERHARD GERSTENBERGER, ―The Woe-Oracles of the Prophets‖, JBL 81/3:249–263.

232

Bibliography

GEVA 2003: HILLEL GEVA, ―Western Jerusalem at the End of the First Temple Period in Light of the Excavations in the Jewish Quarter‖, in Andrew G. Vaughn and Ann E. Killebrew (eds.), Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 183–208. GEVERYAHU 1974: H.M.I. GEVERYAHU, ―Biblical Colophons: A Source for the ‗Biography‘ of Authors, Texts, and Book,‖ in Congress Volume, Edinburgh, 1974 (VTSup 28), Leiden: Brill, 42–59. GEVIRTZ 1968: STANLEY GEVIRTZ, ―A New Look at an Old Crux: Amos 5:26‖, JBL 87/3:267–76. G ITAY 1980: YEHOSHUA GITAY, ―A Study of Amos‘s Art of Speech: A Rhetorical Analysis of Amos 3:1–15‖, CBQ 42/3:293–309. GLANZMAN 1961: GEORGE S. GLANZMAN, ―Two Notes: Am 3,15 and Os 11,8–9‖, CBQ 23:227–233. GLENNY 2007: W. EDWARD GLENNY, ―Hebrew Misreadings or Free Translation in the Septuagint of Amos?‖ VT 57:524–547. GOFF 2008: MATTHEW GOFF, ―Awe, Wordlessness and Calamity – A Short Note on Amos v 13‖, VT 58:638–643. GOLDSTEIN 1988: J ONATHAN A. GOLDSTEIN, ―The Historical Setting of the Uruk Prophecy‖, JNES 47/1:43–46. GOMES 2006: J ULES FRANCIS GOMES, The Sanctuary of Bethel and the Configuration of Israelite Identity, Berlin: de Gruyter. GORDIS 1979: ROBERT GORDIS, ―Edom, Israel and Amos – An Unrecognized Source for Edomite History‖, in Abraham I. Katsh and Leon Nemoy (eds.), Essays on the Occasion of the Seventieth Anniversary of the Dropsie University, Philadelphia: Dropsie University, 103–132. GORDON 1993: ROBERT P. GORDON, ―From Mari to Moses: Prophecy at Mari and in Ancient Israel‖, in Heather A. McKay and David J.A. Clines (eds.), Of Prophets‟ Visions and the Wisdom of Sages, Sheffield: JSOT Press, 63–79. GORDON 1997: ROBERT P. GORDON, ―A Story of Two Paradigm Shifts‖, in Robert P. Gordon (ed.), “The Place is too Small for Us”: The Israelite Prophets in Recent Scholarship, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 3–26. GOSSE 1988: BERNARD GOSSE, ―Le recueil d‘oracles contre les nations du livre d‘Amos et l‘histoire deuteronomique‖, VT 38/1:22–40. GRABBE 1993: LESTER L. GRABBE, ―Prophets, Priests, Diviners, and Sages in Ancient Israel,‖ in Heather A. McKay and David J.A. Clines (eds.), Of Prophets‟ Visions and the Wisdom of Sages, Sheffield: JSOT Press, 43–62. GRABBE 1995: LESTER L. GRABBE, Priests, Prophets, Diviners, Sages: A Socio-Historical Study of Religious Specialists in Ancient Israel, Valley Forge: Trinity Press International. GRABBE 1998: LESTER L. GRABBE, Ezra–Nehemiah, London: Routledge. GRABBE 2000: LESTER L. GRABBE, ―Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy from an Anthropological Perspective‖, in Martti Nissinen (ed.), Prophecy in its Ancient Near Eastern Context: Mesopotamian, Biblical, and Arabian Perspectives, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 13–32. GRAYSON 1975: A.K. GRAYSON, Babylonian Historical-Literary Texts, Toronto: University of Toronto Press. GRAYSON 1980: A.K. GRAYSON, ―Assyria and Babylonia‖, Orientalia 49/2:140–194. GRAYSON AND LAMBERT 1964: A.K. GRAYSON AND W.G. LAMBERT, ―Akkadian Prophecies‖, JCS 18:7–23. GREEN 1978: GREEN, M.W., ―The Eridu Lament‖, JCS 30.3:127–167.

Bibliography

233

GREEN 1984: GREEN, M.W., ―The Uruk Lament‖, JAOS 104.2:253–279. GREENSPAHN 1989: FREDERICK E. GREENSPAHN, ―Why Prophecy Ceased‖, JBL 108:37– 49. GREER 2007: J ONATHAN S. GREER, ―A Marzeaḥ and a Mizraq: A Prophet‘s Mȇlée with Religious Diversity in Amos 6.4–7‖ JSOT 32.3:243–262. GRELOT 1972: P IERRE GRELOT, Documents araméens dʾÉgypte, Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf. GRENE 1987: DAVID GRENE, Herodotus: The History, David Grene (trans.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press. GRICE 1990: H.P. GRICE , ―Logic and Conversation‖, in A.P. Martinich (ed.), The Philosophy of Language (2 nd ed.), Oxford: Oxford University, 149–160 (Originally published in 1975). GUNKEL 1969: HERMANN GUNKEL, ―The Israelite Prophecy from the Time of Amos‖, in Jaroslav Pelikan (ed.), Twentieth Century Theology in the Making, vol. 1, Themes of Biblical Theology, Trans. R.A. Wilson, New York: Harper and Row, 48–75. Originally published 1927–1932. GÜTERBOCK 1934: HANS–GUSTAV GÜTERBOCK, ―Die historische Tradition und ihre literarische Gestaltung bei Babyloniern und Hethitern bis 1200‖, ZA N.F. 8 (42):1–91. GWALTNEY 1983: W.C. GWALTNEY JR., ―The Biblical Book of Lamentations in the Context of Near Eastern Lament Literature‖, in William W. Hallo, James C. Moyer, and Leo G. Perdue (eds.), Scripture in Context II: More Essays on the Comparative Method, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 191–211. HADJIEV 2008: TCHAVDAR HADJIEV, ―The Context as Means of Redactional Reinterpretation in the Book of Amos‖, JTS 59/2:655–668. HADJIEV 2009: TCHAVDAR S. HADJIEV, The Composition and Redaction of the Book of Amos, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter (BZAW 393). HALLO 1966: W ILLIAM W. HALLO, ―Akkadian Apocalypses‖, IEJ 16/4:231–242. HALLO 1995: W ILLIAM W. HALLO, ―Lamentations and Prayers in Sumer and Akkad‖, CANE 1871–1881. HAMMERSHAIMB 1970: ERLING H AMMERSHAIMB , The Book of Amos: A Commentary (John Sturdy, trans.), New York: Schocken Books. HARAN 1967: MENAHEM HARAN, ―The Rise and Decline of the Empire of Jeroboam ben Joash‖, VT 17.3:266–297. HARAN 1968: MENAHEM HARAN, ―Observations on the Historical Background of Amos 1:2–2:6‖, IEJ 18.4:201–212. HARAN 2008: MENAHEM HARAN, ―The Historical Background of the Prophecies of Amos‖, in Chaim Cohen, Victor Avidgor Hurowitz, Avi Hurvitz, Yochanan Muffs, Baruch J. Schwartz, and Jeffrey H. Tigay (eds.), Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaim Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday Vol. 1, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 251–259. HARPER 1905: W ILLIAM R AINEY HARPER , A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Amos and Hosea (ICC 18), Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. HARRELSON 1968: W ALTER HARRELSON, ―The Celebration of the Feast of Booths According to Zech xiv 16–21‖, in Jacob Neusner (ed.), Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 88–96. HASEL 1991: GERHARD F. HASEL, ―The Alleged ‗No‘ of Amos and Amos‘ Eschatology‖, Andrews University Seminary Studies 29/1:3–18. HAWKINS 1972–1975: J.D. HAWKINS, ―Hamath.‖ RLA 4:67–70. HAWKINS 1980–1983: J.D. HAWKINS, ―Kullani(a).‖ RLA 6:305–306.

234

Bibliography

HAYES J. 1968: J OHN H. HAYES, ―The Usage of Oracles against Foreign Nations in Ancient Israel‖, JBL 87/1:81–92. HAYES J. 1988: J OHN H. HAYES, Amos The Eighth Century Prophet: His Times & His Preaching, Nashville: Abingdon Press. HAYES K. 2002: KATHERINE M. HAYES, “The Earth Mourns”: Prophetic Metaphor and Oral Aesthetic, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. HEATON 1994: E.W. HEATON, The School Tradition of the Old Testament: The Bampton Lectures for 1994, New York: Oxford University Press. HEICKSEN 1970: MARTIN H. HEICKSEN, ―Tekoa: Historical and Cultural Profile‖, JETS13/2:81–89. HEINTZ 1979: JEAN–GEORGES HEINTZ, ―De l‘absence de la statue divine au ‗dieu qui se cache‘ (Esaïe, 45/15): aux origins d‘un theme biblique‖, RHPR 3–4:427–437. HEINTZ 1997: J EAN–GEORGES HEINTZ, ―La ‗fin‘ des prophètes bibliques? Nouvelles theories et documents sémitiques anciens‖, in Jean–Georges Heintz (ed.), Oracles et Prophéties dans lʾantiquité, Paris: De Boccard, 195–213. HEMPEL 1938: J OHANNES HEMPEL, Politische Absicht und Politische Wirkunk im Biblischen Schrifttum, Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs (Der Alte Orient 38/1). HERR 1999: LARRY G. HERR, ―The Ammonites in the Late Iron Age and Persian Period‖, in Burton MacDonald and Randall W. Younker (eds.), Ancient Ammon, Leiden: Brill, 219–237. HERZOG AND S INGER –AVITZ 2004: ZE‘EV HERZOG AND LILY S INGER –AVITZ, ―Redefining the Centre: The Emergence of State in Judah‖, Tel Aviv 31:209–244. HESCHEL 1962: ABRAHAM JOSHUA HESCHEL, The Prophets, New York: Harper & Row. H ILLERS 1983: DELBERT R. H ILLERS, ―Hôy and Hôy-Oracles: A Neglected Syntactic Aspect‖, in C.L. Meyers (ed.), The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth (Festschrift D.N. Freedman), Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 185–188. H ILLERS 1992: DELBERT R. H ILLERS, Lamentations: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (2 nd ed., Anchor Bible 7A), New York: Doubleday. HJELM 2004: INGRID HJELM , ―What do Samaritans and Jews Have in Common? Recent Trends in Samaritan Studies.‖ CBR 3/1:9–59. HOBBS 1969: T. R. HOBBS, ―Amos 3,1b and 2,10‖, ZAW 81/3:384–387. HÖFFKEN 1982: PETER HÖFFKEN, ―Eine Bemerkung zum ‗Haus Hazaels‘ in Amos 1:4‖, ZAW 94.3:413–415. HOFTIJZER AND VAN DER KOOIJ 1976: J. HOFTIJZER AND G. VAN DER KOOIJ, Aramaic Texts from Deir ʾAlla, Leiden: E.J. Brill. HÖLSCHER 1914: GUSTAV HÖLSCHER, Die Profeten: Untersuchungen zur Religionsgeschichte Israels, Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs. HOLLADAY J R. 1987: JOHN S. HOLLADAY J R., ―Assyrian Statecraft and the Prophets of Israel‖, in David L. Petersen, ed., Prophecy in Israel: Search for an Identity, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 122-143 (Originally published in 1970). HOLLOWAY 2001: STEVEN W. HOLLOWAY, Aššur is King! Aššur is King! Religion in the Exercise of Power in the Neo–Assyrian Empire, Leiden: Brill. HOMAN 1999: MICHAEL M. HOMAN, ―Booths or Succoth? A Response to Yigael Yadin‖, JBL 118/4:691–697. HOUSE 1990: P AUL R. HOUSE, The Unity of the Twelve, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press (JSOTSup 77). HOUSE 1995: P AUL R. HOUSE, ―Amos and Literary Criticism‖, Review and Expositor 92/2:148–188. HUEHNERGARD 1999: J OHN HUEHNERGARD, ―On the Etymology and Meaning of Hebrew nābîʾ‖, EI 26:88–93.

Bibliography

235

HUFFMON 1992: HERBERT B. HUFFMON, ―Prophecy‖, ABD V:477–482. HUFFMON 1997: HERBERT B. HUFFMON, ―The Expansion of Prophecy in the Mari Archives: New Texts, New Readings, New Information‖, in Yehoshua Gitay (ed.), Prophecy and Prophets: The Diversity of Contemporary Issues in Scholarship , Atlanta: Scholars Press, 7–22. HUFFMON 2000: HERBERT B. HUFFMON, ―A Company of Prophets: Mari, Assyria, Israel‖, in Martti Nissinen (ed.), Prophecy in its Ancient Near Eastern Context: Mesopotamian, Biblical, and Arabian Perspectives, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 47– 70. HULSE 1974: E.V. HULSE, ―The Nature of Biblical ‗Leprosy‘ and the Use of Alternative Medical Terms in Modern Translations of the Bible‖, PEQ 107:87–105. HUNGER AND KAUFMAN 1975: HERMANN HUNGER AND STEPHEN A. KAUFMAN, ―A New Akkadian Prophecy Text‖, JAOS 95/3:371–375. ISBELL 1978: CHARLES D. ISBELL, ―Another Look at Amos 5:26‖, JBL 97/1:97–99. J ACKSON 1986: J ARED J. J ACKSON, ―Amos 5:13 Contextually Understood‖, ZAW 98/3:434– 435. J ACOBSEN 1941: THORKILD J ACOBSEN, ―Review of Kramer, Samuel N., Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur‖ AJSL 58/2:219–224. J AHNOW 1923: HEDWIG J AHNOW, Das Hebräische Leichenlied im Rahmen der Völkerdichtung, Giessen: Alfred Töpelmann (BZAW 36). J AMIESON–DRAKE 1991: DAVID W. J AMIESON–DRAKE, Scribes and Schools in Monarchic Judah: A Socio–Archaeological Approach, Sheffield: Almond Press (The Social World of Biblical Antiquity: 9). J ANZEN 1972: W ALDEMAR JANZEN, Mourning Cry and Woe Oracle, Berlin: De Gruyter (BZAW 125). J APHET 1992: SARA J APHET, I & II Chronicles, London: SCM Press. J ARICK 2005: J OHN J ARICK, ―The Temple of David in the Book of Chronicles‖, in John Day (ed.), Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel, London: T&T Clark, 365–381. J ARUZELSKA 1998: IZABELA J ARUZELSKA, Amos and the Officialdom of Israel: The Socio-Economic Position of the Officials in the Light of the Biblical, the Epigraphic and Archaeological Evidence, Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM. JEREMIAS 1994: JÖRG J EREMIAS, ―Das Proprium der alttestamentlichen Prophetie‖, Theologische Literaturzeitung 119/6:483–494. JEREMIAS 1996: J ÖRG JEREMIAS, ―The Interrelationship between Amos and Hosea‖, in J.W. Watts and P.R. House (eds.), Forming Prophetic Literature, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press (Festschrift J.D.W. Watts, JSOTSup 235), 171–186. JEREMIAS 1997: J ÖRG JEREMIAS, ― ‫ נָבִיא‬nābîʾ prophet‖, in Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament Vol. 2. Peabody: Hendrickson, 697–710. JEREMIAS 1998: JÖRG J EREMIAS, The Book of Amos: A Commentary, Louisville: Westminster John Knox (Douglas W. Stott, trans.). J ONES 1995: B ARRY ALAN J ONES, The Formation of the Book of the Twelve: A Study in Text and Canon, Atlanta: Scholars Press (SBLDS 149). KAPELRUD 1952: ARVID S. KAPELRUD, ―God as Destroyer in the Preaching of Amos and in the Ancient Near East‖, JBL 71/1:33–38. KAPELRUD 1961: ARVID S. KAPELRUD, Central Ideas in Amos, Oslo: Oslo University Press. KATZENSTEIN 1992: H.J. KATZENSTEIN, ―Gaza (Prehellenistic Gaza)‖, ABD 2:912–915. KATZENSTEIN AND EDWARDS 1992: H.J. KATZENSTEIN AND DOUGLAS R. EDWARDS, ―Tyre‖, ABD 6:686–692.

236

Bibliography

KAUFMAN 1977: STEPHEN A. KAUFMAN, ―Prediction, Prophecy, and Apocalypse in the Light of New Akkadian Texts‖, Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, Vol. 1:221–228. KAUFMANN 1960: YEHEZKEL K AUFMANN, The Religion of Israel From its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile, Moshe Greenberg (trans. and ed.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press. KELSO 1968: J AMES LEON KELSO, The Excavation of Bethel (1934–1960), Cambridge: ASOR (AASOR 39). KELSO 1993: J AMES LEON KELSO, ―Bethel‖, NEAEHL 192–194. KENYON 1971: KATHLEEN KENYON, Royal Cities of the Old Testament, New York: 53– 70. K ING 1988: PHILIP J. KING, Amos, Hosea, Micah: An Archaeological Commentary, Philadelphia: Westminster Press. K INNIER –W ILSON 1982: J.V. K INNIER –W ILSON, ―Medicine in the Land and Times of the Old Testament‖, in Tomoo Ishida (ed.), Studies in The Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 337-365. KLEIN 1997: J ACOB KLEIN, ―Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur‖, COS 1:535–539. KLETTER 1991: RAZ KLETTER , ―The Rujm El–Malfuf Buildings and the Assyrian Vassal State of Ammon‖, BASOR 284:33–50. KLETTER 1998: RAZ KLETTER : Economic Keystones: The Weight System of the Kingdom Judah, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press (JSOTSup 276). KNAUF 2004 A: ERNST AXEL KNAUF, ―Prophets That Never Were‖, in Markus Witte (ed.), Gott und Mensch im Dialog: Festschrift für Otto Kaiser zum 80. Geburtstag, Vol. 1. Berlin: de Gruyter (BZAW 345), 451-456. KNAUF 2004B: ERNST AXEL KNAUF, ―Review of Bethel: Geschichte, Kult und Theologie by Klaus Koenen‖, RBL 10:1–3 (online copy). KNAUF 2006: ERNST AXEL K NAUF, ―Bethel: The Israelite Impact on Judean Language and Literature‖, in Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 291–349. KNIERIM 1977: ROLF P. KNIERIM , ―‘I Will Not Cause It to Return‘ in Amos 1 and 2‖, in George W. Coats and Burke O. Long (eds.), Canon and Authority: Essays in Old Testament Religion and Theology, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 163–175. KOCH 1974: KLAUS KOCH, ―Die Rolle der hymnischen Abschnitte in der Komposition des Amos–Buches‖, ZAW 86/4:504–537. KOCH 1983: KLAUS KOCH, The Prophets Vol. 1: The Assyrian Period, Margaret Kohl (trans.), Philadelphia: Fortress Press. KOCH 1988: KLAUS KOCH, The Growth of the Biblical Tradition: The Form–Critical Method, S.M. Culpitt (trans.), New York: Charles Scribner‘s Sons (Originally published in 1964). KOENEN 2003: KLAUS KOENEN Bethel: Geschichte, Kult und Theologie, Freiburg: Universitätsverlag Freiburg Schweiz (OBO 192). KÖHLER 1923: LUDWIG KÖHLER , Deuterojesaja (Jesaja 40–55) stilkritisch untersucht, Giessen: Alfred Töpelmann. KÖHLMOOS 2006: MELANIE KÖHLMOOS, Bet-El-Erinnerungen an eine Stadt: Perspektiven der alttestamentlischen Bet-El-Überlieferung, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck (FAT 49). KRAHMALKOV 1981: CHARLES R. KRAHMALKOV, ―The Historical Setting of the Adon Letter‖, BA 44:197–198.

Bibliography

237

KRAMER 1940: SAMUEL N. KRAMER , Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur, Chicago: University of Chicago Press (AS 12). KRAMER 1959: SAMUEL N. KRAMER , ―Sumerian Literature and the Bible‖, AnOr 12:185– 204. KRAMER 1983: SAMUEL N. KRAMER , ―The Weeping Goddess: Sumerian Prototypes of the Mater Dolorosa‖, BA 46/2:69–81. KRATZ 2003 A: REINHARD G. KRATZ, ―Die Worte des Amos von Tekoa‖, in Matthias Köckert and Martti Nissinen (eds.), Propheten in Mari, Assyrien und Israel, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 54–89. KRATZ 2003B: REINHARD G. K RATZ, ―Das Neue in der Prophetie des Alten Testaments‖, in Irmtraud Fischer, Konrad Schmid, Hugh G.M. Williamson (eds.), Prophetie in Israel: Beiträge des Symposiums “Das Alte Testament und die Kultur der Moderne” anlässlich des 100. Geburtstags Gerhard von Rads (1901–1971) Heidelberg, 18.– 21. Oktober 2001, Münster: LIT, 1–22. KRAUS 1956: HANS–J OACHIM KRAUS, Klagelieder (Threni), Neukirchen (BKAT 20). KRECHER 1980: J OACHIM KRECHER, ―Klagelied‖, RlA 6:1–6. KRONHOLM 1999: T. KRONHOLM ―‫ סכ ך‬sākak‖, TDOT 10:236–254. KUAN 1995: J EFFREY KAH-J IN KUAN, Neo-Assyrian Historical Inscriptions and SyriaPalestine: Israelite/Judean-Tyrian Damascene Political and Commercial Relations in the Ninth-Eighth Centuries BCE, Hong Kong: Alliance Bible Seminary. KUAN 2000: J EFFREY KAH-J IN KUAN, ―Šamši–ilu and the Realpolitik of Israel and AramDamascus in the Eighth Century BCE‖, in J. Andrew Dearman and M. Patrick Graham (eds.), The Land that I Will Show You: Essays on the History and Archaeology of the Ancient Near East in Honour of J. Maxwell Miller, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press (JSOTSup 343), 135–151. KUHRT 1995: AMÉLIE KUHRT, The Ancient Near East c. 3000–330 BC, London: Routledge. KUTSCHER 1975: RAPHAEL KUTSCHER , Oh Angry Sea (a-ab-ba ḥu-luḥ-ḥa): The History of a Sumerian Congregational Lament, New Haven: Yale University Press. LAATO 2002: ANTTI LATTO, ―Review of Sweeney, Marvin, King Josiah of Judah‖, Hebrew Studies 43:262–265. LAMBERT 1967: W.G. LAMBERT, ―Enmeduranki and Related Matters‖, JCS 21:126–138. LAMBERT 1970: W.G. LAMBERT, ―History and the Gods: A Review Article‖, Orientalia 39/1:170–177. LAMBERT 1978: W.G. LAMBERT, The Background of Jewish Apocalyptic, London: Athlone Press. LATTIMORE 1967: RICHMOND LATTIMORE, The Odyssey of Homer, New York: HarperCollins. LEE 2002: NANCY C. LEE, The Singers of Lamentations: Cities Under Siege, from Ur to Jerusalem to Sarajevo. Leiden: Brill. LEENE 2003: HENDRIK LEENE, ―Das Neue in der Prophetie: Antwort an Reinhard G. Kratz‖, in Irmtraud Fischer, Konrad Schmid, Hugh G.M. Williamson (eds.), Prophetie in Israel: Beiträge des Symposiums “Das Alte Testament und die Kultur der Moderne” anlässlich des 100. Geburtstags Gerhard von Rads (1901–1971) Heidelberg, 18.– 21. Oktober 2001, Münster: LIT, 23–28. LEMAIRE 1977: ANDRE LEMAIRE, Inscriptions Hébraïques, Tome 1: Les Ostraca, Paris: Éditions du Cerf. LEMAIRE 2001: ANDRÉ LEMAIRE, ―Schools and Literacy in Ancient Israel and Early Judaism‖, trans. Aliou Niang, in Leo G. Perdue (ed.), The Blackwell Companion to the Hebrew Bible, Malden: Blackwell Publishers, 207–217.

238

Bibliography

LEMAIRE 2003: ANDRÉ LEMAIRE, ―Nabonidus in Arabia and Judah in the Neo–Babylonian Period‖, in Oded Lipschits and Joseph Blenkinsopp (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Neo–Babylonian Period. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 285–298. LEVEY 1984: SAMSON H. LEVEY, ―Amos in the Rabbinic Tradition‖, in Fred O. Francis and Raymond Paul Wallace (eds.), Tradition as Openness to the Future: Essays in Honor of Willis W. Fisher, Lanham: University Press of America, 55–69. LEVIN 1995: CHRISTOPH LEVIN, ―Amos und Jeroboam I‖, VT 45/3:307–317. LIDZBARSKI 1908 A: MARK LIDZBARSKI, ―Über einige Siegel und Gewichte mit semitischen Legenden‖, in Mark Lidzbarski, Ephemeris für semitische Epigraphik Vol. 2, Giessen: Töpelmann, 140–144. LIDZBARSKI 1908B: MARK LIDZBARSKI, ―Griechische und lateinische Inschriften‖, in Mark Lidzbarski, Ephemeris für semitische Epigraphik Vol. 2. Giessen: Töpelmann, 323–324. LINDBLOM 1962: JOHANNES LINDBLOM , Prophecy in Ancient Israel, Oxford: Basil Blackwell. LINDSAY 1974: J OHN LINDSAY, ―The Babylonian Kings and Edom, 605–550 B.C‖, PEQ 108:23–39. LINVILLE 1998: J AMES R. LINVILLE , ―Visions and Voices: Amos 7–9‖, Bib 80:22–42. LINVILLE 2000: J AMES R. LINVILLE , ―What Does ‗It‘ Mean? Interpretation at the Point of No Return in Amos 1–2‖, Biblical Interpretation 8/4:400–424. LINVILLE 2008: J AMES R. LINVILLE, Amos and the Cosmic Imagination, Burlington: Ashgate (Society for Old Testament Monographs). LIPIŃSKI 1995: EDWARD LIPIŃSKI, ―Jéroboam II et la Syrie‖, in Daniele Garrone and Felice Israel (eds.), Storia e Tradizioni di Israele: Scritti in Onore di J. Alberto Soggin, Brescia: Paideia Editrice, 171–176. LIPIŃSKI 2000: EDWARD LIPIŃSKI, The Arameans: Their Ancient History, Culture, Religion, Leuven: Peeters. LIPSCHITS 2003 A: ODED LIPSCHITS, ―Ammon in Transition from Vassal Kingdom to Babylonian Province‖, BASOR 335:37–52. LIPSCHITS 2003B: ODED LIPSCHITS, ―Demographic Changes in Judah between the Seventh and the Fifth Centuries B.C.E.‖, in Oded Lipschits and Joseph Blenkinsopp (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 323–376. LIPSCHITS 2005: ODED LIPSCHITS, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem: Judah under Babylonian Rule. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. LOHFINK 1999: NORBERT LOHFINK, ―Was There a Deuteronomistic Movement?‖ in Linda S. Schearing and Steven L. McKenzie (eds.), Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press (JSOTSup 268), 36–66. LONGMAN 1991: TREMPLER LONGMAN III, Fictional Akkadian Autobiography: A Generic and Comparative Study, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. LONGMAN 2003: TREMPLER LONGMAN III, ―Israelite Genres in Their Ancient Near Eastern Contexts‖, in Marvin A. Sweeney and Ehud Ben Zvi (eds.), The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty–First Century, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 177 –195. LONGPERIER 1863: M. DE LONGPERIER , ―Communication de M. de Longpérier‖, Revue dʾArchéologique 8:358–361. LORETZ 1992: OSWALD LORETZ, ―Die Enstehung des Amos–Buches im Licht der Prophetien aus Māri, Assur, Ishchali und der Ugarit–Texte: Paradigmenwechsel in der Prophetenbuchforschung‖, UF 24:179–215.

Bibliography

239

LORETZ 2003: OSWALD LORETZ, ―Altsyrisch–kanaanäischer Ursprung prophetischer Sozialkritik im Alten Testament nach Texten aus Ugarit und Māri: Rechtsprechung und Rechtsempfinden in der Agrargesellschaft Altsyrien–Palästinas‖, in Gebhard J. Selz (ed.), Festschrift für Burkhart Kienast, Münster: Ugarit–Verlag, 285–327. LÖSSL 2002: J OSEF LÖSSL, ―Amos 6:1. Notes on its Text and Ancient Translations‖, JNSL 28/2:43–61. LUCKENBILL 1989: DANIEL DAVID LUCKENBILL, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, London: Histories and Mysteries of Man. LUNDBOM 2007: J ACK R. LUNDBOM , ―The Lion Has Roared: Rhetorical Structure in Amos 1:2–3:8‖, in Sarah Malena and David Miano (eds.), Milk and Honey: Essays on Ancient Israel and the Bible in Appreciation of the Judaic Studies Program at the University of California, San Diego, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 65–75. MAAG 1951: VICTOR MAAG, Text, Wortschatz und Begriffswelt des Buches Amos. Leiden: E.J. Brill. MACHINIST 1976: P ETER MACHINIST, ―Literature as Politics: The Tukulti–Ninurta Epic and the Bible‖, CBQ 38/4:455–482. MAEIR 2004: AREN M. MAEIR, ―The Historical Background and Dating of Amos VI 2: An Archaeological Perspective from Tell Eṣ-Ṣafi/Gath‖, VT 54/3:319–334. MALAMAT 1953: ABRAHAM MALAMAT, ―Amos 1:5 in the Light of the Til Barsip Inscriptions‖, BASOR 129:25–26. MALAMAT 1998: ABRAHAM MALAMAT, Mari and the Bible, Leiden: Brill. MARCUS 1978: RALPH MARCUS, Josephus in Nine Volumes: VI: Jewish Antiquities, Books IX–XI (trans.), Cambridge: Harvard University Press (Loeb Classical Library 326, originally published 1937). MARTI 1903: KARL MARTI, Das Dodekapropheton, Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (KHAT 13). MARTIN–ACHARD 1984: ROBERT MARTIN–ACHARD, ―The End of the People of God: A Commentary on the Book of Amos‖, in Robert Martin–Achard and S. Paul Re‘emi, Godʾs People in Crisis: Amos and Lamentations, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1–71. MASON 2003: REX MASON, ―The Use of Earlier Biblical Material in Zechariah 9–14: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis‖, in Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd (eds.), Bringing out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9–14, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press (JSOTSup 370), 2–208. MASTER 2001: DANIEL M. MASTER , ―Trade and Politics: Ashkelon‘s Balancing Act in the Seventh Century B.C.E.‖ BASOR 330:47–64. MATHEWS 1995: CLAIRE R. MATHEWS, Defending Zion: Edom‟s Desolation and Jacob‟s Restoration (Isaiah 34–35) in Context, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter (BZAW 236). MAUCHLINE 1970: J OHN MAUCHLINE , ―Implicit Signs of a Persistent Belief in the Davidic Empire‖, VT 20/3:287–303. MAYES 1993: ANDREW D.H. MAYES, ―Prophecy and Society in Israel‖, in Heather A. McKay and David J.A. Clines (eds.), Of Prophetsʾ Visions and the Wisdom of Sages. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 25–42. MAYS 1969: J AMES LUTHER MAYS, Amos: A Commentary, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press. MAZAR A. 1997: AMIHAI MAZAR , ―Iron Age Chronology: A Reply to I. Finkelstein,‖ Levant 29:155–65. MAZAR E. 2006: EILAT M AZAR , Preliminary Report on the City of David Excavations 2005 at the Visitors Center Area, Jerusalem: Shalem Press. MCCONVILLE 2006: J. GORDON MCCONVILLE , ―‘How Can Jacob Stand? He is So Small!‘ (Amos 7:2): The Prophetic Word and the Re–Imagining of Israel‖, in Brad E. Kelle and Megan Bishop Moore (eds.), Israels Prophets and Israelʾs Past: Essays on

240

Bibliography

the Relationship of Prophetic Texts and Israelite History in Honor of John H. Hayes, New York: T&T Clark (LHB/OTS 446), 132–151. MCDANIEL 1968 A: T HOMAS F. MCDANIEL, ―The Alleged Sumerian Influence upon Lamentations‖, VT 18/2:198–209. MCDANIEL 1968 B: T HOMAS F. MCDANIEL, ―Philological Studies in Lamentations. I‖, Biblica 49:27–53. MCGARRY 2009: EUGENE P. MCGARRY, ―An Underappreciated Medical Allusion in Amos 6,6?‖ Biblica 90/4:559–563. MCKAY 1973: J OHN MC KAY, Religion in Judah under the Assyrians, Naperville: Alec R. Allenson Inc. MEIER 1992 A: SAMUEL A. MEIER, ―Calneh‖, ABD I:823–824. MEIER 1992B: SAMUEL A. MEIER, ―Sakkuth and Kaiwan‖, ABD V:904. MELUGIN 1995: ROY F. MELUGIN, ―Prophetic Books and the Problem of Historical Reconstruction‖, in Stephen Breck Reid (ed.), Prophets and Paradigms, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press (Festschrift Gene M. Tucker, JSOTSup 229), 63–71. MELUGIN 1998: ROY F. MELUGIN, ―Amos in Recent Research‖, CR:BS 6:65–101. MESHORER 1982: YA‘AKOV MESHORER , Ancient Jewish Coinage, New York. MESHORER AND QEDAR 1999: YA‘AKOV MESHORER AND SHRAGA QEDAR , Samarian Coinage, Jerusalem: The Israel Numismatic Society. MEYERS AND MEYERS 1993: CAROL L. MEYERS AND ERIC M. MEYERS, Zechariah 9–14: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, New York: Doubleday (AB 25C). MEYERS 1995: ERIC M. MEYERS, ―The Crisis of the Mid–Fifth Century B.C.E. Second Zechariah and the ‗End‘ of Prophecy‖, in David P. Wright, David Noel Freedman, and Avi Hurvitz (eds.), Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 713–723. MEYNET 1998: ROLAND MEYNET, Rhetorical Analysis: An Introduction to Biblical Rhetoric, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press (JSOTSup 256). M ICHALOWSKI 1989: P IOTR M ICHALOWSKI, The Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns (Mesopotamian Civilizations 1). M IDDLEMAS 2004: J ILL M IDDLEMAS, ―The Violent Storm in Lamentations‖, JSOT 29/1:81–97. M ILGROM 1964: J ACOB MILGROM, ―Did Isaiah Prophecy during the Reign of Uzziah?‖ VT 14.2:164–182. M ILLARD 1972: ALAN R. M ILLARD, ―The Practice of Writing in Ancient Israel‖, BA 35/4:98–111. M ILLARD 1985: ALAN R. M ILLARD, ―An Assessment of the Evidence for Writing in Ancient Israel‖ in Biblical Archaeology Today: Proceedings of the International Congress on Biblical Archaeology: Jerusalem, April 1984, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 301–312. M ILLARD 1992 A: ALAN R. M ILLARD, The Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire, 910–612 BCE, Helsinki: Neo–Assyrian Text Corpus Project, University of Helsinki (SAAS 2). M ILLARD 1992B: ALAN R. M ILLARD, ―Assyrian Involvment in Edom‖, in Piotr Bienkowski (ed.), Early Edom and Moab: The Beginning of the Iron Age in Southern Jordan, Sheffield: University of Sheffield Press (Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 7), 35–39. M ILLARD 1992C: ALAN R. MILLARD, ―Literacy (Ancient Israel)‖, ABD IV:337–340. M ILLARD 1997: ALAN R. MILLARD, ―The Weidner Chronicle‖, COS 1:468–470.

Bibliography

241

M ILLARD 1998: ALAN R. M ILLARD, ―Review of Susan Niditch, Oral World and Written Word: Orality and Literacy in Ancient Israel‖, JTS 49/2:699–705. M ILLER 2002: C.W. MILLER , ―The Book of Lamentations in Recent Research‖, CBR 1/1:9– 29. M ILLER AND HAYES 2006: J. MAXWELL M ILLER AND J OHN H. HAYES, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (2 nd ed.), Louisville: Westminster John Knox. MONTGOMERY 1904: J.A. MONTGOMERY, ―Notes on Amos‖, JBL 23/1:94–96. MONTGOMERY 1906: J.A. MONTGOMERY, ―Notes from the Samaritan: The Root prt – Amos 6:5‖, JBL 25/1:51–52. MORGENSTER 1941: J ULIAN MORGENSTERN, Amos Studies, Vol. 1, Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press. MÖLLER 1997: KARL MÖLLER, ―‗Hear this Word Against You‘: A Fresh Look at the Arrangement and the Rhetorical Strategy of the Book of Amos‖, VT 50.4:499–518. MÖLLER 2001: KARL MÖLLER, A Prophet in Debate: The Rhetoric of Persuasion in the Book of Amos, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press (JSOTSup 372). MOORE 2006: MEGAN B ISHOP MOORE, ―Writing Israel‘s History Using the Prophetic Books‖, in Brad E. Kelle and Megan Bishop Moore (eds.), Israelʾs Prophets and Israelʾs Past: Essays on the Relationship of Prophetic Texts and Israelite History in Honor of John H. Hayes, New York: T&T Clark (LHB/OTS 446), 23–36. MULDER 1995: M.J. MULDER, ―‫ כרמל‬karmel‖ in G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry (eds.), David E. Green (trans.) Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament Volume VII, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 325–336. MÜLLER 1971: HANS–P ETER MÜLLER , ―Die Wurzeln ‫עיק‬, ‫ יעק‬und ‫‖עוק‬, VT 21/4:556–564. NA‘AMAN 1974: NADAV NA‘AMAN, ―Sennacherib‘s ‗Letter to God‘ on his Campaign to Judah‖, BASOR 214:25–39. NA‘AMAN 1979: NADAV NA‘AMAN, ―Sennacherib‘s Campaign to Judah and the Date of the LMLK Stamps‖, VT 29/1:61–86. NA‘AMAN 1986: NADAV N A‘AMAN, ―Hezekiah‘s Fortified Cities and the LMLK Stamps‖, BASOR 261:5–21. NA‘AMAN 1996A: NADAV NA‘AMAN, ―The Contribution of the Amarna Letters to the Debate on Jerusalem‘s Political Position in the Tenth Century B.C.E.‖, BASOR 304:17–27. NA‘AMAN 1996B: NADAV NA‘AMAN, ―Sources and Composition in the History of David‖, in Volkmar Fritz and Philip R. Davies (eds.), The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press (JSOTSup 228). NA‘AMAN 2002: NADAV NA‘AMAN, ―In Search of Reality Behind the Account of David‘s Wars with Israel‘s Neighbours‖ IEJ 52:200–224. NA‘AMAN 2003: NADAV NA‘AMAN, ―Ekron under the Assyrian and Egyptian Empires‖, BASOR 332:81–91. NA‘AMAN 2007: NADAV NA‘AMAN, ―When and How Did Jerusalem Become a Great City? The Rise of Jerusalem as Judah‘s Premier City in the Eighth–Seventh Centuries B.C.E.‖, BASOR 347:21–56. NA‘AMAN 2008: NADAV NA‘AMAN, ―Let Other Kingdoms Struggle with the Great Powers – You, Judah, Pay the Tribute and Hope for the Best: The Foreign Policy of the Kings of Judah in the Ninth–Eighth Centuries BCE‖, in Raymond Cohen and Raymond Westbrook (eds.) Isaiah‟s Vision of Peace in Biblical and Modern International Relations: Swords into Plowshares, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. NÄGELE 1995: SABINE N ÄGELE, Laubhütte Davids und Wolkensohn: Eine auslegungsgeschichtliche Studie zu Amos 9,11 in der jüdischen und christlichen Exegese , Leiden: Brill.

242

Bibliography

NAVEH 1985: J OSEPH NAVEH, ―Response to Millard (1985)‖ in Biblical Archaeology Today: Proceedings of the International Congress on Biblical Archaeology: Jerusalem, April 1984, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 354. NAVEH 1987: J OSEPH NAVEH, Early History of the Alphabet: An Introduction to West Semitic Epigraphy and Palaeography, Jerusalem: Magnes Press. NEL 1984: W.A.G. NEL, ―Amos 9:11–15 – An Unconditional Prophecy of Salvation During the Period of the Exile‖, Old Testament Essays 2/1:81–97. NEMET–NEJAT 1998: KAREN RHEA NEMET–NEJAT, Daily Life in Ancient Mesopotamia, Westport: Greenwood Press. NEUJAHR 2006: MATTHEW NEUJAHR , ―Royal Ideology and Utopian Futures in the Akkadian ex eventu Prophecies‖, in Ehud Ben Zvi (ed.), Utopia and Dystopia in Prophetic Literature, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht (Finnish Exegetical Society 92), 41–54. NEUSNER 2007: J ACOB NEUSNER, Amos in Talmud and Midrash: A Source Book, Lanham: University Press of America (Studies in Judaism). N IDITCH 1996: SUSAN N IDITCH, Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite Literature, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. N ISSINEN 1998: MARTTI N ISSINEN, References to Prophecy in Neo-Assyrian Sources, Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. N ISSINEN 2000: MARTTI N ISSINEN, ―The Socioreligious Role of the Neo-Assyrian Prophets‖, in Martti Nissinen (ed.), Prophecy in its Ancient Near Eastern Context: Mesopotamian, Biblical, and Arabian Perspectives, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 89–114. N ISSINEN 2002: MARTTI N ISSINEN, ―A Prophetic Riot in Seleucid Babylonia‖, in Hubert Irsigler (ed.), “Wer darf hinaufsteigen zum Berg JHWHs?” Beiträge zu Prophetie und Poesie des Alten Testaments, St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag, 63–73. N ISSINEN 2003 A: MARTTI N ISSINEN, Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East, with contributions by C.L. Seow and Robert K. Ritner, Leiden: Brill. N ISSINEN 2003B: MARTTI N ISSINEN, ―Das kritische Potential in der altorientalischen Prophetie‖, in Matthias Köckert and Martti Nissinen (eds.), Propheten in Mari, Assyrien und Israel, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1–32. N ISSINEN 2003C: MARTTI N ISSINEN, ―Neither Prophecies nor Apocalypses: The Akkadian Literary Predictive Texts‖, in Lester L. Grabbe and Robert D. Haak (eds.), Knowing the End from the Beginning: The Prophetic, the Apocalyptic and their Relationships, London: T&T Clark, 134–148. N ISSINEN 2004: MARTTI N ISSINEN, ―What is Prophecy? An Ancient Near Eastern Perspective‖, in John Kaltner and Louis Stulman (eds.), Inspired Speech: Prophecy in the Ancient Near East, New York: T&T Clark International, 17–37. N ISSINEN 2005: MARTTI N ISSINEN, ―How Prophecy became Literature‖, SJOT 19/2:153– 172. N ISSINEN 2006: MARTTI N ISSINEN, ―The Dubious Image of Prophecy‖, in Michael H. Floyd and Robert D. Haak (eds.), Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism, New York: T&T Clark, 26–41. NOBLE 1995: P AUL R. NOBLE , ―The Literary Structure of Amos: A Thematic Analysis‖, JBL 114/2:209–226. NOBLE 1997: P AUL R. NOBLE , ―Amos‘ Absolute ‗No‘‖, VT 47/3:329–340. NOGALSKI 1993 A: J AMES NOGALSKI, Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve, Berlin: De Gruyter (BZAW 217). NOGALSKI 1993 B: J AMES NOGALSKI, Redactional Processes in the Book of the Twelve, Berlin: De Gruyter (BZAW 218)

Bibliography

243

NOGALSKI 1993C: J AMES NOGALSKI, ―The Problematic Suffixes of Amos IX 11‖, VT 43/3:411–418. NORIN 1998: STIG NORIN, ―The Age of the Siloam Inscription and Hezekiah‘s Tunnel‖, VT 48/1:37–48. NOVICK 2008: T ZVI NOVICK, ―Duping the Prophet: On ‫( אנך‬Amos 7.8b) and Amos‘s Visions‖, JSOT 33.1:115–128. NURMELA 2003: RISTO NURMELA, ―The Growth of the Book of Isaiah Illustrated by Allusions in Zechariah‖, in Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd (eds.), Bringing out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9–14, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press (JSOTSup 370), 245–259. NWAORU 2009: EMMANUEL O. NWAORU, ―A Fresh Look at Amos 4:1–3 and Its Imagery‖, VT 59:460–474. ODED 1979: B USTENAY ODED, Mass Deportations and Deportees in the Neo-Assyrian Empire, Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag. OLYAN 1991: SAUL M. OLYAN, ―The Oaths of Amos 8.14‖, in Gary A Anderson and Saul M. Olyan (eds.), Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press (JSOTSup 125), 121–149. OLYAN 2004: SAUL M. OLYAN, Biblical Mourning: Ritual and Social Dimensions, Oxford: Oxford University Press. OREL 1995: VLADIMIR OREL, ―Textological Notes‖, ZAW 109.3:408–413. OVERHOLT 1989: T HOMAS W. OVERHOLT, Channels of Prophecy: The Social Dynamics of Prophetic Activity, Minneapolis: Fortress Press. OVERHOLT 1990 A: T HOMAS W. OVERHOLT, ―Prophecy in History: The Social Reality of Intermediation‖, JSOT 48:3–29. OVERHOLT 1990B: THOMAS W. OVERHOLT, ―‘It is Difficult to Read‘‖, JSOT 48:51–54. P AKKALA 2002: J UHA P AKKALA, ―Jeroboam‘s Sin and Bethel in I Kgs 12:25–33,‖ BN 112:86–94. P ARKER 1978: SIMON B. P ARKER , ―Possession Trance and Prophecy in Pre–Exilic Israel‖, VT 28/3:271–285. P ARKER 1993: SIMON B. P ARKER , ―Official Attitudes toward Prophecy at Mari and in Israel‖, VT 43/1:50–68. P ARPOLA 1997: SIMO P ARPOLA, Assyrian Prophecies, Helsinki: Helsinki University Press (SAA 9). P AUL 1971: SHALOM M. P AUL, ―Amos 1:3–2:3: A Concatenous Literary Pattern‖, JBL 90/4:397–403. P AUL 1978 A: SHALOM M. P AUL, ―Amos iii 15: Winter and Summer Mansions‖, VT 28/3:358– 359. P AUL 1978B: SHALOM M. P AUL, ―Fishing Imagery in Amos 4:2‖, JBL 97/2:183–190. P AUL 1991: SHALOM M. P AUL, Amos: A Commentary on the Book of Amos, Minneapolis: Fortress Press. PERSON 1993: RAYMOND F. P ERSON, Second Zechariah and the Deuteronomic School, Sheffield: JSOT Press (JSOTSup 167). PERSON 2002: RAYMOND F. PERSON, The Deuteronomic School: History, Social Setting, and Literature, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. PETERSEN 1981: DAVID L. PETERSEN, The Roles of Israel‟s Prophets, Sheffield: JSOT Press. PETERSEN 1995 A: DAVID L. PETERSEN, ―Ecstasy and Role Enactment‖, in Robert P. Gordon (ed.), “The Place is Too Small for Us”: The Israelite Prophets in Recent Research, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 279–288.

244

Bibliography

PETERSEN 1995B: DAVID L. P ETERSEN, Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi: A Commentary, Louisville: Westminster John Knox. PETERSEN 1997: DAVID L. PETERSEN, ―Rethinking the Nature of Prophetic Literature‖, in Yehoshua Gitay (ed.), Prophecy and Prophets: The Diversity of Contemporary Issues in Scholarship. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 23–40. PETERSEN 2000: DAVID L. PETERSEN, ―Defining Prophecy and Prophetic Literature‖, in Martti Nissinen (ed.), Prophecy in its Ancient Near Eastern Context: Mesopotamian, Biblical, and Arabian Perspectives. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 33–44. PETERSEN 2003: DAVID L. P ETERSEN, ―Zechariah 9–14: Methodological Reflections‖, in Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd (eds.), Bringing out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9–14, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press (JSOTSup 370), 210–224. P FEIFER 1988: GERHARD P FEIFER , ―Die Fremdvölkersprüche des Amos – Spätere Vaticinia ex eventu?‖ VT38.2:230–233. P FEIFER 1989: GERHARD P FEIFER , ―Das Ja des Amos‖, VT 39/4:497–503. P HAM 1999: XUAN HUONG T HI P HAM , Mourning in the Ancient Near East and the Hebrew Bible, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press (JSOTSup 302). P ITARD 1992: W AYNE T. P ITARD, ―Damascus‖, ABD 2:5–7. P OLASKI 2002: DONALD C. P OLASKI, ―Review of Sweeney, Marvin, King Josiah of Judah,‖ Interpretation 56.4:430. P OLLEY 1989: MAX E. P OLLEY, Amos and the Davidic Empire: A Socio-Historical Approach, New York: Oxford University Press. P OMYKALA 1992: KENNETH E. P OMYKALA, The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism: Its History and Significance for Messianism, Atlanta: Scholars Press. P ONGRATZ–LEISTEN 1999: B EATA P ONGRATZ–LEISTEN, Herrschaftswissen in Mesopotamien, Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project (SAAS X). P ORTEN 1981: BEZALEL P ORTEN, ―The Identity of King Adon‖, BA 44:36–52. P ORTEN AND LUND 1997: BEZALEL P ORTEN AND JEROME A. LUND, Aramaic Documents from Egypt: A Key-Word-in-Context Concordance, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. P OTTER 1994: DAVID P OTTER, Prophets and Emperors: Human and Divine Authority from Augustus to Theodosius, Cambridge: Harvard UniversityPress. PRIEST 1965: J OHN PRIEST, ―The Covenant of Brothers‖, JBL 84/4:400–406. PROVAN 1990: IAIN W. PROVAN, ―Feasts, Booths and Gardens (Thr 2,6a)‖, ZAW 102/2:254–255. RAABE 1995: P AUL R. RAABE, ―Why Oracles Against the Nations?‖ in Astrid B. Beck, Andrew H. Bartlett, Paul R. Raabe and Chris A. Franke (eds.), Fortunate the Eyes that See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of his Seventieth Birthday, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 236–257. RAINEY 1967: ANSON F. RAINEY, ―The Samaria Ostraca in the Light of Fresh Evidence‖, PEQ 99:32–41. RE‘EMI 1984: S. P AUL RE‘EMI, ―A Theology of Hope: A Commentary on Lamentations‖, in Robert Martin-Achard and S. Paul Re‘emi, Godʾs People in Crisis: Amos and Lamentations, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 73–134. REICH AND SHUKRON 2003: RONNY REICH AND E LI SHUKRON, ―The Urban Development of Jerusalem in the Late Eighth Century B.C.E.‖, in Vaughn, Andrew G. and Killebrew, Ann E. (eds.), Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 209–218. REIDER 1954: J OSEPH REIDER , ―Etymological Studies in Biblical Hebrew‖, VT 4.3:276– 295. RENDTORFF 1973: ROLF RENDTORFF, ―Zu Amos 2:14–16‖, ZAW 85/2:226–227.

Bibliography

245

REVENTLOW 1962: HENNING GRAF REVENTLOW, Das Amt des Propheten bei Amos, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht (FRLANT 80). R ICHARDSON 1966: H. NEIL R ICHARDSON, ―A Critical Note on Amos 7:14‖, JBL 85:89. R ICHARDSON 1973: H. NEIL R ICHARDSON, ―SKT (Amos 9:11): ‗Booth‘ or ‗Succoth‘?‖ JBL 92/3:375–381. R ILLETT W OOD 2002: J OYCE R ILLETT W OOD, Amos in Song and Book Culture, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press (JSOTSup 337). R INGGREN 1983: HELMER RINGGREN, ―Akkadian Apocalypses‖, in David Hellholm (ed.), Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East, Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 379–386. ROBERTS 1971: J.J.M. ROBERTS, ―The Hand of Yahweh‖, VT 21/2:244–251. ROBERTS 1985: J.J.M. ROBERTS, ―Amos 6:1–7‖ in James T. Butler, Edgar W. Conrad, and Ben C. Ollenburger (eds.), Understanding the Word: Essays in Honor of Bernhard W. Anderson, Sheffield: JSOT Press (JSOTSup 37), 155–166. ROBERTS 1997: J.J.M. ROBERTS, ―Blindfolding the Prophet: Political Resistance to First Isaiah‘s Oracles in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Attitudes toward Oracles‖, in Jean-Georges Heintz (ed.), Oracles et prophéties dans l‟antiquité, Paris: de Boccard, 135–146. ROBERTS 2002 A: J.J.M. ROBERTS, ―Nebuchadnezzar I‘s Elamite Crisis in Theological Perspective‖, in J.J.M. Roberts (ed.), The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Collected Essays, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns (Originally published in 1977), 83–92. ROBERTS 2002B: J.J.M. ROBERTS, ―The Mari Prophetic Texts in Transliteration and English Translation‖, in J.J.M. Roberts (ed), The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Collected Essays, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 157–253. ROBERTS 2003 A: J.J.M. ROBERTS, ―Prophets and Kings: A New Look at the Royal Persecution of Prophets against Its Near Eastern Background‖, in Brent A. Strawn and Nancy R. Bowen (eds.), A God So Near: Essays on Old Testament Theology in Honor of Patrick D. Miller, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 341–354. ROBERTS 2003B: J.J.M. ROBERTS, ―Egypt, Assyria, Isaiah, and the Ashdod Affair: An Alternative Proposal‖, in Andrew G. Vaughn and Ann E. Killebrew (eds.), Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 265–283. RÖSEL 1990: HARTMUT NAHUM RÖSEL, The Book of Amos, Haifa: University of Haifa. (Hebrew). ROSENBAUM 1990: ST ANLEY N. ROSENBAUM, Amos of Israel: A New Interpretation, Macon: Mercer University Press. ROSS 1970: J AMES F. ROSS, ―Prophecy in Hamath, Israel, and Mari‖, HTR 63/1:1–28. ROSS 1987: J AMES F. ROSS, ―The Prophet as Yahweh‘s Messenger‖, in David L. Petersen (ed.), Prophecy in Israel: Search for an Identity, Philadelphia: Fortress Press (Originally published in 1962), 112–121. ROTZOLL 1995: DIRK U. ROTZOLL, Studien zur Redaktion und Komposition des Amosbuches, Berlin: DeGruyter (BZAW 243). ROUTLEDGE 2001: BRUCE ROUTLEDGE , Moab in the Iron Age: Hegemony, Polity, Archaeology, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. ROUX 1992: GEORGE ROUX, Ancient Iraq (3 rd edition), London: Penguin. ROWLEY 1947: H.H. ROWLEY, ―Was Amos a Nabi?‖ Johann Fück (ed.), Festschrift Otto Eissfeldt zum 60. Geburtstag, 1. September 1947. Halle: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 191– 198. RUBENSTEIN 1995: J EFFREY L. RUBENSTEIN, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods, Atlanta: Scholars Press (Brown Judaic Studies 302).

246

Bibliography

RUDOLPH 1971: W ILHELM RUDOLPH, Joel-Amos-Obadja-Jona, Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt (KAT 13, 1974 reprint). RUSSO 1992: J OSEPH A. RUSSO, ―Oral Theory: Its Development in Homeric Studies and Applicability to Other Literatures‖, in Marriana E. Vogelzang and Herman L.J. Vanstiphout (eds.), Mesopotamian Epic Literature: Oral or Aural? Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 7–21. SASS 1993: BENJAMIN SASS, ―The Pre–Exilic Hebrew Seals: Iconism vs. Aniconism‖, in Benjamin Sass and Christoph Uehlinger (eds.), Studies in the Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht (OBO 125), 194–256. SASSON 1994: J ACK M. SASSON, ―The Posting of Letters with Divine Messages‖, in Dominique Charpin and Jean Marie Durand (eds.), Florilegium Marianum II, Memoires de NABU 3:299–316. SASSON 2006: J ACK M. SASSON, ―Utopian and Dystopian Images in Mari Prophetic Texts‖, in Ehud Ben Zvi (ed), Utopia and Dystopia in Prophetic Literature, Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society (Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 92) 27–40. SCANLIN 1978: HAROLD P. SCANLIN, ―The Emergence of the Writing Prophets in Israel in the Mid–Eighth Century‖, JETS 21/4:305–313. SCHART 1995: AARON SCHART, ―Combining Prophetic Oracles in Mari Letters and Jeremiah 36‖, JANES 23:75–93. SCHART 1998: AARON SCHART, Die Enstehung des Zwölfprophetenbuchs: Neubearbeitungen von Amos im Rahmen schriftenübergreifender Redaktionsprozesse, Berlin: de Gruyter (BZAW 260). SCHART 1999: AARON SCHART, ―Reconstructing the Redaction History of the Twelve Prophets: Problems and Models‖, in James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney (eds.), Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature (SBL Symposium Series 15), 34–48. SCHERER 2005: ANDREAS SCHERER , ―Vom Sinn prophetischer Gerichtsverkündigung bei Amos und Hosea‖, Biblica 86:1–19. SCHMIDT B. 1996: B RIAN B. SCHMIDT, Israel‟s Beneficent Dead: Ancestor Cult and Necromancy in Ancient Israelite Religion and Tradition, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. SCHMIDT B. 2007: BRIAN B. SCHMIDT, The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel, by Israel Finkelstein and Amihai Mazar, Atlanta: SBL. SCHMIDT L. 2007: LUDWIG SCHMIDT, ―Die Amazja–Erzählung (Am 7,10–17) und der historische Amos‖, ZAW 119:221 –235. SCHMIDT W. 1965: WERNER H. SCHMIDT, ―Die deuteronomistiche Redaktion des Amosbuches: Zu den theologischen Unterschieden zwischen dem Prophetenwort und seinem Sammler‖, ZAW 77:168–193. SCHNIEDEWIND 2000: W ILLIAM M. SCHNIEDEWIND, ―Orality and Literacy in Ancient Israel‖, Religious Studies Review 26/4:327–332. SCHNIEDEWIND 2003: W ILLIAM M. SCHNIEDEWIND, ―Jerusalem, the Late Judean Monarchy, and the Composition of Biblical Texts‖, in Andrew G. Vaughn and Ann E. Killebrew (eds.), Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 375–394. SCHNIEDEWIND 2004: W ILLIAM M. SCHNIEDEWIND, How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. SCHOVILLE 1974: K.N. SCHOVILLE , ―A Note on the Oracles of Amos against Gaza, Tyre, and Edom‖, in D. Lys (ed.), Studies in Prophecy, Leiden: Brill (VTSup 26), 55–63.

Bibliography

247

SCHOVILLE 1978: K.N. SCHOVILLE , ―The Sins of Aram in Amos 1‖, in A. Shinan (ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 363–375. SCHRADER 1903: EBERHARD SCHRADER , Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament, Berlin: Reuther & Reichard. SCHWEITZER 2006: STEVEN JAMES SCHWEITZER , ―Visions of the Future as Critique of the Present: Utopian and Dystopian Images of the Future in Second Zechariah‖ in Ehud Ben Zvi (ed), Utopia and Dystopia in Prophetic Literature, Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society (Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 92) 249–267. SEGER 1991: JOE D. SEGER, ―Gath‖, ABD II:908–909. SEIBERT 2002: ERIC A. SEIBERT, ―Review of Sweeney, Marvin, King Josiah of Judah‖, CBQ 64.3:558–559. SELLIN 1929 A: ERNST SELLIN, Das Zwölfprophetenbuch übersetzt und erklärt (3 rd ed.), Leipzig: A. Deichertsche Verlagsbuchhandlung D. Werner Scholl (KAT 12). SELLIN 1929B: ERNST SELLIN, ―Drei umstrittene Stellen des Amosbuches‖, ZDPV 52:141–148. SHILOH 1983: YIGAL SHILOH, Excavations at the City of David. Vol. 1: 1978–1982, Interim Report of the First Five Seasons, Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Qedem 19). SHILOH 1992: YIGAL SHILOH, ―Underground Water Systems in the Land of Israel in the Iron Age‖, in A. Kempinsky and R. Reich, (eds.), The Architecture of Ancient Israel from the Prehistoric to the Persian Periods Jerusalem, 275–293. SHUPAK 1989–1990: NILI S HUPAK, ―Egyptian ‗prophecy‘ and biblical prophecy. Did the phenomenon of prophecy, in the biblical sense, exist in ancient Egypt?‖ Jaarbericht Ex Oriente Lux 31:5–40. S IMON 1988: URIEL S IMON, Abraham ibn Ezra‟s Two Commentaries on the Minor Prophets: An Annotated Critical Edition, Vol. 1: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University (Hebrew). S INGER -AVITZ 1999: LILY S INGER -AVITZ, ―Beersheba – A Gateway Community in Southern Arabian Long–Distance Trade in the Eighth Century B.C.E.‖, Tel Aviv 26:3–74. S INGER -AVITZ 2006: LILY S INGER -AVITZ, ―The Date of Kuntillet ʿAjrud‖, Tel Aviv 33:196–228. SMELIK K.A.D. 1986: K.A.D. SMELIK, ―The Meaning of Amos V 18–20‖, VT 36/2:246– 248. SMELIK W.F. 1999: W ILLEM F. SMELIK, ―The use of ‫ הזכיר בשם‬in Classical Hebrew: Josh 23:7; Isa 48:1; Amos 6:10; 4Q504 iii 4; 1QS 6:27‖, JBL 118/2:321–332. SMITH 1988: GARY V. SMITH, ―Amos 5:13 – The Deadly Silence of the Prosperous‖, JBL 107/2:289–291. SMITH 1989: GARY V. SMITH, Amos: A Commentary; Grand Rapids: Zondervan (Regency Reference Library, Library of Biblical Interpretation). SMEND 1963: RUDOLF SMEND, ―Das Nein des Amos‖, Evangelische Theologie 23:404– 423. SNYMAN 1994: S.D. SNYMAN, ―A Note on Ashdod and Egypt in Amos III 9‖, VT 44/4559–562. VON SODEN 1990: W OLFRAM VON SODEN, ―Zu einigen Ortsbenennungen bei Amos und Micha‖, Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 3/2:214–220. SOGGIN 1987: J. ALBERTO SOGGIN, The Prophet Amos: A translation and commentary, London: SCM Press. SPAER 1979: ARNOLD SPAER, ―A Coin of Jeroboam?‖ IEJ 29:218, Pl. 25:A–B.

248

Bibliography

SPAER 1980: ARNOLD SPAER , ―More About Jeroboam‖, Israel Numismatic Journal 4:2– 3. SPEISER 1947: E.A. SPEISER , ―Note on Amos 5:26‖, BASOR 108:5–6. STAMM 1980: JOHANN J AKOB STAMM, ―Der Name des Propheten Amos und sein sprachlicher Hintergrund‖, in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Prophecy (FS G. Fohrer), Berlin: de Gruyter (BZAW 150), 137–142. STEINER M. 1994: MARGREET STEINER, ―Re-dating the Terraces of Jerusalem‖, IEJ 44:13–20. STEINER M. 2003: MARGREET STEINER, ―The Evidence from Kenyon‘s Excavations in Jerusalem: A Response Essay‖, in Andrew G. Vaughn and Ann E. Killebrew (eds.), Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 347–363. STEINER , R. 1977: RICHARD STEINER , The Case for Fricative-Laterals in Proto-Semitic New Haven: American Oriental Society (AOS 59). STEINER , R. 2003: R ICHARD STEINER , Stockmen of Tekoa, Sycomores from Sheba: A Study of Amos‟ Occupations, Washington D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America. STEPHENSON 1974: F.R. STEPHENSON, ―Astronomical Verification and Dating of Old Testament Passages Regarding Solar Eclipses‖, PEQ 107:107–120. STERN 2001: EPHRAIM STERN, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, Volume II: The Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Periods (732–332 BCE), New York: Doubleday. STOL 1987–1988: M. STOL, ―Leprosy: New Light from Greek and Babylonian Sources‖, Jaarbericht ex Oriente Lux 30:22–31. STOL 1999 A: M. STOL, ―Kaiwan‖, DDD 478. STOL 1999B: M. STOL, ―Sakkuth‖, DDD 722–723. SWEENEY 1995: MARVIN A. SWEENEY, ―Formation and Form in Prophetic Literature‖, in J.L. Mays, D.L.Peterson and K.H. Richards (eds.), Old Testament Interpretation: Past, Present and Future, Essays in Honor of Gene M. Tucker, Nashville: Abingdon Press, 113 –126. SWEENEY 2000: MARVIN A. SWEENEY, The Twelve Prophets Vol. 1, Collegeville: The Liturgical Press. SWEENEY 2001: MARVIN A. SWEENEY, King Josiah of Judah: The Lost Messiah of Israel, New York: Oxford. SWEENEY 2004: MARVIN A. SWEENEY, ―Review of Hartmut N. Rösel, The Book of Amos‖, CBQ 54:762–763. SWEENEY 2005: MARVIN A. SWEENEY, Hosea, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans (FOTL XXIA/1). SWEENEY 2006: MARVIN A. SWEENEY, ―The Dystopianization of Utopian Prophetic Literature: The Case of Amos 9:11–15‖, in Ehud Ben Zvi (ed.), Utopia and Dystopia in Prophetic Literature, Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 175–185. T ADMOR 1958: HAYIM T ADMOR, ―The Campaigns of Sargon II of Assur: A Chronological–Historical Study‖, JCS 12:77–100. T ADMOR 1961: HAYIM T ADMOR, ―Azriyau of Yaudi‖, Scripta Hierosolymitana 8:232– 271. T ADMOR 1966: HAYIM T ADMOR, ―Philistia Under Assyrian Rule.‖ BA 29/3:86–102. T ADMOR 1994: HAYIM T ADMOR, The Inscriptions of Tiglath–pileser III King of Assyria, Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. T ADMOR , LANDSBERGER , AND P ARPOLA 1989: HAYIM T ADMOR , BENNO LANDSBERGER , AND SIMO P ARPOLA, ―The Sin of Sargon and Sennacherib‘s Last Will‖, SAAB 3/1:3– 52.

Bibliography

249

T ALON 1993: P H. T ALON, ―Le ritual comme moyen de légitimation politique au 1er millénaire en Mésopotamie‖ in J. Quaegebeur (ed.), Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East. Leuven: Peeters, 421–433. TEIXIDOR 1977: J AVIER TEIXIDOR , The Pagan God: Popular Religion in the GrecoRoman Near East, Princeton: Princeton University Press. TERBLANCHE 1997: M.D. TERBLANCHE , ―‗Rosen und Lavendel nach Blut und Eisen‘: Intertextuality in the book of Amos‖, Old Testament Essays 10/2:312–321. TERRIEN 1962: S. TERRIEN, ―Amos and Wisdom‖, in B.W. Anderson and W. Harrelson (eds.), Israelʾs Prophetic Heritage (FS J. Muilenburg), New York: Harper, 108–115. THOMPSON 1992: THOMAS L. THOMPSON, Early History of the Israelite People: From the Written and Archaeological Sources, Leiden: Brill. T IGCHELAAR 2003: EIBERT T IGCHELAAR , ―Some Observations on the Relationship between Zechariah 9–11 and Jeremiah‖, in Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd (eds.), Bringing out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9–14, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press (JSOTSup 370), 260–270. T IMM 2003: STEFAN T IMM, ―König Hesion II. von Damaskus‖, in Stefan Timm, Claudia Bender and Michael Pietsch (eds.), “Gott kommt von Teman…” Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte Israels und Syrien-Palästinas, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag (AOAT 314, Reprinted article from Welt des Orients 24 (1993), 55–84), 157–182. T INNEY 1996: STEVE T INNEY, The Nippur Lament: Royal Rhetoric and Divine Legitimation in the Reign of Išme–Dagan of Isin (1953–1935 B.C.), Philadelphia: Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund, 16. TODOROV 1973: T ZVETAN TODOROV, The Fantastic: A Structural Approach to a Literary Genre, Richard Howard, trans., Ithaca: Cornell University Press. TSEVAT 1993: MATITIAHU TSEVAT, ―Amos 7:14 – Present or Preterite?‖ in Mark E. Cohen, Daniel C. Snell, and David B. Weisberg (eds.), The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo, Bethesda: CDL Press, 256–258. TUCKER 1971: GENE M. TUCKER , Form Criticism of the Old Testament, Philadelphia: Fortress Press. TUCKER 1974: GENE M. TUCKER , ―Prophetic Superscriptions and the Growth of a Canon‖, in George W. Coats and Burke O. Long (eds.), Canon and Authority: Essays in Old Testament Religion and Theology, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 56–70. TUCKER 2006: GENE M. TUCKER , ―Amos the Prophet and Amos the Book: Historical Framework‖, in Brad E. Kelle and Megan Bishop Moore (eds.), Israelʾs Prophets and Israelʾs Past: Essays on the Relationship of Prophetic Texts and Israelite History in Honor of John H. Hayes, New York: T&T Clark (LHB/OTS 446), 85–102. TUSHINGHAM 1992: A.D. TUSHINGHAM , ―New Evidence Bearing on the Two–Winged LMLK Stamp‖, BASOR 287:61–65. USSISHKIN 1994: DAVID USSISHKIN, ―Gate 1567 at Megiddo and the Seal of Shema, Servant of Jeroboam‖, in Michael D. Coogan, J. Cheryl Exum and Lawrence E. Stager (eds.), Scripture and Other Artifacts: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 410–428. USSISHKIN 2003: DAVID USSISHKIN, ―Solomon‘s Jerusalem: The Text and the Facts on the Ground‖, in Andrew G. Vaughn and Ann E. Killebrew (eds.), Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 103–115. USSISHKIN 2009: DAVID USSISHKIN, ―On the So-called Aramaean ‗Siege Trench‘ in Tell eṣ-Ṣafi, Ancient Gath‖, IEJ 59/2:137–157. UFFENHEIMER 1988: BENJAMIN UFFENHEIMER, ―Prophecy, Ecstasy, and Sympathy‖, in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume, Jerusalem 1986, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 257–269.

250

Bibliography

VALETON 1898: J.J.P. VALETON, Amos und Hosea, Giessen. VAN DE MIEROOP 1999: M. VAN DE MIEROOP, Cuneiform Texts and the Writing of History, London: Routledge. VANDERHOOFT 2003: DAVID STEPHEN VANDERHOOFT, ―Babylonian Strategies of Imperial Control in the West: Royal Practice and Rhetoric‖, in Oded Lipschits and Joseph Blenkinsopp (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 235–262. VANDERKAM 1995: J AMES C. VANDERKAM , ―Prophecy and Apocalyptics in the Ancient Near East‖, CANE 2083–2094. VAN DER TOORN 1992: KAREL VAN DER TOORN, ―Anat-yahu, Some Other Deities, and the Jews of Elephantine‖, Numen 39.1:80–101. VAN DER TOORN 2000: KAREL VAN DER T OORN, ―Mesopotamian Prophecy between Immanence and Transcendence: A Comparison of Old Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian Prophecy‖, in Martti Nissinen (ed.), Prophecy in its Ancient Near Eastern Context: Mesopotamian, Biblical, and Arabian Perspectives, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 71–87. VAN LEEUWEN 1974: CORNELIUS VAN LEEUWEN, ―The Prophecy of the Yôm YHWH in Amos V 18–20‖, in James Barr (et al., eds.), Language and Meaning: Studies in Hebrew Language and Biblical Exegesis, Leiden: Brill (OTS 19), 113–134. VAN SETERS 1997: J OHN VAN SETERS, In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns (originally published in 1983). VAN SETERS 1998: J OHN VAN SETERS, ―Review of Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite Literature‖, JAOS 118/3:436–437. VAN SETERS 2005: J OHN VAN SETERS, The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the “Editor” in Biblical Criticism, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. VANSTIPHOUT 1980: H.L.J. VANSTIPHOUT, ―The Death of an Era: The Great Mortality in the Sumerian City Laments‖ in Bendt Alster (ed.), Death in Mesopotamia: Papers read at the XXVI e Rencontre assyriologique international, Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag (Mesopotamia: Copenhagen Studies in Assyriology 8), 83–89. VANSTIPHOUT 1986: H.L.J. VANSTIPHOUT, ―Some Thoughts on Genre in Mesopotamian Literature‖, in Karl Hecker and Walter Sommerfeld (eds.), Keilschriftliche Literaturen, Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag (RAI 32), 1–11. VAUGHN 1999: ANDREW G. VAUGHN, Theology, History, and Archaeology in the Chronicler‟s Account of Hezekiah, Atlanta: Scholars Press. VAWTER 1981: BRUCE VAWTER, Amos, Hosea, Micah, with an Introduction to Classical Prophecy, Wilmington: Michael Glazier, Inc. VERMES 1987: GEZA VERMES, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 3 rd ed, London: Penguin Books. V ILLARD 2001: P IERRE VILLARD, ―Les prophéties à l‘époque néo–assyrienne‖, in André Lemaire (ed.), Prophètes et rois: Bible et Proche–Orient, Paris: Cerf, 55–84. W ANKE 1966: GUNTHER W ANKE, ―‫ אוֹי‬und ‫‖הוֹי‬, ZAW 78/2:215–218. W ARD 1969: J AMES M. WARD, Amos and Isaiah: Prophets of the Word of God, Nashville: Abingdon Press. W ARDLE 2006: DAVID W ARDLE, Cicero on Divination: De Divinatione Book 1, Translated with Introduction and Commentary by David Wardle, Oxford: Clarendon Press. W ARNER 1980: SEAN W ARNER , ―The Alphabet: An Innovation and its Diffusion‖, VT 30.01:81–90.

Bibliography

251

W ASCHKE 1994: ERNST-JOACHIM W ASCHKE, ―Die fünfte Vision des Amosbuches (9,1–4) – Eine Nachinterpretation‖, ZAW 106:434–445. W ATTS 1997: JOHN D.W. WATTS, ―An Old Hymn Preserved in the Book of Amos‖, in John D.W. Watts, Vision and Prophecy in Amos, Macon: Mercer University Press (originally published in JNES 15 (1956):33–39), 9–27. W ATTS 2000: JOHN D.W. W ATTS, ―Superscriptions and Incipits in the Book of the Twelve‖, in James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney (eds.), Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 110–124. W ATZINGER 1929: CARL W ATZINGER , Tell el-Mutesellim II, Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs‘sche Buchhandlung. W AZANA 2008: N ILI W AZANA, ―From Biqʿat to KTK: ‗All Aram‘ in the Sefîre Inscription in the Light of Amos 1:5‖, in Chaim Cohen, Victor Avidgor Hurowitz, Avi Hurvitz, Yochanan Muffs, Baruch J. Schwartz, and Jeffrey H. Tigay (eds.), Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaim Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday Vol. 2, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 713–732. W EIDNER 1940: ERNST F. WEIDNER , ―Texte-Wörter-Sachen‖, AfO 13:230–239. W EINFELD 1972: MOSHE WEINFELD, ―Worship of Molech and of the Queen of Heaven and its Background‖, UF 4:133–154. W EINFELD 1977: MOSHE W EINFELD, ―Ancient Near Eastern Patterns in Prophetic Literature‖, VT 27/2:178–195. W EINFELD 1995: MOSHE WEINFELD, Social Justice in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East, Minneapolis: Fortress Press. W EIPPERT 1988: MANFRED WEIPPERT, ―Aspekte israelitischer Prophetie im Lichte verwandter Erscheinungen des Alten Orients‖, in Gerlinde Mauer and Ursula Magen (eds.), Ad bene et fideliter seminandum, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Verlag Butzon & Bercker Kevelaer, 287–319. W EIPPERT 1991: MANFRED W EIPPERT, ―The Balaam Text from Deir ‗Allā and the Study of the Old Testament‖, in J. Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij (eds.), The Balaam Text from Deir ʾAlla Re–Evaluated, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 151–184. W EIPPERT 1997: MANFRED W EIPPERT, ―Prophetie im Alten Orient‖, in Manfred Görg and Bernhard Lang (eds.), Neues Bibel–Lexikon vol. 11. Benziger, 196–200. W EISER 1929: ARTUR WEISER , Die Profetie des Amos, Giessen: Töpelmann (BZAW 53). W ELLHAUSEN 1963 A: J ULIUS W ELLHAUSEN, Die Kleinen Propheten 4 th ed., Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. W ELLHAUSEN 1963B: JULIUS WELLHAUSEN, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der Historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments (4 th ed.), Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. W ESTENHOLZ 1997: J OAN GOODNICK W ESTENHOLZ, Legends of the Kings of Akkade: The Texts, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. W ESTERMANN 1991: CLAUS WESTERMANN, Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech, Hugh Clayton White (trans.), Louisville: Westminster John Knox (originally published in 1967). W EVERS 1992: J OHN WM. W EVERS, ―Ecstatic vs. Literary Prophets in Ancient Israel‖, The Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 23:9–13. W EYDE 2004: KARL W ILLIAM W EYDE, The Appointed Festivals of YHWH: The Festival Calendar in Leviticus 23 and the sukkôt Festival in Other Biblical Texts, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck (FAT II/4). W ILLIAMSON 1983: H.G.M. W ILLIAMSON, ―A Response to A. Graeme Auld‖, JSOT 27:33–39.

252

Bibliography

W ILLIAMSON 1990: H.G.M. W ILLIAMSON, ―The Prophet and the Plumbline: A RedactionCritical Study of Amos vii‖, in A.S. van der Woude (ed.), The Quest of the Past: Studies on Israelite Religion, Literature and Prophetism, Leiden: Brill (OTS 26), 101 – 121. W ILLIAMSON 2003: H.G.M. W ILLIAMSON, ―Review of Möller, Karl, A Prophet in Debate‖, JSOT 28.5:95–96. W ILLIAMS 1967: J AMES G. W ILLIAMS, ―The Alas-Oracles of the Eighth Century Prophets‖, HUCA 38/1:75–91. W ILLI-P LEIN 1971: INA W ILLI-P LEIN, Vorformen der Schriftexegese innerhalb des Alten Testaments, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter (BZAW 123). W ILSON 1979: ROBERT R. W ILSON, ―Prophecy and Ecstasy: A Reexamination‖, JBL 98/3:321–337. W ILSON 1980: ROBERT R. WILSON, Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel, Philadelphia: Fortress Press. W ILSON 2004: ROBERT R. WILSON, ―Current Issues in the Study of Old Testament Prophecy‖, in John Kaltner and Louis Stulman (eds.), Inspired Speech: Prophecy in the Ancient Near East, New York: T&T Clark International, 38–46. W INCKLER 1895: HUGO W INCKLER , Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen, Leipzig: Eduard Pfeiffer (Völker und Staaten des alten Orients 2). W ISEMAN 1956: D.J. W ISEMAN, Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings (626–556 B.C.) in the British Museum, London: Trustees of the British Museum. WÖHRLE 2008: JAKOB WÖHRLE, ―‘No Future for the Proud Exultant Ones‘ The Exilic Book of the Four Prophets (Hos., Am., Mic., Zeph.,) as a Concept Opposed to the Deuteronomistic History‖, VT 58:608–627. W OLFF 1977: HANS W ALTER W OLFF, Joel and Amos: A Commentary on the Books of the Prophets Joel and Amos, Waldemar Janzen, S. Dean McBride Jr., and Charles A. Muenchow, trans., Philadelphia: Fortress Press, Hermeneia Series. W ÜRTHWEIN 1950: ERNST WÜRTHWEIN, ―Amos–Studien‖, ZAW 62 (n.s. 21):10–52. YADIN 1955: YIGAEL YADIN , ―Some Aspects of the Strategy of Ahab and David (I Kings 20; II Sam. 11)‖, Bib 36/3:332–351. YADIN 1963: YIGAEL Y ADIN , The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands in the Light of Archaeological Study, New York: McGraw–Hill. YADIN 1972: YIGAEL YADIN , Hazor: With a Chapter on Israelite Megiddo, New York: Oxford University Press. YADIN 1974: YIGAEL YADIN, Hazor: The Rediscovery of a Great Citadel of the Bible. New York: Random House. YOUNG 1998 A: IAN YOUNG, ―Israelite Literacy: Interpreting the Evidence: Part I‖, VT 48.02:239–253 YOUNG 1998B: IAN YOUNG, ―Israelite Literacy: Interpreting the Evidence: Part II‖, VT 48.03:408–422. YOUNGER 1997: K. LAWSON YOUNGER, ―The Bar-Rakib Inscription‖, COS 2.38. YOUNGER 1998: K. LAWSON YOUNGER , ―The Deportations of the Israelites‖, JBL 117.2:201–227. YOUNGER 2000: K. LAWSON YOUNGER, ―Neo-Assyrian Inscriptions‖, COS 2.261–300. YOUNGER 2002: K. LAWSON YOUNGER , ―Recent Study of Sargon II, King of Assyria: Implications for Biblical Studies‖, in Mark W. Chavalas and K. Lawson Younger, Jr. (eds.), Mesopotamia and the Bible: Comparative Explorations, Grand Rapids: Baker, 288–329. YOUNGER 2003: K. LAWSON YOUNGER, ―Assyrian Involvement in the Southern Levant at the End of the Eighth Century B.C.E.‖, in Andrew G. Vaughn and Ann E. Killebrew

Bibliography

253

(eds.), Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 235–264. ZIAS 1991: J OSEPH ZIAS, ―Death and Disease in Ancient Israel‖, BA 54:146–159. ZIMHONI 1997: ORNA ZIMHONI, Studies in the Iron Age Pottery of Israel: Typological, Archaeological, and Chronological Aspects, Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, Institute of Archaeology.

Ancient Sources Index Genesis 18:22–33

37

Exodus 19 23:16 32:4 32:28 34

26 204 186 186 26

Leviticus 18:21 26

21–22 25–27

Numbers 22–24

123 n 72

Deuteronomy 4:3 6:14 8:19 16:13 17:19 18:10–11 28 29:5a 29:23

16 16 16 204 16 84 26–27 22 27

Judges 19–20

184

I Samuel 2:27–36 8:7 9:9 10:5–13 10:19 15 15:23 26

186 16 89 93 16 16 16 16

II Samuel 7 11:11 14:17 I Kings 5:11 8 8:2 8:33–35 8:33–37 8:65–66 9:15 12:31 13

201 199 208

13:11 13:30 15:20 18:28–29 19:13 20:12 20:16 21:1 22 22:6 22:17

210 27 204 26 27 204 132 186 39–40, 76, 104, 155 n 149, 186, 188, 193 190 155, 157 13 91, 93 197 n 143 199 199 143 n 76 102 n 116, 124 n 73 89, 93, 94 94

II Kings 1:8 2:3 6:24–7:20 7:15 7:30 8:20 10:32–33 12 12:17 13 13:7 13:24–25

197 n 143 190 59 16 29 14 173 184 58 173 173 172

256

Ancient Sources Index

II Kings continued 14:8–14 132 n 9 14:23–29 50 14:25 172, 173 14:28 172, 173 14:29 188 15:1–7 46–47 15:13 30, 32, 34, 9 n 12 16:6 15 16:9 19 17:15 16 17:30 61, 66–67, 69 17:37 16 18:25 166 n 207 18:33–35 56 20:12–19 101 n 110 22:14–20 124 n 73 23:15 74 Isaiah 1:8 1:10 1:10–6:13 1:10–17 2:3b 3:15–16 5:8–24 5:24 6 6:1 7:17 10:9 10:9–11 13–23 13:19 16:5 17:1–3 20 30:9 34–35 36:18–20 47:4 51:15 54:4–5 58:12

202 75 72 71 71 71 71 16, 75 37 9 n 12 5 n 13 56 71 172 27 202 175 177 75 209 56 27 27 27 203

Jeremiah 6:19 7:22 8:8–9 10:12–16 16:5

16 23 16 27 145 n 82

22:18 23:18 23:22 25:9 25:20 25:22–26 27:3 28 31:35 32:18 33:2 34:5 36 40:10 40:13–41:18 40–43 45:1 46–51 47:5 49:18 49:23–27 50:34 50:40

155 24 24 210 178 186 182 197 n 142 27 28 28 155 n 150 107 n 135, 219–220 186 181 186 196 172 178 27 175 28 27

Ezekiel 4:1–3 25:6 25–32 27:13 29–32 35:5 35–36 36:5

102 n 112 15, 35 172 13 209 15 209 35

Hosea 1:1 4:6 4:13–14 4:15 13:1

73 16 22 68 68

Joel (English) 3:6–7 3:15 3:16 3:18 3:19–20

13 42 10 n 18 42–43, 203, 210 209

Amos 1:1 1:1–2

8 n 9, 9, 51–52, 75, 89, 191, 213 44, 7, 11, 162, 216

Ancient Sources Index Amos continued 1:2 3, 9–10, 19–20, 28, 31, 36, 41–44, 93, 145 n 85, 149, 212 1:2–9:6 30 1:3 51 1:3–2:3 18 1:3–2:5 19, 21, 44, 78, 143 n 73, 170–183, 210–213, 217 1:3–2:16 11–21 1:3–5 172–175 1:5 19 1:6–8 175–178 1:9–10 178–179 1:11–12 41, 179–180 1:13–15 180–182 1:14 143 n 73 1–9 42 2:1–3 182–183 2:4 16, 195 n 132 2:4–5 15–17, 31, 33, 35, 199, 216 2:5 16, 217 2:6 19–20, 44, 212 2:6a 20 2:6ff 216 2:6–7 160 2:6–7:9 44 2:7 20, 21–22, 71 2:8 20, 158 2:9–10 98 2:10 23 2:10–12 22–23 2:12 101 n 108 2:13 146 2:14–16 54, 145, 146, 158 2:15 35 3 25 3:1 22–23, 33 3:1b 23, 211–213 3:1–2 44 3:2 22 3:4 10, 43 3:6 24 3:7 24–25, 139 n 59, 195 n 132, 212–213 3:8 10, 23, 24, 43, 89, 93, 103 n 119, 104, 194 3:9 34, 142 n 70, 146 3:11 71, 143 3:12 55

3:14 3:14–15 3:15 3–6 4:1 4:2 4:2–3 4:4 4:4–5 4:6–9 4:6–11 4:6–12 4:10 4:13 4:12–13 5 5:1 5:1–3 5:1–17 5:2 5:3 5:4 5:4–5 5:5 5:6 5:7 5:8 5:8–6:14 5:8–9 5:10–13 5:10–17 5:11 5:12 5:13 5:15 5:14–15 5:16 5:16–17 5:16–18 5:17 5:18 5:18–20 5:18–21 5:18–25 5:18–27 5:19 5:20 5:21–24 5:23

257 158, 193 n 120 54 143, 146 8, 34, 37, 42 71, 145 n 84 145 2, 5, 16–17, 27, 142 193 nn 120–121 26 143, 145, 158 25–27, 212 28 143 28, 44, 143, 163 n 190, 191 n 115, 212–213 26 139 143 149, 153 30, 35–36, 212–213 130 54 3, 198 29 31, 69, 142, 193 nn 120–121 3, 29, 193 nn 120–121, 198 28, 33–34 28, 98, 163 n 190 34 29, 44, 143, 212–213 33 98 143, 145, 158, 160 160 143, 146 125, 209 29 152, 155 143, 149, 153, 158 157 156 57, 154 143, 145 153 31 35–36 145 127 71 145

258

Ancient Sources Index

Amos continued 5:25 23, 65 5:25-27 29 5:26 46, 55, 60, 62–63, 66, 68, 78, 214 5:27 1, 142 6:1 31–33, 35–36, 131 n 1, 136 n 38, 154, 213 6:1–6 33–35 6:1–7 34 n 151 6:1–14 31–31, 33, 35–36, 60, 212–213 6:2 1, 31, 46, 51, 55–59, 70–71, 73, 76, 78, 131, 143, 178 n 49, 214, 218 6:2–14 34 6:4–7 145, 158 6:4–8 143 6:4–11 34 6:4 145, 154 n 140 6:6 76 6:6–7 143 6:7 55, 142, 145 n 82, 154 n 140 6:8 34 n 151, 36, 55, 143 6:9–10 145, 158 6:10 143, 144 6:11 34 n 151 6:12–14 33–34 6:14 36, 51, 54, 71, 158 7:2 143, 144 7:4 144 n 81, 150 7:5 143, 144 7:7–8 38–39 7:8 38 7:9 38–39, 54, 158, 186 7:9–17 39–40 7:10 101 n 108 7:10–17 4, 9, 38–40, 75, 123, 211, 170, 183–197, 213, 217, 220 7:11 93, 124, 199–205 7:12 89, 162 7:13 93 7:14 9, 25, 38, 103 n 119, 104, 217 7:14–15 93 7:15 31 7:17 55, 142 8:1 3, 8, 10, 14, 55, 186 8:1–9:10 44

8:2 8:3 8:4 8:4ff 8:4–6 8:8 8:9 8:10 8:11 8:11–12 8:14

9:11 9:13 9:13–14 9:14

149 143, 145, 158 71 28 158 n 164 149 53, 143 143, 145, 149 10, 195 n 132 163 n 188 31, 46, 55, 67, 69, 78, 214 54, 143, 185, 191 145 55 144 10, 35, 43 142 191 n 115 44, 143, 163 n 190, 212, 213 98 19, 23 146 143 3, 5, 38–39, 41–42, 75, 77–78, 168, 170, 198–210, 211, 213–214, 217 66, 125 43 44 41

Obadiah 10 14 17–21 19–21

15 15 42 203

Micah 1:9 1:10 7:1

136 178 n 49 166 n 205

Zephaniah 2:4 2:4–15

178 172

Haggai 2:1

204

9:1 9:1–3 9:2–3 9:2–4 9:3 9:4 9:5 9:5–6 9:6 9:7 9:9 9:10 9:11–15

259

Ancient Sources Index Zechariah 8:12 9:1–4 9:1–8 9:5–7 9:12 9–14 11:17 13 13:2–6 13:3–6 13:5 14 14:5

209 175 172 178 32 205–210 154 196, 197 n 142 195 n 136 197 194, 196, 217 218 52, 192

Psalms 13:21 27:5 42:5 76:3 123:4 133:3

204 204 204 204 35 n 157 32

Proverbs 30:1 31:1

8 8

Lamentations 1:18 2:6 2:21

149 203 149

Job 5:8–16 9:4–10

28 28

Ezra 3:4

204

Nehemiah 6:10–14 8:13–18 8:17

196 204 207

II Chronicles 15:8 25:14–16 26:3–15 26:6 26:23 29–32

90 39–40, 104 47 58 49 134 n 19

II Maccabees 1:18 10:6

204 204

Northwest Semitic Sources CD 7:14–21 64–66 Deir ʿAlla 90, 123, 127 Kuntillet ʿAjrud 69 Lachish Ostraca 3 90 6 90 16 90 Mesha stele 51, 200 RS 25.460 90 Tel Dan 55 n 53, 59 n 75, 200 Zakkur 57–58, 90, 172 n 8 Akkadian Sources Mari Texts A.1121+A.2731 94, 97 A.1968 86, 97–98 AEM 1/1, 1 1/1, 198 1/1, 214 1/1, 215 1/1, 216 1/1, 217 1/1, 218

94 96 95 95 89 95 95

ARM 26.194 26.200 26.206 26.207 26.208 26.210 26.212 26.213 26.216 26.371

87 100 n 106 90 n 54, 102 n 112 90 n 54 102 n 112 100 90 n 54 90 n 54 89 101

Assyrian Texts Calah Annals 13 56 n 57 19 56 n 57 25 56 n 57 Eponym List 56 K6205 (Azekah) 49–50 Nimrud Prism D 55 n 55

260 Assyrian Texts continued SAA 9 3.5 99 SAA 10 109 100 SAA 13 144 99 SAA 16 59 100 “Akkadian Prophecies” Dynastic Proph. 116–117 Marduk Proph. 113–114 Shulgi Prophecy 114–115 Text A 111–112 Text B 112–113 Uruk Prophecy 115–116 Sumerian City Laments Eridu 146 Nippur 146–147 Sumer and Ur 142–144 Ur 144–145, 203 Uruk 146 Other Near Eastern Texts Curse of Agade 158–161 Cyrus Cylinder 160, 167

Ancient Sources Index Esarhaddon Reb. 165–167 Kurkh Monolith 172 n 8 Neferti Prophecy 121–122 Pazarcik 173 Poem of Erra 164–165 Saba’a Stele 172 n 8 SAG.UŠ 61 Seed of Kingship 162–163 Šurpu 61 Tukulti-Ninurta Epic 161–162 Greek Sources Herodotus History 1.53

94 n 69

Josephus, Antiquities 10.9.7 180 11.301–309 189 Latin Sources Cicero De Divinatione 1.18.34

85

Modern Authors The following includes the locations of passages where there was a discussion beyond a passing reference to the name.

Ackroyd, P., 39–40 Ahlström, G., 51 Albrektson, B., 166 Albright, W., 184, 187 Andersen, F., 8, 10, 38, 183 Auld, A., 25, 87, 103–107, 104 n 120 Avigad, N., 51–52 Barstad, H., 63, 107–108 Bartlett, J., 14–15 Beaulieu, P., 116 Becker, U., 37 Beckman, G., 135 n 31, 33 Ben Zvi, E., 53–54 Bergler, S., 37 Beyer, K., 67–68 Biggs, R., 112, 119 Blenkinsopp, J., 186, 195 n 132, 195 n 136 Block, D., 157, 168 Boccaccini, G., 186 n 92, 208 n 199 Bodi, D., 157, 164–165 Borger, R., 61, 113–115, 119 Bovati, P., 34 Brinkman, J., 166 Broshi, M., 134 Brueggemann, W., 26 Burrows, E., 65–66 Cagni, L., 164–165 Cahill, J., 133 Carr, D., 30 n 134, 139–140, 220 Carroll, R., 104–108 Cazelles, H., 15 Clements, R., 38–39, 156, 184 Clifford, R., 155 Cogan, M., 62, 166 Coggins, R., 194 Cooper, J., 158

Coote, R., 73, 73 n 144 Crenshaw, J., 138 Cripps, R., 72–73, 92 Cross, F., 195 Davies, G., 3 Davies, P., 20, 106–108, 138, 190, 192, 198, 200, 204 n 177, 219 De Waard, J., 30 Dijkstra, M., 123 Dobbs-Allsopp, F., 81, 151–153 Dorsey, D., 34–35 Durand, J., 89 Ebeling, E., 111–112 Ellis, M., 108, 118, 120–121, 157 Fensham, F., 27 Ferris, P., 151–152 Finkelstein, I., 133, 135–136, 184–185, 187 Fishbane, M., 14 Floyd, M., 206 Freedman, D., 8, 10, 38, 183 Fritz, V., 19 Gadd, C., 150 Gelston, A., 35 Gerstenberger, E., 154–156 Gevirtz, S., 65 Gitay, Y., 24–25 Glenny, E., 35 n 157 Goldstein, J., 116 Gordon, R., 95 Gosse, B., 17 n 57 Grabbe, L., 82–83, 108 n 3 Grayson, A., 111–114, 117–118 Greenspahn, F., 196 Gunkel, H., 91

262 Güterbock, H., 117, 159 Gwaltney, W., 151 Hallo, W., 80 n 1, 111, 118–119 Hayes, J., 8, 174–175, 201 Hempel, J., 3 Herr, L., 181–182 Herzog, Z., 69 Heschel, A., 92 Hillers, D., 149, 157 n 159 Holloway, S., 62 Hölscher, G., 91 Huffmon, H., 82 Hunger, H., 116 Isbell, C., 65 Janzen, W., 156 Japhet, S., 47 Jeremias, J., 9, 19, 23, 27, 41–42, 61 n 80, 99 n 99, 173, 183–184 Jones, B., 43 Kaufman, S., 116, 119 Kaufmann, Y., 19 Kelso, J., 184–185, 187 King, P., 70 n 133 Knauf, E., 185, 187, 190–192, 191 n 117 Knierim, R., 20 n 70 Koch, K., 9 n 13, 28, 72, 86 Koenen, K., 191 n 119 Köhler, L., 85–86 Köhlmoos, M., 187, 193 Kramer, S., 150 Kratz, R., 125–127 Kraus, H., 150 Krecher, J., 141 Kronholm, T., 204–205 Lambert, W.G., 111–114, 116 Lee, N., 169 Lemaire, A., 138 Levin, C., 186 n 94 Lindblom, J., 85–86, 91 Linville, J., 20 n 70, 37 n 161 Lipiñski, E., 51, 174 n 22 Lipschits, O., 181–182 Livingstone, A., 67–68 Lohfink, N., 16–17, 25 n 103 Longman, T., 81, 111, 120 Longpérier, M., 48 Loretz, O., 99, 124–125, 187

Modern Authors Machinist, P., 161–162 Maeir, A., 58 Malamat, A., 173–174 Marti, K., 33 Martin-Achard, R., 202 Mathews, C., 209 Mays, J., 8–9, 11, 53, 202 Mazar, A., 133 Mazar, E., 133 McDaniel, T., 150–151, 153 McGarry, E., 34 n 149 McKay, J., 62 Meshorer, Y., 188–190 Meyers, C., 196, 205, 207–208 Meyers, E., 195, 196, 205, 207–208 Meynet, R., 34 Michalowski, 144 Michalowski, P., 141–142 Milgrom, J., 72 Millard, A., 137, 174 Möller, K., 54, 77–78 Na’aman, N., 50, 58, 135 Nägele, S., 203–204 Niditch, S., 138–139 Nissinen, M., 84, 95–96, 98–99, 219–220 Noble, P., 34 Nogalski, J., 10 n 16, 41–42, 200 Novick, T., 191 n 117 Nurmela, R., 195 n 131 Overholt, T., 82, 106–107, 196 Pakkala, J., 190 Parker, S., 92 Paul, S., 8, 10–11, 18–19, 22–24, 28, 29, 57–58, 178, 194, 201 Person, R., 17, 44, 206–208, 206 n 188, 210 Petersen, D., 84, 88–89, 92, 205–206, 208 Polley, M., 4 Pomykala, K., 202 Priest, J., 14 Qedar, S., 188, 190 Raabe, P., 11 nn 23–24 Reventlow, H., 25–26 Richardson, H., 199 Rillett Wood, J., 76

Modern Authors Ringgren, H., 117 Roberts, J., 73–74, 91, 114 Robinson, E., 184 Rösel, H., 74 Rosenbaum, S., 9 n 13 Rotzoll, D., 30 Routledge, B., 182 Rowley, H., 194 Sass, B., 48 Schart, A., 41–42, 210 Scherer, A., 127–128 Schmidt, B., 91 n 56, 132 n 6, 145 n 82 Schmidt, W., 14 n 23, 16, 22, 24, 29, 61, 188 n 101 Schniedewind, W., 66, 76, 137 Schoville, K., 14 Shupak, N., 122 Silberman, N., 136 Singer-Avitz, L., 69, 184–185, 187 Soggin, A., 9 Spaer, A., 188 Steiner, M., 133 Steiner, R., 9 n 13, 191 n 117 Sweeney, M., 4, 74–76, 198 Tadmor, H., 50 Tinney, S., 141, 147 Todorov, T., 81 Tucker, G.M., 7–9, 86, 198

263

Ussishkin, D., 51, 59 Van Seters, J., 219 n 3 Vanderkam, J., 83 Vanstiphout, H., 144, 144 n 78, 146 Vawter, B., 8 Wanke, G., 155 Ward, J., 13 n 31 Warner, S., 138 Waschke, E., 37 Watts, J., 28 Weidner, E., 111 Weippert, M., 83–84, 123 Wellhausen, J., 39, 41 Westermann, C., 86, 154 Weyde, K., 207 n 194 Williams, J., 155–156 Williamson, H., 38, 184 Wilson, R., 82, 92, 195 Winckler, H., 2–3 Wöhrle, J., 42 n 179 Wolff, H., 8–10, 13–16, 23–24, 26–28, 33, 44, 57, 61, 68, 74, 149, 173, 191 n 119, 193, 193–194 n 124, 201–202 Würthwein, E., 19 Yadin, Y., 52–53, 199

Subject Index Adad-Guppi text, 167 Admonitions of Ipuwer, 122 Akkadian prophecies, 111–118, 127 Amaziah (priest), 186, 193–194 n 124, 194 Amaziah narrative, 38–40, 75–76, 124, 124 n 76, 183–197 – Bethel and, 183, 217 – dating of, 193, 211 – placement of, 186 Ammon, oracle against, 180–182 Amos (book), 118, 131, 192. See also Amos (person); Amos epilogue – audience for, 20, 76–77, 82, 85, 139–140, 169, 212 – composition/redaction of, 5, 7–46, 124–127 – dating of, 1–2, 5, 7 n 1, 29–30, 44, 46–79, 212–214 – Deuteronomist authorship/origin, 16–17, 25, 39, 44–45, 74 – disputed passages, 24–30 – historical context, 46–53, 131–136 – Josianic layer, 26 n 112, 28–29, 191 n 119 – levels/stages, 10, 46–79, 73 n 144, 140 – literary properties of, 81–82, 127–130, 192 – polemical nature, 192, 218 – political and prophylactic purposes, 2–5, 140, 169, 198 – structure, 29–36 – themes, 140. See also destruction/disaster themes; divine abandonment/wrath themes; lamentation texts/themes – Zechariah (book) and, 187, 194–197 Amos (person), 74, 77, 104–105, 124, 126–127, 138 n 50, 188 n 101 – anti-prophecy and, 193–197

– dating the activity of, 52–53 – disciples/school. See disciples of Amos – name, 40, 40 n 174 – political activity, 3–4 Amos epilogue, 198–210 – dating of, 199, 202, 204 – eschatological nature, 170, 208–211 – Isaiah (book) and, 202–203 – Lamentations (book) and, 203 – redaction of, 210 – theme of, 200–201 – Zechariah (book) and, 199, 205–210 apocalyptic literature, 118–120, 119 n 50, 195 Aram and Arameans, 55, 58–59, 172–174 Ashdod, 176–178 Ashima (deity), 67–69 Ashkelon, 176–178 Assur, weapon/symbol of, 62 Assurbanipal archives, 99–100 Assyria and Assyrian invasions, 54–60, 70–73, 213–215 – Babylon, 165–167 – Bethel, 185, 187 – introduction of Mesopotamian deities, 66 – subjugation of Israel, 63 Azariah, 9, 47. See also Amos (person): name Azriyau episode, 49–50 Baalis (king), 181–182 Babylon and Babylonian invasions, 175–176, 179–180, 210 Babylon and Babylonians, 113, 115–117, 159–162 – Ammon and, 180–182

Subject Index Babylon and Babylonians continued – Assyria and Assyrian invasions and, 165–167 – Edom and, 180 – Judah and, 181, 185 – Moab and, 182–183 balag. See harp songs (balag) Beer-sheba, 29, 69 Beitin. See Tell Beitin (Bethel) Benjamin region, 185 Bethel, 136, 190, 192–193 – Amaziah narrative and, 184–187, 217 – Assyrian invasions and, 185, 187 – condemnation of, 28–29 – fall of, 187 – priesthood and, 186 – rivalry with Jerusalem, 198, 217 biblical prophecy. See prophecy and prophets, biblical (Israelite); prophetic literature Boatman, 102 Book of the Twelve, 41–43, 210, 218 booth of David, 40–41, 66, 199–204 – Isaiah (book) and, 202 – Jerusalem and, 202 – role of David (king), 208 – Temple connections, 202–204, 204 n 177, 208, 217–218 Calneh, 56–60, 70 canonization, 108, 162 n 184 – Book of the Twelve and, 42–43 – prophetic literature, 195, 196 n 137, 197, 217 – superscriptions and, 8 Carmel, 20 n 74 chiasms and chiastic structure, 29–30, 30 n 131, 33–36, 212–214 Cicero on prophecy, 84–85 city-laments, 130 – communal laments, 152 – comparison with divine disaster (non-lament) texts, 167–168 – Israelite, 153 – Lamentations (book), 148–153 – Sumerian, 140–147, 141 n 64 – thematic connections to Amos (book), 149 n 111 City of David, 132–136. See also Jerusalem – Large-Stone Structure, 133

265

– Stepped-Stone Structure, 133 coins, 188–189 communal laments. See city-laments cults. See shrines curse lists/curses, 26–27, 148, 153–157, 161 Curse of Agade (CA), 158–161 Cyrus cylinder, 160, 167 Damascus, 50–51, 55, 172–175 Damascus Rule (CD) text, 64 David (king), 208. See also Davidic rule/dynasty Davidic rule/dynasty, 2–4, 4 n 12, 75, 198, 200. See also booth of David; United Monarchy – restoration of, 201 – transformation of, 208 n 199 Day of Yahweh motif, 143 n 74, 156 Deir ʿAlla text, 123, 128, 219–220 deities, Mesopotamian, 60–62, 66–69 – Ashima, 67–69 – Kiyyûn, 60–61 – Sikkût, 60–61 – worship of, 66 destruction/disaster themes, 143–145, 150, 152, 157–169. See also divine abandonment/wrath themes Deuteronomist authorship/origins – Amos (book), 16–17, 25, 39, 44–45, 74 – Exodus and settlement motifs/traditions and, 22–23 – Judah oracle, 15–17 – Zechariah (book) and, 206–207 Deuteronomist scribes and tradition, 4, 195, 206 disciples of Amos, 57 disciples of prophets, 106 divination, 83–85 divine abandonment/wrath themes, 97–98, 130–131, 143–147, 152, 157–169. See also destruction/disaster themes divine disaster (non-lament) texts, 157–168 – Adad-Guppi text, 167 – Curse of Agade (CA), 158–161 – Cyrus cylinder, 160, 167 – Esarhaddon rebuilding of Babylon text, 165–166 – Poem of Erra, 164–165

266

Subject Index

divine disaster texts continued – political and prophylactic purposes, 164–167 – Seed of Kingship, 162–163 – Tukulti-Ninurta epic, 161–162 doxologies, 27–29, 29–30 Dwd deity, 200 Dynastic Prophecy, 116–117 earthquake, the, 52–53, 205 eclipse, the, 53 ecstatic behavior and ecstasy, 90–93, 90 n 54, 108, 128, 215 Edom, 12–13, 43, 182, 218 – condemnation of, 208–209 – hostility toward, 41 – oracle against, 14–15, 17, 179–180 education, scribal, 125, 138–139 Egyptian prophecies, 121–123 Ekron, 176–178 Elijah/Elisha narratives, 104 n 120 elite, the, 54–55, 137–140 Enlil, 143–144, 147 eršemma. See tambourine laments (eršemma) Esarhaddon, 165–166 Esarhaddon archives, 99–100 eschatological themes, 118, 170, 206, 208–211 exile (physical and spiritual), 63–65 – of elite (Israel), 54–55 – theme of, 142, 142 nn 68–70, 189 Exodus and settlement motifs/traditions, 22–23 Ezekiel (book), 168–169 Ezra, 206 fortifications, 132–134 funerary laments, 149, 155–157 Gath, 56–60, 70, 177–178 Gaza, 175–176 Gedaliah, 181–182, 185–186 genres. See literary genres Gilead, 173–175 Gilgal, 29, 31 gods. See deities, Mesopotamian; under individual names; Yahweh Hamath, 56–60, 70 Hanno (king), 175–176 harp songs (balag), 147–148, 151

harvest imagery, 204 Hazael (king), 58–59 Hezekiah (king), 73–78, 136–137, 176–177 historical context/evidence, 46–53, 53 n 49, 54, 69, 131–136, 218. See also inscriptions and seals Hosea (book), 23, 41–43, 162 n 184 hôy sayings, 154–157 hymns, 27–28. See also doxologies idolatry, accusation of, 61 n 80, 65. See also deities, Mesopotamian imagery. See individual entries; literary motifs/themes injustice, accusations of. See social justice themes inscriptions and seals, 134, 137–138, 172 n 8 – as historical evidence, 48–49, 51 – Jeroboam, 188–189 – servant of “Baal-yasha,” 181 – Siloam Tunnel, 134, 137 – Tayma, 67–68 – Tell Fekheriyeh, 174 intermediary role (of prophet) and intermediation, 82, 105–106, 128 intertextuality, 43, 170 – Amos epilogue and, 218 – Deutero-Zechariah, 205–206 invasions, 66–67. See also Assyria and Assyrian invasions; Babylon and Babylonian invasions Isaiah (book), 27, 71–72, 202–203 Išbe-Erra, 142 Isin dynasty, 142, 147 Išme-Dagan, 147 Israel (northern kingdom), 1–2, 31 n 136, 70–71 – comparison to Judah, 132–134 – conquest of, 54–55, 63, 72–74, 130 – economic conditions, 134 – oracle against, 21–22 jar handles, 134, 137 Jeremiah, 103, 181, 219–220 Jeroboam I (king), 39, 186, 186 n 94, 188 Jeroboam II (king), 39, 46, 50–52, 50 n 26, 72–74, 188 – Amaziah narrative and, 189 – Aram and, 172–174

Subject Index “Jeroboam III” (leader), 188–190 Jerusalem, 2–3, 125. See also City of David – destruction of, 216–217 – identification with booth of David, 202 – population growth/transformation of, 132–136, 215–216 – rivalry with Bethel, 198, 217 Joel (book), 42–43 Josephus, 180–181 Josiah and Josianic period, 74–75, 75 n 156, 192 n 119 Jotham, 47, 201 Judah (southern kingdom), 2–3, 70, 138, 220 – challenges to, 136, 201 – comparison to Israel, 132–134 – conquest of, 181, 216 – oracle against, 15–17, 17 n 57, 31, 170–171, 212 – population growth/transformation of, 134–136 – warning of, 54, 77–78 kings, 158–161. See also under individual names – criticism of, 94–96, 99–101 – responsibility for social justice, 97–99 kirugu (textual division), 143 n 77 Kiyyûn (deity), 60–61 Lamentation over the destruction of Sumer and Ur (LSUr), 142–144 Lamentation over the destruction of Ur (LU), 144–145 Lamentation over the destructions of Uruk (LUr) and Eridu (LE), 146 lamentation texts/themes, 140–157, 216–218. See also Lamentations (book); woe oracles and woe-cries – Amos epilogue and, 203 – balag and eršemma (songs), 147 – city-laments, 130–131, 140–147 – funerary laments, 149, 155–157 – Mesopotamian laments, 148–154 – personification of cities, 202 – Sumerian, 140–147 Lamentations (book), 148–154, 169, 203 – absence of hôy sayings, 154

267

– city-laments and, 148–153 – hut imagery and, 203 laments, Mesopotamian. See Mesopotamian laments Large-Stone Structure, 133 literacy, 134, 137–140 literary genres, 81, 117–121, 151. See also literary-predictive texts; Oracles against the Nations; poetic texts – prophetic literature, 11, 80–109 – Temple and, 206 literary motifs/themes – contrasts and reversals, 122–123, 143, 149, 152, 156 – Day of Yahweh, 143 n 74, 156 – destruction/disaster, 143–145, 150, 152, 157–169. See also Israel: conquest of – divine abandonment/wrath, 97–98, 130–131, 140, 143–147, 163 – Edom, 218 – Exodus and settlement, 22–23 – mourning, 55, 149–150, 152–157 literary-predictive texts, 80–82, 111–123, 129, 215. See also poetic texts; prophetic literature – Akkadian, 111–118 – Deir ʿAlla text, 123, 219–220 – Dynastic Prophecy, 116–117 – Egyptian, 121–122 – Marduk Prophecy, 113–114 – Shulgi Prophecy, 114–115 – Uruk Prophecy, 115–116 loyalty oaths. See oaths Marduk, 164, 166 Marduk Prophecy, 113–114 Mari (city), 87–93 Mari texts (letters), 86–87, 93–97, 99, 107 Menasheh (priest), 189, 189 n 105 Mesha stele, 51, 200 Mesopotamian laments, 140–154 messenger formulae, 85–87, 215 Moab, 182–183 motto of Amos 1:2, 9–11, 19–20. See also superscriptions mourning themes, 55, 149–150, 152–157 Nabonidus, 180 Naram-Sin, 147, 158–159

268

Subject Index

Nebuchadnezzar (king), 171, 175–176, 180, 182 Neferti. See Prophecy of Neferti Nehemiah, 195, 206, 208 Nikaso, 189 Nippur Lament, 146–147 North, the. See Israel (northern kingdom) northern kingdom. See Israel (northern kingdom) Nur-Suen, 97, 99 oaths, 62–63, 94–95 Obadiah (book), 42–43 omens, 113 n 17, 119–120 Omrides, 2, 132–133 oracles. See also woe oracles and woecries – Ammon, 180–182 – Damascus, 172–175 – Edom, 179–180 – Israel, 21–22 – Judah, 15–17, 17 n 57, 183, 212 – Moab, 182–183 – Philistia, 175–178 – Tyre, 12–13, 178–179 Oracles against the Nations, 11–21, 11 nn 23–24, 212. See also oracles – date of composition/origin of, 12, 18–19, 44, 171–172, 183 – historical aspects, 170–183 – literary connections, 18–19 – structure, 18–21, 18 n 61 – unity of, 11–12 palaces, seasonal, 143 n 76 Pazarcik stele, 173–174 Pekah, 174–175, 174 n 21 Philistia, 175–178 Poem of Erra, 164–165 poetic texts, 139, 164 poets, 108 political rhetoric, 136–140. See also Amos (book): political and prophylactic purposes; Amos (person): political activity; prophetic literature: political purposes poor, the. See prophecy and prophets: social criticism and; social justice themes possession, prophetic. See ecstatic behavior and ecstasy

priesthood. See also Amaziah (person and narrative); Menasheh (priest) – ascent of, 195, 195 n 136 – rivalries/conflicts, 186–187, 189 proclamations, public, 101–102 prophecy and prophets, 82, 89 n 47, 96, 215. See also prophecy and prophets, biblical (Israelite); prophecy and prophets, Near Eastern – attitude toward/view of, 103, 217 – decline of, 195 – divination and, 83–85 – ecstatic component. See ecstatic behavior and ecstasy – literary. See prophecy and prophets, biblical (Israelite) – Neo-Assyrian. See prophecy and prophets, Near Eastern – rabbinic authority and, 196 – role of, 94–100, 106, 108 – themes. See literary motifs/themes – titles, 88–90 prophecy and prophets, biblical (Israelite), 80–109, 128n 88. See also Book of the Twelve; individual prophets and books – acceptance of, 196, 196 n 137 – comparison with Near Eastern, 94–101, 107–108 – denial of/antipathy toward, 193–197 – pre-Israelite traditions, 99 – role of, 108, 196 – transformation of, 105–106, 195 n 132, 195 n 136, 196, 196 n 141 prophecy and prophets, Near Eastern, 80–109, 107–108, 125–126, 215 – social criticism (Mari), 94–98, 100–101 – social criticism (Neo-Assyrian), 99–101 Prophecy of Neferti, 122 prophecy reports, 190–191 prophetic literature, 197, 215, 220. See also Amos (book); literary-predictive texts; prophecy and prophets; prophecy reports – canonization, 195, 196 n 137, 197, 217 – comparison with divine disaster (non-lament) texts, 167–168 – composition/redaction of, 219–220

Subject Index prophetic literature continued – hôy sayings, 155 – oral traditions, 139 – political purposes, 121, 216, 220 prophetic titles. See prophecy and prophets: titles pseudo-autobiographical texts, 120 Rabbah (Ammon), 181–182 refugees, Israelite, 2, 32, 134–136, 216 religious criticism, 94–96, 102. See also social justice themes Rezin, 174–175, 174 n 21 Samaria and Samarians, 59–60, 125–126, 189–190. See also Israel (northern kingdom) Samaritans, 35 n 157, 188 n 103 Šamši-ilu, 173–174 Sanballat, 189 sanctuaries. See shrines Sargon II (king), 56–60, 62, 159–160, 175–179 scribes and scribal activity, 106–107, 107 n 135, 121, 125, 138–139 Seed of Kingship, 162–163 Sennacherib (king), 62, 69, 136, 165–166 settlement motifs/traditions. See Exodus and settlement motifs/traditions shrines, 93, 95–96. See also Bethel; Gilgal; Jerusalem – associations with sukkah, 204 – condemnation of, 3–4, 204 n 177 – Near Eastern, 96, 143–144 Shulgi Prophecy, 114–115 Sikkût (deity), 60–61 Siloam Tunnel inscription, 134, 137 social justice themes, 94–101, 160, 163, 167 songs, 147–148, 151 South, the. See Judah (southern kingdom) southern kingdom. See Judah (southern kingdom) Stepped-Stone Structure, 133 stone lions, 173–174 storm imagery, 144–145, 150, 152 structure, chiastic, 29–30, 30 n 131, 33–36 sukkah terminology, 202–204 sukkat dawîd. See booth of David

269

Sukkoth festival, 204–205, 207, 207 n 194 Sukkoth-benoth, 61 superscriptions, 7–11, 46, 52–54, 76, 188–189, 192, 213 symbol of Assur. See Assur, weapon/symbol of Symmachus, 174 tambourine laments (eršemma), 147–148, 151 Tekoa, 9 n 13 Tel Dan stele, 200 Tell Beitin (Bethel), 184, 187, 193 Temple, the, 204 n 177, 206 – connections with booth of David, 202–204, 204 n 177, 217–218 – Sukkoth festival and, 207–208 Text A and Text B. See Akkadian prophecies texts, prophetic. See prophetic literature Tiglath-pileser III (king), 49–50, 55–56, 60, 62 – conquests, 72–74 – invasions, 173–179 toponyms, 31–33, 35–36, 213 Torah, rejection of, 15–17, 75, 170, 216–217 trances. See ecstatic behavior and ecstasy Tukulti-Ninurta epic, 161–162 Tyre, 12–13, 178–179 Ugarit, 90–91 United Monarchy, 1, 4–5, 45, 132–133, 201–202, 214. See also booth of David; Davidic rule/dynasty Uruk Prophecy, 115–116 Uzziah (king), 9, 46–50, 52, 53, 201 vaticinium ex eventu texts, 19, 112, 114, 118, 130 vision reports, 37–40, 93, 183–184, 187, 213 wisdom literature – Egyptian, 122 – woe oracles and woe-cries and, 154–157 woe oracles and woe-cries, 31, 31 n 135 57, 154–157. See also lamentation texts/themes

270

Subject Index

woe oracles and woe cries continued – Isaiah (book), 71 – wisdom literature and, 154–157 worship and worship sites, 3, 136. See also shrines Yahweh, 1, 77, 141, 170. See also booth of David; Day of Yahweh motif; divine abandonment/wrath theme; Torah, rejection of – prophets and, 24, 89 – role in history, 129–131, 206 Yehud. See Judah (southern kingdom)

Zechariah (book) – Amos (book) and, 187, 194–197, 218 – Amos epilogue and, 199, 205–210 – antipathy toward prophecy and prophets, 194 – Deuteronomist authorship/origin, 206–208 – intertextuality and, 205–206 – Sukkoth festival and, 205, 207 Zion toponym, 31–33, 35–36, 213