Vetus Testamentum 68 (2018) 620-642 Vetus Testamentum brill.com/vt On the Possible Interpretations of Amos 7:14 David B. Ridge University of Chicago [email protected] Abstract The ambiguity of the vocabulary and grammar of Amos 7:14 has led to the proposal of numerous conflicting interpretations. I present a comprehensive evaluation of these proposals. I argue that both grammar and context indicate Amos 7:14 is made up of three declarative clauses, two negative and one affirmative, which describe either the past or present vocation of Amos. Whether they describe the past or present relative to the situation in the narrative, these clauses combine with the account of Amos’s prophetic call to indicate that his prophetic activity is not motivated by economic or other concerns but only by his desire to be obedient to YHWH. Keywords Amos – Amaziah – prophet – son of a prophet – nominal clauses – verbless clauses Introduction The clauses which begin Amos’s speech in Amos 7:14 play an important rhetor- ical role in the brief account of the conversation between Amos and Amaziah in Amos 7:10-17. The clauses contain several linguistic elements which obscure the meaning of the text, including the multivalent nature of the conjunctions the inherent temporal ambiguity of nominal clauses, and the disputed ,כי and ו and the verb ,בן נביא the nominal phrase ,נביא and חזה semantics of the nouns -Numerous solutions for the interpretation of these clauses have been pro .הנבא posed, but no consensus has emerged and their meaning remains uncertain.1 1 Julian Morgenstern, “Amos Studies I,” HUCA 11 (1936): 36-51; H.H. Rowley, “Was Amos a Nabi’?” in Festschrift Otto Eissfeldt (ed. J. Fuck; Halle: Niemeyer, 1947), 191-98; Ernst Würthwein, © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/15685330-12341332Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 05:04:59AM via free access On the Possible Interpretations of Amos 7:14 621 Previous studies have produced valuable insights into the text, but many have employed inaccurate assertions about the semantics of the relevant linguistic elements and unsubstantiated generalizations about the rules of “Amos-Studien,” ZAW 62 (1949): 10-52; E. Bauman, “Eine Einzelheit,” ZAW 64 (1952): 62; G.R. Driver, “Amos 7:14,” The Expository Times 67 (1955): 91-93; P.R. Ackroyd, “Amos 7:14,” The Expository Times 68 (1956): 94-95; J. MacCormack, “Amos 7:14, ‘I Was (Am) No Prophet, Neither Was (Am) I a Prophet’s Son’,” The Expository Times 67 (1956): 317-18; G.R. Driver, “Waw Explicative in Amos Vii 14,” The Expository Times 68 (1957): 302; Ernest Vogt, “Waw Explicative in Amos Vii 14,” The Expository Times 68 (1957): 301-2; John D.W. Watts, Vision and Prophecy in Amos (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1958), 10-12; Simon Cohen, “Amos Was a Navi,” HUCA 32 (1961): 175-78; Henry Neil Richardson, “Critical Note on Amos 7:14,” JBL 85 (1966): 89; Hans Heinrich Schmid, “ ‘Nicht Prophet Bin Ich, Noch Bin Ich Prophetensohn’: Zur Erklärung von Amos 7:14,” Jud 23 (1967), 68; James Luther Mays, Amos (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969), 136-38; Ziony Zevit, “A Misunderstanding at Bethel, Amos VII 12-17,” VT 25 (1975): 783-90; Y. Hoffmann, “Did Amos Regard Himself as a Nābī’,” VT 27 (1977): 209-12; Hans Walter Wolff, Joel and Amos (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977); 306-13; Robert R. Wilson, “Prophecy and Ecstasy: A Reexamination,” JBL 98 (1979): 321-37; Ziony Zevit, “Expressing Denial in Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew, and in Amos,” VT 29 (1979): 505-9; R. Bach, “Erwägungen Zu Amos 7,14,” in Die Botschaft Und Die Boten (ed. J. Jeremias and L. Perlitt; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1981), 203-16; Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Amos: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 24A; New York; Doubleday, 1989), 762-90; Max E. Polley, Amos and the Davidic Empire: A Socio-Historical Approach (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), 11-12. Hans Joachim Stoebe, “Noch Einmal Zu Amos VII 10-17,” VT 39 (1989): 341-54; Gerhard F. Hasel, Understanding the Book of Amos: Basic Issues in Current Interpretations (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1991); Shalom M. Paul, Amos (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) 238-50; Terry Giles, “A Note on the Vocation of Amos in 7:14,” JBL 111 (1992): 690-92; Francisco O. García-Treto, “A Reader-Response Approach to Prophetic Conflict: The Case of Amos 7.10-17,” in The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible (eds. J. Cheryl Exum & David J.A. Clines; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 114-24; M. Tsevat, “Amos 7:14—Present or Preterit?” in The Tablet and the Scroll (ed. M.E. Cohen; Bethesda: CDL, 1993), 256-58; Åke Viberg, “Amos 7:14: A Case of Subtle Irony,” TynBul 47 (1996): 91-114; Pierre Gilbert, “A New Look at Amos’s Prophetic Status (Amos 7:10-17),” EgT 28 (1997): 291-300; Jörg Jeremias, The Book of Amos: A Commentary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998), 135-140; Paul R. Noble, “Amos and Amaziah in Context: Synchronic and Diachronic Approaches to Amos 7-8,” CBQ 60 (1998): 423-39; Jean Marcel Vincent, “ ‘Visionnaire, Va’t’en!’: Interprétation d’Amos 7/10-17 Dans Son Contexte,” ETR 75 (2000): 229-50; M. Dijkstra, “ ‘I Am Neither a Prophet nor a Prophet’s Pupil’: Amos 7:9-17 as the Presentation of a Prophet like Moses,” in The Elusive Prophet: The Prophet as Historical Person, Literary Character & Anonymous Artist (ed. Johannes C. de Moor; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 105-28; Duane A. Garrett, Amos: A Handbook on the Hebrew Text (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2008), 222-23; Tchavdar S. Hadjiev, The Composition and Redaction of the Book of Amos (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009); Erasmus Gass, “ ‘Kein Prophet Bin Ich Und Kein Prophetenschüler Bin Ich’: Zum Selbstverständnis Des Propheten Amos in Am 7,14,” TZ 68 (2012): 1-24. Vetus Testamentum 68 (2018) 620-642 Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 05:04:59AM via free access 622 Ridge Hebrew grammar. In addition, none have comprehensively gathered data on all possible grammatical solutions and analyzed them together.2 The purpose of this study is to evaluate all the proposed grammatical expla- nations of these clauses. I will show that the data indicate that the clauses must be understood to be two negative nominal declarative sentences followed by a clause which includes an affirmative nominal declarative sentence. Neither כי grammatical nor contextual evidence is sufficient to determine whether the clauses depict the past or present relative to the utterance of the speech. I will begin by examining the rhetorical context of the clauses of v. 14 with- in the conversation between Amos and Amaziah described in vv. 10-17. I will then review each of the proposed interpretations of these clauses and evalu- ate whether they are supported by the grammatical, semantic, and contextual data. I will conclude by examining how the remaining possible interpretations would function within the text of Amos 7:10-17. Reading Amos 7:14 in Context Grammatical explanations of the clauses of Amos 7:14 must be evaluated with consideration for how these clauses function rhetorically in Amos’s response to Amaziah in the literary unit of Amos 7:10-17. In his speech in vv. 12-13, Amaziah attempts to stop Amos from continuing to prophesy at Bethel. He demands this explicitly and attempts to persuade Amos to leave Bethel by appealing to what he believes are Amos’s concerns about his safety and his economic interests. Amos responds first by narrating the story of his call from YHWH to prophesy to the people of the northern kingdom of Israel, and then by proph- esying again. Rhetorically, the call narrative indicates why Amaziah’s appeals are ineffective. Amos’s prophetic activity is not motivated by concerns about his safety or economic interests, but solely by his desire to obey YHWH. The nominal clauses in v. 14 support this interpretation of Amos’ motivation in that the clauses make clear that when Amos does pursue his economic interest, he can do so through agricultural, not prophetic, work. To fulfill his purpose of persuading Amos to stop prophesying in Bethel, Amaziah argues that Amos is not safe in Bethel, and that the economic moti- vations which led Amos to prophesy at Bethel could be fulfilled if Amos were 2 The recent article of Gass analyzes many of the possible grammatical solutions but does not include all of them and, as will be shown below, its conclusion is not supported by the weight of the evidence. See Gass, “Zum Selbstverständnis Des Propheten Amos in Am 7,14,” TZ 68 (2012): 1-24. Vetus TestamentumDownloaded from 68 Brill.com09/25/2021(2018) 620-642 05:04:59AM via free access On the Possible Interpretations of Amos 7:14 623 to prophesy elsewhere. The concentration of terms that deal with place in Amaziah’s speech indicates that location is his main concern. The imperatives refer to movement to a new location, and Pierre Gilbert has ברח לך and לך there” and the parallel“ שם shown that the repeated appearance of the adverb contribute to the focus בית אל and יהודה appearance of the geographic terms on the location of his prophecy.3 Amaziah attempts to persuade Amos to leave Bethel with two arguments. He asserts that the economic motivations which led Amos to prophesy at Bethel could be fulfilled by prophesying in Judah. He tells Amos to “flee to the land of Judah, and eat bread there and prophesy there.”4 The instruction to “eat bread” there, in Judah, in conjunction with the imperative to prophesy refers to economic support, as it does in Gen 3:19, Gen 28:20, and Isa 4:1.5 Amaziah also appeals to what he assumes are Amos’s concerns about his personal safety.