559 Short Notes a Note on Ashdod and Egypt in Amos Iii

SHORT NOTES 559

A NOTE ON ASHDOD AND EGYPT IN AMOS III 91

In Amos iii 9 Ashdod and Egypt are summoned to witness conditions current in Samaria. The reason why Ashdod and Egypt in particular are called upon has been a puzzling question for scholars when they take into consideration, inter alia, that Amos iii 9 is the only pericope in the Old Testament where Ashdod and Egypt appear alongside each other. Consequently, a wide variety of answers has been given to this problem.2 It is not only in recent publications on Amos that this question has become a bone of contention; already the LXX has a different reading from the MT for at least one of the locations given in Amos iii 9. The LXX reads "Assyria" instead of the MT's "Ashdod", probably because Assyria is a better parallel to Egypt as a power of political importance than Ashdod, a city-state of the Philistines. It is also interesting to note that the Revised Standard Version follows the LXX, translating, "Proclaim to the strongholds in Assyria, and to the strongholds in the land of Egypt", while the New English Bible follows the MT: "Stand upon the palaces in Ashdod and upon the palaces of Egypt". While the majority of scholars adhere to the reading of the MT, there are also some in recent times who accept the reading of the LXX as original.3 One of the answers given to the question why Ashdod and Egypt are called upon is thus taken from a text-critical point of view, but it does not solve the problem because the reference to Egypt is not accounted for. Another answer to this problem has been given from a geographical point of view. According to J.L. Mays,4 Ashdod and 560

Egypt are to be seen as neighbouring states, sending prominent men residing in strongholds as a delegation to come and see what Samaria is like. C. van Leeuwen5 holds that the explanation for this problem lies in the fact that Ashdod is on the way to Egypt so that the heralds first have to pass Ashdod before they can reach Egypt, and H.W. WolfP wonders whether the impressive strongholds of Ashdod supposedly seen by Amos during the course of his wander- ings may be the reason for the mention of Ashdod here. The pro- posal of Wolff is imaginative but it lacks sufficient evidence, and the mention of Egypt is not adequately explained. Sociological reasons have also been given as an explanation for the mention of Ashdod and Egypt in Amos iii 9. Carroll' suggests that the appeal to Ashdod and Egypt to witness the sin of Samaria may come from an idea of some general moral consensus in that part of the world, an idea also present in the first two chapters of the book of Amos. The implication is that even these two (pagan) nations, where acts of violence and injustice were not uncommon, would be shocked by the conditions they are about to observe in Samaria and would therefore find the eventual divine judgement perfectly justified. A fourth attempt at the explanation of the two locations mentioned is to refer to the legal tradition and practices of Israel. It is well known that Israelite law requires at least two witnesses in a lawsuit as proof of reliable evidence (Deut xvii 6, xix and therefore Ashdod and Egypt are summoned as eye-witnesses in this case. It is not important that these two nations in particular are called upon: any two could have performed this function.9 The dif- ficulty with this explanation is that Ashdod and Egypt are never referred to again in this pericope, and the Gattung employed in this part does not suggest a lawsuit. The most popular solution to this problem is to explain the occur- rence of Ashdod and Egypt from a literary point of view. The call to Ashdod and Egypt is only a rhetorical call.'° Reference is also made to the word-play between and and between msrym and in verse 10.12 The mention of Ashdod and Egypt serves thus as a stylistic device rather than a historical indication. The reason why Ashdod is mentioned first followed by Egypt makes Wolff (p. 193; German, p. 231) think of a gradation, with Ashdod being the "better" partner. The solution proposed in this note implies that Ashdod and