(Old Testament Theology). by John Barton

194 Book Reviews / Horizons in Biblical Theology 35 (2013) 181-202

The Theology of the Book of Amos (Old Testament Theology). By John Barton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. xx +216 pp. $25.99.

John Barton continues to offer valuable reflections on the work of the prophet Amos. This volume is part of the Old Testament Theology series and complements the other two books previously published: Brueggemann’s The Theology of the Book of Jeremiah (2006) and R.W.L. Moberly’s The Theology of the Book of Genesis (2009). The series seeks to present works that will contribute to “(a) the ongoing discussion of biblical theology in confessional and nonconfessional mode as well as in postmodern and canonical contexts, (b) the theological exchange between Old Testament scholars and those working in cognate and dispa- rate disciplines, and (c) the always-pressing task of introducing students to the theology of the discrete canonical unit: the biblical books themselves”(p. xvi). Barton’s book fits well into this series. The study is laid out in seven chapters. Chapter 1 examines three major critical delinea- tions of the book of Amos: (1) those that attribute most of the book to the eighth century prophet; (2) those that consider the book the result of a sometime complicated process of editing; and (3) those that view the book, and Amos, as an imaginary construction designed to articulate a special position like Jonah or Ruth. While Barton acknowledges that there are clearly “additions” to the book of Amos, he places himself more in line with the first position mentioned above. This “conservative assessment” makes “it possible and sensible to devote a chapter to the theology of Amos and his disciples and not only to the book in its finished form” (p. 51). Chapter 2 considers the religious beliefs and practices of Amos’ time. On the basis of what is known about the religious environment during the eighth century B.C. and on the basis of what Amos said and left unsaid, a picture is developed of Amos’ audience and cir- cumstance. Popular ideas of the character of God and the gods, the Day of the Lord, the place of sacrifice and temples, and basic morality are helpfully explored. Amos concurs with much of the general opinions of his day, but there are significant places where he does not. With this material as the backdrop Barton then turns in chapter 3 to what he believes can be deduced about Amos’ theology and that of his disciples. He is informed particularly in terms of Amos’ differences with others of his day. A number of issues emerge which receive discussion such as the election or non-election of Israel, the understanding of national and individual sin, the place of the sacrificial cult in relation to repentance and salvation, and not least, the existence (or lack of ) a covenant in Israel’s common life. It is worth noting that Barton is quite prepared to “infer” about Amos’ theology even on highly debated points. With respect to the covenant, for instance, Barton concludes that though Amos never used the technical word for covenant in a religious sense, it was “in all essentials one of his discov- eries or inventions” (p. 107). The theological themes introduced by the various additions to Amos are the subject of chapter 4. Some examples will illustrate the character of this chapter. The oracle against Edom (and probably that against Tyre), for instance, inserts a note of nationalism not found in the other oracles against the nations (p. 109). An explicit concern with disobedience of torah in the oracle against Judah strongly contrasts with the condemnation of war crimes found in Amos’ original oracles (p. 111). The more metaphorical “famine of the hearing of the word of the Lord” noted in 8:11-12 seems in strong contrast to the more literal difficulties that Amos thought to be imminent (p. 121). Barton concludes that “the ethos of the additions to

Amos is upbeat and positive” (p. 131) which sets these apart from what he considers the authentic Amos material. The theology of the book of Amos is the subject of chapter 5. At the outset Barton acknowledges that he still (with much of previous scholarship) does think that “the attempt to get back to the prophet himself is worthwhile and important” (p. 133). Nonetheless, he also recognizes that “there is a book of Amos, and it contains the additions as well as the original words of the prophets” and many scholars today believe it “possible to interpret finished books of the Bible as well as their original cores” (p. 133). Three approaches have been utilized in sketching the theology of the “final form” of Amos. First is “redaction criticism” and “composition criticism,” each of which belongs to the basic “historical critical” approach which Barton favors (p. 134). After briefly describing the method, Barton concludes: “redaction and composition criticism together imply that there was deliberate attempt to give the book a new slant by the addition of ‘inauthentic’ material” which requires careful analysis to interpret (p. 135). Second, there is a “synchronic” or “holistic” approach indebted to modern literary criticism. Questions of “authorial or redaction intention” are ignored (p. 135). The subject matter of interest is the book we now have with no speculation about how it came to be in this final form. Meaning is sought by close consideration of the existing structure as well as the particular language of the book (p. 136). The third approach is the “canonical approach.” The question here is how the text being studied “contributes to, and is in turn constrained by, the larger canon of Scripture of which it is forms a part” (p. 136). The work involves “expounding the text as it now is” with the acknowledged recognition that the Bible is the Church’s book (p. 137). Having outlined these three approaches, Barton then goes on to illustrate them with reference to the book of Amos. In chapter 6 Barton sketches some of the history of interpretation of Amos. He titles the chapter “The Reception of the Theology of Amos.” He starts with the apparent influence of Amos on the idea of the work of prophets like Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Amos appears to have initiated the “image of the prophet as a purveyor of a message of imminent disaster;” the “prophets in the ancient Near East in general did not prophesy in these terms” (p. 162). The pre-exilic passages in Jeremiah and Ezekiel seem to reflect this understanding of the work of the prophet. Barton briefly reviews some of the interpretation of Amos in the early church and in Jewish writings up to the time of the Reformation noting that the ethical and escha- tological themes in Amos were largely ignored. Savonarola, however, was an exception. A strong series of sermons delivered in 1496 C.E. based on the critique and warning found in Amos eventuated in Savonarola’s “arrest, trial, and execution the following year” (p. 173). Barton goes on to note the use of Amos by Luther, Calvin, and more recently in liberation theology. The judgment of Amos is recognized, but there is also a note of hope in the over- riding justice of God. The seventh and final chapter is entitled “The Theology of Amos Then and Now.” In this chapter Barton considers a number of theological themes: the idea of God; corporate and individuality identity; covenant; theological ethics; divine action; and eschatology. As a preface to his reflection, Barton notes that there are two ways to regard the relationship of the theology of Amos with that of our own time. One is the more “canonical” way where one reads the book “explicitly from a faith position” and seeks “to integrate its theology into a pan-biblical theology, which is also consistent with Christian faith as we understand it.” This approach is unlikely to enable one to hear “anything different, or at least radically different,