Visions and Voices: Amos 7-9*

I. Identity and Prophecy

In the book of Amos we encounter Amos of Tekoa as a man charged with bringing the word of God to the apostate and corrupt kingdom of Israel. In Genesis 1, the divine word was the act of creation: in the visions and oracles of Amos, creation itself is threatened. The book is introduced as "The words of Amos" swm( yrbd (Amos 1,1), and he is referred to as speaking in 1,2, but he is not mentioned again until chap. 7 when he speaks in the first person. The reader is prevented from gaining a clear description of Amos in the book, although a few details are given in 1,1, and 7,14¹. There are, however, a number of places in which the expression ynd) appears, and these may be translated "my lord", implying the presence of Amos as speaker².Through a series of vignettes, including the reporting of five visionary experiences, the final three chapters articulate Amos" encounters with YHWH, his initial successful intercessions and the deity"s subsequent resolve to punish Israel anyway. Yet, YHWH once more relents, and the book closes with a dramatic vision of salvation (9,11-15). As I will show below, however, Amos becomes redundant and loses his presence in the text. His identity within a narrative or autobiographical setting fades as a more disembodied voice, resembling that in the bulk of chaps. 1-6, communicates the oracles of God more directly to the reader. But it is in this shift that the text carries its final message, that of salvation, and ironically, finally looks ahead to the fulfilment of Amos" intercessions. It, too, allows the readers to share something of the immediacy of Amos" experiences as they imagine them, and hence, something of the "burden" of prophecy itself³. This paper, then, studies the encounter between deity and prophet and inquires into how the relative autonomy of the human and divine voices are merged within the text.

What is being attempted is a synchronic, reader-based interpretation of the Hebrew text. I will, therefore, not concern myself with the complex and fascinating debate on the historicity of biblical prophets or the compositional and editorial history of the book of Amos⁴. By regarding Amos as a literary character, we are free within the text"s implicit and explicit references to imagine Amos and his situation as we will: we may even ask questions to which the authors/redactors provide no clear answers⁵. In any case, the need to look at how the prophets are portrayed in the literature (as opposed to immediately jumping to an examination of what the historical prophets really were) is now appreciated in many quarters⁶. In articulating their conception of Amos (and the other prophets), the producers of our book did not provide simple descriptions of Amos" life, but produced a work of religious literature of the highest order and, in so doing, said something about themselves. What Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi writes of myths is, in my opinion, also true of the literature ascribed to ancient prophets. He writes that through identification with the characters, members of the audience participate in the cosmic drama. To be acceptable, a myth must be reliable from an artistic, or psychological perspective, no other⁷. He adds that mythology presents believers with moving, dramatic narratives into which the believers project themselves. "The power of these moving stories is in creating powerful identification, and that is the power of art in every case"⁸. It is one of my premises that such an engagement with the prophet and the deity as a means of self-discovery was a deliberate goal of the literary effort represented by the book of Amos itself, perhaps even above and beyond the need to promulgate particular moral and religious doctrines and viewpoints.

Scholars have long recognized that, at least in places, the book of Amos does seek a response from the audience as part of the book"s rhetorical scheme. Scholars sometimes speak of the prophetic "rhetoric of entrapment", a phrase which stems from Robert Alter"s comments on 2 Samuel 12,1-15⁹. There, David is given a case to judge, and he enthusiastically pronounces the death sentence for the misappropriation of a poor man"s sheep. Only then does the prophet Nathan reveal the subterfuge and declare David equally guilty of the murder of Uriah and adultery with Bathsheba. Such a rhetorical trap is often seen in the first two chapters of Amos, although here it is more subtle, and directed against the audience of the text itself. These chapters feature seductive condemnations of six foreign nations, which only lead the reader to agree to the condemnation of Israel¹⁰. In my estimation, this trap is made all the more complex because of the ambiguous phrase found in each oracle, wnb#) )l, which may be translated literally as "I will not cause it (or him) to return". Having numerous options for what "it" might be (typically regarded as "the punishment" or the "decree of punishment") only leads to the trap of having ruled out any hope for the expression indicating a possible reconciliation between Israel and YHWH. For instance, one might read "Shall I not bring him (collective singular, referring to the accused nations) back?" which in six cases may be a rather sarcastic question, but in the last two cases challenges the reader"s sense of YHWH"s ultimate reconciliation with his people predicted in Amos 9,11-15¹¹. In Amos" first two visions (7,1-6) Amos himself dares to intercede with God. There is also a trap in Amos 3,3-8. The reader (along with the implied audience) is asked a number of rhetorical questions which are easy to answer, although there is a growing morbidity to the different scenarios. In v. 8, the reader must agree that the roaring lion causes one to fear. But then the trap is revealed. The lion"s roar becomes a metaphor for divine speech and fear turns into prophecy. If one reads the text with the understanding that Amos is addressing Israel, then Amos is implying that they should begin to prophesy as he has done. But, of course, none of them truly understand that they are threatened themselves, even if they do agree with Amos" point in v. 6, that threatening situations are the work of YHWH. But the actual audience of the passage, the readers, must supply for the textual audience the answers to Amos" questions. They too, are caught in the logic of v. 8. But can the readers fulfil their prophetic obligation by reading and proclaiming the message of the book itself? Or are new revelations demanded¹²? The trap here forces the readers to judge their own relationship vis-а-vis the word of YHWH. As I will illustrate below, traps in the form of word-plays are set for Amos in chaps. 7 and 8. These, and the effects of identification with the character of Amos and the narratorial voice, and the resulting engagement with the divine will, result in the "ancient" prophecy being actualised in the reader"s own time: the reader does become a prophet, however vicariously, through Amos, the sheep-breeder from Tekoa.

Amos 7 to 9 has a number of features which enable it to be understood as a relatively independent phase in the book"s progression. The primary evidence that a new section begins with 7,1 are the introduction of the related pairs of vision reports and the switch to first-person reporting¹³. There is a sudden great emphasis on Amos, both in first-person reports of encounters with God, and in the form of a brief narrative set in Bethel (Amos 7,10-17). On the other hand, internal divisions are often made in chaps. 7-9. For instance, many see Amos 7,10-17 as intrusive, and a number of scholars treat 9,11-15 as something of an inauthentic appendage¹⁴.

From my point of view, however, the end cannot be divorced either from the book as a whole, or from the progression of the visions in particular. Indeed, the surprising (for some) happy prediction of the future completes what I feel is the whole point of the vision cycle, that of the merging of the voices of humanity and God.

Merely for the sake of convenience I will treat Amos 7-9 in discrete sub-sections, and this should not be mistaken for a formal structural analysis. The first section I will deal with embraces the first two visions, the other three each beginning with one of the remaining vision reports. In my view, the whole is well integrated, despite its jarring changes of scene. Neither should the isolation of Amos 7-9 for study here be taken to suggest that the section has little to do with the preceding text in terms of content or theme. On the contrary, the final component may be seen to be a great elaboration on Amos 3,7-8.

But my lord YHWH does nothing
without revealing his secret
to his servants the prophets.
A lion has roared;
who will not fear?
My lord YHWH has spoken;
who will not prophesy?

II. The First Visions: Amos" Intercession

The first two visions our prophet reports are almost identical in structure (7,1-3 and vv. 4-6). They open with Amos saying "This my lord YHWH showed me". We are, however, not told how or when Amos received his visions, and YHWH makes no explanation for them. Yahweh shows, but Amos speaks. Amos" use of the common interjection hnh "behold" solicits the reader"s active visualisation of the locust swarm being formed and attacking the "late planting" in the first vision (Amos 7,1)¹⁵. Again, "behold!" it was the crop which followed the "king"s mowing", the one which was apparently meant for the people (v.1)¹⁶. In the second vision, one"s attention is similarly directed to YHWH"s calling for a judgment by cosmic fire (v. 4)¹⁷. The active solicitation of the reader"s imagination is matched by Amos" own reactions. In the first case he exclaims "My Lord YHWH, forgive! How can Jacob stand? He is so small!"(7,2)¹⁸. God does relent. In v. 3 one reads, "God repented concerning this, "It shall not be", said YHWH".

In the second vision, Amos largely repeats the formula, but calls for God to "cease" ldx rather than forgive xls (7,5). While both have the same result, there is a qualitative difference. The locusts of the first vision are something fearful, but still worldly, familiar, and something which perhaps can be accommodated by an understanding of sin and punishment. But the cosmic fire which follows is beyond experience; an end of creation, which elicits the more primal response from Amos. God"s responses also differ subtly. "It shall not be" becomes, "This also shall not be" (7,6). Lyle Eslinger points out that this emphasizes God"s magnanimity, especially since the second vision is more terrible than the first, and yet it implies that this magnanimity will have its limits as well¹⁹.

This initial section establishes the tension and promise of the rest of the closing chapters of the book; it foreshadows the eventual reconciliation with Israel and yet sets the stage for the violent images of the intervening passages; the word will not be withheld.

III. Coercion and Suppression:
The Third Vision and the Bethel Encounter

The third vision (Amos 7,7-9) seems to begin in a way similar to the first two, but soon something new is encountered.

This he showed me: Behold, my lord was standing on a wall of )anak (Kn) probably tin or perhaps lead)²⁰ and in his hand (was) tin.
And YHWH said to me, "What do you see, Amos"?
And I said, "tin".
And my lord said, "See me setting )anak (sighing/myself) in the midst of my people Israel. Never again will I pass them by" (Amos 7,7-8).

Then is described how Israel"s sanctuaries will be destroyed and the house of Jeroboam vanquished by the sword (v. 9). The identification and significance of the Kn) is one of the most difficult linguistic issues in the book, as the term is used four times here and nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible. Many scholars now employ arguments from cognate languages to argue that it refers to the metal tin, and not, as was widely understood earlier, to a piece of lead used as a plummet, although this is still defended in some quarters. Others hold that the Akkadian cognate term may have referred to a variety of metallic substances²¹. To fairly estimate the problem is to admit that no solution is "perfect", as we simply do not know exactly what Kn) was. With the strong likelihood of multiple layers of symbolism in the material itself, not to mention the word-plays that can be made, any proposal is an over-simplification. What I propose here is a combination of two possible readings that take into account formal considerations.

Perhaps the tin wall and the piece of tin in YHWH"s hand represent perishability because of the softness of the metal, and its uselessness if not alloyed²². Others conceive tin as a reference to the alloy bronze, the metal used to manufacture weapons²³. Yet, the significance of the vision is not totally dependent on determining the symbolic meaning of the metallic item itself. Rather, it is to be found in the shift in the meaning of the term provided by YHWH"s response to Amos" answer. In this regard, the fourth vision (Amos 8,1-2) provides a close model²⁴. There, Amos identifies a basket of Cyq qays9 summer fruit only to have YHWH announce the end Cq qes9 of Israel. One, then, should expect a similar word-play in the third vision. The pronunciation of Kn) is similar to both xn) )anah9 "to sigh in grief" and qn) )anaq "to cry in distress"²⁵. By simply repeating the word uttered by Amos, YHWH plays on both other terms²⁶. The tin, then, stands as a metaphor of the suffering YHWH will inflict on Israel. Amos sees an object of tin, and YHWH declares that he will create cries of misery in the midst of Israel.

Another plausible word-play is perhaps the most interesting, that YHWH responds to Amos" identification of the tin with the statement that he will set himself in the midst of Israel, in which the final use of Kn) is a shortened form of ykn) )anoky, typically meaning "I"²⁷. Alan Cooper defends the reading by observing that a little-recognized feature of biblical Hebrew style solves the grammatical problem of the use of the first-person nominative pronoun as the object of a verb. It is, in fact, not a pronoun, but instead a divine epithet, in a fashion similar to the expression ykn) yx "by the life of I" or better, "by my life". Cooper gives no examples, but one can refer to Num 14,21; Isa 49,18; Jer 22,24; 46,18; Ezek 5,11; Zeph 2,9 among others, all of which feature the shorter, but equivalent form yn)-yx. He does add, however, that treating Kn) as a divine epithet makes for an ironic transformation of the divine presence, from being a positive force to a destructive one²⁸.

Cooper"s defence results in a stronger case than reading "I am setting you (Amos)...", as suggested by R. B. Coot and D. L. Petersen, since this leaves the orthography with only an ad hoc explanation²⁹. On the other hand, Cooper"s reading does not fully rule out the tin/sigh word-play. If a repeated word can undergo one transformation, there is no reason that it may not undergo more than one simultaneously. This vision, therefore, embraces a richer play with language than does the formally similar fourth. Moreover, the three occurrences of the term Kn) at the end of phrases in vv. 7, 8 parallel the position of the two occurrences of the root brx in v. 9, from which terms indicating "sword" and "be laid waste" are derived³⁰. These describe the fate that Israel suffers when YHWH sets himself in their midst and creates cries of distress in his own people.

The naming of the Kn) reverses Amos" intercessions of the first two visions. James Mays feels that God seizes the initiative from Amos by asking his question³¹. But the author does not inform us of Amos" feelings. Are we justified in feeling that Amos agreed with God"s judgment, or do we imagine still a prophet who would intercede if given the chance? In Amos 7,10-17, Amos confronts the priest of Bethel who seeks to silence him. Amos does flee his calling. Amos replies that he is a herdsman and a dresser of sycamore trees, and not a "prophet" or a "son of a prophet"³². Even so, he has been taken by YHWH in order to prophesy to Israel (v. 15).

Landy observes that regardless of the historical speculations about social roles referred to by Amos, he is here countering Amaziah"s self-aggrandising emphasis that Bethel is a royal institution with his own self-denigrating assertions. A mere cowherd can speak as well as a priest and even be chosen by YHWH³³. Against Amaziah"s assertion (v. 13) "For a sanctuary of a king (is) it; and a house of the kingdom (is) it" Amos delivers his own parallelistic description (v. 14):

No prophet (am) I
And no son of a prophet (am) I
But a cattle-breeder (am) I
And a gatherer of sycamore figs.

The repeated first person pronouns in Amos" answer, all at the end of their respective clauses, recall the repetition of the similar sounding Kn) in the third vision, the first three of which also each conclude a clause or sentence³⁴. But when Amos delivers his pronouncement, does he speak with violence and anger, or is there a note of tragedy, pity and regret in his voice? Eslinger writes that the Bethel episode tells of the conversion of Amos, in which Amos is convinced by the corruption of the priesthood and monarchy that intercession should be exchanged for judgment³⁵. The text may, however, also be interpreted as a crisis of forced resignation, one which reflects the parallel between the roaring lion and the speech of God, and the surrender to the trap of Amos" naming of the inscrutable Kn). The lion has roared (cf. Amos 3,8); prophecy is unavoidable. There is no appeal to God for mercy at Bethel, and no plea to Amaziah for repentance. Rather, Amos prophesies Amaziah"s doom for attempting to silence the word of God. The relationship between the prophet and God as the roaring lion of Amos 3,8 is not simply that of Amos acting as a spokesman. In Amos 3,12 we read, "As the shepherd rescues from the mouth of the lion two legs, or a piece of an ear, so shall the people who dwell in Samaria be rescued". What is Amos the herdsman"s reaction to the lion and the doomed flock? Prophecies and fear, yes, but pity and helplessness too? His predicament is on display in the Amaziah episode too, as noticed by Landy.

Amos is not a prophet, it is not a personal accomplishment or an innate gift; nothing can bestow it except YHWH. The denial of self-value disarms institutional pride; at the same time it calls into question the individual voice that responds to the visions. As himself, Amos is not a prophet; as himself, he protests; yet the protest itself is part of the prophetic experience³⁶.

Thus God has coerced a prophetic protest from Amos to Amaziah, and pre-empted a third prophetic protest to God himself. Yet, will the intercessory protests reassert themselves and even prove an effective control on divine action again?

The third-person voice in the narrative comes from somewhere other than Amos, the recipient of the visions. This other voice relates a story concerning the empirical world, not the mysterious encounters with the divine which mark the vision reports. Yet in the story"s incompleteness and the distancing of its ostensibly objective narrative voice, it appears as dream-like and as surreal as the visions. The author leaves much to the imagination. How did Amos experience his visions? Amaziah (somewhat inaccurately) paraphrases the third vision"s judgment against Jeroboam, but we are not provided with a description of Amos" delivery of the word against the king. What were the reactions of Amaziah and the king to Amos" refusal to leave? If the reader was hoping that the narrative would provide a biographical context for the visions, the hope was in vain; the story"s brevity, openness and inconclusiveness preclude this. The aura of strangeness and suspense created by this lack of closure is only increased when, in the next component, Amos returns to tell of his fourth vision.

IV. Words and Days

In the fourth vision (8,1-2) the reader is once again introduced to the symbolic duplicity of words. In this case, however, the word-play is not just suggested, it is explicit. Amos sees a basket of summer fruit, Cyq qays9, but upon identifying it, YHWH announces the end Cq qes9 of Israel. The miserable sounds of grieving predicted with the setting of the Kn) in Israel (7,8) are intimated here too, as the songs of the temple are transformed into wailing (8,3). The sword which strikes down the house of the king in the Bethel story (7,9) prefigures the many corpses God will cast out in Amos 8,3. In this fourth vision, the intent of the third is reinforced, and yet the theme of punishment has progressed. Rather than predict the end of the shrines of Isaac, the sanctuaries of Israel, and the house of Jeroboam (Amos 7,9, matters reintroduced by Amaziah, in 7,10-13), the fourth vision attacks the people directly. The subsequent oracles give reasons for this: social injustice has motivated God"s action (8,4-6).

Although the vision initially returns to Amos" first-person reports, the narrative sequence is not maintained. God"s speech is introduced in v. 2 with conventional narrative constructions: "And he said", followed by "And YHWH said to me". In the next verse, however, the formula "Oracle M)n of my lord YHWH" (8,3, and also vv. 9,11) is used to identify divine speech. This formula serves to legitimize the statements made as coming from God, but does not necessarily imply narrative connections with the preceding. The insertion of the oracle formula in v. 3 blurs the relationship of the prophecy of corpses to the preceding passage in which YHWH speaks to Amos. By setting the speeches of God as oracles rather than as obvious components of Amos" narration of his visionary experiences, Amos becomes almost invisible, except to acknowledge the source of words the readers find before them. Outside of the vision and the oracle formulas, Amos is found perhaps only in v. 7 where YHWH is spoken of in the third person, but even here YHWH may be referring to himself. The legitimizing of the statements of God through the oracle formula carries more weight than the reported experiences of the prophet; the focus has shifted from Amos himself to the elaboration of the words of doom he has been tricked into uttering.

A significant theme in chap. 8 is the contrast between speech, divine and human, and silence. This, of course, recalls the dispute with Amaziah, but now the prophet"s right to speak is no longer at issue. Yet, there are demands for silence. Amos 8,3 may be read as "many are the corpses, in every place he has cast. Silence!". The identity of the speaker of this line with its interjection, "Silence!", is unclear, as are its addressees³⁷. Like the first object Amos had to identity, however, it is a rich ambiguity. YHWH seems to be the one speaking, given the oracle formula preceding and the divine speech following, and he seemingly demands silent awe from the survivors before the casting out of the dead. The interjection may be YHWH"s ironic comment to the dead themselves; they would certainly obey this command. But this word may be from a different, anonymous voice; perhaps the prophet"s, expressing his reaction to the spectacle of horror he cannot stop. Is it a warning to himself not to interfere? Or perhaps a vain, or sarcastic attempt to gain some peace and quiet from the wailing created by God"s punishment in v. 3a? Has he given up interceding, and demanding forgiveness and cessation from God, only to demand silence from God"s victims when he himself is coerced into declaring their doom? The lack of specific determination is not disruptive, but rather unifying. For Landy, the speaker is YHWH, distancing himself by speaking in the third person; or perhaps the divine voice has merged with that of the prophet³⁸. Landy also points out that the order for silence recalls in reverse Amaziah"s attempt to silence the divine word³⁹.

Even so, the interjection may be God"s, predicting the words of the howling women, who cannot remain quiet for all their suffering, and yet cannot bear living human voices in view of the silent dead. This reading makes sense in view of 6,9-10, in which the survivors of divine punishment forbid the uttering of the name of YHWH.

Verse 3"s "Silence" also provides a catchword to the initial phrase in v. 4, "Hear this". The accent on speaking is continued throughout the section. The corruption of Israel"s traders is illustrated by quoting their desires that they may soon resume their exploitation (8,4-6). YHWH"s vow not to forget the sins of the corrupt is followed by an echo of the preceding vision with the transformation of songs into laments (v. 10). Next there is a prophecy of a famine of the word of YHWH, which again reflects the Bethel episode in which such a lack was desired (vv. 11-12)⁴⁰. Now a search for the divine word will be vain. With so many corpses, YHWH himself is silent. But as much as the divine word will be withdrawn, so too has the author withdrawn the prophet; his presence is not implied in the series of oracles. The effect of the call to silence and the absence of the prophet from the text centres the reader"s attention on the judgment itself. And so, perhaps the collocation of "Silence!" and "Hear this" is directed to the reader as much as any character.

In the subsequent passage, the immediacy of the visions is supplanted by the vision of a future day. The longing of the corrupt traders for the Sabbath rest to end (v. 5) is set against a day envisioned by YHWH. "On that day", he says, the women shall howl (v. 3). "On that day", the sun will set; the earth will be darkened "on a bright day" (v. 9). The people shall mourn as on a "bitter day" (v. 10). "Days are coming" when the divine voice shall not be found (v. 11). "On that day", the young shall faint from thirst (v. 13). A vision of a future day and a coming time close the book, but here it is one of salvation and security (9,11-15, see especially v. 11 "On that day", and v. 13 "Days are coming"). Back in chap. 8"s oracles, it is only the possessives attached to the formula "oracle of my lord YHWH" in vv. 3.9.11 that imply the continued presence of the prophet who spoke in the first person in the vision. Yet, since these are outside of an obvious narratorial framework, one might see these possessives spoken in earnest by both the character and the reader.

"My lord" is the god of the reader as much as it is the god of Amos. The text speaks of a time in the reader"s future, and so by reading, the prophecy is delivered once again. This is all the more ironic in view of the prediction of the silence of YHWH on that terrible day. A similar irony is found in Amos 3,3-8; the lion roars, but who understands this as the voice of YHWH? Who dares to prophesy?

V. Destruction and Salvation: The Final Vision and the Final Act

If Amos is supplanted through the course of chap. 8, he does however make one more appearance, in chap. 9, which begins with the fifth vision report (vv. 1-4). As in the previous cases, no setting for this vision is given, although perhaps, from the context, it might be taken to be the Bethel sanctuary. Amos reports that he sees "My lord" by the altar, ordering the capitals to be struck and the foundations shaken. Those who escape the destruction, YHWH vows to slay. The next few verses (vv. 5-6) show a change from the reported speech of God to a doxology concerning the divine power over creation. In vv 7-10, YHWH again speaks, this time promising to destroy the sinful kingdom while still leaving a remnant. In the final subsection, Amos 9,11-15, the restoration of Israel is promised.

Rather than reporting that he was shown something by God, as in the previous visions, Amos simply reports that he sees God standing on the altar, and that the deity gives a chilling command (Amos 9,1). "Strike the capitals so that the thresholds will shake"⁴¹. This first person speech is the most direct reference to the prophet in the whole chapter. The possessive on "lord" appears in 9,5"s doxology, but here, as before, this may serve to forge a link between character and reader. It is interesting that both 7,7 and 9,1 use "my lord" as the subject of "stand on/beside", and in the same way⁴². Although formally the third vision is most similar to the fourth, its links with the fifth are strong enough to warrant a brief exploration⁴³. The key is the frequent (but certainly not exclusive) reference to structures and the use of expressions which recall buildings, even if they are used in context with different meanings. In vision three YHWH stands on or by a wall (7,7). Isaac"s high places, Israel"s sanctuaries, and Jeroboam"s dynasty or household (lit. "house" tyb) shall all be swept away (v. 9). In the following narrative this tendency is found as well. In v. 10, the priest of Bethel (lit. House of God) reports that Amos is conspiring against him in the "midst of the house of Israel". Verse 13 reports the attempted banishment from Bethel, the "king"s sanctuary" and "royal palace". Amos responds by recalling the ban against prophesying against Israel and the "house of Isaac" (v. 16). In chap. 8 such references to architecture are not found, except that the palace singers are mentioned in v. 3. In chap. 9, however, the scene again revolves around architecture, primarily temples and their furnishings. The altar, capitals and thresholds are mentioned in v. 1. This imagery is not immediately continued, but after the great prediction of divine wrath extending to Sheol and Heaven, mountain top and seabed (vv. 2-4), the doxology of vv. 5-6 ironically inverts the destruction of v. 1"s temple, by asserting that the destroying god is no other than YHWH: "Who built his chamber in the heavens, and founded his vault upon the earth" (v. 6). The links with the cosmic architecture in v. 6 suggest that it is an idealised heavenly temple which is in view in v. 1, or at least the connections between the earthly and heavenly sanctuaries are being recognised⁴⁴. Although the earthly counterpart may, perhaps, be here thought of as Bethel, its destruction only serves to maintain the integrity and sacrality of the heavenly ideal. Even so, perhaps something of greater significance is indicated, since the verb "to shake" #(r (9,1) is the same root as found in 1,1 which dates Amos" prophesying to two years before the earthquake #(rh. In 1,2, Amos describes YHWH"s voice as roaring from Zion and Jerusalem. Perhaps in Amos 9,1, one should think that it is the Jerusalem temple that is being discussed. Although Samaria and the North are the focus of much of the book, Judah hardly gets off scot-free (cf. 2,4-5, while the whole of Israel is obviously being discussed in 3,1-2, and also in 2,9-13)⁴⁵. Ultimately, it is the mysterious "Booth of David" dywd tks that will be raised when YHWH is reconciled to his purged people (9,11)⁴⁶.

The interactive role Amos had in the previous visions is not found in the fifth. Other than witness the spectacle, Amos does nothing: he does not speak, either in protest or response. The mediating role of the locusts and fire, and the ensnaring ambiguity of the Kn) and the fruit basket are replaced with the direct order that the temple is to be destroyed. The identity of the one to whom God speaks is not specified, but again the ambiguity seems deliberate. The command may be simply rhetorical, to confront the reader with the violence of God"s judgment by an allusion to the armies which would sweep the kingdom away⁴⁷. The command may be directed at Amos, but some suggest it is impossible that this be the case, as a man could not be expected to do the damage which was ordered. To solve this perceived problem, emendations to the text have been suggested which result in God striking the temple, or at least indicating that he will⁴⁸. Such emendations are quite unjustified, and stem from an overly literalistic reading of the text. The order to strike may be symbolic of the delivery of the word. Andersen and Freedman retain the imperative by seeing the vocative as some unnamed agent, possibly the metaphorical serpent and sword which are commanded in Amos 9,3-4. In any case, for Andersen and Freedman, the matter is of little consequence, as they write, "The command is the deed, and ultimately in the OT the word is itself its fulfilling event, the agent by which verbal statement becomes physical and historical event: substantive, real"⁴⁹. Still, I suspect that it is Amos, the narrator and spectator who is to actualise the destructive, self-fulfilling word; but if or how Amos set the word in motion, the text does not say⁵⁰. Indeed, the report of Amos may be for the benefit of the reader in the extra-textual world, who is hereby charged, at least symbolically, to wreak the destruction demanded.

The response to the speech of God in the first four verses is the doxology, or hymnic passage, of vv. 5-6. Here the prophet is not introduced, or another speaker implied, except for the "my lord" in v. 5. The sole concern of the narrator is with the might and transcendence of God. The fire of the second vision is found here in YHWH"s power to touch the earth and make it melt, but there is no intercessor. Here, however, there is deliberate celebration of the name and attributes of YHWH, in direct defiance, it seems of the interjection of 6,10. YHWH"s touching of the earth seems to be the model for the imperative to strike the capitals of the temple. Amos 9,5 also recalls the shaking of the earth like the Nile"s rise and fall in 8,8. Yet, 9,6 contrasts the human temple with the divine one YHWH constructed linking heaven and earth. His control of the waters of the sea, to pour them over the land, recalls the flood and so surpasses the earlier references to the Nile.

The content of the remaining block of text, Amos 9,7-15, is devoted to the words of God, which are now given without reference to, or implication of, a prophet or other speaker who needs symbolic objects or self-reference to accomplish his task. Ironically, that task has been reversed; it now speaks of an end to the punishment, an end for which Amos pleaded when he spoke with his own voice. This progression towards unity portrays a god whose anger is of such frightening proportions that it can only be expressed in images of total destruction, and yet who stops short of carrying it out. The assertions of 9,8-10, that the sinful will fall, suggest that the text has found a solution to the paradox of the transcendent power to destroy and the empathy of immanence. But, perhaps, this solution was implicit from the start: Amos declaring the mind of God with his own words "forgive" and "cease"; words heeded by God at the beginning and echoed at the end of the cycle. Yet, the unity is not attained until Amos responds with words of the divine anger, and so Amos is led into the trap of the symbolic visions: the lion roars, Amos speaks. The words seem to consume our character Amos, he no longer expresses his own thoughts. Our prophet, as implied author, has written himself out of the text. Now, only the words of God are left. In 9,7, Israel itself is addressed, but gone are the possessives on the oracle formula. In vv. 7, 8 and 13 we read only "Oracle of YHWH", not "Oracle of my lord YHWH". Still, the reader must give voice to these words but it is a more merciful God with whom the reader may now identify, and presumably, this makes identification an easier task. Amos" earlier intercession has seemingly attained its goal.

In my view, the character of the prophet is used as a tool within these few chapters to aid in the reader"s self-identification in the text, to feel the terror of the divine word. Amos is a tool of the writers, and is a role assumed by the reader. He is posited as the implied author and speaker in 1,1-2, but it is the reader who imagines him throughout the rest of the first six chapters. In the vision reports, however, the reader is largely free to imagine this role as one wishes. In chapter seven, though, the persona "Amos" has a concrete presence. The reader is no longer in charge: one must see what Amos sees, and not just quote the divine words. Yet, Amos is not in charge either. His intercession is one of desperation, his proclamation of doom the result of subterfuge, of divine compulsion. The ease at which the readers may have assimilated themselves to the prophetic role in chaps. 1-6 is now rendered problematic. Amos has become more than a "role" for the reader to assume, he has become an embodiment of human pathos and frailty. With this, do the readers confront their own terror at meeting God; on delivering judgment on one"s own; of defying human authority? But having driven home these aspects of the prophetic mission, our alter ego, Amos, is withdrawn from view. But now God is willing once again to turn, to forgive, and to cease.

Whatever the historical events underlying the book, the final three chapters create an image of human confrontation with the divine in all its terrors. But the producers are not content to leave things with this, and the book is concluded with the suggestion that another aspect of this confrontation must be dealt with. Here the remote oracle formula is gone, gone is the ambivalent "my lord".

The writers confront their readers with God"s direct speech, which draws them into its own implied narrative. It is done subtly and brilliantly, with the final syllable, a final possessive. And so the book of Amos ends with a direct address to the reader, and, should the reader identify completely with Amos and the imperative to prophesy suggested in the visions and 3,3-8, the reader closes with a prophetic promise to Israel.

I will plant them on their land,
and never again shall they be rooted out
from their land which I have given them
says the Lord your God (9,15).
Mkyhl) hwhy rm)

SUMMARY

The final chapters of Amos are read synchronically to highlight the relationship between the divine voice, which demands that its hearers prophesy (Amos 3,8), the voice of Amos, and those of other characters. Amos" intercessions soon give way to entrapping word-plays and these are related to the rhetorical "traps" in Amos 1-2. Divine and prophetic speech defy the wish of human authority that they be silent. The figure of Amos eventually disappears from the reader"s view, but not before the prophet has been used as a focal point for the readers" projections of themselves into the literary world of the text. As the scenes change from ultimate destruction to restoration, the readers appropriate the prophetic voice themselves, especially in the final verse which ends with a declaration of security uttered by "your God".

Notes:

^* I am grateful to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for the research fellowship under which this paper was completed.

¹ The key issues are Amos" social class and position as some sort of an agriculturist, and his relationship to a structured institution of prophecy. The bibliography on these issues is long, but these matters do not really impact the present work. For an excellent review of current work on Amos, and the growing trend to synchronic readings, see R.F. MELUGIN, "Amos in Recent Research", CR:BS 6 (1998) 65-101.

² Cf. 1,8; 3,7.8.11.13; 4,2.5; 5,3.16; 6,8; 7,1.2.4.5.6.7.8; 8,1.3.11; 9,1.8 (some feature the construction hwhy ynd) my/the lord YHWH, the most common name for God in Amos). Scholars differ as to whether the possessive is to be understood in the expression, some varying their own readings as context demands, e.g. J.H. HAYES, Amos: The Eighth Century Prophet. His Times and His Preaching (Nashville 1988) 85, 127; H.W. WOLFF, Joel and Amos (Hermeneia; Philadelphia 1977) 130, 291-294. The presence or absence of the epithet as well as the possessive particle on the final word of the book seem to imply some poetic force, as I will describe below. Moreover, in 4,1, the "cows of Bashan" are accused of impropriety by asking "their lords" Mhynd) (note masculine suffix) to bring them drink. In the very next verse, "(my) Lord YHWH" vows to punish them. The contrast in the two verses suggests to me that the divine title should be read with a possessive here and elsewhere.

³ The pun here on Amos" name swm( with "burden" sm( is intended, although I am not suggesting the character"s name carries particular connotations in the book.

⁴ This is, of course, without denying the importance of historical studies, or of the importance of the methodological debates surrounding this field of research.

⁵ W.B. STANFORD, Enemies of Poetry (London 1980) 142-146, comments on the prevalence of "The Documentary Fallacy", in studies of classical poetry: the view that it is fallacious to speculate about what is not explicitly stated in a literary text (e.g., about the mother of King Lear"s children, who is not mentioned in the play). He writes that it cannot be taken as proved that a work of literature has no depth behind its own presentation.

⁶ E.g., A.G. AULD, "Prophets Through the Looking Glass: Between Writings and Moses", JSOT 27 (1983) 3-23; E. CONRAD, "The End of Prophecy and the Appearance of Angels/Messengers in the Book of the Twelve", JSOT 73 (1997) 65-79; W.M. SCHNIEDEWIND, The Word of God in Tradition. From Prophet to Exegete in the Second Temple Period (JSOTSS 197; Sheffield 1995).

⁷ B. BEIT-HALLAHMI, "Religion as Art and Identity", Religion 16 (1986) 1-17.

⁸ BEIT-HALLAHMI, "Religion as Art", 8. See also P. DIXON - M. BORTOLUSSI, "Literary Communication: Effects of Reader-Narrator Cooperation", Poetics 23 (1996) 405-430, on the manipulation of the reader by capitalising on the identification by readers with the narratorial voice and the characters who are close to that voice"s point of view.

⁹ R. ALTER, The Art of Biblical Poetry (New York 1985) 144. This expression has been used to illuminate Amos 1-2 by R.B. CHISHOLM, Jr., ""For Three SinsјEven for Four". The Numerical Sayings in Amos", BSac 147 (1990) 188; M.D. CARROLL R., Contexts for Amos. Prophetic Poetics in Latin American Perspectives (JSOTSS 132; Sheffield 1992) 179, 192, sees a trap being set throughout all of Amos 3-6 as God"s point of view begins to claim absolute authority.

¹⁰ Very many scholars notice this, but see the rhetoric working against the historical prophet"s audience. See D.A. DORSEY, "Literary Architecture and Aural Structuring Techniques in Amos", Bib 73 (1992) 306-307; S.M. PAUL, "Amos 1.3-2.3: A Concatenous Literary Pattern", JBL 90 (1971) 397-403. On the "x/x+1" pattern, see the excellent bibliography in R.H. O"CONNELL, "Telescoping N+1 Patterns", VT 46 (1996) 59. F.I. ANDERSEN - D.N. FREEDMAN, Amos: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 24; New York 1989) xxviii-xxix, 215, 335, correctly observe how the recollections of the pre-monarchic time make vv. 9-13 relevant to both Judah and Israel and suspect that vv. 14-16 could also be addressed to the other six nations mentioned in the oracles. P. NOBLE, "Israel Among the Nations", Horizons in Biblical Theology 15 (1993) 71, concurs regarding vv. 9-12.

¹¹ That a question is being asked is entertained from time to time. See, for instance, T. MURAOKA, Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew (Leiden 1985) 113-118, who, however, does not give his own translation of the expression. On the suffix referring to the named nations, see especially the influential paper of M.L. BARRЙ, "The Meaning of l) )s\ybnw in Amos 1:3-2:6" JBL 105 (1986) 618-631.

¹² Notice that immediately following 3,8 there are orders to "proclaim" to foreign nations that they should muster to see Israel"s sin. This gives the reader"s own prophetic persona a "mission" to accomplish as they imagine themselves in the fictive, literary world. This is reinforced in v. 13, where there is a call to "hear and testify".

¹³ This is widely recognised. For instance, A. VAN DER WAL, "The Structure of Amos", JSOT 26 (1983) 107-113, makes a division between chaps. 6 and 7. ANDERSEN - FREEDMAN, Amos, analyse the book according to four main sections, the last two, the so-called "Book of Visions"(Amos 7,1-9,6) and the "Epilogue" (Amos 9,7-15) spanning the subject text of this paper. Most do subdivide chaps. 7-9. DORSEY, "Literary Architecture", 328, breaks them up into two sections, but makes a break at the end of Amos 8,4. For a critique of many structural analyses, and the historical-literary work on Amos, see E. R. WENDLAND, ""The Word of the Lord" and the Organization of Amos", Occasional Papers in Translation and Textlinguistics 2 (1988) 1-51.

¹⁴ Such is the judgment of WOLFF, Joel and Amos, 352-353; J.L. MAYS, Amos (OTL; London 1969) 163-166; R. MARTIN-ARCHARD, "A Commentary on the Book of Amos", R. MARTIN-ARCHARD - S.P. RE"EMI, God"s People in Crisis (ITC; Edinburgh 1984) 66-67; J. JEREMIAS, The Book of Amos: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville 1998) 162; J.A. SOGGIN, The Prophet Amos. A Translation and Commentary (London 1987) 148-150. Among those thinking Amos composed 9,7-15 are HAYES, Amos, 223-228 and S.M. PAUL, Amos (Minneapolis 1991) 289-290.

¹⁵ The participle rcwy "forming" has generated a great amount of debate, in part stimulated by text critical concerns. See PAUL, Amos, 226. Yahweh is not actually specified as subject, but many scholars see the implication as too strong in view of the parallels with 7,4, e.g., ANDERSEN - FREEDMAN, Amos, 614. On the other hand, WOLFF, Joel and Amos, 294, is one of those who maintain the anonymity of the subject. Others prefer to read the MT verb as a passive, i.e., the swarm of locusts "was forming", e.g., SOGGIN, Amos, 112.

¹⁶ As is the opinion of most scholars, e.g., MAYS, Amos, 127-128; E. HAMMERSHAIMB, The Book of Amos. A Commentary (Oxford 1970) 109. PAUL, Amos, 227, reads the verse as indicating that the late planting takes place before the king"s portion is reaped, thus the insects have it all.

¹⁷ Only one "behold" is found here, paralleling the first use in v. 1. The reference to the divine action #)b brl )rq is troublesome to many. PAUL, Amos, 226, reads "summoning a judgment by fiery heat", and a basically similar reading is found in HAYES, Amos, 203, and J. LIMBURG, "Amos 7:4: A Judgment with Fire?", CBQ 35 (1973) 346-349. HAMMERSHAIMB, Amos, 110, has Yahweh call to the fire for judgment. A number would emend it to replace "contend" with "rain" or "shower" of fire. WOLFF, Joel and Amos, 292; JEREMIAS, Amos, 123; D.R. HILLERS, "Amos 7:4 and Ancient Parallels", CBQ 26 (1964) 221-225.

¹⁸ PAUL, Amos, 229, provides some useful parallels for ym as "how" instead of "who", and presents some text critical issues, such as the LXX that avoids the problem by seeing Jacob as the object, "who will raise up Jacob?"

¹⁹ L. ESLINGER, "The Education of Amos", HAR 11 (1987) 39-40.

²⁰ There is no consensus as to the force of the preposition l( "on", "beside" etc. SOGGIN, Amos, 115, and MAYS, Amos, 131, read "beside"; WOLFF, Joel and Amos, 293, "on"; HAMMERSHAIMB, Amos, 111, "over". A similar question presents itself in the fifth vision (9,1), with God either on or beside the altar. While there may be no end to the debate, the reading of "on" offers a more terrible image of YHWH: already intimidating, his appearance is more frightful given the added impact of his standing on top of walls and, ultimately, the altar, as noted by WOLFF, Joel and Amos, 339.

²¹ See the discussion in M. WEIGLE, "Eine "unendliche Geschichte": Kn) (Am 7,7-8)", Bib 76 (1995) 343-387. H.G.M. WILLIAMSON, "The Prophet and the Plumbline: A Redaction-Critical Study of Amos 7", In Quest of the Past. Studies on Israelite Religion, Literature and Prophetism (ed. A.S. VAN DER WOUDE) (OTS 26; Leiden 1990) 101-121, defends the reading of "plumbline".

²² B. LANDSBERGER, "Tin and Lead: The Adventures of Two Vocables" JNES 24 (1965) 287. Some emend away the term"s first appearance, qualifying the wall on the opinion that it represents a scribal error. See WOLFF, Joel and Amos, 293-294; HAMMERSHAIMB, Amos, 111-112. Note that Jer 1,18 and 15,20 speak of the prophet"s invulnerability as a "wall of bronze".

²³ E.g., H. GESE, "Komposition bei Amos", Congress Volume Vienna 1980 (ed. J. A. EMERTON) (VTS 32; Leiden 1981) 81-82, followed by AULD, Amos (OTG; Sheffield 1986) 20.

²⁴ ANDERSEN - FREEDMAN, 759; A. COOPER, "The Meaning of Amos"s Third Vision (Am 7:7-9)", Tehillah le-Moshe. Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg (eds. M. COGAN - B.L. EICHLER - J.H. TIGAY) (Winona Lake, IN 1997) 16-18.

²⁵ ANDERSEN - FREEDMAN, Amos, 754, 756-759, note that the Talmud (bM 59a) takesKn) in 7,8 to mean "grief", "wrong" or "oppression".

²⁶ COOPER, "Amos" Third Vision", 17, regards a play with the noun hxn) "groan" to be unsatisfactory because its pronunciation is not as close to Kn) as the word-play requires. But the final consonant on Kn) is pronounced between the relatively soft final letter of xn) and the harder sound of qn), as noted by GESE, "Komposition", 81-82 and AULD, Amos, 20. Cooper does not discuss these two other terms.

²⁷ F. PRAETORIUS, "Bemerkungen zu Amos," ZAW 35 (1915) 23; see also R.B. COOTE, Amos among the Prophets. Composition and Theology (Philadelphia 1981) 92-93. JEREMIAS, Amos, 132-133, refers to the Ishtar hymn, col. 41, lines 23-24, as containing a similar word-play, citing A. FALKENSTEIN, "Summerische religiцse Texte", ZA 56 (1964) 76.

²⁸ COOPER, "Amos"s Third Vision", 19-21.

²⁹ Cf. COOTE, Amos, 93, who thus offers a dual meaning in YHWH"s response (see note 28 above). In this second instance, he takes our troublesome word as an admittedly ungrammatical suffix "you" on the preceding verb, without explaining the presence of the ). D.L. PETERSEN, The Roles of Israel"s Prophets (JSOTSS 17; Sheffield 1981) 77-78, does not consider the ) to be problematic, as it may be a scribal error.

³⁰ F. LANDY, "Vision and Poetic Speech in Amos", HAR 2 (1987) 230.

³¹ MAYS, Amos, 132.

³² Amos" reply is the subject of much discussion which cannot be surveyed here. This debate addresses the social roles "prophet"" and "son of a prophet" and the force of the two attestations of the particle )l.

³³ LANDY, "Vision", 237, followed by ESLINGER, "The Education of Amos", 46 n. 28. See also F.O. GARCIA-TRETO, "A Reader-Response Approach to Prophetic Conflict: The Case of Amos 7.10-17", The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible (eds. CHERYL EXUM - D.J.A. CLINES) (Valley Forge, PA reprint edn. 1993) 121-123.

³⁴ LANDY, "Vision", 236.

³⁵ ESLINGER, "The Education of Amos", 48-49.

³⁶ LANDY, "Vision", 238.

³⁷ Some have difficulties with sh Kyl#h (lit. "he has cast, silence"). MAYS, Amos, 140, emends to Mkyl#h, "in every place they are cast out". The RSV reads, "In every place they shall be cast out in silence". sh is, however, best thought of as an interjection as this is the most frequent use. In Amos 6,10 a call is made not to invoke the name of YHWH. See also the call for silence before YHWH in Zech 2,17 and Zeph 1,7. Eglon uses it in Judg 3,19 when he wishes to hear Ehud"s message. Nehemiah 8,11 uses an imperative form to call for silence on a holy day. Numbers 13,30 is unique, as Caleb is said to quiet the Israelites before encouraging them to attack Canaan.

³⁸ LANDY, "Vision", 231-232.

³⁹ LANDY, "Vision", 238.

⁴⁰ And 2,11-12 in which Israel is accused of silencing the prophets that YHWH had given them.

⁴¹ This is, admittedly, a difficult passage. K.J. CATHCART, "Ro4s\, "Poison", in Amos IX 1", VT 44 (1994) 393-395, on the strength of Ugaritic incantations against snakes, as well as many inner biblical comparisons, would emend the text to read, "I shall slay them all with poison, and I shall kill their children with the sword".

⁴² Some find it difficult that YHWH would stand on the altar. Regardless of the anthropomorphism involved in the fantastic vision, one should not limit the power of the imagery by such "human" restrictions. PAUL, Amos, 274, reads "beside", as does MAYS, Amos, 153; whilst WOLFF, Joel and Amos, 336, reads "on", noting the terrifying imagery this gives.

⁴³ Of the differences between the final and previous visions, WOLFF, Joel and Amos, 337-338, observes that the differences highlight that the fifth is the climax of the series.

⁴⁴ ANDERSEN - FREEDMAN, Amos, 845-846, point out that 9,6 is speaking of the whole of the heavens as God"s dwelling, but this represents the heavenly temple.

⁴⁵ See note 11 above.

⁴⁶ Again, there is some debate, and that it is "fallen" suggests to some (but certainly not all) a post-monarchic date of composition. WOLFF, Joel and Amos, 353, sees here a reference to Jerusalem, while MAYS, Amos, 164, and PAUL, Amos, 290, find symbolic reference to the Davidic empire.

⁴⁷ MAYS, Amos, 153, citing Amos 3,9, Isa 13,2 and Jer 5,10.

⁴⁸ The lack of a vocative, the inability of Amos to actually shatter the temple and the high level of anthropomorphism lead WOLFF, Joel and Amos, 334, to rearrange and emend the text of Amos 9,1 to read, "I saw my Lord standing on the altar; [ ] [He smote] the capital so that the thresholds shook. [Then He said] "[I will cleave] the head...""; SOGGIN, Amos, 119-120, would also emend the text. He offers, "He said to me, I will shatter violently the capitals...". Soggin admits, however, that the text is not nonsensical as it has been preserved, and so one may question why any emendation should be deemed necessary.

⁴⁹ ANDERSEN - FREEDMAN, Amos, 839.

⁵⁰ ESLINGER, "The Education of Amos", 53-54.