|
CMU home P. Gilbert home |
Articles, essays, papers |
Pierre Gilbert Associate Professor Biblical Studies & Theology |
Over the years, the pericope found in Amos 7,10-17 has received an unusual amount of attention from biblical scholars. That this be the case is not surprising in light of the questions this passage raises on several important issues such as Amos' preprophetic vocation, particularly as it relates to the usage of the terms describing his previous profession, nqd, bwqr, sqmym bwls, the nature of the relationship between the prophetic office and the state, and Amos' own understanding of his status as a prophet.
The specific controversy we wish to address in this article centers essentially around Amos' first statement in his response to Amaziah's order to return to Juda in 7:14: "I am no prophet, nor a prophet's son; but I am a herdsman, and a dresser of sycamore trees..." (NRSV). The fundamental problem associated with this passage is linked to the grammatical ambiguity created by the absence of a verb. The way the sentence is constructed makes it difficult to determine whether Amos is referring to the past or the present. In this respect, the major problem is related to the fact that if Amos is describing a present situation, then the issue is to reconcile his statement about not being a prophet with the common assumption that Amos is in fact portrayed as a prophet of the Lord.
It has become apparent that none of the solutions proposed until now completely resolve the difficulties related to Amos' statement.1 It is clear that the answer cannot simply lie in solving the temporal riddle of the nominal clause or in ascribring specific and contrasting definitions to the words hzh and nby’. Whether we translate the clause as a past or a present, the problem remains. On the one hand, translating the clause as a past is not wholly satisfactory. Although this kind of nominal construction can be translated as either a past or a present, it in fact most frequently presupposes a present tense,2 unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. In this case, it would appear more natural3 to translate as a present for two reasons. First, Amos’ statement is meant to be a direct response to Amaziah’s comment about his prophetic status in Israel and Juda. It is difficult to understand how Amos’ declaration about not being a prophet at some point in the past really addresses Amaziah’s issue. Second, although verse 15 uses a verb in the past tense, which could suggest that we also have a past tense in verse 14, it can be argued, as Wolff does, that if, in verse 15, Amos refers to an event in the past, it is because it determines the present situation.4 On the other hand, providing a verb in the present tense does not automatically resolve the issue. If we translate Amos' statement by inserting a verb in the present tense, we then need to assume one specific meaning for the word "prophet" in verse 14 and another for the verbal form of the same root in verse 15. For the vast majority of scholars who maintain that Amos is referring to a present situation,5 the apparent contradiction between the use of the root nb’ in verses 14 and 15 is resolved by ascribing one meaning to the word prophet in verse 14 and another to its verbal form in verse 15. It is claimed that in verse 14, Amos is simply denying that he is a paid prophet or a seer who prophesies for a fee; his activity is solely dependent on God's calling.6 Although this is an attractive solution, the major difficulty with this option lies in the fact that the text does not provide any clear evidence that there is such a semantic distinction between verses 14 and 15. It is difficult to see why Amos would shift between two different meanings of the root nb’ in such a limited context.
Others see in Amos' negation a refusal to be identified as a "seer" (hzh) rather than as a "prophet" (nby’). In this case, the negative particle l’ is interpreted either as an absolute denial: "No! I am a prophet," or as an interrogative particle: "Am I not a prophet?"7 D. L. Petersen argues, based on his extensive study of the roles of the Israelite prophets and modern role theories, that the term hzh ("seer") was a label for a regular prophet from Juda, whereas nby’ ("prophet") was a designation used to describe a prophet in Israel. Thus when Amos denies being a nby’, he is simply clarifying the fact that he does not belong to the northern prophets; he is a prophet from Juda.8 These last two interpretations present a major difficulty. They both depend heavily on the assumption that there is in this pericope a clear distinction between a hzh (“seer”) and a nby’ (“prophet”). This is, however, not at all evident that this is the case in our text. The use, in verses 12 and 13, of the verb nb’ (“to prophesy”) to describe the function of hzh (“seer”) strongly suggests that, in this context, both are synonymous.9 More recently, Åke Viberg has suggested that a possible way to resolve the riddle created by Amos' response is by acknowledging that the prophet is using irony to bridge the ideological gap between his understanding of Yahweh's reign and the reality of the people's condition.10 Following M. H. Abrams’ definition of irony,11 Viberg contends that there is irony when the implied meaning of a statement differs sharply form the meaning ostensibly expressed.12 Although Viberg makes an excellent case for his interpretation, it depends on the assumption that Amos’ statement makes no sense as it stands. If, however, it can be demonstrated, as we attempt to do in this article, that there is not necessarily a contradiction in Amos’ response as it stands, it then become no longer necessary to resort to irony to explain Amos’ contention.
As ingenious as these solutions might be, our contention is that they appear to be too complex for a statement which, it seems to us, was meant to be clear and simple. It is important to note that Amos was in a confrontational situation, and we must presume that his answer was meant to settle the issue of his role in Israel. At least, this is how the redactor describes the event. If Amos' statement was in fact meant to settle a dispute, it follows that any solution which weakens the rhetorical impact of his response must be viewed with some suspicion.
At this point, we would like to suggest that an answer to this problem will not be found by simply focusing on the one or two verses which relate to the specific hermeneutical difficulty we have outlined. It is our contention that we must examine both the entire pericope and its wider context.
Before we study our pericope for clues about the possible meaning of Amos' statement, it will be first useful to look at certain elements of the wider context of the book.
The book of Amos has a unique superscription. Whereas the prophetic books generally begin with a reference to the prophet receiving the "word of the Lord" under the reign of such and such a king for a given audience,13 the book of Amos begins with a specific note about the profession of the prophet and his place of origin. We learn from this superscription that Amos was a herdsman from Tekoa: "The words of Amos, who was among the shepherds of Tekoa..." One would be ill advised to underestimate the importance of this statement; not only because it represents a unique description of Amos, but because it is also echoed in Amos' own declaration in 7:14: "...but I am a herdsman and a dresser of sycamore trees." The superscription also specifies that "the words of Amos... which he saw" are "concerning Israel." From the outset, the author clarifies Amos' status: Amos is a herdsman from Juda who has "words" concerning Israel. In other words, Amos is called to prophesy specifically against the northern kingdom. From the outset, the author appears to be clearly establishing a clear association between Amos' profession and a specific region: whereas in Juda, Amos is a herdsman, his call as a prophet pertains to the northern kingdom.
The second element to consider in the wider context of Amos' answer in 7:14 is the importance of the numerous geographical or political allusions contained in the book of Amos. These statements strongly suggest that Amos' prophecy is primarily if not exclusively intended for the northern kingdom.
Of course, one could object to this observation by pointing out the fact that in 1:3 to 2:16, Amos' prophecy is aimed at other nations. It must be noted, however, that these oracles are probably not written primarily to proclaim judgments against the nations. These prophecies are most likely rhetorical in nature; their purpose is to capture the audience's attention.14 One could surmise that Israel would have approved and welcome these words of judgment against her traditional enemies, but there is a catch. If these nations are condemned for certain actions, it follows that Israel too will be judged if she commits the same type of transgressions. The oracle of judgment against Israel which starts in 2:6 becomes therefore the climactic outcome of a series of indictments against foreign nations and Juda, designed to capture Israel's attention and approval until, in a dramatic flip, Israel is brought to the realization that this judgment she approves for others is also upon her. From chapter 3 on, Amos begins a series of oracles in which we find numerous explicit and implicit allusions to the northern kingdom.15
The pericope comprised of verses 10-17 can be divided into three parts: 1) Amaziah's report to Jeroboam about Amos' alleged conspiracy (10-11); 2) Amaziah's order for Amos to leave Bethel (12-13); and 3) Amos' response to Amaziah (14-17).
In the first part of this pericope, we learn that Amaziah, probably the chief priest of Bethel, sends a report to Jeroboam, the king of Israel, to inform him of Amos' conspiration. There can be no doubt about the target of Amos's words and their intent. According to Amaziah's quote, Amos' prophecy is aimed explicitly at the king and the kingdom of Israel and announces its coming demise. In fact, in verses 10 and 11 alone, there are no less than eight references to the king, the kingdom, or the land of Israel.16
In verses 12-13, Amaziah turns his attention to Amos. The text does not state whether or not the king responded or authorized Amaziah to intervene directly. We can assume that Amaziah had the authority to act and that considering the gravity of Amos' words, he was, in any event, acting with the tacit approval of the king. Amaziah calls Amos a "seer" (hzh). We should not attach too much importance to the possible negative connotations of this word; there is no reason to believe it was meant to be an insult to Amos. In ancient Israel, the term hzh does not necessarily have a derogatory meaning (cf. 2 Sam 24:11; 2 Kgs 17:13; Isa 30:10) and in this context, hzh and nby’ are clearly synonymous. Moreover, the author twice uses the verb nb’ to describe the function of the seer in verses 12 and 13, and in verse 14, Amos responds by saying that he is not a "prophet" (nby’). As we indicated earlier, we should not seek the key to Amos' riddle in v. 14 in an artificial distinction between "seer" and "prophet."
Amaziah's command to Amos contains a very important clue as to how we should read Amos' later response. It is important to notice that Amaziah does not suggest Amos should stop prophesying altogether. His "restraining order" is very explicit. The high priest tells Amos to go to the "land of Juda." Therefore, what seems to be at stake here is not so much Amos' status but the setting of his ministry. This geographical emphasis is particularly well highlighted by a little-noticed structural construction. The author emphasizes location by the emphatic use of the adverb of place sm ("there") at the end of verse 12; not only does the adverb appear twice but the near-perfect chiasm created by the inversion of verb and adverb in the second stanza brings the matter of location clearly to the fore:
w’kl-sm
wsm tnb’:
And eat there [your] bread,
and there prophesy!
In verse 13, Amaziah continues his diatribe by stating that Amos must never again prophesy in Bethel. In the Hebrew text, the word "Bethel" appears first at the head of the sentence, in clear contrast to Juda in verse 12. This establishes once more that the real issue is not the status of Amos as a prophet or whether his wages should come from Juda, but rather where Amos should and should not prophesy.
In verses 14-17, we are given Amos' response to Amaziah's command. Verse 14 contains the nominal clauses which are at the center of the controversy: l’-nby’ ‘nky wl’ bn-nby’ ‘nky.
It is our contention that although a reading of this clause in the present tense is the most probable, we submit that the interpretation of this statement does not ultimately depend on the determination of the tense of the implicit verb. This expression must be read in the light of the immediate context. First, it is obvious that this statement is a direct answer to Amaziah's request in verses 12-13. The sentence in verse 14: Then Amos answered Amaziah, clearly parallels the expression And Amaziah said to Amos, in verse 12. Amos' reply must therefore be interpreted in the light of the main preoccupation expressed in Amaziah's order.
The close repetition of the adverb of location sm, in verse 12, strongly indicates that Amaziah is primarily concerned with the setting or the location of Amos' prophetic ministry and not with the definition of his prophetic status. There is nothing in Amaziah's statement to suggest that the priest is explicitly questioning the fundamental calling of Amos as a prophet. Rather, that which is at stake is Amos' authority to prophesy in Israel: Amaziah is clearly telling Amos that he is no longer authorized to function as a prophet in Israel; he must leave Israel and prophesy in Juda. Common sense dictates that Amos' answer to Amaziah addresses the question raised by the high priest. If the issue is first and foremost linked to location, then we can safely assume that Amos' response deals with that same question. Amos' answer: "I am no prophet, nor a prophet's son," is not therefore a reference to the kind of prophet he is or to whether or not he is a prophet, but to the fact that he is simply not a prophet in Juda. As he emphasizes, in Juda, he is a "herdsman, and a dresser of sycamore trees." Verse 15 provides the explanation for this last statement. Amos states that "the LORD took me from following the flock, and the LORD said to me, 'Go prophesy to my people Israel.'" This statement states that Amos' call to be a prophet applies primarily if not exclusively to the northern kingdom. Amos' words clearly suggest the simple reason why he cannot listen to Amaziah: in Juda, he is not recognized as a prophet; he is simply a herdsman.
Verses 16 and 17 state the judgment which will strike Amaziah and his household. Verse 16 restates the justification for the judgment to come. The judgment is directly linked17 to Amaziah's emphatic order to Amos to refrain from prophesying in and against Israel. This order is in direct contrast to God's order to Amos to prophesy against Israel expressed at the end of verse 15. Verse 17 concludes the pericope by providing the terms of the curse which in addition to referring to Israel, specifically mentions Amaziah, his family, and his property.
Scholars have long puzzled over the possible meaning of Amos' surprising answer to Amaziah's command to leave Israel and to prophesy in Juda: "I am no prophet, nor a prophet's son" (7:14). The majority of them resolve the difficulty by stating that Amos is denying having any association with Israel's prophetic movement. Although the different attempts at resolving the problem are interesting and sometimes even ingenious, they are not completely satisfactory. For example, the solutions proposed do not take into account the rhetorical nature of Amos' statement. Amos' answer is set into a confrontational context and is meant to settle the issue of his legitimacy. Any interpretation which weakens the rhetorical impact of the prophet's reply must be questioned.
In this article, we have attempted to show that the prophet is simply addressing the immediate question of his professional status in Juda and Israel. In his statement: "Go ... to Juda... and prophesy there...", Amaziah unequivocally commands Amos to leave Israel and to prophesy in Juda. We suggest that Amos's response is equally clear and addresses very specifically the issue Amaziah is raising. Amos cannot obey the high priest's command to prophesy in Juda, for in Juda he is simply a farmer; his call as a prophet relates to the land of Israel. That the issue in 7:14 is primarily political and geographical is emphasized by the unique superscription of the book of Amos in which the author establishes the professional status of the prophet in Juda and in Israel. It is also confirmed by the numerous references to the northern kingdom as the target audience throughout the book and the strong regional/professional associations in 7:10-17: in the south, Amos is a farmer, in the north, he is a prophet of the Lord.
1 For a detailed survey of the positions held by biblical scholars before 1947, the reader can consult Harold H. Rowley, "Was Amos a Nabi?" in Festschrift Otto Eissfeldt (ed. by J. Fück; Halle an der Salle: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1947) 191-98. For an overview of more recent studies, see Shalom M. Paul, Amos (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991) 239-240.
2 See P. Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, rev. ed., 2 vols. (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1991), pp. 561-564. See also D. Cohen, La phrase nominale et l’évolution du système verbal en sémitique, Collection linguistique publiée par la société de linguistique de Paris, vol. 73 (Leuven, Paris: Peeters, 1984).
3 One evidence which is not often referred to is the quotation of Amos’ response to Amazias in Zechariah 13:5. Commenting on the latter, Viberg makes the following observation:
Here the present tense is undoubtedly correct, and this would imply that the author of Zechariah 13:5 understood a present tense in Amos 7:14 as well. Although it is theoretically possible that the author of Zechariah 13:5 could have been mistaken about Amos 7:14, an ancient Judahite would surely have been more familiar with the syntax of his own language than modern scholars, despite Amos 7:14 being several centuries old at the time of writing of Zechariah 13:5 (“Amos 7:14...,” p. 103).
4 See H. W. Wolff, Amos, pp. 312-313.
5 For more details, the reader can consult Hammershaimb, Amos, 117 and Wolff, Amos, 306, 312-313.
6 Among those who espouse this position, many suggest that Amos is rejecting the very idea that he belongs to an order of prophets: Albin van Hoonacker, Les douze petits prophètes (Etudes Bibliques; Paris: Gabalda, 1908) 269; Julian Morgenstern, "Amos Studies I," HUCA 11 (1936) 31; Abraham J. Heschel, The Prophets (New York: Harper & Row, 1962). Terry Giles proposes that Amos is in fact refusing to identify with a prophetic guild, i.e., with the class of oppressors in the land. His statement represents a way of stating very strongly that he identifies with the oppressed ( "A Note on the Vocation of Amos in 7:14," JBL 111 (1992) 690-91; also Gene M. Tucker, "Prophetic Authority: A Form-Critical Study of Amos 7:10-17," Int 27 [1973] 423-434). Others maintain that what Amos is rejecting is specifically the notion that he is a professional prophet, i.e., one who is paid for his services: Ernst Sellin, Das Zwölfprophetenbuch übersetzt und erklärt, (KAT, vol. 12; Leipzig: Deichert, 1929) 254; Adolphe Lods, Les prophètes d'Israël et les débuts du judaïsme (Paris: La Renaissance du Livre, 1935) 56; Erling Hammershaimb, The Book of Amos, tr. by John Sturdy (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1970 [1946]) 116; J. L. Mays, Amos: A Commentary (The Old Testament Library; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969) 136-138; R. S. Cripps, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Amos (London: SPCK,1969) 232-33; Hans W. Wolff, Joel and Amos (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977) 311-13; Paul, Amos, 247; Douglas Stuart, Hosea-Jonah (WBC 31; Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1987) 376-77; Gary V. Smith, Amos: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Regency Reference Library, 1989) 240-41; Rowley, "Was Amos ...," 197-198. Thomas H. Sutcliffe observes that by stating that he is not a prophet, Amos intends to avoid any association with the false prophets (The Book of Amos [Biblical Handbooks; London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1939] 64).
7 Among those who interpret l' as an emphatic no, cf. Simon Cohen, "Amos was a Navi," HUCA 32 (1961):175-178 and Ziony Zevit, "A Misundertanding at Bethel, Amos 7:12-17," VT 25 (1975):783-790. Among those who interpret l' as an interrogative particle, cf. Samuel R. Driver, "Amos 7:14," Exp. T. 67 (1955-1956):91-92; John D. W. Watts, Vision and Prophecy in Amos (Leiden: Brill, 1958) 11; Peter R. Akroyd, "Amos 7:14," Exp. T. 68 (1956-1957):94; Hans J. Stoebe, "Noch einmal zu Amos vii 10-17," VT (1989):341-354.
8 Cf. David L. Petersen, The Roles of Israel's Prophets (JSOT Supplement Series, vol. 17; Sheffield: JSOT, 1981) 51-69. David A. Hubbard (Joel and Amos: An Introduction and Commentary [Leicester, England: InterVarsity, 1989] 214) subscribes to a similar position.
9 “Seer” and “prophet” are also used synonymously in 2 Sam 24:11.
10 Ake Viberg, "Amos 7:14: A Case of Subtle Irony." Tyndale Bulletin. 47 (1996):90-114.
11 M. H. Abrams, A Glossary of Literary Terms, 6th ed. (Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1993), p. 97.
12 Ake Viberg, “Amos 7:14...,” p. 108.
13 See for example Is 1:1; Jer 1:1-3; Ezek 1:1-2; Hos 1:1; Joel 1:1; Mic 1:1; Zeph 1:1; Hag 1:1; Zech 1:1.
14 Smith, Amos, 29. Using a slightly different angle, Åke Viberg identifies the section containing these oracles as a good example of irony. He writes:
If we posit Israel as the implied audience, they would undoubtedly have been pleased at the harsh messages received by the surrounding peoples. And when Judah also received her fair share of the divine anger (2:4-5) , Israel's inhabitants would have been delighted, anticipating their own exemption from condemnation. But, unexpectedly, Amos saves them to the last, and they receive his longest and harshest accusations. The structural device of saving Israel to the end and thereby nourishing the hope that she would be left out altogether was, it turns out, only meant as an ironical means of emphasising their huge sin and blame ("Amos 7:14," 108-109).
15 Cf 3:1,12,14; 4:1,4,12; 5:1,4,5,6,15,25; 7:1,5,7,9,10,11,13,14,16,17; 8:1,7,14; 9:7,8,9. It is important to note that the reference to Zion in 6:1 is most likely a rhetorical one again.
16 V. 10: "priest of Bethel," "Jeroboam king of Israel," "against you," "in the midst of the house of Israel," "the land." V. 11:" Jeroboam," "Israel," "away from his land."
17 Note the use of the conjunction lkn.
|
Canadian Mennonite University |