Table Of ContentAmos
Garrett Amos final.indd 1 6/6/08 2:24:17 PM
Baylor Handbook on the Hebrew Bible
General Editor
W. Dennis Tucker Jr.
Garrett Amos final.indd 2 6/6/08 2:24:18 PM
Amos
A Handbook on the Hebrew Text
Duane A. Garrett
Baylor University Press
Garrett Amos final.indd 3 6/6/08 2:24:18 PM
© 2008 by Baylor University Press, Waco, Texas 76798
All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permis-
sion in writing of Baylor University Press.
Cover Design by Pamela Poll
Cover photograph by Bruce and Kenneth Zuckerman, West Semitic Research,
in collaboration with the ancient Biblical Manuscript Center. Courtesy Rus-
sina National Library (Saltykov-Shchedrin).
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Garrett, Duane A.
Amos : a handbook on the Hebrew text / Duane A. Garrett.
p. cm. -- (Baylor handbook on the Hebrew Bible series)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-932792-69-0 (pbk.)
1. Bible. O.T. Amos--Criticism, Textual. 2. Bible. O.T. Amos--Language,
style. 3. Hebrew language--Grammar. I. Title.
BS1585.52.G37 2008
224'.8044--dc22
2008010617
Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper with a minimum
of 30% pcw recycled content.
Garrett Amos final.indd 4 6/6/08 2:24:18 PM
TABlE of ConTEnTs
Introduction 1
Amos 1 13
Amos 2 47
Amos 3 77
Amos 4 104
Amos 5 129
Amos 6 177
Amos 7 204
Amos 8 229
Amos 9 256
Glossary 292
Bibliography 295
Index of Modern Authors 301
Subject Index 303
v
Garrett Amos final.indd 5 6/6/08 2:24:18 PM
Garrett Amos final.indd 6 6/6/08 2:24:18 PM
InTroDuCTIon
The book of Amos, the superscript tells us, was composed by Amos
of Tekoa in the mid-eighth century B.C. Although from Judah,
Amos directed his message against the aristocratic and priestly upper-
classes of Samaria and Bethel. Israel at this time, during the reign of
Jeroboam II, was in the midst of a misleading period of prosperity and
military power. Deceived by their affluence and territorial expansion,
the Israelites supposed that God was on their side and that the good
times would never end. Cruelty to the poor, religious arrogance, and
an unbounded sense of confidence in the might of their fortifications
characterized the upper echelons of society. They could not imagine
that their cities were only decades away from total destruction, and
they counted Amos a charlatan and blasphemer for his predictions
of their imminent demise. The book of Amos is a carefully crafted
indictment against Israel, an apologia for Amos’ claims to the pro-
phetic office, and a prediction of calamity for Israel followed by a
final, eschatological salvation.
The focus of this commentary is the Hebrew text of Amos. Dis-
cussions of the book’s social and historical background, of insights
gained from archaeology, and of its theology are secondary and pur-
posefully kept to a minimum. In addition, this commentary works
from the received Masoretic Text of Amos and makes no effort to
include an exhaustive record of textual variants, of versional readings,
and of conjectural emendations proposed by biblical scholars. Discus-
sions of text-critical issues therefore will appear only when either the
obscurity of the received text or some other considerations require it.
This commentary is intended primarily for the student of Hebrew and
1
Garrett Amos final.indd 1 6/6/08 2:24:19 PM
2 Amos
the Bible translator, but it should be helpful also for any teachers of
the Bible who believe that wrestling with the original language of the
text to be valuable.
redaction and structure of the Book of Amos
In current OT studies, the question of the structure of Amos is closely
linked to the question of its redaction history, as scholars seek to show
both what was the original form of the book and how it evolved. A
famous example of this method is the commentary by H. W. Wolff
which, on the basis of a form-critical analysis, argues that Amos went
through six redactional stages (Wolff 1977, 106–13). But Dirk Rott-
zoll argues that it went through no less than twelve stages of redac-
tion (Rottzoll 1996, 285–90)! A more recent example is Wood (2002),
which argues that the book was originally seven poems written and
performed by the prophet as a poetic tragedy. Wood asserts that a sec-
ond edition of the prophet’s book was produced by an exilic author who
inserted a running commentary on the original work, thereby not only
greatly expanding and reordering the original but also transforming it
into a comedy (by giving it a redemptive, happy ending). This revised
version, the present book of Amos, is in ten parts. Wood’s theory, like
others of its kind, is at times forced and is not persuasive. Nevertheless,
some may find the ten divisions that Wood proposes as the structure
of Amos helpful. Similarly, but with very different results, one sees
structural analysis mixed in with a proposed redaction history in Park
(2001). The results of redaction-critical studies are in fact exceedingly
diverse. There is no consensus (see Möller 2003, “Reconstructing and
Interpreting Amos’s Literary Prehistory” for a survey of recent redac-
tion-critical analyses; see also Möller 2003, A Prophet in Debate, which
argues on the basis of a rhetorical-critical analysis that the text of Amos
did not have an extensive redaction history). In my view, redaction-
critical approaches are neither compelling nor heuristically valuable.
Although certain divisions of Amos are obvious in even a casual
reading of the text (e.g., that the eight oracles against the nations in
Garrett Amos final.indd 2 6/6/08 2:24:19 PM
Introduction 3
1:3–2:16 constitute a single division), many aspects of the structure are
obscure and debated, and readers will find an abundance of proposals
in the scholarly literature. For example, O’Connell (1996) argues that,
following the pattern of seven nations plus Israel in 1:3–2:16, Amos
uses an “N +1” pattern throughout (where “N” is some stereotypi-
cal number such as 3 or 7, and the additional item is some element
of surprise, such as adding Israel to the list of condemned nations).
O’Connell does not, however, convincingly demonstrate that this
pattern governs the whole book. Boyle (1971) says that 3:1–4:13 is a
covenant lawsuit, but this, too, is unpersuasive. Koch (1974) argues
that the hymn fragments in Amos 4:13; 5:8; 9:5-6 are redactional
but that they demarcate divisions of the book. Noble (1995) says that
Amos is in three parts (1:2–3:8; 3:9–6:14; 7:1–9:15). He claims that
the middle section is a chiasmus, but he must relocate or delete several
verses to make it work. Every major commentary on Amos, moreover,
has its own presentation of the structure of the book. While there
are some areas of agreement (again, that 1:3–2:16 belongs together),
it would be a mistake to speak of anything like a standard view. The
reader should consult the commentaries for various alternatives to the
structure suggested here.
The starting point for the outline of Amos proposed in this com-
mentary is Limburg (1987), where he states that there are fifty divine
speech formulas (such as הוהי רמא, “says YHWH,” and הוהי םאנ,
“the oracle of YHWH”) in Amos. These are, he says, distributed as
follows: one at 1:1–2, fourteen in 1:3–2:16, and seven each in 3:1–15;
4:1–13; 5:1–6:14; 7:1–8:3; and 8:4–9:15. Thus there are seven divi-
sions in the book. Limburg points out that the number seven (or seven
plus one) is very important in Amos. There are seven accused nations
plus Israel in 1:3–2:16, for example, and the call for justice in 5:21-24
lists seven thing that YHWH hates: feasts, solemn assemblies, burnt
offerings, cereal offerings, peace offerings, noise of songs and melo-
dies of harps.
Garrett Amos final.indd 3 6/6/08 2:24:20 PM
