¹ Cf. Sellin, E., Zwölfprophetenbuch (Leipzig, 1922), p. 152Google Scholar; Eissfeldt, O., Einleitung in das A. T. (Tubingen, 1934), p. 441.Google Scholar

² The doxology in 4: 13, like those in 5: 8 f. and 8: 5 f., constitutes a distinct problem.

³ It is generally recognized that should be read as may have been written as . Cf. 4: 15.

⁴ Vv. 26–27 offer grave difficulties. The clever solutions proposed by H. Schmidt and Sellin do not carry complete conviction.

⁵ Cf. Harper, W. R., ICC on Amos and Hosea (New York, 1905), p. 168Google Scholar, Baumann, E., Der Aufbau des Amosreden (Giessen, 1903), p. 14Google Scholar, Z., Budde Geschichte des Buches Amos in Wellhausenfestschrift (1914), pp. 65Google Scholar ff., Sellin, op. cit., pp. 156 ff., Löhr, M., Untersuchungen zum Buch Amos (Giessen, 1901, Beihefte, ZATW, No. IV), pp. 26 f., Eissfeldt, op. cit., p. 442.Google Scholar

^5a Löhr, p. 10; Sellin, p. 158; Eissfeldt, p. 442.

⁶ Seesemann, S. O., Israel und Juda bei Amos und Hosea (Leipzig, 1898), pp. 16 f.Google Scholar, Nowack, , Die kleinen Propheten (Göttingen, 1897), p. 126Google Scholar. Duhm omits 2: 4 f. and the doxologies; Wellhausen and Cheyne add 9: 8–15. Löhr rejects 2: 4 f.; 5: 5c; 8: 14; 6: 1a; 9: 8 ff. (p. 13 a, e). Harper (p. cxxxii) omits 2: 4 f. doubtfully; 9: 8–15. G. A. Smith suspects 2: 4 f., and rejects 9: 8–15 decidedly. Sellin removes 2: 4 (because it contradicts 9: 11 f. which he regards as original), 3: la; and b^eṣion in 6: 1. Eissfeldt omits 2: 4 f. and 9: 8–15.

⁷ Cf. Wellhausen, , Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte (1894), p. 70; Cornill, Prophetismus, p. 40. Seesemann, op. cit., pp. 3 and 4 assigns chs. 3–6 to Samaria, and chs. 7–9 to Beth-El, and assumes that 7: 10–17 marks the end of Amos' activity. Also Sellin, p. 154, who assumes that after the expulsion Amos returned to Judah and there wrote down his prophecies. On the other hand, Harper, p. cxxix, says that Amos “continues for a while the work which he came north to perform,” but does not indicate whether any prophecies postdate his expulsion.Google Scholar

⁸ Compare Joel 4:18 ff., Micah 7: 14 ff. and such passages as Isaiah 60: 1–17; 61: 5–9, which can easily be augmented. Löhr claims that 2: 4 f., 6: 1 were added because of the ritual use of the book in the synagogue. Actually the whole trend of Rabbinic thought, which flowered during the period of Jewish subjugation, was to deprecate and oppose the prophetic denunciations of Israel. Thus they object to Isaiah's characterization of Israel as “a people of unclean lips” (Isaiah 6: 5) and declare his alleged martyrdom to have been the penalty for this sin. Cf. Yebamot 49b, Sanh. 103b and L. Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, Vol. IV, pp. 263, 267; Vol. VI, p. 374, n. 103.

⁹ Kazabh occurs in the singular in Hos. 12: 2, Ps. 40: 5, and in the plural in Hos. 7: 13. Note also the use of šikkusim as early as Hos. 9: 10.

¹⁰ The sections on Philistia, Tyre and Edom have been frequently deleted (Harper, p. cxxxi; Eissfeldt, p. 444 “probably”). Sellin (pp. 165 f.) discusses the objections raised against their authenticity and concludes that there are no decisive grounds, either in fact or content, for rejecting them. He then proceeds to eliminate Tyre, Edom and Judah on metrical grounds, which are not at all conclusive. He also argues from the fact that these sections lack the concluding formula 'amar Yahveh found in the other four. Actually the desire for variety in style, even within a compact structure, would account for this change perfectly. It may be added that in the present text the use of the closing formula, 'amar Yahveh follows a definite scheme: It is used twice (Damascus v. 5, Gaza v. 6), then omitted twice (Tyre, v. 10, Edom, v. 12), then used twice again (Ammon v. 15, Moab 2: 3), then omitted twice again (Judah 2: 5, Israel 2:5). Sellin's final reason for rejecting the section on Judah is its contradiction of 9: 11 f., with which we shall deal below. W. R. Smith, Kuenen, H. Schmidt, Köhler and others have maintained the integrity of this passage. Cf. Driver, ILOT, 12 ed. (1906), p. 318.

¹¹ The seven examples are (1) two men meeting, (2, 3) the lion, two instances, (4, 5) the bird in the trap, two instances, (6) the trumpet, (7) the prophet.

¹² They are (1) hunger (v. 6), (2) drought for crops (v. 7), (3) thirst in the city (v. 7, 8), (4) blasting and mildew (v. 9), (5) locust (v. 9), (6) the plague (v. 10), (7) earthquake (v. 11).

¹³ Seesemann, p. 5, and Harper, p. 65, argue for the authenticity of this clause on slightly different grounds.

¹⁴ So Driver against Harper, who is doubtful about this passage and 8: 14c (op. cit., p. 111).

¹⁵ Cf. Seesemann, p. 3, Löhr, op. cit., p. 17.

¹⁶ This phrase is generally regarded as a gloss because the Assyrian conquest of Hamath (720), Calneh (738) and Gath (711) took place after Amos' day. It may be left open whether early signs of weakness in these city-states could not have been obvious earlier to the keen gaze of the prophet, especially since the Assyrian conquerors proceeded piece-meal with their victims. (Cf. Isaiah 8: 23 for the analogous treatment of Israel.) At all events, the gloss would be an early one, dating from the end of the eighth century (Harper, op. cit., p. 146).

¹⁷ “A Rhetorical Use of Interrogative Sentences in Biblical Hebrew” (AJSL), Vol. XLIX No. 3 (Apr., 1933), pp. 212–17.Google Scholar

¹⁸ The pronoun hem is understood after hatobhim. Cf. Ewald, , Lehrbuch (Göttingen, 1863), sec. 303, b. 1. He compares also Psalm 16: 8 (sc. hu'), II Sam. 14: 4 (sc. 'anaḥnu), II Chron. 17: 27 (sc. hu'), II Chron. 18: 3 (sc. 'ani); II Chron. 19: 6 (sc. hu').Google Scholar

¹⁹ Winckler's brilliant emendation of derekh into dodekh based on the Septuagint ὸ θεός σου has been widely accepted. The word, however, occurs only in proper names in the Bible (cf. II Chron. 20: 37), and on the Mesha Inscription line 12. On the other hand, an oath “by the road to Beersheba” is paralleled by the Islamic oath “by the pilgrimage to Mecca”; cf. Harper and Sellin ad loc. If the Masoretic text be retained, the reference to “the road to Beersheba,” like 5: 5, testifies to a North Israelite point of origin.

²⁰ The metaphor may be interpreted in two ways. The ṣ^eror may mean the corn, which remains in the fine sieve, after the dust is eliminated, and would thus refer to the righteous who are to be saved. Or it may mean “the stone” (cf. II Sam. 17: 13), which is left behind in the coarse sieve, and hence be a symbol of the wicked who cannot escape punishment. Cf. Wetzstein in ZDPV (1891), pp. 1–7. In either case, there is a process of selection and hence a partial salvation.

²¹ Ps. 60: 8–12 is particularly illuminating for our passage.

²² Krochmal, , More Nebuke Hazeman — latest edition (Berlin, 1934), chap. 7.Google Scholar

²³ Der Ursprung der israelitisch — juedischen Eschatologie (Göttingen, 1905), passim. Cf. especially pp. 151 f.; 238 ff. and on our passage pp. 141, 209, 231, 255.Google Scholar

^23a When this paper was read at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in December, 1939, Professor R. H. Pfeiffer kindly called our attention to the problem as to where the prophecies of the second collection were delivered. There is no decisive evidence on this point, but Amos' preoccupation with Israel's doom in chs. 8–9 would imply that he continued his activity somewhere in Israel, perhaps in Samaria. Even Beth-El is not ruled out, for the record (7: 10–17) does not state that Amos was actually driven out, and it is he who has the last and decisive word. At all events, Amaziah's interdict proved no more successful than the later attempts made to prevent Jeremiah's activity.

²⁴ That this collection had its earlier independent history goes without saying, but does not affect the argument.

²⁵ Cf. Ben Sira 48: 24 “With the spirit of might he beheld the future ('aḥarith) and comforted the mourners for Zion.”

²⁶ The historical reference in the opening section (cf. 1: 1) is clear. The dating “two years after the earthquake” refers to the first period of Amos' activity, the literary remains of which are included in chaps. 1–7.

²⁷ Harper, op. cit., p. cxxix.

²⁸ It is Amaziah who seeks to heighten the impression by quoting Amos as announcing the death of Jeroboam himself and not merely of his dynasty, as well as the exile of the people (7: 11). It is only as Amos is being expelled that he takes up these words of Amaziah and makes them part of his own message (7: 17).

²⁹ It is interesting that Amos couples the fruitless search for God's word with the perishing of youth. This association of idealism with youth is characteristic of Amos, cf. 2: 11–12. The earlier passage indicates the sin, the later one the penalty, for suppressing the natural idealistic impulses of youth. There is no need, therefore, to eliminate 8: 11b, 12b with Sellin, who thus leaves only the reference to a physical hunger in the text.

³⁰ Eissfeldt's judgment on Amos (p. 446), “Denn Gott ist ihm alles, Israel nichts,” seems to us an impossible attitude for a Hebrew prophet.

³¹ One problem raised by the assumption of two collections divided at 7: 17 must be discussed. That the four visions in 7: 1–9 and 8: 1–3 constitute a unit has been often taken for granted (so Löhr, op. cit., pp. 26 f.) though not always (cf. Driver, ILOT, 12 ed., pp. 315 f.). In the first two, the prophet interposes a plea for mercy and thus prevents the locust and the fire from completing their deadly work. In the last two, the refrain is lo' 'osiph od ʻabhor lo (7: 9 and 8: 2) and no plea for mercy would avail. The destruction of the cult and of the state is announced in the third vision, and the end of the people in the fourth.

If the fourth vision is regarded as distinct from the other three, there is no problem in the assumption that the first three belong to the first period and the fourth to the second. If they be regarded as a unit, the problem of the position of the narrative becomes especially acute, for the historical section is then inserted in the middle of a single utterance.

It seems most likely, however, that 8: 1–3 is a distinct vision and that 7: 1–9 constitutes a striking and effective unit. First one peril is averted by the prophet's plea, then another. The third time, no pleas will serve, for the catastrophe is certain — the cult and the state are doomed. The fourth vision would be an anti-climax by its repetition of the theme of doom. At a later time, of course, the prophet could return to the style of these visions, and pen another emphasizing his new conviction of the complete destruction of Israel (8: 1–3).

It may be added that the fourth vision is not as identical in form with the first three as is usually believed. In the latter, Jahveh appears himself, “He creates the locusts” (7:1), “He calls to judgment by fire” (7: 4), and “He stands beside a wall” (7: 7). In the fourth, Jahveh is not part of the vision at all. Besides, the word-play of kaiṣ and keṣ has no parallel in the earlier visions.