Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-x5cpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-29T16:01:47.891Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Amos 1:3–2:8 and the International Economy of Iron Age II Israel*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2014

Jeremy M. Hutton
Jeremy M. Hutton*
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin—Madison
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Past historical-critical research into Amos 1–2 has typically relied on one of two strategies in relating the historical Amos's identity as a prophet to the authority and scriptural status of the book. In the first strategy, many interpreters have detected in these eight stanzas allusions to and descriptions of particular political relations, economic contexts, or military engagements, supposing that such correlations secure the book's roots in the eighth century b.c.e. Such chronological benchmarks, in turn, are implicitly thought to sustain the importance of Amos's prophetic identity—i.e., the Amos of Tekoa named in 1:1—in effect constituting the text's nature as scripture. A second, somewhat related strategy has centered on the reconstructed “original” or “secondary” status of certain passages. In this redaction-critical variation of the historical-critical endeavor, interpreters assume that an understanding of the text's chronological development can help to flesh out the picture of Israel's (and Judah's) developing theology or theologies. Again, this model tacitly accepts that prophetic identity plays an intimate and necessary role in the text's authenticity (and conversely, that redactional composition contributes to a passage's supposed “inauthenticity”) and also, therefore, in its authoritativeness within various temporally-constrained interpretive communities.

Type
Articles
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 107 , Issue 1 , January 2014 , pp. 81 - 113
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

All translations of biblical passages are modified from the nrsv to suit the context, except where otherwise noted. I am grateful to Gary Rendsburg, Christopher B. Hays, Jeffrey Stackert, Ronald Troxel, and John Whitley for their many helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper, including many bibliographic citations on the economics of ancient Israel and stylistic comments. I am also grateful for a brief communication with Jason Radine, wherein he allowed me access to passages from his book (a hard-copy of which was unavailable to me at the time, but which I secured subsequent to the initial submission of this article; unfortunately, I have been able to engage with its theses only at a modest level). Finally, I am indebted to two anonymous reviewers from HTR for helpful comments that served to tighten the argument. As usual, however, I take responsibility for all opinions expressed and any mistakes made throughout the argument here.

References

1 For examples of this conviction, to greater or lesser degree, see the biographies of the prophet in Cripps, Richard S., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Amos (rev. ed.; London: SPCK, 1969) 9–14Google Scholar; Mays, James Luther, Amos (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969) 3–4Google Scholar; Rudolph, Wilhelm, Joel-Amos-Obadiah-Jonah (KAT 13/2; Gütersloh; Mohn, 1971) 96–100Google Scholar; Wolff, Hans Walter, Joel and Amos (trans. Janzen, Waldemar, McBride, S. Dean, and Muenchow, Charles A.; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977) 90–91Google Scholar; Polley, Max E., Amos and the Davidic Empire: A Socio-Historical Approach (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989) 8–14Google Scholar; Jeremias, Jörg, The Book of Amos (OTL; trans. Stott, Douglas W.; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998) 1–5Google Scholar.

2 For recent instances of this approach, see, e.g., Zvi, Ehud Ben, Hosea (FOTL 21A; Rapids, Grand, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2006)Google Scholar; and Troxel, Ronald L., Prophetic Literature: From Oracles to Books (Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012)Google Scholar esp. 1–17.

3 For a brief discussion of the problems associated with the terminology of “authenticity,” see Troxel, Prophetic Literature, 109, text-box.

4 For a summary of this problem, see Auld, A. Graeme, who concludes, Amos “is remarkable for spotlighting this concern [viz., nations external to Israel] at the very outset [of the book]” (Amos [Old Testament Guides; Sheffield, U.K.: JSOT Press, 1986] 41)Google Scholar.

5 It may be convenient here to use Fernand Braudel's definition of a world economy: “a fragment of the world, an economically autonomous section of the planet able to provide for most of its needs, a section to which its internal links and exchanges give it a certain organic unity” (The Perspective of the World [trans. Siân Reynolds; vol. 3 of Civilization and Capitalism, 15th–18th Centuries; London: Collins, 1984] 22, as cited by Coote, Robert B. and Whitelam, Keith W., The Emergence of Early Israel in Historical Perspective [2nd ed.; Sheffield, U.K.: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2010] 63)Google Scholar.

6 My treatment of 2:8 as the culmination of this literary unit is admittedly somewhat arbitrary: although the oracles against the nations (here, including Judah and Israel) end in 2:8, this passage leads so directly into the following oracles that it is nearly impossible to tell where the unit ends and the next unit begins (see, e.g., Barton, Amos's Oracles, 3). Lundbom, Jack R. has found reason to extend the literary unit from 1:2 until 3:8 (“The Lion Has Roared: Rhetorical Structure in Amos 1:2–3:8,” in Milk and Honey: Essays on Ancient Israel and the Bible in Appreciation of the Judaic Studies Program at the University of California, San Diego [ed. Malena, S. and Miano, D.; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2007] 65–75)Google Scholar. For the sake of simplicity, I use 2:3 as the culmination of the oracles against the nations (exclusive of Judah and Israel) and 2:8 as the end of the passage under consideration.

7 Interpretations are varied, as evidenced in the variety of commentaries (see, e.g., Wolff, Joel and Amos, 128; Barton, Amos's Oracles, 17–18; Paul, Amos, 46–47). The most compelling explanation, in my opinion (with Paul's), is that which views it as a guarantee that the punishment will not be revoked.

8 Rolf Knierem, “pǽša‘ Verbrechen,” THAT 2:488–95, esp. 493; Cripps, Amos, 118; Mays, Amos, 27; Horst Seebass, “pæša‘,” ThWAT 6:793–810; Paul, Amos, 45–46; although, cf. Haran, Menahem, “The Rise and Decline of the Empire of Jeroboam ben Joash,” VT 17 (1967) 266–97Google Scholar, at 274.

9 in Jer 50:11 may be a textual error for (cf. lxx ἐν βοτάνῃ).

10 Cripps, Amos, 119; Mays, Amos, 30; Paul, Amos, 48; Jeremias, Amos, 26; and, for Akkadian exemplars, see Paul, Amos, 47–48.

11 See also Paul, Amos, 48.

12 Mays, Amos, 30.

13 E.g., Wolff, Joel and Amos, 89; Rudolph, Joel-Amos-Obadiah-Jona, 130–31; Haran, “Rise and Decline,” 276–78; Soggin, J. Alberto, “Amos VI:13–14 und I:3 auf dem Hintergrund der Beziehungen zwischen Israel und Damaskus im 9. und 8. Jahrhundert,” in Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright (ed. Goedicke, Hans; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1971) 433–41Google Scholar. John Barton cites a few Assyrian texts using identical or similar imagery (Amos's Oracles against the Nations: A Study of Amos 1.3–2.5 [SOTSMS 6; Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1980] 19). For a fuller discussion of the proposed chronological settings of this oracle, see ibid., 25–31; and Radine, Jason, The Book of Amos in Emergent Judah (FAT 2/45; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010) 172–75Google Scholar.

14 Equally possible is the supposition that the author of 2 Kgs 13:7 adapted Amos's description to the context.

15 See Gustaf Dalman, “Dreschen,” BRL 393; Helga Weippert, “Dreschen und Worfeln,” BRL 2 63–64; H. Neil Richardson, “Threshing,” IDB 4:636; King, Philip J. and Stager, Lawrence E., Life in Biblical Israel (Library of Ancient Israel; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001) 89–90Google Scholar.

16 See, e.g., Paul, Amos, 47. One need not consider the reference to be literal description of “a method of torturing prisoners” (Mays, Amos, 31; see previously Cripps, Amos, 119) in order for the image to retain its potency.

17 The Targum interprets “the inhabitants of the land of Gilead” (), while lxx reads “those pregnant in Gilead” (τὰς ἐν γαστρὶ ἐχούσας τῶν ἐν Γαλααδ) in agreement with 5QAm (4) frag. 1: (Maurice Baillet, Józef T. Milik, and Roland de Vaux, Les ‘Petites Grottes’ de Qumrân [DJD 3; Oxford: Clarendon, 1962] 173). These interpretations may, however, be attempts to harmonize 1:3 with v. 13 (Paul, Amos, 47 n. 32).

18 Several attempts to re-identify the recipients of the “delivered” population (Haran, Menahem, “Observations on the Historical Background of Amos 1:2–2:6,” IEJ 18 [1968] 201–12Google Scholar; Haupt, Paul, “Scriptio plena des emphatischen la- im Hebräischen,” OLZ 10 [1907] 305–9, at 307–8Google Scholar) or to equate Edom as the direct object of the atrocity (marked by ; e.g., Gordis, Robert, “Edom, Israel and Amos—An Unrecognized Source for Edomite History,” in Essays on the Occasion of the Seventieth Anniversary of the Dropsie University (1909–1979) [ed. Katsh, Abraham I. and Nemoy, Leon; Philadelphia: The Dropsie University, 1979] 109–32, at 128–30Google Scholar), have been largely discredited (Paul, Amos, 57).

19 Verse 6 uses the locution , while v. 9 substitutes the first word with the identical form of *, omitting that root from the phrase in the latter half of the accusation: . Troxel suggests this variation should be read as accusing “Tyre of handing over previously uprooted people” (Prophetic Literature, 43 [italics in original]; following Paul, Amos, no pages given, but cf. 59–61) in a “slave trafficking” endeavor, whereas v. 6 charges Gaza “with shipping prisoners of war to Edom.” The locution is so close that I do not perceive this difference.

20 Jeremias, Amos, 30; and Troxel, Prophetic Literature, 43–44 and 53 n.11; see earlier Priest, John, “The Covenant of Brothers,” JBL 84 (1965) 400–6Google Scholar.

21 E.g., Cripps, Amos, 124; Mays, Amos, 32; Paul, Amos, 60; Jeremias, Amos, 27.

22 The use of * in the hiphil ubiquitously describes the delivery over or reintroduction of individuals to slavery or to an enemy as captives of war (in which case, their fate was usually the same); see, e.g., Deut 23:16 [ = Eng. v. 15]; Obad 14 (Haran, “Observations,” 205–6; Barton, Amos's Oracles, 21; Jeremias, Amos, 27).

23 Gottwald, Norman K., All the Kingdoms of the Earth: Israelite Prophecy and International Relations in the Ancient Near East (New York: Harper & Row, 1964) 98–99Google Scholar; Cripps, Amos, 124; Mays, Amos, 32; Müller, Hans-Peter, “Phönizien und Juda in exilisch-nachexilischer Zeit,” WO 6 (1970/1971) 189–204Google Scholar, at 194; Paul, Amos, 57.

24 Paul, Amos, 57; Jeremias, Amos, 27.

25 For Tyre's participation in the practice, see Ezek 27:13.

26 The nature of this labor exchange-and-extraction system as one with hubs on the Mediterranean Sea connected to their markets by a network of interregional trade routes comports well with the more general model of decentralized and noncoercive “Port Power” described by Stager, Lawrence E., “Port Power in the Early and the Middle Bronze Age: The Organization of Maritime Trade and Hinterland Production,” in Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands: In Memory of Douglas L. Esse (ed. Wolff, Samuel R.; SAOC 59; ASOR Books 5; Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago; Atlanta: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2001) 625–38Google Scholar. Not coincidentally, Stager mentions the long-standing copper trade originating at Feinān (“Port Power,” 632).

27 For a recent survey of the various attempts to situate these oracles historically, see Radine, Book of Amos, 175–79.

28 Paul translates as “for handing them over” (Amos, 60 n. 172 [italics in original]), but one can also read the suffix as possessive, as in the preceding oracles, referring to the Tyrians themselves (“their handing over”); cf. Radine, Book of Amos, 15.

29 Paul, Amos, 56–57.

30 See, e.g., Budde, Karl, “Zu Text und Auslegung des Buches Amos,” JBL 43 (1924) 46–131Google Scholar, at 64–65; Driver, Amos, 137; Cripps, Amos, 127–28; apud Barton, Amos's Oracles, 20; and Paul, Amos, 59.

31 Dieter Vetter, “ šḥt pi./hi. verderben,” THAT 2:891–94, esp. 892.

32 Paul, Shalom, “Amos 1:3–2:3: A Concatenous Literary Pattern,” JBL 90 (1971) 397–403Google Scholar, at 402–3; idem, Amos, 64. The word has been understood by others as denoting “treaty partners”; see Fishbane, Michael, “The Treaty Background of Amos 1 11 and Related Matters,” JBL 89 (1970) 313–18Google Scholar; idem, “Additional Remarks on rḥmyw (Amos 1:11),” JBL 91 (1972) 391–93; Barré, Michael L., “Amos 1:11 Reconsidered,” CBQ 47 (1985) 420–27Google Scholar.

33 Paul, Amos, 64–65; but cf. Barton, Amos's Oracles, 21.

34 A more accurate translation of the first half of this stich (v. 9ββ) might be “his anger tore perpetually” (cf. Paul, Amos, 66) or perhaps “repeatedly,” repointing as . For the sequence *qal + , compare Job 16:9; 18:4, although the former verse is generally emended (Paul, Amos, 66) and the latter inserts the preposition . For as “repeatedly,” see BDB 729 (s.v. 2 ), although the word is not normally used with the preposition . For various emendations of to II “to rage,” see, e.g., Held, Moshe, “Studies in Biblical Homonyms in the Light of Akkadian,” JANES 3 (1970–1971) 46–55Google Scholar, at 47–51, esp. 50.

35 Paul, Amos, 65. For Amos's propensity for paronomasia and wordplay, compare the well-known example of and in 8:2. Ron Troxel has suggested to me (personal communication) that the value of the phrase * may reside precisely in the “abruptness of the metaphor: [Edom] ‘demolished compassion’.”

36 Cripps, Amos, 129; Mays, Amos, 35; Bartlett, John R., “The Land of Seir and the Brotherhood of Edom,” JTS 20 (1969) 1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 12–18; Jeremias, Amos, 30; cf. Haran, “Observations,” 203.

37 For a fuller discussion, see Paul, Amos, 63; and, earlier, Haran, “Observations,” 209–12; Cohen, Simon, “The Political Background of the Words of Amos,” HUCA 36 (1965) 153–60Google Scholar, at 159 n. 17. For the identity of Sela, see Aharoni, Yohanan, The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography (rev. ed.; trans. and ed. Rainey, Anson F.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979) 441Google Scholar.

38 Mays, Amos, 35–36; Wolff, Joel and Amos, 160; Barton, Amos's Oracles, 32; Jeremias, Amos, 30. A recent treatment of the problem has been given in Hadjiev, Tchavdar S., The Composition and Redaction of the Book of Amos (BZAW 393; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2009) 42–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Radine, Book of Amos, 179–80.

39 Haran, “Observations,” 209–12; but cf. Paul, Amos, 63; and Bartlett, John R., “The Brotherhood of Edom,” JSOT 4 (1977) 2–27Google Scholar, at 10–16. Contrast more recent arguments for a much later date, such as that of Troxel, who supports a date of the Edom oracle around 600 b.c.e. or later (Prophetic Literature, 44).

40 While it is possible that the term “brother” is used here solely with the connotation of “treaty-partner” (e.g., Fishbane, “Treaty Background,” 315), the allusions to the Jacob-Esau narratives run too deep to be discarded so easily (see, e.g., Paul, Amos, 63–64, citing Gen 27:40; 44–45).

41 VAT 13833 rev. line 3; see Cogan, Mordechai, “‘Ripping Open Pregnant Women’ in Light of an Assyrian Analogue,” JAOS 103 (1983) 755–57Google Scholar; see also the Akkadian text quoted in Lambert, Wilfred G., “A Neo-Babylonian Tammuz Lament,” JAOS 103 (1983) 211–15Google Scholar, rev. line 19; and the Greek text cited by Barton (Amos's Oracles, 57; Il. 6.57–60).

42 Paul, Amos, 68 n. 239; Mays, Amos, 37; but cf. Jeremias, Amos, 28; and Radine, Book of Amos, 180–82. Barton considers the oracle difficult to date, but recognizes that it “has as its background the never-ending border disputes between Gilead and Ammon” (Amos's Oracles, 32). It is, of course, possible that later authors used the term, but the events described in 2 Kgs 8:12; 15:16; and Hos 14:1 (= 13:6 Eng.) are all purported to have occurred during the mid-ninth to late-eighth centuries.

43 Although the pi'el is used in 2 Kgs 8:12; 15:16 and the pu'al in Hos 14:1, there is no need to revocalize the qal form in Amos 1:13 as pi'el (Paul, Amos, 68 n. 237). See also GKC §61a. For the qal, cf. Exod 14:16; Judg 15:19; 2 Sam 23:16; Isa 34:15; 48:21; 63:12; Ezek 29:7; Ps 74:15; 78:13; 141:7; Eccl 10:9; Neh 9:11; 1 Chr 11:18; 2 Chr 21:17; 2 Chr 32:1.

44 E.g., Cripps, Amos, 133. For discussion of alternate proposals, cf. Paul, Amos, 68 n. 238.

45 Paul, Amos, 68. The latter verse sets these “beasts of the field” in juxtaposition to “the lion” and, more importantly in this context, to “the bear robbed of her cubs.” Cf. also the Ugaritic cognate bq‘ found in KTU 1.6.ii.32.

46 See similarly Paul, Amos, 68; earlier, Cripps, Amos, 133; Mays, Amos, 37.

47 Mays, Amos, 37.

48 For the (incestuous) familial relationship postulated for Ammon, see Gen 19:30–38.

49 For the long-standing traditions of Ammonite aggression towards the Gileadites, see Judg 10:7–9; 10:17–11:33; and 1 Sam 11:1–11.

50 Paul, Amos, 72; see also the prohibition against disinterment of the king's remains in the Ahirom inscription (KAI 1; pointed to by Barton, Amos's Oracles, 56).

51 Gradwohl, Roland, Die Farben im Alten Testament: Eine terminologische Studie (BZAW 83; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1963) 86–87Google Scholar, cited in Paul, Amos, 72 n. 271; see also Robert James Forbes, “Kalk,” BHH 2:921–22.

52 Wolff, Joel and Amos, 162–63; Paul, Amos, 72.

53 Symes, Steven A.et al., “Patterned Thermal Destruction of Human Remains in a Forensic Setting,” in The Analysis of Burned Human Remains (ed. Schmidt, Christopher W. and Symes, Steven A.; London: Academic, 2008) 15–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 37.

54 “Because he burned the bones of the king of Edom and spread them () on his house like plaster ().”

55 Cf. Jeremias, Amos, 29.

56 I leave unaddressed here the problems posed by reinterpreting as mulk-’adam, a form of human sacrifice (e.g., Barton, Amos's Oracles, 33–35). See the discussion, along with citations of a significant mass of earlier research in Paul, Amos, 73.

57 E.g., Wolff, Joel and Amos, 139–41 and earlier literature cited there; Barton, Amos's Oracles, 22–24; Coote, Robert B., Amos among the Prophets: Composition and Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981) 68–69Google Scholar; cf. the balanced discussion in Auld, Amos, 42–44. Geyer, John B. takes the argument further and suggests that “the oracles in Amos i–ii may .▒.▒. reasonably be taken together and the whole seen as a late addition to the book,” dating specifically from the exilic period (“Mythology and Culture in the Oracles against the Nations,” VT 36 [1986] 129–45Google Scholar, at 140, see also 142; see similarly Radine, Book of Amos, 11–22, 170–83, esp. 83); on the other hand, Coote assigns the collection, arrangement, and textual location of 1:3–2:16 to his second (B) stage, suggesting that the third (C) edition was working with this passage's prefixation as a given (Amos among the Prophets, 70). The most up-to-date discussions, as far as I am aware, are those of Hadjiev, Composition and Redaction, 40–59, esp. 53–59; and Radine, Book of Amos, 11–22, 170–83.

58 For a full overview of the discussion of secondary status, see Paul, Amos, 16–27; and idem, “A Literary Reinvestigation of the Authenticity of the Oracles against the Nations of Amos,” in De la Tôrah au Messie. Études d'exégèse et d'herméneutique bibliques offertes à Henri Cazelles pour ses 25 années d'enseignement à l'Institut Catholique de Paris (Octobre 1979) (ed. Maurice Carrez, Joseph Doré, and Pierre Grelot; Paris: Desclée, 1981) 189–204. Paul defends the authenticity of the Gaza oracle on numerous grounds (Amos, 16–17; “Literary Reinvestigation,” 189–91).

59 The oracle against Judah is commonly taken as a third late oracle but is not considered here, since it has not yet been discussed (see the larger discussions in, among many others, Steinmann, Andrew E., “The Ordering of Amos’ Oracles Against the Nations 1:3–2:16,” JBL 111 [1992] 683–89Google Scholar, at 683 nn. 1–2; and Troxel, Prophetic Literature, 44). Radine argues forcefully that all six of the oracles against the nations (1:3–2:5, i.e., including that against Judah) should be viewed as part of a single sixth-century b.c.e. literary stratum (Book of Amos, 170–83). This determination is made, however, on predicating the respective historical context of each oracle to a time in which each of the cities and rulers held under indictment (1:4–5, 7–8, 10, 12, 14–15; 2:2–3, 5) suffered a destruction that can be correlated to the text. I agree that this is not an improbable reconstruction; indeed, it does not provide counter-evidence to the thesis presented here, since I am concerned primarily with the final form of the text. However, I would reiterate the caution expressed above that a late date of composition does not necessarily impugn the historical referentiality of the accusations against the nations.

60 E.g., Mays, Amos, 25, 34; Jeremias, Amos, 19–31, esp. 29–31.

61 Jeremias, Amos, 23.

62 Ibid., 29.

63 Ibid., 23, quoting Wolff, Joel and Amos, 140. For a less overtly theological (and more sober) rationale, see Hadjiev, Composition and Redaction, 42–45.

64 However, cf. the observations made by Hadjiev, Composition and Redaction, 45–46.

65 Rudolph, Joel-Amos-Obadiah-Jona, 119–20; see also Bartlett, “Brotherhood,” 12–13; Haran, “Observations,” 203; and discussion in Auld, Amos, 43–44.

66 Mays, Amos, 34; Wolff, Joel and Amos, 140, 158.

67 Paul, Amos, 17–18; idem, “Literary Reinvestigation,” 191; Haran, “Observations,” 201–7; Rudolph, Joel-Amos-Obadiah-Jona, 120.

68 The term used here is that of Paul (Amos, 18; “Literary Reinvestigation,” 191).

69 E.g., Mays, Amos, 34.

70 E.g., ibid., 36; Wolff, Joel and Amos, 160; Hadjiev, Composition and Redaction, 42–45; cf. Cripps, Amos, 282–84.

71 E.g., Bartlett, “Land of Seir,” 13–18; idem, “Brotherhood of Edom,” 14–16; Paul, Amos, 18, 19–20; see the third section of this article below.

72 Wolff, Joel and Amos, 159–60.

73 Haran, Menahem, Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into Biblical Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1985) 146–47Google Scholar.

74 E.g., Knohl, Israel, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2007) 200–204, 220Google Scholar, esp. 200–201 nn. 4–5. See also Friedman, Richard Elliott, Who Wrote the Bible? (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1987) 188–89Google Scholar.

75 E.g., Priest, “Covenant of Brothers,” 400–406. This term is used consistently in the Amarna Letters as well to indicate a parity status (e.g., EA 1, 2, 3, etc.; for a convenient translation, see The Amarna Letters [ed. and trans. William L. Moran; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992]). The metaphor is likely one element in a larger conceptual framework, as shown by Schloen, J. David, The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol: Patrimonialism in Ugarit and the Ancient Near East (SAHL 2; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2001) esp. 259–61Google Scholar. I thank Professor Hays for drawing my attention to these sources here.

76 Jeremias, Amos, 6, 22–25.

77 Ibid., 22–25, 31; Lundbom, “The Lion Has Roared,” 68–69; but cf. Paul, “Literary Reinvestigation,” 196–97.

78 Marti, Karl, “Zur Komposition von Amos 1:3–2:3,” in Abhandlungen zur semitischen Religionskunde und Sprachwissenschaft (ed. Frankenberg, Wilhelm and Küchler, Friedrich; BZAW 33; Giessen: Töpelmann, 1918) 323–30Google Scholar.

79 Bentzen, Aage, “The Ritual Background of Amos i 2–ii 16,” OtSt 8 (1950) 85–99Google Scholar.

80 Fohrer, Georg, “Prophetie und Magie,” ZAW 78 (1966) 25–47Google Scholar, at 40–41; idem, Introduction to the Old Testament (trans. David E. Green; Nashville: Abingdon, 1968) 434.

81 Weiss, Meir, “The Pattern of the ‘Execration Texts’ in the Prophetic Literature,” IEJ 19 (1969) 150–57Google Scholar; see also Wolff, Joel and Amos, 145–47.

82 Paul, Amos, 11–12.

83 Ibid., 12. See also Barton's observations concerning the nature of the oracles themselves: they simply do not resemble propagandistic war-oracles all that closely in their accusations (Amos's Oracles, 8–15). Without a specifically cultic setting, the oracles’ similarity to the Egyptian execration texts dissolves.

84 Mays, Amos, 26.

85 Ibid., 34.

86 Ibid., 35.

87 Blenkinsopp, Joseph, A History of Prophecy in Israel (rev. and enlarged ed.; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 75Google Scholar.

88 Kaufmann, Yehezkel, Toledoth Ha-Emunah Ha-Yisrealith (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1957) 6:63Google Scholar [Hebrew], cited by Paul, Amos, 12. A reformulation of this thesis is evident in the work of Jeremias, who similarly bases the order of the oracles on the principle of pairs (Amos, 24–25). For an additional schematization of these oracles’ order, see that of Lund, Nils W. (Chiasmus in the New Testament [Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1942] 87–88Google Scholar; cited and described in Lundbom, “The Lion Has Roared,” 69–70.

89 Paul, Amos, 12.

90 E.g., Steinmann, “Ordering,” 683–89.

91 Barton, Amos's Oracles, 13 (see also 23–24).

92 Paul, Amos, 12–13; Jeremias, Amos, 25.

93 Paul, Amos, 13.

94 Ibid., 13.

95 Ibid.; idem, “Amos 1:3–2:3,” 397–403; see also the elaborations of Paul's thesis given by Andrew Steinmann (“Order,” 687–89).

96 Paul, Amos, 14.

97 Ibid., 15.

98 This is not to say, however, that his observations prove the attribution of the oracles against Tyre and Edom to the historical Amos, either. As Hadjiev has shown, a redactor may easily have crafted these oracles so as to heighten their “concatenation” with the others (Composition and Redaction, 54–55).

99 Barton, Amos's Oracles, 1.

100 Geyer, “Mythology and Culture,” 140.

101 For a similar (anticipatory) critique, see Barton, Amos's Oracles, 5. Cf. Auld, who poses the question somewhat differently (Amos, 41).

102 Barton, Amos's Oracles, 39–45.

103 The root of yhwh's criticism of these acts also remains, of course, under dispute. Barton categorizes the various proposals under four headings: 1) it was Amos's nationalism that compelled him to criticize the foreign nations; 2) Amos's excoriation of the nations is a logical extension of the “ethical obligation incumbent upon Israel”; 3) Amos's criticism of the nations can be traced to the belief that they had violated divinely mandated moral laws (of which, not coincidentally, they would have been unaware); and 4) a form of “international customary law” in which “the principles at stake .▒.▒. are essentially part of a conventional [viz., human-originated] morality, which God is assumed to back up with fiery sanctions.” Barton adopts the fourth position (Amos's Oracles, 39–45).

104 Schlimm, Matthew R., “Teaching the Hebrew Bible amid the Current Human Rights Crisis: The Opportunities Presented by Amos 1:3–2:3,” SBL Forum 4.1 (2006)Google Scholar, n.p., accessed October 2013, http://sbl-site.org/article.aspx?articleId=478.

105 Ibid.

106 I follow here the conventions of citation used by Schlimm: Conv. = Convention; Prot. = Protocol; Art(s). = Article(s); and Sect. = Section. All texts are cited from the Geneva Conventions published at http://genevaconventions.org/, established and currently maintained by the Society of Professional Journalists.

107 Schlimm, “Teaching the Hebrew Bible.” See also Prot. I, Art. 57, Sect. 2b; Prot. I, Art. 85, Sec. 3; Conv. IV, Arts. 17, 23–24, 50; Prot. I, Arts. 76–77; Prot. II, Art. 4, Sect. 3.

108 Presumably the fleshing out of the very terse allegations against Edom (cf. above) as “the complete destruction (ḥerem) of a people or the killing of refugees” is based in part on Schlimm's acceptance of the chronological secondariness of 1:11–12 and their correspondence to the accusations against Edom found in Obad 12–14. Particularly informing Schlimm's reading, one surmises, is the accusation that Edom “stood at the crossings to cut off his [i.e., Judah's] fugitives ().” Compare the analysis presented above, which would suggest adherence to the following set of passages protecting the rights of women in times of violence.

109 “One must be aware of the danger of anachronism and recognize that modern laws of war are obviously different in a variety of ways, such as their lack of God-language. Nevertheless, the clear points of connection suggest that Amos’ words dimly prefigure what would later be codified in international humanitarian law.” (Schlimm, “Teaching the Hebrew Bible”).

110 E.g., Cripps, Amos, 117; Barton, Amos's Oracles, 3, 36–38; Jeremias, Amos, 20–21; Hadjiev, Composition and Redaction, 57.

111 The omission of any punishment of Judah beyond this threat has typically been taken as an indication of the oracle's secondary status. However, one might suggest that in the book's presumable earliest and actual current arrangement, the remainder of Amos 3–9* comprises the extended divine diatribe detailing the punishment to be meted out against the sinful covenant people.

112 In Auld's formulation, “The wrongs are no longer national and military but domestic and social” (Amos, 45), and in Barton's, “[Amos's audience] saw these [social obligations] as in no way comparable with the international conventions infringed by the nations” (Amos's Oracles, 48).

113 Paul, Amos, 74. Paul continues: “[Judah] is charged with the ‘spurning of the teachings of the Lord.’” Similarly, Wolff describes the oracle against Judah as “specifying no crimes against human beings, but only those committed directly against Yahweh” (Joel and Amos, 163).

114 Coote and Whitelam, Emergence of Early Israel.

115 Ibid., 63–80.

116 Ibid., 63.

117 Ibid., 65; see also John S. Holladay, who distinguishes between an “internal economy” and an “international economy” (“Hezekiah's Tribute, Long-Distance Trade, and the Wealth of Nations ca. 1000–600 BC: A New Perspective,” in Confronting the Past: Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of William G. Dever [ed. Seymour Gitin, J. Edward Wright, and J. P. Dessel; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2006] 309–31).

118 Coote and Whitelam, Emergence of Early Israel, 66. See also ibid., 68: “The income from transit fees, tolls, customs, and trade profits for intermediaries can support local rulers.”

119 Stager, “Port Power,” 625–38.

120 This is an admittedly brief description of the types of extraction polities no doubt imposed on the commodities flowing through their borders towards foreign destinations. Holladay provides a much longer list: merchants would have been subjected to “transit tolls, palace taxes, bribes, enabling preferential purchases for the palace at discounted rates, or bearing all the other costs that attended international traffic elsewhere” (“Hezekiah's Tribute,” 311). Further, Holladay estimates that 20–25% of the commodities (initially) carried by the international caravaneers would have wound up in the treasuries of the polities through which the merchants passed (“Hezekiah's Tribute,” 325, 327).

121 Chaney, Marvin L., “Whose Sour Grapes? The Addresses of Isaiah 5:1–7 in the Light of Political Economy,” Semeia 87 (1999) 105–22Google Scholar, at 107. For other discussions of political economy in ancient Israel and Judah, see, among others, idem, “Systemic Study of the Israelite Monarchy,” Semeia 37 (1986) 53–76, esp. 60–74; Premnath, Devadasan N., “Latifundialization and Isaiah 5.8–10,” JSOT 40 (1988) 49–60Google Scholar; Hopkins, David, “Bare Bones: Putting Flesh on the Economics of Ancient Israel,” in The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States (ed. Fritz, Volkmar and Davies, Philip R.; JSOTSup 228; Sheffield, U.K.: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996) 121–39Google Scholar; Houston, Walter, “Was There a Social Crisis in the Eighth Century?” in In Search of Pre-Exilic Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (ed. Day, John; London: T & T Clark, 2004) 130–49Google Scholar, esp. 131–33; and Holladay, “Hezekiah's Tribute,” 309–31. Again, I am indebted to Professor Chris Hays for much of the bibliography here.

122 Chaney, “Whose Sour Grapes?” 109.

123 On this point, Houston cites previously Coggins, Richard J., Joel and Amos (New Century Bible; Sheffield, U.K.: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000)Google Scholar; and Zvi, Ehud Ben, “Wrongdoers, Wrongdoing and Righting Wrongs in Micah 2,” BibInt 7 (1999) 87–100Google Scholar, esp. 88 and 99.

124 For discussion, see Houston, “Social Crisis,” esp. 131–33, and particularly 142–47; and, previously, Hopkins, “Bare Bones,” 136–39. In the central pages of his article (137–42), Houston surveys the work of two prominent scholars arguing that the “social crisis” of the eighth century was not as deeply cutting as the biblical texts portray it (Holladay, John S., “The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah: Political and Economic Centralization in the Iron IIA–B [ca. 1000–750 bce],” in The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land [ed. Levy, Thomas E.; London: Leicester University Press, 1995] 368–98Google Scholar [but cf. Holladay, “Hezekiah's Tribute,” esp. 327–28]; and Bendor, Shunya, The Social Structure in Ancient Israel [Jerusalem Biblical Studies 7; Jerusalem: Simor, 1996]Google Scholar), then proposes a rereading of the evidence cited by each to conclude that the prophetic texts purporting to derive from the eighth century do, in fact, attest that a certain threshold of “social crisis” had been reached.

125 This route goes by the name “The King's Highway”; see Aharoni, Land of the Bible, 54–57. For further descriptions of the trade route and its primary commodities, see Sherratt, Susan and Sherratt, Andrew, “The Growth of the Mediterranean Economy in the Early First Millennium BC,” World Archaeology 24 (1993) 361–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 364.

126 There were at least two different routes running parallel to one another. These two routes joined briefly at Rabbath-ammon before diverging again; Aharoni, Land of the Bible, 54–55.

127 Holladay, “Hezekiah's Tribute,” 320–21.

128 E.g., Aharoni, Land of the Bible, 57, also 16, 45, and esp. 40.

129 For discussion of two routes crossing Israelite territory and culminating in shipping centers on the Mediterranean, see Holladay, “Kingdoms of Israel and Judah,” 383–86. Elsewhere, Holladay makes the point that traders would have had a choice of routes, and thus, I would paraphrase, of their “trading”-partners (“Hezekiah's Tribute,” 328). Even if there was some degree of choice on the part of the traders as to which route they took to market, the interpreter should remain cognizant of the political and economic ramifications of such alternatives: one suspects that merchants would be more likely to choose as a trading and transit partner (and, more plainly, the overlord to whom taxes and transit fees were paid) the polity able to exert the most power over its neighbors, guaranteeing safe passage and offering the maximal rate of return on said fees.

130 See, e.g., Beit-Arieh, Itzhaq and Cresson, Bruce, “An Edomite Ostracon from Ḥorvat ‘Uza,” Tel Aviv 12 (1985) 98–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Aḥituv, Shmuel, Echoes from the Past: Hebrew and Cognate Inscriptions from the Biblical Period (A Carta Handbook; Jerusalem: Carta, 2008) 351–54Google Scholar.

131 Sherratt and Sherratt, “Mediterranean Economy,” 363.

132 Jeremias, Amos, 27.

133 Aharoni, Land of the Bible, 56.

134 For the increasing size of the slave trade in the first millennium b.c.e., see Sherratt and Sherratt: “Slaves became a commodity traded in large numbers and were applied to large-scale construction and industrial works, including agricultural work and mining. Slave populations might now be ethnically distinctive, often brought from considerable distances” (“Mediterranean Economy,” 363; this observation is made already in the section detailing the developments of the tenth century). See also Stager, “Port Power,” 625–38.

135 For the reference as Deuteronomic in tone, see Mays, Amos, 41; and Wolff, Joel and Amos, 163–64. Radine provides a helpful review of the debate surrounding this judgment (Book of Amos, 15–17).

136 So Mays, Amos, 41–42; Wolff, Joel and Amos, 163; Paul, Amos, 74.

137 On this latter passage (Deut 20:19–20) in particular, see, among others, Wright, Jacob L., “Warfare and Wanton Destruction: A Reexamination of Deuteronomy 20:19–20 in Relation to Ancient Siegecraft,” JBL 127 (2008) 423–58Google Scholar.

138 We should not neglect the fact that the Deuteronomic law code is primarily concerned with the well-being of the Israelite community, so that many of its protections extend only as far as does Judahite (or Israelite) identity (cf., e.g., Deut 15:3, which allows members of the community to maintain claim on loans made to foreigners; and v. 12, which limits the release of slaves only to “Hebrew” men and women []).

139 Wolff, Joel and Amos, 164.

140 Readings vary for this final phrase, with Paul referring to a text-critical issue in lxx 1 Sam 12:3, thereby advocating a textual emendation to , with the translation “(for a) hidden gift/payoff” (Amos, 77–79). See there for additional discussion of other suggestions.

141 Paul, Amos, 77; see there for further discussion of the variety of interpretations. For similar readings, see Wolff, Amos, 165.

142 See further Wolff, Joel and Amos, 166; Paul, Amos, 79–80.

143 E.g., Cripps, Amos, 140.

144 Paul, Amos, 81.

145 For this claim, see the very perceptive argument by Hadjiev. He argues that Judah—the later audience of the redacted book of Amos—should not be differentiated too sharply from its precursor Israel: “after the collapse of the Northern kingdom it is Judah that remained as the ‘true Israel’ and what was said in former times of the Northern kingdom was seen as applicable in some way to the Southern” (Composition and Redaction, 57).