First published in: Cox, G. M. The 'Hymn' of Amos: an Ancient Flood!arrati"e.

Journal for
the Study of the Old Testament #ol $%.& '()&$*: %&&)%.
The 'Hymn' of Amos: an Ancient Flood!arrati"e.
Abstract
A comparison of Amos with Sumerian City-Lament (SCL) reveals it was probably used as Amos'
literary-template. Amos also contains references to the Flood used as a covenant-curse to warn
!srael of her treaty violations. ! compare these Flood passa"es #.$%& '.()*& (.(& *.')+ (described
by scholars as 'hymnic') with SCL ,enesis' Flood account and -ob *.'-$. a similar Flood-li/e
hymn in order to determine common vocabulary and themes. Analy0in" the Amos hymn's
vocabulary roots reveals an ancient narrative source. 12ploration of the passa"e's literary
connections to Amos in terms of a 'flood covenant-curse' demonstrates why such literature was
utili0ed. ! also discuss my new proposal that Amos' hymn should be e2tended to incorporate a
fra"ment at 3.#.
+ey,ords
Ancient 4ear 1ast (A41) Covenant treaty-curse Flood 5apa2-Le"omenon (5L) 6assoretic 7e2t
(67) Septua"int 7e2t (L88) seismic-theophany Sumerian City-Lament (SCL) waw-consecutive.
-ntroduction
Amos of 7e/oa& !srael's first 'writin"-prophet' (circa 3'. 9.C.)& erupts onto the pa"es of 9iblical
history& prophesyin" a"ainst !srael -udah and surroundin" nations callin" for repentance two years
before 'the earth:ua/e' struc/ ($;$) thus authenticatin" Amos' messa"e.
$
Amos' earth:ua/e became
'synchronous with the introduction of <seismic theophany< ima"ery into 5ebrew literature with the
appearance of the '=ay of the Lord' eschatolo"ical motif...'
>
.
$ ?aul S.6. $**$. A Commentary on the Book of Amos. 5ermeneia Au"sbur" Fortress @SA p. %+.
> Austin S. Fran0 ,.A. Frost 1.,. >.... Amos' Earthquake: An Extraordinary Middle East Seismic Event of 75
B!C! !nternational ,eolo"y Beview #>;3 pp. +'3-+3$ (+'3).
Fresh insi"hts have been "ained from studyin" Sumerian City-Laments (SCLs) and their relation to
the writin"-prophets.
%
A comparison of Amos with SCL reveals it was probably utili0ed as a
'literary-template'. Amos also illustrated his prophecy by :uotin" passa"es describin" the Flood in
order to warn !srael of the covenant-curses resultin" from treaty-violations. ! offer a new proposal
that a fra"ment of this hymn also occurs at 3.#. ! present my translation of Amos' hymn below.
#
#.$% a LoC 9eholdC
b 5e formed mountains
c 5e created wind
d 5e declared Adam's thou"hts
e 6a/in" dawn into dar/ness
f 5e trod down the hi"h-places of the earth
" "YHWH# elohe sebaot semo$
'.( a 5e formed %ima and %esil&
b And overthrew mornin" into the shadow of death
c 6a/in" day dar/ as ni"ht.
d 5e called for the waters of the ocean
e And poured them out upon the face of the earth&
f "YHWH# semo$
% 5illers =.B. $**>. &amentations! 7he Anchor 9ible 4ew Dor/ =oubleday& =obbs-Allsopp F.A. $**%. 'ee() *
+au,hter of -ion: A Study of the City.&ament /enre in the 0e1re2 Bi1le! 1ditrice ?ontificio !stituto 9iblico Boma&
?etter =.L. >..*. 3he Book of E4ekiel: 5atterned after a Meso(otamian City &ament6 ?h= dissertation =epartment
of 4ear and 6iddle 1astern Civili0ations @niversity of 7oronto pp. $->%$& Li-Chiou L.!. >.$>. SC&s and
&amentations in the 0e1re2 Bi1le! 6A dissertation 9oston @niversity School of 7heolo"y& Badine -. >.$.. 3he
Book of Amos in Emer,ent 7udah! ,ermany 6ohr Siebec/& 6c=aniel 7.F. $*+(. 3he Alle,ed Sumerian 8nfluence
u(on &amentations! Eetus 7estamentum Eol. $(F> pp. $*(->.*.
# All 5ebrew definitions and ref. numbers are ta/en from; 9rown F. =river S.B. 9ri""s C.A. $*.3. A 0e1re2 and
En,lish &exicon of the *ld 3estament. G2ford; Clarendon ?ress. (Source; 9ibleAor/sH (..).
'.* a Flashin"-forth devastation upon the stron"
b =evastatin" their defenses.
3.# a Lo 9eholdC
b adonay "YHWH#
c Called for Iud"ment by fire
d Ahich consumed the ,reat =eep
e And consumed its portion.
(.( a =id not the earth :ua/e for thisJ
b And all its inhabitants lamentJ
c All thin"s arose li/e the li"ht
d And all was e2pelled permeated and subsided
e Li/e the Biver of Misrayim
*.' a adonay "YHWH# sebaot$
b 5e struc/ the earth and it melted
c And all its inhabitants lamented&
d 1verythin" arose li/e the Biver
e And subsided li/e the Biver of Misrayim.
*.+ a 5e built ascendin"-ascents into heaven
b And plumes from beneath earth's foundations.
c 5e called for the waters of the ocean
d And poured them out upon the face of the earth
e "YHWH# semo$
Amos Contains Hymnic Material.
Criticisms focusin" on these verses' differences in style compared to Amos have lar"ely been settled
by reco"ni0in" they possess 'participles characteristic of hymnic-measure'.
'
Scholars opinions are
diverse that these verses could represent two or three hymns or one hymn havin" two-four
different strophes. 5owever due to similarities of the verses participles and that *.+ repeats '.(
one is 'forced' to thin/ in terms of one hymn due to shared formal characteristics and themes.
+
! will
build a new case that 3.# contains an hymnic-fra"ment.
Some scholars reason Amos himself composed the hymn because its verses connect to their
conte2ts so closely.
3
Gthers believe Amos :uoted verses from a familiar but older hymn.
(
,aster
clearly stated Amos 'embodied :uotations from an ancient poem'.
*
Amos "s. .C/
A number of scholars have concluded Amos is 'pervaded' by City-Lament motifs a '/ey to
understandin" the te2t'.
$.
Five Laments (@r& Sumer K @r& 4ippur& @ru/& and 1ridu) datin" from @r
!!! have been translated describin" the destruction of Sumerian cities and temples. 7hrou"hout
these 6esopotamian laments the destructive a"ent (ar.excellence is the flood of Enlil.
$$
=. 5illers
compared Lamentations and Amos ' with SCL concludin" Amos probably drew upon SCL '''boo/s
are made out of other boo/s< and to the e2tent that this ma2im is true biblical boo/s are no
e2ception'.
$>
=obbs-Alsopp concluded SCL influenced -eremiah's Lamentations and all G7 writin"-prophets
' Aatts -.=.A. $*'+. An *ld 0ymn 5reserved in the Book of Amos. -ournal of 4ear 1astern Studies Eol. $' 4o. $
pp. %%-%* (%%).
+ Aolff 5.A. $*33. 7oel und Amos 5ermeneia& ?hiladelphia; Fortress ?ress p. >$'.
3 6cComis/ey 7.1. $*(3. 3he 0ymnic Elements of the 5ro(hecy of Amos! A Study of 9orm Critical Methodolo,y.
-17S %.F> pp. $%*-$'3 ($'+).
( Aatts An *ld 0ymn 5reserved in the Book of Amos p. %'.
* ,aster 7.5. $*%'. An Ancient 0ymn in the 5ro(hecies of Amos. -ournal of the 6anchester 1"yptian and Griental
Society Eol. 8!8 pp. >%->+ (>%).
$. Badine 3he Book of Amos in Emer,ent 7udah pp. $#.-$.
$$ =obbs-Allsopp 'ee() * +au,hter of -ion pp. '3-(& Badine 3he Book of Amos in Emer,ent 7udah p. $##-+.
$> 5illers &amentations p. %%.
'would seem to be established'
$%
and that a native !sraelite city-lament e2isted where !sraelite
scribes included 'techni:ues from the dominant Assyrians in their education'.
$#
Badine thorou"hly compared Amos with SCL
$'
concludin" 'the Sumerian <Curse of A,ad< (CA)
has numerous similarities to both the literary-predictive te2ts and to the central body of the boo/ of
Amos'.
$+
Badine su""ested Amos and the writin"-prophets utili0ed lament themes which traced
bac/ to '6esopotamian traditions.' ,waltney ar"ued for a 'direct connection' features of which were
adapted for monotheistic theolo"y.
$3
,reen pointed out SCL displays two complimentary facets Sumer's destruction and celebration of
the 'cities' restoration and return of their "ods'.
$(
&amentation over the +estruction of :i((ur
contains clear e2amples of the citie's restoration.
$*
! note Amos *.(-$' reveals stri/in" parallels with
@ru/ Lament's restoration passa"e.
>.
@rL-$>.$>& @rL-$>.$% cf. *.$% 'flowin" wine& abundant
produce'& @rL-$>.+-3 cf. *.$$ 'e2alted temple& restored sacrifices'& @rL-$>.>*-%. cf. *;$%-$' '1denic
restoration'.
Amos *.(-$' has been critici0ed as 'secondary' by 'the overwhelmin" maIority of modern
commentators'
>$
bein" viewed as a late insertion 'contradictin" and cancelin"' Amos' prophecy.
>>
5owever hoped-for restoration was essential to SCL which evidence reveals Amos used as the
literary-template for his prophecy of !srael's destruction and restoration thereby ma/in" redaction-
theories of *.(-$''s secondary insertion invalid.
$% =obbs-Allsopp 'ee() * +au,hter of -ion p. $'+.
$# 81id pp. $#%-+.
$' Badine 3he Book of Amos in Emer,ent 7udah pp. $#>-%. (LS@r %$-%3 3$ $'% $(# ##+& cf. e2ile themes in Am
#.>-%& '.'& '.>3& +.3& 3.$3& *.#).
$+ 81id p. $'(.
$3 81id p. $'$.
$( ,reen 6.A. $*(#. 3he ;ruk &ament. -ournal of the American Griental Society Eol. $.#F> pp. >'%->3* (>'%).
$* Lramer S.4. $**$. 3he &amentation over the +estruction of :i((ur! Acta Sumerolo"ica Eol. $% pp. $->+. (>.->%&
>'). See (th Liru"u lines >#(->**.
>. ,reen 3he ;ruk &ament pp. >3'-+.
>$ 5ammershaimb 1. $*3.. 3he Book of Amos! A Commentary. G2ford 9asil 9lac/well p. $%'.
>> Andersen F.!. and =.4. Freedman $*(*. Amos: A :e2 3ranslation 2ith 8ntroduction and Commentary! =oubleday
@SA p. (+%-#.
!n particular Amos hymn is stri/in"ly reminiscent of LS@r 3>-(#.
>%
Gn that day 1nlil brou"ht the ,uti out from the mountains.
7heir comin" was the flood of 1nlil that cannot be withstood
7he "reat storm of the plain filled the plain it went before them
7he wide plain was destroyed no one passed by there...
Gn that day heaven rumbled earth trembled the storm never slept
7he heavens were dar/ened they were covered by a shadow...
7he sun lay down at the hori0on the dust passed over the mountains
7he moon lay at the 0enith the people were afraid.
! present below my thematic comparison between Amos and -obs' hymns versus SCL.
Amos 0hrase1#ocabulary .C/ 0hrase1#ocabulary
#.$%b Former of mountains (Myrh).
L.%>%(
>#
7he word Mof 1nlilN shattered the mountain
(ku r)
'.(b And overthrew mornin" into the shadow
of death.
LS@r
>'
3>-(#
7he heavens were dar/ened they were
covered by a shadow...
'.(c 6a/in" day dar/ (Ky#$xh) as ni"ht.
@L
$.$>
7hat Gne turned pitch blac/ (he.s i)& as at
ni"ht...
'.*a)b Flashin" forth (gylbmh) devastation
upon the stron"...
@L $.$#
LS@r
7hat Gne filled (the world) with its roar
(1ala,)...
7he storm was a harrow comin" from
>% =obbs-Allsopp 'ee() * +au,hter of -ion p. '(.
># Lan"don S. $*$%. Ba1ylonian &itur,ies ?aris Librairie ?aul ,euthner pp. $->3# &itany of :e1o p. +'. A stri/in"
earth:ua/e hymn. See also; ,reen 3he ;ruk &ament pp. >+' >++ >3. >3% >3# >3'.
>' =obbs-Allsop 'ee() * +au,hter of -ion p. '(.
=evastatin" their defenses. 3>-(# above the city struc/ by a pic/a2e.
3.#d)e ...consumed the ,reat =eep
And consumed its portion (plain).
LS@r
3>-(#
7he "reat storm of the plain went
before them. 7he wide plain was
destroyed...
(.(d)e
*.'d)e
Arose..and subsided as the 4ile. @L %.%
%.$'a
a devastatin" delu"e...
ma/es the 7i"ris and 1uphrates :uaver...
*.'c And all its inhabitants lamented. LS@r
3>-(#
...the people were afraid.
*.'d 1verythin" arose as the Biver. @L '.>. Subir risin" up li/e a swellin" floodwave.
*.+a 5e built ascendin"-ascents (wtwl(m)
into heaven.
@L '.3 ...rose up (il) to heaven... heaven perished...
2ob
*.' 5e removes the mountains (syrh)
@L
%.$+b
At its reverberation the mountain <hur= pea/s
shall be uprooted.
*.+ sha/es the earth...pillars tremble. @L
%.$'b& $3
it shall ma/e the mountains rumble.
Sumer and A//ad shall shiver...
*.3 5e commands the sun and it does not
rise...
LS@r
3>-(#
7he sun lay down at the hori0on...
7hemes of flood fire dar/ness and earth:ua/e are shared between Amos and -ob's hymns versus
SCL. 5owever SCL contains much diver"ent material. 7he :uestion of shared vocabulary should
be :uantified. 7o investi"ate ! compared Amos and -ob's hymn vocabulary roots to standard A41
sources
>+
to establish any commonalities. 6y table below presents common parallel roots of both
hymns as Omin-ma2 ran"e.
>3
AmosHymn 3A44adian 35abylonian 3.umerian 367aritic
#.$% %$-%3 #3 $+ +%
'.( %$-%( '+ $* +*
>+ Both 7.6. (1ditor-in-Char"e) $*'+->.$.. 3he Assyrian +ictionary of the *riental 8nstitute of the ;niversity of
Chica,o! Eols. $->$ !llinois. (CA=)& Lete d.G. SanmartPn ,.-. >..%. A +ictionary of the ;,aritic &an,ua,e in
the Al(ha1etic 3radition. Eols !K!!.& Leiden 9oston 9rill& 5alloran -.A. >..*. Sumerian &exicon >ersion ?!.
(http;FFwww.sumerian.or"Fsumerle2.htm)& 7inney S. >..+. 5ennsylvania Sumerian +ictionary.
(http;FFpsd.museum.upenn.eduFepsdF).
>3 Further wor/ could reveal more A41 connections. A Omin-ma2 ran"e reflects any uncertainties of comparison. (6y
basic vocabulary analysis did not include "rammatical particles or comparisons with A41 "rammatical
constructions).
'.* . (. #. (.
3.# %%-#> %%-#> %%-#> 3'-(%
(.( 3* +# '. (+
*.' '% >3 %% 3%
*.+ '#-+* #+ $' ('
83 $9:) :%:; (%(; <:<=
2obHymn 3A44adian 35abylonian 3.umerian 367aritic
*.' +3-(% +3-(% %% '.-(%
*.+ >. #. #. '.-(%
*.3 3$ 3$ #% 3$
*.( $3-%% %% . (%
*.* >. #. +. +.
83 :&:% 9(99 $: ==<;
-efferson discussed ?salm $$. which has 3$O of its vocabulary 'paralleled by @"aritic words'.
Aithin the ?salter only four other ?salms have such hi"h percenta"e @"aritic vocabulary;- ?salms
>* *% $( which all mention the Flood.
>(
-efferson concluded such stron" Canaanite colourin"
'supports the view' that ?salm $$. is 'primitive and pre-12ilic in date'.
>*
! hold this view for Amos
and -ob's hymns. 9oth hymns utili0e a stri/in" number of rare verbs (possibly ha(ax.le,omenon)
summari0ed below.
%.
'5>5?* H/ Amos 2ob A44adian 5abylonian .umarian 67aritic
($.>) wtdg)w *.+ gududu ,ud @A.,.d@ (J)
(3'%%) qyt(mh *.'
qatu etequ @A.t.q@
($>%#) gylbmh '.* balag balu 4ala, @(.l.,@
($*'$) h#$rgnw (.( rahasu rasu risi
@,.r.s@
(>#'%) Kphw Mkph '.( *.'
abaku kam
@h.(.k@
(%'#*) Ky#$ xh '.(
hesi
(%#+() srxl *.3 harasu harasu hrhrt
>( -efferson 5.,. $*'#. 8s 5salm BB Canaanite6 -ournal of 9iblical Literature Eol. 3% pp. $'>-$'+. ?s. +( 'noted for
its @"aritic parallels' which also contains stron" theophanic ima"ery p. $'#.
>* 81id p. $'%.
%. 9ibleAor/sH(.. morpholo"ical searches su""ests (but does not prove) these 5Ls other wor/ers may feel free to
amend my list. ! restricted my search to -ob *;'-*.
('.*$) (gwnh *.' mu, (J)
(33>') Nwclpty *.+ 1uluh (lsn (J)
(((*$) zgrt (.(
rgs
@r.s/
($.>**) hq#$ nw (.( sagia a.seg.ga sqh
($.%$>) h(q#$nw h(q#$ w (.(& *.' saqu (J)
saqalu essad sq
(*#>#) wx$# #.$%
sehu
6y table below e2presses these rare verbs as O parallel forei"n roots.
Hymn '8 H/s* 3A44adian 35abylonian 3.umerian 367aritic
Amos ($>) %%-'. *> '(-+3 '(-+3
-ob (#) '. 3' '. 3'-$..
7he numbers su""est ancient source(s) and invite investi"ations into the passa"es redaction history.
>iscussion of rare "erbs ,ithin Amos' Hymn.
Bare verbs (possibly 5Ls) appear clustered within Amos' hymn. ! briefly discuss some of the more
interestin" cases below their A41 ori"ins and my hymn translation considerations.
'.*a gylbmh 9=9-$>%# 'flashin" forth' is e:uivalent to balag Sumerian for 'drum'.
%$
7he Sumerian
'Bala,.Laments' (accompanied by thunderous drum-music) describe the destruction of cities by
flood thunder and invasion!
%>
(.(d Contains three possible 5Ls sharin" ancient parallel roots; h#$rgnw 9=9-$*'$ 'cast out drive
out e2pelled'& (@"aritic- @,.r.s @& Sumerian- risi). 7his verb describes movement away from an
ori"inal positionFstate.
hq#$ nw 9=9-$.>** '"ive drin/ be irri"ated' (@"aritic- sqh& Sumerian- a.seg.ga sagia& Gld
%$ Cooper -.S. >..+. /enre) /ender and the Sumerian &amentation. -ournal of Cuneiform Studies Eol. '( pp. %*-#3
(footnote + p. #$)& =umbrill B.-. >..'. 3he Archaeomusicolo,y of the Ancient :ear East 7rafford Canada pp.
>>#->>+.
%> 9lac/ -.A. $**$. Eme.Sal Cult Son,s and 5rayers. Aula Grientalis Eol. * 4o. *F$ pp. >%-%+ (>().
9abylonianFA//adian- sa qu). 7his verb is reminiscent of ,en >.+ 'a mist went up from the earth and
wateredFirri"ated the whole face of the "round.' ! therefore translate hq#$ nw as 'permeation'.
h(q#$nw 9=9-$.%$> 'sin/ down' (@"aritic- sq& Sumerian- essad& Gld 9abylonian- saqalu). !n
particular the 9abylonian is said of 'rainfall or floodwater'.
%%
! translate h(q#$nw as 'subsided' which
may be applied to both Flood waters and li"ht that decreases in stren"th.
*.+a. wytwl(m-wtwl(m (four times). 9=9-3.*3 'stepFstairFascent' cf. 10e/ #..+) ?aas reco"ni0ed
1"yptian temple-throne allusions
%#
! su""est nilometer allusions where 4ile floods were measured
by ascendin" steps.
%'
*.+ therefore describes ocean waters ascendin" to the heavens& an
immeasurable Flood upon which C0'0 ascended and sat enthroned (cf. ?s. >*.$-$$). Smith
comments on Ancient 1"yptian =emotic te2ts which describe massive 4ile inundations 'ascendin"
to the mountains and hills' in theolo"ical terms of the ?rimeval Gcean from which all life emer"ed
at creation. Such te2ts bare stri/in" resemblance to the Amos hymn lendin" an authentic ancient
1"yptian influence.
%+
*.+b wtdg)w 9=9-$.> 'bandFthon"'. *.+a)b's lan"ua"e describes actions of ascent into the s/y then
descent bac/ to earth i.e. active shapes 'bunch'
%3
also violent 'troop' (fi"htin" men plural). ! have
translated wtdg)w as 'plumes' to describe volcanic-plume ima"ery. Sumerian and 9abylonian words
(gududu) sukudD 4u,ud) include ideas of 'military troop' 'hei"ht' and possibly 'cauldron'.
@xtents of Amos HymnicFra7ments.
For these verses to be considered as separate literary units their e2tents within Amos must be
%% CA+ Eol. $3Q!! p. $>.
%# ?ass S. $**%. 0e 'ho Builds 0is Stairs into 0eaven. @"arit Forshun"en Eol. >' pp. %$*-%>'.
%' 9ell 9. $*3.. 3he *ldest Eecords of the :ile 9loods. 7he ,eo"raphical -ournal Eol. $%+ 4o. # pp. '+*-'3%
('3>). 6easurements are /nown from the $
st
. =ynasty.
%+ Smith 6. *n the 5rimaeval *cean! 3he Carls1er, 5a(yri 5. (6useum 7uscalanum ?ress =enmar/ >..>). Smith
discusses the risin" of the 4ile in the 9erlin hymn to ?tah which states 'M?tahN the one who ma/es the ?rimaeval
Gcean rise up to the s/y who causes water to come upon the mountainsR pp.$$+-$$3.
%3 'bunch of hyssop' describes a shape cf. 12. $>.>>.
established. Scholars "enerally re"ard the specified verses as the te2tual limits of the fra"ments. 67
preserves the nun division-mar/er 's' at #.$%& '.3& (.( indicatin" their strophic limits. Aatts
maintained the status-:uo with (.(& *.'-+ but attempted to connect '.+)3 with '.( and #.$>c with
#.$%. !s Aatts analysis correctJ Aatts described Amos' redaction as 'cumbersome' revealin" it was
not a sin"le composition but #.$>c)$% 'appears to be a :uotation which was used to support the
prophets point'.
%(
! a"ree the 'supportin" :uotation' as a 'whole' is 'not a sin"le composition' but #.$>c-$%'s transition
is not 'cumbersome' rather hi"hly si"nificant when seen in covenant-treaty terms. #.$>c's repetition
of 'thus will ! do to you' doubly emphasi0es Lev. >+.$+ '! also will do this to you'. !srael faces the
results of her treaty-violations and commanded to; '?repare to meet your ,od...' (cf. 12odus $*.$'-
$3). !t has been ri"htly observed that the hymn-proper starts at #.$%a 'LoC 9eholdC'.
%*
Aatts e2tends
the limits of '.( to include '.+-3 preferrin" the more 'hymnic style' of L88 over 67.
#.
7he maIority of scholars follow 67 maintainin" the strophe's limits '.(-*. !s L88 to be preferred
over 67 in AmosJ Cramer reIected Aatt's L88 readin".
#$
,elston noted 'unusual concentration's of
>% L88 discrepancies (includin" the hymn-verses) compared to 67 Amos.
#>
Arieti discusses
"eneral L88 vocabulary mista/es and loss of depth durin" translation.
#%
7herefore Aatts' reliance
upon L88 connectin" #.$>c with #.$% and '.+-3 with '.( should be reIected. Locali0ed names
'!srael' (#.$>c)& '-oseph' and '9ethel' ('.+) should not be included in a (re.8sraelite hymn.
7here is "eneral a"reement that a divine-name closed each verse.
##
7he clause YHWH Semo
%( Aatts An *ld 0ymn 5reserved in the Book of Amos p. %%.
%* 6cComis/ey 3he 0ymnic Elements of the 5ro(hecy of Amos p. $#3.
#. Aatts An *ld 0ymn 5reserved in the Book of Amos p. %'.
#$ 81id p. %' (footnote >#). Aatts admits Cramer reIects the L88 readin" even thou"h vs. 3 'seems hymnic' in the
L88.
#> ,elston A. >..>. Some 0e1re2 Misreadin,s in the Se(tua,int of Amos. Eetus 7estamentum Eol. '> 4o. # pp.
#*%-'.. (#*' '..).
#% Arieti -.A. $*3#. 3he >oca1ulary of Se(tua,int Amos. -ournal of 9iblical Literature Eol. *% 4o. % pp. %%(-%#3
(%#. %#+).
## Aolff 7oel und Amos 'formal characteristics of these passa"es especially stand out...the closure of several cola with
connects #.$% to '.(-* with *.'-+ 'ma/in" the phrase important for a study of the relationships
between the MversesN'.
#'
<.: #isionAeport1 Hymnicfra7ment.
?ass reco"ni0ed 'stri/in" relationship's between Amos' hymn and vision reports showin" Amos
structured his boo/ around both
#+
thereby lin/in" *.'b's meltin" earth with 3.#'s fiery-vision. S0abS
reco"ni0ed Flood traditions within Amos' hymn and 3.#'s vision-report.
#3
! therefore propose 3.#
utili0es a hymn-fra"ment startin" at 'LoC 9eholdC' terminatin" at 3;'. ?resented below are common
themes between Amos' hymn and 3.#.
Amos #isionAeport Amos HymnFra7ments
3.#b LoC9eholdC (hnhw) #.$%a LoC9eholdC (hnh yk)
3.#b adonay "YHWH# *.'a adonay "YHWH# sebaot
3.#c #$)b brl )rq *.+c Myh yml )rqh
3;#c (called for Iud"ment by fire) *;+c (called for ocean waters)
3;#d ,reat =eep *.+b beneath earth's foundations
3;#e consumed its portion. *.'b struc/... earth and it melted
Stron" parallel themes vocabulary and emphasi0ed divine-names are common to Amos' vision-
report and hymn-fra"ments indicatin" co-dependancy.
Amos' Hymn: Creation or >ecreationB
4otable scholars
#(
view the hymn-fra"ments as praise-do2olo"ies to YHWH as Creator. ! will
demonstrate these passa"es praise C0'0's Iud"ments as =e-creator. Ahen scholars maintain a
'creation-praise-do2olo"y' perspective the verses' perceived positions within Amos automatically
'Dahweh (,od of 5osts) is his name'' p. >$'.
#' Story C.!.L. $*(.. Amos! 5ro(het of 5raise! Eetus 7estamentum Eol. %. 4o. $ pp. +3-(. (+*).
#+ ?ass S. >..>. Seein, and Sin,in,: >isions and 0ymns in the Book of Amos. Eetus 7estimentum Eol. '> 4o. > pp.
>'%->3# (>3#).
#3 S0abS A. $*3'. 3extual 5ro1lems in Amos and 0osea. Eetus 7estamentum Eol. >' 4o. >a. pp. '..-'># ('.#).
#( -ohn Calvin Commentary on 7oel) Amos) *1adiah. ,rand Bapids 6!; Christian Classics 1thereal Library pp. >'*
%*'-%*+& Aatts An *ld 0ymn 5reserved in the Book of Amos p. %*& ,aster An Ancient 0ymn in the 5ro(hecies of
Amos p. >%& Story Amos! 5ro(het of 5raise p. 3>.
appear to them as conte2tually; obtrusive misplaced later insertions or replacement verses
#*
so
invitin" a myriad theories of redaction.
'.
?hrases pivotal to my ar"ument are analy0ed below to
show the difference in interpretive results.
Some scholars believe '.(& *.'d-+ describe natural hydrolo"ic-cycles and fertili0ation of the earth
viewin" these verses as a seasonal harvest-hymn. Aatts and ,aster rely heavily upon reconstructin"
67 to fit their paradi"m. Seasonal interpretations drive Aatts' translation of *.'-+ by ma/in" 'sli"ht
ortho"raphical chan"eMsN'. Aatts replaces 'swellin"' and 'subsidin"' with 'reservoirs' and 'irri"ate'.
'$
7he conte2t is the land risin" up and down like the 4ile an illustration of seismic-theophany. Such
reinterpretations i"nore Amos' earth:ua/e conte2t where the verb ($.$) #$(rh (L88 TUVTWXY)
depicts 'cosmic upheaval'
'>
(cf. (.(a zgr). 7he conte2t of *.>-# is !srael's vain attempt to escape
from C0'0's Iud"ment so *.'-+ is the Iud"ment's clima2 a harvest-hymn certainly would seem
'miss-placed'.
Ahen #.$% is viewed as a creation-praise-do2olo"y then it appears out of conte2t with #.+-$$
which presents 'a series of five catastrophes (with "rowin" intensity)'.
'%
Carny reali0ed the hymn-
fra"ment's purpose must be Iud"ment. '#.$% is by no means a verse of praise but a prophecy of
destruction and is actually the punishment the prophet proclaims' (#.$>).
'#
5owever Carny did not
specify ho2 #.$% is the punishment i.e. an allusion to Flood annihilation. #.$>'s verbs are 'hi"hly
military in character'& !srael must prepare to do battle with C0'0.
''
So are the hymns creation-
#* ,aster An Ancient 0ymn in the 5ro(hecies of Amos p. >% 'obtrusive'& Carny ?. $*33. +oxolo,ies: A Scientific
Myth. 5ebrew Studies Eol. $( pp. $#*-$'*. ($'.) 'misplaced'& ,ordis B. $*(.. Studies in the Book of Amos.
American Academy for -ewish Besearch pp. >.$->+# (>>+) 'later insertions'& Aolff 7oel und Amos p. >>>.
'. Aood -.B. >..> Amos in Son, and Book Culture. -SG7 Supp. Series %%3 Sheffield Academic ?ress. Aood "oes as
far as sayin" the editorFcommentator who later redacted Amos' prophecy 'contradicts' Amos (pp. +( 3( (( *.
$>%) and 'downplays' (3() Amos messa"e of Iud"ment '1ditorial comments are added piecemeal and alter the
meanin" of Amos's final vision about the day of Dahweh' (33).
'$ Aatts An *ld 0ymn 5reserved in the Book of Amos p. %(& ,aster An Ancient 0ymn in the 5ro(hecies of Amos p.
>%-+.
'> Aolff 7oel und Amos p. %#>.
'% Story Amos! 5ro(het of 5raise p. 3'.
'# Carny +oxolo,ies: A Scientific Myth p! $'3.
'' 5ayes -.5. $*((. Amos the Ei,hth.Century 5ro(het: 0is 3imes and his 5reachin,. ?arthenon ?ress 4ashville p.
$#*.
praise-do2olo"iesJ ,illin"ham reasons not. 'Amos' ,od comes as the destroyer of the natural order
5e has createdZMthisN is seen in the do2olo"ies..the evidence clearly shows that the purpose of all
three do2olo"ies was to proclaim in hymnic form...!srael's ,od was able to create and to destroy'.
'+
Amos' Hymn: Cisdom /iteratureB
Crenshaw defined Aisdom Literature as 'based on e2perience.'
'3
!t was the wise-man's function to
offer courtly advise from personal e2perience.
'(
Crenshaw demonstrated Amos utili0ed wisdom
motifs which were particularly concentrated within the hymns. Specifically Crenshaw analy0ed
vocabulary used in Amos ';( *& glb '"leam flash-forth' occurs four times;- ?salm %*;$% (a
'wisdom ?salm') and -ob *;>3& $.;>. classical wisdom literature. twmlc 'shadow of death' occurs
$3 times& -ob (* times)& ?salms (# times)& !sa *;> Am ';( (once). d$# 'violence ruin' occurs
e2clusively in the wisdom literature and in ?salms.
Crenshaw criti:ues motifs identified by Aolff in his analysis of wisdom literature; stylistic usa"es
include 'woe oracles' and theolo"ical usa"es include 'an interest in astronomy' and '!srael's end'& all
of which specifically apply to Amos' hymn.
Crenshaw reco"ni0ed Amos hymn came from a 'subse:uent sta"e te2tually and historically' and
that the '/inship' with -ob is 'stri/in".' Aisdom influences within Amos' hymn are not limited to
lin"uistics but e2tend to theolo"y. '!n a word the faith of the wise is creation theolo"y.'
'*
! would
add that Crenshaw's definition should include de-creation. Crenshaw as/ed if wisdom literature as a
"enre sufficiently describes Amos hymn 'simply on the "rounds of wisdom's basis in e2perience'
'+ ,illin"ham S. $**$. ''ho Makes the Mornin, +arkness': /od and Creation in the Book of Amos. Scottish -ournal
of 7heolo"y. Eol. #' pp. $+'-$(# ($+3 $3>).
'3 Crenshaw -.L. $*+3. 3he 8nfluence of the 'ise u(on Amos! [eitschrift f\r die Alttestamentliche Aissenschraft Eol.
3* pp. #%-'$. (##).
'( 81id cites 6cLane ($*+') 'who re-e2amines the broader :uestion of the relationship between prophets and wise
men emphasi0in" the ne"ative stance of prophecy over a"ainst the royal court of advisers who could not afford the
lu2ury of faith but were forced to "ive realistic practical political counsel.' Aise men spo/e from their e2periences
cf. Solomon's proverbs of natural observations related to life.
'* 81id pp. #*-'..
but was rather 'mediated throu"h the ancient theophanic traditionJ'
+.
Crenshaw later defined
creation's role within wisdom literature and interests in the natural order (earth:ua/e and storm)
that they 'lin/ to"ether theophanic tradition and wisdom.'
+$
! su""est the ori"inal ancient author of
Amos' hymn was eye witness to a "reat seismic event and thus continued this theophanic tradition
or even initiated it.
Cassuto reco"ni0ed 5ebrew literature is "enre defined by use of divine names in particular
wisdom literature uses appelatives el eloha elohim or sebaot as apposed to C0'0.
+>
5owever
Amos' hymn uses a combination; elohimFC0'0 (#.$%). =oes Cassuto's definition deny Amos'
hymn of its Aisdom statusJ 6aybe not. As previously mentioned -efferson discussed the hi"h
percenta"e of @"aritic roots contained in ?salm $$. etc. -efferson identified non-Canaanite
vocabulary within ?salm $$. includin" the divine-title C0'0. ,aster postulated ?salm $$. was
'Dahwi0ed from an earlier Canaanite model'
+%
and discussed Amos' hymn in terms of other 'non-
Dahwistic hymns.'
+#
Cassuto described C0'0's title as a 'proper noun' the 'specific name of !srael's ,od' compared to
elohim an appellative common noun applied to both !srael's ,od and heathen "ods.
+'
! su""est
therefore Amos hymn was 'Dahwi0ed' ?ersonali0in" it for !srael. ! therefore brac/et "C0'0# in my
translation to indicate a theoretical editorial insertion.
++
+. 81id p. '$.
+$ Crenshaw -.L. $*+3. Amos and the 3heo(hanic 3radition. 6ercer @niversity 6acon ,eor"ia pp. >.%-$' (>$#).
+> Cassuto @. >..(. 3he +ocumentary 0y(othesis. Shalem ?ress -erusalem p. >'.
+% ,aster 7.5. $*%3. 5salm BB. -ournal of the 6anchester @niversity 1"yptian and Griental Society >$ pp. %3-##.
,aster su""ested in praise of 9a'al but offered no further lin"uistic support for this assertion p. ##.
+# 81id p. >%.
+' Cassuto 3he +ocumentary 0y(othesis p. >>.
++ -efferson 8s 5salm BB Canaanite6 '!t is temptin" to see in M?salm $$.N an adaptation of -ebusite (sic) ritual used by
=avid when he became ruler of -erusalem.' p. $'+. Amos' hymn could therefore contain =avidic or Amosian
redactions.
Amos' Hymn: 0oetry or 0roseB
Cassuto e2plains that 5ebrew (oetic literature only uses the 3etra,rammaton but in narrative
literature (i.e. the ?entateuch's narrative sections the earlier ?rophets -ob's narrative section)
'3etra,rammaton and Elohim are both used in close pro2imity. 7hese are the facts'.
+3
Amos #.$% combines 'C0'0Felohim' 'in close pro2imity' as Cassuto re:uires for his definition of
narrative to be satisfied. C0'0 is not sin"ly used in Amos' hymn. 7he usa"e of divine names
therefore defines Amos' hymn as narrative.
+(
9ut if as my previous remar/s su""est C0'0 was
edited into the hymn can we still define Amos "enreJ
Andersen K Freedman show Amos hymn does not posses features of classical poetry i.e. re"ular
syllables or beat line len"ths vary widely and parallelism is minimal. 'Attempts to find re"ular
verse forms without recourse to drastic emendation have not been successful'.
+*
Andersen K Freedman define Amos' hymn as narrative. '7wo fra"ments of a Flood narrative do
survive in '.(b and *.+b where the use of the waw-consecutive construction re:uires that the
precedin" participle be construed as past tense. 7he same is true Mfor *;'a& ';(a& *;+aN'.
3.
Also 3.#'s
'use of et and the definite article shows that it is composed in standard prose'.
3$
! summari0e verb
tenses of Amos and -ob's hymns below.
Tense AmosHymn
# preterites '.(& *.+ Mkp#$yw& 3.# lk)tw& *.' gwmtw
> imperfects ';* )wby& (;( zgrt
% perfects ';( Ky#$th& 3;# yn)rh& *;+ hrsy
* waw-perfects (;( lb)w& htl(w& h#$ rgnw& hq#$nw& h(q#$nw
+3 81id pp. >#-'.
+( -ob *.$% refers to ]^l_ah thou"h *.'-* does not directly use a divine-name.
+* Andersen Freedman Amos: A :e2 3ranslation p. #'#.
3. 81id p. #'%.
3$ 81id pp. 3#'-+.
3;# hlk)w& *;' wlb)w& htl(w& h(q#$w
Tense 2obHymn
% imperfects *;+ Nwclpty& *;3 trzy& Mtxy
> perfects *;' w(dy& skph
6y table shows Amos hymn's use of the 2G2-consecutive construction compared to -ob which has
none (cf. *;$.-$%). At a "lance Amos is narrative -ob is poetic. Gn closer inspection Amos uses *
waw-perfects (future-tense) interspersed with # imperfect waw-consecutives (preterite past-tense).
7his odd tense-mi2in" is e2plained by 67's preservation of two different ancient Semitic tense
systems. =river stated 'this stran"e phenomenon whereby two tenses apparently e2chan"e functions
Mis only accounted for by reco"ni0in"N two different systems drawn from different sources mer"ed
in the 5ebrew scheme of tenses.' =river compared A//adian and Aramaic verb constructions.
3>
Amos hymn's tense-mi2in" may further evidence anti:uity. Amos hymn is narrative not poetic (as
are Aisdom te2ts) yet possesses clear Aisdom themes. Amos is therefore not wisdom-poetry but
wisdom-prose an unusual "enre.
Co"enanttreaty: an @xe7etical +eyB
5illers surveyed A41 treaty documents to discover stri/in" parallels within 9iblical covenantal
passa"es particularly the curse-formula. Sealin" of promises by curses was characteristic of ancient
le"al practice curses were re"arded as 'more important than blessin"s which were promised for
obedience' blessin"-formula were ordinarily shorter than curse-formula.
3%
5illers analy0ed Leviticus >+ and =euteronomy >( for A41 treaty-patterns of blessin"s and curses
in list form ar"uin" that Leviticus >+ and =euteronomy >( are 'essentially authentic ancient
!sraelite curse-lists they may profitably be drawn into the discussion of treaty-curses and the
prophets'.
3#
5illers analy0ed >. A41 treaty-curses successfully comparin" them with the Sinai-
3> Aein"reen -. $*3*. A 5ractical /rammar for Classical 0e1re2 G2ford Claredon. ,. B. =river's note pp. >'>-%.
3% 5illers =.B. $*+#. 3reaty.Curses and the *ld 3estament 5ro(hets (?h= dissertation). Bome ?9! p. +.
3# 81id p. #>.
treaty and writin"-prophets. !n particular ! am interested in 5iller's identification of the flood treaty.
curse.
'7he treaty-curse which calls for floodin" of the infidel's land has close Gld 7estament parallels in
comparisons of a con:ueror to a delu"e...!n 1sarhaddon's annals 1nlil curses 9abylon with a
terrible curse and a flood destroys the city. <Li/e a delu"e< (abubis abubanis) is a fairly common
simile for the onrush of the /in" in the Assyrian royal inscriptions'.
3'
Gnce 5illers identified this
specific "enre he reco"ni0ed similar flood-curse lan"ua"e in !saiah (.3 and -eremiah #+.3-(& #3.>
which describes C0'0's floodin" of rebellious lands with invadin" armies.
! su""est Amos' hymn was utili0ed as a 'flood treaty-curse'& the most catastrophic in Amos' arsenal
describin" C0'0's seismic-theophany ($.$) and !srael's e2ilic 'flood' of invaders.
3+
7he 4oachian-
covenant involved salvation within the Ar/ of a faithful remnant. Amos' hymn was used to warn of
!srael's destruction as when the Flood came but C0'0's faithful remnant would be saved to enIoy
a restored 1denic world (*.$$-$'). ! further establish the hymn's Flood relatedness by offerin" the
comparisons below.
Flood: an @xe7etical +eyB
! compare Amos' hymn -ob *.'-M$%N and ,enesis' Flood-account to investi"ate common Flood
themes. Firstly is -ob's material relevant or hymnicJ Scholars

reco"ni0e -ob *.'-$. as hymnic
33
F.!.
Andersen compares it with Amos #;$%.
3(
Gthers view vv.'-$% as a literary-unit.
3*
,ordis stated -ob
3' 81id pp. 3.-3$.
3+ Cathcart L.-. ,ordon B.?. $*(*. 3he Aramaic Bi1le) >ol! BH! 3he 3ar,um of the Minor 5ro(hets. 6ichael ,la0ier
!nc. =elaware. @tili0in" Flood-curse metaphor Aramaic 7ar"um Amos paraphrases (.(& *.' as 'A /in" shall come
up a"ainst it with his army which is "reat li/e the waters of a river and he shall cover it all and drive out its
inhabitants' pp. *%& *'.
33 5artley -.1. $*((. 3he Book of 7o1. 7he 4ew !nternational Commentary on the Gld 7estament 1erdmans
6ichi"an p. #$& Smith ,.E. $**>. 8s there a (lace for 7o1's 2isdom in *ld 3estament 3heolo,y6 7rinity -ournal
Eol. $% pp. %->. ($%)& Crenshaw 3he 8nfluence of the 'ise u(on Amos pp. #*-'.& Aolff 7oel und Amos p. >$3.
3( Andersen F.!. $*3+. 7o1) an 8ntroduction and Commentary. !nter-Earsity ?ress Leicester p. $#'.
3* Lo A. >..>. 7o1 IJ as Eehetoric in the Context of 7o1 II.?B. Eetus 7estamentum ,lousestershire. Lo cites
5artley& 5abel Aestermann 4ewsom& who view -ob *.'-$% as a sin"le 'hymn' pp. $%%-#..
was 'citin" older sources'.
(.
5abel reco"ni0ed -ob's hymn describes 'an earth:ua/e of such
cataclysmic proportions that the pillars of the earth totter'.
($
5artley saw 'lan"ua"e descriptive of
theophany'.
(>
Carny sees "reat similarities between Amos and -ob's do2olo"ies referrin" to their
'threats of doom' rather than praise.
(%
Cline noted -ob *.'-$.'s 'strict hymnic form' possessin" five
introductory participles
(#
(stri/in"ly reminiscent of Amos #.$%'s five participles). ! present below
my thematic comparison of Amos -ob and ,enesis' Flood account.
:.&$ AmosHymn Aef. Genesis Flood #s. 2obHymn
a LoC 9eholdC hnh +.$3 LoC 9eholdC ynnh M$>N MLoC 9eholdC NhN
b Former of mountains Myrh 3.>. mountains Myrh were covered ' 5e removes the mountains Myrh
c Creator of wind xwr (.$ ,od made a wind xwr * 5e madeZ the south MwindN
c =eclarer of Adam's Md) thou"hts +.' the thou"hts of Adam's Md) heart M$$N M! do not understand 5imN
f 5e trod down Krdw 3.$* were covered (b And treads Krwdw
f hi"h places of the earth Cr)ytmb l( 3.$* on the earth Cr)h l( all hi"h hills (b on waves of the sea Myytmb l(
" "YHWH# elohe sebaot semo *.>+ YHWH elohe se m M$%N MelohaN
9.%
a formed Grion and ?leiades lysk hmyk ( * made ?leiades and Grion hmyk lysk
b And overthrew Kphw 'b 5e overturns Mkph
c 6a/in" day Mwy dar/ as ni"ht hlyl (.>> day Mwy and ni"ht hlyl not cease 3 the sun and it does not rise
d 5e called for +.$3 ! 6yself am brin"in" 3 5e commands
d waters of the ocean Myh Mym +.$3 Flood-waters Mym lwbm (b waves of the sea My
e face of the earth Cr)h ynp 3.#b face of the earth hmr)h ynp + sha/es the earth Cr)
9.;
a destruction upon the stron" z( +.# became stron" men M$%bN Mallies rz( of the proudN
b =evastatin" their defenses +.$% ! will destroy them with the earth Cr) + sha/es the earth Cr) out of its place
<.:
a LoC 9eholdC hnhw +.$3 LoC 9eholdC ynnh M$>N MLoC 9eholdC NhN
b adonay "YHWH# called for +.$3 ! 6yself am brin"in" 3 5e commands
d consumed the ,reat-=eep hbr Mwht 3.$$ ,reat =eep hbr Mwht bro/en +a sha/es... earth out of its place Mwqm
%.%
a earth :ua/e Cr) zgr +a earth... its pillars tremble Cr) zygr
b all its inhabitants lamentJ +.$% earth... filled with violence $%c Mallies... lie prostrate beneath 5imN
c All thin"s arose as the li"ht (a spreads out the heavens
;.9
d everythin" arose htl(w 3.>. waters Mym prevailed...upwards hl(mlm (b the hi"h l( sea My
(. ,ordis B. $*3(. 3he Book of 7o1 6oreshet 4ew Dor/ p. '>>.
($ 5abel 4.C. $*('. 3he Book of 7o1! 7he Gld 7estament Library. Aestminster ?ress ?ennsylvania p. $*..
(> 5artley 3he Book of 7o1 p. $+*.
(% Carny +oxolo,ies: A Scientific Myth p. $'#.
(# Clines =.-.A. $*(*. 7o1 B.I. Aord 9iblical Commentary Aord =allas p. >>#.
d subsided h(q#$ w li/e the Biver (.$ the waters Mym subsided wk#$ yw (b treads upon the...sea My
;.=
a built... ascents wtwl(m 3.$$ all the fountains Ny(m ( spreads out the heavens Mym#$
e YHWH semo *.>+ YHWH elohe se m M$%N MelohaN
6y comparison demonstrates stron" vocabulary and thematic correlations between Amos -ob and
,enesis +-*. ! further present an analysis of shared vocabulary (and their G7 fre:uencies) between
Amos and -ob's hymns.
('
.hared #ocabulary AmosHymn 2obHymn FreDuency
hmyk
'.(a *.* %
lysk
'.(a *.* %
Krdw
#.$%f *.( +
ytmb l(
#.$%f *.( +
Myrh
#.$%f *.' '(
My
'.(d& *.+c *.( >'#
Mym#$
*.+a *.( %*#
hnh
#;$%a& 3;#a M*;$$ $>N ##(
Cr)
#.$%f& '.(e& (.(a& *.'b *.+ b d *.+ $'>*
Amos and -ob's hymns share much vocabulary (includin" rare occurrences and five participles)
addin" to the probability that both hymns are co-dependent literature.
Are Amos' Hymn's >i"ine !ames Flood AelatedB
7he hymn's divine names are uni:ue and hi"hly si"nificant occurrin" at the boo/'s pivotal point
('.() and conclusion (*.+).
(+
7he abbreviated form M*.'aN of the redactor is 'uni:ue'
(3
and
'hi"hli"hted as /ey'.
((
(' ` occurrences were established usin" 9ible Aor/sH (.. morpholo"ical searches.
(+ 9yar"eon B.A. $**'. 3he +oxolo,ies of Amos: A Study of their Structure and 3heolo,y. 7heolo"ical 1ducator Eol.
'> 4o. $ pp. #3-'+ ('+).
(3 Aolff 7oel und Amos p. %#$.
(( Caroll 6.=. $**>. Contexts for Amos. -SG7 ?ress Sheffield p. >$3.
7he Amos hymn's divine-title's roots are /nown from A41 sources (see table below). C0'0 is
uni:ue to !srael.
(*
Hebre, 5>5>efinition A44adian, 5abylonian .ummarian 67aritic
adonay
$#3 'Lord master' adn
elohe
#(> '"od an"el ruler Iud"e' ilu il il
semo
$..#+ 'name'
semu sm
sebaot
3*(> 'host army war warfare'
sabu sbu
YHWH
>%$# '?roper name ,od of !srael'
Crenshaw analy0ed YHWH elohe sebaot semo (occurrin" twice in 67)& YHWH semo (four
times)
*.
& YHWH sebaot semo (twelve times). Crenshaw summari0ed his findin"s; '7hese passa"es
possess a stri/in" formal similarity manifest a surprisin" de"ree of uniformity of themes and
appear to come from the same "eneral period'.
*$
! present my analysis of these passa"es to
determine any Flood vocabularyFallusion they may contain.
>i"ine!ame Aef. Flood Allusion1#ocabulary
YHWH semo
12. $'.% ($ # $* >. >$; My) (' (; tmht Mym)
-er. %%.> (>. >'; :oahic.covenant) (>>; My)
Amo. '.(f >3
*.+e
((d My Mym) (># Mym lxn)
(*.+c My Mym)
YHWH elohe sem
,en. *.>+ (>; My) (*-$(; :oahic.covenant) ($$; Mym) ($$ $'; lwbm)
*>
YHWH seba ot semo
-saiah
#3.# (>; twhn yrb()
#(.> ($%; Mym#$ hxp+) ($(; rhn Myh ylgk)
(>$; Mym)
(* See later discussion.
*. Crenshaw includes YHWH zik
e
ro 5os. $>.'. (* $%& $%.# $' possess multi(le.em1edded 9lood allusions and $'
wny(m) p. $'+.
*$ Crenshaw -.L. $*+*. YHWH sebaot semo: A 9orm.Critical Analysis. [eitschrift f\r die Alttestamentliche
Aissenschaft Eol. ($ 4o. > pp. $'+-$3' ($'+).
*> ,en. *;>+ is not discussed by Crenshaw but appears as a divine-name in 4oah's priestly blessin" of Shem.
'$.$' (*; bhr) ($.; My Mym Mwht br Myqm(m-My rb()
($%; h+n Mym#$) ($' Myh wylg)
'#.' (*; xn ym) ($.; Myrhh) ($$; hr(s)
2eremiah
$..$+ ($>; Mym#$ h+n)
*%
($%; Mym Nwmh)
%$.%' (%'; :oahic.covenant Myh wylg)
%>.$( ($3 >$->%; multi(le.em1edded 9lood allusions)
#+.$( (3 (; twrhnk Mym& r)y rhn Mym) ($(; My)
#(.$' (%>; My wrb() (%#; Mym)
'..%# (%(; w#$byw hymym)
*#
(#>; My)
'$.$* '3 ($% $+ ''; Mybr Mymk Mhylg) ($'; Mym#$ h+n)
(%+ #>; brh My rwqm)
"YHWH#
elohe sebaot semo
Amos
#;$%e
($%a-cf multi(le.em1edded 9lood allusions)
Crenshaw stated re"ardin" the semo affi2ed to the epithet that it 'derives from the theophanic
tradition.'
*'
6y thematic analysis re-specifies Crenshaw's theophanic analysis to Flood-theophanic
vocabulary and metaphor demonstratin" a stron" correlation su""estin" these ')semo' epithets
represent uni:ue Flood-theophanic divine-epithets andFor a /nown literary-device. Crenshaw cites
Aambac: who reco"ni0ed Amos !saiah and -eremiah may all have :uoted from an 'ancient
hymn'.
*+
! su""est the representative of this literature is Amos' Flood-hymn which presents a
literary /ey in tems of its use of Flood-epithets so enablin" identification of these G7 e2amples.
7he passa"es include 1"ypt Bed Sea and -ordan flood crossin" motifs. ,unn comments on !saiah
'#.*-$.'s reference to 4oah and the Flood revealin" !saiah saw !srael's e2ile and deliverance as
bein" of the 'same order as the events of the MFNlood' bein" an 'event of "reat paradi"matic value for
*% Cf. -ob *.(& [ech $>.$.
*# Cf. ,en (.3 $% $#.
*' Crenshaw YHWH sebaot semo (!! Sam 3;'ff& 12 >.;>#& %;$#& +;>& >#;%ff& %%;$*& %#;'f& 5os $>;*& $%;#) p. $+(.
*+ 81id p. $'(.
the people'.
*3
,unn demonstrates metaphors such as sea-splittin" paths and crossin"s-over all contain multiple
embedded allusions to the Ar/'s Iourney from old-world to new (cf. ?s. 33.$+->.). Aind occurs
within the Bed Sea passa"es and is a prominent motif in ,enesis' Flood account where C0'0 sent
a wind to dry up the Flood waters (,en. (.$b). ,unn as/ed 'if this primeval story was one of such
si"nificance for the prophet is it not li/ely that it has left its mar/ elsewhere in his poetryJ'
*(
!
would su""est this is the case with Amos !srael's first writin"-prophet bla0in" a trail from the start.
Co"enant and Flood @xe7etical4eys: 6nloc4in7 Meanin7 ,ithin Amos' HymnB
6y analysis demonstrates Amos' hymn describes the Flood. ! will now provide the reader with two
e2e"etical /eys to further test the hymn's Flood-relatedness unloc/in" meanin" within the hymn
and surroundin" conte2t. 7he first /ey is Covenant (plus treaty-curses) the second Flood (plus
seismic-theophany). !f my /eys are valid they will unloc/ the hymn's conte2tual relationships and
develop a Flood-hymn Sit4.im.&e1en. A condensed wor/in" commentary is presented below.
Hymnfra7ment :.&$a7
:.&$a 'LoC 9eholdC' (cf. 3.#a) emphasi0es C0'0's action of initiatin" the Flood (cf. ,en. +.$3
ynnh). !srael comes face to face with this same ,od. Amos presents C0'0 as Su0erain who
e2ecutes the full force of the covenant-curses outlined in #.>-$>.
:.&$b 'formed mountains'.
**
rcwy describes clay formed by a potter. Amos prophesied !srael would
be 're-formed' by the ,od who Iud"ed and re-formed the mountains durin" the Flood (,en. 3.>.).
Samaria's mountains (%.*& #.$) are therefore not immoveable. 7he rich oppressed the poor resultin"
in Iud"ment '"reat tumults in her midst' (%.*) where their only escape-route would be 'throu"h
*3 ,unn =.6. $*3'. +eutero.8saiah and the 9lood. -ournal of 9iblical Literature Eol. *# 4o. # pp. #*%-'.( (#*%).
*( 81id p. #*%.
** Andersen Freedman Amos: A :e2 3ranslation. '7he participles are in effect titles M'Former of mountains'N almost
names. As such there could be any number of them and in any /ind of arran"ement' p. #'%.
bro/en walls' (#.%a) a metaphor describin" dama"e by earth:ua/e and e2ile.
:.&$c 'created wind'. C0'0 sent a wind to dry up the Flood waters (,en. (;$). C0'0 sent an 'east
wind' to part the Bed Sea on behalf of 5is covenant people (12. $#.>$ cf. 12. $..$%). C0'0 who
blew on Bed Sea and Flood now blows upon !srael in Iud"ment.
:.&$d 'his thou"ht' rx$#. C0'0 declares to !srael what their thou"hts are (cf. '.$>-$'). 7he pre-
=iluvian's thou"hts were 'evil continually' (,en. +.'& (.>$) provo/in" the Flood Iud"ment. Amos
Iud"es !srael's complete de"eneracy of thou"hts and minds they 'despised the law' not '/eepin" the
commandments' (>.#).
:.&$e '6a/in" dawn into dar/ness' C0'0's cosmic-scale theophanic-Iud"ment (cf. '.(b). 7he '=ay
of the Lord' ('.$( >.) meant 'dar/ness and not li"htZvery dar/ with no bri"htness' (cf. (.*).
C0'0 reverses blessin"s upon 5is people with this covenant-curse (cf. #.$.) where the ninth
pla"ue dar/ness covered 1"ypt (12. $..>$->%). 1"ypt's pla"ues are turned a"ainst !srael for treaty-
violations in accordance with =euteronomy >(.+.. C0'0's Iud"ment causes even dayli"ht to fail
(cf. #.$%e& '.(bc and '.$( >.).
:.&$f '7read' Krdw a military term. !srael 'treads down the poor' ('.$$) therefore C0'0 treads
down !srael. Leviticus >+.%. describes a covenant-curse unleashed upon !srael's cult centres (cf.
6ic. $.%). 9ethel's alter-horns would be 'cut off' by earth:ua/e (%.$#-$'). Amos reminds !srael there
is no where to escape C0'0 of 5osts' wrath a"ainst her idolatrous reli"ion. C0'0 the mi"hty
con:ueror will treadFthresh down 9ethel's alters (%.$#& '.'-+) as 5e trod down the mountains
durin" the Flood.
Hymnfra7ment 9.%a;b.
9.%a hmyk (possibly ?leiades) reminds !srael that C0'0 of 5osts ('.$+) has power to remove
!srael from their "ods and into captivity ('.>+->3& 3.$3). 5osts refers to starsFan"elic powers (cf.
,en. >.$) with prohibitions not to worship them (=eut. #.$* cf. ,en. +.>-3). !dolatry brou"ht down
C0'0's covenant-curses upon !srael (=eut. '.+-$.& +.$#-$'). 7he ,od of 5osts alone must be
worshiped not the host of "odsC
lysk (possibly Grion 'foolF"iant'
$..
) occurs alon"side a reversal of the 4oachian covenant in a
proclamation a"ainst 9abylon (!sa. $%.$.). 7he mention of Grion and ?leiades (stron"ly associated
in Babbinic literature with the Flood)
$.$
would evo/e fear of cosmic-scale Iud"ment within the
ancient 5ebrew mind.
9.%b 'overthrew mornin"' Kphw binds the hymn "rammatically to its conte2t ('.3). 4i"ht becomin"
mornin" cannot be viewed as punishment for !srael's sins (cf. -ob '.$#& *.3). 6y translation follows
the natural 5ebrew word-order which is; 'overthrows mornin" into deep-dar/ness' this then
parallels the ne2t phrase.
9.%c '6a/in" day dar/ as ni"ht' (cf. #.$%e& (.*). A reversal of the 4oachian-covenant (,en. (;>>b)
of dependable day-ni"ht cycles.
$.>
Also considered 'eclipse' lan"ua"e
$.%
and a 'dar/ness covenant-
curse'
$.#
comparable to =euteronomy >(.>* 'Dou shall "rope at noondayZin dar/ness'. '.(c
describes cosmic ramifications for !srael's sin.
$..Clines 7o1 B.I. Lesil associated with Grion the "iant in 7ar"um and ?esh. p. >%$.
$.$ 6ili/ows/y C. $*(%. <%imaK and the 9lood in KSeder '*lamK and B! 3! Eosh 0a.Shana Stellar 3ime.Eeckonin,
and ;rano,ra(hy in Ea11inic &iterature. ?roceedin"s of the American Academy for -ewish Besearch Eol. '. pp.
$.'-$%> ($>3).
$.> =ra0in !. Aa"ner S.6. >..+. *nkelos on the 3orah! /enesis. -erusalem ,efen. !bn 10ra comments on ,enesis
3.$$ '7he flood was so stron" that it was impossible to distin"uish between day and ni"ht which is why ,od
promised in 5is subse:uent covenant ((.>>) that <day and ni"ht will not cease''' p. %(.
$.% ,illin"ham ''ho Makes the Mornin, +arkness' p. $+*& Cripps B.S. $*+*. A Critical and Exe,etical
Commentary on the Book of Amos! London S?CL p. >#(& 5ayes Amos the Ei,hth.Century 5ro(het p. >.*&
5ubbard =.A. $*(*. 7oel and Amos. 7yndale Gld 7estament Commentaries !nter-Earsity ?ress Leicester 1n"land
p. >>>.
$.# Aiseman =.-. $*'(. 3he >assal.3reaties of Esarhaddon 9ritish !nstitute for the Study of !ra: Eol. >. 4o. $ pp.
!-ii)$-** (+. ++)
9.%e 'poured out'. !srael laysFcasts-down ri"hteousness to the earth ('.3) therefore Iud"ment is
poured upon !srael. 5illers su""ests the flood-treaty-curse
$.'
a metaphor of invasion (cf. '.>3& +.3&
3.$3). 'upon the face of the earth' (cf. *.() stri/in"ly parallels ,enesis' Flood account
$.+
revealin"
the universality of C0'0's Iud"ment on !srael's population and land. Amos' audience aware of
7orah's Flood account would appreciate the full implications of Amos' hymn's metaphor and
threatenin" use of it. Aoods reco"ni0ed Amos interpretation of the =ay of Dahweh resembled the
'"reat Flood which Dahweh once summoned and poured out upon the surface of the earth ('.()'.
$.3
Hymnfra7ment <::
Amos' Eision-Beport parallels ( motifs of fiery Iud"ment associated with Amos' earth:ua/e.
$.(
<.:a. 'LoC 9eholdC' connects this vision-report to hymn #.$%a and C0'0's personal involvement at
the Flood (,en. +.$3).
<.:c. 'Called for Iud"ment by fire'. Andersen K Freedman sees a '"reat similarity' between this
phrase and two callin" for water phrases ('.(& *.+).
$.*
<.:d. C0'0's fire consumes the ',reat =eep' a specific Flood term
$$.
and its 'portion' qlxh
(9=9-%$$'). Andersen and Freedman e2plain 'portion' is 'typically used to describe a 'portion of
land' or 'inheritance' that which belon"s to the inheritor so must be somethin" matchin" the ,reat
=eep... not a synonym but a compliment.'
$$$
=euteronomy %>.* describes -acob as C0'0's
'portion' qlx. Andersen and Freedman su""est this 'portion' refers to all the nations involved in
Amos' prophecy where C0'0 is soverei"n with !srael and -udah at the epi-centre.
$$>
$.' Cf. !sa (.3& -er #+.3-( #3.>.
$.+ Cf. ,en +.3 >%& 3.%-# >%& (.* >$& $$.(.
$.3 Aood -.B. >..>. Amos in Son, and Book Culture. -SG7 Sup. Series %%3 Sheffield @L pp. $->'' (++).
$.( Andersen Freedman Amos: A :e2 3ranslation (cf. ,en. $*.>#& Amos #.$$) p. 3#(. Cf. Amos $.# 3 $. $> $#&
>.> '& '.+.
$.* 81id pp. 3#+-3 cf. =eut. %>.>>.
$$. Cf. !sa. '$.$. tehom also describes earth's depths ,en. #*.>'& =eut. %%.$%.
$$$ 81id p. 3#3.
$$> 81id pp. 3#(-*.
Hymnfra7ment %.%.
%.%a. '=id not the earth :ua/e for thisJ' zgrt-)l. Cosmic-scale destruction is assured. 7he land
itself suffers for !srael's sins and soon would spew them out as 'wormwoodFbitterness' ('.3& cf.
+.$>). Commentators "enerally reco"ni0e (.(a's earth:ua/e metaphor.
$$%
%.%c. 'All thin"s arose htl(w as the li"ht r)k'. 7he subIect is (.(a 'the tremblin" land'. 7his
cannot refer to the 4ile's natural irri"ation as some scholars theori0e.
$$#
Ahen compared with (.$#
'they shall fall and never rise a"ain' (cf. '.$->)& (.( is anythin" but 'seasonal'. Beco"ni0in" (.(c's
'li"ht' disturbance ima"ery lin/s to (.*'s eclipse-lan"ua"e thus bindin" te2t-to-conte2t su""estin"
cosmolo"ical ramifications for !srael's sins in response to !srael's covenant violations ((.#-3).
%.%e (cf. *.'e). 'Biver of Mi4raim' Myrcm r)y. 7he Iu2taposition of seismic-theophany ne2t to 4ile
seasonal-ima"ery has caused scholars some confusion. Cripps called (.( a 'perple2in" simile'
$$'
because earth:ua/es are sudden compared to 4ile flood seasons. Such 'perple2in" similes' cannot
be resolved within a creation-praise-do2olo"y understandin" the lan"ua"e describes a prolon"ed
and catastrophic Iud"ment.
$$+
(.( clearly describes the year lon" Flood metaphorically used by
Amos as a flood covenant-curse.
HymnFra7ment ;.9
;.9b. '5e struc/ the earth and it melted'. (gwnh 9=9-'((' 'touch reach stri/e'. Amos' fire motifs
are hi"hly si"nificant describin" C0'0's theophanic-Iud"ments upon !srael and her nei"hbours for
their sins.
$$3
(gwn indicates 'catastrophic and permanent chan"e' to the place bein" struc/.
$$(
Amos
reminds !srael usin" seismic-theophany lan"ua"e that C0'0 descended at Sinai in smo/e fire and
$$% 5ayes Amos the Ei,hth.Century 5ro(het p. >.*& 5ammershaimb 3he Book of Amos p. $>'. Cf. -ob *.+b the
earth's 'pillars tremble'.
$$# 81id! 5ammershaimb reasoned Amos never visited 1"ypt not comprehendin" the 4ile's behavior p. $>'.
$$' Cripps A Critical and Exe,etical Commentary p. >#+.
$$+ 5ayes Amos the Ei,hth.Century 5ro(het p. >.*.
$$3 Cf. $.# 3 $. $> $#& >.> '& #.$$& '.+& 3.#.
$$( Story Amos! 5ro(het of 5raise p. 3+-33.
earth:ua/e (12. $*.$() to ratify !srael's covenant (12. >#) now descends in fiery Iud"ment to fulfill
its curses upon !srael as treaty violators.
;.9d,e (cf. (.(cd).
Eerbs describin" the rise and fall of the earth li/e the 4ile waters are reminiscent of the rise and
fall of the Flood waters 'everythin" arose' (htl(w)& cf. ,en. 3.>. 'waters prevailed..upwards'
(hl(mlm)& 'subsided (h(q#$w) li/e the Biver' cf. ,en. (.$ 'the waters subsided' (wk#$yw). Conte2t
must not be confused& the 'land' is the subIect which is disturbed 'li/e the 4ile' best understood as
vivid earth:ua/e ima"ery.
$$*
;.=a. '5e built ascendin"-ascents into heaven'. 1scape from C0'0's wrath is impossible 'thou"h
they climb up to heaven' C0'0 will 'brin"Fcast them down' (*.>). Aolff described *.+'s ima"ery as
'unparalleled'.
$>.
7he verbs point towards the structure's hei"ht into the heavens as well as the depths
from which it ascends from beneath the earth.
$>$
! conclude with 6aller; 'Li/e the second fra"ment
it features an allusion to the MFNlood ('.(b& *.+b) and stresses the cosmic dimension of Dahweh's rule
('.(a& *.+a)...*.'-+ envisa"es a divine intervention on a more cosmic scale causin" all who live on
the earth to mourn'.
$>>
Conclusions
Amos !srael's first writin"-prophet predicted -erusalem's destruction and drew upon e2tant and
familiar literature for his boo/'s 'template'. SCL came pre-pac/a"ed with flood metaphor as its
destructive a"ent (ar.excellence. Amos both drew upon and parodied this "enre but rather than
:uotin" from SCL it seems an ancient Flood narrative was utili0ed as a flood Covenant-Curse.
Analysis of these passa"es' use of waw-consecutive and divine names leads to the conclusion Amos'
$$* ?aul A Commentary on the Book of Amos p. >+$.
$>. Aolff 7oel und Amos p. %#>.
$>$ Andersen Freedman Amos: A :e2 3ranslation. '7his structure is in the heavens but has been founded upon the
earth (or even the underworld)& in other words its foundations are deep...cf. ?s. 3(.+*' p. 3$*.
$>> 6aller L. >.... K0ear 3his 'ord a,ainst CouK: A 9resh &ook at the Arran,ement and the Ehetorical Strate,y of
the Book of Amos. Eetus 7estamentum Eol. '. 4o. # pp. #**-'$( ('$#).
hymn is prose not poetry. 7he hymn's "enre is further defined by its use of wisdom-specific
vocabulary ma/in" it wisdom-prose a rare "enre. Comparisons with -ob's wisdom Flood-hymn
*.'-*M-$%N demonstrates probable co-dependancy.
Amos' Flood narrative seems to have started life as a cuneiform tablet within the cradle of
civili0ation Iud"in" by its hi"h percenta"e of Sumerian A//adian and 9abylonian parallel roots
before bein" updated with Canaanite vocabulary (c. 3'O lin/in" it with the @"aritic Flood psalms)&
waw-consecutive tense-mi2in" is further evidence of anti:uity. Such a tablet(s) could well have
been stored in -erusalem's temple library before bein" redacted into Amos' prophecy as a potent
covenant-curse. ! su""est this literature was also used within 3.#'s fiery vision-report Iud"in" by its
use of waw-consecutive common Flood vocabulary and rare A41 parallel roots.
7he conte2t of Amos' hymn demands a treaty-curse understandin" specifically the flood-curse
identified by =. 5illers. 7he hymn's vocabulary is clearly Flood related when compared to ,enesis
+-$.. 7he stron" correlation between ')semo' compound divine names and Flood related verses
within the writin"-prophets su""ests a uni:ue divine-Flood epithet and literary device. !dentifyin"
Flood Iud"ment and Covenant-curse as e2e"etical /eys has unloc/ed meanin" within Amos
demonstratin" these are valid /eys to e2e"ete the ori"inal intent and messa"e of the author
revealin" the hymn-fra"ments and their conte2ts are inseparable so dismissin" historically
e2tended multiple editor redaction theories. !dentifyin" SCL as Amos' literary template has also
shown *;$$-$''s 'SCL li/e' restoration passa"e should be considered "enuine to Amos' prophecy of
destruction and restoration.
@sin" SCL as his template Amos carefully wove these ancient but familiar Flood verses li/e
strands into the literary fabric of his boo/ in order to punctuate build structure illustrate his vision
report 3.# and provide a Flood covenant-curse emphasi0in" his prophecy of imminent destruction
of a covenant violatin" !srael but yet with hoped for eschatolo"ical restoration.
Amos' prophecy was seismically fulfilled at $.$ 'two years before the earth:ua/e' (c. 3'. 9.C.). 7he
political fulfillment was in 3>> 9.C. when Shalmaneser E besie"ed and captured -erusalem (cf. !!
Lin"s $3.%-3.). !saiah (>(.>) prophesied this event usin" stri/in"ly 'Amosian' flood-curseFSCL
lan"ua"e.
'9ehold the Lord hath a mi"hty and stron" one which as a tempest of hail and a
destroyin" storm as a flood of mi"hty waters overflowin" shall cast down to the earth
with the hand.' (Cf. vv.$3-$().
! "ratefully ac/nowled"e the /ind help and "uidance of =rs. 1ldon Clem and =avid Friedman.