CRITICAL NOTES 7 ANOTHER LOOK AT AMOS 5:26 ‘Amos 5:26 is a verse which has puzzled interpreters for years. The LXX, however, offers a possible solution to the problems of the verse which has not been previously considered. By problems are meant two things in particular. The frst is the identity of MT 7330 and 1*3. In the past it has been customary to identify map as a conscious corruption from zp (SAK- KUT, Ninib) and 13 as an identical corruption from }3"3 (ef. Syriac)? According to this schema, 12 represents Babylonian kaiwdnu, a name for the planet Saturn. Saturn in turn isspecfically the star of mizo (=Sak-kui= Assyrian Ninit). However, this solution leaves unsolved the problem of ‘explaining why a single Babylonian astral deity is referred to by two different names in the same verse, Although itis true that “Sak-kutand Kaiwanu are associated in the Shurpu tablets,” this does not help to explain why Sakkut is called a “king"and Kaiwanu iscalled “images”(p1!) when the word “star” is at hand in the very next phrase of the verse! The suggestion to be made here solves this problem by drawing Kaiwanu and “star” into apposition to each other. a proper identification of Saturn, the star of Ninib, However, aside from this problem of identification, thereis an obvious linguistic problem. As has long been recognized, the M'T here refuses toscan as poetry and exhibits “awkwardsyntax™if approached as non-poetic. The reading proposed below on the basis of the LXX would solve this problem of language and furnish a poetic structure of a balanced tricolon, 3:3:3, or, employing a syllable count analysis, a reasonably balanced structure reading 7, 8, 8° ‘Amos 5:26 may be reconstructed as follows with the aid of the LXX: she nso [nx] oneesfy) imp earths 22120) prey [we] o>oty You will take up the tabernacle of Mileom, The star of your god [which is] Kiydn, ‘Your images which you have made for yourselves. ‘A number of considerations based uponthe LXX furnish the rationale or this reconstruction. In this regard, itis noteworthy that the LXX varies from the MT in two distinst ways. First ofall, in lines b and c of the verse it employs lexical items exactly equivalent to those found in the MT ‘but ina radically different order and with several variations between person and number markers. For line b, the LXX reads 78 dorpov 109 Beod Juciv Poudav for a3t2 Does 9, Here there are several features which are unusual. (1) The LXX breaks upaMT phrase, for 2212in the construct state clearly belongs with the following word. (2) MT p22 becomes LXX deds, “images” (pl!) !W. R, Harper (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Amos and Hosea (ICC; Edinburgh: Clark, 1905) 137-44) surveys various opinions on the verse to 1905. For more recent bibliography on Amos, set H. W. Wolff, Joel and Amos (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977) 363-71 and J. L. Mays, Amos: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969) 16-17. An extensive list of commentaries and special works on Amos is given by S. M. Paul in “Amos 1:2- 23: A Concatenous Literary Pattern,” JBL. 90 (1971) 397. 20n the girl form used to denote idolatry and idols, see Harper, Amos, 139. sHarper, Amos, 140. “Mays, Amos, 112 SCf. D. N. Freedman, “Archaic Forms in Early Hebrew Poetry.” ZA W’72 (1960) 101-07.98 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE, becomes “god” (sg!). Normally, MT Dx is rendered by Greek eixaiv,* and nowhere else is Greek eds used for Hebrew 23, (3) MT 12 becomes LXX dozpoy, “Kiydn” becomes “star.” This fication at first appears judicious in light of the general agreement noted above.” Still, one iden ‘would normally expect Hebrew 2212 to be translated by dorpov. particularly since dorpov is used in the immediate context. (4) Pada, proper name, for 33:3, acommon noun, is not what one would normally expect Line ¢ is also most intriguing rods rUmous avrdy ofs éroufoare davrois for 2? ony Ww DNDN attests further vocabulary identification of an unusual type. Specifically, Greek ros occurs only three times in the LXX outside of this passage, twice where the Hebrew original is unknown (3 Macc 3:30; 4 Macc 6:19), and once in Exod 25:40 (LXX 25:39), to translate aan, “pattern,” Clearly, ros would translate “image” (57s) better than itdoes ov7, the word with which itis matched by the LXX in the present order of both versions. The following chart illustrates the lexical equivalents between the Greek and Hebrew texts of, Amos 5:26b-c, using the sequence of both versions as they now stand, The lines drawn between the two columns indicate the most likely pairing of the lexical items as indicated in the discussion above. LXX MT aorpor. 12 eos pony Pasar 013 tyro. now The second major variation of the LXX from the MT of Amos 5:26 is found in line a. Should the Hebrew of the second phrase be read sakkut malkékhem, “Sakkut your king;” or sukkat ‘ilk:ém, “the tabernacle of Milcom,” or even sukkat malkékhem, “the tabernacle of your king”? Quite clearly, LXX rv oxqvjyis areading of MT mz¢ as ifit were vocalized n2g. However, the second MT word, 03278, translated MoAox, has not been explained on the basis of simple revocalization because ofthe suffix 2, which is apparently not translated in the Greek textat al. The proper name Mohox is used elsewhere as the equivalent of Hebrew 736.4 12 itselfis equated with ob? in I Kgs 11:5 which speaks of essen ype O20 parallel to ney 33 ppy Tbeinv7. Itmay also be noted here that MT 0270 is often read by various Greek versions as D270? ‘The LXX reading of MoAxoA for MT 2a in 2 Kgs 23:13 suggests that the MoAox of Amos 5:26 should be idemtfied as a translation of the letters b-2-7-0, i, either 3359 or Ops, but understood by the LXX translators as the latter. This assumption of 2as the Vorlage of LXX MoAox perhaps explains why c> inthe MT was not translated into Greek. The 3 is expansion by SHatch and Redpath, A Concordance t0 the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1897) 1. 377. 1CI. N. H. Snaith, The Book of Amos, Pari II: Translation and Notes (London: Epworth, 1946) 106-08 and J. Gray, “Sakkuth and Kaiwan,”/DB 4.165.1"'2 occurs in Aramaic magic bowl 62(CE.C. D. Isbell, Corpus of the Aramaic Incantation Bowls, SBLDS 17 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975] 138) along with SameS, Sin, Nabu, Dlibat, and Bel Nereg This further illustrates the identification of Hebrew 1" as a Babylonian figure, undoubtedly Kaiwanu. *2 Kgs 23:10; Lev 18:21 (Aq., Sm., Th.}; Lev 20:2, 3, 4 (Aq); Lev 20:5 (A), der 49:1, (G 30:17, 19): Melxom; 2 Sam 12:30= 1 Chr 20:2 Melxol, Molxol, Amos 1:15: Melxom in L+, Ag., S; Zeph 1:5: Melxom in L(+),CRITICAL NOTES 9 (conscious?) dittography, while the final 0 is part of the word Milcom itself.” This is supported further by thefactthatin Amos | and 2 here isaconscious editorial effortto remove referencesto pagan gods as entities and to lst them not as “gods” but merely “kings.” The best example ofthis is Amos 1:15, where 534% a “god”is altered to 0775, merely “their king,” who is not a god at all. Milcom and Kaiwanu were in fact “images.” The proposed reading allows or this fact bothin meaning and be equating plural o2"0%s with plural réxous rather than with singular Beds, Before concluding, a word should be said about the context of the verse as it has been reconstructed above. If Amos 5:25 cannot be the end of the speech, and if 5:27 isthe end, asits doxology form indicates, “then something is needed between the two verses.”? Amos 5:26, ‘understood on the basis of our proposed LXX reconstruction, is as good a “something” as one ‘might wish. Israel had thought to please God through mere sacrifices, even though such rites could not be traced back as early as her wilderness experience (5:25). Nowshe would “fall into the power of foreign gods.""4 Reference to an Assyrian deity may be understandable in thecontext of the paren? mx778 of v 27, In tum, Milcom may be used precisely with reference to the Amos oracle against Ammon, where in 1:15, the phrase n> 22% 37 is probably best understood tomean, “Milcom will go into exile." The prophet is declaring that this deity, abomination personified, taken up and paraded by Israel, could not possibly be counted onto save Israel from exile precisely because he himself was slated for an identical fate. Charles D. Isbell ‘Nazarene Theological Scminary, Kansas City, MO 64131 10The presence of 5>%22 with its 62 ending may also have contributed to this form of D227. NICE, James L. Crenshaw (Hsmnic Affirmations of Divine Justice [SBLDS 24; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975] 75-80) on the unit. "Crenshaw, Hymnte Affirmations, 77. We agree with Mays (Amos, 110) that “5:21-24 is formally a complete saying without these verses” (5:25:27). “Mays, Amos, 111. 'L+, Ag. and Sm. read Melxom here