Page:Jewish Encyclopedia Volume 1.pdf/579

531 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA

631

trees in "abuuclanee"(I Kings,x.27). He makes this statenieiit of his (iccupatiou to Aniaziali. tlie chief priesl of Bethel, wlio, startled by the oiiiiiioiis utterances of Amos, advises liiin to nialie liis escape to Judali and tlicre to earn liis liveliliood l)y his pro-

of pnjjiiiet. Amos denies both premises iiivcjlved in tliis rebuke. He does not need to take fees for liis prophecies, because he is well-to-do. and he is no prophet either by profession (jr e.xiniction, liUl was (ailed by God from behind his tloek by spefessiersonau;es to a few pro|iheIical speeches are ascribeil, fiive first of all the Story of their special eallin};. All of them llicreby seek to protest against the suspicion that they are

whom

arc

professional pro|ih<'ls, because the lat-

First to

Writedown Prophecy,

themselves by llattcring national vanities and ignoriiif;' the mi.sdecdsof prominent men. Hut Amos ter discredited

marks an epoch

in

Old Testament

also in another respect. He is the lirst of the prophets to write down the mess!ii;es he has received. It is easy to understand the reason for this innovation. He feels himself ealleil to jireach in Beth -el, where there was a royal sanctuary vii.VS), and there to aimounce the fall of the reijrning dynasty and of the northern kingdom. 15ut he is denounced by the head priest Amaziah to King Jeroboam H. (vii. 10 et acq.), and is advised to leave the kingdom (verses 13 ct eeq.). Though nothing more is learned than the answer lie gave Ama/iali (verses 1-t (/ .11'/.). there is no reason to iloubl llial he was actually forced to leave the norlhcrn kingdom and lo return to his native country. Being thus prevented from bringing his message to an end, and from reaching the carof tho.se to whom he was sent, he had recourse to writing. If they could not hear his mes.sages, they could read them, and if his conpro]iliccy

i

temporaries refused to do .so, following generations still prolit by them. No earlier instance of a liteniry prophet is known, nor is it likely that there was any but the examjile he gave was followed by others in an almost unbroken succession. It is true, it can not be proved that Hosca knew the book of Amos, hough there is no reason to doubt that he was ac(|iuiiulcd with the hitter's work and experiences. It is quite certain, on th<' other hand, that Isjiiah knew his book, for he follows and even imitates him in his early speeches (compare Amos, v. 31-24, iv. (5 1^ «V V. IS with Isa. i. 11-15 Amos, iv. 7 tt seq. with Isa. .etc., i.. ", itmij.. ii. Vi). Cheyne concludes with great proliability that Amos wrote the record of his prophetical work at Jerusalem, after liis expulsion from the northern kingdom, and that he comniilted it to a circle of faithful followers of YinVH miglit



I

,



residing thcriv

Amos is undoubtedly one of the grandest personalamong the lid Testament l>roi)hcts; indeed, the

ities

(

most imposiiifiof all, if the biet be eonPersonality sidered that he is the tiistof the wriof Amos. ting-|iro])liets. His lofty conception of Deity, his uncompromisingly moral conception of the order of the universe, and his superiority to all religious narrowness, are adminible indeed. I.iaving the above Tiienlioncd "doxologjes" aside. is in vii. 4, ix. 2 the Kuler of the uni-

YHWH

in i.. ii., and ix. 7 He is the I.ord of all other nations as well as of Israel. The standard by which He measures peoples is morality, and inoralily only.

verse,

It

is

and

by His in.scrutable will that Israel was clios«'n the peoples, but as u result it follow.stliat G<k1

among

Amorites

Amos

is doubly strict in His demands upon this nation, and doubly severe in His punishment of its transgressions (iii. 2). Hilualistic zeal and the richest buriit-ollerings avail nothing in extenuation; such acts are contemptuous in the sight of YHWH, who may be served without any religious ceremonies, but not without morality (iii."21-2ri. iv. 4. o, Ki). Therefore let the nation not comfort itself with the hope of the "Day of YHWH," which will be a day of terror for Israel, and not of sjilvati(jn (v. lS-20). " It is all over with Israel the complete destruction is at hand (see

especially ii. 3, v. 1 et mq., ix. 1-4). Distinct as are these fundamental principles of his discourses. Amos must by no means be considered as an uncompromising jirophet of evil; it should not be forgotten that Israel 'Sliest ruction is brought about by its sin fulness,

and

only because experience appears to show an unwillingness to repent, that the hope Repentof forgiveness is cut off. Should this ance and experience prove false and Israel actuForgive- ally repent, forgiveness and national ness. life would be by no means hopehss; and therefore utterances like v. 4 and 14, however inconspicuous they may be in compari.son with the denunciatory passagcs,"are by no means to be overlooked, and certainly not to be held as spurious. It is certain, however, that Amos did not shrink from facing the possibility of the utter deit is

struction of Israel.

Amos has always been admired for the purity of his language, his beauty of diction, and his poetic art. In all these respects he is Isaiah's spiritual progenitor. There is no need for astonishment that a rustic should have been capable of such diction. The period of the projihet's activity is the reign of .leroboam II.. king of Israel, whose dynasty he nienlions in one of his prophecies (>ii. il). while the narrator of vii. 10, etc. (probably not identical with Amos), clearly states that Jeroboam was reigning at the time when Amos preached at Beth-el. The superscription of the book (i. 1) mentions Tzziali, king of Judah, before Jeroboam, which is doubtless correct, inasmuch as I'zziah was a contemporary of Jeroboam but the slatemenl isat the same time puzzling, since il is not known that Amos was ever active in

Judah.

The superscription adds that he "saw " his words two years before the earthiiuake. Now Amos doubtless experienced an eartliipiake(iv.ll), Superscrip- and an earthquake under King Uzziah is tcstitied to in Zecli. xiv. tion of but unthe Book, fortunately this passage does not help us much, seeing that it is of late origin, and may itself be taken from Amos, iv. 11, or even from the heading of the book. On the other hand, ."i;

the superscription may be ba.sed on the hints contained in the book itself, and indetfl G. HolTinann in .Stade's"Zeitsilirift," iii. 12a. hastiied toolTer an explanation for the phrase "two years before the cnrlhipiake " which would deprive the wordsof every real signilicance His eX|ilaiiation seems to be somewhat arlilicial. but has been accepted by such scholars as Cheyne and Marti. Still, since the heading undoubt ediy contains reliable and atithentic statements, the possibility that the reference to the earlhijuake is also authentic must be admitted. The question, however, remains whether all the propheeii'S united in the Book of .Vinos are lo be undersliKid as uttered in this sime year. Their extent would not make impossilile. nor is it likely that Amos, rebuking the sins of Kphraiin so openly, would havr been tolenitcd many years bifoie being denounced and ex pelled, as We read in vii. 10. In this ciuse the earlhijuake in iv. 11 must be luiother than that ineulioDcd tliis