Amos Amram
THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA
i. 1. iK'Ciiuso it could not be referred to two years before it artunlly happened. Moreover, it is unlikely that Amos should not have added new propheeies to those spoken durinj; his stay in the northern kingdom, when he onee proeecded to write down his utterances (compare Jer. x.xxvi. 32). If i. 1 be admitted as authentic, the most probable conclusion is that "two years before the earthquake" was originally the dale for only a part of the book, perhaps for only the introductory speech in i. 2. The reign of Jeroboam II. lasted forty-one years, according to II Kings, xiv. 23. Though il can not
in
be
fi.xed
with certainty, this
much may be
said, that
termination must be placed between 7")0 and 740 B.C. Marti ("Ency. IJibl." article "Chronology," p. The 797) fixes his reign between 782 and 7-43 ii.c. activity of Amos could hardly have coincided with The fact alone that Isjiiah's the close of his reign. call can not have liappened later tlaan 740, while he so evidently draws on Amos' prophecies, is sutlicienl groimd for placing Amos not later than 751). The first indication thata distinction must lie made between the prophecies of Amos and the book that bears his name is to be found in the its
The Pres- narrative, vii. 10-17. This is inserted ent Form of after the third of five visions which the Book, form a connected series. The insertion in •
question
is
simply a comment on
vii.
and contains the threat of the overthrow of Jeroboam and his house. It is mentioned in vii. 10 that Amos' boldness resulted in his expulsion from the northern kingdom. It is not likely that Amos himself would have interrupted his series of addresses in Moreover, he is not the nurrsUor; another this way. writer speaks of him in the third person. Hence it is clear that his book has not come to us exactly as lie wrote it. But, on the other hand, vii. 10 et set/. must have been written soon after the event by a writer who had thoroughly trustworthy accounts of Amos. This is a fact of great imjiortauce. The book is well arranged in its general features, There is in chaps, i. and ii. a coherent series of judgments on sinful and unrepentant peoples, aimed 9,
liaiticularly at Israel. In chaps, vii. -ix. are the abovementioned live visions: in chaps, iii.-vi. a series of discourses, loosely connected, whose beginning and end can not be fixed with certainty. The same problem is presented in other prophetical books: the prophet himself would .scarcely lay great stress on the
separation of the single discourses when he wrote or dictated them. There is no reason to doubt that this aiTangement goes back to the first editors, working soon after the prophet's death or even delegated by liim for this task. This does not preclude tlie pos.siliility of later changes and additions. Since the investigations of Stade and Wellhausen. such changes have been assumed in increasing pro-
£ditorial
portions.
The most complete and
dis-
and Later
criminating survey of those passages Additions, whose originality hitherto has been doubted is given by Cheyne ("Ency. Bibl." article "Amos"). They can be grouped under the following titles: (1) Passages widening the horizon of the book, so as to include the southern kingdom of Judali. (2) Additional predictions affirming a Ix-tter future than the gloomy auguries of the old prophet. (3) Additions .giving expression to the loftier and more spiritual theology of a later time. (4) Glosses and explanations based on an erroneous conception of the texts. (1) The chief passage of the first group is ii. 4, etc., the denunciation of Judah in the series of judgments against the nations. The same judgment against
Edom
in
i.
11
and 12
is
perhaps also an addition, and
532
same has been surmised of the passage about Tyre 9. The isolated verse i. 2. in whi<h Zion is spoken of as the fixed seat of YIIWII. is also doubtful, and the sjune is true of the address to Zion in vi. 1, and the expres.sion "like David " in vi. (2) The .second group is represented by ix. 8-15, canceled by Stade. Wellhausen, Cornill, Nowack, Cheyne, and many others, as sjiurious. These verses do not form a single whole, but are composed of different pas.sages. Verses 10. 11, 12, 13, and 14 seem to be mere fragments or insertions in the context. The last verse, which, by virtue of its inimitable originality, is unanimously ascribed to Amo.s, the
in
i.
'>.
can not have formed the conciudiiig verse of the book, but aiipears to have been the beginning of a new address. If the verses 8-13 are to be taken in their entirety as a later addition, the original con-
tinuation must either have been lost through the mutilation of the manuscript, or have intentionally been stricken otit on account of the too mournful survey of the future. The latter suggestion is improbable, because verse 7 would have been rejected for the Siime reason, and because in other passages (see verses 1-4) the most terrible iiredictions have been retained. If, on the other hand, theconclusion had been lost in consequence of the mutilation and then supplied at hazard, a more uniform continuation would have been ex])ecte(l in i)laceof such a rugged one, with its disjointed an<l disconnected sentences. The possibility remains that verses 8-15 are a repeated elaboration of the original conclusion. It is erroneous to consider verse 11, concerning the restoration of the fallen tabernacle of David, as a specifically Judaic prediction; it can only as,sume this characier through the addition of verse 12, which regards the subjection of the vassjils of Judah as an essential feature of such reestablisliment. The verse refers to the reesta1)lishment of the united kingdom of Israel, founded by David and sundered after the death of Solomon. Verses 8. 9. 11, 14, and 15 may possibly contain an original prediction directed, like vii. 9. against the house of .leroboam. and iiromising for the future the restoration of a united Israel, as pleasing to Jehovah. Of course, conclusive proof of this theory can no longer be secured, nor can the original text of such prediction be restored with reasonaI)le certainty.
The
tliird group of (3) iv. 13, V. 8, ix, 5ti, which
additions are the doxologies invoke YIIWII as the Creator and Ruler of the world. While it is not impossible that they maj- have been written b' Amos, the style of these additions indicates a much later period, possibly later than Deutero-Isaiah. Since all three passages interrupt the context, and iv. 13 and V. 7 have inherent difficulties of their own, it may be suggested that the interpolator designed these doxologies to fill up gaps or illegible sentences in the manuscripts. (4) To the fourth group, iii. 14 and viii. 11, and 12 may be assigned. Other pa.ssages are open to disctission, particularly the enigmatical verse v. 26 (Wellhausen, Xowack, Cheyne), the difficulty of which is hardly solved by the suggestion of its being simply a marginal gloss. Finally, there are many individual words of the text of this book which present numerous difficulties. Concerning the i)roblem which the severe logical attitude of Amos presents in the history of religion, compare especially F. Giescbrecht, " Die Geschiclitlichkeit des Sinaibundes." p. 14; also K. Budde. "American Lectures on the History of Keligions," vol. iv. lecture iv. To ascribe the whole book to another age, the pre-Deuteronomic period of Josiah (038-621), on account of this and similar difficulties.
