Notes

^* I am grateful to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for the research fellowship under which this paper was completed.

¹ The key issues are Amos’ social class and position as some sort of an agriculturist, and his relationship to a structured institution of prophecy. The bibliography on these issues is long, but these matters do not really impact the present work. For an excellent review of current work on Amos, and the growing trend to synchronic readings, see R.F. MELUGIN, "Amos in Recent Research", CR:BS 6 (1998) 65-101.

² Cf. 1,8; 3,7.8.11.13; 4,2.5; 5,3.16; 6,8; 7,1.2.4.5.6.7.8; 8,1.3.11; 9,1.8 (some feature the construction hwhy ynd) my/the lord YHWH, the most common name for God in Amos). Scholars differ as to whether the possessive is to be understood in the expression, some varying their own readings as context demands, e.g. J.H. HAYES, Amos: The Eighth Century Prophet. His Times and His Preaching (Nashville 1988) 85, 127; H.W. WOLFF, Joel and Amos (Hermeneia; Philadelphia 1977) 130, 291-294. The presence or absence of the epithet as well as the possessive particle on the final word of the book seem to imply some poetic force, as I will describe below. Moreover, in 4,1, the "cows of Bashan" are accused of impropriety by asking "their lords" Mhynd) (note masculine suffix) to bring them drink. In the very next verse, "(my) Lord YHWH" vows to punish them. The contrast in the two verses suggests to me that the divine title should be read with a possessive here and elsewhere.

³ The pun here on Amos’ name swm( with "burden" sm( is intended, although I am not suggesting the character’s name carries particular connotations in the book.

⁴ This is, of course, without denying the importance of historical studies, or of the importance of the methodological debates surrounding this field of research.

⁵ W.B. STANFORD, Enemies of Poetry (London 1980) 142-146, comments on the prevalence of "The Documentary Fallacy", in studies of classical poetry: the view that it is fallacious to speculate about what is not explicitly stated in a literary text (e.g., about the mother of King Lear’s children, who is not mentioned in the play). He writes that it cannot be taken as proved that a work of literature has no depth behind its own presentation.

⁶ E.g., A.G. AULD, "Prophets Through the Looking Glass: Between Writings and Moses", JSOT 27 (1983) 3-23; E. CONRAD, "The End of Prophecy and the Appearance of Angels/Messengers in the Book of the Twelve", JSOT 73 (1997) 65-79; W.M. SCHNIEDEWIND, The Word of God in Tradition. From Prophet to Exegete in the Second Temple Period (JSOTSS 197; Sheffield 1995).

⁷ B. BEIT-HALLAHMI, "Religion as Art and Identity", Religion 16 (1986) 1-17.

⁸ BEIT-HALLAHMI, "Religion as Art", 8. See also P. DIXON – M. BORTOLUSSI, "Literary Communication: Effects of Reader-Narrator Cooperation", Poetics 23 (1996) 405-430, on the manipulation of the reader by capitalising on the identification by readers with the narratorial voice and the characters who are close to that voice’s point of view.

⁹ R. ALTER, The Art of Biblical Poetry (New York 1985) 144. This expression has been used to illuminate Amos 1–2 by R.B. CHISHOLM, Jr., "‘For Three Sins¼Even for Four’. The Numerical Sayings in Amos", BSac 147 (1990) 188; M.D. CARROLL R., Contexts for Amos. Prophetic Poetics in Latin American Perspectives (JSOTSS 132; Sheffield 1992) 179, 192, sees a trap being set throughout all of Amos 3–6 as God’s point of view begins to claim absolute authority.

¹⁰ Very many scholars notice this, but see the rhetoric working against the historical prophet’s audience. See D.A. DORSEY, "Literary Architecture and Aural Structuring Techniques in Amos", Bib 73 (1992) 306-307; S.M. PAUL, "Amos 1.3-2.3: A Concatenous Literary Pattern", JBL 90 (1971) 397-403. On the ‘x/x+1’ pattern, see the excellent bibliography in R.H. O’CONNELL, "Telescoping N+1 Patterns", VT 46 (1996) 59. F.I. ANDERSEN – D.N. FREEDMAN, Amos: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 24; New York 1989) xxviii-xxix, 215, 335, correctly observe how the recollections of the pre-monarchic time make vv. 9-13 relevant to both Judah and Israel and suspect that vv. 14-16 could also be addressed to the other six nations mentioned in the oracles. P. NOBLE, "Israel Among the Nations", Horizons in Biblical Theology 15 (1993) 71, concurs regarding vv. 9-12.

¹¹ That a question is being asked is entertained from time to time. See, for instance, T. MURAOKA, Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew (Leiden 1985) 113-118, who, however, does not give his own translation of the expression. On the suffix referring to the named nations, see especially the influential paper of M.L. BARRÉ, "The Meaning of l) )s\ybnw in Amos 1:3-2:6" JBL 105 (1986) 618-631.

¹² Notice that immediately following 3,8 there are orders to "proclaim" to foreign nations that they should muster to see Israel’s sin. This gives the reader’s own prophetic persona a "mission" to accomplish as they imagine themselves in the fictive, literary world. This is reinforced in v. 13, where there is a call to "hear and testify".

¹³ This is widely recognised. For instance, A. VAN DER WAL, "The Structure of Amos", JSOT 26 (1983) 107-113, makes a division between chaps. 6 and 7. ANDERSEN – FREEDMAN, Amos, analyse the book according to four main sections, the last two, the so-called "Book of Visions"(Amos 7,1–9,6) and the "Epilogue" (Amos 9,7-15) spanning the subject text of this paper. Most do subdivide chaps. 7–9. DORSEY, "Literary Architecture", 328, breaks them up into two sections, but makes a break at the end of Amos 8,4. For a critique of many structural analyses, and the historical-literary work on Amos, see E. R. WENDLAND, "‘The Word of the Lord’ and the Organization of Amos", Occasional Papers in Translation and Textlinguistics 2 (1988) 1-51.

¹⁴ Such is the judgment of WOLFF, Joel and Amos, 352-353; J.L. MAYS, Amos (OTL; London 1969) 163-166; R. MARTIN-ARCHARD, "A Commentary on the Book of Amos", R. MARTIN-ARCHARD – S.P. RE’EMI, God’s People in Crisis (ITC; Edinburgh 1984) 66-67; J. JEREMIAS, The Book of Amos: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville 1998) 162; J.A. SOGGIN, The Prophet Amos. A Translation and Commentary (London 1987) 148-150. Among those thinking Amos composed 9,7-15 are HAYES, Amos, 223-228 and S.M. PAUL, Amos (Minneapolis 1991) 289-290.

¹⁵ The participle rcwy "forming" has generated a great amount of debate, in part stimulated by text critical concerns. See PAUL, Amos, 226. Yahweh is not actually specified as subject, but many scholars see the implication as too strong in view of the parallels with 7,4, e.g., ANDERSEN – FREEDMAN, Amos, 614. On the other hand, WOLFF, Joel and Amos, 294, is one of those who maintain the anonymity of the subject. Others prefer to read the MT verb as a passive, i.e., the swarm of locusts "was forming", e.g., SOGGIN, Amos, 112.

¹⁶ As is the opinion of most scholars, e.g., MAYS, Amos, 127-128; E. HAMMERSHAIMB, The Book of Amos. A Commentary (Oxford 1970) 109. PAUL, Amos, 227, reads the verse as indicating that the late planting takes place before the king’s portion is reaped, thus the insects have it all.

¹⁷ Only one "behold" is found here, paralleling the first use in v. 1. The reference to the divine action #)b brl )rq is troublesome to many. PAUL, Amos, 226, reads "summoning a judgment by fiery heat", and a basically similar reading is found in HAYES, Amos, 203, and J. LIMBURG, "Amos 7:4: A Judgment with Fire?", CBQ 35 (1973) 346-349. HAMMERSHAIMB, Amos, 110, has Yahweh call to the fire for judgment. A number would emend it to replace "contend" with "rain" or "shower" of fire. WOLFF, Joel and Amos, 292; JEREMIAS, Amos, 123; D.R. HILLERS, "Amos 7:4 and Ancient Parallels", CBQ 26 (1964) 221-225.

¹⁸ PAUL, Amos, 229, provides some useful parallels for ym as "how" instead of "who", and presents some text critical issues, such as the LXX that avoids the problem by seeing Jacob as the object, "who will raise up Jacob?"

¹⁹ L. ESLINGER, "The Education of Amos", HAR 11 (1987) 39-40.

²⁰ There is no consensus as to the force of the preposition l( "on", "beside" etc. SOGGIN, Amos, 115, and MAYS, Amos, 131, read "beside"; WOLFF, Joel and Amos, 293, "on"; HAMMERSHAIMB, Amos, 111, "over". A similar question presents itself in the fifth vision (9,1), with God either on or beside the altar. While there may be no end to the debate, the reading of "on" offers a more terrible image of YHWH: already intimidating, his appearance is more frightful given the added impact of his standing on top of walls and, ultimately, the altar, as noted by WOLFF, Joel and Amos, 339.

²¹ See the discussion in M. WEIGLE, "Eine ‘unendliche Geschichte’: Kn) (Am 7,7-8)", Bib 76 (1995) 343-387. H.G.M. WILLIAMSON, "The Prophet and the Plumbline: A Redaction-Critical Study of Amos 7", In Quest of the Past. Studies on Israelite Religion, Literature and Prophetism (ed. A.S. VAN DER WOUDE) (OTS 26; Leiden 1990) 101-121, defends the reading of "plumbline".

²² B. LANDSBERGER, "Tin and Lead: The Adventures of Two Vocables" JNES 24 (1965) 287. Some emend away the term’s first appearance, qualifying the wall on the opinion that it represents a scribal error. See WOLFF, Joel and Amos, 293-294; HAMMERSHAIMB, Amos, 111-112. Note that Jer 1,18 and 15,20 speak of the prophet’s invulnerability as a "wall of bronze".

²³ E.g., H. GESE, "Komposition bei Amos", Congress Volume Vienna 1980 (ed. J. A. EMERTON) (VTS 32; Leiden 1981) 81-82, followed by AULD, Amos (OTG; Sheffield 1986) 20.

²⁴ ANDERSEN – FREEDMAN, 759; A. COOPER, "The Meaning of Amos’s Third Vision (Am 7:7-9)", Tehillah le-Moshe. Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg (eds. M. COGAN – B.L. EICHLER – J.H. TIGAY) (Winona Lake, IN 1997) 16-18.

²⁵ ANDERSEN – FREEDMAN, Amos, 754, 756-759, note that the Talmud (bM 59a) takes Kn) in 7,8 to mean "grief", "wrong" or "oppression".

²⁶ COOPER, "Amos’ Third Vision", 17, regards a play with the noun hxn) "groan" to be unsatisfactory because its pronunciation is not as close to Kn) as the word-play requires. But the final consonant on Kn) is pronounced between the relatively soft final letter of xn) and the harder sound of qn), as noted by GESE, "Komposition", 81-82 and AULD, Amos, 20. Cooper does not discuss these two other terms.

²⁷ F. PRAETORIUS, "Bemerkungen zu Amos," ZAW 35 (1915) 23; see also R.B. COOTE, Amos among the Prophets. Composition and Theology (Philadelphia 1981) 92-93. JEREMIAS, Amos, 132-133, refers to the Ishtar hymn, col. 41, lines 23-24, as containing a similar word-play, citing A. FALKENSTEIN, "Summerische religiöse Texte", ZA 56 (1964) 76.

²⁸ COOPER, "Amos’s Third Vision", 19-21.

²⁹ Cf. COOTE, Amos, 93, who thus offers a dual meaning in YHWH’s response (see note 28 above). In this second instance, he takes our troublesome word as an admittedly ungrammatical suffix "you" on the preceding verb, without explaining the presence of the ). D.L. PETERSEN, The Roles of Israel’s Prophets (JSOTSS 17; Sheffield 1981) 77-78, does not consider the ) to be problematic, as it may be a scribal error.

³⁰ F. LANDY, "Vision and Poetic Speech in Amos", HAR 2 (1987) 230.

³¹ MAYS, Amos, 132.

³² Amos’ reply is the subject of much discussion which cannot be surveyed here. This debate addresses the social roles "prophet"’ and "son of a prophet" and the force of the two attestations of the particle )l.

³³ LANDY, "Vision", 237, followed by ESLINGER, "The Education of Amos", 46 n. 28. See also F.O. GARCIA-TRETO, "A Reader-Response Approach to Prophetic Conflict: The Case of Amos 7.10-17", The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible (eds. CHERYL EXUM – D.J.A. CLINES) (Valley Forge, PA reprint edn. 1993) 121-123.

³⁴ LANDY, "Vision", 236.

³⁵ ESLINGER, "The Education of Amos", 48-49.

³⁶ LANDY, "Vision", 238.

³⁷ Some have difficulties with sh Kyl#h (lit. "he has cast, silence"). MAYS, Amos, 140, emends to Mkyl#h, "in every place they are cast out". The RSV reads, "In every place they shall be cast out in silence". sh is, however, best thought of as an interjection as this is the most frequent use. In Amos 6,10 a call is made not to invoke the name of YHWH. See also the call for silence before YHWH in Zech 2,17 and Zeph 1,7. Eglon uses it in Judg 3,19 when he wishes to hear Ehud’s message. Nehemiah 8,11 uses an imperative form to call for silence on a holy day. Numbers 13,30 is unique, as Caleb is said to quiet the Israelites before encouraging them to attack Canaan.

³⁸ LANDY, "Vision", 231-232.

³⁹ LANDY, "Vision", 238.

⁴⁰ And 2,11-12 in which Israel is accused of silencing the prophets that YHWH had given them.

⁴¹ This is, admittedly, a difficult passage. K.J. CATHCART, "Ro4s\, ‘Poison’, in Amos IX 1", VT 44 (1994) 393-395, on the strength of Ugaritic incantations against snakes, as well as many inner biblical comparisons, would emend the text to read, "I shall slay them all with poison, and I shall kill their children with the sword".

⁴² Some find it difficult that YHWH would stand on the altar. Regardless of the anthropomorphism involved in the fantastic vision, one should not limit the power of the imagery by such "human" restrictions. PAUL, Amos, 274, reads "beside", as does MAYS, Amos, 153; whilst WOLFF, Joel and Amos, 336, reads "on", noting the terrifying imagery this gives.

⁴³ Of the differences between the final and previous visions, WOLFF, Joel and Amos, 337-338, observes that the differences highlight that the fifth is the climax of the series.

⁴⁴ ANDERSEN – FREEDMAN, Amos, 845-846, point out that 9,6 is speaking of the whole of the heavens as God’s dwelling, but this represents the heavenly temple.

⁴⁵ See note 11 above.

⁴⁶ Again, there is some debate, and that it is "fallen" suggests to some (but certainly not all) a post-monarchic date of composition. WOLFF, Joel and Amos, 353, sees here a reference to Jerusalem, while MAYS, Amos, 164, and PAUL, Amos, 290, find symbolic reference to the Davidic empire.

⁴⁷ MAYS, Amos, 153, citing Amos 3,9, Isa 13,2 and Jer 5,10.

⁴⁸ The lack of a vocative, the inability of Amos to actually shatter the temple and the high level of anthropomorphism lead WOLFF, Joel and Amos, 334, to rearrange and emend the text of Amos 9,1 to read, "I saw my Lord standing on the altar; [ ] [He smote] the capital so that the thresholds shook. [Then He said] ‘[I will cleave] the head...’"; SOGGIN, Amos, 119-120, would also emend the text. He offers, "He said to me, I will shatter violently the capitals...". Soggin admits, however, that the text is not nonsensical as it has been preserved, and so one may question why any emendation should be deemed necessary.

⁴⁹ ANDERSEN – FREEDMAN, Amos, 839.

⁵⁰ ESLINGER, "The Education of Amos", 53-54.