The Book of Amos

This paper aims to address the importance of the Mediterranean setting for the study of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. A region’s climatic pattern and geological conditions are important in the formation of its religion and history of longue durée (Fernand Braudel). Unfortunately, the twentieth-century western scholarship of the Hebrew Bible has ignored these natural elements in their study of the religious and historical texts, as Theodore Hiebert (1996/2007) has concluded. In this article, I demonstrate that the climatic and geological setting of the East Mediterranean, or the Levant, is crucial to interpreting the Hebrew Bible in multi-dimensions.
For this purpose, the paper discusses the following exemplary Mediterranean religions and Hebrew Bible passages that illustrate the usefulness of reading the Hebrew Bible in the context of a Mediterranean setting. (1) The Ba‘alu cycle and Demeter myth of Israel’s neighbors demonstrate that climatic patterns played important roles in myth-making in the Mediterranean regions. (2) The Föhn effect in Israel creates different environmental settings between the west and the east of the central hills. The Föhn wind causes the east parts to be arid and without rain. However, grasses grow, and flowers blossom in the wilderness of the rainy season thanks to rainfall flowing down from the central hills. Dramatic changes in the Judean wilderness landscape caused by flowing water (wadi) might have inspired some eschatological visionaries (Isaiah 35:6-7; 43:19-20). (3) The Fall feast or the feast of Booths played a central role in Israel’s religion. It was celebrated not only in memory of wilderness life (Leviticus 23:33-43) but also for the restoration of the rainy season in the Fall (Psalm 126). Jeroboam’s reform of the calendar (1 Kings 12:31-33) was understood as apostasy by the Deuteronomistic historian. However, it should have been understood as an insertion of a leap month to adjust to the difference between the lunar calendar (roughly 355 days) and the actual seasons based on the solar calendar (365 days). (4) The Book of Amos and Psalm 46 can be understood better in light of a tectonic earthquake (ca. 750 BCE). This earthquake of 7.8-8.2 magnitude probably occurred north of the kingdom of Israel, or today’s Lebanon (Austin-Franz-Frost 2000) and devastated many anti-Assyrian coalition countries. The epicenter’s location and estimated magnitude are very helpful when analyzing historical mysteries, such as the rapid decline of the northern kingdom after Jeroboam II’s most glorious period, or how the Assyrian king was able to conquer enemies through short Blitzkrieg, how weaker Judah survived longer than stronger Israel, and so on.
These case-studies above could motivate Hebrew Bible researchers to pay greater attention to the Eastern Mediterranean’s environmental and geographical setting.

In the Acts of the Apostles, there are two quotations from the Book of Amos: Am 5:25-27 in Acts 7:42-43 and Am 9:11-12 in Acts 15:16-18. Both of them were taken from the Greek version of the Septuagint, and in several places reworked in order that they might better suit Luke’s theological-rhetorical aims.
The quotation from Am 9:11-12 LXX was supplemented in Acts 15:18 with a literary echo of Gal 2:9a-c for a rhetorical characterization of the character of James as giving his consent to the mission among the Gentiles (cf. Gal 2:9), but in fact having grave reservations concerning the exceptional grace, whose reception was declared by Paul (Gal 2:9ab; cf. 2:12c.f). Such a particular use of the quotation from Am 9:11-12 LXX in Acts 15:16-18 additionally confirms the fact that Luke in his narrative used the letters of the Apostle, and not only general Pauline traditions or ideas.

งานวิจัยฉบับนี้มีจุดประสงค์เพื่อศึกษาหาความหมายของพระธรรมอาโมสบทที่ 5 ข้อ 21-24 ที่มีต่อผู้อ่านและคริสตศาสนาในยุคปัจจุบันผ่านกระบวนการตีความ โดยเฉพาะบนทฤษฏีการตีความหลังสมัยใหม่ (Postmodernism)​ ซึ่งปัญหาใหญ่ของการตีความหลังสมัยใหม่นี้อยู่ที่การขาดหายไปของความจริงอันเป็นวัตถุวิสัยจนทำให้ความหมายของตัวบทนั้นแตกต่างกันออกไปตามการอ่านของผู้อ่านอันเป็นปัจเจก ถึงแม้นักศาสนศาสตร์มูลฐานนิยมจะปฏิเสธความหลากหลายของความหมายในตัวบทเพราะให้ความสำคัญกับการดลใจของพระเจ้าที่จำเป็นจะต้องเกิดความหมายเดียว ทว่าในกลุ่มนักมูลฐานนิยมเองความหมายของพระคัมภีร์แต่ละตอนก็ถูกตีความแตกต่างกันออกไป งานวิจัยฉบับนี้จะพยายามนำความหมายที่ได้ผ่านกระบวนการตีความนั้นมาปรับประยุกต์และสร้างความสมเหตุสมผลในโลกร่วมสมัยเพื่อนำเสนอทางออกให้กับคริสตจักรในปัจจุบัน
        ผลการวิจัยพบว่าท่ามกลางปัญหาของทฤษฏีเกี่ยวกับการตีความในยุคหลังสมัยใหม่นั้นการจะได้ความหมายเพียงหนึ่งเดียวจากการอ่านพระธรรมอาโมสเหมือนกับที่ตัวบทพยายามสื่อสารกับผู้อ่านแรกนั้นเป็นสิ่งที่เป็นไปไม่ได้ ทว่าสิ่งที่หลงเหลืออยู่จากการพิจารณาตัวบทแล้วคือการนำเสนอให้เห็นถึงปัญหาด้านศีลธรรมของตัวละครในเรื่องคือความย้อนแย้งในวิถีปฏิบัติของตัวละครเหล่านั้นโดยเฉพาะการรักษาศาสนพิธีเอาไว้แต่กลับกดขี่คนขัดสนทั้งที่ศาสนพิธีนั้นมีเป้าหมายเพื่อสร้างความตระหนักถึงคำสอนและหลักศีลธรรมภายในศาสนา ข้อสรุปสำหรับงานวิจัยนี้คือการเชิญชวนให้คริสตจักรนั้นพิจารณาถึงความหมายของความเป็นศาสนาโดยเฉพาะศาสนพิธีกันใหม่โดยระลึกถึงหน้าที่ในการเป็นเครื่องมือเพื่อสร้างความตระหนักของศาสนิก

BIBLIOGRAPHY

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

Menurut tradisi, Amos merupakan nabi penulis yang pertama. Artinya, Amos meninggalkan warisan tertulis pertama sebagai nabi. Sebelum dia tentu sudah ada nabi-nabi, tetapi mereka hanya menyampaikan firman Allah, tanpa menuliskannya. Maka Amos boleh dikatakan membuka zaman baru kenabian, yakni zaman nabi penulis. Nabi penulis memang belum tentu menuliskan sendiri firman yang diwartakannya. Bisa jadi para muridnyalah yang mengumpulkan pewartaan nabi tersebut, lalu dituliskan sebagia warisan bagi generasi penerus. Namun demikian, ada beberapa petunjuk yang menyarankan bahwa Amos menuliskan apa yang dilihatnya (Am 7-9). Nabi merumuskan penglihatan itu sebagai pengalaman pribadi dalam bentuk tunggal. Nabi Amos mempunyai arti bahwa Allah membawanya. Nama itu mungkin singkatan dari Amosya, "Yahwe telah membawanya". Ia sendiri berasal dari Tekoa, sebuah desa yang terletak di selatan Kota Yerusalem, dekat dengan Bethlehem. Ia berasal dari lingkungan peternak dan petani. Ia tampil tampaknya pada pertengahan abad VIII, berkarya di Utara pada zaman Raja Yerobeam II (787-747) dan Uzia (781-740) raja Yehuda (Am 1:1). Amos tampaknya tampil sekitar sepuluh tahun sebelum Hosea.

Against the backdrop of the last century of research history on the oracles concerning foreign nations, especially of the Book of Jeremiah, the relationship of theses texts with prophecy of judgment is called into question. The texts concerning Damascus serve as a test case.

The verb in biblical Hebrew consists of five main forms. Though these forms are mentioned in every Hebrew grammar, the syntactical purpose of each form is a source of debate. A question such as, " what is the function of the prefix verb (yiqtol) form " has received numerous answers. Some suggest that the yiqtol form signifies " actions that are still in the act of becoming. "  In contrast to this, scholars who have emphasized the methodology of textlinguistics have noted that such a statement about the yiqtol form is invalid because the yiqtol (as well as the over verb forms) have all be translated by " both aspects or 'modes of action' (complete and incomplete). "  Within a textlinguistics analysis, the yiqtol is view to function as the main form signifying discourse. The contrast between the two views appears to be the difference between a diachronic or synchronic analysis of the text. This work will focus on a synchronic analysis of the text of Amos 3:1–5:17. Though the verb forms may have functioned differently historically, an understanding how the verbs are functioning within Amos 3:1–5:17 must focus on the textual witness that are currently accessible.

The concept of Tsedeqa in the book of Amos is broader than suggested by the English words often used to translate it, such as “righteousness” or “charity.” Amos uses the Hebrew term in connection with indicting Israel’s enemies primarily for war crimes and Israel itself for the wanton disregard of its own poor. This essay analyzes Amos’s use of the term in dialogue with the (South) African concept of ubuntu, which concerns human dignity and solidarity, and demonstrates that Amos sees tsedeqa as the core of morality and reflective of God’s actions.

Scholarly interpretation of the encounter between the prophet Amos and Amaziah, the priest of Bethel (Amos 7:10-17), has thus far focused on the issue of prophetic authority and legitimization. This paper seeks to shed light on the issues at the heart of the dispute between Amaziah and Amos-issues of boundaries and identity, insiders and outsiders; belonging to and being banished from Israel, the land and the people. Amaziah insists that Amos is an outsider who may speak freely, but only "there", not "here". Amos counters by predicting the priest's own loss of social framework, in life and in death. The fact that, unlike many other reports of prophetic confrontations, this story does not indicate the consequences of the dispute-whether the expulsion of the prophet from the Northern Kingdom or the fulfillment of the curse of Amaziah-is another indication that the issue of prophetic authority is neither the only, nor the major concern of this showdown. Keywords Amos 7:10-17-Amos against Amaziah-prophetic conflict-insiders and outsiders-center and periphery-prostitution in the city-curses in the VTE-unclean land 1 Prophetic Conflict The encounter between the prophet Amos and Amaziah, the priest of Bethel (Amos 7:10-17) belongs to a well-known genre-that of a prophetic story that highlights a conflict between the antagonizing prophet and (a) member/s,

This study explores the use of verbal irony in three case studies across the Septuagint Prophets: Amos 4:4–5, Isa 47:12–13, and Ezek 28:3–5. In the MT, all three of these passages make use of verbal irony to express criticism. The prophets’ critiques remain in the LXX versions, but do not contain verbal irony in some cases. Where both Hebrew and Greek contain verbal irony—in Isa 47:12–13, namely—that irony is communicated using different linguistic and stylistic features depending on the language in question. In discussing each case study, I do not attempt a comprehensive analysis of every factor influencing the translation process. Instead, our focus is on discerning how each translator has approached rendering the verbal irony of the Hebrew parent text—if indeed irony was a probable element of their Vorlage—by describing the observable results of the translation process on linguistic and rhetorical levels.

The question of the relationships between the Book of Isaiah and the Book of the Twelve Prophets is a crucial one, as multiple similarities in language and motifs demonstrate, but far from sufficient efforts have been made to clarify it. This volume authored by experts pursuing diverse methodological approaches presents a more integral picture of the different kinds of relationships or thematic convergencies which are characteristic either of both corpora as a whole or for some of their specific parts. The joint efforts result in an overview showing the diversity of semantic, intertextual, literary, redactional, historical, and theological aspects of the mutual references between the Isaiah and the Twelve which counter all one-dimensional proposals trying to explain the growth of these correspondences.

In the following pages, we will look at two of the oracles against Edom; Malachi 1:2-5 and Amos 9:11-12. The Amos oracle is noteworthy because of its use by James in the Jerusalem Council recorded in Acts 15. The Malachi oracle is noteworthy because of its use by Paul in his famous Romans 9 chapter and is a key piece in the Calvinistic Arminian debate.

The Lord said through Malachi, “Jacob I have loved, and Esau I have hated.” Paul quotes these words in his letter (Rom 9:13) to explain how the promised kingdom can be present when Israel largely has not believed in its Messiah. Calvinists have viewed these words as a clear example of God’s sovereign freedom to elect one to salvation and to bypass another. Bypassing is too soft a word. He loves and predestines one to salvation and hates and predestines another to eternal damnation. There it is in black and white, “Jacob I loved, and Esau I hated.” Those words, coupled with “So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires” (Rom 9:18) should be enough to convince everyone of the points of Calvinism, well, at least of the “U” petal in the Calvinist T-U-L-I-P, Unconditional Election.

But I am unconvinced.

The purpose of this brief paper is to help readers gain a fuller understanding of what Malachi, Amos, Paul, and James had in mind, and to see if what we learn has any bearing on what Augustine first advocated and what Luther, Calvin, and many other Reformers advanced in the theological world of Christendom. Were they correct, or did the struggles of their time misinform them and skew their understanding of the words written by apostles and prophets?

[This is a pre-peer-review version, archived with permission from Brill]
In recent research in the Greek version of the Minor Prophets, a rising number of studies have pointed out ideological tendencies of a political kind underlying the choices made by the translator. Of course, religion and politics were often interweaven in Antiquity, but the hypothesis in question entails a hostility of the translator towards nations and social groups even in cases where no theological motive underlies the text. Whatever the original reason, he was influenced by his own affinities and hostilities towards some contemporary nations or social groups, so he perceived in the text and/or projected into it allusions to realities and ideas of his own time. This is the hypothesis I would like to examine here. More precisely, I would like to assess the notion that the wording of the Greek text in several passages betrays a bias against some nations (notably the Seleucides) or some leading families (the Tobiads) contemporary to the translator on the one hand, and pro-Hasmonean sympathies on the other. In the limited space of this paper, I will focus on Amos and Zechariah, which seem to me to be the books where the main evidence has been found.

This new volume in the Tyndale Old Testament Commentary series replaces the 1989 commentary by David Allan Hubbard. Tchavdar S. Hadjiev is lecturer in Old Testament and Hebrew at Belfast Bible College as well as honorary lecturer at Queen’s University, Belfast. He has previously published two monographs on Amos and Joel, The Composition and Redaction of the Book of Amos (BZAW 393; De Gruyter, 2009) and Joel, Obadiah, Habakkuk and Zephaniah: An Introduction and Study Guide (T&T Clark, 2020). In this new commentary Hadjiev provides historical context and concise exposition of the Hebrew text which will be helpful for anyone reading these two important prophets.

The Greek text of Amos has been studied thus far primarily from the point of view of the textual criticism and of the correspondence of words and expressions between the Hebrew and Greek texts. The present article concentrates on the verbal forms (Greek tenses and aspects) used by the translator. The first reason is to determine his strategy in applying these grammatical tools. The second reason is to use this study to better understand the nature of his translation, since the Greek verbal forms used by the translator mainly pertain to the translation process, and only in a lesser degree to the Vorlage. The author argues that the way the translator uses the Greek tenses reveals his fairly solid understanding of the Hebrew verbal forms in his Vorlage, but also a certain (and sometimes high) degree of negligence within the context of the entire book, especially in terms of what follows in the Hebrew text.

Published in: Bachmann, Veronika/Schellenberg, Annette/Ueberschaer, Frank (eds.), Menschsein in Weisheit und Freiheit. Festschrift für Thomas Krüger (OBO 296), Leuven/Paris/Bristol 2022, 149-166.

This article examines the figurative meaning of the term "cows of Baschan" (Am 4:1) and draws conclusions for the macro-structure of Am 3-6.

The words of Amos still ring out as a challenge thousands of years after first spoken, but it can be hard to hear their power in some English translations. This paper is a first attempt to render first a word-for-word and then a literary approach to a new translation of the first couple of chapters.

Cet ouvrage destiné à des débutants en exégèse biblique aide son lecteur à naviguer dans trois textes attribués à des hommes du 8e s. av. J.-C. Amos et Osée ont exercé leur ministère prophétique dans le Royaume de Samarie avant sa chute, et Isaïe, dont les chapitres 1-39 du livre « d'Isaïe » se font l'écho, dans le royaume de Juda.

Ancient postulates about the Book of Amos raised the prophet to spokesman for the poor regarding the monarchy as an oppressive regime, represented by the kings of North Israel (“Northern Kingdom”). Prophet and book were transformed into icons of social justice. When discussing these postulates in the first part, this research indicates its objective to carry out, from the second part onwards, a historiographic scale of the Levant in the 8th century B.C.E. aiming to present sources, events and contexts of vital movements involving the rule of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, the expansionist policy of Damascus and the Israeli commercial intentions in the region. Our hypothesis is that the prophecies – in which “Amos” denotes the scribes, in its various stages of updating and writing – represent claims of large farmers, excluded from the commercial network, against taxation and price increases. Therefore, they intended to reform the State and worship in North Israel. We understand that the investigation of cultures and political dealings, which had the southern Levant as a backdrop and are in some way related to the Israelites, contribute to new approaches to the Book of Amos, especially for new interpretive studies.

Amos’ oracles against Tyre and Edom (Amos 1,9-12) utilize terminology derived from the Near Eastern international treaties and diplomatic correspondence of the late second-first millennia BC. This paper studies the treaty and diplomatic terminology that occurs at these oracles, and compares it with extra-biblical texts, particularly Hittite sources of the second millennium BC. Special focus is made on the implicit references to the “brotherhood” (berit 'ajim / 'ajiv) and “love” (rajamav) between political partners, as well as to the recognition (zakeru), violation (pišaey) and reversal ('ašibennu) of political alliances, and the ritual maledictions (vešillajti 'eš...ve'akela...) in the treaties. It is argued that the presence of a treaty and diplomatic terminology in these oracles should be taken as references to the political relationships between Tyre/Edom and Israel/Judah, here arbitrated by Yahweh, ultimate source of authority and power of the vassal states.

ἀνήγαγον ΑΝΤΙΑΙΡΕΤΙΚΗ ΜΕΛΕΤΗ ΣΤΟΝ ΠΡΟΦΗΤΗ ΑΜΩΣ «ΑΚΟΥΣΑΤΕ τὸν λόγον τοῦτον, ὃν ἐλάλησε Κύριος ἐφ᾿ ὑμᾶς, οἶκος ᾿Ισραήλ, καὶ κατὰ πάσης φυλῆς, ἧς ἀνήγαγον ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου, λέγων· πλὴν ὑμᾶς ἔγνων ἐκ πασῶν τῶν φυλῶν τῆς γῆς· διὰ τοῦτο ἐκδικήσω ἐφ᾿ ὑμᾶς πάσας τὰς ἁμαρτίας ὑμῶν» Αμώς 3: 1-2 (Κείμενο Εβδομήκοντα). Εβραϊκό κείμενο : Το χωρίο Αμώς 3:1-2 είναι ένα από τα χωρία της Αγίας Γραφής στο οποίο υπάρχει απόλυτη ταύτιση ανάμεσα στο Εβραϊκό Μασοριτικό κείμενο και την Μετάφραση των Εβδομήκοντα. Αυτός είναι και ένας από τους λόγους που επιλέχθηκε το παρόν χωρίο για την αντιαιρετική αυτή σύντομη μελέτη. Να μην υπάρχουν δηλαδή αμφισβητήσεις για το τί ακριβώς έγραψε ο Προφήτης Αμώς. Ο αντιαιρετικός χαρακτήρας του χωρίου Αμώς 3:1-2 έγκειται στο γεγονός ότι έχουμε διάκριση δύο θείων Προσώπων στην θεότητα. Τέτοια χωρία υπάρχουν και άλλα στην Βίβλο τα οποία ευελπιστώ να μελετήσουμε μελλοντικώς. Ως γνωστόν οι αρνητές της Τριαδικότητας του Θεού δεν παραδέχονται διάκριση Προσώπων στον Ένα Θεό. Αντιτριαδίτες είναι οι Ταλμουδιστές Εβραίοι, οι οπαδοί του ψευδοπροφήτη Μωάμεθ Μουσουλμάνοι, οι ψευδομάρτυρες του Ιεχωβά, οι Ουνιτάριοι, οι αντιτριαδίτες Πεντηκοστιανοί και άλλοι Προτεστάντες οι οποίοι ακολουθούν τις αρχαίες αιρέσεις του Αρείου και του Σαβελλίου. Σε πείσμα όμως όλων

Although many scholars recognize literary similarities between Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah, defining the compositional relationship between these texts remains a matter of debate. Following the scholarly trajectory of exploring the compositional relationship between the Twelve prophets, several scholars argue that these four prophetic texts formed a precursory collection to the Book of the Twelve. Yet even among advocates for this ‘Book of the Four’ there remain differences in defining the form and function of the collection. By reexamining the literary parallels between these texts, Werse shows how different methodological convictions have led to the diverse composition models in the field today. Through careful consideration of emerging insights in the study of deuteronomism and scribalism, Werse provides an innovative composition model explaining how these four texts came to function as a collection in the wake of the traumatic destruction of Jerusalem. This volume explores a historic function of these prophetic voices by examining the editorial process that drew them together.

The book of Amos preserves powerful critiques of injustices in ancient Israel, and accordingly it has become famous as a resource for social justice movements across the centuries. The text has also been a testing ground for the history of prophets and prophetic literature. Given these emphases on socio-economic justice and historical dimensions of human culture, there has been a glaring neglect of “nature” themes in Amos and how these references to the non-human, created universe function in shaping the moral character of the readers. Without ecological features, the ethical message is hollow, since the character of humans and even of Yahweh as God are often evaluated and illustrated by realities in the rest of the natural world. Amos reciprocally connects the natural world (cosmos) and the moral world (ethos) together, implying that the condition and conceptions of the cosmos are partly reflective of human character and partly formative for human character in turn. The second aspect deserves attention at last. There is an ethos of the cosmos in Amos. Nature is not neutral.
To describe this cosmos and ethos, the study proceeds in two steps for each major section of the translated Hebrew text. First, after establishing a historical setting for the final form of the text, there is a careful analysis of the “creation rhetoric,” followed by a second step that doubles back to ask how such nature imagery encourages or discourages moral “character formation” for an audience in Judah. The rhetorical analysis uses insights into genre and speech act theory, while the ethical analysis uses character ethics to discuss practices, dispositions, and desires for visions of good and evil in Amos. In the end, the cosmos in Amos is more than ancient cosmology or dispensable background scenery. Built into the cosmos are dynamics that link justice with matters of life and death, and only through the nature imagery does the audience most vividly gain reverence for each other, their world, and their God. From earthquakes to new growth, creation shapes character. Creation rhetoric and character formation are mutually related and profitably compared for Old Testament ethics.

This article focuses on the description of the eschatological integration of non-Israelite polities in the restored Davidic kingdom in Amos 9:11-12. The text describes this process using both language of “dispossession” (withירשׁ ), evocative of the description of Israel’s initial possession of Canaan by force in the Book of Joshua, and the phrase “over whom [YHWH’s] name is called,” which refers to YHWH’s ownership of his covenant people and never involves military conquest. The paper seeks to resolve the apparent tension between these two aspects of the process by proposing a sense of ירשׁ that reflects the dynamics of the context in Amos 9, and concludes by correlating Amos 9:11-12 with several related biblical texts in order to sketch its significance for the Book of the Twelve and biblical theology.

The present article builds upon previously identified catchwords linking Joel to Hosea and Amos by arguing that Joel opens with literary connections to the beginning (Joel 1:1//Hos 1:1) and end (Joel 1:5–7//Hos 14:2–9) of Hosea in the same way Joel ends with literary links to the beginning (Joel 4:16aα [3:16aα]//Amos 1:2a) and end (Joel 4:18aα [3:18aα]//Amos 9:13b) of Amos. This article concludes by examining the compositional and literary implications of opening and closing Joel with framing language from Hosea and Amos respectively.