CENTRAL IDEAS

IN AMOS
BY
ARVID S. KAPELR UD
SKRIFTER UTGITT AV DET NORSKE VIDENSKAPS. AKADEMI I OSLO
II. HIST. FlLOS. KLASSE. 1956 . NO.4
OSLO
I KOMMISjON HOS H . ASCHEH OUG & C O. (W. NYGAARD)
195
6
CENTRAL IDEAS
IN AMOS
BY
ARVID S. KAPELR UD
SKRIFTER UTGITT AV DET NORSKE VLDENSKAPSAKADEMI I OSLO
II. HIST.FILOS. KLASSE. 1956. NO.4
OSLO
I KOMMISjON HOS H. ASCHEHOUG & CO. (W. NYGAARD)
195
6
Fremlagt den hist.-filos. klasses m0te den 3. juni 1955 av N. A. Dahl
A.W. BR0GGERS BOKTRYKKERI ~
Contents.
Side
1. Place, Position and Time of the Prophet
5
2. A ppearance and Vocation .......................... 11
A. Appearance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
B. Vocation ...................................... 13
3. Execrations of Foreign Nations and of Israel ...... 17
4. His Idea of God .................................. 33
a. General Background and Main Features ........ 33
b. Origin of the Universalism of Amos ............ 42
c. Yahweh - Destroyer or Forgiver? .............. 47
5. Amos and Ethics ................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 59
6. Amos and the Cult ........ , " .... " ., ......... , ... 68
Conclusion .......................................... 78
Indices 82
1. Place, Position and Time of the Prophet.
The first verse of the Book of Amos gives the introduction which is
usual in the prophetic books.: the name of the prophet, who he was, where
he lived, and the names of the kings in whose time he appeared.
In the Book of Amos nothing is said about the forefathers of the prophet.
It is not told who his father was. That does not necessarily mean that his
father and his family were of no importance. It is no indication that he was
an "einfacher Mann" or a "kleiner Bauer".! On the contrary: it may even
mean that he was a wel1-known man, of a certain standing in society, so
that it was not necessary to say anything further to characterize him.
As we shall see, the very first verse of the book indicates that Amos
was no ordinary peasant or shepherd. This romantic picture of the prophet,
S0 often stressed in popular preaching, is certainly wrong.
As may be seen immediately, there is a certain unevenness in the o n ~
strtiction of 1 : 1. The two relative clauses are put together in a way which is
not very elegant. The reason may be that the traditionalists want to say as
much as possible in this introduction in order to present the prophet to their
audience at once. That may also be the reason why we find here dibre
(Amos instead of the usual dibre yahwll!, Hos 1: 1, Joel 1: 1.
It is told that Amos was one of the noqedim of Teqoa(. Teqoa was a
small place in the desert of Judah, 18 km south of Jerusalem, situated 850
meters above the sea. It was not so unimportant as is often supposed. Since
the time of King Rehabeam the town had played a role in the defence system
of the kings of Judah, II Chron. 11: 6, Jer. 6: 1. Amos was not the first
coming from this town to give warnings to a king. Joab called a wise woman
from Teqoa to give King David a piece of good advice, II Sam 14.
Who were then the noqedim! The word is only used twice in the
O. T. The other context where it is found, ought to arouse suspicion as to
the meaning "herdsman". In II Kings 3: 4 it is told about King Mesha of
Moab that he was a noqed who rendered one hundred thousand lambs and
one hundred thousand rams to the king of Israel. That was indeed a royal
1 Robinson, HAT I: 14, p. 71.
6 AR VID S. KAPELR 1J D H.-F. Kl.
gift from a "herdsman". Instead of using the Arabic analogy naqqad,l we
shall have to find parallels which may explain also the use of the word in
II Kings 3; 4.
As is well known, San Nicolo has shown that such parallels exiskd in
Mesopotamia. The -enormous temple herds were under the supervision of
a few rabi-buli. Under them were several naqidu, who often lived together
in special towns. They who actually herded the flocks were re'u, herdsmen,
who were under the command of a naqidu. This naqidu was very often an
of ficial at a temple and might be responsible for 500 cows and 2000 sheep
and goats. The term itself is old, and is found also in the Sumerian Fara
texts, with the meaning shepherd.
2
Occasionally naqidu may be also used about a king, but in such cases
it is found figuratively used: naqid qaqqadi:3 "herdsman of the
black-headed". II Kings 3; 4 has no paralleI to this, as King Mesha is there
certainly called noqed as an owner of great herds of sheep. The translation
sheep-raiser, as suggested by Koehler,4 may therefore be accepted, but it
surely does not say everything.
The U garitic parallels seem to indicate this. Most characteristic is the
text (Gordon;) 62; VI ; 53-57, the colophon; "The scribe is II-malk the
Sbn-ite; the student (lamid) is Atn-prln, chief of the priests and chief of the
"herdsmen" (rb.l?hnm.rb.nqdm) , the T'-ite; Nqmd is the King of Ugarit,
Master of Yrgb, Lord of Trmn."5
Here the man who knew the text and dictated it to the scribe - a well
educated man then - is called chief of the pri-ests and chief of the herdsmen.
Two conclusions may be drawn. The position of the nqdm seems to have
been rather important since the chief priest was their leader, and secondly;
the nqdm must have had a cl-ose connection with the temple.
6
The other passages in the Ras Shamra texts where the nqdm are men-
tioned, point in the same direction. In text No. 113 (Gordon) nqdm are
listed together with yeomen, (tnnm, priests, kh111n, and another class of
priests, qdsm (vv. 70-73). In No. 300 we find nqdm listed after tgrm,
d<Jor-men, gatekeepers, and snn, singers. After them are mentioned trrm,
a guild which so far is not identified (lines 7-16).7 There can be little if
any doubt at all that the nqdm are mentioned among the temple personnel
because they were an important guild in the service of the temple.
\Vho, then, was a noqed in Judah in the time of Amos? It may
have been a person of rather high rank who was resp-onsible for a large
part of the temple herds. Economically, as wel1 as in wha:t concerned the
1 So Gesenius-Buhi, p. 519, Koehler, p. 632, Robinson, p. 74.
2 Orientalia NS 17, 1948, pp. 273-293. 3 Bezold, p. 205. 4 P. 632.
5 Gordon, DR, p. 67. 6 Cf. Montgomery, Record and Revelation, 1938, p. 22.
7 See, however, John Gray: Feudalism in Vgarit and Early Israel, ZAW 64,
1952, p. 50, who takes trrm as "inspectors" of either cntrails or stars.
1956. No.4. CENTRAL IDEAS IN AMOS
7
temple cult, he was therefore an important person, whose words could not
be completely ignored.
Amos thus seems to have held a certain position in Judaean society.
For a prophet that was no necessary condition. Already in the Mari texts
we hear about a prophet who gives a word from Dagan to King Zimrilim,
that he is called a man of poor origin: t't as-sum aw'ilum su-it qal4-lu ... 1
Prophets of whatever origin were supposed to have a right to address the
king. In Amos we meet a man who may in any case have expected his
words to be heard.
The words of 7: 14 f. do not change this impression. We find in 7: 10 ff
a prose narrative which tells how Amos was turned away fmm the temple of
Bethel by Amaziah. The words of Amos in 7: 14 are given with a certain
parallelism which may indicate that some words really uttered by Amos may
be found behind the present formulation. In the phrasing now found there
are no less than two hapax legomena in v. 14, and they do not make the
text more easily understandable.
Concerning the first part of the verse there is good reason to adhere
to the translation of the British Revised Version: "I was no prophet, neither
was I a prophet's son."2 Amos did not come from the circles of professional
llabis. That is clearly stated in these words, whatever verb we supplement.
The prophets, or at least some of them, may have been consid,ered important
in religious respects, but their social r,eputation seems not to have been too
good, as can be seen from the story about Saul, I Sam. 10: 11. We do not
know how much this had changed in the 250-300 years between Saul and
Amos, but there is reason to believe that the social status of the nabis was
on the whole unchanged.
Amos was originally neither a prophet nor a member of a prophet circle.
That is what he wants to stress himself. He was no professional nabi.
We can thus rather easily ascertain what Amos was not, but it is some-
what harder to find what he really was. He is called a boqa:r, which is a hapax
legomenon. It certainly must be connected with bilqar, cattle. Usually it is
transla:ted "herdsman", which is a guess, but probably a good guess. One
may, however, wonder why the designation boqa:r is used, as Amos in 7: 15
says that Yahweh took him from "behind the sheep". That gives an impres-
sion that something is wrong here.
S
The usual suggestion, found also in BH3,
. that boqa:r is miswritten for noqed, may therefore be right. It is very pos-
sible that resh was written for daleth and beth for nun. Actually, the text
from which the LXX was transla:ted, had resh for daleth also in 1: 1. The
1 G. Dossin, RA 42, 1949, pp. 125-134; W. von Soden, WO, H. 5, 1950, p. 398,
line 53.
2 H. H. Rowley has recently defended this interpretation, Eissfeldt- Festschrift,
pp. 191-198. I have tried to find another solution, but his arguments have convinced
me, especially those on p. 194. Cf. also Engnell in Religion och Bibel VIII, 1949, 14-18.
3 See e. g. Maag, p. 50.
ARVID S. KAPELRUD H.-F. Kl.
corollary was that the translator did not understand the word and sub-
sequently only reproduced the Hebrew word without attempting to translate
it: vaxxaeE,u. Unhappily, the word noqed does not help us much more than
boq(n; it only brings us back to the discussion given above, in connection
with 1: 1.1
Amos was also more than a noqed, but again we are stopped by a hapax
legomenon: boles. In accordance with the Greek translation of the LXX
the word is rendered: nipper of sycamore-figs).2 There is hardly reason to
believe that the LXX is more reliable in this case than in others>, and so long
as we have no other evidence, we shall be very cautious in accepting its
rendering. LXX may have chosen some translation which the translator
thought likely!
What can only be said on the basis of 7: 14 f is that Amos had some
connection with herds and sycamores, but what this connection was, we
do not know. It is obvious that his task was not tha:t of a prophet;
it was rather of an administrative and practical character. But he was no
uneducated herdsman, as popular belief has so long considered him. To say
that he was a simple herdsman would be as if one could say that the poems
of T. S. Eliot were written by an uneducated person. Incidentally, this paral-
lelism can be carried further. T. S. Eliot is unthinkable without a long
literary and religious tradition behind him. So also is Amos.
Amos "saw over Israel", concerning Israel, 1: 1. The designation Israel
here means the Northern Kingdom, not the whole country as it was in the
time of David and Solomon. The traditionalist who is responsible for the
headline of the book, originally probably the opening sentence in the oral
tradition, had no doubt that Amos was mainly, if not wholly, turning against
the Northern Kingdom of Israel. Amos came from the South, from the neigh-
bourhood of Jerusalem, but he felt himself called by God to prophesy and
actually spoke in the Northern Kingdom (cf. 7: 1-17). That is no wonder
in the time of Jeroboam II of Israel. It is to that time that tradition fixes
the preaching of Amos: when Uzziah was King of Judah, about
B.C, and Jeroboam was King of Israel, about 790-749 B.C There is
nothing in the Book of Amos. which contradicts this statement. On the
contrary, it is confirmed as well by 7: 10-17 especially, as by the contents
and form of the words handed down to us by tradition.
The historical background for the appearance of Amos must be sketched
briefly. In the years before 800 B.C, especially under King Hazael of
Damascus, the Aramaeans had been a constant danger and threat to Israel
(II Kings 13: 22). Struggles were going on again and again. The battle-
fieLd was most often in Transjordan. The dynasty of Omri, which ruled
1 See p. 6. 2 Koehler, p. 130.
1956. No.4.
CENTRAL IDEAS IN AMOS 9
from 886 toO 843 B.C. had to concentrate on this struggle and try to get an
agreement with Judah, d. I Kings, 22: 2-38, II Kings 8: 26, 9: 16 ff.
During this time the king of Judah took part in the wars of the King of
Israel. With Jehu's revolution 'and the throwing down of Athaliah in Jeru-
salem this was changed. In the time of J ebu and Joash nothing happened
which could spoil the relationship. It was most probably an action of the
Assyrian king which led to a change. King Salmanassar of Assur made
several war raids into Syria, and when it happened again about 840 B.c.
Jehu paid a tribute and thus accepted his rule. Salmanassar visited Syria
again a couple of years later, but from then he did not appear there any
more. This gave King Hazael of Damascus his chance, which he used without
hesitation, as mentioned above. However, a neverhalting change is charac-
teristic for the politics of the Near East in these centuries. The rule of the
Aramaeans came to an end. Adadnirari III resumed the tradition of Sal-
manassar III and marched towards Damascus, about 800 B.c.
1
The Aramaean
king was forced to pay a tribute and his power was broken. He was no more
a threat, neither to Israel nor to Judah. At about the same time there was
all, incident which shook the relationship between Israel and Judah. Both
kingdoms had new kings: Amaziah in Judah, about 804---776 B.C., and
Jehoash, a grandson of Jehu, in Israel, about 805-790 B. C. King Amaziah
had won a victory over Edom, and this made him arrogant, according to
the narrative in II Kings 14: 8--15. He challenged King J ehoash, who
scornfully turned him off and asked him to stay home, vv. 9-10. But
Amaziah would not listen and the two armies met at Beth-shemesh in Judah.
As might be expected, Amaziah was totally defeated and his soldiers "fled
every man to their tents", v. 12. Jerusalem was plundered, part of the wall
was broken down, and gold, silver and vessels were taken from the temple
on Zion. It is likely that this incident, which may have er,eated some bitter-
ness between the two kingdoms, was not forgotten about forty years later
when Amos st{)od forth.
Amaziah was, however, unpopular with his .own peoplle and was at last
slain. In the days of his son, Azariah, called Uzziah in Amos 1: 1, Is 1: 1,
6: 1, 7: 1, Hos 1: 1 etc., the peop1e of Judah were all{)\ved t{) live relatively
peacefully. In the northern country a great expansion took place, the last
()ne befme the Assyrians came back in full strength. Jeroboam II, the son
of Joasb, restored most of the territory which had been in the hands of
David and Solomon. J n 1 I Kings 14: 25 it is indicated that he was ruling
over m{)st of the districts between Hamath and the Dead Sea. This was
possible for tW{) reasons: that the Assyrians held the Aramaeans down and
1 M. N oth: Geschichte IsraeIs, p. 216.
10 AR VID S. KAl'ELR UD H.-F. Kl.
that they made no war expeditions to the west. So long lasted this situation
that the peoples of Israel and Judah might have had the impr,ession that it
was g{)ing to last for all future time. The expansion of territMY was followed
by a corresponding expansion in trade and industry which made Israel -
and to some ,extent also Judah - a rich country. The leading classes pw-
spered from their trade with neighbour countries and acquired considerable
wealth. Jeroboam II was successful as a king, and his subjects were able
to increase their incomes and even to attain a certain degree of luxury in
this time. Also Judah profited by this property, without reaching the standard
of Israel. There can, however, he little doubt that clear-sighted persons in
both kingdoms were fully aware that the success and prosperity of the small
CQuntry depended completely on the fact that Assyria for some time did
not move towards the west. They were, however, unable to influence the
leading circles, who seem to have been intent on taking every advantage of
the situation without considering what might happen later.
King U zziah lived sufficiently long t{) see the rise of the great Assyrian
conqueror, Tiglathpileser III, whow as going to crush the Kingdom of Israel.
How long Amos lived we do not know.
The introductory verse , 1: 1, has also more to tell about what time
Amos appeared with his prophecy. It was "two years befMe the earthquake".
This seems to be an old n{)te, from a time when that particular earthquake
was still well remembered. It also seems to indicate that Amos appeared
as a prophet only for a short time, possibly on a single occasion.
i
. The time
fixation in 1: 1 must have been given because the earthquake was seen as
a fulfilment of the prophecies of Amos, cf. 8: 8 and 9: 1 ff. The earthquake
may have been seen as a proof that Amos was right and has given increased
authority to his words.
The first verse of the Book of Amos seems to be somewhat overloaded.
Several suggestions to solve this question have been made. Most scholars
agree that the words "who was among the nqdm of Teqoa" probably were
added to the sentence, because of the rather clumsy grammatical construction.
2
As "orIginal" the following sentence is considered: \Vords by Amos fwm
Teqoa, which he saw concerning Israel two years before the ,earthquake.
3
Robinson is of the opinion that the last editor may probably have combined
two collections and also combined the headlines.
4
1 As supposed by c. g. Morgenstcm in his Amos Studies II, 47 ff.
2 Cf. Robinson, p. 74, MowinckeI, C;TM M M J I I p. 623, Hammershaimb, pp. 16 f.
Robinson p. 74, M owinckel p. 623. " Rohinson p. 74.
1956. No.4. CENTRAL IDEAS IN AMOS 11
2. Appearance and Vocation.
A. Appearance.
Amos was mainly, if not exclusively, turning his oracles of doom against
the northern realm of Israel which was often characterized by its capital
Samaria, 2: 6 ff, 3: 1 ff, 9 ff, 4: 1 ff, 5: 1 ff, 7: 10 ff. Since he was himself
from Teqoa in the southern realm, we may be entitled to ask why he chose
to turn against the northern kingdom in this way.
It is possible that he considered the northern kingdom as apostate and
therefore wanted to preach (loom over it, because all North Israelite cult
was non-Yahwistic.
1
This question will be dealt with later, but is has to be
said that if this was the situation, it couM have been expected that it was
more perceivable in the text, especially as it was handed down in J eru-
salem circles.
It is more likely that Amos chose to preach in Israel becaus,e the northern
kingdom was at his time completely dominating. Judah did not mean very
much at this time. Israel was leading politically, economically and culturally.
It was also in Israel that foreign cult prac,tices were dominating, and it was
there that the ancient social system was most thmoughly broken up. Judah
could only follow in the t r c ~ s of its mightier and more important neighbour.
It was in Israel that the line of progress was decided, and a prophet who
wanted to change this line had to work there.
That is the reason why we find Amos in Israel, and 1hat is also the
reason why he was deported from Bethel, back to his home country. This
is told in 7: 10 H, a passage from which many premature conclusions have
been drawn, and which has to be analyzed carefully.
It is told how Amaziah, the chief priest of Bethel, takes measures against
Amos and reports his preaching to King Jeroboam, 7: 10. Amos is ordered
by Amaziah to go back to Judah and not preach any more in Bethel, the
royal cult place of the northern kingdom, 7: 12 f.
The passage gives the impression that what happens here is no sudden
clash. Amaziah sent his report to the king and 1110St probably also received
his instructions from him about what to do with the prophet.2 The brief,
popular narrative in 7: 10 ff has boiled the whole conflict down to a single
exchange of speeches, but the report of Amaziah to the king and his words
to Amos show that the tension has been going Oon for some time.
In his report to the king, Amaziah says that the land could no.t bear
all the words of Amos, 7: 10. These are hardly words that would have been
used about a pmphet who. spoke to Israel on one single occasion. They indi-
cate that Amos may have spoken several times and mentioned the king
more ,than once.
1 See c. g. EngnclJ, SHU 1. col. 61.
2 Cf. c. g. the Lachish letters.
12
ARVID S. KAl'ELRUJ) H.-F. Kl.
That he has spoken several times is also indicated by the appea1 to stay
away: "But never again prophesy at Dethel", 7 :13. This implies that it
has been done before, which is 110t surprising, hut it also most probably
implies that it has been done more than once.
There is nothing in the oracles which might indicate that they were all
spoken on one occasion. On the contrary, if they have been spoken on the
same occasion they seem to he rather overloaded. On the other hand it is
likely that the intervals between the different speeches were brief, as Amaziah
would not have permitted this preaching to go on for a long time.
Amos followed an ancient pattern, not only in Israel but in several parts
of the Near East, when he denounced the king. The historical books have
several narratives which show that this was an ancient tradition in Israel.
It is not always possible to check the historical value of these stories. Some
of them may have been conceived after the time of the great prophets, but
in other cases there seems to he an historical kernel in the narratives. Actu-
ally we have no reason to doubt that Amos in this respect followed a long
line of tradition.
Letters from Mari in the time of King Zimrilim (about 1716---1695
B.C.) show that already in his time men could turn to the officials of the
king in order to make them forward to the king prophetical messages.
1
One
of these men is called a man of humble origin, av;ilum su-u qaI4-lu,2 while
others are called mul:Jl:!um, who, to a certain degree, seem to be parallels to
the Canaanite nabis.
3
Very little is known about these prophets yet, but a
few points may be ascertained. Von Soden sums them up in the following
way: 1. Also in Mari the god demands that his orders are forwarded to
the king, regardless of the question whether they will please the king. 2. As
in the O.T. the prophet oracle also in Mari may criticize the king and his
behaviour, without considering if this discontent of the god with the king
is made known to the subjects of the king. 3. One of the letters ends in a
prophecy of happiness. It is, however, conditional: the king is expected first
to comply with the request of the god.
4
Von Soden has also stressed the difference in the message of these
prophets from Mari and the great prophets of Israel.
5
It is right and
necessary to do so, but it does not change the fact that the whole pattern
of appearance is found in the Near East already in the 18th century B.C.
It is thus no wonder that Samuel and Kings again and again tdl about
prophets who critize their kings and tell them how to behave. At least
from these sources we g'et the impreSision that the prophets played an
important role already at an early time. Samuel is painted as a real king-
1 G. Dossin, RA 42, 1949, pp. 125-134. TeL XXIII, no. 90; XXIV, nos 40
and 78. A. Lods & G. Dossin, Studies in O. T. prophecy, presented to Th. H. Robinson,
pp. 103-110. Bohl, Ned TT 1950, pp. 81 ff. W. von Soden, WO 5, 1950, pp. 397-403.
M. Noth, BJRL 1950. 2 WO 1950, p. 398. 3 Ibid.; pp. 399 ff. 4 Ibid.,
p. 402. 5 Ibid., p. 402.
1956. No.4. CENTRAL IDEAS 11'\ A:Y[()S
13
maker (I Sam 8), but it was also he who rejected Saul on behalf of Yahweh,
when his behaviour was not according to the oracle of his god, I Sam 15.
King David was sleveral times warned by his prophets, by Gad: I Sam 22: 5,
II Sam 24: 11 ff, and by Nathan: II Sam 12. It was also to him that the
woman from Teqoa came, to settle the strnggle between his sons, II Sam 14.
A prophet whose name is not handed down in tradition warned King
Jeroboam, I Kings 13. The struggle between Eliah and King Ahab is well
known, I Kings 17 ff. Also other prophets than Eliah tried to warn Ahab,
J Kings 20: 35 ff, 22: 6 ff. It is told how Elisha, the prophet, actively took
part in the revolution of Jehu in 843 B.c. Prob3Jbly his part is somewhat
exaggerated hy the narrator, hut there is no reason to douht that he sup-
ported Jehu.
This brief survey shows that Amos was neither the first prophet to
warn a king, nor the first one to preach certain ethical standards. Vve must
thus not overstress the importance of the fact that Amos happens to be the
first prophet whose words are handed down to us. He has a long tradition
behind him, but the question of his dependency upon tradition, or eventually
his break with it, will he studied in another chapter.!
B. Vocation.
Very little is known about the vocation of Amos. He tells us that he
was no professional nabi, but was one day taken away from his ordinary
work by Yahweh, who told him to go and prophesy to Israel, 7: 14 f. How
this happened and under what circumstances he does not reveal. He only says
simply that Yahweh took him "from behind the sheep", 7: 15. He uses the
verb lqJ:" to take, which shows that the vocation came suddenly but which
does not say anything about the circumstances. He seems to be of the opinion
that his special vocation makes his preaching unusually important. It was
a vocation to speak to Israel, to warn the king and the people that destruction
would surely come if they did not turn to Yahweh. But it was not a voca-
tion to act as a prophet generally. This limitation seems to be implied in
the words of Yahweh, in 7: 15. It is also in the best accordance with what
we know about Amos, through his own words. Amaziah, the high priest of
Bethel, tried to stop Amos in fulfilling the task given to him by Yahweh.
Therefore the judgement over him had necessarily to be hard.
Amos had to preach because Yahweh had chosen him to do so. It was
a task from which he could not run away; he had to fulfil it. He has given
a colourful picture of this in 3 : 3-8. Here he shows how a prophet is bound
to his vocation,: without being able to turn away from it. "The lion has
roared, who will not fear? The Lord Yahweh has spoken, who can but
prophesy?", 3: 8. So, as an effect follows a cause, the prophesying must
necessarily follow after a vocation. Amos did not speak his words of doom
1 See below, p. 6R.
14
ARVID S. KAPELRUD H.-F. KL
because he wanted to do so. He had a special vocation from Yahweh and he
had to obey the order given to him.
Whether Amos had a vision in connection with his vocation, or had only
an audition, we do not know. He speaks of no less than three visions in
7: 1-8, a fourth in 8: 1 f and a fifth in 9: 1-4. Thes,e passages seem to.
indicate that Amos really had visions. But if he had a vision in connection
with his vocation why does he not teU about it? It would surely have
strengthened his cause, but the narrative of his clash with Amaziah is very
brief and does not give more than what is strictly necessary.
There are thus three possibilities. The first one is that Amos had no.
vision in connection with his vocation. The second is that he had, a vision,
but did not mention it specially. The third is that he told about his vision.
but that the brief narrative in 7: 10 ff omitted it.
In addition to these possibilities also a fourth has to be mentioned,
namely, that the story of his vocational vision is found in one of the vision
narratives in chs. 7, 8 and 9. A discussion of this point will be given below.
Of the three possibilities mentioned above, the third seems to be rather
improbabLe. If the prophet had mentioned a vision, it is likely that the
traditionalists would have kept it. It was not a point which would easily
be omitted.
It is theoretically possible that Amos had no vision when he got his
vocation, but it is not likely especially as he tells about several visions in other
connections. On the other hand, it is probable that he had many auditions.
without any visions, or even that he interpreted the will of Yahweh to the
people of Israel without having any auditions or visions at all.
'Whatever the psychological background for the vocation of Amos was,
and however slowly it was built up, the vocation itself must have come as a
strong emotional experience. This can be seen from the words of Amos
in 7: 15 and 3: 3-8. The vocation came as an unavoidable imperative to
prophesy. We cannot know for sure, but it is likely that an experience like
this one was accompanied by a vision. In a time, however, when visions.
were considered a usual thing among priests and prophets, Amos paid no
attention to this part of his vocation and left it unmentioned. It is thus the
second possibility mentioned above I consider most likely.
A fourth possibility was also mentioned: that the vocational vision is.
actually found in one of the visions mentioned in chs. 7-9. Weiser in parti-
cular has tried to show that a new experience of God lies between the second
and the third vision.l "Zwischen den Erlebnissen der erst en Visionen und
der beiden folgenden hat sich ein Wandel im Inneren der Profeten voll-
zogen, der ihn des unbedingten Gerichtsernstes Jahwes gewiS werden lieS." 2
Weiser is of the opinion that this new experience was won in a hard spiritual
struggle in the prophet himself - "die Frucht eigenen, inneren Ringens -
1 Pp. 72 ff. 2 P. 73.
1956. No.4. CENTRAL IDEAS IN AMOS 15
in hartem Kampf errungen -".1 He has tried to show that an evolution
of this kind in the view of Amos was necessary, or the visions would not
have got the form they have: "Diesen Erlebnishintergrund muS man aus
der Gegentiberstellung der Visionspaar.e postulieren, oder auf ein tieferes
Verstandnis der Gesamtvisionen verzichten." 2
It seems as if Weiser has overstressed the diff.erences between the two
first oracles in ch. 7 and the other ones. It may be that he here carries with
him a legacy from an earlier generation of scholars: The idea of a prophet
of doom who had - and could have - no other voices in his register. But
there are passages in Amos which show that he worked hard to make the
people tum back to Yahweh, first and foremost 4: 6-12.
Weiser is of the opinion that Amos had these visions before he had his
final vocation as a prophet. They show how his point of view changed before
he was ultimately called by Yahweh to appear as prophet.
3
How his vocation
came is not told, but the visions give us an indication about what happened
to him.4
Weiser does not contend that any of the visions are specially connected
with the vocation of Amos, but having occurred before his final vocation
they at least illustrate what happened. It would, however, be rather near to
the mark to guess that the last vision in 9: 14 brings reminiscences from a
vocasional vision, if Weiser's point of view is right. Here Yahweh is seen
standing at the altar talking to the prophet in much the same way as is de-
scribed in Is 6: 1 ff. The words of Yahweh may also echo an assignment
given to Amos: to preach doom to Israel.
This is, however, only a guess, and after all it is not very likely. If so
much of a vocational vision had been kept, it is likely that the whole story
would have been kept in its original context and connection.
Weiser, who considers the visions so important for a right under-
standing of Amos, is fully aware that they have come down to posterity in
a very fine literary shape.
5
He therefore has to admit that the visions are
not given straight from memory, "sondern weisen zugleich tiber das rein
Erlebnismassige energisch hinaus.".6 The visions have not got their present
shape accidentally, Amos has formed them intentionally. "Ohne diese Aus-
einandersetzung mit seinem eigenen Gotterleben, ohne die klarende, festigende
Arbeit eigener, rationaler Erwagungen blieben die Worte des Amos tiber
seine Visionen in ihrer gegenwartigen Form und Zusammenfassung unbe-
greiflich." 7
The step is not very far from this point of view to the opinion of Cramer:
"- bei Amos wird das Gesicht ausschlieBlich zur Stilform".8 Cramer shows
that what is told through the visions is also found in the worcLs of Amos.
9
The visions are used as a verbum visibile.
1o
They have not made Amos
1 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
2 Ibid.
8 P. 196.
3 Pp. 73 f.
9 Pp. 204 if.
4 Pp. 295 f.
10 P. 197.
5 Pp. 296 if. " P. 297.
16
ARVID S. KAl'ELRU]) H.-F. Kl.
a prophet. On the contrary: because he was a pmphet he used these means
of foretelling.
1
Cramer has pointed to the fact that in none of the visions
does Amos in his pictures leave the sphere of reality.2 He shows that the
vision in 8: 1-3, like J er 1: 11, brings a play of words which seems to
indicate that the whole "vision" was made for the sake of this play of words.
3
It is likely that Cramer is nearer the truth in this question than vVeiser.
We shall have to admit that we know nothing about an eventual vision
in connection with the vocation of Amos, and, actually, also next to nothing
about the vocation itself.
vVe can see from his words to Amaziah that he was taken away from his
daily work to pmphesy, 7: 14 f. From other words we can see that he felt
his task as an &110.)'X1] , a necessity, like St. Paul, I Cor 9: 16.
He seems to have been attacked for his preaching, probably with the
argument that such words of doom could not come from Yahweh, they must
be the invention of Amos. The prophet tries to show his opponents that
cause and effect cannot he separated. Where an effect is found, there must
also be a cause.
When the lion mared, everybody would fear, and when Yahweh spoke
to the prophet, he had no choice, he had to prophesy, 3: 8. It was Yahweh
who called him and forced him to appear as a prophet with mostly dark
aspects in his preaching. How this pressure was felt we cannot know. The
preaching of Amos, however, gives us a clue to find the most important
means through which Yahweh was impressing A1llos.
It might be wrong to say that one single point has been decisive, because
several factors seem to have been at work. But for us who read the words
of Amos, and probably even more for those who heard them, there is one
dominating theme to which he recurs again and again. \Ve shall have to
conclude that there is something which mllst have pressed upon his mind
through years.
The reaction of Amos against the break with ancient national solidarity
and its corollary: the intolerable social conditions, was violent. Right and
justice were broken down, and the upper classes used the situation to gather
in new riches and to suppress their country-fellowmen. These conditions
could not be tolerated in the long run by one who knew and maintained the
ancient ideals. They could do so the less as they represented also serious
breaks with the rules and standards of Yahweh. So there was no doubt any
more in the mind of Amos: Yah,veh had called him to prophesy. Equally,
there was no doubt about his message.
1 P. 203. 2 Ihid. :1 P. 205.
1956. No.4. CENTRAL IDEAS IN AMOS
17
3. Execrations of Foreign Nations and of Israel.
The passage 1; 2-2: 16 which consists of execrations has mostly been
considered as an introductory part of the prophecies of Amos. The intention
Df the prophet was supposed to be that he wanted to arouse interest in his
message and to make the audience listen.
This intention may have been present. But the whole passage is so
important and plays such a role in the study of Amos that it must be con-
sidered necessary to give it special treatment. It is no accidental introduction.
On the contrary, it is a portal to many of the most important points in
the message of Amos. Stylistically it is of tremendous interest, as it shows
Amos standing in a rich and well built tradition of style - he, the first
great prophet!
There has been. some discussion whether 1: 2 belongs to the passage
or not, and we shall have to treat this question first. Mowinckel sees v. 2 as
"the warning of Amos about the earthquake", added by the disciples. He is
of the opinion that the stressing of Amos's close connection with Zion is, not
in line with the preaching of the prophets of doom.! Some scholars have
seen the verse as a kind of "motto" to the book.
2
Bentzen, like Mowinckel
and other scholars, points to the fact that the sentence is also found in Joel
4: 16 and in J er 24: 30.
3
He continues; "That the verse is found in these
variations points towards the conclusion that Amos 1: 2 is not a word coined
by Amos, but common traditional material." In a foot-note he addS!; "- we
must again remember that such traditional sayings often get a new meaning
when detached from their original cultural structure and used in a new
structural context." 4
Most probable he is right in this. The author expressed the same opinion
about Amos 1:2 a couple of years earlier than Bentzen: "It would appear
most likely that we are facing a cultic tradition, partly couched in established
formulas, which the prophets again elaborated for their audience. We are
confronted by an oral, living tradition and not by a mosaic of quotations
carefully committed to writing." 5
We shall have to find out how the quotation is used here and what it
intends to say. First we cannot 'neglect the question: who used this old
cultic formula? We dare not say for sure that it is secondary, introduced
by the collectors of Amos's words. He may have cited them himself, and
Bentzen seems to be of the opinion that he really did. His reason for that
1 GTMMM III, p. 624.
2 So e. g. Robinson, M owinckel, Weiser, Hammershaimb.
3 OS VIII, 1950, p. 95, with printing error: XXX for XXV.
4 Op. cit. p, 95.
5 Joel Studies, 1948, p. 164. Also Mowinckel expresses a similar opinion, GTMMM
III, 1944, p. 624.
Vid.-Akad. Skr, II. II,-F. Kl. '956, No, 4.
2
18 ARVID S. KAPELRUD H.-F. Kl.
is the "assumption that Amos in his whole first speech is working on a given
ritual pattern, the proscription of kings, nations and things, "die Achtung
feindlicher Volker, Fiirsten und Dinge" in Israd, an ancient ritual of a day
of purification or atonement from the pre-exilic cult in the Northern
Kingdom".1
The verse 1: 2 is used in good connection with the following speech.
It is "a most appropriate introduction to an execration of foreign nations".2
It may thus be seen as a necessary part of the execration, and in that case
it may very well go back to Amos himself.
The God who execrates is presented to the audience as Yahweh. He
will roar from Zion and let his voice be heard from Jerusalem. The idea
that Yahweh had his centre on Zion in Jerusalem is no late one. It originates
from the time when Jerusalem fell into the hands of King David., and the
Ark was brought to town, II Sam 6 f, 24. In the earlier time of the Deborah
Song Yahweh was thought to live in Se'ir, down at the southern border,
Judges 5: 4 f.
That Yahweh lets his voice be heard on Zion means that he has his
centre there, thus also his centre of worship. When this is stressed in v. 2
it is in order to present the God who speaks to the nations who are execrated.
That is the main aim, but the words have also other corollaries. It can
hardly be denied that the intention may also be to devaluate the cult places
of the Northern Kingdom.
3
When Yahweh was to be found especially at
Zion, it is not likely that he could be found in the same way also in the
northern sanctuaries.
4
Even if Yahweh was thought of as a "high good",
this is so. Even a high god, a sky god, had: his special centre where he was
preferably sought. Here is already a germ - and possibly more than that
to the later Deuteronomistic claim that Jerusalem should be the only cult
place -for Yahweh.
5
In J er 25 : 30 the verb $' g occurs no less than three times for expressing
Yahweh's roar, in a parallel situation. In Joel 4: 9-21 the situation is also
the same, with the expressions used in Amos 1: 2 found in v. 16. Yahweh
will bring suit against hostile nations and then shall follow the annihilation,
Jer 25:31, Joel 4: 12,19.
In the description of the fields of the shepherds which will mourn,
and the top of Carmel which will wither, Mowinckel sees a picture of the
burning sirocco and its effect upon the vegetation. He admits, however, that
what is most probably thought of here is the wrath of Yahweh and not
specially of events in nature. This is undoubtedly right. The words here
are not realistically meant; they are taken from ancient cultic traditions where
they were used for depicting the fate of the opponents summoned by Yahweh.
1 OS VIII, p. 96. 2 Bentzen, op.cit. p. 96.
3 Against Sjiiberg, SEA 1949, pp. 13-22.
4 So also Robinson, p. 75. 5 Robinson stresses this, p. 75.
1956. No.4. CENTRAL IDEAS IN AMOS 19
ra(im does not here simply mean herdsmen. That cannot be seen so
clearly from this passage as from parallel passages in J er 25: 34--38 where
the slaughter of the "herdsmen" is described; d. also Zech 11 : 3. The herds-
men are seen as the leaders of the foreign nations which were hostile to Judah.
"Yahweh has spoiled their pasture", it is said in J er 25: 36. That is the
meaning also of the passage we are discussing here.
Also raJ hal::lwrma:l shall wither. Here are several possibilities. \Ve
may at once exclude the possibility that here is meant the little mountain
village Carmel in Judah, Josh 15: 55, I Sam 25: 5. Bentzen is inclined to
translate "even the best of vineyards", to get a better parallelism than the
current reference to the mountain Carmel.
1
But the word raJ makes it very
hard to exclude the possibility that the thought of Mount Carmel is intended.
The word raJ may imply a play of words, meaning at the same time the
top of Carmel and the "head of Carmel", that is, the Israelite king. Carmel
was a well known landmark in the Northern Kingdom, so that it could well
be used in the way indicated here.
After the introduction, which at the time of oral traditioning may have
told the audience that now an execration was coming, the words of doom
follow immediately. They imply, as might also be expected, first and fore-
most the Aramaeans, the real threatening danger for the two small Israelite-
Judaean kingdoms, 1: 3-5. It is tactically a good choice to take the Ara-
maeans first, and it has certainly made people listen. It continues along the
same line, with the Philistines, vv. 6--8, the Phoenicians, vv. 9 f, the Edo-
mites, vv. 11 f, the Ammonites, vv. 13-15, the Moabites, 2: 1-3. Then,
suddenly, the table is turned. The prophet attacks also Judah, more in
passing by, and then with great ardour Israel, 2: 6-16. For the audience,
this was certainly an unexpected turn, but for the prophet it seems to have
been his aim.
Important questions are here involved which will have to be discussed.
Concerning the type and kind of the words in 1: 2-2: 16, Bentzen has
convincingly shown that they may he paraHelled with the Egyptian execration
texts.
2
Already the arrangement points in that directi-on. The peoples against
whom the execrations were directed, were enumerated in a fixed order.
3
In the Egyptian texts the foreign nations were mentioned first, then individual
Egyptians who where als-o to be cursed.
As many scholars have seen, the style of chs. 1-2 is highly developed,
showing that Amos built on an ancient tradition.4 It is n-ot likely, nor even
possible, that Amos could have taken over this tradition from another
prophet. He must have got it from a different source. Bentzen is here cer-
tainly right when he states: "These chapters imitate the execration uttered
1 OS VIII, p. 95, note 19. 2 OS VIII, pp. 85-99. 3 Op.cit p. 89.
4 Eissfeldt: Einleitung in das A. T., 1934, p. 86, G. Hylmii: Gamla testamentets
litteraturhistoria, 1938, IJ. 74, Engncll: Gamla I, 1945, p. 73, Bentzen:
Introduction to the O.T. I, 1948, p. 193, OS VIII, 1950, pp. 89 ff.
20
ARVID S. KAPELRUD H.-F. Kl.
in a ritual during the New Year festival against the political enemies among
Israel's neighbours, who were regarded as incarnations of the foes of God
in his fight against Chaos, when he created the world, reiterated in the
cuI tic renewal of his victory in the New Year celebrations." 1
Bentzen is of the opinion that the pattern was alive to such a degree
that even the curses of Judah and Israel were no surprise to the audience.
"The new thing in Amos is the emphasis which this part of his preaching
has assumed." 2 He may be right also in this, but it is more likely that the
new thing is that the whole nations of Judah and Israel were condemned"
not only single individuals.
As to the unity and authenticity of 1: 2-2: 16 only a few words will
be said here. Several scholars have seen later additions in the oracles against
Tyre, 1: 9 f, Edom, 1: 11 f, and Judah, 2: 4 f.3 According to Bentzen the
oracles in 1: 2-2: 16 are "arranged in an order resembling that of the
Egyptian execration texts, following the corners of the world. They begin
in the North-Eastern, angle of the map, in Aram, swing to the opposite
point in South-West, the land of the Philistines, travel to the North-West
to strike the Phoenicians, then cross the country to the South-East and curse
the Edomites and their neighbours, the Ammonites and Moabites." 4 The
three last nations were usually considered something of a unity, and it is
thus no wonder that Edom is mentioned beside Ammon and Moab.
5
It is
not unlikely that the composition of the execrations demanded the presence
of strophes on Tyre and Edam, possibly also on Judah.
6
We shall have to
touch upon this ques.tion again when the different passages are discussed.
In v. 3 the oracle is introduced with the formula ko amar yahwce, as
also the oracles in ,vv. 6, 9, 11, 13; 2: 1, 4, 6. It is the usual formula for
prophetical oracles, frequently used in the prophetical books. There can be
no doubt that it was with this sentence the prophets themselves introduced
their words. It is no invention by Amos, but it is the old formula used by
the prophets and priests in the cult when they had to convey the oracles of
Yahweh to the cult audience. Amos uses the formula as a matter of course,
without any explanatory additions, which shows that he here, as in many
other cases, acts in the best conformity with ancient cultic tradition. The
historically accidental circumstance that the Book of Amos is the first
prophet book handed down to posterity' must not make us overstress the
importance of Amos and the phenomena connected with him. His appearance
and his words will have to be seen in their full historical context.
It is not only in the introductory words that Amos expresses himself
in a traditional way. Also his next words, which are repeated in the other
oracles, vv. 6, 9, 11, 13; 2: 1, 4, 6, belong to an ancient stylistical tradition.
1 OS VIII ,po 93. 2 OS VIII p. 9.
3 So e, g, \Vellhauscn, Stade, Marti, Eissfel(lt, \Vciser, P ici fer, MowinckeL
4 OS VIII, p. 90. 5 Bentzen, OS VIII, p. 90,
6 So Bentzen, OS VIII, p. 91, n. 14.
1956. No.4. CENTRAL IDEAS IN AMOS 21
"For three transgressions of X and for four - -" is a formula which is
not unknown in the ancient Near East. It is an example of a parallellism
with a stylistic variation, the second part mentioning a cipher one higher
than that mentioned in the first part. Different ciphers may be represented:
One-two (Ps 62: 12, Job 33: 14), two-three (Hos 6:2), six-seven (Job
5: 19), seven-eight (Micah 5: 4, Eccl 11: 2). The pattern is old and known
also from other Near Eastern literatures. In Ugar1itic we find e. g., two-three
(Gordon 51: III: 17 f), seven-eight (Gordon 128: II: 23 f). Whether the
pattern was found in usual prose is not known. It is, however, unlikely. It
is a kind of expression which was natural in poetic language where parallel-
isms were used. Amos uses the old pattern consciously and intentionally to
underline his charges against the different nations. Only one well versed in
stylistic matters would be able to do this, one who had got strong impressions
himself from a tradition which had already reached a firm form. The whole
complicated pattern used in 1: 2-2: 1 is not - and cannot have been -
created by Amos. The composition reveals that a long tradition lies behind.
Amos has taken over what had been formed during this tradition. Oracle
after oracle is built up in the same elegant way, with the same fmmulas,
the same verbs, the same threats.
Between these basic elements Amos has put in the individual charac-
teristics of the nations. They are painted in strong colours, by a master in
his language, who knows how to characterize in a few words, words that were
remembered. In a modern mind this might arouse the question whether a
prophet with such creative power could also create the frame of his oracles,
the form in which he spoke them. This idea must be rej eoted, for at least
three reasons. The first one is mentioned above: the fact that it is possible
to find some of the stylistic traits used by Amos in the ancient Near East
already before his time. The second is the analogy from other Near Eastern
cultures and literatures, as well as from Hebrew literature itself: great and
complicated stylistic compositions like Amos 1: 2-2: 16 do not suddenly
stand there as fixed and finished creations. On the contrary, they grow
during a long tradition, as mentioned above. Thirdly, a prophet from the
8th century B.c. had not the same ideas about originality as we have. He
had absolutely no ambitions in that direction. He wanted to deliver his
oracles in the way s u ~ oracles had to be delivered, in a shape which was
known and would be understood. Style patterns meant very much in a time
when cultic texts were dominant. Amos delivered a series of oracles, and
the style and the composition of them were taken over from the cultic
execration texts.
In each oracle the judgment is first announced and the name of the
doomed nation (or its main town) is given. The doom is coming because
(al) special transgressions (pesa/im) specified in the following line. Then
follows a specification also of the doom and how the punishment will fall
22 ARVID S. KAPELRUD H.-F.Kl.
upon the nations. The stress is thus on the doom, but in all cases a strong
vindication is given.
All the nations are accused because of their pcs(Yim. The verb ps(
means to revolt, to cast off allegiance to those in authority, d. e. g. I Kings
12: 19, II Kings 1: 1, 3: 5, 7. It may be used in this way also about one's
allegiance to God. This is clear in Is 1: 2, where Yahweh speaks about his
children who have revolted against him. Paralic! cases are found also in Hos
7: 13,8: 1, Jer 2:8,29,3: 13.
Amos uses the verb in 4: 4, "come to Bethel and transgress". Her,e
the transgression is mentioned together with the sacrifices at the two northern
holy places, Bethel and Gilgal. The coming of the Israelites to these places
with rich offerings is characterized with the verb pY \Vhat is the meaning
of this verb here? The offerings mentioned are those which were in use
in Israel. They were thus no pesa/im in themselves. Nor does the intention
of the prophet seem to be a denunciation of Bethel and Gilgal. In that case
he would not have restricted himself to just mentioning some usual sacri-
fices and tithes. The -solution of the riddle may be found in the last line
of v. 5, "for thus you like it, children of Israel". The offerings have be-
come the dominant feature in the religion of Israel. Ethical standards do
not mean anything anymore, the people concentrate on sacrifices. But
isolated in this way the sacrifices are converted into their own cotlitmdiction,
they become sin. That means that ps< is here used more generally in the
sense of sin than with its ancient meaning: revolt.
The plural peSiYim, chosen in the oracles, points in the same direction.
Here transgressions are spoken of more than -revolt. However, to find out in
detail what is meant with the designation pesa/im itli Amos, we would have
to study the oracles and what they say about the transgressions.
The Aramaeans are doomed "because they have threshed Gilead with
threshing instruments of iron", 1: 3. There can be no doubt that we have
here a figurative expression for some very TOugh treatment. That wars and
raids in the borderland - as Gilead was -:;- were often crnel, is an impression
we also get from 1: 13. Gilead, east of Jordan and on the north-eastern fron-
tier, was in an unhappy position during attacks both from the Aramaeans and
from the Ammonites. It was seen as an Israelite country, part of the Davidic
kingdom, and therefore always an aim for Israelite ambitions when it was
in the hands of Aramaeans or Ammonites, d. II Sam 2-4, I Kings 15: 18
-20, 20: 1-34, 22: 1-38, II Kings 8: 28 f, 10: 32 f, 12: 18 f, 13: 3-7,
25, 14: 25.
Violations of Gilead would therefore be considered as violations of Israel
itself. That might be the reason why Amos here threatens the Aramaeans
and the Ammonites with the punishment of Yahweh. In this case he would
be just like another nabi who wanted to predict a successful future for his
own country and a corresponding bad one for its enemies. Is that really the
meaning of Amos here?
1956. No.4. CENTRAL IDEAS IN AMOS 23
There can be no doubt that Amos begins in the usual way of the nabis
to attract the attention of his audience. He commences as a usual nabi in
order to make peopLe, probably gathered at the cult place, listen. It might
be appropriate to start with the Aramaeans who were generally feared and
hated, a welcome object for execrations. Actually, Amos starts his execrations
as a series of execrations had to be started. He follows the usual pattern and
very few conclusions can be drawn from that.
1
We shall have to focus our attention on the reasons given for Yahweh's
doom. What are the conceptions of Amos on this point and what do they
reveal about his view? \Veiser is of the opinion that it is not worth while to
pay much attention to the oracles against the foreign nations, as they only
show that a naive ethical standard has been used. "Der Boden, auf dem der
Profet sich dabei bewegt, liegt nicht tiber dem Niveau der nationaJen Volks-
religion." 2
It is true, as Weiser points out, that the transgressions mentioned are
all directed against Israel and its alliesl,3 but we ccunnot come to a completely
satisfying solution just by stating this. There are details which will have to
be considered. Even if Amos starts his, oracles in a way that could well be
accepted by his audience, it wouLd inded be strange if he had here a point
of view different from that which is otherwise found in his preaching.
He has shown clearly and undeniably in 9: 7 that he did not share the
usual nationalistic point of view. Why should: he then necessarily do so in
the oracles? 4
If he had wanted to express that the Aramaecuns had treated Israel badly,
he might have said so directly. He does not do that; he only mentions Gilead,
the borderland, which had been maltreated by the Aramaeans. It may thus
have been a well-koown fact that Gil<ead had been roughly treated. It is not
the fact that Gilead was part of Israel in ancient time that counts. What is
here most important is the feature that the Aramaeans acted cruelly. The
example has been taken from Gilead, because the prophet had to choose
examples which were known to his audience. If he had wanted to stress
that Damascus was to be crushed because it had been hostile to Israel, he
might have chosen much more central examples - and not from the border-
land. This holds true also in the case of the Ammonites, who ripped up
pregnant women in Gilead, 1: 13.
The Philistines of Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkalon and Ekron are accursed
because of their slave trade. They took the whole population of some border
districts as prisoners and sold them as slaves to the Eoomites who most
probably sold them again in the harbours of the Akaba Gulf; it is here
thought of raids which the Philistines made in the J udaean and Israelite
borderland, in order to get prisoners they could sell as slaves. This may
1 Cf. also Weiser, p. 112. 2 Weiser, p. 112. 3 Ibid.
4 According to Wiirthwein, ZA W 62, 1950, pp. 35 ff, it is because Amos began as
a "Heilsnabi" and ended as an "Unheilsprophet".
24 ARVID S. KAPELRUD H.-F. KI.
naturally be seen as a transgression against Judah (and Israel), but it is not
only that. It is a characteristic feature here that Amos does not mention
the country which was offended - that is an irrelevant factor in this connec-
tion ! What matters is the fact that the Philistines have treated their neighbours
cruelly, whosoever these neighbours were. They have broken ethical stMl-
dards which in the eyes of the prophet seem to have been considered evident,!
The two oracles against the Phoenicians and the Edomites cannot surely
be ascribed to Amos. In any case these nations are accused of the same
kinds of transgressions as those mentioned above. Tyre is accused of the
same sin as was Gaza, partly even in the same words, 1: 6 and 1: 9. This
is somewhat extraordinary in the preaching of a prophet who had usually
no difficulty in finding characteristic words and expressions when he con-
demned sin. There is little of the rough originality of Amos in 1: 9. There
is no help in the added remark about the forgetting of the "convenant of
brotherhood". It is not clear what this "covenant of brotherhood" was, and
there seems to be no real clue to it. The only one may be the friendship
between King Hiram of Tyre and David and Solomon, II Sam 5: 11, I Kings
5: 15 ff. With a growing tendency to idealize circumstances from the time
of David and Solomon this friendship may have been seen as a "covenant
of brotherhood". Tyre is thus criticized for an alleged break of its old obliga-
tion to loyalty. If this oracle was added later, he who added it must have
had a feeling that it was transgressions of this kind Amos was condemning
in his execrations. In its contents the oracle on Tyre may very well be
ascribed to Amos, but the form it has now indicates that tradition forgot
the original words and subs,tituted some others.
Exactly parallel is the oracle on Edom, 1: 11 f. Also this oracle may
be characterized in the same way as the preceding one. Very vague terms
are used, but they seem to indicate that the transgressions of Edom are seen
as breaks of ethical standards. "To pursue one's brother with the sword"
is a sentence which does not sound as coined by Amos, who usually expresses
himself without circumlocution. Even more generally do the following sen-
tences speak, on "casting off all pity" and "letting burn forever one's anger".
The meaning is probably that Edom has been constantly annoying Judah,
but this annoyance is here given a distinctly ethical touch: Edam pursued
a brother with the sword.
The tendency seems rather clear in this oracle, but as its authenticity
is highly doubtful we had better leave it out of consideration.
As the oracle against the Ammonites has already been discussed above,
we pass on to study the oracle against Moab, 2: 1-3. Both these oracles
have the strong colours and the characteristic sharply-seen details which
1 Whether one will here find "einen naiven etischcn MaLl-stab" (Weiser, p. 112),
or not, is a question of valuation. I am not quite convinced that Amos is so
"naive" here.
1956. No.4. CENTRAL IDEAS IN AMOS 25
reveal that here is the master himself speaking. The transgressions are drasti-
cally pictured and so is also the punishment.
Moab was considered an enemy of Israel from ancient times,. King Balak
tried to stop the invasion of the Israelites into Canaan and asked the seer
Balaam to curse the inYaders, Num 22-24. Moabite women made the
Israelites sacrifice to their gods, Num 25; 1 ff. Later, fighting broke out
again and again, in the time of the Judges and in the time of King David,
who subdued the invaders, II Sam 8; 2. King Mesha of Moab revolted (ps()
against Israel after the death of Ahab, II Kings 1; 1, 3; 4 f. On his stone,
found in Diban in 1868, King Mesha complains that Moab was suppressed
by King Omri of Israel and his son, Ahab, lines 5-9. Not before the days
of Mesha Kemosh, the national god, was the country restored to the hands
of the Moabites themselves, line 9. King Joram of Israel and King Joshafat
of Judah tried in vain to subdue the Moabites. They may have had some
initial success, but were not able to win any decisive victory, II Kings
3; 6--27. The narrator in Kings s,eems originally to have ascribed the
Moabite victory to the fact that the king sacrificed his own son on the wall
in order to achieve victory over his enemies. In the eyes of all Yahweh-
worshippers human sacrifices were the most abominable acts that could be
done at all. In II Kings 3 this abominable sin is used, and even with effect,
against Israel and Judah. It was, indeed, a chosen example for a prophet
who might want briefly and clearly to paint a picture of Moab's sinfulness.
Amos does not choose this example, nor any other example from the
long struggle between Israel and Moab. If he had been nationalistically
minded in these oracles or had been speaking in accordance with "a naive
ethical standard'',! he could not have avoided choosing an example from the
struggles.
We have to take this fact seriously into consideration. As a reason for
Yahweh's doom over Moab, Amos mentions their misdeed when they burned
the bones of the King of Edom to lime, 2; 1. It is not known to what
events he refers here, but it seems to be something which had happened in
a war between Edom and Moab. The Moabites have broken up the grave of
the late king (or kings) of Edom in order to desecrate the remnants. To
break up graves, especially of the kings, was considered a serious crime all
over the ancient Near East. In some coffin inscriptions from Sidon (about
300 B.C.) this is clearly stated. In one of them the words run; "Do not, do
not (J al ) al) open me nor disquiet me, for that thing is an abomination to
'Ashtart (to(ebot 2 Strong curses are hurled against those who
dared disturb the rest of the dead.
s
The Moabites were thus guilty of a very serious crime. It was not
committed against the Israelites, but most probably in a raid into the Edomite
1 Weiser, p. 112.
2 G. A. Cooke: Text-book of North-Semitic Inscriptions, pp. 26 f.
3 Op.cit. pp. 26 f, 30-32.
21) ARVID S. KAl'ELRlTD H.-F. Kl.
country. That Edom is here seen as an ally of Israel dves not seem likely.1
There is, n() reaS()ll t() believe that Al1l()s had any warmer feelings towards
Edol11 than towards the other neighbouring nations. \"Ihat is said about
Edom in 1: 6 does not particularly point in l'he direction that AI11()s con-
sidered EdlQ111 more friendly than the other nations.
What remains is then the fact that Moab had acted in a way which was
all over the ancient Near East considered, as contemptible. The local gods
reacted strongly against misdeeds of this kine!. The reaction of Yahweh
might thel'efore have been seen from the same point of view no matter
whether the offender had heen Israel or Judah.
In this case, however, it is' Yahweh who pronounces the sentence over
Moab for their having committed a crime again,.;t Edom. This must have
some consequences for our understanding of the oracles in 1: 2-2: 16,
especially in what concerns the idea of God and the kind of transgressions
denounced here. \"1 e cannot leave 1: 3-2: 3 and 2: 9, 11 b out of con-
sideration as Weiser does with the statement that "Amos Aussagen des Volks-
glaubens unbedenklich benutzen . . . kann.":! He has not only changed
the accent. He has also been very careful to chose his examples so that
they might be consistent with his whole point of view. That is why we may
be allowed to draw conclusions also from this part of his preaching, even
if he has preferred to start in a way which might seelll acceptable to those
Who had another point of view.
It was, 110 part of popular belief that Yalnveh had to pass sentence upon
Moab because they had committ'ed a crime against Edom. It was usually
thought to be a matter that did not actually concern Yahweh. Amos 2: 1
tells< us that it was not so in the eyes of Amos, and that it is an important
passage as this is the first place where we get a dear indication of his idea of
God. Yahweh is no local god of Israel or Judah. Anel he is seen in the same
way in 2: 1 as he is in 9: 7. He was the god who brought Israel out of
Egypt,t'he Philistines from Caphtor and the Syrians fmll1 Kir. That meant
that also other peoples than Israel were responsihle to him. It is indeed
a bold idea in a prophet living in a small and rather powerles61 country, with
a national god who was nearly unknown in the great kingdoms of the
Eyptiallls, the Aramaeans and the Assyrians. How cmtkl Amos conceive an
idea like that? First and foremost it is certainly an indication that Amos
had got a vocation of a special kind, giving him the sure conviction that he
was especially chosen tu speak for this god. Hut even this vocation, which
is treated above, could not account for everything. In the eyes of Amos it
certainly did. His overwhelming experience of Yalnveh was what made him
<:.ct and speak. Still he acted and spoke according to patterns known from
ancient times, and we shall have to ~ e Ivhere he hroke off from them in order
to find what was really new in his preaching.
1 Against Weiser, p. 112, and \Viirtilwl'ill, ZA \V 62, p. 36. note S1.
2 Weiser, p. 114.
1956. No.4. CENTRAL IIJEAS IN AMOS
27
That the goclis were responsihle for the moral order was an ancient idea
in the Near East.1 It was certainly a task of Yahwdl to maintain moral
order in his own country.
It was also a well-kn{)wll fact that a god could withdraw his 'help from
his people because they had in some way offended him, alld let their enemies
have their wil1.
2
On the Mesha stone it is said that Omri, King of Israel,
afflicted Moah for a long time, "hecause Kemosh was angry with his land".!l
In the case of Amos, however, there is something absolutely new. Yahweh,
the god {)f Israel and Judah, and according to popular helief for them alone,
interferes in matters between Moab and Edam.
Amos sees Yahweh as a god whose authority reaches far heyond the
borders of the small country. In his eyesl the tasks of Yahweh are not limited
to Israel and Judah (d. 9: 7) or to matters where Israel or Judah were
involved. Yahweh has power to act everywhere, and it is his right and duty
to punish sin wherever it is found.
But how C31ll there he sin {)utside the Covenant? Only those living
in the Covenant hetween Yahweh and the people could possibly know what
Ya:hweh demanded from the people. Only they mulcl break the command-
ments of Yahweh, of whatever kind they were. Tn the time of David it was
common belief that going to another cmmtry meant worshipping another
god, namely the god of that country, I Sam 26: 19. The same belief was
shared by the Aramaean Na'aman, according to II Kings 5. He wanted to
take a couple of mule burdens of earth with him, so that he could also worship
Yahweh in his own country, II Kings 5: 17. Actually this belief survived
the Northern Kingdom, as may be seen from the old narrative in II Kings
17: 24 ff. It is there told how the Assyrian king after Israel's. defeat let
other peoples move into the northern country. They lived there, but as
they did not fear Yahweh, i. e., worship him, the god of the c{)untry, he sent
lions to harass them, II Kings 17: 24 f. They complained to the Assyrian
king, who ordered one of the priests who had been carried away from Samaria
brought back. He came to stay in Bethel, the very place where Amos had
preached. He "taught them how they should fear Yahweh", II Kingsl 17: 28.
It is interesting to have this picture from a time long after Amos. It
shows dearly the ideas against which he had to fight: a conception of the
"god of the country" as narrow aSi it could possibly he. Amos shows in
2 : 1 that he has another idea of God and of his power in other countries.
How he could arrive at this idea and what was implied in it will be dis-
cussed below.
It is evident that his idea of God had also corollaries for his ideas of
the ethical standards. The substance of these standards will be discussed
1 Cf. Morton Smith, JBL LXXI 1952, p. 141, 11. 21.
2 Cf. Kapelrucl, JBL LXXI 1952, pp. 35 f.
3 G. A. Cooke, op.cit pp. 1 f.
28 ARVID S. KAPELRUD H.-F. Kl.
in a later chapter. But how could they be applied to foreign nations who could
11IOt be supposed to know the words of Yahweh? Do we here have "einen
naiven ethischen MaE-stab" which might be used for foreigners as well
as for countrymen?l That we have here an allusion to ethical standards valid
for everyone seems certain. There is, however, scarcely reason to call them
"naive". All the views f0'und in Amos must be s'een against their proper
background: his experience of Yahweh as a mighty and powerful high god
who made strong ethical demands upon his followers. Whatever phenomena
Amos considered, whatever events and whatever conditions, he always saw
them in their relationship to Yahweh. Nothing was irrelevant to Yahweh;
there was nothing that did not concern him.
This point of view could well be applied to the relationship between
Yahweh and his people. In spite of the people turning away from Yahweh
they were at least suppos,ed t0' know his will:, as it was specified in com-
mandments and in ancient custom. In the Covenant the people had pledged
themselves t0' adhere to the will of Yahweh. \Vhen they did not, it was breach
of the Covenant, for which they were reproached by the prophet.
Foreign nations, however, were in another situation. They had never
pledged themselves to obey the demands of Yahweh and accordingly could
not be reproached for not having cLone so. Still Amos seems to consider
it a matter of course that the Moabites should know the rules they had
broken. In his eyes these rules must have been standards which he assumed
were accepted by everybody anywhere.
There are several possibilities to explain this. Amos may have taken
it for granted that certain ethical standards were found anywhere and were
known to everybody. In that case they would exist independently of the
national gods and thus represent a certain universalism. More than that:
they W0'uld even mean the first beginnings of an autonomous moral. This is
certainly a consequence which Amos may not be suppos,ed to have drawn.
Some scholars have found that Amos has stressed the importance of justice
so strongly that Yahweh actually has come into the background, or that
Yahweh and justice have become the same thing.
2
That conclusion, however,
has to be rejected.
Weiser's theory ahout a naive ethical standard has also to be rejected
as very unlikely.3
If we were to try to find a clue which may show us the way out of
the difficulties contained in 2: 1, we would have to take our point of departure
in 9: 7. We have to adhere to the integrity of the ideas of the prophet.
He seems to have been preaching only for a rather short time, and it may be
considered as certain that his main ideas have not changed from ch. 1 to
ch. 9. What he says in 9: 7 is valid also in 2: 1.
1 Cf. Weiser, p. 112.
2 E. g. L6hr: Untersuchungen zum Euch Amos, EZA W 1901, pp. 31 if.
3 Weiser, p. 112.
1956. No.4. CENTRAL IDEAS IN AMOS
29
In 9: 7 Yahweh speaks to Israel. They must not go on living in the
illusion that they are specially chosen by Yahweh. They are not more ch-osen
than the Ethi-opians who are mentioned because they vived far away or
because they were despised for their dark colour. Yahweh brought Israel
from Egypt, but it was also he who brought the Philistines, from Caphtor and
the Syrians from Kir.
This is a clear break with the idea of nati-onal gods for the different
peoples'. It means that Amos rejects, Kemosh as the national deity of Moab.
The god "who bmught the Moabites''', was Yahweh. They were under his
command, they had to obey his words. This is characteristic of the way in
which Amos saw foreign nations. They were all under the s,way of Yahweh
and they had to accept the corollary of that fact and live acc-ording to his will.
The main problem is, however, stm not s-olved. How could Amos as,sume
that other peoples knew the will of Yahweh? The answer must be found
in his idea of God. To Amos, Yahweh had grown beyond all limits, his
power and his influence reached to every place and every people. How this
was thought in detail Amos does, not describe, probably for the very good
reason that he did not consider it a relevant question. He may have seen
Yahweh as the chief god whose will might be heard also through the oracles
of other g-ods, such as Kemosh, the ancient national god of the Moabites.
\Ve shall have to discuss these questi-ons in a later chapter.
Moab is the last of the foreign nations against whom Amos hurls his
execrations. The next in tum was Judah, mentioned in 2: 4 f. This is again
one of the short oracles, like those against Tyre and Edom, 1: 9-12. Its
authenticity has been doubted by several scholars, e. g. Mowinckel
1
who finds
a "Deuteronomistic flavour" in the verses. Together with style and form,
which are different from those in the other oracles, this Deuteronomistic
colour indicates that verses 4 and 5 are insertions in the context. The p-ossi-
bility cannot, however, be excluded that the oracle was originally longer or
that it had another form. There seems to be no doubt that Amos may have
mentioned Judah here, his own country, in order to show that he was' speaking
earnestly. vVhen I say that the oracle may have had another form, it is for
the following reason. The section which is supposed to have a Deuteronomistic
colour, starts with the words: (al-ma/asam 'crt-tarat yahw(e, v. 4 b. These
words are found in practically the same form in another old prophet oracle:
ki ma'(isu 'et tarat yahwa: -'leba/at, Is 5: 24 h. There seems to be no doubt
about the authenticity of these words in Is 5: 24. They fit well into their
context and cannot be considered a Deuter-ollomistic insertion. There is
nothing indicating that these words may n-ot have heen spoken by Isaiah him-
self. That takes something of the sting out of the assertion that the words
are of Deuteronomistic origin. However, it is the rest of v. 4 which seems
to be decisive. Here we find no less than three expressions which seem to
1 GTMMM 11 [ p. 626 f. So also Weiser, p. 1;<;.
30 ARVID S. KAPELRUD H.-F. KI.
be characteristic of Deuteronomistic circles: fJouqqim, sdmar and hdlah J afJare
(Deut 4: 3, 6: 14, 8: 19). That is rather much in an oracle by a prophet who
has usually no difficulty in finding original, striking expressions. One can
hardly avoid the conclusion that in its present form the oracle was not spoken
by Amos.
The opinion has alreadiy been rejected that this orade is, merely an
accidental insertion. What has then happened? The solution, may probably
be found in the words which are common in Isaiah and Amos. They show
that the two prophets havoe used words from the cult, prohably from a liturgy
which brought charges agains't the peoplle.
1
J t is also from the same source
that the Deuteronomistic traditionalists have taken the expression. What has
happened with vv. 4 f may be the following. During the oral tradition of the
words of Amos some traditionalist may have started correctly with the words
{al-ma/asdm Jeet-torat yahw((', but instead of continuing with the original
wordlS of Amos, fell into the Deuteronomistic pattern, thus giving us the
present wording of v. 4.
In vv.6--16 we find the climax of the execrations, the oracle against
Israel. According to the view held by Bentzen
2
it may not have come quite
unexpectedly. There can, however, be llO doubt that it must have come
with a heavy stress. It was also an oracle which did not soulld very pleasantly
to the audience. They may well have expected a strong wore!, hut no so
strong. ':\That followed was a harsh judgment all Israel hecause the people
hacL broken their obligations to Yahweh. Amos exemplified. this break in
words that were certainly not misunderstood by the hearers.
The oracle commenced according to the pattern, just as the other
oracles had diane. But the enumeration of the transgressions and the pro-
nouncement of the doom reached such an extent in this case that they broke
the pattern, this indicating that the prophet had come to the point and had
reached his goal. This was what he had aimed at in his execrations.
What ahout the transgressions for which Israel i" reproached? Are
they in line with thos,e mentioned in the first oracles? The answer here must
be both yes, alld no. It is yes, because also the transgressions of Israel are
breaches of ethichal standards, tacitly taken for granted or directly expressed
in commandments. Also, here are certain ethical standards supposed known
and broken hy the whole nation which is seen as a col1ecti ve unity. But there
are also differences. Israel is not accused of the atrocities for which the
other nations are reproached. There are some resemhlances between the
oracle against Israel and that against the Philistines, 1: 6--8 (also those
against the Phoenicians amI the 1: 12). The resemblance lies
in a breach of confidence, but there is an important difference which is found
1 Cf. E. Wiirthwcin: Der U rsprung der prophctischcn Ccrichtsrede. J:TK 49. 1952,
pp. 1-16.
2 OS VllI. 1950, I'Jl. 93 f.
1956. No.4. CENTRAL IIlEA!' IN .\l\l()!'
betw,een all the other oracles on one hand and the oracles against Judah
and Israel on the other. In the oracles against the foreign nations they are
reproached because of transgressions which have violated other nations.
It is a questioll what this differl'l1ce means. Docs it indicate that the
ethical standards are after all different in the case of Israel and in that of
their neighbours? That would surely he a premature conclusion. In all cases
foreign as well as Israelite breaches of ethical standards are criticised. Amos
has made no systematic examinatiol1J of the transgressions of foreign nations.
They played no decisive role in his preaching which was first and foremost
directed against Israel. Amos had to cho.ose a few examples in the case of
each foreign nation, and he chose, preferably, examples which were well
known. That is probably the reason why he had: to choose them from the
field of relationship between nations. It hacl a practical purpose and had
110 fundamental implications.
In the case of Israel, however, his arrows are well aimed. After all he
is on safer ground here and knows better what has to be attacked. Here the
break in the will of Yahweh is obvious. Here he may choose one example
after another fr0111 a vast material. That is why his pattern is broken, to.o.
Also. in the oracle against Israel the relationship to another peopl!e is
mentionecl. But here it is seen from another angle. It points to the fact,
which in the eyes of the prl()phet ought to be k!mwn to all Israelites, that
Yahweh had destroyed the Amorites and driven them away so that the
Israelites could take possession of the land of Canaan, 2: 9 f. It is not first
and foremost in their attitude tmvards other nations that the Israelites failed;
it is towards their own countrymen, towards those who were in the same
covenant with Yahweh. There the transgressions are founel which Amos
attacks, not only in this oracle but in nearly an his preaching.
Apparently.Amos has hroken his pattern in the last oracle. There is,
however, a possibility that even this, apparent break is part of the pattern.
Without any doubt the chief point of the execrations is found in the last
oracle. The whole composition is built up with the aim that the central
point will come at the end. But it i" not only through the placing at the
end of the composition that the main ora de is singled out. It is also through
its for111. It starts in the same way as the other oracles, with the same for-
mulas, 2: 6 a. It is thus clearly notified that also this oracle is part of the
great composition. The corpus of the oracle, however, is extencled to a llluch
greater volume than ill the other oracles. As usual the clloom comes at the
end, but without the formula tls'ecl in the other oracles: "So I will send a fire
... and it shall devour ... ", 1: 4, 7, 10, 12, 14; 2: 2, 5. \Vhy this formula
is not used here we cann()t know. \Ve can onl'Y ascertain that Amos has
used the law of delayed action in order to stress the importance of his o r c l ~
to Israel.
It is thus, clear that we have here a great composition, built up of
several oracles which are all composed in the same way, with the ,{lie
32
ARVID S. KAPELRUn H.-F. Kl.
exception of the last one. In the last oracle, that against Israel, is the chief
point of the composition.
The passage 1: 2-2: 16 is no simple composition. On the contrary,
it is rather complicated, as shown above. The structure, created by this com-
position, goes so deeply into each of the oracles that it makes impossible the
opinion of Th. Robinson according to whom the oracles were originally
spoken independently of each other and brought together by an editor.
A complete re-construction would havoe been necessary if several oracles,
spoken at different times, had been brought together to form the composition
found in 1: 2-2: 16. The oracles have markedly original stamp. They are
hard, direct, original in their choice of words and ideas and elegant stylisti-
cally seen. They bear the stamp of a creative spirit, well versed in the
cultic-poetic language and style of his time. The prophet was indeed no
usual herdsman.
It is well worth attention that we find this great and complicated com-
position in the first pwphet book written down. How could Amos be able
to speak in such a highly-developed literary style? We cannot simply get
around the question in saying that he created his own style, or even that he
created the prophetic style. That would mean the assumption of a literary
miracle. He may well have created some simple form of prophetic utterances,
though I do not even consider this likely. But he has surely not introduced
the composite literary scheme which is used in 1: 2-2: 16. That is depen-
dent on ancient traditions, and there can be no doubt where he found them:
in the temple cult. We can still see these stylistic traditions demonstrated
in the Psalms, of which many may go hack to the time of Amos.
1
That psalms
were frequently used in the temple cult at his time, Amos attests very strongly
himself in the harsh words in which he criticises the oversized dimensions
wihch the temple cult had got, 5: 23, 6: 5, 8: 10. The word Amos uses for
song and psalms is sir, which is also used in the head-lines of the psalms,
d. c. g. ['s. 30: 1, 45: 1, 46: 1, 48: 1, 92: 1.
According to Mowinckel the royal psalms may certainly be dated to the
time of the kings, before the downfall of Judah in 587 B.c.
2
Many of these
psalms and especially the "Enthronement psalms" have been used at the
New Year's festival in the autuml!.:l At this festival where the foundations
for the coming year were laid, also execrations against foreign nations were
used.
4
A certain, probably rather fixed ritual was used during this festival,
and it is most likely from it that Amos got the form of his execrations.
This brief examination of the execrations ill 1: 2-2: 16 has shown
that some central problems connected with Amos and his preaching will have
1 Mowinckel: Offer:;allg og sangoffer, 1951, pp. 405-412, see especially pp. 410 f.
Cf. also Albright, HUCA XXIII/I, pp. 1 ff, and Engnell, SBU 11, 1952, cols. 818ff.
2 Op.cit p. 410.
" Mowinckel, op.cit. pp. 118--191.
4 Mowinckel: Psalmcl1stl1dien II, pp. 65--77, 268---276. Bentzcn, OS VIII, p. 94.
1956. Ko.4. CENTRAL IDEAS IN AMOS 33
to be solved, or attempted solved, before we can fully understand his words
and! hisl tidings to his contemporaries.
The first problem we shall have to study is his idea of God. We have
seen in the execrations that clearness in this question is necessary to under-
stand his other ideas. That will further take us to the vexed question about
the ethical demands and their origin, a problem which is also touched above.
We have also seen that the relationship of Amos :0 the tradition will have
to be studied. His much discussed position in the question of the temple
cult is only part of this complex and must not be seen isolated.
4. His Idea of God.
a) General Background and Main Features.
Before we discuss the idea of God in Amos we shall have to sketch
briefly the dominating ideas of God among his contemporaries. Then first we
shall be able to understand the point of view of Amos, so we do not interpret
it like ideas from later centuries.
Some features which were characteristic in the time of Amos as well
as af.ter his time, were mentioned above.
1
The god of a country was closely
connected with the land whose national deity he was. In other countries other
gods had the power, and a national god of one country could therefore not
be worshipped in another country, according to this belief, II Kg 5: 17,
I Sam 26: 19. As we have already ,seen, there was, however, a way out of
this trouble. The Aramaean Na'aman who wanted to worship Yahweh in
his own country had to take with him two mule burdens of earth, which
enabled him to worship Yahweh also in Syria, II Kg. 5: 17.
The picture painted of Yahweh in these narratives shows him as a natio-
nal god, whose power was locally limited and did not reach beyond the soil
on which his people lived.
This is in good! conformity with what is told about Yahweh in the
Second Book of Kings, where the time in which Amos lived is treated. The
narratives there do not give any important new clues. Apart from that we
shall also have to face the methodical question, about the historical value
of narratives written after the time of Amos and after the time they treat.
Caution is necessary in using these sources.
In II Kg 9-10 it is told how Jehu, the great-grandfather of Jeroboam
II, made his revolution against the dynasty of Omri. It was started with the
blessing of the prophet Elisha and the Yahwistic circles, including the ultra-
reactionary Jonadab ben Rechab, II Kg 9: 1 ff, 10: 15 ff. Jehu drowned the
prophets and worshippers of Baal and other foreig:n gods in their own blood,
II Kg 10: 17 ff. As is known from another source, J er 35: 6 H, Jonadab ben
1 Pp. 26 f.
Vid.-Akad. Skr. II. H.-F. KI. '956. NO.4. 3
34
ARVID S. KAPELRUD H.-F. Kl.
Rechab and his followers considered Yahweh as a warder and guarantor of
the ancient way of life as it was supposed to have been lived in the desert
time. The part played by the prophet Elisha in the revolution may have been
over-estimated in II Kg 9: 1 ff, but in any case he seems to have been willing
to accept the bloody acts of Jehu as pleasing to Yahweh. This certainly means
that Elisha's idea of God was narrow and nationalistic. This is of no small
interest as Elisha, if he were really a contemporary of Jehu, lived only about
80 years earlier than Am{Js. That Jehu would have no scruples to gain his
end, is only what might be expected. His idea of God has certainly not
exceeded that of a national god, and his newly-founded dynasty was soon
back to the same types of worship which were found under the dynasty
of Omri, II Kg 13.
The reaction against J elm and his house came with the two great
prophets Amos and Hosea, the first prophets whose words were written down
to posterity, Amos 7: 9-11, Hos 1: 4 f. Amos does not give the reason
why the condemns Jeroboam and his house. Most probably he sees Jeroboam,
the king, as responsible for the sin of his people. As the kings of the Northern
Kingdom were very active in bringing foreign cult to the country, Amos
may have had good reason for his point of view. Hosea says expressly that
Yahweh will avenge the blood of J ineel upon the house of Jehu, 1: 4 b.
Two points stand out clearly in this doom. First, that the prophet has a col-
lective point of view. Later members of a dynasty are as guilty as the
founder if he won his power through a bloody deed. Secondly, it is obvious
that Hosea sees the deeds of Jehu in another light than Elisha did, II Kg
9: 1 ff. To him they represent a breach of Yahweh's ethical demands, and
it does not help that it was a king who made this breach, nor that his
revolution seemed to be necessary. The ethical standards of Yahweh were
abs{Jlute and c{Juld not be broken without meeting the appropriate punishment.
vVe do not know whether Amos held the same point of view as Hosea,
but that his opinion cannot have differed much, we have already seen from
the "Execration texts", 1: 2-2: 16.
\Ve may therefore already here draw the conclusion that Amos in his
idea of God must have broken down some of the limitations set by the usual
belief. Like his colleague Hosea he took another stand than earlier prophets
who had for some time been in opposition, like Elisha. Yahweh's demands
were absolute, also for kings and their houses. There may be a line from
o,ome older prophets, like Nathan who reproached King David, II Sam 12,
and Elijah who announced doom over Ahab for his taking of the vineyard
of Naboth, I Kg 11.1
vVe have found indications that there are remarkable differences between
the idea of God in Amos and that of mOSit of his contemporaries. vVe shall
1 In my opinion there is not sufficient, if any, reason for rejecting the historicity
of these narratives.
1956. No.4. CENTRAL IDEAS IN ,\;\10S 35
bave to study the preaching of Amos in some detail to get a clearer picture
of this,. Thereby we hope also to get a reliable picture of his ideas.
There can be n{) doubt that Am{)s shared some features in his picture
of Yahweh with his contemporaries,. If not, he had actually been speaking
about another god, only the name would have been the same. It seems as
if he underlined these common features in his introductory speeches in order
to have a point of departure which might be understood by his audience.
vVe have seen above that this was the case in the execration texts,
1: 2-2: 16.
In his fi rst execratio11's against foreign natioOns Amos seems toO adhere
faithfully to the nati{)nal idea of Yahweh. His introductory words in 1: 2
have sounded highly recognizable to the hearers, taken from the temple cult
as they seem to be.
1
Yahweh is mentioned as the one who is going to speak,
roaring threateningly from Zion, while the fields are withering and the terri-
tories of the shepherds are "mourning".
Here is an illustrative picture of Yahweh as he was most often painted
in the time of the Kings. Like other gods he has a cult place where he is
pres,ent in a special way, where he is supposed toO live. Yahweh's presence
in the temple on Zion was since the time of David symbolized in the pre-
"ence of the Ark, II Sam 6, I Kg. 8: 1-11. It cannot be considered an
insignificant or irrelevant feature that Amos menti.ons Yahweh in this way
in the opening words of his execrations. After all, the sting of his words
was directed against the Northern Kingdom, Israel, which had broken away
from the house of David and hac! thus split the gl:orious realm of David and
Solomon. They are reminded by Amos that the real centre of Yahweh is
the temple in J emsalem, n.ot the cult in Bethel and Dan, I Kg 12: 26 ff, or
as Amos specifies them: Bethel and Gilgal, 4: 4, 5: 5.
It is naturally not possible to assume an estrangement between the idea
of the real Yahweh centre in Jerusalem and that of the centre in Bethel and
Gilgal based .on the difference between 1 : 2 and 5: 5 only. A'S this is of some
importance for our understanding of the idea of God in Am.os, we shall have
to discuss 5: 4 ff briefly.
The people of Israel are called by Yahweh, through Amos, to s.eek him
so that they may live, dirSuni wil}eyu, 5: 4. Then follows a warning not to
seek the cult places in Bethel and Gilgal,2 with the opening words wejal-
tidresu, 5: 5. Bethel and Gilgal will meet their fate, but the peoOple are
again warned to seek Yahweh, so that they may live,S: 6. If the authenticity
of v. 4 may be doubted, as it is by SoOme scholars,3 no doubt at any rate is
connected with this verse.
4
That means that also v. 4 is coOmpletely in accord-
1 C f. what was said ahove, p. 17.
2 The additional words on Beersheba seem to he of later origin, as Beersheba is
not mentioned further in the following passage where Bethel and Gilgal recur.
3 E. g. Mowinckel, GTMMM III, p. 635.
4 ot so Weiser, pp. 183 ff, but see Maag, pp. 28 ff.
36
ARVID S. KAPELRUD H.-F. Kl.
ance with the other words of Amos and may be taken into consideration here,
whether out of place or not.
We shall have to focus our interest on the way in which Amos uses the
verb daras here. The clue seems to be hidden in that use. In v. 5 the verb
is used in the old cuI tic way. It means to attend the cult place in order to
get an oracle from the priest or the prophet, Gen 25: 22, I Sam 9: 9, II Kg
3: 11, 8: 8, 22: 18. Also in the Psalms the verb is used in this way, Ps 14: 2,
34: 5. There can be no doubt that Amos uses the word in the same way
in 5: 5. If there is any deviation, it may be in the direction of giving the
verb a somewhat wider connotation: to seek a cult place in order to take
part in the cult. This meaning may be found in 5: 5.
If now the verb is used in the same way in vv. 4 and 6, it must
necessarily mean that Yahweh could not be found at the cult places of Bethel
and Gilgal. The conclusion will then be that Yahweh would have to be
sought elsewhere, i. e., in Jerusalem. This is surely not the meaning of
Amos, as we may see from his preaching. There is, then, no other way out of
the difficulties than to conclude that Amos uses the verb daras in another way
in vv. 4 and 6 than in v. 5. This seems to get some support from 5: 14, where
dams is used in a way which makes it very hard to apply the old meaning:
dirsu-job we'al ra(, seek good and not evil. Maag holds that the verb has
the same meaning in all cases: Thora einholen.
1
He applies this meaning
also to 5: 14, which seems to be a rather improbable interpretation. Weiser
gets easily out of the difficulty by declaring both 5: 6 and 5: 14 later
additions.2 Hammershaimb, on the contrary, is of the opinion that both
5 : 6 and 5 : 14 are genuine, and that 5 : 14 f had its original place after v. 6.
3
He is therefore also forced to assume a different meaning of daras in 5: 4, 6
and 5: 5. In 5: 4, 6 the verb means to penetrate into the central will of
Yahweh, which does not stress the importance of sacrifice, but of good
morals.
4
Here Hammershaimb has given a highly spiritualized interpretation
of the verb, and he probably goes too far in that direction.
There are, however, certain features which will have to be considered
(and which I think that e. g., Maag has disregarded). It is a fact that other
prophets after Amos - and also later literature - use the verb with a wider
meaning: seek in order to get advice from somebody, an advice to be followed,
Is 9: 12, Hos 10: 12, J er 10: 21. The development has also gone further: to
s.eek and adhere to, Amos 5: 14, Is 1: 17, 16: 5.
From where does this use of the verb come? As we may see from
Isaiah it is not of late origin. On the contrary, it goes far back. We do not
know whether Amos was the first one to use the verb in its new wide
meaning, but it is in his, preaching that we first find this use. Original as
he was in many ways (though he got more from tradition than is usually
1 Pp. 142 f. 2 Pp. 183 ff. 3 Pp. 75 ff, 82 f. 4 P. 76.
1956. No.. 4. CENTRAL IDEAS IN AMOS 37
acknowledged) he may have coined the new expressio.n fo.r seeking Yahweh
and taking one's advice from him.
When we apply this interpr,etatio.n we need no.t SupPo.se that Amo.s
advised the people o.f the No.rthern Kingdom to seek Yahweh in Jerusalem,
because Bethel and Gilgal were only places o.f sin, 4: 4. He wanted to stress
that the people must seek Yahweh and, obviously, in places where his real
will could be learnt. He was clearly of the opinion that Bethel and Gilgal
were cult places where foreign cult practices had beco.me dominating. They
could therefore only lead the peo.Ple away fro.m Yahweh instead o.f back
to. him, 4: 4 f, 5: 4 ff. They were the centres o.f a cult which Yahweh had
decidedly rejected, 4: 4 f, 5: 18 ff.
There is no, help in co.ncealing or denying the fact that Amo.s never
speaks about Jerusalem in the same way as he does of Bethel and Gilgal.
Jerusalem and Zion are mentioned in three places in the book o.f Amos (1: 2,
2: 5, 6: 1), and the authenticity of all three passages has been seriously
doubted by several scholars.l In the first place, 1: 2, Jerusalem is mentioned
as the real cult place of Yahweh. In the two other passages, 2: 5 and 6: 1,
Jerusalem and Zion are denounced because of the sin of the people. But
Jerusalem is never rejected as a cult place, as are Bethel and Gilgal. This
may, however, be accidental, as Amos is speaking to the peopLe of the
Northern Kingdom.
We shall have to leave it at that, without pressing an argument
"e silentio". Vye may, however, be allo.wed to say that Amos was not very
cautious when he so expressly rejected Bethel and Gilgal as cult places, 4: 4 f,
5: 4 ff, and then directly advised the people to seek (daras) Yahweh,S: 4, 6.
Bis audience must at least have got the impression that Yahweh had to be
sought elsewhere, i. e. in J erusaIem. It is true that apart from 1: 2 Amos
does never suggest such a conclusion, but it was nevertheless a conclusion
which some of his hearers might have drawn.
His whole preaching might, however, heLp to bring the audience out of
such a misunderstanding. Apparently, he rejected all kinds of the usual cult,
4: 4 f, 5: 18 ff, and the corollary was necessarily that he was not willing to
accept a similar cult in Jerusalem either. vVe shall not here discuss the posi-
tion of Amos in the question of the temple cult; that will be done in another
chapter. We shall only stress that Amos did no.t consider the cult practice
as anything of importance. To him all kinds of cult practice seem to have
been completely irrelevant.
The idea of God seems to have a less concrete character in Amos. This
has led scholars to think that God to Amos was identical with the ethical
standards he preached.
2
That is a moderne point of view which was not very
1 E. g. by \\'ei;,cr an,l Mowinckel, op. cit.
2 Meinhold: Ein r. in das A. '1'., 2. Auf!., p. 156, Lohr, in BZA W 1901, p. 31.
38
ARVID S. KAPELRUD H.-F. Kl.
likely found in the time of Amos. There can be no doubt that his preaching
had a deeply religious background.
Amos sees Yahweh as a non-local deity, not tied by any local cult.
Before we ask how Amos might have c{)lne to this idea, we would have to
see what the text actually says about Yahweh seen from this angle.
It is natural to start with 9: 7, because this passage is clear, and there
is no doubt about its authenticity. Here Yahweh stres6es that Israel does
not mean more to him than the Ethiopians of the far-away Kush. He brought
Israel out of Egypt, that is true, but he also took the Philistines from Kaphtor
to the coast lanel where they lived in the time of Amos, and he hrought the
Aramaeans from Kir.
Here are universalistic features. Yahweh is lord not only of Israel, but
of all peoples, and he is lord of history. It will have to be stuclied how other
words by the prophet harmonize with this view.
A fine picture of Yahweh as creator and sustainer is found in the ancient
hymn which Amos has used in hi'S preaching, 4: 13, 5: 8 f 9: 5 f.1 It is
necessary to touch a few literary questions in connection with these passages.
The commentators, with only few exceptions,2 consider these hymnical lines
as later additions to the words of Amos. They are now nearly unanimously
supposed to be parts of a hymn.
3
Robinson suggests that the hymn may have
been composed by Amos. It was torn into several pieces which were used
at the end of minor collections of Amos-words.
4
In the opinion of Mowinckel
the passages from the hymn were added to words announcing the arrival of
Yahweh for doom, in order to show that he was the Almighty.5 Maag sees
in the passages an ancient hymn from which also 8: 8 was taken. The whole
hymn was later ascrihed to the prophet, and the individual parts of it were
used in passages where God's power and glory should be stressed.
6
The passages have a rather regular rhythm and metre, and they have the
participle construction which is characteristic in the hymns.
7
In addition,
they have a common refrain with an ancient stamp, 4: 13, 5: 8, 9: 6. All
these features give a solid foundation for the opinion that we have here a
hymn which has been broken up and used in different connections.
s
Seen in this way it is irrelevant whether Amos composed the hymn or
not. The relevant question is if it is Amos himself wo has useel the strophes
of the hymn, or if it is a traditionalist who has done so. Maag seems to be
right in stating that the hymn is older than the Amos text,9 and it need not
1 Cf. John D. W. Vfatts: An old hymn preserved in the Book of Amos, JNES 15,
1956, 33-39, and literature mentioned there.
2 E. g. Cramer, Robinson, and Hammershaimb. Cf. further about these passages,
Horst: Die Doxologien im Amosbuch, ZA \V 48, 1929, pp. 45 f f.
3 Cf. Robinson, Mowinckel, Maag (pp. 57 f).
4 P. 87. 5 GTMMM III, p. 635. 6 P. 57 f.
7 Gunkel: Einleitung in die Psalmen, 1933, p .. 44 f.
8 Cf. also Maag in the Kohler-Festschrift, pp. 46 ff.
D P. 57.
1956. No.4. CENTiL\L IDEAS IN AMOS
39
necessarily be later traditionalists \vho placed it in the context where it is
found now. ActuaI1y, the strophes go well into their context, also in 5: 8,
it is v. 7 which is out of place. This verse certainly belongs together with
v. 10, but to state this is also to admit that 5: 8 f may have been put in later,
and may thus have broken up the original connection, between v. 7 and v. 10.
We have here decidedly a weak point, where we can only guess. Amos may
have used the hymn himself, to give colours to his picture of Yahweh, but
it can hardly be proved.
\i\!hen we compare the picture of Yahweh in the hymnical part-s of
4: 13, 5: 8 and 9: 5 f, with that found in words the authenticity of which
are not doubted, we shall have to draw the conclusion that there are no real
differences. Yahweh is painted as overwhelmingly great, as the one who has
power all over the earth and under the earth, who leads nature and history,
who fixes the stars and destines the fate of the nations, 4: 13, 5: 8, 9: 1 ff,
5 f, 7. This accord allows us to draw a conclusion for the use of the hymnical
parts: \vhether originally used by Amos or not, they are in full conformity
with his idea of God. \i\! e are therefore fully entitled to use them when we
try to give an impression of the idea of God in Amos, but, on the other hand,
it is also obvious that our chief sources will be words whose authenticity are
not usually doubted.
vVe may start with 9: 1 if, a passage which contains oracles that go
back to the prophet. They are combined with a vision, and this combination
has, not inappropriately, made scholars think that here is a fifth vision, in
adldition to those in 7: 1 ff and 8: 1 ff.1 Whether this vision has to be formally
connected with the others, cannot be discussed here.
2
\i\!hat is dear, is that
here is a highly important oracle, connected with a vision, and placed at the
end of the speeches according to the law of retarted action.
Amos saw Yahweh standing on the a1tar, 9: 1. (al may here also
mean "in front of", but it is more likely that the preposition is- used with its
usual meaning "on, upon",3 because Yahweh was expected to prefer the most
holy place.) In 7: 7 it is told that Amos saw Yahweh standing upon a wall.
No further details are given, as in Is 6: 1 H. Nothing is told about his
stature, nothing about his features, nothing about accompanying circum-
stances. His shape was most probably that of a man. If not, it would have
been told. It may abo he supposed that his size was greater than that of
<I human being, since Amos had no cloubt that it was Yahweh he saw,
7: 7, 9: 1.
But this Yahweh was not bound to the shape in which he materialized.
To Amos he was no locally restricted deity. The hand of Yahweh could
reach those in Sheol as well as those in heaven, 9: 2. There \vere no limita-
tions of the power of Yahweh. He could find his man even if he had hidden
1 So e. g. Weiser, pp. 41 ff, Mowinckel, GTMMM III, pp. 648 f.
2 Cf. Weiser, pp. 41 ff, Maag pp. 46 f.
3 Koehler: Lexicon p. 703.
40 ARVID S. KAPELRUD H.-F. Kl.
on the top of the Carmel mountain, or in the depths of the sea, 9: 3. vVhat
is said about Yahweh further in 9: 5 f is in good conformity with this.
All these passages stress very strongly the idea that the power and the might
of Yahweh was all-embracing. Amos did not share the opinion of so many
of his contemporaries that the power of Yahweh was limited to the soil of
Israel and Judah (I Sam 26: 19, II Kg 5: 17). Yahweh was the lord of
heaven and earth. He might cause the sun to go cLown at noon and "darken
the earth in the clear day", 8: 9. His power included the different nations,
and thus Yahweh was also the lord of history who determined the destinies
of the nations. He did not only lead Israel out of Egypt, he also led the
Aramaell.ns and the Philistines, 9: 7.
Verse 9: 7 also brings the word about Yahweh's universality which must
have sounded most offending to Israelite ears: halo' kibne husiyyim 'attcem li
bene yisra/ ct, "Are you not like the Ethiopians to me, 0 people of Israel?"
(The following ne
J
um-yahwce is added because v. 7 introduces a new oracle;
it was not originally part of the oracle.) Maag has asked the question whether
halo' in the first line has come in from the second line.
1
Without the first
halo' (and ne'um-yahwce) the metre in v. 7 will be a regular Qina metre.
The whole passage will then be sharper formulated: "Like the Ethiopians
are you to me ... ". But there is no reason to believe that the written text
was ever different from what it is now. It is, however, not improbable
that additions came in the oral tradition, especially as we can here easily
discern the motives which brought them in.
In a most direct way it is stated here that Israel did not mean more
to Yahweh than any other people. That "Israel" does here mean the whole
Israel, both kingdoms, is clear from the statement that Yahweh led Israel
out of Egypt, 9: 7 b. Israel is not the chosen people of Yahweh; he is the
god of the whole world. Certainly: he has shown Israel some special favours,
he has "known" them (yada!) in a special way, but that only makes their
responsibility greater, 3: 2.2 Yahweh had once chosen them, but they did
not adhere to their obligations in the covenant, so now they meant nothing
more to him than any other people.
The prophets were not interested in theoretical speculations. They
would certainly have considered such speculations as useless and irrelevant,
but the question did not occur to them at all, as the Israelites reacted religi-
ously to the problems which met them. That does not exclude theoretical
thinking, but at least in the time of Amos the Israelites had not come so
far that they were able to combine theoretical thinking with their belief
in Yahweh.
What we find in Amos is thus a practical universalism, not one which
is worked out theoretically and where all consequences are drawn. He has
1 Pp. 58 f.
2 Cf. to this Maag, pp. 149-152, 242--244.
1956. No.4. CENTRAL IDEAS IN AMOS
41
not been able to loosen Yahweh from his ancient attributes (1: 3,14,2: 13,
5: 8, 9: 1) or from all connection with the cult (the Day of Yahweh,
5: 18 ff.)l But how could he, and why should he? After all, he was not
preaching a completely new Yahweh, even if he stressed features which had
come in the background and also probably underlined some new features.
He had to have some connecting points, or the god he preached would not
have been Yahweh at all.
The fact has been pointed to that in spite of the universalism found in the
idea of God in Amos there are also particularistic features, especially when
he looks at the future.
2
This point has been stressed too much. Maag men-
tions "Bitte urn Verschonung Israels" (7: 1 ff). It is only for Israel the
prophet intercedes with Yahweh, he does not mention the other peoples on
whom he has preached doom. This argument can hardly be considered valid.
It has sprung from a modern logical point of view. The prophet was a man
from Judah, and he considered Israel his brother nation.
Israel and Judah were central to him, other peoples were in the peri-
phery. Their situation was not relevant to him in such a way as that of
Israel, who seemed to stand before an immediate doom. He was preaching
to Israel, at their chief cult place Bethel, and it was with their fate he was
concerned. Amos aimed at making Israel aware of their sin. He therefore
had to speak to the people of Israel - and speak about them.
That is also the reason why he promises a possible saving of the remnant
of Israel if they turn to Yahweh, seek (daras) good and not evil and re-
establish justice, 5: 14 f. It is a practical appeal, in a last desperate effort
to make the people turn a \yay from their sins and come back to Yahweh
and his covenant.3 In a similar case is also 9: 14, if this verse (and passage)
is really to be ascribed to Amos, a question which will be discussed below.
When these features are rejected as really important limitations of the
universalism of Amos, it does not mean that his point of view is universalistic
in the modern meaning of the word. VVhat has to he stressed, is that Amos
comes nearer to it than is usually admitted.
At the same time there are sufficient traces in his preaching to show
that he shared many of the mythological ideas of his contemporaries. Also to
him the world was built in several storeys, with a heaven on top and a Sheol
at the bottom, 9: 2 f. He also knew the great snake, na1'fas, on the bottom
of the sea. In Is 27: 1 the snake is identified with Leviathan, the dragon,
and it is probably the same idea which is found also in Job 26: 13. In
Ps 74: 14 it is told about Yahweh that he smashed the head of Leviathan
and gave him as meat to the beasts of the wilderness. In Ps 104: 26, however,
it is told that Yahweh made J _eviathan to play in the sea. This last i(lea
seems to be the same as is founel in Amos 9: 3.
1 Cf. Maag-, PI'. 240 ff. ".Maag-, pp. 243 f. " Against Maag, p. 243.
+2
ARVID S. KAl'ELJ{UJ)
H.-F. Kl.
h) Origin of the UniversalislIl of Amos.
There is a dear trend' towards universalism in its widest'lspect 111
Amos. At the same time there are evidences that he shared the mythological
Ideas of his contemporaries tn a certain degree. .
How, then, could the idea of universalism occur to him? That is no irre-
levant or unimportant question. \i\T e shall be able to understand his preaching
better when we know his background and can see from what sources his
ideas sprang. Neither here nor in the other prophets do we have a creatio
ex nihilo.
A few words on method are necessary here. All fundamentalists and
also some scholars hold the opinion that Yahweh's revelation to Amos gave
him his idea of God, and that further explmlations are not only unnecessary,
but even un wanted. If we are to do any research at all we cann.ot stop at
this point. Also from a religious point of view it is obvious that God
works through human media and through measures in history and nature.
That means that the usual meth.ods of study have to he applied.
The appearance and the preaching of Amos were deeply influenced,
p0ssibly caused, hy his vocation. But we must not derive too much from it, as
some scholars tend to do.
1
Also his v.ocation leaves much unexplained.
In the preaching of Amos there is one motive which he stresses himself:
his v.ocation by Yahweh, 3: 8, 7 :14 ff, 9: 1. This is surely no "rationalizing"
by Amos, as his vocation was an ,event which went deeply, also to the sub-
conscious strata of his mind. But his vocation does not explain everything,
especially not the universalistic features in his idea of God.
Another impulse can be seen rather distinctly in his preaching: the
impression which the social conditions with their great gulf between rich
and poor had made upon him. This impulse is active through most of his
preaching, but he does not mention it as a 1l1otive himself. In this case,
however, there can he no douht.
The case is not so clear when we come tl) his idea of Gael. Several
influences have been active here. The importance of his vocation was men-
tioned above. Also tradition has played a great role. Amos may very well
have known what was told about Eliah ancl other prophets, who dared
defy the J sraelite kings and preached a Yahweh who could not be identified
with Baal. He found an example there which may have given him some
features also to his picture of Yahweh.
Also in the preaching of Amos we meet a Yahweh who has nothing or
vcry little in common with Baal. It is a goel who has no such connections
with nature and fertility as Baal had. He abo seems to be losened from the
cult (5: 20 ff), while Baal call1wt be worO'hipped at all except in the cult.
2
1 Cf. \Veiser, pp. Sl f, 291--194, Seierstat!: OffcnharuIIg"scrlclmisse, pp. 82-91.
2 Cf. Kapelrt1<\: Baal in the Ras Shamra Texts, pp. 17 ff.
1956. ND. 4. CENTRAL IDEAS IN AMOS +3
Yahweh and Baal are different gods in the view of Amos. But he is not
concerned with Baal, who did not interest him. He cloes not even men-
tion Baal.
This is actually a rather bewild,ering fact which has not drawn the
attention one might expect. In the preaching of most of the prophets of
doom there is polemic against Baal and the worship of him. This can be seen
clearly in the prophet who came next to Amos in time, Hosea, and also in
Isaiah (e. g. Hos 2: 10 ff, 15, 19, 4: 12 if, 5: 3 if etc., Is 28: 1 ff, 7 ff). There
is very little of it in the words of T saiah, who worked in Judah, in close
connection with the temple in J erusalelll (Is 6: 1 if). He is very much on line
with Amos in his preaching, which is. no wonder, as both appeared with only
a few decades between them and had hoth got, strong impressions ffQm the
same Judaean circles. A later PfQphet from Judah, Jeremiah, had, however,
a stfQng polemic against Baal amI the w.orship 'Of him. The situation thus
seems to have changed from the time of Amos and Isaiah to that of Jeremiah.
It is not the relationship to other gods which is the problem in the
preaching of Amos (and Isaiah). That is a question which does not actually
concern him. 'vVe have already discussed sufficiendy the idea of Gael in Amos
to get a clue to why this is so. It is the stfQng feature of universalism in his
view which brings only Yahweh into his focus and leaves all other "gods"
without interest to hilll.
That takes us again back to 'mr problem: whence did this universalism
come? It is a remarkable fact that the first prophet whose words have come
down to posterity has a clearer universalism than most of the later pfQphets.
That may grate 'On the ear of those who hold an evolutionistic point of view,
hut it is nevertheless a fact. An(l it is no fact that can be disregarded. On
the contrary, it is an important feature in the idea of God of Amos, and we
shall have to make eVlTydfort to find the origin of it. That is not because
we believe that the "origin" of a thing explains everything ahout it, but it
is hecause a knowledge of the origin of this i<\<:'a will help us to understand
the whole preaching of Amos hetter.
It is a remarkahle thing that we find such a dear tendency towards
universalism in Amos. One cannot see this tendency witl1{)ut asking how it
was possihle at this early stage of Israelite prophetisl11. It is necessary to
underline that this is an historical (luestion, which will have to he answered
hy hstorical means.
Some impulses are melltioned abO\T: from Mosaic-prophetical traditions
and fr0111 his vocation. Both of them were certainly strong and decisive for
the character of his preaching. But they were practical impulses, appealing
to the feelings more than to theoretical thinking, and the really astonishing
point in the universalism of AnHJs is the rather consistent way in which it
is applie(1. This consistency seems to rev,eal that s01l1e theoretical thinking
lies behind. I'reachers like the great propheh of Tsra<:'l were 110t men who
ARVID S. KAl'ELRUll H.-F. Kl.
just spoke in estacy, their words and judgments show that they were also
thinkers.
The fact that Amos has no polemic against Baal and El may give us a
due to the source of some of his ideas. The amalgamation between Yahweh
and El (and Baal) which had most probably started soon after the immigra-
tion into Canaan, and had got a special impetus during the reign of David,
had come very far in the time of Amos. Yahweh played a great role in the
time of the kings, but still El, the ancient god of Canaan, had not completely
faded away. A characteristic of El is given by Julius Lewy: "- - El 'eljon
n'etait pas moindre que l'ancienne divinite amorheenne Salem que, a l'cpoque
preisraelite, a ete veneree a Jerusalem a titre de createur du monde et de
roi des dieux et qui passait pour Ie dieux supreme du territoire situe entre
Ie Nil et l'Euphrate."l
The Ras Shamra texts have confirmed that the picture Lewy has
painted of El is right. El was "the nominal head of the Byblian pantheon".2
The term il (el) may, as is, well known, be used as an appellative, but at
least in the Ras Shamra texts this is not the way in which it is most often
us,ed. Eissfeldt has treated this point systematically and his conclusion is:
"Der Gebrauch von ~ l als Appellativum fur" (cler) Gott" tritt zuruck hinter
s,einer Vervendung als Eigenname des Gottes El, der, - - - im Kuhus
von Ugarit einmal eine ganz hervorragende Rolle gespielt haben muG".3
Eissfeldt goes also further in stating that about 1400 B.C. El was in Ugarit,
at least for a part of the population not only the supreme god, but simply
the God (cler Gott schlechthin).4 He was, in Eissfeldt's opinion, the compre-
hension of the other gods (Inbegriff des gesamten Pantheons).5 It may
be that Eissfeldt has stressed this point a little too much. In doing so,
however, he has underlined the tendency towards universalism which is
found in El. El was the supreme god and the other gods had to ask his
permission if they started a new task.
6
He was above them all, and fate
seemed to be in his hand, as was usually the case with the supreme gods in
the ancient N ear East.
It may be objected that the Ras Shamra texts go back at least 650 years
before Amos, a considerable span of time. Nevertheless the objection carries
little weight. The worship of El went on for century after century. It is
not astonishing that the O. T. tens that worship of El (,Elyon) was usual
in Canaan when the Israelites invaded the country (e. g. Gen 14: 18-22).
1 RHR 110, 1934, p. 64.
2 Albright: Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, 1942, p. 73.
3 EI im ugaritischen Pantheon, 1951, p. 53. CI-. also Kape1rtHI: Baal in the Ras
Shamra Texts, e. g. pp. 72 f, 86, 136 f.
4 Op.cit. p. 60. I do not agree in his illterpretation of Text no. 53, sec my book
on Baal, p. 86.
5 Op.cit. p. 70.
n Kapelrud: Baal, pp. 110 ff.
1956. N0. 4. CENTRAL IDEAS IN AMOS 45
The Phoenician stele inscriptions from Karatepe in Cilicia show that
the worship of El and Baal was living religion in these regions at aoout
the time of Amos.
1
King Azitawadda called himself the s:ervant of Baal,
and mentions "Baal of the Heavens and El Creator of the Earth", b(l smm wJl
qn Jr-f, III: 18. To this may be compared Gen 14: 19 and 22, Jl (lywn qnh
wJr-r, which is a striking parallel. It gives in a glimpse a picture of
the position El held in the Near East in those centuries.
The inscription 0f King Azitawadda may be considered a link between
the Ras Shamra texts and the O. T. In the Ras Shamra texts El and Baal
play the chief roles and so is also the case in the Cilician text. The parallel
between this 8th century text and the O. T. has been demonstrated above.
The personal names in the Ras Shamra texts show clearly how popular
and important El was to his worshippers. There were numerous names of
the types ilmhr and (bdil.
2
Names of the same types were frequently used
in Israel. A typical example can be seen in II Sam 5: 14--16 and 23: 24--38,
where the heroes, and sons of David are enumerated. There is reason to
believe that names composed with el as one of the elements were much used
in the time of David and after him. It is interesting and certainly not insigni-
ficant that Isaiah, when he uses ancient mythological ideas and speaks of
the son of the (lmh, gives him the name (mnwJl, 7: 14,8: 8. Isaiah is here
well on line with ancient thinking in Canaan, according to which El was
the supreme god, and the one who really counted. A king, a prophet or a
nation who had El on its side had already a sure guarantee that victory and
success would be theirs. It is characteristic that it is in a word to the king,
Ahaz, that Immanuel is mentioned as a sign. The king and his house were
mostly more on the "int,ernational line" than other circles. Isaiah wanted
to give Ahaz a sign that really mattered and the important symbolic value
{)f which could be grasped. All these demands were met in the
name of Immanuel - not Immanujah.
If we shall comment on this, it is necessary to go hack to Gen 14 again.
Nyberg has shown convincingly that this chapter goes back to the time of
David, when El 'Elyon was the supreme god of Jerusalem.
3
Actually the
chapter wants to show that the ancient god of Jerusalem had accepted Abraham
and blessed him. The later Masoretes have felt this point as a difficulty. In
v. 22 where Abraham says that he has lifted up his hands to EI 'Elyon, they
have put in the name of Yahweh before that of EI, thus expressly identi-
fying the two gods.
4
. At the same time they could also avoid the idea which
1 Latter half of the 8th century, according to Alt, F. u. F. XXIV, 1948, pp. 121
-124 and WO 4, 1949, pp. 272-287, Eissfeldt op. cit. p. 7, HOlleyman, PEQ 48, 1949,
pp. 21-38. Cf. also R. Marcus and 1. ]. Gelb, ]NES VIII, 1949, pp. 116-120, and
C. H. Gordon, ]NES VIII, 1949, pp. 108--115.
2 Cf. Eissfeldt, op.cit. pp. 45-52, with numerous examples and discussion.
3 ARW 35, 1938, pp. 363 f.
4 Nyberg, ARW 35, 1938, p. 360.
46 ARVID S. KAPELRUD H.-F. Kl.
in their eyes. was monstrous, that the patriarch should worship another god
than Yahweh. It is, however, of considerable importance that neither the
Septuagint nor the Syrian tr<lJnslation have introduced this "Yahweh".
The tendency to identify the two gods is, however, one which is going
far back into history. In the time of Amos (and Isaiah) the amalgamation
ha4 been completed long ago, but still traces from the original difference could
occasionally he found. Yahweh had also taken over important features from
El, probably to such a degree that it may rightly he said that Yahweh was
victorious nominally, but El 'Elyon in reality.!
It is a very important testimony from this process that we have in Amos.
This prophet appeared so early that he could give his own contribution to
the amalgamation. He has done so in taking over the universalism which
was characteristic for the ancient supreme god, El 'Elyon. In that time
traditions about El were still alive, and he was still worshipped by neigh-
bouring peoples (d. Karatepe). At the same time the amalgamation was
going on, so it did not cause serious trouble if the prophet threw III new
features.
vVe have now provided sufficient material to glve an answer to two
questions mentioned above. These enigmas in the preaching of Amos are
those connected with his universalistic idea of God, and with the fact
that he has no polemic against Baal (or El).
How is it then possible that the very first prophet whose words have
come down to posterity can show such a marked universalism? The im-
portance of his vocation and of tradition has been stressed. According to what
has been shown above it is, however, probable that the basic idea in his uni-
versalistic point of view may be derived from influence by ideas connected
with the ancient supreme god El (,Elyon). It ,vas not universalism in the
philosophical meaning of the term, but in the practical meaning which has
been outlined above in connection with the discussion of El's position in
ancient U garit.
Most probably the facts mentioned here will give us the clue to the
reason why Amos has no polemic against Baal. As we know from U garit,
and as we can also see from the Azitawadc1a text, El and Baal were closely
connected and parts of the same entity. Amos lived and worked at a time
when the amalgamation between El and Yahweh, probably also between Baal
and: Yahweh, was going on peacefully, a time when the problems were harder
felt in other fields. That is a point of view which goes well with the opinion
that Amos found features in his idea of God from ancient ideas connected
with El. For one who had himself obtained inspiration from ideas originally
connected with El it would not be natural to take to polemic easily. Actually,
thas \vas probably not on his mind at all. To Amos the sin of Israel was
mainly found on another line.
1 Engnell in SEU I, col. 740, d. col. 61.
1956. N.o.4. CENTRAL IDEAS IN .-\ MOS 47
In the eyes of Yahweh and EI were probably so completely
amalgamated that he had no feeling of taking from one and giving to the
other. To him there was only one god who mattered, Yahweh, identical with
El, the ancient supreme god. Yahweh had taken him from his daily work
and made him prophesy, and he could only obey. In prophesying he paints
a picture of the God who called him. He was more than a nationaliotic god,
he was a universal god. He had made a deep impression on Amos, so that
it determined his life and preaching, but Amos did not ask nor mind whence
the different features in the picture came. To him it was all Yahweh, the
only Lord and the only one who could act in heaven and on earth.
c) Y ahwch J)cstraycr ar F argivcr?
Amos preaches Yahweh as the terrible of Israel: I will rise
against the house of Jeroboam with the sword, 7: 9. Jeroboam should die by
the sword, and the people of Israel should be led away as captives, 7: 11,
5: 27, 6: 7. "The end has come upon my people Israel", says Yahweh, "I will
never again pass by them", 8: 2. The destruction will be total, and what will
be saved out of it will not even be worth keeping, 3: 12. It is also indicated
how it will happen: Yahweh will raise up against Israel a mighty nation,
by whom they will be defeated, 6: 14. The "Day of Yahweh" which the
people looked forward to, would be darkness and disaster, 5: 18 ff.
The preaching of Amos makes it completely clear that Yahweh is here
seen as the destroyer of his own people. This was certainly no usual
preaching in the time of Amos. Most probably he was the first prophet in
J srael who stressed this point so strongly, a preaching which must have had
a certain effect on its hearers. It was not unusual in the ancient Near East
that a disaster was interpreted as, the wrath of the national god because the
people had not lived up to certain religious standards - or just because
the god was angry.1 But it was not usual that a prophet predicted catastrophe
for the whole nation. Yahweh and Israel \vere standing in a special rela-
tionship to each other, that of the berit, the Covenant.
Amos does not use the word berit in his preaching. That is not
accidental. To the people the relationship between Yahweh and Israel
seemed still to be unshaken. They adhered to their sacrifices and to the
rich cult which had been introduced, and seemed to believe that in doing
so they were doing their part in the Covenant, Amos 4: 4 f, 5: 4 ff, 21 ff.
That is just the central point for Amos, that is where the peopIe are
wrong. Yahweh is not that kind of a god, who can be satisfied by sacrifices.
Amos does not deny that there is a covenant, that Yahweh has taken Israel
out of Egypt, through the Sinai desert, 4: 10 f, 5: 25 (and 2: 10, if this
1 Cf. Kapelrud, JBL LXXI, 1952, pp. 33-38.
F
48 ARVID S. KAl'ELRUP H.-F. Kl.
rather long verse can be ascribed to Amos). Hc also admits that Yahweh
has known Israel in a special way, 3: 2.
But it is Israel itself who has broken the Covenant: it is forgotten or
is not undrerstood that Yahweh, like El has ethical demands to which his
followers had to adhere. They have been living in a changing society without
realizing that the ancient ethical obligations were valid also under new
circumstances. In the eyes of Amos the people do not seem willing to realize
this, and, therefore, the doom and the catastrophe must come.
The sternness of Yahweh is underlined again and again in the preaching
of Amos. It is, however, no sternness for the sake of sternness, nor is
Yahweh hard or cruel just to show his power. In every word the sternness
is most closely connected with an ethical point of view.
Harsh judgments are given, but they are always accompanied by motiva-
tions in which the reason is stated why the doom must come. In 1: 4 the
Aramaeans are told that they will be defeated and deported because of their
rough treatment of Gilead. The Philistines will be annihilated because they
have deported and sold as slaves to people from the borderland, 1: 6-8. The
Phoenicians will meet the same fate, for the ;same reason, 1: 9 f. Edom will be
devastated because they have chased their "brother", 1: 11 f. The Ammonites
will be defeated and deported because of their cruelties in Gilead, 1: 13-15.
Defeat and annihilation will be the fate of Moab, because they have broken
ancient ethical standards, 2: 1-3. Judah is threatened with war and plun-
dering because it has left the "law of Yahweh", 2: 4 f. Also in these execra-
tions. Israel is the chief object. The words of doom are more detailed here,
2: 13-16, and so is also the motivation, 2: 6-12. Amos specifies the ethical
standards which have been broken. It is first and foremost social sins,
2: 6-8, but also ingratitude towards Yahweh who had done so much for
Israel, 2: 9-12.
Doom and motivation are connected with stylistical masterhip. A fine
example is found in 3: 9-10, where armenot, palaces, is used as a catch-
word. The prophet is asked (by Yahweh) to let his message be heard in
the palaces of Ashdod (or probably: Assur, according to the LXX) and
Egypt, 3: 9. People of these countries are asked to see how violence and
robbery are stored up in the palaces of Samaria, 3: 9 f. But the doom of
Yahweh is at hand, and it will come where it shall: the palaces shall be spoiled,
3: 11.
In a few lines the stern consistency of Yahweh can be seen here. He
is the guardian of justice and right, and those who neglect the ancient
standards in this field can expect nothing hut justice - the justice of doom.
That is a central theme in the message of Amos. Yahweh is not a god
who may be satisfied with sacrifices only; he demands right and justice.
If Israel did not understand this and acted accordingly, the doom would
inevitably follow.
Those wo live in luxury in Samaria, without thinking of their coun-
trymen who were worse off, will see their luxnrious homes thrown down and
1956. No.4. CENTRAL IDEAS IN AMOS 49
annihilated, 3: 12-15. They have suppressed, the poor ones and only taken
care of themselves, and Yahweh will let them be drawn away with hooks,
4: 1-3.
Amos repeats this theme again and again, 6: 1-7, 8-11, 12-14,
8: 4--10, and it must be characterized as the dominating one in his
preaching. It is no doubt an ancient feature in the Yahweh religion which
lies behind his emphasizing this point. In the covenant between Yahweh and
Israel social solidarity was an integral part, and breaking with it meant
breaking with Yahweh. To nomads and half-nomads, living together in a
small community, that was evident, but it was forgotten under the new
economic and sDcial CDnditiDlls which had grDwn up in the time of the
kings. Amos, hDwever, stresses that Yahweh had by no means forgotten
this important part of the Covenant. He was no god in the background who
could be pacified by abundant sacrifices.
It is said in Yahweh's own words: "I hate, I despise your feasts, and
I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Even though you offer me
your burnt offerings and cereal offerings, I will not accept them - take
away from me the noise of your songs" (5: 21-23).1 What Yahweh wanted
was justice and righteousness, and if they were neglected t ~ result could
only be one: "Therefore I will take you into exile beyond Damascus", 5: 27.
The reaction of Yahweh against a cult which tried to hide the moral defici-
encies was violent: "The high places of Isaac shall be made desolate, and
the sanctuaries of Israel shall be laid waste, and I will rise against the house
of Jeroboam with the sword", 7: 9.
The way in which this passage is formulated, forces us to take up the
question whether there are particularistic featur,es in the idea of God of
Amos. Is the meaning of 7: 9 that Amos only accepted worship in ] eru-
salem as real Yahweh worship? It might be tempting to interpret the verse in
that way. That is because there is also another passage in which Amos rejects
the cult of North Israelite cult places, Bethel and Gilgal, 5: 4--6. Here is,
however, also a difficulty: Beersheba is mentioned parallel with Bethel and
Gilgal as a place not worth visiting. ubii'er saba' la' ta'iibaru, however, here
constitute a third stich, making a tristich of the first line in v. 5, while the
parallel is a distich. In v. 5 b the doom is spoken over the places mentioned
in v. 5 a, but Beersheba is not mentioned here. It is thus reasonable to con-
sider the third stich in v. 5 a a later addition. Thus that difficulty may be
said to have disappeared, but only to appear in another connection.
In a prophecy of doom, 8 :11-14, those who swear "by the sin of
Samaria" are mentioned: be' asmat samran, and those who swear by the
god of Dan, v. 14. But there follows a third stich: welte dl1!rl1!k be' er saba',
and there is nothing to indicate that it is not original in the context. On the
contrary, it goes well with the metre and the rest of the passage. It is also
1 Revised Standard Version, 1952.
Vid.Akad. Skr. II. H.F. KI. 1956. NO.4. 4
5
50
ARVID S. KAPELRUD H.-F. Kl.
so enigmatic that no reason can be seen why it should have been added at
a later time. The Masoretes have vocalized dcrrcrk, way, which gives no
meaning (even when translated "manner"). The clue to a right interpreta-
tion of the word is found in the LXX: 0 {}uk ao/}, which shows that the
LXX saw a god represented in the word d r l ~ . The solution of the riddle is
then probably near at hand: instead of drk the text had originally ddk, which
could easily be miswritten in the way it is done in the Masoretic text.
1
The
god Dod at Beersheba may have been identified with Yahweh, which is
probable at this time when so many gods were fused.
2
In any case it is
clear that Amos rejects the cult in Beersheba as well as that in Samaria and
Dan. He thus makes no difference between the Northern and the Southern
realm in this question; they are on the same line. It may, however, be
obj ected that Beersheba is not Jerusalem. That is a real objection, because
Amos may well reject Beersheba as a cult place if he accepts Jerusalem as
the only one. If it is probable that he has accepted features from the ancient
supreme god in Jerusalem into his idea of Yahweh, it is not unlikely that
he has been interested in a concentration of the cult in Jerusalem. As is well
known, the Deuteronomistic movement later followed this line. It was no
unusual thing that the great gods of the ancient Near East had special centres
of worship, e. g., Ningirsu in Lagash, Enlil in Nippur, Hadad in Terqa and
Halab. The great national gods were always in this case, Assur in Assur,
Marduk in Babylon and certainly Yahweh in Jerusalem. That does not mean,
however, that they were ,exclusively worshipped in these places. Gods of a
more international character, like El, Baal, Dagan, Adad-Haciacl were wor-
shipped and had import3Jnt temples in many places.
In the eyes of Amos Yahweh was not a national god only. He was a
universal god (9: 7), wi,th power everywhere. He had his centre in Jerusalem,
on Zion (I: 2), but that does not mean that he could be worshipped only
there. If it had been the meaning of Amos that Jerusalem was the only
possible cult place for Yahweh, he would certainly have said so. That is no
mere assertion, as Amos has several times spoken about the worship at some
Northern (and one Southern) cult places, 5: 5 f, 7: 9, 9: 14. If he wanted
the cult to take place in Jerusalem and not at the other places, he would have
said so expressly. 'vVe can thus. be rather sure that he did not want to
recommend any special J erus-alem worship of Yahweh.
The conclusion given when Yahweh condemns the luxurious cult is the
usual Qne: "TherefQre I will take you into exile beyond Damascus ~
(5: 27). It is not a change in the cult Yahweh wants, not cult in another
place, it is a complete break with the past.
But Yahweh's doom is not the only point in the preaching of Amos.
He also paints Yahweh's will to forgive, his long-suffering which is willing
1 Originally suggested by Hoffmann, d. Maag, pp. 55 f, 139 f.
2 So also Mowinckel, GTMMM III, p. 648.
1956. No.4. CENTRAL IDEAS IN A}[OS 51
to bear so much, 2: 9 ff, 4: 6---12, 7: 1-6. The doom of Yahweh does not
come unexpectedly or unpreparedly; it is no event which comes without a
preceding warning. The people of Israel had been given more than one
chance .
.some of the warnings given to Israel by Yahweh are mentioned in the
passage 4: 6-12. The people met hunger, but still they did not return to
Yahweh, 4: 6. They disregarded the warning. So also when the rain was
held back and there was no water, 4: 7 f. The fields were stricken by blast
and mildew, grasshoppers were devouring olive trees and fig trees, 4: 9,
but it was all in vain. Neither pestilence nor other hard measures did work,
4: 10 f; the people would not return to Yahweh. Therefore Yahweh had no
1110re any choice: the doom had to come. But even this doom Amos announces
in a very considerate way in this passage: "Prepare to meet your God,
o Israel", hil,lwn liqra't-' d:loh({;ha yisra' el, 4: 12. In the ears of Amos
the verb qara' sounded threatening here, but it may not have been so to his
audience, at least not at once, but probably more and more on reflection.
He has just painted Yahweh as long-suffering, but at the end of his speech
he indicates that this patience had come to an end.
In 2: 9 ff the whole thing is seen from another angle. Here Amos shows
how Yahweh helped the people in former days, again and again. He
destroyed the Amorites when this people was a threat to Israel, 2: 9. He
led Israel out of Egypt and he gave the people prophets and N azarites to
wake them up, 2: 10-12, but all was in vain. It is again the same thing
which is also stressed in 4: 6---12: that Israel had got every chance, but had
not used it. So the patience of Yahweh was out, and a time had to come
when nobody was to be saved, 2: 13-16.
\Ve shall have to remember these passages as a background when we
discuss the visions in 7: 1-6. This passage contains the two first visions;
the other three are found in 7: 7 f, 8: 1 f, 9: 1-4. There have been some
discussions about these visions, and different opinions have been held.
1
\ Yeiser is of the opinion that in the two first visions the prophet seems
to share the usual faith of his time: 2 that Yahweh could be made to change
his mind. "Dieses Erlebnis enth3.lt noch nichts von der Gottesauffassung
und dem Verhalten des Profeten zur CJ{)ttheit, wie dies in den letzten drei
\'isionen ZU111 Ausdruck kom111t." 3
The passages mentioned above show that this point av view cannot be
right. Yahweh had indeed given the people a chance, before the final doom
was annonnced. That is also clearly stated in the visions, which may be seen
as an entity, one literary unit, in spite of the way in which they are spread
in the context. \ Yeiser also considers them as one literary composition, but
he attempts to elate the single visions to different periods in the life of Amos.
1 See c. g Weiser, pp. 9-77, and Cramer, pp. 189-207. Indications about the
,lisel1ssinH arc givell hy \\'eiser, 1'. 12, 11. 2 & 3.
2 P. 72. " P. 12.
52 ARVID S. KAPELRUD H.-F. Kl.
It is astonishing that \Veiser has not seen what is dear to Cramer:
"Die Ges,ichte des Amos sind nur eine Abart des Prophetenstils." 1 While
Weiser tries to analyze the single visions and their backgrounds, in the
opinion that "die VisiDnen [gestatten] einen tiefen Blick in das innerste
Heiligtum der See1e des Profeten'',2 Cramer refrains from such an attempt.
He is of the opiniDn that "bei AmDs wird das Gesicht ausschlieBlich zur Stil-
form." 3 \Vhen Cramer tries to prove this sentence, he pDints tOo the close
connectiDn between the visiDn in 7: 4--6 and the wDrds in 4: 7-9.
4
That
is the same connectiDn which was indicated above.
Cramer is certainly right in pointing tOo the stylistic features in the
visiDns of AmDs. They playa great role here as they dD in the execratiDn
oracles in 1: 2-2: 16. The visions are built up with a dramatic rise which
cannDt aVDid attracting Dur attention. It is done in such an elabDrate way
that one may well share Cramer's suspicion that the visions are only a matter
Df style in AmDs. The dramatic rise frDm the tWD first v.isiDns tOo the last
is surely intentiOonai. PsycholDgically the same method is applied as that
which is used in the execratiDn Dracles in 1: 2-2: 16. First AmDs gives an
oracle which seems to be in line with the wishes of the people, then he goes
Dver to his oracle Df dDDm. That is a well calculated effect.
It is, however, necessary tOo stress that the two first visions are not to be
considered as mere literary devices. That wDuld be to gOo a step tDO far in
the DppDsite direction Df vVeiser. As has been shown abDve it is an important
pDint in the preaching Df AmOos that Yahweh is lOong-suffering and: has not
wanted to destroy Israel until it was obvious that Israel had rejected the
call Df Yahweh tOo turn back tOo him.5
The decisive pDint in the tWD first visiDns is nDt found in the fact that
Amos prays for Israel that the peDple be saved. In itself it is an interesting
feature that Amos, the first prophet whose words are handed down, has
seen his positiDn vis-a-vis Yahweh so independently that he cDuld act as a
mediatDr between Yahweh and the people. But the pDint tOo be stressed in
the first visions is the important fact which AmDs has tDuched several times:
that Yahweh ha:d actually been willing tOo fOorgive. But the peDple had CDn-
tinued along the same lines as befDre, regarding neither Yahweh nor their
fellDw-cDuntrymen whom they suppressed. Their sin had passed the limits
Df Yahweh's patience, therefDre the last visiDns tell what could be expected,
7: 7 f, 8: 1 ff, 9: 1-4. While the third visiDn represents SDme kind of a
transitDry stage between the first and the last, the last two visiDns leave
nothing unsaid. But also the third visiDn has a clear statement that Yahweh's
patience is exhausted, a wDrd used in both the third and the fDurth visiDn:
laJ-Jasij (ad (iibar 10,7: 8,8: 2. Israel's sins have been DbviDus fDr a long
1 P. 215. 2 P. 77. 3 P. 196. 4 Pp. 204 f.
5 \\,iirthwein sees in Amos "eine \Vandlullg yom Heilsnabi zum Unhcilsprophcten",
ZA W 62, 1950, p. 40.
1956. No.4. CENTRAL IDEAS IN AMOS
53
time, but Yahweh has shown mercy and has "passed by", 'libar. That cannot
go on for ever, but the fact that Y<lhweh's patience has now come to an end,
does not mean that Yahweh has no mercy, no patience, no forgiving. On
the contrary, the preaching of Amos shows that Yahweh wants to show
mercy, he is willing to forgive. But when his people do not pay any respect
to him at all, when they live as if he did not exist and only pay an outward
tribute to him with vain sacrifices, then he has no choice.
So far the attitude of Amos seems clear, clearer than many scholars
consider it. But there is still a problem left, the solution of which is harder
to find. That is the problem found in the promises of future happiness and
restoration in 9: 11-15 (and partly in 9:8-10).
We shall first discuss 9: 8--10, where only a few words are of interest
to our investigation. This passage is a word of doom, where, however, a
remarkable exception is made for "the house of Yaqob", bet ya/aqob, v. 8 c.
It is also worth noticing that in v. 10 a only the sinners of the nation, l],attliJe
< ammi, are mentioned as exposed to the doom.
While v. 8 a & b has got a regular metre (2+2, 2+2) nothing of the
kind can be said a:bout 8 c. This would not be a decisive argument in itself,
but in this case it is. The addition is so helplessly done here that it leaves
no doubt. It is an unsuccessful attempt to turn a prophecy of doom into one
of happines for "the house of Yaqob", but it cannot prevent the original
prophecy from shining through clearly.l It would have been very important
if no doubts had been connected with this line. It might have given a key
to much of the preaching of Amos, but this fact also forces us to study the
verse with great care. If tohere is only the least suspicion concerning the
authenticity of v. 8 c, the line will have to be "neutralized" in a discussion
of the religion of Amos; and if the suspicion is changed into conviction, the
line will have to be left out of consideration. There can, actually, be no doubt
that the clumsily constructed line is an addition to the rest of v. 8. If the
prophet had wanted to make exceptions himself, he would have been able
to do so in a much better way. His stylistic power would not have left him
so suddenly.
The verses 9-10 also have their problems. V. 9 a is suspiciously long,
but the whole verse has an original flavour, with well chosen words and
the hardness and harshness characteristic for Amos. The only exception falls
so conspicuously into the eyes that suspicion is aroused at once: beklil-
haggoyi111" which does not suit into the metre, nor into the whole flavour
of the passage. It has to be considered as an additiou.
2
1 So also Mowinckel, GTMMM III, p. 650, and Maag p,. 59. See Weiser's
discussion, pp. 52-54. Hammershaimb, who rejects all corrections metri causa, treats
v. 8 c as if it were part of the original text, p. 138. Cramer also keeps v. 8 c as authentic,
pp. 46 f.
2 So e. g. Mowinckel, op.cit p. 650, Maag p. 59.
54
ARVID S. KAPELRUD H.-F. Kl.
V. 10 also has its difficulties. The metrical irregularity IS probably not
greater than what may be expected in a prophet's preaching. But there are
also details in the verse which will have to be discussed. vVhat does the
prophet mean when he says that "all the sinners of my people shall die by
the sword"? What does /Jattd J e (a11lmi mean here? One may get the im-
pression that the doom is only coming to those who have sinned, with the
implication that those who have not, will be saved.
But this distinction is not f.ound in the other sections of the book. There
is nothing in other parts of the preaching of Amos to indicate that the doom
is to be understood as a partial doom only, 3: 2, 7: 8, 8: 2, 9 f, 11 f, 9: 1 ff.
But there are, however, features that will have to be considered. Amos makes
a clear distinction between the rich and mighty upper classes and the poor
ones, dallim, 2: 7, 4: 1, and J a:byonim, 2: 6, 4: 1, 5: 12, 8: 4, 6. But nothing
is said which could indicate that these poor, suppressed ones should be
excepted from the fate which was going to fall upon the others'! In spite
of the way in which the ancient social system in Israel had been broken up,
there are no signs that Amos has abandoned the idea of collective respon-
sibility. If he had really done so, his preaching would inevitably have shown
it. V. 10 is a word of doom, and the possibility cannot be excluded that it is
authentic.
2
In that case it may have been the intention of Amos to stress
that the sinners would get their doom surely. But he did not mean that the
others, if there were any, would he excluded from the coming annihilation.
The passage 9: 8--10 has to be considered as a word of doom and does
not say much about Yahweh's will to forgive. The promises of future hap-
piness come in the next pass.ages, 9: 11 f and 13-15. A few words on them
will be necessary, first on the principles of interpr-etation.
The opinion has been held that prophets of doom like Amos and Micah
were absolutely consistent in their preaching of an ultimate judgment, so that
no prophecy of weal can be found in them. In this connection] er 26: 18 has
been much used. In that verse the words of Micah 3: 12 are cited, a harsh
doom over Jerusalem. It is alleged that if Micah had really also had a
prophecy of coming happiness, he could not have been mentioned in the way
it is done in ] er 26: 18, or at least there would have been objections to it.:
l
It is a very strong argument, and it has a special weight because it comes
from the prophet's own time. It cannot he left aside. Still it it not completely
decisive, after all. The ,yards in ] er 26: 17 ff would not have been changed
if Micah had mainly preached doom and only promised restoration and final
happiness for a small remnant.
1 So Sellin, Geschichte des israel.-jiid. Volkes. 192-1, 1'. 251. Against this ci.
Weiser, p, 286.
2 So e. g. Hammershaimb, p. 139. and Maag, pp. 59 f, while Mowinckel considers
the verse a later addition, p, 650,
3 So e. g. Mowinckel, GTMMM III, p. 668.
]956. No.4. CENTRAL IDEAS IN AMOS
55
Some of the great prophets themselves have shown so clearly in their
preaching that they have a hope for the future that it cann()t be denied.
Isaiah, whose words of doom were hard and apparently without mercy, called
his son Shear-yashub, "a remnant shall come back", 7: 3 (and 10: 21). He
stressed the fact that the fate of Israel would not be that of Sodom and
Gomorrah: but Yahweh would leave "a very small remnant", 1: 9, d. 1: 25,
28: 16. A better future is also predicted in 8: 1-4, and there is probably
no doubt that the Immanuel sign has to be interpreted as a favourable sign,
7: 10-16.
A most interesting vvitness is Jeremiah. In ch. 32 it is told how
Jeremiah was ordered by Yahweh to buy a field in his, home place Anathoth,
32: 6 ff, as a sign that a better future could be expected for a nation whose
leaders had been taken away as captiv.es. It is stressed that it was Yahweh
who wanted to convey this oracle to the people: "Houses and fields and vine-
yards shall be possessed again in this land", 32: 15.
In a letter to the captives in Babylonia Jeremiah warned them that they
would have to live for a long time in the foreign country, 29: 1 ff. But he
also gave them a hope for the future, in a passage which is of high importance
when we shall discuss the question of the oracles of coming happiness. The
words of Yahweh which the prophet gave here, are really moving, and they
show that the idea of the Covenant was actually always in the background.
"For I know the plans I have for you", are the words of Yahweh, "plans
-of peace, and not of evil -", 29: 11. But the prophet did not speak in un-
conditional terms about the future. Better days were not coming automati-
cally. Yahweh would listen to the people and hear their prayers when they
really called upon him and prayed to him, 29: 12. If they sought him of all
their heart, they would find him, and he would help them, 29: 13 f. A better
future thus depended on the people's willingness to tum to Yahweh. Ch. 32
shows that Jeremiah did really expect that his people would come back - to
Yahweh and to their own country.
But Jeremiah was very suspicious about the prophets who preached
"peace" only, li?Salom, 28: 9. First when that which he has predicted happens,
can he be considered a prophet whom Yahweh has s'ent, 28: 9. Jeremiah
thus was of the opinion that a special trial was necessary for prophets who
preached only "peace". But such a trial was not necessary for the prophets
whom Jeremiah considered the true prophets, those who "prophesi,ed against
many countries and against great kingdoms, of war and of evil and of pestil-
ence", 28: 8. And who were these prophets? Jeremiah has also a word about
that: lzannebi
J
i11l Jasa'r Myu lefanay ulefana'l;;ii tnin-M(olam, "the prophets
that have been before me and before you from ancient times", 28: 8. Jeremiah
is here speaking of his predecessors, some of the prophets whose words are
found in the O. T. His words are valid for several of them. Isaiah, Amos,
Ezekiel and others may be among them. Jeremiah's words min-ha(olam are
especially an indication that Amos, the first prophet whose words were
56
AR VID S. KAPELR UD H.-F. KI.
handed down to posterity, is among the prophets of whom he thinks. This
is confirmed also by the fact that even the details in the preaching of Amos
are in accord with the characteristics mentioned by Jeremiah.
Jeremiah seems to have expected no objections when he painted his
picture of the ancient prophets in only one colour. They would certainly
have come, under these circumstances, if the an6ent prophets had not really
been prophets of doom. It is evident from the words of Jeremiah that the
most important prophets whose words were remembered and handed down,
were first and foremost preaching doom. If they had also predictions of
future happiness, that must have played a most unimportant role in their
preaching, since Jeremiah is allowed to characterize them in the way he does.
The words of Jeremiah about his predecessors cannot be disregarded.
We have here the words of a real authority, himself a prophet and living
not much later than the prophets about whom he was speaking.
On the other hand it must not be forgotten that also Jeremiah looks
forward to a future when the strain is lying behind, ch. 32.
After what we have seen above, it is most probable that Amos in his
preaching has stressed the aspect of doom so much that any other preaching,
if it is found in him, has receded completely into the background. The
possibility that Amos like Isaiah and Jeremiah had a hope for the future,
must not be rejected. The difficulty is that we do not know very much about
it, whether it was a hope for a small remnant to be saved, 3: 12, 5: 15; or
it was a hope that once the realm of David, combining the Northern and the
Southern kingdom, should be restored, 9: 11.
It must be admitted that the prophecy of happiness in 9: 11 ff comes
rather unexpectedly and without any inner or formal connection with the
preceding passages. This is in itself no decisive argument against its authen-
ticity, as is shown by several scolars.l But such as the circumstances are,
we shall have to look at 9: 11-15 with suspicion.
The first passage in the oracles of happiness is 9: 11-12. It is in-
troduced with the well-known formula bayyom hahu
J
This is an ancient
formula which was probably connected with the New Year Day and the
cultic festival on that day. But in the run of the tradition it was taken up
and used freely to introduce new passages, especially oracles speaking of a
better future. \Ve can thus draw no sure conclusions from the use of the
formula here.
Yahweh promises to raise up the fallen sukka of David, J aqim J ad-
sukkat diiwid hannoj(l'[(l't. The word suld::a means a simple cottage, of the
type which was used in the vineyards for the watchmen there, Is 1: 8, Job
27: 18. The cultic use of it in the "Booth Festival" does not come into con-
sideration here, Lev 23 : 33 ff. But the house of David is not only painted
1 Most recently Hammershaimb, p. 136, who mentions the Egyptian oracle of
Neferrohu, and Engnell, SED I, col. 61.
..
1956. No.4. CENTRAL IDEAS IN AMOS 57
as a simple cottage. It is called hannoja:Za:t, which can only mean the fallen
one". Could that expression be used in the time of Amos, when both realms
were still living side by side?
To that question different answers have been given. Engnell finds
here the hope that the Northern realm may be reunited with Judah and thus
get part in the Messianic future, connected with the house of David.
1
Maag
points to popular eschatology, in analogy with Gressmann.
2
None of these
scholars goes into details about the question mentioned above. Cramer has
felt the difficulty and translates: "die zerfallende Hutte Davids".3 In his
comments he adds: "N ur das V orurteil, Amos kenne keine Heilserwartung,
emendiert hier." 4
However, even when one has no "Vorurteil" of the kind indicated by
Cramer, one is very much in doubt here. Also Hammershaimb, who con-
siders the dynasty of David as "fallen" in the time of Amos, compared with
its former splendour, betrays that he shares this doubt. He states his opinion
in this way: "This view on the future of Israel is possibly not uttered by
Amos during his stay in the Northern realm, but first formulated after his
expulsion and expressed in the oracles with which the book ends." 5
The difficulty of "the fallen booth" is, however, not so easily got around.
Even if Amos had Davidic-Messanic dreams of a united kingdom, he could
not at this time speak of the fallen booth of David, when the Davidic dynasty
still reigned in Jerusalem. This difficulty remains, and to it are added the
still harder problems of v. 12. Edom was no danger of that dimension in
the time of Amos.
6
The conclusion is forced upon us whether we like it or not: vv. 11 & 12
have been added to the words of Amos at a later time. We dare not use
them to prove that Amos expected a brighter future after the annihilation
of Israel.
The last passage, vv. 13-15, is an independent unit where Yahweh's
promise of a happy and fertile future is given. It starts with no les,s than
three introductory formulas: hinne yamim MJim neJum yahwa:. This seems
to indicate that there have been some difficulty in connecting this last oracle
with the preceding ones.
V. 13 describes the coming fertility in a way which was known also from
the cult, d. the psalms of thanks, Ps 65, 67, and also 68: 8 ff. Cf. the parallel
in Joel 4 : 18
7
and Lev 26: 5. The oracle here seems to be of a type which was
used at the New Year festival.
In v. 14 the restoration of Israel is mentioned. Here the technical term
of the turning of the fate of Israel is used: sub sebut, d. Ps 14: 7, 53: 7,
1 SBU I, co!. 61. 2 Maag, pp. 60 f, 246 ff.
4 P. 48. 5 P. 137.
6 Maag considers v. 12 to be an addition, pp. 60 f.
7 See Kapelrud: Joel Studies, pp. 164 ff.
3 P. 47.
58
ARYl)) S. KAI'ELRU[) H.-F.KI.
Has 6: 11, Joel 4: 1, J er 31: 23, 33: 7, II, 26 etc. The cities will be rebuilt,
vineya.rds and garden:; will be planted again.
In v. 15 the Israelites are promised that they will no more be taken
away fwm their land, the land which Yahweh had given to them.
There is l10thingin 9: 13--15 which could not have heen part of Amos'
hope for the future, if he had any. But in any case it comes rather un-
expectedly where it is now found. It is shown abo\'e that the passage 9: 11 f
most probably is a later addition. But that cas1ts its shadow als,Q on 9: 13-15.
If the two passages were really connected, they must hoth he considered as
additions. If not, it is remarkable if an added passage should have been put
in before a passage which was from the heginning part of the oracles. This
latter alternative is, however, not quite imposs,ihle.
There are also other difficulties to be mentioned. The prophecies of
weal in Amos lack any connection with the other oracles,. In Isaiah and
Jeremiah we have seen that such a connection exists,l hut in Amos there is
nothing of the kind. As was mentioned ahove, the possihility cannot be com-
pletely excluded that Amos was thinking dialectically ahout the future, and
that thus oracles of doom and weal can stand unconnected side by side. But
in Isaiah and Jeremiah there are at least S0111e features in the other chapters
which point forward to a future for those who C0111e safely through the cata-
strophe. Not so in Amos, where we find two oracles of weal, of another
character than the other oracles, formulated in words from the cult and with
nothing of the peculiarity which is otherwise characteristic in Amos.
In 'one of his visions when Amos saw Yahweh standing at the altar,
he heard him order all Israelites to be slain, 9: 1. I n another oracle it is
expressly said that "the virgin of Israel" is fallen and that she will rise no
more, 5: 2. Confronted with these words we can only agree with \Veiser
when he states: "Hier ist das Gericht Endpul1kt uml nicht Durchgangspunkt,
und eine Rettung ausdrucklich ausgeschlossell." 2 Amos has touched the
idea of a remnant, ~ ; F Grit 3!osef, 5: 15, hut only as a l){)ssihility if the people
would hate evil and seek good.
\Ve have already seen that 9: 11 f must he considered as an addition
to the oracles of Amos. It is likely that also 9: 13-15 were added to the
oracles of (10'0111, and we shall tl1Us have to keep also this pas'sage out of
consideration when we discuss the idea of God ill Amos.
It also means that the picture painted above of the idea of God in Amos
will not be changed hy the last two passages in the hook. Yahweh was willing
to forgive his people if they were willing to turn hack to him anc! do good
instead of evil. If they did so, a remnant might he saved, 5: 15, hut if not,
the doom would inevitahly com('.
From what we have discussed a!J.o\'(' we may without hesitation con-
clucle that 5: 14 and 15 give us the most valuahle clut' to Amos' point of
1 See ahove, p. 55. 2 1'. 2i-i6.
] No.4. C,"NTRAL IIlEAS IK A;\l()S
59
view concerning the future of the people. The possihility of a remnant to be
saved is helel only in case of Israel's return to Yahweh, a return which Amos
did not consider very likely. But that was the only chance. Yahweh had
himself given the people the choice. There is no ullconditional promise of
a happy future. Yahweh hac! his ethical standards which had to he kept.
5. Amos and Ethics.
K either in his words to Amaziah (7: 14 f), nor ill his words ahout the
vocation of Yahweh (3: 3 ff), or in his visions (7: 1 ff, 1 ff, <): 1 ff) cloes
A111{)S mention the ethical demands of Yahweh. He stresses the point that
Yahweh has calleel him to prophesy, hilll1i1/1c, to Israel, 7: 15, 3: 8. The
contents of his message are delineated in the visions, where it is clearly
stated that his chief task was to preach doom to Israel.
But Amos has not preached doom without stating the motives of the
doom. In his preaching he has again and again explained the reasons why
the doom of Yahweh necessarily had to come. He didllot do this objectively
and disinterestedly. On the contrary, his motivation was a strong admonition,
yea mare than that: a real scolding.
This is actually a highly characteristic feature in his preaching, as it
is also in the preaching of the later prophets of doom. Stylistically this is
done in several ways, hut one is dominating and s,eems to he the one which
was preferred. That is the way of enumerating the trespasses (and the tre-
spassers) in participles, which can he llsed in verse after verse. In Amos
we find a characteristic example in 6: 1, 3-6 (v. 2 most certainly an addi-
tion in prose). In 8: 4--6 there is another construction, with infinitives
(with Ie) used in the same way as the participles in 6: 1-6. Rucliments
of the first construction are found also in 5: 7 and 18, and 3: 12 h, a well
preserved example ill 4: 1.
In 6: 1, 3-6 we find the !HOst llsua1 features in this construction. First
comes the "woe", hoy, which signalizes that we have here an oracle predicting
woe to Israel or to some special sinners who are going to he mentioned in the
following passage.
Those to whom the "woe" is addressed, are mentioned next, in a parti-
ciple, usually in the plural preceded hy the article. If the first participle is not
considered sufficient to characterize the people over whom the prophet cries
his woe, he goes on, either in l1lore participles or interchanging with
finite verbs.
It is most prohahle that the prophet taken this c()nstrl1ction from the
ancient curse as it was used in daily life and in the cult. A very simple type
may be found in Gell 9: 25, where a curse is sI){)ken over Canaan. The prDto-
type of the construction which is i0l1l1cl in the prophets may he seen in the
blessing of Isaac, Cen 27: 2<), ) Orer(c!.'d ) drill' umehclrii!.:cckd Mruf.>. In this
60 ARVID S. KAPELRUD H.-F. Kl.
simple construction the participle is used to characterize those who are to be
cursed, or blessed respectively.
From the cult life there is a good example in the enumeration of curses
in Deut 27: 14-26. The context and even some of the curses may be late,
but the main bulk of the curses certainly goes far back and so also their
form which is not likely to have undergone any change.
Now the prophetic words are introduced with hoy and not with ) arur
as in the curse. hoy gives the whole exclamation and the doom a slightly
changed character, a tone of affliction, which is not found in a sentence intro-
dused by ) arur. That may be better understood when we consider the source
whence Amos has most likely taken the word. It was used in the dirge, to
express grief, as can be clearly seen from I Kg 13: 30, Jer 22: 18,
34: 5.1
The prophets of Israel and Judah have used hoy frequently, especially
is this so in Isaiah and Jeremiah. But the first one known to have used
it in this way is Amos. Again we meet the question which troubles us
so much in Amos: is he the inventor of this use, or has he taken over a
practice which was already traditional? It ,is impossible to give any definite
answer in this cas,e, but that does not matter so much, as it is evident from
where Amos has taken the word. vVhether he was then the first one to use
this word from the dirge or not is rather irrelevant.
\\That is, however, the important point in this brief investigation of the
origin of the literary form of the prophet, is the fact that he has used the
material which was at hand. He may have used it in a new way, but,
nevertheless, it is obvious that he has not started with two empty hands
only. Stylistically he is an heir of those living and preaching before him,
even if we know next to nothing about them. We have s,een above that this
was so, also in many other cases, d. e. g., the execrations against the foreign
nations and Israel, the visions etc.
If we are going to discuss the ethical demands implicated in the preaching
of Amos, we would see that he has used ancient stylistic forms to express
them. But how far does this taking over of ancient traditions go? Does it
imply also the contents of his ethical ideas, or is he breaking new tracks here?
We must first see if the prophet has given any clue to this himself. He
really seems to have done so. In 2: 6 ff he enumerates some of the sins of
Israel. In v. 9 he points to the nearly unbelievable fact that the people are
sinning in spite of the help Yahweh has given them to destroy the Amorites.
This means that Israel was supposed to know the ethical standards of
Yahweh, so that they could have shown their gratitude in adhering to them.
This conclusion is in itself not decisive, as the prophet might well bring
something new, but himself act in the firm belief that he only stressed some-
thing old and well known.
1 Cf. H. J ahnow: Das hebriiische Leichenlied, pp. 83 ff.
1956. No.4. CENTRAL IDEAS IN AMOS 61
That Amos saw the situation in this way, seems to be clear. In 4: 6 ff
he pictures how Yahweh had warned the people again and again, through
lack of bread and rain, through sickness on fields and vineyards, but they
did not return to Yahweh, vv. 6,9, 10, 11. They had left Yahweh and did
not adhere to his words, and the warnings of Yahweh could only have any
meaning if the people knew how to return to him.
But Amos actually knew something about the past. That can be seen
from 5: 25, where Yahweh asks the people if they brought sacrifices to him
during the forty years in the wilderness. This indicates that Amos knew
some of the traditions about the desert time. It does not, however, say how
much he knew.
Amos knew the history of his people and has mentioned the Exodus
from Egypt, 9: 7, as well as the forty years in the desert, 5: 25. But the
history he knew was probably a much simpler one than that fonnd in the
Pentateuch.
There is an interesting question we shall have to put in this connection:
how was the relationship of Amos to the different decalogues?
Amos did not know the so-called J -decalogue in Ex 34 as an authorita-
tive decalogue, or he could not have disregarded it in the way he does. In
5: 21-24 Amos lets Yahweh express his contempt for the festivals and
assemblies of the people and the song and music connected with them. But
feasts and assemblies are ordered in Ex 34.
There is nothing which prevents the possibility that Amos has known
the decalogue of Ex 20: 1-17. But if this decalogue is really handed down
in the context of P, which seems most likely (20: 11), the whole thing may
be turned around and the decalogue considered as dependent on Amos and
some of the other prophets. That question cannot be discussed here, but in
any case this decalogue is so brief and concentrated on more general principles
that it will in no case give much help to the understanding of Amos.
There are, however, parts of Exodus which are well in line with the
ethical standards found in the preaching of Amos. That is especially true
of the double decalogue in Ex 20: 22-26, 22: 28-23 : 19. Also this "deca-
logue" ends with some cultic prescriptions, in vv. 23: 14--19, but they only
contain some general directions about the three main feasts and have nothing
abont the numerous sacrifices which were in use at the time of Amos. The
passage 20: 23--25 gives the general directions for worship, and Amos
certainly did not want to abolish them.
\Vhile the decalogue in Ex 34, usually considered to be old, has only
cuI tic commandments, the main bulk of the double decalogue consists of
ethical directions of a rather clet<liiled character. This is -especially conspicuous
in 23: 1-9, where we find commandments which are well in accordance with
the point of view of Amos. It is, however, very hard to fix the ag-e of these
laws. There are regulations, also, which seem to have some Deuteronomistic
flavour, so as 23: 4 and 9, hut they represent a tendency which may go much
62 ARVID S. K.\PELRUIl H.-F. Kl.
farther back, so that their likeness with Deuteronoll1istic regulations may be
merely coincidental.
Mowinckel considers Ex 20: 22-26, 22: 28--23: lSi as the Covenant
commandments of "the source E". Tn the passage mentioned ahove, 23: 1-9,
he finds parallels with the collections ill 21: 1-22: 27, especially
with the regulations in 22: 17-27.1 He accepts 23: 1-9 as part of the
Covenant commandments, but they were prohahly later added to them in
order to bring their number up to 24 (2X12).
There are very few reliahle criteria here. \\ie do not even know for sure
that the "source E" existed as an independent source. Most probably it did
not. There is, however, reason to believe that the present formulation of the
commandments is later than from the time of Amos. But that does not say
anything definite about the age of the ideas contained in thes,e commandments.
They may be very old and probably are so. They seem to go back to a time
when certain basic ethical standards were necessary to regulate the life
of the Israelite trihes.
So difficult as it is to fix the exact time of the commandments in Ex
23: 1-9 we shall have to start at the other enel. There is, no doubt about
the time of Amos, and we shall therefore first discuss the ethical standards
expressed in his preaching. Thereupon we shall try t{) find out how his rela-
tionship was t{) the usual ethical standards of his time.
In discussing the ethical of Amos we cannot leave out of con-
sideration the oracles of chs. 1-2, which is often done, as if these chapters
were suspect parts of his preaching. They are not; and they will have to be
used when we are going to give a picture of the ethical teaching of Amos.
I f we leave them out, some colours in the picture will be missed.
\\Then we consicler the execration oracles in 1: 3-2: 12 we find that
the sin which Amos attacks here is first and foremost something which can-
not be hetter charactenizeel than through the word cruelty. This cruelty is
founel in Israel (2: 6 ff) as well as among their enemies anc! their allies. The
opinion that Amos is here only reproaching enemies of Israel has been
rejected abO\'e.
2
The decisive point to Amos is not whether he is speaking
to friends or enemies. It is to arrest any breach of a law which he supposed
was known to everybody: the law of how to live together within a community
- of men anc! of nations.
Amos starts in reproachillg the enemies and prec!icting doom over them,
but that is not because he wants to hit at the enemies, hut hecause he wants
people to listen. And he wants to attack sin w herl'ver he finds it, regardless
of the fact whether it is a1l10ng enemies or in Israel itself. H is guiding
principle is not found in llationalis1l1, nor in anti-nationalism. He is preaching
and acting according to ethical standards which arc absolute to him.
1 (;'L'vIMM III, p. lSI.
" J'p. 22 fi.
1956. No.4. CENTRAL j[)E.\S TN A:\!OS
63
His attack 011 cruelty starts at once in the execration oracles. The
Aramaeans are accused of having "threshed" Gilead, 1: 3. \Vhether this
is literally meant or metaphorically, it does in any case imply a rough and
cruel treatment. The Philistines have deported captives, a real cruelty, as
they were sold to foreign countries as slaves, with little chance to C0111e back
to their home country, 1 : 6. Completely clear is the case with the Ammonites,
who are accused of having ripped up pregnant women in Gilead, 1: 13, a
cruelty of a really harsh character. It is also likely that in the eyes of the
prophet the cruelty of the Moabites in burning the bones of the King of
Edom in lime was a very grave one, 2: 1.
But not only the foreign peoples, Israel was also guilty of cruelty, 2: 6 f.
The people of Is,rael were not sufficiently strong to use cruelty against other
peoples. But those who had might and power in Israel used it against their
own countrymen. That was a sin which Yahweh could not tolerate, no more
than cruelty under other concliti0l1s.
Actually, the intention of Amos was. most probably to give a clearer
picture of the sin of Israel hy painting it against a background of the sins
of the neighhour peoples, sins which Israel had no difficulty in seeing and
acknowledging. They were lHlt willing to see their own cruelty and lack of
mercy, they could easier see the faults of their neighbours, a feature common
for all times.
Also in Israel a man could be sold as a slave, even a righteous man,
and even for a minor debt, 2: 6. The rich ladies of Samaria oppressed the
poor people and crushed the needy, in a cruel way which made Amos
threaten them with the most severe punishments, 4: 1 f. The same point,
cruel treatment of poor fellow-men, is mentioned several times, 5: 11 f,
8: 4, 3: 10.
Amos acts anrl speaks as if there were a commandment: You shall
not be cruel. But no snch commandment is actually found. In Ex 23 : 6-8
there are ethical rnles fur the protection of the pour and righteous, but they
will have to he seen from another point of view to which we shall return
below. It is first later that some rules against cruelty begin to be codified,
as may be seen in Prov 11: 17 and 12: 10. \Ve can thus ascertain that the
violent reaction of Amos against cmelty is not built upon written law in his
time. If such a ]a w hac! existed, it would no c!oubt have come dlOwn to
posterity.
It is a feature of no minor interest that the point which Amos stre:;ses
so strongly in his execration oracles had no background in the written laws.
But then C011les a qnestion which we shall have to put again and again
in the case of AnHJs. [s this reaction against cruelty created by Amos or is
he adhering to ancient points of view which were rather common in Israel
(and among its neighbours) but which 'were not codified?
It is hard to find (Jut h[)w much Amos is in accord \\'ith the common
opinion of his ti11le in the execration oracles, hecause it is ohvimb that he
64 ARVID S. KAl'ELRU[) H.-F. Kl.
uses also the national feelings of Israel in order to make the people listen
to his message. People who did not usually react against cruelty, might do
so when national feelings were involved.
But there is at least one oracle where national feelings are not involved.
Th3;t is 2: 1 ff, where Amos reproaches Moab for having burnt the bones
of the kings of Edom in lime. This reproach would have little meaning and
no force if the people did not share the opinion of the prophet.
There is also another point we shalI have to remember. That is the way
in which Amos builds up his execration oracles. He starts by stating facts
which were accepted by everyone and then goes over to the sins of Israel,
where the facts were harder to bear. That means that the opinion of Amos
is shared by the people also in what concerns the oracle against Moab. From
this we may be alIowed to conclude that the people also shared his reaction
against cruelty.
But in depicting the cruelties of Israel Amos has struck a new note.
First, he does not here speak of cruelties done by the whole people, but by
a part of the people against another part. The colIective responsibility seems
to some degree to have been broken up, but Amos never discusses this point
speciaIIy, so we do not know what he actuaIIy thought about this. In his
oracles of doom he seems to hold the whole people responsible for the sins
of the leading classes.
Secondly, in depicting the cruelty practised in Israel he reveals that it
has a markedly social character. A righteous man was sold for silver, and
a poor one for a pair of shoes, and poor and powerless people were suppressed
in many ways, 2: 6 f. Here Amos has sounded a note which came to be a
main theme in his preaching. Violence and robhery were characteristic of
those in palaces, 3: 9 f. They are reproached for oppressing the poor and
crushing the needy, 4: 1. They "turn judgment to wormwood and smite
righteousness to the earth", 5: 7. They take I11JOst of the wheat of the poor
for deht, 5: 11, and they take brihes from those who could afford to pay, so
that the poor had no chance to get their right,S: 12. They rule through
violence, 6: 3, and turn right into gaIl, 6: 12. They trample down the poor
and cheat them in every possible way, 8: 4 ff.
This is a central point in the preaching of Amos, and it seems to mean
more to him than most other features. It alI springs from one source: that
the people have turned their back upon Yahweh. The corollary is as it might
be expected. Religiously, it is expressed in the disregard of Yahweh and
his demands. The magnificent sacrifices could not hide this fact, 5: 21 ff.
Morally it can he seen in the way the rich and ruling classes neglected
and misused their fellow-men. Amos does not mention that they have actually
broken the Covenant, as they may themselves have heen of the opinion that
they had not broken it so long as they hro11ght their sacrifices and honoured
Yahweh in that way.
-
1956. Ko.4. CENTRAL IDEAS IN AMOS 65
It is on this point that Amos launches one of his hardest attacks,
5: 18 ff. Yahweh hates and despises their cultic feasts,S: 21, and their sacri-
fices and offerings he will accept no more,S: 22. He does not want more
song and music from the tempJ.e, 5: 23. It is also obvious why Yahweh rejects
all this. It is because it has come in the place of justice, mispa!, and righte-
ousness, 5: 24.
Here we meet two central terms in the ethical view of Amos. They
are used in important words concentrated in ch. 5, vv. 7, 15 and 24 (d.
also 6: 12).
In 5: 24 justice and righteousness are held up as opposite to what the
people are doing. But no definition is given; Amos seems to consider that
unnecessary: "Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an
ever-flowing stream". It is not clear how Amos uses lniJpat and here,
but the terms seem to have a rather wide meaning. As he has just mentioned
the behaviour of the people it is likely that also justice and righteousness may
here be used to characterize the behaviour Yahweh expected from his people.
Since Amos considers it unnecessary to explain the expressions, their con-
tent must be known to everybody. That means that justice and: righteousness
were expected from the people since ancient time. It was the right behaviour
within the Covenant, the right way of living before God and together with
one's neighbours. Amos does not refer to any special written law. He is
thinking of a behaviour which was taught within the Covenant, hut of which
it has not been necessary to write so far. There is little of the objective
juridical trends in the expressions as Amos uses them here.
The words in 5: 7 do not help very much to find the meaning of the
expressions mispa! and in Amos. It is probable that the sentence here
was preceded by a hoy, woe, as in 5: 18, 6: l,1 But the fact that the people
had turned justice to wormwood and cast down righteousness to the earth,
is not more elucidated by that. There may be a trend towards objective
forensic justice in the words here, but in the way the continuation goes on in
vv. 10 ff there seems to be the same tendency which was observed also in
5: 24. Those who cast down righteousness to the earth (v. 7) are those who
trample upon the poor and take from him exactions of wheat (v. 11). That
seems to indicate that the expressions justice and righteousness have the
same meaning here as we found in 5: 24.
The use of the words in 6: 12 is completely parallel and does not yield
anything materially new. The passage 5: 14 f, however, brings a new point
of view which must not be disregarded. The people are here fervently ad-
monished to seek good and not evil, tob wiFal-ra<, yea "to hate evil and love
good, and establish justice in the gate", bassa<ar tnispat. 'While good and
evil have to be applied to the behaviour of the people as justice and righte-
ousness in the cases mentioned above, this cannot be so in what concerns
1 So also Procksch in the apparatus of the BR3.
Vid.-Akad. Skr. II. H.-F. Kl. 1956. NO.4. 5
66
ARVID S. KAPELRUD H.-F. K1.
"justice in the gate". Here mispa! must be understood juridically. It is not
"the right behaviour in the gate" which is meant, but the right juridical
standards, the right judgment, right and honest sentences. It is obvious,
from the preaching of Amos, that he did not only think of the right juridical
standards, but even more of the right ethical standards, in conformity with
the ancient unwritten rules for life within the Covenant with Yahweh.
Amos could not demand from the people that they should f'Ollow new
ethical standards. In that case he would have had to explain to them how
these standards were, and why they should follow them. He never did that.
It was not necessary, as, in the opinion of Amos, the standards were already
there, set by Yahweh. In his own eyes he brought nothing new. It was the
pe'Ople who had turned justice to wormwood,S: 7. It was the people who
had turned the standards, not Yahweh, nor Amos. We can see that also
from 5: 14 f: "Seek good, and not evil, that you may live, and so Yahweh
Seb<l!oth will be with you, as you say. Hate evil, and love good, and establish
justice in the gate - -."
Here the very important expressions "good", tob, and "evil", ra( are not
explained at all; nor is "justice". Amos presupposes that these terms and
what they imply are known to his audience. He could not have done so if
he had intended to bring something new.
"Good" and "evil" are not theoretical principles in the preaching of
Amos. The expressions certainly have elements of guiding principles, but
like righteousness, -redaqa, they are mainly concerned and connected with the
behaviour of the people. "GoQd" meant to live and act in a good way, that
is: according to ethical standards which ought to be known to the people since
ancient times. That does not mean that Amos wanted to revivify any "desert
ideals" or so. As pointed out by Maag, some of his most important ideals
could be found also in Canaanite religion, e. g., to take care of and, help
widows ancl orphans.
1
\Vhat the prophet wanted, was to see the people live together in the
way they had clone before foreign trade and foreign cult had so seriously
broken up the Israelite society. He wanted justice established in the gate
again, according to ancient principles, and; a life between men in which they
sought good and did not trample upon the poor,S: 11, 14 f.
It can be easily seen what he wanted. Instead of the exaggerations of
the sacrificial cult he wanted a real brotherhood among men,S: 18 ff, where
no cruelty was found, and where nobody trampled down or misused his neigh-
hours. He wanted a form of social lif.e where the individuals were just and
righteous, where they helped their neighbours, instead of storing riches at
their expense. It is the solidarity from the ancient, minor and less com-
plicated society he wants back (let alone whether this solidarity ever existed
in the ideal form of which the prophet seems to think). It is a society where
1 Maag in Festschrift fiir Ludwig Kohler, p. 34, n. 3.
1956. No.4. CENTR.\L IDEAS IN X ~ i S
67
the enormous luxury of the upper classes in Samaria was not f-ound, because
it was part of the conduct within the Covenant to share with one's neighbour
-or at least to give him a fair chance t-o have his part of the ,vealth that could
be won.
Amos does not want any return to ancient customs just because they
are ancient. He wants his people to seek good and love good, 5: 14 f, because
that is what Yahweh wants. If they live according to the standards of Yahweh,
he will be with them, as they use to say, 5: 14.
Here is a central point in the ethics of Amos. The source of ethics 1S
found in Yahweh and in his commandments. But in his stress,ing of the
importance -of the ancient standards Amos is not aware himself that he is
bringing something new. Actually he brings an imp-ortant new feature. That
is the way in which he lets the whole relationship between Yahweh and
his people depend upon their normal conduct. It is only if they will love
good, hate evil and re-establish "justice in the gate" that Yahweh will be
gracious, and that only to a remnant,S: 15.
In the ancient social and religi-ous system the ethical standards were
only a single part of the whole. In the preaching of Amos they have been
given a stress which near,ly makes them the centre of all life.
The doom of Yahweh is announced again and again because the people
neglected the ethical commandments of Yahweh, 2: 6 ff, 3: 9 ff, 4: 1 ff, 11 f,
5: 7, 10-12, 18-27, 6: 1-7, 8-11, 12-14, 8: 4 ff. Because they had left
Yahweh in their way of life, in their neglect of the rights of their fell-ow-men,
Yahweh acted in a way which was rather unusual for a national god: he
turned against his own people with a harsh doom.
Th-ough unusual it was a reaction which was found also among other
ancient Near Eastern gods.! In the Epic of Gilgamesh it is Enlil who brought
a deluge over mankind.
2
In the Atrabasis Epic plagues sent by Enlil are
mentioned. The destruction s,ent by Enlil could be considered as a punish-
ment for sins (cf. Gilgamesh XI: 179 ff), but it might as well be seen as
having been caused by something which had irritated the mighty god (Atra-
basis I: I : 4 ff).
In the case of Yahweh, as Amos saw it, the ethical motives dominated.
It was first and foremost for ethical reasons that Yahweh wanted t-o destroy
his own poople. That the break of the ethical standards revealed also a
religious break with Yahweh is a question that was discussed above.
However, in the oracles of Amos doom is announced not only for Israel,
but also f-or other peoples: the Aramaeans, the Philistines, the Ammonites,
the Moabites and possibly alsoO others, 1: 3-2: 3. These pe-oples could not
be reproached for having left Yahweh, as he had never been their national
1 See my article: God as Destroyer in the Preaching of Amos and in the Ancient
Near East, JBL LXXI, 1952, pp. 33 ff.
2 Tab. XI.
68
ARYID S. KAPELRU[) H.-F.Kl.
god. They were condemned certainly also because they were enemies of
Israel and had deprived them of parts of their country. But as was pointed
out above they had violated certain ethical standards, and this point s m ~
to be most important in the eyes of Amos. They had acted cruelly, and in
doing so they had broken moral rules. That would necessarily bring doom
upon them.
But how could foreign nations he obliged to follow moral rules which
in the opinion of Amos are most dosely connected with Yahweh and his
commandments? This question has been discussed at some leng,th ahove.
1
The answer to it was found in 9: 7, where it is clearly stated that Amos did
not see Yahweh only as the god of Israel, but of all l1'ations. Theref.ore the
ethical demands of Yahweh were valid alw for other peoples than Israel.
Yahweh had taken the role of EI.
\Vhen Yahweh through Amos threatened to destroy several foreign
peoples because they were not up to the moral standards he demanded, this
must necessarily mean that these peoples were supposed to know the standards
in question. Amos has said very little on this point, possibly because of the
identification between Yahweh and EI, which may have been his background
in this question.
Amos never mentions any commandments, rules or laws. That does
not mean that they did not exist. It seems, however, to indicate that the
standards which were relevant to Amos were not formulated in written form,
but were found only in oral tradition. They were known, but not codified.
Nor does Amos mention Moses. That does not mean that Moses has
not existed, but it indicates rather clearly that Amos did not know him
as an authority on law. If Moses had been that to him, it would have been
most useful to mention him and to point to his authority. \Ve may he allowed
to conclude that the ethical standards which were authoritative to Amos were
not yet attached to the name of Moses.
6. Amos and the Cult.
It has been shown several times above that Amos was dependent 011
ancient tradition. That was the case in the execration oracles, in his idea
of God, in his ethics. \Ve have also seen how he transformed the tradition,
used, it in a new way, or stressed features in it which made the whole
thing look new.
\Ve shall have to remember this when we discuss the attitude of Amos
towards the cult. It is a question which has he en much discussed, but very
often the idea of cult has been too narrowly conceived. That has brought the
discussion astray. Cult is more than festivals, sacrifices amI offerings. The
1 Pp. 29 fr.
lY56. No.4. CENTRAL IDEAS IN A:\10S
69
cult has its ideas, its cOl1Jtents, a:nd several acts which cannot be classified
in the categories mentioned.
Amos was not originally a nabi. He was a noqed. This term was discussed
above,1 and it was found that it indicated s{)me connection between Amos
and the temple. He may thus officially have had s{)mething to do with the
cult, even if his task has only been to furnish it with the necessary sheep
for the sacrifices.
However, this feature was apparently not {)f any decisive importance
in his appearance. But whatever his task, he was strongly influenced by the
cult. Is has been shown that the form he uses in the execration oracles has
been tak'en hom the cult, entirely and in all details.
2
Also other features came from the cult. The prophets of doom worked
along the same lines which were used als.o by prophets preceding them. As
Amos was the first one of the "prophets of doom" whose words have come
down to posterity, we shall have to show that it was so.
We take our point of departure in the execration oracles. As it has
been pointed out .by Bentzen:3 these oracles vvere moulded in a form which
was ancient and used in several parts of the Near East. But a fact which
has also to be stress'ed, is that we have here real oracles. And what is more,
they are not oracles as they might be spoken by an ecstatic nabi, coming
directly from the wilderness, or from some minor place like Teqoa. They
are oracles which are built elegantly, and they can only be supposed to have
been delivered by a man who had for some time lived in cultic circles, and
,had absorbed the style of the oracles there.
In early times these oracles were rather simple. Probably they were of
a "yes - no" type.
4
David used to go to Nob in order to get an oracle,
I Sam 22: 15. \Vhen a battle was lost, he ask'ed the oracle about the reas{)n
for the defeat, I Sam 14. \Vhen David was roaming in Canaan and the neigh-
houring contries, Abi'athar was with him, always ready to give him oracles,
I Sam 23 : 6 ff, 30: 7 ff.
Priests and prophets were working together in the temple cult, and both
gave oracles. Also the prophets accompanied the army when a war was going
on, and they gave oracles together with the priests. Sometimes they were
asked before the war by the king to give oracles, I Kings 22.
The priests usually had their oracles through the means of some instrument,
the U rim and the Tummim, the Ephod and so on (cf. I Sam 30: 7 ff), but
the prophets were supposed to be filled by the Spirit of Yalnveh, who spoke
through them, I Sam 10: 5 ff. \Vhen the king got no answers, either by
dreams, by U rim, or by prophets, the situation was considered really
desperate, as it happened to Saul, I Sam 28: 6 ff.
1 Pp. 5 f f. e See above, jlJl. 17 ff.
a as VIII JlJl. 85--99.
4 Peuersen: Israel II, p. 122. (Danish ed.)
70
ARVID S. KAPELRCD H.-F.K1.
In the tilne of Jeremiah we hear that the prophets were part of the
temple personnel, J er. 29: 26. They were organized in a guild under a
responsible leader. It is als.o stated that the priest Pashhur used to prophesy,
J er. 20: 6. Pashhur was one of the leading priests of the temple, Jer. 20: 1,
and the prophet Jeremiah was himself a priest, Jer 1: 1, like Ezekiel, 1: 3.
The prophets used to act and speak in bands, hut they also spoke
individually, as may be seen e. g., from the story of Samuel. It was not
unusual that they turned individually to the king, to give him their oracles,
I Kings 20: 13 f, 21: 17 ff, 22: 5 ff, II Sam 12: 1 ff. Not all admonitions
seem to have been given in cultic terms and forms. Some of them were
spoken directly to the king, while others, which might also be spoken directly,
were parts of a cuI tic performance.
Amos did not speak directly to the king, which can be seen clearly
from 7: 10 ff. There may be many reasons for this. The prophet came from
the Southern Kingdom and was thus not a subj ect of Jeroboam, of fact which
may hav'e made it difficult for him to be admitted to the presence of the king.
Nor had Amos any direct contact with the worship at Bethel. He had surely
no regular part in it and could not in that way get an opportunity to speak
to the king.
Nevertheless it is sure that Amos spoke to the people of the Xorthern
Kingdom in the temple at Bethel, 7: 10 ff. -:\I.ost probably Amos c.onsidered
it the only natural thing to speak t.o the people at the sanctuary, where he
could be sure to be heard. V. 10 b with its beqa;ya;b bet ;.'isya/ cl, "in thc
midst of the house of Israel", leaves no doubt as to where Amos spoke. V. 13
confirms the fact that Amos spoke in the sancturay, which is there called
"the king's sanctuary", miqdas-11t/I'. Its importance is stressed also through
the other designation which is used: "temple of the kingdom", bet l1UJmlal,a.
It \vas at the religious centre of the Northern Kingdom that Amos spoke.
In the opinion of Morgenstern it is possible to fix the year and the day,
"almost the exact h.our, and even minute, of Amos' utterance".! "The entire
incident transpired in one brief half hour, beginning shortly before dawn and
concluding a few minutes after sunrise on the 1'\ ew Year's Day, the day of
the fall equinox, 751 B.C."2 Morgenstern has giycn a fine and vivid picture
of how Amos spoke in the sanctuary at Bethel before the coming of the dawn.
He may be right, but it can hardly be proved. He builds too much on II
Kings 13: 1-10, which is a rather legendary story.3
Beyond doubt, however, are two facts. The first one is that Amos spoke
in the sanctuary of Bethel, which he must thus have considered the proper
place to deliver his message. The other fact is that Amos used cuI tic termino-
logy and style, which would not have been possible if he had not been closely
connected with the cult, in some way or other. Al){we the passage 1 : 2-2: 16
1 Amos Studies II, p. 47. e Op.cit. p. 51.
3 See e. g. op.cit. pp. 51 ff.
1956. No.4.
CENTRAL IDEAS IN AMOS 7 I
was discussed, and Bentzen's conclusions \vere accepted.
1
These conclusions
show that Amos is highly dependent on traditional cuI tic material in his
execration oracles. The conclusions are, however, valid to a certain degree
als.o f.or the rest of his oracles. \Vhen I say to a certain dlegree, it is t.o
indicate that he has taken over elements of style, ten;ninology and ideas, but
he used them freely and sometimes transformed the ideas completely.
It is necessary to give some examples to show this clearly. \Ve might
mention his ironic summons t.o the people of the Northern Kingdom to come
to Bethel and Gil gal to sin there, 4: 4 f. He mentions different kinds of
sacrifices, showing that he knew much about them.
In 5: 18 ff Amos discusses several features from the cult, in a way which
shows that he knew them well. Actually, the trouble is that Am.os knew
much m.ore about the Day of Yahweh and what was implied in that idea in
early time than we have any chance to dlO.
The Day of Yahweh is one of th.ose ideas which Am.os seems t.o have
transf.ormed completely. In vv. 18 ff he gives s.ome glimpses .of the usual
conception .of that day. There were pe.ople who desired the day of Yahweh,
hammitOawwim Oat-yom 3'ahwa, v. 18. The hitpa'el form of wh means to
long f.or something, to wish it t.o c.ome.
2
The Day of Yahweh was thus some-
thing worth longing for, s.omething which was supposed to bring joy and
happiness.
It was also supposed to be a day of light and brightness, vv. 18, 20.
Amos gives n.o more particulars about the day, but the way in which he
speaks about it shows that he supposed the day and its central ideas to be
well known among the pe.ople. He indicates clearly that certain hopes were
connected with it, but we do not get any indication about how they were.
But here is als.o another connection which must be noticed. After having
mentioned the Day .of Yahweh Amos goes immediately over to speak of
cultic feasts, assemblies, burnt offerings, cereal offerings and peace offerings,
vv. 20 f. The day of Yahweh is mentioned in the same passage, which makes
it evident that this day was a:lso a cultic event. All the other features which
Amos mentions in this passage were of a cultic character, and it is highly
improhable that the day of Yahweh should be menti.oned in such a context
if it were not also of a markedly cultic character.
There is also an.other feature which we must notice and stress. It is
the way in which Am.os speaks about the Day of Yahweh. It is not only
a cuI tic event, but it is an event which is supposed to take place in the next
future, so that his audience could see for themselves what the day was going
to be like. It is no event which is going to take place in a far future. His
audience will be able to judge about the day themselves. This has surely
corollaries for an eschatological understanding of the day. A purely eschato-
. 1 ]'p. 17 ff. 2 Koehler: Lexicon, p. 18.
72
ARVID S. KAPELRGD
H.-F. KI.
logical view of the Day of Yahweh in this early time cannot he held. Evidence
is against it.
vVhat is sure, however, is the fact that it is a cultic event. Amos does
not deny this. it is a matter of course to him. \Vhat he denies, is the opinion
that the day will have the character which 1110st people expect it to have.
Amos stresses an aspect of the Day of Yahweh different from the usual one.
He has a "woe", ho}', to those who l-ong fDr the day. It will not be what
they expect, a day of light, but a day of darkness and gloom,S: 18, 20.
Amos is not alone in this. Two other pr-ophets who were not much
later than him, Hosea and Isaiah, have the same view of the Day of Yahweh.
According to Hosea Israel has no reason to rejoice, 9: 1. They shall
nDt pDur libations of wine to Yahweh, and they shall nDt please him with
their sacrifices, 9: 4. Hosea asks: "What will you do Dn the day of the
festival and on the day Df the feast Df Yahweh?", ma-ta(ilsu lcyom mo(ed
ulcyom l"}ag-yahw({!, 9: 5. Now the days -of punishment have CDme, the days
of recompense have CDme, 9: 7.
This passage indicates that the Day of Yahweh was usually a day of
rejoicing and a day characterized by cultic activity, with libations and sacri-
fices. The day is called yom hag-}'ah7X
'
({!, v. 5. This may be the original term
which has been abbreviated to yom yahw({!. But however this may be, Hosea's
expression den-otes the day as a cultic feast. The day of Yahweh will no more
be a day of joy, but one of punishment.
In the eyes of Isaiah the Day of Yahweh is the day when Yahweh is
mustering his host for battle, against Israel! (13: 4.) "Wail, for the Day of
Yahweh is near; as destruction from Shadday it will come" (13: 6). The
tr-ouble with Is 13, however, is that we cannot be sure that it goes hack to
Isaiah. On the CDntrary: indications are against it.!
Also in Is 2: 12 ff mention is made Df a "day": "Fm Yahweh Seba'ot
has a day (li'i yom I cyahw({! .ycba) at) against all that is proud and lofty ... "
(2: 12). Here the idea seems to be the same as it is in Amos ancI> Hosea.
The only difficulty is the non-technical use of yom here, which means that we
cannot be sure that it is the special yom yahw({! which is mentioned.
Anyhow, the words of Amos and Hosea show that the Day of Yahweh
was in their time a cultic feast, celebrated with rejoicing, sacrifices and liba-
tions. They both stress the seri-ous feature that in the future it will be
otherwise: the Day of Yahweh will be a day of punishment, of gloom and
darkness.
These are basic facts about the Day of Yahweh which cannot be shaken.
They must be the point of departure in a discussion of the day.
A thorough discussion of the day of Yahweh has been made by Sigmund
Mowinckel in his Psalmenstudien II: Das Thronhesteigungsfest Jahwas unll
1 See e. g Mowinckel ill G T ~ M M III, p. 116 ff.
1956. No.4. CENTRAL IDEAS IN A:\10S 73
cler U rsprung def Eschatologie, Kristiania 1922,
1
and in a monograph by
Ladislav Cerny: The Day of Yahweh and some relevant problems, Prague
1S148.
In Nlowinckel's view the Day {Jf Yahweh was originally the day of his
ascension to the th rone. That was the day when Yahweh was present in a
special sense. There can he !l{) douht ahout what festival that was: the New
Year festival in the autumn, when the old year was finished and the new
one c0111ing with rain ancl green grass. It was celehrated in eight days at full
moon in the month Tishri (the seventh month according to the Bahylonian
calendar). Several features point in the direction that the festival was origin-
ally celebrated sOlllewhat later, in the month Etanim (the eight), when rain
time begins. 111 ancient time it was a feast of creation. Its cult myth was the
Creation myth, l)y the l'rimeval sea myth and the Dragon
fight myth.
In Jewish time the festival was split into three feasts: the day of tfllmpet-
hlast on the first Tishri, the clay of atonement on the tenth, am], the feast of
hooths on the fifteenth and the seven following clays of Tishri, Lev 23: 23 ff.2
The impulses to celehrate this festival 1110st probably came to Israel from
Canaan anr! Assyria-Bahylonia.:
l
The central ideas were not acceptecl in the
sa111(, form that they had in the other religions, e. g. with the idea of the
dying anel revivifiecl goel, which seems not to have heen adopted in Israel.
The ideas of the god's creation and victory over the primeval sea anel the
enemies were to a high clegree transformed into "historical" events.
4
The creation was thought to culminate in the creation of J ,;rael, which
Yahweh chose as his own people. The historical event which demonstrateu
this was the exodus from when Yahweh clove the sea, as he had once
in the heginning cloven the primeval sea
The c()nquest of Canaan, the estahlishment of the sanctuary on Zion and
the proclamati-on of Yahweh as king are the central events from Israel's
history which gil into the of the New Year festival (Ex 15: 13-1S).o
The rich and many-faceteel ideology of the New Year festival cannot be
descrihe(l here; that would require tuo 111uch space.' But there is still one
feature which will have to be mentioned. That is the idea of judgmcnt con-
nected with the festiva1.
H
It originated far hack in pre-Yah wistic time, as we
may see from l's "Cocl has taken his place in the divine council; in the
midst of the gods he holds judgment" (v. 1). Here we have the well-known
idea from Assyria- Bahylonia of the council of the gods on the New Year
festival. The last verse of the psalm is characteristic: "Arise, 0 Gocl, judge
the earth; for to thee helong all the nations!" (\'. S.)
1 He has also givell brief summaries ill CiT),;L\{),I TIT, PIJ. 638 f, alld ill his OHer-
sallg og sallg-offer, Oslo 1951, JljJ. 128 ff.
!'v1 ()willckel: Offersallg og'allgoffer, Jljl. 129 f. " Op.cit jl.
, Op.cit. pp. 152 ff. 140 ff. " Op.cit. p. 152.
H Op.cit. p. 153. , ()l'.cit Pl'. 118-191. , Ojl.cit. jljl. 160 ff.
ARVID S. KAPELRUIl H.-F.Kl.
\Vhile the prevailing idea was that Yahweh was g{Jing to judge the
foreign nations and give Israel its right, abo other ideas could be fmmd.!
The strong ethical features in the Yahweh religion made it natural that the
idea of judgment could be turned against sinners and trespassers in Israel
itself.:! In the rather late Ps 50, according to tradition used at the feast o(
booths, we may see traces of this. It may be supposed that 1's. 50 is dependent
on the prophets, especially {JI1 Amos, so it is very doubtful whether it can
he used to show that Amos was dependent on cttltic phenomena in these
matters.
1 t is, however, likely that Amos picked out features as those 1l1t'l1tionecl
above and that he stressed them strongly, thus giving the Day of Yahweh a
new content. Amos was not the first one to speak about the Day of Yahweh.
It was known also in the time before his. But while the light aspects of the
day were usually stressed in the cult, Amos stressed another feature which
had alway,; been present, but which seems to have played a minor role.
The New Year festival recurred every year. Each time it was a time of
crisis, when the foundations of the new year were laid, and the new year
was "created". Yahweh was supposed to be present. He did not reside
passively on his throne, but like Marduk he "determined the fates".:l Like the
Babylonian gods he could also determine an unlucky fate for his people.
4
That was, however, not what was: expected. Each year ~ h final Day of
Yahweh was expected to C0111e, when Yahweh took power not only over
Israel, hut also over the neighbouring peoples, cf. Ps X2. That was going
to he a great event, full of joy and light, a clay to which the people looked
forward, Amos 5: 18 ff.
It is not possible here to go iniu the discussion of the eschatological
character of the Day of Yahweh. Only a few words must he saiet about it.
It is not our task to discuss all the features, which may go into the ide{)logy
of the Day of Yahweh. \Ve shall have to adhere to the rather brief and not
very detailed context in which Amos treats it. The Day of Yahweh was iL
cultic event, always luoked forward to an expected in the future. Allel in the
time of Amos it was not expected in a far, eschatological futnre, hut most
prohably in the near future.
The words of Amos about the Day of Yahweh are found ill a cuHic COll-
text, whether that was arranged so by Amos himself or by some of his
disciples. Mowinckel
6
and Ham111ershaimb
7
consider the passage 5: 18-27 as
one speech, not two as e. g. J\obinson
8
maintains. Robinson splits 5: 18-20
1 Op.cit. Pl'. 160 ff.
2 See to this my article: God as destroyer in the preaching of .\1Il0S, in ]HL
LXXI, 1952, pp. 33-38. 3 Enuma elis, II lines 120 ff.
4 Gilgal11csh Epi(', tahle Xl. See also (erny: The 1 lay of Yahweh, p. <)(i.
S For a bnief review of this discussion, see the conclusiuns of Cern}', op.cit.
pp. 99 ff. B GTMMM III, pp. 638 f. 7 Amos, pp. 85-93.
" HAT I: 14, 2nd ed., pp. 92 f.
1956. No.4. CENTRAL IDEAS IN .\M()S
75
from the verses 21-27. The two passages go, however, well together, and
there seems to he an inner coherence between them.
In vv. 21-27 Amos stresses emphatically that Yahweh spurns and
despises the feasts, assemblies and offerings of Israel, even the noise of the
songs and the melody of their harps. This spurning must not be misunder-
stood, as is so often (lone in popular preaching. "Amos, however, did not, as
has been maintained, advocate the abolition of sacrifices: he did not oppose the
institution but its misuse, and did not introduce a new order of service. He
moralized religion but did not substitute morality f.or religion", says Pfeiffer.
1
This opinion of Pfeiffer and others seems' evident when we have a
look at the text. \Vhat Yahweh hates and despises is a cult which is emptied
.of its content, and which is enacted in a spirit which is not in line with
that originally found in the Yahweh religion.
There has heen some doubt as to the authenticity of the verses 25 and
26, because they seem to he in prose. V. 26 seems to have some added
material, but it is important in the context. The most recent tendency is
to accept the two verses as genuine, d. Robinson,2 Ham111ershaimh,:l Engnel1.
4
Mowinckel rejects v. 26 as an addition, but in that way he loses the point
of the pas,age.
5
V. 26 no d-ouht has a reference to worship of other gods than Yahweh.
But that has nothing to do with the passage in vv. 18--24 which speaks of
the Yahweh cult. In the opinion of Engnell the criticism of Amos towards
the cult practices is to a very high degree a criticism of a foreign cult, namely
that of the god Bethel in the Northern Kingdom.
6
It may he right that
Amos feels there are strong elements from foreign cults - especially from
Canaanite sacrificial worship - mixed up with genuine Yahwistic features.
The passages in 4: 4 f and 5: 4 ff may point in that direction. It is surely
a feature which must lHlt be neglected.
Nevertheless, the whole context ill 5: 18--24 in(licates that the festivals,
sacrifices and offerings which are mentioned here are thought as parts of
a Yah,veh worship. The Day of Y3!hweh will come as a dark and gloomy
day, because the people of Israel concentrate 011 the festivals, sacrifices and
offerings, song and lllusic, and neglect other sides of the worship, namely
those wIllch consist of a life in jnstice and righteonsness. There is a strong
logical coherence in this.
If it was the intention (jf A1110S to denuunce the worship at Bethel, or
to denounce foreign cult, he wonld have said so. \Vhat he criticises is the cult
of Yahweh and the form it had got in the great sanctuaries, especially in
the Northern Kingdom. It had hecome a rich temple cult, dominated by
sacrifices and feasts which overshadowed other important featnres, first
1 Introduction to the O. T., rev. ed. 1948, p. 582. So also H. H. Rowley: The
Re-discovcry of the O. T., p. 109. 2 Op.cit. !Jll. 92 f. " Pp. 89 ff.
4 SEU I, col. 61. ;, G T ~ M ~ { Ill, p. 639. " SEU I, col. 61.
76 ARVID S. KAPELRUD H.-F. KL
and foremost the ethical demands. In the {)pinioll of Amos this was a most
serious thing which could not he tolerated. Therefore, the wIt had! to be
reduced to its right dimensions. That does not necessarily mean that the
cult had to be abolished.
Amos uses, however, very strong words. In an oracle it is stressed
that Yahweh hates and despises the feasts, that he does not even like the
smell, welo) ) (lriaf}, of the assemhlies gathered to worship. Nor does he
like the burnt offerings and the cereal offerings; and the peace offerings of
fatted beasts he will not see, Jneri) cka:m 10) ) abbi!, 5: 22. And
he goes on: "Take away from me the noise of your songs; the melody of
your harps I will not hear", we:Jimrat neb(llrc/':(l 10) ) (dm(l(, 5: 23.
The reason why Yahweh will have all this away is not that there is
too much of it (d. e. g. Micah 6: 6 f), Imt because it is not combined with
justice and righteousness, as it should he, 5: 24. Cult in itself was not suffi-
cient, it had to be combined with ethics. The aim of the prophet was not a
final abolition of the cult, but to have it set in its proper place and in due
proportions.
Amos' denunciation of the cult must, however, be seen in the context
of the whole book. There the words of doom play a dominating rble. To
Amos the doom was necessary. Israel was too deeply embedded in sin to
be able to rise. It had to go through the catastrophe 7: 8. And in the cata-
strophe it would happen to the cult what was going to happen to the country
and the people: "The high places of Isaac shall be made desolate, and the
sanctuaries of Israel shall be laid waste, and I will rise against the house
of Jeroboam with the sword", 7: 9.
There is little meaning in discussing what is here meant by Mmot
yishCiq and miqdeX yi,l:racl. 'Whether the prophet thought of cult places
with a cult d()minated by foreign influences, or he thought of the Yahweh
sanctuaries of Israel, cloes not matter very much. They were all going the
same way - towards destructioll and annihilation in the coming catastrophe.
It is therefore a rather academic discussion to ask whether the prophet
aimed at a complete al){)litifln of t,he cult or not. The sanctuaries and the
cult, of whatever kind, were not to be exempted from the general destruction
which was to come over Israel. If we omit to see words about the cnlt in
this context, we may easily misjudge them.
The relationship of Amos with the wIt and his attitude towards it cannot
he characterized in one word. They are of a rather complicated character.
Above all, they must not be judged by his words about the sacrifices and
the feasts as a base. It must not be forgotten that nearly all his oracles have
got their form from the cult and very often also their contents.
How deeply emerged in cultic ideas he is, we can see from his oracles
of doom. 111 ,his fourth vision he describes how Yahweh predicts the end
1956. Ko.4. CENTRAL IDEAS IN AMoS 77
of his. people Israel, 8: 2. \\Then he is going to give a picture of the terrible
days of the catastrophe it is made in the following words: "The songstresses 1
of the temple shall wail on that day, says Yahweh; the dead bodies shaH
he many ... " (8: 3). Even then, when all is finished., the songstresses of
the temple will he present to hewail the dead ones. The cultic acts were part
of life also to the prophet, and he could hardly imagine life without them.
Instinctively he painted the conchtions also after the catastrophe in cultic
<:olours.
\\Then Amos, in spite of this, has been considered a special enemy of all
forms of cult, it is for obvious reasons. It is because of his polemics against
sacrifices and offerings especially as they were used in the cult of Bethel
and Gilgal, 4: 4 f 5: 5 f, 7: 9 ff. The main issue for the prophet was that
the rich sacrifices and offerings were not accompanied by the ethics which
in his eyes were more essential than the sacrifices. This is very clearly
expressed in the passage 5: 18--24.
In the following passage, however, there are hints ahout foreign gods
in which the people were interested, v. 26. It is very hard to find what is
the real meaning of this verse, and it makes the whole thing more difficult
that its place in the context is not too sure.
2
The prophet seems to assume
that Assyrian ::ltar cult (of Sakkuth and Kaiwan) was practised by the people.
It is, ]1{)wever, not possible to interpret his words in vv. 21-24 as if they
were directed against this cult. \\That he is denouncing there is the Yahweh
cult, possibly first and f.oremost in the form it had taken in the Northern
Kingdom, but not solely.
In 8: ] 4 there is also some polemic against "the god of Dan" (cf.
Judges ]8: 30, I Kings 12: 29) and "the Dod of Beersheba",a hut nothing
is said about them. They who worship these gods shall fall as other people
of Israel, not to rise again.
Thus polemic against foreign gods is no main issue in the Book of
Amos. \Ve cannot find a master-key to the interpretation of his vvords about
the cult there.
On the other hand, it is possible that the prophet shows a certain irrita-
tion against all cult places and sanctuaries with the sole exception of J eru-
salem. He does n{lt mention the cult of J erusalem,either because i,t did not
<:ome into his focns, or hecanse he had nothing to ohj ect against it. He may
not have liked the cnlt in J erusalel11, hnt in some way he may have considered
Jerusalem the right centre of Yahweh worship. \\Te can only guess about
this, too little material heing left f>(Jf a decisive judgement. He was speaking
to the people of the I'-,'"orthern Kingclom, in Hethel itself, anc! it is only natural
that he mentioned this important sanctuary \\'here lavish sacrifices and
.offerings were certainly in ahl1ndant nse.
1 .iiY{!t, songs, is 1110st prohably all error for .i,/Yol. song-stresses. Less probable ~
.\:(11"1)1 hekel!, the ladies of the palace.
2 See e. g. Hammershaimh, I'll. 90 ff. :l Read dodN"L for d(cra!k.
,\/{ \'11) S. K.\l'ELRUIJ
H.-F. Kl.
In his condemnations of Gilgal and Bethel (and Beer-sheba?) in 5: 4 f,
Amos concludes in advising the people to seek Yahweh and live, dirSu
:J a;t-yahwa; wil]eyu, 5: 6 a. It would be wrong to jump to conclusions here.
As is so often the case, Amos leaves the conclusion open. \Vhat does he mean
with his "seek Yahweh" here? Is the meaning that Yahweh cannot be found
in Gilgal and Bethel, and therefore mus,t be sought in Jerusalem? Or does he
mean that the cult does not help very much, neither when it is performed in
Gilgal and Bethel nor when it is performed in Jerusalem, if it is not com-
bined with justice and righteousness?
If we consider the ,tenderlJcy in the preaching of Amos integrally the
latter solution of the problem lies next to hand. The fact is that Amos never
mentions Jerusalem as the right place of worship. This is a fact which counts.
If Amos had really mentioned Jerusalem as the real centre of Yahweh wor-
ship, there was no reason for later traditionalists (fromJ erusalem!) to remove
such a statement from the book, especially not when we cDnsider thwugh
what circles the tradi,tiDn passed. Many Df the bDDks Df the O. T. show signs
that they have been handed down in Jerusalem traditionalist circles.
1111 the BODk Df Amos there are few traces of J erusalemite influence.
Jerusalem is mentioned in 1: 2 as the place f rom which Yahweh roars. In
2: 5 it gets its doom l<ike the rest Df the CDuntry: "I will send a fire upon
Judah, and it shall devour the strDnghDlds Df Jerusalem." This passage about
Judah may nDt have been cDmposed by Amos in the shape it has nDW.
Nevertheless, the traditiDnalists, in a time l1Iear tD that of AmDs, considered
it a corollary of the preaching of this prophet. They had nD feeling that AmDs
had an attitude towards Jerusalem different to that towards the other sanc-
tuaries. They felt the doom of AmDs as absDlute, Jerusalem nDt being
extempted.
Conclusion.
The picture Df AmDs and his preaching which has been painted in the
preceding pages is not quite like the traditional ones. It has little similarity
with that Df revivalist preachers, and it is alsD unlike that of the liberal theo-
logy of last century.
The simple herdsman Amos has disappeared. Amos held a position
in the society Df Judah, and when he mentiDned the nabis it may have been
with a tinge Df cDntempt: he was more than that. A noqed was pwbably
a person Df rather high rank, respDnsible fDr a great part of the temple herds.
This is nD completely new conceptiDIlI, but the necessary corollaries have
not always been drawn fwm it. It must be admitted that Amos was a man
who had probably received a good education. He was no ordinary man, no
uneducated herdsman:. On the contrary: he knew the religious traditions
of his country very well. And he did nDt Dnly know them. He used them
extensively in his own preaching. Again and again our investigation has
1<)56. No.4. CENTRAL lPEAS IN Al\lllS
79
show11r how he depended on ancient tradition, in style, form and contents.
The passage 1: 2-2: 16, with its execration of foreign nations and of Israel,
reveals clearly that the prophet has obtained both his style as well as the
contents of his oracle from the temple cult. This fact cannot he explained
away; nor can it in other cases. Amos did not come fro111 an unknown back-
ground to start something absolutely new. He was well educated, and, he
built to a very high e g r e ~ on old traditions.
\Vhen we consider the idea of God in the preaching of Amos we find
many features which do not go into the usual, nationalistic Yahweh scheme.
Amos shows clearly that he is a man with a broader view than many of
his contemporaries. Our discussion of the execration oracles shows that
Amos has tendencies in the direction of a clear universalism. The corollary
of this is also that his ethical standards are absolute, not nationalistically
limited. Yahweh is not bound to any special cult place, because in fact he is
independent of all cult. He is also actually independent of Israel, who did
not mean more to him than the Philistines or the Aramaeans, 9: 7.
How could the idea of universalism occur to Amos? This is an important
question. It is astonishing that such a feature can be found in the preaching
of the first prophet whose words have come down to posterity.
A clue to an understanding of the universalism of Amos is given in the
worship of EI, as we find it painted in the Ras Shamra texts, in the
Azitawadda text and in the O. T. itself.
The amalgamation of EI and Yahweh had taken place a long time ago
when Amos appeared. Yahweh took over important features from El. One
of these was universalism, and on this point Amos made an important contri-
bution, in underlining this feature. To Amos, Yahweh and EI were probably
so completely amalgamated that he had no feeling of taking from one and
giving to the other. To him Yahweh was the all-dominating one, Yahweh
identical with El.
The Yahweh of Amos was not nationalistic and therefore not bound
to the sancturary of Jerusalem, nor to any other place of worship. He did
not reject Bethel and Gilgal as cult places because Yahweh in his opinion
was not found there, but hecause he rej ected all cult isolated from ethical
standards.
Nor was the God of Amos only a god of doom, even if this feature
is stressed strongly. He warned his people, 4: 6--12, and in the two first
visions of Amos, 7: 1-6, 7 f, we hear how the prophet prays to Yahweh
that the people may be saved and spared from the catastrophe. It was the lack
of will in the people to turn back to Yahweh which made th;e doom
inevitable.
It is hard to find out whether Amos had a hope for the future or not,
and if so, what his hope was. There is little to be found. The words in 9: 11 ff
must most probably be considered as additions to the words of Amos. In the
preaching of Isaiah and Jeremiah there are some features which point forward
80 ARVllJ S. KAl'ELRUlJ H.-F. K1.
tn a future for those who may survive the catastrophe. Not so in Amos,
where the words in 9: 11 ff are unconnected with the rest of the oracles.
Amos has nGt invented the form of his curses. He has taken them
from the cult life, and it is possible to demonstrate that there are features
from the dirge. But what about the contents of his ethical preaching?
Amos seems n{)t to have known the decalogue in Ex 34, but his preaching
is well in accordance with what is found in Ex 23: 1-9, a passage which is
now part of a double doc1ecalogue. There are also important points in his
is well in accordance with that is found in Ex 23: 1-9, a passage which is
especially the case in his violent reaction against all kinds of cmelty,
1: 2-2: 16, 4: 1 f, 5: 11 f, i-\: 4, 3: 10.
In Israel cmelty had a markedly s()cial character. The rich and ruling
classes neglected and misused their countrymen. No sacri fices alHl no cult
could hide this fact, and Amos demanded justice and righteousness,S: 7, 15,
24, 6: 12. He used the w{)reIs and without explaining what he
meant by them. This indicates that justice and righteomness had heen
expected ff{)m the people since ancient times. It was the right hehaviour
within the frames of the covenant, the right way of living together \o"ith one's
neighbours.
If Amos had demanded that the people should follow new ethical stan-
dars, he w{)uld have had to explain these new standards. 11 e never did that.
It was n{)t necessary, as in his opinion the standards were already set hy
Yahweh.
Instead {)f an exaggerated sacrificial cnlt, All1{)s wanted a real brother-
hood among men,S: 18 ff, where no cruelty was found, and where nohody
trampled dmvn or misused his neighbour.
Amos f{)und the source Gf his ethics in Yahweh and in his conmlan(l-
ments, prohably commandments which were not found in written form in
his time.
Amos was not aware, himself, that he hrought s{)111ething- new. But
actually a new feature was strongly by him. According- to Amos
the whole relationship hetween Yahweh and his people depended npon moral
conduct.
\Vhat is also interesting and astonishing in the preaching- of Amos is
the fact that he expected other nations to follow the ethical standards he
preached:. The explanation may possihly he foul1Jd in 9: 7, where Yahweh is
seen not only as the god d Israel, hut of all nations. Atl]{)s seems to havc
expeded that all nations should know certain hasic ethical standards.
Amos did not know Moses as a law authority. If he had clone so, he
might have used his authority tn sires-s what he had to say himself. I t seems,
however, sure that in. the time of An1{)s the name of :\Toses \\'as nut yet
connected with the ancient laws.
The question of the relationship of Amos to the cult has heen mnch
discussed. That depends partly on the fact that "cnlt" has hecll t{JO narrowly
1956. No.4. CENTRAL IDEAS IN AMOS 81
defined. It is also partly due to the circumstance that the words of Amos
about sacrifices and offerings have been torn from their context and have
been seen as an independent problem.
In our investigation we have found again and again that Amos is
influenced by the cult, in his style, composition and ideas. He has hardly
said a single word which is not in some way influenced by the cult. This
indicates definitely thart Amos had some connection with the temple, a
question which was discussed from another point of departure above.
Amos obtained his idea of the Day of Yahweh from the temple cult,
but he transformed it and gave it his own shape, more in line with his
preaching. He over-stressed the dark aspect of the day and made that the
only one. The day of Yahweh would be a day of darkness and gloom, and
it might be expected in the next future. In the time of Amos the day was
not expected to come in a far eschatological future. It might be expected to
come in the life time of those who heard Amos preach about it.
Amos announced that Yahweh hated and despised the sacrifices and
offerings as well as the cultic feasts with their songs and music, 5: 21 H.
It was a cult emptied of its content, and it was not accompanied by a life
in accord with the ethical standards of Yahweh. Therefore the cult was
doomed to destruction, in the same way as the whole people and their
activities.
Allios is the first prophet in the O. T. whose words have come down
to posterity in a whole collection. vVhy his words were kept in this way
we do not know, and we shall most probably never be able to know it. It may
he held as certain that his preachillg made a strong impression, and this may
have been the strongest impulse which has been at work to preserve his
words for later generations. His intense stressing of the Doom of Yahweh
and of the Day of Yahweh made him heard in wide circles.
He stressed feartures which he had taken over from the cult, but he gave
them a new turn. This was a dominating feature in his preaching. But it is
more than the contents of his oracles which have made his words live. In spite
of his apparent breach with tradition in certain points he is nevertheless highly
dependent on it. J n their elegant style and good form his oracles presuppose
a long cuI tic tradition. They are no improvisations sprung from a momentary
inspiration. They are far from that. His oracles are built up with a deep
knowledge of cultic tradition and with a literary and oral capacity which was
surely not usual. The first great prophet comes out of darkness, historically
seen, but his oracles were delivered in a refined form as complex compositions.
These compositions reveal, among other evidence, that Amos built his whole
appearance as well as his oracles, contents and style, upon a long and solid
tradition, mainly preserved in the cult.
A really great man is he who is able to use and to transform the best
ideas in the tradition in which he lives. Amos \vas a great man. A great
man in the service of God.
Vid.-Akad. Skr. II. H.-F. Kl. 1956. NO.4. 6
il2
Biblical Passages
Gen 9: 25 59
14 44---46
27: 29 59
Ex 15: 13-18 73
20: 1-17 61
20: 22-26 61, 62
22:28-23:19 61-63,
80
Lev 23: 23 ff 73
Deut 27: 14-26 60
J uclges 5: 4 f 18
I Sam 26: 19 27, 33, 40
II Sam 5: 11 ff 24, 45
6 f 18, 35
12 34
24 18
I Kings 5: 15 ff 24
12: 26 ff 35
21 34
22 69
II Kings 3 : 6-27 25
5 27, 33, 40
9-10 33,34
13: 1-10 70
14: 8--15 9
14' 25 9 10
17: 24 ff ' 27
Tab 26: 13 41
Ps 50 74
74: 14 41
82 73, 74
104: 26 41
Prov 11: 17 63
12: 10 63
Is 1: 2 22
1: 9 55
2: 12ff 72
5: 24 29
6: 1 ff 15, 43
7: 14 45
8: 8 45
13 72
27: 1 41
J er 20: 1 ff 70
25: 30 18
25: 34-38 19
ARVID S. KAPELRUD
Indices.
26: 17 f 54
28: 8 f 55, 56
29 55
32 55, 56
35 : 6 ff 33, 34
Has 1: 4 f 34
Toe! 4: 9-21 18
Amos 1: 1 5-10
1 : 2-2: 16 17-33, 48,
52, 62, 67, 70, 71, 79
1 : 2 17-20, 35, 37, 50,
78
1: 3 20, 63
1 : 6 24, 26, 30
1 : 9 f 20, 24, 30
1 : 11 20, 24, 30, 63
1: 13 22, 23
2: 1-3 24-29, 63, 64
2: 4 f 20, 29, 30, 37, 54,
78
2: 6-16 30-32, 60,
62-64
2: 10 47,51
3: 2 40, 48
3: 3-8 13, 14, 16, 42,
59
3: 9 ff 48, 64
3: 12 47, 49, 56
4: 1-3 49, 54, :59, 63,
64
4: 4 22, 37, 47, 71, 77
4: 6-12 15, 51, 52,61,
79
4: 13 38, 39
5: 2 58
5 : 4 ff 35-37, 47, 49,
50, 64, 77, 78
5 : 7 65, 66, 80
5: 8 f 38, 39
5: 14 f 36, 41, 58,
65-67
5: 15 56, 58, 65, 67, 80
5: 18 ff 41, 47, 65, 66,
71, 72, 74-76, 80
5: 21-23 49, 61, 64,
75-77, 81
5: 23 32
H.-F. Kl.
5: 24 65, 76
5 : 25 f 61, 75, 77
5: 27 47, 49, 50
6: 1-7 49
6: 1 37, 59, 65
6: 5 32
6: 7 47
6: 8-11 49
6: 12-14 49, 65
6: 14 47
7: 1 ff 8, 14-16, 39,
41, 51, 52, 79
7: 7 f 39, 51-53, 76
7: 9 47, 49, 50
7: 10 ff 7,8,11-14,
34, 47, 70, 77
7: 14 [f 7, 8, 13, 16, 42,
59
8: 1 f 14-16, 39, 47,
51-53,77
8: 4-10 49, 59, 64
8: 10 32
8: 11-14 49, 50, 77
9: 1--4 14,39--42, 51,
58, 72
9 : 5 f 38, 39, 72
9: 7 23, 26-29, 38, 40,
50, 61, 68, 72, 79, 80
9: 8-10 53, 54
9: 11-15 53, 54,
56-58, 79, 80
9: 14 15, 41, 50
Micah 3: 12 54
S1ibject I nde.r
Azitawaclda, see Karatepe
Baal 42--46
Beersheba 49, 50
Bethel 11, 12, 22, 35-37,
49, 70, 71, 75, 77-79
Covenant 24, 27, 28, 47--49,
55, 64, 65
Cruelty 62-64, 68, 80
dlras 35, 36, 41
Day of Yahweh 47, 71-75,
81
Decalogue 61, 62, 80
1956. NQ.4.
Denouncement of the king
12, 13, 70
Denteronomistic colonr 29,
30
Dod 50, 77
Doom 54, 55, 58, 59, 62, 67,

Earth'luake 10, 17
El 44-48, 79
Execrations 17-33, 62, 63,
69, 79
Fallen booth of David 56,
57
Gilg-al 22, 35-37, 49, 71, 78,
79
(;ilgamesh 67, 74
(;oocl and evil 66
Herdsman 5, 19, 78
J11lmanuel 45
Jerusalem 35-37, 45, 50,
77, 78
Justice 49, 65, 66, 76, 80
Karatepe text 45, 46, 79
Mari texts 7, 12
.Mesha 25, 27
.Moab 24--26, 28, 29, 48, 67
Moses 68, 80
Mythological ideas 41
N ew Year festival 32, 56,
70, 73, 74
l1/1qcd 5, 6, 8, 78
Particularistic feat ures 41
Prophets 7, 12, 13, 33, 55,
56, 60, 69, 70
Ras Shamra 6, 44--46, 79
Social conditions 16
Stylistic tradition 17, 20,
CENTRAL IDEAS IN AMOS
21, 23, 31, 32, 48, 52, 59,
60, 71, 81
Transgression 22
\'isions 14--16, 51, 52
\ \'arnings 51
Zion 18, 35, 37, 50
Authors
Albright 32, 44
Alt 45
Bentzen 17-20, 30, 32, 69,
71
Bezold 6
HolJ! 12
Cerny 73, 74
Cooke 25, 27
Cramer 15, 16, 38, 51-53,
57
Dossin 7, 12
Eissfeldt 19, 20, 44, 45
Eliot 8
Engnell 7, 11, 19, 32, 46, 56,
57,75
Celb 45
(;escnius- Buhl 6
GonIon 6, 21, 45
erav 6
57
Cl1nkel 38
Hammcrshaimb 10, 17, 36,
38, 53, 54, 56, 57, 74, 75,
77
Hoffmann 50
Honeyman 45
Horst 38
Hylmo 19
Jahnow 60
83
Kapelrucl 17, 27, 42, 44, 47,
57, 67, 74
Koehler 6, 8, 39, 71
Lewy 44
Lods 12
Lohr 28, 37
Maag 7, 35, 36, 38--41, 50,
53, 54, 57, 66
Marcus 45
Marti 20
Meinhold 37
Montgomery 6
Morgenstern 10, 70
Mowinckel 10, 17, 20, 29,
62, 35, 37-39, 50, 53, 54,
62, 72-75
Noth 9, 12
Nyberg 45
Pedersen 69
Pfeiffer 20, 75
Procksch 65
Rohinson 5, 6, 10, 17, 18,
38, 74, 75
Rowley 7, 7S
San Kicolo 6
Seierstacl 42
Sellin 54
Sjoberg 18
Smith 27
Soden, von 7, 12
Stacie 20
vVatts 38
Weiser 14--17, 20, 23-26,
28, 29, 35, 37, 39, 42,
51-54, 58
\Nellhausen 20
vViirthwein 23, 26, 30, 52
84 AR VrD S. KAPELR U D H.-F. Kl.
Bibliography.
The bibliography is selective. Only books and articles mentioned in the book -
and a few new ones - are listed.
Die Achtung feindlicher Flirsten, Volker und Dinge auf altagyptischen Tongefasscherben
des mittleren Reiches. Hg. K. Sethe. (Abhandl. d. preuss. Abd. d. Wiss. 1925.
Nr.5.)
Albright, W. F.: A catalogue of early Hebrew lyric poems (Psalm 68), HUCA
XXIII/I, 1950--51, 1-39.
Archaeology and the religion of Israel. Baltimore 1942.
Alt, A.: Die geschichtliche Bedeutung der neuen phonikischen Inschriften aus Kilikien,
F.u.F. XXIV, 1948, 121-124.
Die phonikischen Inschriften von Karatepe, WO 4, 1949, 272-287.
Bentzen, Aa.: Introduction to the Old Testament. 1. Oxford 1948.
The ritual background of Amos I: 2-II: 16, OS VIII, 1950, 85-99.
Bezold, c.: Babylonisch-assyrisches Glossar. Heidelberg 1926.
The Bible. Revised Standard Version. N. Y. 1952.
Bohl, F. M. Th. de Liagre: Profetisme en Plaatsvervangend Lijden in Assyrie en
Israel, NedTT 4, 1950,81 ff.
Cerny, L.: The Day of Yahweh and some relevant problems. v Praze 1948.
Cooke, G. A.: A Textbook of North-Semitic Inscriptions. Oxford 1903.
Cramer, K. : Amos. Versuch einer theologischen Interpretation. Stuttgart 1930. (BW ANT
III: 15.)
Danell, G. A.: Var Amos verkligen en nabi? SEA XVI 1952, 7-20.
Dossin, G.: Une revelation du dieu Dagan a Terqa, RA 42, 1949, 125-134.
see Lods, A.
Eissfeldt, 0.: Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Tlibingen 1934.
EI im ugaritischen Pantheon. Berlin 1951. (Berichte liher d. Verhandl. d.
sachs. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Leipzig. Ph.-hist. KI. B. 98. H. 4.)
Engnell, 1.: Amos, Amos' bok, SBU I, Gavle 1948, 59-63.
Gamla Testamentet I, Stockholm 1945.
Gud, SBU I, 1948, 739-343.
Profetismens ursprung och uppkomst. Ett gammaltestamentligt grunnproblem;
Religion och Bibel 8, 1949, 1-18.
Psaltaren, SBU II, 1952, 787-832.
Gelb, 1. J.: see Marct1s.
Gesenius-Buhl: Hehraisches und aramaisches Handworterbuch liber das A. T. 17. Auf I.
Leipzig 1921.
Gordis, R.: The composition and structure of Amos, HTR 83, 1940, 239-251.
Gordon, C. H.: Azitawadd's Phoenician inscription, JNES VIII, 1949, 108--115.
Ugaritic handbook I-III. Roma 1947. (AnOr 25.)
Gray, J.: Feudalism in Ugarit and early Israel, ZA W 64, 1952, 49-55.
Gunkel, H.: Einleitllng in die Psalmen. Gottingen 1928--33.
Hammershaimb, E.: Amos fortolket. Copenhagen 1946.
Hesse, F.: Wurzelt die prophetische Gerichtsrede im israelitischen Kult? ZA W 65,
1953, 45-53.
Amos 5:4--6. 14 f., ZAW 68, 1956, 1-17.
Horst, F.: Die Doxologien im Amosbuch, ZA W 48, 1929, 45 ff.
see Robinson.
1956. No.4. CENTRAL IDEAS IN AMOS
Hyatt . .r. P.: The translation and meaning of Amos 5: 23-24, ZA \ V 68, 1956, 17-24.
Hylmo, G.: Gamla testamentets litteraturhistoria. Lund 1938.
lrwin, W. A: The thinking of Amos, AJSL 1933.
Jahnow, H.: Das hebraische Leichenlied im Rahmen der Volkerdichtung. 1923. (BZA \V
36, 1923.)
J ohnsoll, A. R: The cultic prophet in ancient Israel. Cardiff 1944.
Kapelrud, A. S.: Baal in the Ras Shamra texts. Copenhagen 1952.
God as destroyer in the preaching of Amos and in the ancient Near East, JBL
LXXI, 1952, 33-38.
Joel studies. Uppsala 1948. (UUA 1948: 4.)
Koehler, L. : Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros. Leiden 1953.
Lewy, J.: Les textes llaleo-assyriens et l'Ancien Testament, RHR 110, 1934, 29-65.
Lods, A. ami (;. Dossin: Une tablette incdite de Mari, interessante pour l'histoire
anciennc du prophetisme scmitique, Studies in O. T. prophecy presented to
Th. II. Robinson, Edinburgh 1950, 103-110.
Lohr, M.: Untersuchungen zum Buch Amos. 1901. (BZA \V 4, 1901.)
Maag, V.: Jahwas Hcerscharen, Festschrift fiir Ludwig Kohler, Schweizerische theo-
logische l'mschau XX, 1950, 27-52.
Text, Wortschatz und Begriffswelt des Buches Amos. Leiden 1949.
Marcus, R. and I. J. Gelb: The Phoenician stele inscription from Cilicia, JNES VIII,
1949, 116-120.
Marti, K.: Das Dodekapropheton. 1904. (KHCAT XIII.)
McCullough, W. S.: Some suggestions about Amos, JBL LXXII 1953, 247-254.
Meinhold, J.: Einfiihrung in das Alte Testament. 2. Ausg. Giessen 1926.
Montgomery, ]. A.: The new sources of knowledge, Record and Revelation, Oxford
1938, 1-27.
Morgenstern, ].: Amos studies I-III. Cincinnati 1936-40.
Mowinckel, S.: De senere profeter. Oslo 1944. (GTMMM III.)
Offersang og sangoffer. Oslo 1951.
Psalmenstudien II: Das Thronbesteigungsfest J ahwas und der U rsprung der
Eschatologie. Kristiania 1922. (Skrifter utg. av Videnskapsselskapet i Kristiania.
II. Hist.-Filos. Kl. 1921. No.6.)
Noth, M.: Geschichte Israels. Gottingen 1950. (2. Ausg. 1954.)
History and the word of God in the Old Testament, BJRL 32, 1950, 194-206.
Nyberg, H. S.: Studien zum Religionskampf im AT., ARW 35, 1938, 329-387.
Pedersen, ].: Israel I-II. 2nd ed. Copenhagen 1934.
Pfeiffer, R. H.: Introduction to the O. T. Rev. ed N. Y. 1948.
Robinson, Th. H.-Horst: Die zwoif kleinen Propheten. 1938. (HAT I: 14, 2. Ausg.)
Rowley, H. H.: The re-discovery of the O. T. London 1945.
Was Amos a nabi? Festschrift Otto Eissfeldt, Halle a. S. 1947, 191-198.
Rudolph, \V.: Gott und Mensch bei Amos, Imago Dei, Beitrage zur theol. Anthro-
pologie Gustav Kriiger zum 70. Geburtstag dargebracht. Giessen 1932.
San Nicolo, M.: Materialien zur Viehwirtschaft in den neubabylonischen Tempeln,
Orientalia NS 17, 1948, 273-293.
Seierstad, 1.: Die Offenbarungserlebnisse der Propheten Amos, Jesaja und Jeremia.
Oslo 1946. (Skrifter utg. av Det Norske Videnskaps-Akad. i Oslo. II. Hist.-
Filos. Kl. 1946. No.2.) .
Sellin, E.: Geschichte des israelitisch-j iidischen Volkes. Berlin 1924.
Das Zwoifplophetenbuch I, 2. & 3. Ausg. 1929.
Sjoberg, E.: De forexiliska profeternas forkunnelse, SEA XIV 1949, 7-42.
Smith, M.: The common theology of the ancient Near East, JBL LXXI 1952, 135-147.
Snaith, N. H.: Amos, Hosea and Micah. London 1956.
Soden, W. von: Verkiindung des Gotteswillens durch prophetisches Wort in den alt-
babylonischen Briefen aus Mari, \VO 5, 1950, 397-403.
L.: The ethical clarity of the prophets, JBL LXIV 1945.
Watts, J. D. W.: An old hymn preserved in the Book of Amos, JNES XV 1956,
33-39.
Weiser, A: Das Buch der zwolf kleinen Propheten I. Gottingen 1949. (ATD XXIV.)
Die Prophetie des Amos. Berlin 1929. (BZA W 53.)
'Wolfe, R. E.: Meet Amos and Hosea. N. Y. 1945.
Wiirthwein, E. :Amos-Studien, ZAW 62, 1950, 10--52.
Der Ursprung der prophetischen Gerichtsrede, ZTK 49, 1952, 1-16.
R6
A]SL
AnOr
AR\v
ATD
BH
BJRL
S\YANT
BZA\v
F.u.F.
GTMMM
HAT
HTR
HUCA
TEL
'JNES
'KHCAT
NedTT
OS
PEQ
RA
RHR
SHU
SEA
TCL
UH
UUA
\VA
ZAW
ZTK
ARVID S. KAPELRUD
Abbreviations.
American Journal of Semitic Languages
Analecta Orientalia
Archiv fur Religionswissenschaft
Das Alte Testament Deutsch
Biblia Hebraica
Bulletin of the John Rylands Library
H.-F. Kl. 1956. No.4.
Beitrage zur vVissenscha ft des Alten 111111 des :.J euen Testamcnts
Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die alttestamcntliche \\Tisscnschaft
Forschungen und Fortschritte
Det Gamle Testamente, oversatt av S, Michelet, Sigmund Mowinckcl og
N. Messel
Handbuch zum Alten Testament
Harvard Theological Review
Hebrew Union College Annual
Journal of Biblical Literature
Journal of Near Eastern Studies
Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament
Nederlandsch Theologisch Tijdschrift
Oudtestamcntische Studien
Palestine Exploration Quarterly
Revue d'assyriologie
Revue de l'histoire des religions
Svenskt Bibliskt Uppslagsverk
Svensk Exegetisk Arsbok
Textes Cunei formes du Musee du Louvre
Ugaritic Handbook (c. Gordon)
Uppsala Universitets Arsskrift
Die Welt des Orients
Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche \\Tissenschaft
Zeitschrift fiir Theologie und Kirche
Printed November 1956.