Words of Amos: Literal and Literary Translation (ch 1-2)

1991

Compares two commentaries on Amos published in the same year and notes among other things their strikingly different reconstructions of the ministry of the historical prophet.

This Oxford dissertation offers a fresh redactional analysis of the Book of Amos. It starts with a critical survey of existing approaches and an examination of the methodological issues involved and proceeds with a detailed exegetical analysis of the prophetic text which forms the basis for the redactional conclusions. It steers a middle course between extreme conservative treatments which trace all the material back to the prophet Amos and more radical sceptical approaches which attribute most of the prophetic oracles to the work of later redactors. The composition of the book began with two collections: the Polemical scroll written not long after the end of Amos’ ministry and the Repentance scroll composed shortly before 722 BC. The Repentance scroll was reworked in Judah towards the end of the 8th century BC and the two scrolls were combined to form a single work sometime during the 7th century BC. The Book underwent only one redaction during the exilic period which sought to actualise its message in a new historical context. The study pays special attention to the literary structure, aim and probable historical circumstances of the various collections which gradually evolved into the present Book of Amos and seeks to show how the prophetic message lived on and spoke to the various communities which preserved and transmitted it.

This article looks at the way in which the meaning of prophetic oracles was altered when they were detached from their original historical contexts and became part of prophetic books. It takes two sayings from the book of Amos (3:12 and 9:9-10) and examines them first in isolation in order to attempt to reconstruct the probable meaning they had in their original setting. Then it investigates the ways in which their present literary context affects the interpretation of the oracles. It is argued that by incorporating oracles in larger collections and thus providing them with new interpretative frameworks the redactors were able to change somewhat their meanings without rewording them. In 3:12 the original metaphorical reference to pieces of broken furniture is now to be interpreted literally, whilst in 9:9-10 an oracle of judgment is transformed into a statement of selective punishment preparing the way for the promise of salvation.

The Shamir, the Letters, the Writing, and the Tablets (Mishnah Avot 5:6), 2023

Inclusio, or envelope figure, is a well-known rhetorical device in which the beginning is repeated at the end, thus bringing structure and poetic beauty to the text. Amos 3:1-8 has been recognized by many Biblical scholars as an independent literary unit, due to the clearly identifiable inclusio in verses 1 and 8 (dibber yhwh || yhwh dibber). However, there has been little agreement regarding its internal structure, especially regarding the relationship of vv. 1-2 to the rest of the passage. In addition, the significance of v. 3 has been the source of much disagreement. Through careful textual and poetical analysis, the literary tapestry of this passage will be brought to light, shown through the recognition of not only one but three inclusios, in conjunction with other rhetorical devices such as chiasmus, pivot, and keyword structures. This analysis will awaken an appreciation of the intended beauty, technical design, and artistic nuance present in Amos 3:1-8.

E-Journal of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences

The book of Amos is among the most studied books in the Bible. The high scholarly interest in Amos is due to the prophet’s emphasis on true religion. Amos’ message cannot be understood without a proper understanding of the context in which it was delivered. Amos ministered in eighth-century Israel when the nation had prospered economically and politically. The nation’s prosperity had yielded a high level of religiosity evident in the payment of tithes, offerings, religious gatherings and singing of hymns. Unfortunately, the religiosity of the people had no positive impact on their social lives. This situation prompted Amos’ prophecy of an impending divine judgment which was to decimate the nation and finally send the people into exile. The purpose of this paper is to explore the contextual issues within which Amos’ message emerged and then compare Amos’ situation with the contemporary Ghanaian socio-religious and political contexts. The paper used literary research methodology as we...

Introduction - there are many studies of individual passages in LXX-Amos, there are not many commentaries or studies of the complete text. It is the purpose of this section to survey five important studies related to the interpretation of the Greek text of Amos. This survey should give the reader some insight into the main issues in the interpretation of the Greek text of Amos; it should also serve as an entrée into the main themes and theology of LXX-Amos, since the last three of these works discuss such issues. Sherman E. Johnson’s study of “The Septuagint Translators of Amos” is a somewhat general investigation of Amos with a special interest in the number of translators involved in the translation. He focuses on the translation of different portions of the book, and he finds different renderings of words in chapters 5–6 and “peculiarities in the translation of Hebrew moods and tenses” in those two chapters (25). He concludes that chapters 5–6 were translated by a different hand than chapters1–4 and 7–9, or else chapters 5–6 were reworked after the entire work was translated. Johnson’s short dissertation has some helpful observations concerning the translation of verb forms and tenses (8–9), various vocabulary (19–27), and selected passages in LXX-Amos (28–37) After comparing Amos in the MT and the LXX Park concludes that the translation of LXX-Amos is “a dynamic equivalent rendering of the text, and in some sense a whole new composition in itself. The presumed Hebrew Vorlage is modified to facilitate the reader’s understanding of the biblical text and to apply it directly to a changing historical situation” (169). He finds evidence that LXX-Amos “reflects socio-historical circumstances during the Second Temple period”; these evidences include: (1) an apologetic stance against pagan religions in 7:9; (2) an eschatological hermeneutic in 7:1; and (3) Antiochus IV Epiphanes’ persecution of the Jews in 4:2, cf. 2Macc 7:3 (171). He believes Thackeray may be correct that Amos was translated by the end of the second century (Park, 171; Thackeray, Grammar, ix), and he also finds evidence that LXX-Amos presupposes the persecution of Jews for their faith and the inclusion of gentiles into the Jewish religion (9:11–12). In keeping with these tendencies, he believes the translator downplays pro-Jerusalemite ideology (1:1) and introduces the messianic figure (4:13). He proposes the translator’s purpose was to justify the inclusion of gentiles in Jewish religion, as is seen in the symbolism of Israel through Jerusalem in 1:1 and the global believing community in 9:12. He concludes that LXX-Amos continued to speak to Jews in diaspora and that since some prophetic words had alreadybeen fulfilled, the remainder of the prophecy would give hope of restoration to those who acknowledged and stood fast in the Jewish religion (171). The goal of my previous book on LXX-Amos, Finding Meaning in the Text: Translation Technique and Theology in the Septuagint of Amos, is to describe and analyze as exhaustively as possible the translation technique and exegetical practice of the translator of the Septuagint of Amos. My focus in this study is the differences between the Hebrew (MT) and Ziegler’s (Göttingen) LXX text in Amos, since the differences between the LXX and its Vorlage are important indicators of the translator’s translation technique and theology. The book has two main parts, addressing in order the translation technique (chapters 2–4) and the theology (chapters 5–7) of LXX-Amos. The translation technique section is not especially relevant to this commentary. But the section on the theology of the translator is a good introduction to some of the main themes in the Greek version of Amos. Therefore, I will summarize my conclusions concerning the theology of the translator, as it is reflected in his translation. Three areas of theological bias or Tendenz are especially important in LXX-Amos; they are anti-Syrian and anti-Samaritan bias (chapter five), 4 introduction to the commentary on amos the doctrine of God (chapter six), and finally Gentiles, eschatology, and messianism (chapter seven). Because the translator of LXX-Amos follows closely his Vorlage, and develops his own ideas and concerns primarily where he finds difficulties in the Hebrew text, it is natural that his theology follows fairly closely the emphases in the Hebrew text of Amos; thus the anti-Syrian and anti-Samaritan bias in LXX-Amos are a further development of main themes in all versions of Amos. Such bias is found in the LXX renderings in 1:3–5, 15; 3:12; 4:2, 3, 5; 6:1, 7; 8:14; and 9:7. There is also evidence of anti-Baal polemic in 1:4 and 4:13 and Hellenistic religious influences in 2:4, 8 and 7:9. Chapter six (“God in LXX-Amos”) contains a discussion of reverential renderings of God, the treatment and use of anthropomorphisms, and the use of Pantokrator in LXX-Amos. The translator is concerned about descriptions of God that might compromise God’s character (esp. 4:4, 5 and 8:7), but with the exception of 1:2, he does not seem to be bothered by anthropomorphic descriptions of God. The use of Pantokrator to render Sabbaoth is consistent with the translation technique throughout the Minor Prophets and argues for one translator of LXX-Twelve; additions of Pantokrator (3 times) in Amos indicate that changing concepts of God among the Jews had influenced he translator, and he saw God more as a universal sovereign, which has implications for the relationship of gentiles to God. Chapter seven brings together three topics that are related in LXX-Amos; it addresses “Gentiles, Eschatology, and Messianism in LXX-Amos.” Differences between the MT and the LXX in LXX-Amos give several hints of the importance of these topics to the translator of LXX-Amos. Key eschatological passages are 4:2b; 7:1; 8:8, 14; 9:5; and 9:9–10. LXX-Amos 9:11–12 is a very important passage in the development of Christian theology (esp. Acts 15:16–17), because of its description of gentiles seeking the Lord (object implied in LXX) and being his people (having his name called upon them). LXX-Amos 4:13 and 9:11– 12 also connect gentiles with Messianic ideas. The rendering of LXX-Amos that there was an expectation in the community of the translator of an eschatological, messianic, saviour (4:13; 9:11), who would open the way for gentiles to seek the Lord (4:13; 9:12), and that there would also be an appearance of his eschatological enemy, Gog (7:1). (This last paragraph originally appeared as part of a longer summary of this work which can he found in the Tyndale Bulletin 61.1 [2010]: 53–56.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, Francis I., and David Noel Freedman. Amos, Anchor Bible Series, volume 24A. New York: Doubleday, 1989. Arnold, Bill T., and John H. Choi. A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Averbeck, Richard E. “Šelem.” In New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis, VanGemeren,Willem, ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997. Brown, Francis, Driver, Samuel Rolles, and Charles Augustus Briggs. Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977. Brown, Walter E. “Amos 5:26: A Challenge To Reading And Interpretation.” The Theological Educator 52 (1995): 69-78. Chisholm Jr., Robert B. Handbook on the Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Minor Prophets. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002. Driver, S. R, and H. C. O Lanchester. The Books of Joel And Amos. Cambridge [England]: University Press, 1915. du Preez, Jannie. “‘Let Justice Roll Like....’: Some Explanatory Notes On Amos 5:24.” Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 109 (March 2001): 95-98. Elwell, Walter A., and Philip Wesley Comfort. Tyndale Bible Dictionary. Tyndale Reference Library. Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 2001. Finley, Thomas J. Joel, Amos, Obadiah. Chicago: Moody, 1990. Garrett, Duane A. Amos. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2008. Gevirtz, Stanley. “A New Look At An Old Crux: Amos 5:26.” Journal of Biblical Literature 87, no. 3 (1968): 267-76. Gitay, Yehoshua. “A Study of Amos’s Art of Speech: A Rhetorical Analysis of Amos 3:1–15.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 42 (1980): 293-309. Harper, William Rainey. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary On Amos And Hosea. New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1905. Hiers, Richard H. “Day of the Lord,” Ed. David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Hoffmann, Yair. “The Day of the Lord as a concept and a term in the prophetic literature.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 93/1 (1981): 37-50. House, Paul R. Old Testament Theology. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1998. Hyman, Ronald T. “Amos 5:24 Prophetic, Chastising, Surprising, Poetic.” Jewish Bible Quarterly 30 (2002) 227-34. Jenni, Ernst and Claus Westermann. Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997. Kaiser Jr., Walter C. The Promise-Plan of God: A Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008. Keil, Carl Friedrich and Franz Delitzsch. Commentary on the Old Testament. Vol. 10. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996. Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1999. Lafferty, Theresa V. “The Prophetic Critique of The Priority Of The Cult: A Study Of Amos 5:21-24 and Isaiah 1:10-17.” Ph.D. dissertation, Catholic University of America, Washington D.C., 2010. Mayhue, Richard L. “The Bible's Watchword: Day of the Lord.” The Master’s Seminary Journal 22/1 (Spring 2011): 65-88. McComiskey, Thomas E. “Amos.” In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Daniel and the Minor Prophets Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein 7:269-334. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986. Mulzac, Kenneth D. “Amos 5:18-20 in its Exegetical and Theological Context.” Asia Journal of Theology 16/2 (2002): 286-300. Niehaus, Jeffrey J. “Amos.” In The Minor Prophets, Edited by Thomas Edward McComiskey, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009. O’Connell, Robert H. “Nēbel,” in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis, Edited by Willem VanGemeren, 3:13-14. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997. Ogilvie, Lloyd J. Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah. Vol. 22. The Preacher’s Commentary Series. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1990. Paul, Shalom M. Amos: A Commentary on the Book of Amos. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991. Rector, Larry J. “Israel's Rejected Worship: An Exegesis of Amos 5.” Restoration Quarterly, 1978, 21(3), 161-175. Ryken, Leland, and James C. Wilhoit. Dictionary of Biblical Imagery. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000. Schmidt, Nathaniel. “On the Text and Interpretation of Amos v. 25-27.” Journal of Biblical Literature 13, no. 1 (1894): 1-15. Smith, Billy K., and Franklin S. Page. Amos, Obadiah, Jonah. Vol. 19B. The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995. Sweeney, Marvin Alan. Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2000. Smith, Gary V. Amos: A Commentary. The Library of Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989. __________. The Prophets as Preachers: An Introduction to the Hebrew Prophets. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994. Stuart, Douglas. Hosea–Jonah, vol. 31, Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, 2002. Taylor, J. Glen. “Hosea,” in Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary, vol. 5, Edited by John H. Walton, 5:2-41. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009. Torrey, Charles C. “On The Text Of Amos V. 26; Vi. I, 2; Vii. 2.” Journal of Biblical Literature 13, no. 1 (1894): 61-63. Youngblood, Ronald F., F. F. Bruce, and R. K. Harrison, eds. Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1995. Van de Sandt, Huub. “Why Is Amos 5, 25—27 Quoted In Acts 7,42 F.?” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der Älteren Kirche 82, no. 1-2 (1991): 68-87. Weber, Carl Philip. “485 הוֹי,” In Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Edited by R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke, 212. Chicago: Moody Press, 1999. Zuck, Roy B. A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.

An exegetical paper on Amos 9:11-15 for M. Daniel Carroll R. (Rodas), OT 701 – Hebrew Exegesis of Amos, Denver Seminary (12-14-2001).

The Book of the Twelve and the New Form Criticism, , 2015

Proposes that describing the prophetic books as “prophetic fictions” not only draws together much previous consideration of these books. It also accurately describes their content and form and reflects what is most distinctive about this genre as we find it in the Hebrew Bible. Having situated what is meant by the genre description “prophetic fiction” I will try to show how this language can help us understand the works themselves, focusing in particular on an outline reading of Amos 1–3.

2023

Many studies of the prophetic books assume that a text's addressee and audience are one and the same. Sometimes this is the case, but some prophetic texts feature multiple addressees who cannot be collapsed into a single setting. In this book, Andrew R. Davis examines examples of multiple addressees within the book of Amos and argues that they force us to expand our understanding of prophetic audiences. Drawing insight from studies of poetic address in other disciplines, Davis distinguishes between the addressee within the text and the actual audience outside the text. He combines in-depth poetic analysis with historical inquiry and shows the ways that the prophetic discourse of the book of Amos is triangulated among multiple audiences.