History as Theology: An Examination of the Historical Background of Amos

HISTORY AS THEOLOGY:AN EXAMINATION OF THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF AMOS

A Paper

Submitted to Dr. Archie W. England

of the

New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Seminar

OTHB9451: Amos

In the Division of Biblical Studies

Joshua N. Burnham

BBA, BS, Mississippi State University, 2005

MDiv, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 2008

28 November 2010

2

INTRODUCTION...................................................1

History of Research............................................4

Methodology...................................................10

Historical Survey.............................................12

Jeroboam II..................................................12

Edom.........................................................20

BETHEL.......................................................29

ANALYSIS OF HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND THEOLOGY OF AMOS........35

SPECIAL RELEVANCT TO NEW TESTAMENT............................44

CONCLUDING REMARKS............................................45

3

Appendix......................................................46

BIBLIOGRAPHY..................................................48

INTRODUCTION

The prophetic literature of the Old Testament is full of various messages to a wide-ranging audience through diverse life settingsand historical periods. This assortment of text and tradition hasled many to systematize the messages of the prophets or find other methods to seek a better understanding of this genre. For instance, Rolf Rendtorff understood the OT as a collection of traditions that made up Israel’s history.1 This was evidenced as God revealed himself through history and events encountered in

1

4

the community. Thus, for Rendtorff the revelation is central to the message of the prophets.

Rendtorff followed the thoughts of Wolfhart Pannenberg who defined revelation as the self-disclosure of God.2 For Pannenberg, God did not reveal his essence to the prophets but was merely imparting something to the prophet.3 This author notedthat no message is imparted in isolation and history played an important role in the prophetic speech. Pannenberg understood therole of history in the prophetic moment as allowing the communityto know God. Ultimately he proposed that God is known through historical acts.4

Another perspective on theology and the prophetic message isfound in the thinking and writing of Gerhard Von Rad. In his Old Testament Theology he found that prophetic message was deeply rootedin the law.5 For Von Rad, the prophetic theology and message was driven mostly by past tradition that had older foundations. Yet, he also observed the main purpose of the prophet was not to develop an overall theology of Yahweh or continue the faith tradition of Israel; rather, the man of God intended to deliver amessage from God to particular community in a particular historical situation.6 This historical situation is of great value to the audience of

Rolf Rendtorff, Gods History: A Way Through the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969), 18.

2 Wolfhart Pannenber, ed., Revelation as History, Edited by (New York: The Macmillan company, 1968) 4.

3 Ibid., 9.

4 Ibid., 43.

5 Von Rad, Gerhard, Old Testament Theology: The Theology of Israel’s Prophetic Traditions. Vol. 2. Translated by D.M.G. Stalker (Louisville: John Knox, 2001), 4.

6 Von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 130.

5

the biblical text as this state of affairs offers a glimpse beyond historical fact and into the theological thought of the prophet.

First, one must ask if past history is even conceivable and obtainable for a reader far removed from the event. Leo Purdue understood the collapse of history and singular focus as a major problem for Old Testament theology.7 Although his ideas move awayfrom a historical understanding of the Bible he asks a penetrating question into OT thought. Purdue pondered whether OT theology originates as a discipline within theology or from Israelite history.8 This question drives the quest for historicalunderstanding and pushes one to form a set methodology to OT theology before proceeding.

One can find numerous approaches to OT theology and to muddythe landscape of biblical studies are the vast approaches to history of Israel. The state of research in the following sectionwill focus on major works on biblical history. However, a brief summary of approaches is appropriate before proceeding. The school of biblical study begun by Albright and followed to a large extent by John Bright uses the biblical text as the historical foundation and supplements with archeological evidence. This approaches mixes the biblical text with archeological data in a method that allows historical understanding from both. A more extreme approach to history in this vein is the method of Provan, Long, and Longman who use the Bible as their primary historical source and supplement history with external sources if needed.

These biblical driven methods are offset by the methods of others such as Amihai Mazar. His approach is to understand fully the archeological data first. These artifacts and scientific study give the majority of the historical picture. For Mazar,

7 Leo G.Perdue, The Collapse of History: Reconstructing Old Testament Theology (Lousville: Fortress Press, 1994), 11.

8 Ibid., 206.

6

when the biblical text affirms the archaeological data then one can safely endorse the historicity of the text. This focus on external biblical data is also used by other scholars in their search for history. Some, like Hayes and Miller, take an extremely caution and critical approach to the biblical text whenreconstructing history.

These approaches to both history and theology find themselves imbedded in 8th century history and in the message andunderstanding of the prophet Amos. For the purpose of this study,the intersection of theology and history will be sought. More importantly the relationship between the current life setting andhistorical situation will be analyzed. The purpose of the following research is to summarize and analyze the immediate historical context of Amos and investigate the how these historical events shaped the message and theology of the prophet.This will be accomplished by surveying and reconstructing the historical background of Amos and observing links between the specific historical setting and the theology of the prophet.

Date

Before proceeding, a brief discussion of the date of Amos’s prophetic ministry is urgent. First, a study of the 8th century would have minimal value if the context of Amos does not include this period. Generally, the prophetic ministry of Amos can be placed within the regencies of Jeroboam II of Israel and Uzziah of Judah. Although an exact date is difficult, Paul proposed that“he must have completed his mission prior to 745, for his oraclesmake no reference to the dramatic reversal in domestic political affairs after the death of Jeroboam II, nor is there any indication of the westward territorial expansion of Assyria underthe reign of Tiglatpileser II.”9 For the purposes of this

9 Shalom M. Paul, Amos: A Commentary on the Book of Amos. Hermenia—ACritical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press, 1991), 1.

7

research, an exact date is not needed yet the ministry and message of Amos can be placed squarely towards the end of Jeroboam II’s sovereignty.

Another dating issue concerns the oracles against the nations. Many scholars assign the oracle about Edom a late postexilic date due to Israel’s control in the region.10 First, the biblical text does not assume complete control of Edom duringthe 8th century. Also, supremacy of a region does not eliminate all threats and the feud between Edom and Israel was constant throughout the first half of the 8th century. Finally, as will bediscussed later, this oracle does not necessarily refer to one major historical affront against Israel by Edom. Therefore, Amos 1:11-12 fits well within the 8th century background of Edom and Israel and will be analyzed as original to the text.

10 Ibid., 19.

8

History of Research

John Bright Bright’s method includes the utilization of ANE archaeology as anobjective control on the historical narratives of the Bible and neglects to exploit it as an apologetic tool.11 In sum, the purpose of A History of Israel is to outline a detailed history of Israel in a comprehensive manner that does justice to and draws upon historical, Biblical, and archeological resources. Bright understood the eighth century to bring resurgence to both Israel and Judah. This was due largely to a void of any ancient near eastern power which began with the fall of Damascus and preoccupations of Assyria.12 Basing his historical reconstructionon the biblical 2 Kings, the author pictured the new flowering ofIsrael with the rise of Jehoash and the renewal of Judah coinciding with the reign of Judah.13 This economic and politicalawakening was then carried to new heights by Jeroboam II in the north and Uzziah in the south. Bright notes that Jeroboam was an able military leader, although exact information is lacking aboutspecific battles. The biblical text reveals that the king pushed Israel’s border to Hamath to an area where only Solomon ventured.14 Bright also suggested that Jeroboam II imposed his military will upon the neighboring territories of Damascus and Hamath.15 Judah, not to be outdone by Israel, took territory from

11 John Bright, A History of Israel. 4th ed. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2000), 5.

12 Bright, A History of Israel, 256.

13 Ibid. See II Kings 13:25, 14:1-14; II Chronicles 25:5-24.

14 Ibid., 257.

15 Ibid.

9

Edom and Uzziah conquered Gath, Jahbneh, and Ashdod.16 Bright asserts that this vast military expansion and growing administration do not paint the entire picture of Israel’s eighthcentury history. According to the author the rise of social structure and centralization of power created a new, “privileged class, weakened tribal ties, and destroyed the solidarity characteristic of tribal society.”17 This new trend coupled with the integration of new people groups, especially the Canaanites, relegated Yahwism to a mere national religion with little influence in society. 18 The Samaria Ostraca reveal numerous names of local deities along with Yahweh that suggests a growing fascination of local cult in Israel.19 Bright then moves his historical discussion of the 8th century to the messages of Hoseaand Amos. This message will be developed in the analysis portion of the research paper. It should be noted that Bright places the beginning of Amos’ ministry just before 750 BCE20 The inclusion of Bright in this study is precipitated by his use of both a biblical and archaeological approach to history.

Provan, Long, and Longman

The purpose of A Biblical History of Israel is, “a project that we undertake in the hope, not only of saving the patient [biblical history], but of restoring her to a more vibrant state of health than she has known for some time.”21 This work is important to

16 Ibid., 258. See II Kings 14:22, II Chronicles 26:6-8; II Kings 15:5, and a possible allusion in 14:28.

17 Ibid., 260.

18 Ibid.

19 Ibid.

20 Ibid., 493.

21 Iain Provan, V. Philips Long and Tremper Longman III. A Biblical History of Israel (Louisville: John Knox Press, 2003), 35.

10

the study of 8th century biblical history due to the unapologeticbiblical approach the authors employ. This approach specifically and deliberately uses the biblical text as the primary historicalsource and supplements with archeology and other Ancient Near Eastern sources. The authors begin their history of Amos’s surrounding with a concentrated focus on the southern kingdom. After some type of conspiracy and coupe against Amaziah, his son Azariah also known as Uzziah in Amos took the throne.22 The authors readily admit that little biblical information is given about Uzziah. One does find that Uzziah fortified Jerusalem, campaigned against Philistia and Ammon.23 Most important is the battle of Beth-shemesh that preceded both Uzziah and Jeroboam II.This battle resulted in the defeat of Judah by the hands of the Israelites and included an assault on Jerusalem.24Uzziah’s leadership included a break from Israel in which Judah regained independence. The reign of Uzziah lasted many years yet the biblical text is lacking much detail. This rule illustrates the selected nature of biblical sources in regards to the history of Judah and Israel.

The reign of Uzziah in the south coincided with the leadership of Jeroboam son of Joash in Israel. The authors offer little information about Israel and Jeroboam II. However, they relate that he extended the territory of from Lebo Hamath to the Dead Sea.25 In few words the authors mention that the story of Kings and Amos are much more concerned about the moral condition of Israel rather than the political exploits of Jeroboam II. They

22 Ibid., 269.

23 Ibid. See 2 Chronicles 26:9,15; 26:6-9. Although many discount the Chronicles as theology rather than history, the authors support the historicity and use this collection as a primary source for their reconstruction of 8th century events.

24 Ibid, 268.

25 Ibid., 270.

11

concluded that “the recovery of Israel, while it had created wealth, had not produced social justice, and the religious piety of the people was pretense.”26

George Heinrich Ewald

Ewald commences his history of Israel in the 8th century with thehouse of Jehu.27 Although Jehu, Joash, and Jereboam led the kingdom of Israel, Ewald cautions the one should look past this leadership to the root of Israel’s resurgence. This true causes of resurgence for the author, included a return to principles:

Exclusive worship of Jahveh under the form of an ox, mutual understanding with the prophets of Jahveh, more faithful maintenance of all popular liberties, and opposition to Judah; while the primeval Bethel became once more the favorite seat, after Samaria of the kings and their religion.28

This sudden resurgence was founded by the mighty Elisha who stoodalong kings and offered them new authority and protection.29

26 Ibid. Here the weakness of Provan, Long, and Longman III shines forth. They limited themselves exclusively to the biblicaltext as historical source and their background of Amos and the 8th century is lacking. The brevity of the Kings and Chronicles account does not record the entire picture of political expansionor moral decay.

27 Ewald, Georg Hinrich. The History of Israel. Vol. 4 (Eugene, OR:Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2004), 119. Ewald begins the reign of Jehu in 883, Jehoahaz in 885, Jehoash in 839, the death of Elishaafter 839, the reign of Jeroboam II began in 823, Amaziah in 837,Uzziah in 808, and the ministry of Amos sometime after 808 BCE. For a complete chronological chart see page 300.

28 Ibid.

29 Ibid.

12

Although Jehu and Joash brought new strength to Israel alongwith the prophetic message of Elijah, Ewald asserted that in Jeroboam II the “ ‘deliverer’ of the kingdom of the Ten Tribes atlast arrived.”30 Jeroboam II was the realization of prior prophetic promise and brought neighboring nations under his control although Ewald proposes the states of Damascus, Ammon, Edom, and Hamath remained tributaries and retained their local rulers.31 For the author, the splendor and promise of Jeroboam IIdid not last as the end of his reign recognized the disillusionment of the northern kingdom.

Here Ewald begins his fascinating exposition into the moral decay of the historical background. First, he recognized that themighty victories of Jeroboam II transpired during the first decade of his reign. These spectacular triumphs led to years of peace, which eased external anxiety, brought luxurious comfort, and culminated in “effrontery of the women.”32 Secondly, the influence of prophetism began to crumble. This was evidenced by the rise of community independence on the word of the Prophets that led to doubt and even ridicule of the prophetic message.33 Third, Ewald observed a new prophetic order that began with Hoseathat had a purer grasp on spiritual truths and evidenced a “more vigilant survey of surrounding circumstances” than past propheticfigures.34 The forth characteristic of moral change was a new

30 Ibid., 123.

31 Ibid., 124.

32 Ibid., 126.

33 Ibid., 128.

34 Ibid., 130. This is not to say that the prophets Hosea, Amos, Jeremiah, and Isaiah were any better or religiously pure than Elijah or Moses. Rather, Ewald understands the new prophetictradition as recognizing the current moral corruption and callingthe community to “true spiritual regeneration.”

13

resistance of prophetism by the monarchy. No longer did prophet stand next to king to promote political strength. On the contrary, Jeroboam II is portrayed as fighting against the message of Amos. Lastly, Ewald observed that although Jeroboam IIremained on the throne, “the external condition of the kingdom continued satisfactory” although this facade collapsed within several months after the end of Jeroboam’s rule.35

Amihai Mazar The stated purpose of Mazar’s labor is, “to present a comprehensive, updated, and as objective as possible picture of the archaeological research of Palestine relating to the Old Testament period.”36 This text is part of the famed Anchor Bible Reference Library. Its inclusion as a seminal work in the world of biblical background at first appears out of place; however, Mazar offers the reader an expansion of knowledge about historical and archeological data surrounding the Ancient Near East. This archaeological driven method moves the historical setting away from the biblical text into the realm of perceived hard data. The greatest contribution to the study of Amos in the text is found in the author’s observations on local communities and regions. For this reason, these details will not be included in this literary summary but will be found in the analysis of towns and places in the 8th century.

Julius Wellhausen

Julius Wellhausen is one of the most important thinkers in the twentieth century and his efforts continue to serve as the

35 Ibid., 133.

36 Amihai Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000-586 B.C.E. The Anchor Bible Reference Library (New York: Doubleday, 1990), xv.

14

foundation for recent critical study. For this reason, his work is included in the survey of literature. Wellhausen noted that Jeroboam II helped Israel achieve a height that was not seen since the time of David.37 Although the author gives little political historical background to Amos, his contribution to the religious situation is great. First, Wellhausen proposed that under Jeroboam II a great conspicuous temple to the Lord was built.38 Along with this cultic edifice came great fanfare, offerings, and festival. Second, and significantly, through the fanfare and festive atmosphere stepped the grim message of Amos. For Wellhausen, Amos exposes the rottenness of Jeroboam’s kingdomduring a period of extreme national pride, pomp, and circumstance.39 Although most of Wellhausen’s efforts were concentrated in the Torah, his understanding of Jeroboam is intriguing and examined the dislocation on of prophetic message with historical situation.

Miller and Hayes Miller and Hayes are included here as a good example of a cautious approach to the biblical text and to historical understanding.40 The authors generally agree with the accounts ofJeroboam II in Kings yet dismiss the most extravagant claims thathe conquered Damascus and Hamath.41 They also understand that theavailable text is corrupt and concede that Damascus and Hamath

37 Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994), 69.

38 Ibid., 81.

39 Ibid., 82.

40 J. Maxwell Miller and John H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah. 2d ed.,( Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), xvii

41 Ibid., 353.

15

probably lost territory to Israel and paid some nominal tribute.42 This expansion of the empire occurred during the initial stages of Jeroboam’s throne and his later years were marked with stark contrast to the former. Miller and Hayes contributed the decline of Israel to several factors. First, Assyria again declined and this hurt Israel’s stability. This void brought more external hostility to both Israel and Judah from other kingdoms. Also, Jeroboam II began to experience a disruption from the prophetic movements of Hosea and Amos. Another factor was the threat from Damascus and the rule of King Rezin who began to lead an anti-Assyrian movement from within Israel.43 The authors concluded with a comment on the messages ofAmos and Hosea. Miller and Hayes note that Jeroboam II died a natural death in spite of the prophetic opposition.44 This historical background focused on the political movement of Jeroboam II. The authors gave little credence to the religious and moral undercurrents of the period and dismiss the message andtheology of Amos as insignificant.

Menahem Haran

For the purposes of this study the work of Menahem Haran deservesreview.45 First, Haran offers one of the few detailed accounts ofJeroboam Ben Joash and his political background. Haran attempted to discover the ebb and flow of Jeroboam’s military exploits. With thorough research and historical reconstruction, the author suggested that the beginning stages of the king’s regency did notinclude vast political expansion. Rather, Amos prophesied of a

42 Ibid.

43 Ibid., 355.

44 Ibid., 356.

45 Menahem Haran, “Rise and Decline of the Empire of Jeroboam Ben Joash,” Vetus Testamentum 17.3 (1967), 266-297.

16

day where Israel’s immediate enemies will be subjugated.46 For Haran, these future prophetic events dictate the Jeroboam inherited a situation where the territory mentioned in the oracles against the nation remained unconquered. The work then moves to a discussion of the meaning of Damascus and Hamath in the annals of Jeroboam’s conquest. The author understands 2 Kingsto portray the king as bringing Damascus under his authority and requiring tribute while also extending his might to Hamath the path to the Euphrates.47 Haran finished his look into the fall ofJeroboam’s reign with the downfall of Zechariah and ultimately the fall of Samaria.

Methodology

Definition of Scope

This paper will unfold in two specific mechanisms. Primarily, theresearch will survey the historical background of Amos. This historical setting will give priority to three elements within the record: Jeroboam II, Edom, and Bethel. First, Jeroboam II was

46 See Amos chapters 1-2.

47 Haran, “Rise and Decline,” 282.

17

chosen due to his key role in the resurgence of Israel in the 8th

century and his prominent role within the historical setting of Israel during the prophetic ministry of Amos. Although Uzziah ruled in the south, his regency will not be discussed for the purposes of this paper. Secondly, Edom is referenced within the text of Amos five times. This is the most referenced foreign nation within the message of Amos and this paper will attempt to provide discovery into this usage. Lastly, Bethel is mentioned over seven times within Amos, which is more than twice any other location. For the rationale of this paper, this author understands the use of this king, country, and location as intentional within Amos and an attempt will be made to evidence and analyze the importance of these historical references.

Delimitations

This is not a study on the theology of Amos. No attempt will be made to formulate a systematic theology of the message of Amos. Likewise, this is not a historical overview of the book of Amos or a thesis on the historicity of the text. This author understands that no historical event occurs in isolation. The choosing of Jeroboam II, Edom, and Bethel do not minimize other historical events. Rather, these specific items were chosen because they hold a crucial importance to the text and prophetic vision.

Method

1. This research will first survey the major events and historical background of Jeroboam II, Edom, and Bethel.

a. This background will begin with textual references to each element in Amos.

b. Also research will include the Kings and Chronicles material to gather a greater understanding of Jeroboam II

18

c. Next, external sources will be utilized to evaluate thehistorical background of the above elements

2. The research will analyze and observe key links between the message of Amos and the role of the historical background ofJeroboam II, Edom, and Bethel within the theology and prophetic message of the prophet.

19

Historical Survey

Jeroboam II

Date

2 Kings 14:23 records that Jeroboam ben Joash ascended to the throne of Israel in the fifteen year of Amaziah and Jeroboam reigned forty-one years. Although the biblical text provides the length of reign, 2 Kings does not include the exact dating of these events. Some argue against the forty-one years presented by 2 Kings, yet his length of rule is not in doubt as much as thedate of his regency.48 John Bright dates Jeroboam II from 786-746, which aligns with Albright’s date.49 Theile suggested the

48 See , Keith W. Whitelam, “Jeroboam.” in vol. 3 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 745. Gray proposes that the 2 Kings record confused the reign of Jeroboam with the co-regency of his father.


20

dates of 793/92-753.50Andersen assumed a date of 784/3-753/2.51 Although most of these dates vary only by several years, the ending date of Jeroboam’s reign is important for the study of Amos, if one follows an 8th century dating for the prophet.

Name

In Amos 7:9 the prophet refers so the throne and line of Jehu asthe M™DoVb∂rÎy ty¶E;b or house of Jeroboam. Amos’s descriptionmay offer a glimpse into the importance and magnificence ofJeroboam’s reign. In contrast, Hosea refers to the throne as thea…w$h´y ty∞E;b.52 This distinction gives importance to thestudy of Amos as Ishida postulates, “we may conclude that, inprophetic condemnations, the dynasty was sometimes called not bythe name of the founder but by the name of the king who wasregarded as responsible for the transgression denounced.”53 Ifcorrect in his assumptions, the message of Amos paints a grimpicture of Jeroboam’s reign as the critical sinful link in theJehu dynasty.

Political

Politically, Jeroboam II was a shrewd military commander whoexpanded the northern kingdom and restored her to former glory.The Kings corpus introduces the ruler with little fanfare and

50 See Millar and Hayes, 683. Thiele assumes a co-regency.

51 Miller and Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel, 683.

52 Tomoo Ishida, The Royal Dynasties in Ancient Israel: A Study on the Formation and Development of Royal-Dynastic Ideology (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1977), 179.

53 Ishida, The Royal Dynasties, 178.

21

acknowledges his ascension in the “fifteenth year of Amaziah sonof Joash king of Judah.”54 Here one also learns that Jeroboam sonof Jehoash was enthroned in Samaria and he ruled this northernnation forty and one years.55 Moreover, the annals of Kingssupport the military expeditions of Jeroboam as he is reported tohave “returned the border of Israel from Lebo-Hamath to the Seaof Arabah.”56 This expansion was in accord with what the prophetJonah had spoken. The inclusion of the word of Yahweh accordingto Jonah is remarkable due to the more negative reflection ofJeroboam II in the remainder of this passage. Also unusual is areference to Jonah’s message that “is not preserved elsewhere inthe Hebrew bible, although its nationalistic sentiments are inaccord with the presentation of the figure Jonah and the book bythat name.”57 In addition the biblical record documents thatIsrael recovered both Damascus and Hamath belonging to Yaudi.58

To fully recover, as much as possible, the politicalconquests of Jeroboam II, one must go beyond the biblicaldescription l$Ea∂rVcˆy l…wâb◊…g_tRa and use available sourcesto reconstruct the past.59 What was the extent of Israel’s

54 2 Kings 14:23. Also Jeroboam II son of Jehoash is referenced by name in Hosea 1:1, Amos 1:1, and 1 Chronicles 5:17.

55 2 Kings 14:23.

56 2 Kings 14:25

57 Whitelam, 745. The inclusion of this lost oracle seems odd especially due to the negative exploits of Jeroboam II. One can only assume the proclamation of Jonah. Nonetheless the Kings material portrays these military conquests as victories by the hands of Yahweh. One should not assume that Jeroboam followed theLord and this resulted in his victory. 2 Kings 14:24, the verse preceding the victories clearly evidences the evil of the king inthe sight of Yahweh.

58 See 2 Kings 14:28.

59 See 2 Kings 14:25.

22

restoration and expansion? First, Menaham Haran proposed thatJoash the father of Jeroboam had succeeded in establishingsuzerainty in the northern plain but did not fully extend controlover the Trans-Jordan before his death.60 Thus, Jeroboam did notmerely establish Israel’s expansion in spite of earliersubjugations. Consequently, the historical record ratherevidences that Jeroboam began his expansion into the Trans-Jordan, an area that his father had yet to dominate.

The expansion of Jeroboam II must take into account theneighboring world powers. Most scholars affirm that Israel andJudah experienced resurgence in power due to the lack externalthreat, especially Egypt and Assyria. For Jeroboam II to expandhis kingdom, the worry of Assyria must have not have been felt.Assyrian eponym lists evidence battles in Damascus in 773 BCE.61

Haran understood these conquests to be the earliest period ofIsrael’s conquests. After the death of Shalmanaser IV in Assyriaa year later, the mighty empire grew weaker and weaker allowingJeroboam II to implement his expansive plan.62 More likely, 755evidences one of the weakest periods for Assyrian under the reignof Assur-dan III and the transition to Assur-Nirari V.63 Thispower void afforded Israel the most opportunity to take Damascus.Therefore this historical analysis suggested to Menaham Haranthat the pinnacle of Jeroboam’s power was, “attained only toward[his] final years and thus came to an end precisely when Jeroboam

60 Haran, “Rise and Fall,” 271. For a more full description of the battles and conquests of Jehu, Jehoahaz and Jehoash see the earlier portions of Haran’s article. Here he offers an excellent historical summery of Israel’s conquests up until the reign of Jeroboam.

61 Ibid., 278.

62 Ibid., 279.

63 Ibid.

23

was at the acme of his power.”64 If true the substantial power ofJeroboam’s reign lasted not the twenty-five years indicated bymost scholars but merely seven to eight years.

Another consideration on neighboring powers is that ofDamascus. Martin Noth understood “the decline of Damascus as thenecessary precondition of the success of Jeroboam II.”65 Thisprecondition was met by the hands of Adadnirari who decimatedDamascus around 800 BCE and forced the territory to paytribute.66 The downfall of Damascus proved beneficial to Hamathas Noth recognized the establishment of more power to thismonarchy.67

2 Kings 14:28 established that Jeroboam son of Johoashconquered both Damascus and Hamath. If one is to take thebiblical record seriously, then the text allows for some type ofmilitary conquest. The nature of these conquests has been debatedby scholars. Some find it, “highly plausible that Damascus, too,neither altered its political visage nor became an administrativeappendage of Israel.”68 Rather, Jeroboam’s conquest and rulerelegated Damascus to a territory that had to pay homage andtribute to Israel. Historical records do not shed much light intothe relationship of Damascus and Hamath to Israel. The fact thatafter the Jeroboam’s death Uzziah undertook a central leadership

64Ibid., 280.

65 Martin Noth, The History of Israel. 2d ed. (New York: Harper andBrothers, 1958),250.

66 Ibid., 248.

67 Ibid., 249.

68 Haran, “Rise and Fall,” 281.

24

role over the northern coalition displays the power that Jeroboamextended to the north.69

2 Kings again records the expanse of Jeroboam’s northernconquest. Here Israel is claimed to have restored the territoryfrom Hamath to the sea of Arabah.70 T™DmSj awñøbV;lIm is oftencited as the northern most conquest of Jeroboam and may not beidentical to the city of Hamath.71 Haran noted, “the term leboyHamath is usually applied to describe the northern rim of Canaanin its greatest extent, as identical with the land which,according to biblical tradition, was promised to the forefathersof Israel.”72 In addition to Haran’s explanation, some argue thatLebo Hamath is in fact the last fortification along the road thatleads to the Euphrates.73 Haran understood this phrase as ananalogy that the path to the Euphrates did not escape Jeroboamwho desired the mighty location.74

69 Ibid., 281. This author does not see Jeroboam’s might extending past suzerainty status. Rather, Israel appears to have won decisive battles then forced Damascus to pay tribute. Further, evidence does not exist for an Israelite administrative take over of Damascus.

70 2 Kings 14:25.


72 Ibid., 282.

73 See Haran, 282.

74 Ibid.. Also, Haran argues that this phraseology does not automatically disqualify Hamath proper from consideration. Rather, Hamath is the door to the Euphrates and its surrounding locales would include Hamath proper. This northern most location also correlates the extent of Jeroboam’s northern territory to the vast northern reaches of David and Solomon’s empires.

25

Although some do not see Israelite domination in the northand in the territory surrounding Hamath, the study of Assyriandocuments reveals a double name for the king of Hamath.75 Inthese sources dated to around 720 BCE the Hamath ruler is eithertermed Ilubidi or Jaubidi; the later name having a strongIsraelite influence.76 Malamat recognizes this influence tosupport the domination of the region by Jeroboam II.77 If theHamath king has links to a Yahwistic name, then this externaldata would add to the growing tradition of Israel’s strength inthis period.

External Sources

Although relatively few external documents and artifacts attestto the direct influence of Jeroboam II, seals have been foundthat substantiate the sphere of influence of Jeroboam ben Joash.Grabbe concludes that although the biblical record evidencesimportant political activity during the reign of this king, he is“not mentioned by any extra-biblical source.”78 However, oneexample of an officer’s seal of the 8th century hails from Israeland, “features an artistically carved figure of a roaring lionand bears the name ‘Shema servant of Jeroboam’; Shema may have

75 Abraham Malamat, History of Biblical Israel: Major Problems and Minor Issues (Boston: Brill, 2001), 217.

76 Ibid. The exact spelling of the Assyrian name is still indoubt. The author also proposes that this Israelite name is an exact parallel to a royal Judean nomenclature Eliakim-Johoiakim.

77 Ibid.

78 Lester L. Grabbe, Ancient Israel: What Do We Know and How Do We Know It? (New York: T and T Clark, 2007), 164. He also suggests that the biblical account can neither be confirmed nor denied in relation to the escapades of Jeroboam II. This is mainly due to the complete lackof external data explicitly referencing the king.

26

been a minister of Jeroboam II” and was inspired by Phoenicianand Aramean traditions.”79 Other archaeological evidence pointsto a growing society under the rule of Jeroboam II. Joseph Freesuggested, “the excavation of Samaria begun in 1931 under thedirection of J.W. Crowfoot brought forth from the citadel area ofthe city numerous fragments of ivory inlay, which illuminateAmos’ reference to the ‘beds of ivory.’”80 These ivory inlayswere evidenced in reliefs and furniture. This extravagantbuilding begins to display the growing influence of Israel. Onedoes not usually see extravagant living in times of war anddifficulty. Thus, this era gave the population some sense ofpeace and stability. Also Samaria ostraca from the period “whichrecord the payment of taxes to the royal treasury at the capital,list such payments in wine and oil.”81 Consequently, Samaria hadbecome a large center of administration and commerce underJeroboam II. This administration is also evidenced in ostracathat “indicate that the population around Samaria at the time hada very heterogeneous character. We find names of Egyptian,Israelite, and also Canaanite origin.”82 This growing diversityattests the to great collection varied people being pulled to thenorthern capital during Jeroboam’s reign.

79 Amihai Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000-586 B.C.E. (The Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday, 1990), 518.

80 Joseph P. Free, Archaeology and Bible History (Wheaton, IL: Scripture Press, 1962), 194. One should be advised that Free places the reign of Jeroboam II from 782-753 and the ministry of Amos around 750. Thus, following Free’s chronology would place some archeological evidence under the reign of Menahem rather than Jeroboam. However, the text of Amos clearly focuses on the regency of Jeroboam not Menahem.

81 Ibid. Although these ostraca do not implicate Jeroboam II explicitly, the dating is from the same period.

82 H. Jagersma, A History of Israel in the Old Testament Period (Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1983), 150.

27

The location of Samaria served as an aid to intensify thepolitical situation of Jeroboam II. This capital “was at the peakof its prosperity and expansion in the reign of Jeroboam II. Its’strategic location near the international trade routes, as wellas conquests and commerce, accounted for its great affluence.”83

The king also tapped the fertile surrounding of Samaria, whichproduced wheat, barley, grapes and olives.84

From Samaria was uncovered ostraca, artifacts that detaileconomic transactions of oil, wine, and other resources. Thesedocuments evidence the growth in economic wealth of the area.Albright observed that “very interesting light is shed on thepopularity of the elements YAU (abbreviated for of Yahweh) andBaal in personal names of this period by the Ostraca of Samaria,which date from the ninth to the seventeen year of JeroboamII.”85 These artifacts give modern researchers a small glimpseinto the life of the Samaria population of the 8th century. Moreimportantly, these names give a clue to the type of deityveneration under Jeroboam. To this point, Albright concluded “tojudge from the personal names mentioned in them, belonging to menborn between cir. 840 and 800 B.C., it would seem that namesformed with Ba’al were roughly in the ratio 7:11 to names formedwith Yahweh (Yau).”86 Although these conclusions are far fromdefinitive, this exhibits some form of Ba’al worship. However,what is yet clear is the amount of persons in Samaria ofCanaanite decent. These results could be skewed and some figures

83 Ibid.

84Ibid. Jeroboam II cannot be credited with inventing agriculture specific to the region or developing grain. However, these crops aided in the growing power of the king and also allowed for a growing population in Samaria.

85 William Foxwell Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006), 160.

86 Ibid.

28

that propose close to fifty percent of the popular were non-Israelites. Thus, the persons with Ba’al venerated names could beindividuals of non-Israelite decent.

Despite the vast expansion of Israel under Jeroboam benJoash in the biblical text, not everyone agrees to the reasonbehind this political increase. Walter Bruggemann, studying theDeuteronomistic History and the condemnation of Jehu’s dynasty,focused on the historical account of 2 Kings 14:26.87 HereBruggemann understood the humiliation and affliction of Israel aspolitical and military and attributed this prior humiliation aspurpose of Jeroboam’s ascension and conquests. This would“explain why, in a reversal, Jer- oboam enjoyed military success—at the behest of Yhwh. That is, Yhwh continues to be attentivelyengaged with the northern kingdom, most especially with referenceto this dynasty.” For Bruggemann, the hand of the Lord is clearlydisplayed in the military advances of Jeroboam II.

Samaria

Samaria was established as the capital of Israel by Omri around884 BCE and was situated in an excellent strategic location dueto its proximity next the coastal throughway connecting Egypt andsouthern Judah.88 This city remained the capital under JeroboamII and an examination for this city should reveal the politicalenvironment of the 8th century. First, in the analysis of potteryform the region of Jeroboam II, Tappy recognized an “renewedcorrelation between the pottery of Ta’anach IV and Hazor V.”89

This correlation evidenced less regionalization and a87 Walter Brueggemann, “Stereotype and Nuance: The Dynasty

of Jehu.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 70.1 (2008), 26.

88 Ron E. Tappy, The Archaeology of Israelite Samaria: The Eighth Century BCE. Vol. 2. Volume 50 of the Harvard Semitic Studies (Winona Lake: Ind.:2001), 4.

89 Ibid., 236.

29

strengthening administrative center based out of Samaria. Throughthorough study of pottery remains and archeological evidence,Tappy proposed a historical outline of Samaria.

S.1) foundation and growth halted by internal revoltOmride Dynasty to Jehu, ca. 867-842/841 BCE

S.2) attempted but only moderately successfulstabilization

Jehu, ca. 842/841- 815 BCE

S.3) stagnation in weaknessJehoahaz to Jehoash (first half of reign), ca. 815-

mid- 790’s BCE

S.4) steady growth and rise to apogee of affluence anpower

Jehoash (last half of reign) to Jeroboam II, ca. 790’s-746 BCE

S.5) rapid decline and ultimate collapseZechariah to Hoshea, ca. 746/745- 721 BCE90

The foundation of Samaria is rooted in the strategy of Omri. Nextone notices slow but moderate growth until Jehoash and JeroboamII. Under this reign the city reaches new heights until animmediate demise in 722/21. Kenyon adds that the pottery ofSamaria “shows large-scale public building belong to the secondhalf of the 9th century B.C., either late in the reign of Ahab orin that of Jeroboam II.”91

Samaria was not alone in evidencing the splendor ofJeroboam’s growing empire. Other locations attest to majorbuilding projects. Hazor, Dan, and Megiddo have produced

90Ibid., 506.

91Kathleen M. Kenyon, Archaeology in the Holy Land. 5th ed., (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985), 266.

30

archaeological remains of great impact on one’s understanding ofthe 8th century. These cities have been recorded to containedifices that “are among the finest of the entire Israeliteperiod.”92Currently, more data is needed for these locations toto aid reconstruction of the Jeroboam’s throne.

Religious

One difficulty with the religious state of Israel during JeroboamII’s reign is the lack of sources and the heavy reliance on the Kings and prophetic material. Through the message of the prophetsJagersma reconstructed the social and religious climate of Jeroboam’s world. First, the author noted the growth in trade andthe prosperous land holding of the rich and proposed, “in this situation, the country people in particular were forced to foot the bill.”93 This is manifested specifically in the remains of Tirzah where archaeological data suggests “the way in which the houses were built shows that above all in the eighth century BC there was a great contrast between rich and poor.”94 Next, Jagersma advocated that the increased urbanization and the administration of Jeroboam II made the poor rural population moredependant on the cities.95 Included in the growing urban community were the Canaanites who some estimate made up half the population or these urban centers.96 This growing pagan communitywould have put great pressure on the followers of Yahweh althoughthere is no evidence that Jeroboam II supported this Canaanite resurgence.

92 Philip J. King, “The Eighth, The Greatest of Centuries?” Journal of Biblical Literature 108 (1989), 4.

93 Jagersma, A History of Israel, 151.

94 Ibid., 150.

95 Ibid.,151.

96 Ibid.

31

Edom

The historical background of Amos must now turn from the king of Israel to one of the most important nations in the text and prophetic message of the book of Amos. The people of Edom are referenced five times within the text of Amos.97 In each instancethe prophet paints the nation of Edom in a seemingly negative light. Twice Edom is mentioned as buying slaves.98 Once the nation is condemned for pursing with the sword his brother.99 Theone neutral text concerning Edom condemns Moab for burning the bones of Edom’s king.100 Lastly, Israel is promised a day of restoration when they will once again posses the remnant of Edom.101 These five references work in synergy to develop the message and theology of the book of Amos. One must have the historical background of this neighboring sovereign state to better understand its role within the prophetic message. The theology and message of the above verses will be developed in a later section. For now, what immediately follows is a historical survey of Edom and its relation to Israel and particularly Jeroboam II and Amos. Archaeological evidence does not aid this historical review to a great extent as “no major monumental Edomite inscription has been found.”102 This lack of explicit

97 See verses 1:6, 9, 11; 2:1; 9:12.

98 Amos 1:6, 9.

99 Amos 1:11.

100 Amos 2:1.

101 Amos 9:12.

102 John R. Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 77 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 209.

32

primary data forces the historical survey of Edom in the 8th century to the biblical text and inference from archaeological remains.

The biblical evidence about Edom is quiet for more than fifty years until the reign of Amaziah when this king struck downten thousand Edomites in the Valley of Salt and took the city of Sela.103 The record in 2 Kings does not introduce this historic event yet, “it has been suggested that when Hazeal king of Syria took Gath and threatened Jerusalem, Edom profited from Judah’s difficulties to attack Judahite settlements in the Negev.”104 Bartlett suggested that Amaziah wanted to exalt his name thus this conquest and taunt of the Israelite king later in the biblical text.105 This triumphant victory does not necessitate theinclusion of Edom as a vassal to Israel; however, this defeat must have been a devastating blow for Edom. Bartlett related thatduring the time of Amaziah and Jeroboam Edom was attempting to establish itself as a power in the ANE and the battle in the Valley of Salt, “would have meant not only the loss of manpower and pride, but also, in all probability, the weakening of whatever central government and administration had been established over the last half-century.”106

Teman and Bozrah

Amos reference two paritular locations, Teman and Bozrah in the oracle against Edom.107 Stuart demonstrates that these two cities

103 See 2 Kings 14:7.

104 Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites, 123.

105 Ibid. The new name given to Selah signifies El has destroyed it. Further 2 Kings 14:10 chastises Amaziah for his boasting and self-exaltation.

106 Ibid., 124.

107 Amos 1:12

33

were the southernmost and northernmost regions.108 The strategic geography of these locations was intensified due to their situation along the King’s Highway.109 Similar to most history involving Edom in the eighth century, not much data is available in reference to these two cities. The historical references in Amos appear to point to a northern and southern location in the nation. A more in-depth analysis will be developed below in relation to Amos’ use of Edom as region or statehood.

Name

A study of Edom can begin with confusion as the term is often employed to refer to both territorial location and sovereign state.110 Edom the term connotes the meaning of “red” and the territory of Edom has been found to contain red soil.111 Edom the state erected his administrative center in Bozrah, as stated in Amos 1:12, in the eighth century evidenced by several inscriptions on local buildings.112 In addition, “Bozrah has been confidently identified with the modern site of el-buseirah, whichsits on a natural land spur carved out of the surrounding plateauby the deep ravines of the Wadi el-Hamayida.”113 The understanding

108 Douglas Stuart, Hosea-Jonah. Word Biblical Commentary 31 (Waco Texas: Thomas Nelson, 1987), 313

109 Ibid.

110 Diana Vikander Edelman, ed., You Shall Not Abhor an Edomite for He Is Your Brother: Edom and Seir in History and Tradition (Archaeology and Biblical Studies. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 1.

111 Ibid.

112 Ibid.

113 Ibid., 2. The greatest evidence for this site as the locale for Bozrah is the perseveration of the name. C.M. Bennet has contributed to the work at this site and has published the

34

of Edom’s territory is less clear that the nation’s general location. Edelmen identifies Edomite territory as the region to the east of Arabah and just south of the Dead Sea.114 The northernmost limits are often identified in the biblical text as the Brook Zered and the southernmost boundary is ambiguous although some push as far to the south as Ras en-Raqb.115 Of interest in the southern territory is the famous city of Petra and the red Nubian-sandstone that characterizes region.116 Actual political locations of Edom are difficult to find. The biblical text denotes the locale of Sela in the Valley of Salt, Ezion-geber andElot near the shore of the Red Sea.117 The term Teman mentioned inAmos 1:12 is equally difficult to locate. Edelman understands theetymology as coming from a “taw-preformative noun from the root YMN meaning ‘south.’”118 The author also concludes that the place name Teman used in Amos coincides with the “northern portion of the Edomite plateau, the region surrounding Bozrah.”119 Gluek suggested that Teman was a specific location and is identical to Tawilan, which he described as “’ the largest Edomite centre in the Petra area.’”120 However Lagrange identified Teman with a different location and Roland De Vaux argued for a region in

majority of his findings.

114 Ibid.

115 Ibid., 3.

116 Ibid.

117 Ibid., 4. See 2 Kings 14:7, 1 Kings 9:26 and 2 Chronicles8:17. The exact location of these sites are still disputed especially Elat/Elot. Some identify Elot with the modern city Aqaba while others propose a newer site 1 km to the north.

118 Ibid.

119 Ibid.


35

southern Edom. Despite this ambiguity one can be certain about the term Edom as it was used by Amos to refer to a sovereign nation and not the more general region. As for Teman and Bozrah, Amos’ s extensive use of cities and specific locals within the oracles against the nations indicates that these terms were distinct cities in the mind of the prophet.

Edom as Brother

One notices an obvious tension between Edom and Israel with the judgment oracle of Amos as he declares the Lord will not withholdhis wrath from Israel’s brother.121 Glazier-McDonald traced the stress between the two nations back to the Davidic Monarchy.122 Inthis period Israel first experienced significant prosperity and acquired needed routes for imports and exports. Particularly, thetrade pathway from the Gulf of Aqaba was enticing to David and “the recognition of this Edomite asset likely followed David’s 10th century occupation of Edom and Judah’s subsequent ability toexplore Edomite territory.”123 The occupation of this essential trade route created great tension between the two nations and ledto anti-Edom sentiment in both Israel and Judah.124 Strikingly, the anti-Edom rhetoric is evidenced both when Edom reclaims theirlost territory and in Amos when Jeroboam II pushes into this eastern frontier. McDonald notes another clue to the harsh judgment of Edom as Israel’s brother. During the dynasty of Omri a key network of nations established through treaty included

121 See Amos 1:11

122 Edelman, ed., You Shall Not Abhor, 24.

123 Ibid. 25.

124 Ibid.

36

Israel, Judah, Phoenicia, and Philistia.125 This network incorporated numerous critical seaports and the harbor under control of Edom at the Red Sea was linked by land to Phoenician marinas on the Mediterranean.126 This brotherhood treaty may provide a link to the charge of betrayal by Edom.127

Textual Issues

An important issue for the background of Amos and specifically the study of Edom within the overall message of the prophet is the authenticity of the Edomite oracle. Most scholars argue for apostexilic authorship and late inclusion of this text. According to Paul, “their reasoning is that throughout the period of the monarch Israel was in control of Edom with the exception of a brief period when, under the reign of King Joram, the Edomites rebelled and installed a king of their own.”128 Paul asserts that the long standing battles between Edom and Israel along with the ambiguity of specific historical events does not necessarily force the Edom oracle into the postexilic scene.129


126 Ibid. 25.

127 Ibid. He proposes that Israel had a brotherly covenant with Tyre and the Philistines through treaty. Both Gaza (Amos 1:7-8) and Tyre (1:9-10) disregarded the treaty of brotherhood. Although Amos does not give specific details about the treaty, one could argue that it would have contained political and economic benefits.

128 Shalom M. Paul, Amos: A Commentary on the Book of Amos. Hermenia—A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 19.

129 Ibid., 20.

37

Slave Trade

Another judgment against Edom concerns the buying and selling of slaves.130 This offense is not abnormal, as both Tyre and Gaza were known epicenters of slavery.131 McDonald suggested that Amos may refer to the invasion of Judah by the Philistines and Israel by the Phoenicians.132 Also the accusation of h™DmElVv t…wñlÎ…gby Amos may indicate an extraordinary number of slaves in the transaction with Edom, which would result in economic prosperity and could be retribution against the purge of Tyrian Baal worshipers by Jehu.133

This view is opposed by M. Haran who undeniably asserted, “It is untenable to assume that Edom could possibly have been thedestination of the Israelite captivities delivered up by Philistia and Tyre.”134 First the shear smallness of the kingdom, even with a needed labor force for the copper mines, makes any significant trade of slaves unlikely.135 Secondly, for Haran, he denied that any noteworthy trade between Tyre and Edom existed.136

A lack of direct trade routes provides evidence for this 130 See Amos 1:6 and 9. Although the judgments are focused towardsthe sins of Gaza and Tyre Edom is also implicated as the buyer ofthe captive slaves.

131 See Edelman, ed., You Shall Not Abhor, 26. Joel 4:4-8 also accuses these two nations of selling the youth of Jerusalem into slavery.

132 Ibid., 26.

133 Ibid.

134 Menahem Haran, “Observations on the Historical Backgroundof Amos 1:2—2:6.” Israel Exploration Journal 18 (1968), 203.

135 Ibid.

136 Ibid., 204.

38

assertion. Finally, the author proposes, “that the test of Amos 1:6, 9 is not dealing with Edom is most strongly indicated by theusage of the verb ry¶I…gVsAh in these verses.”137 In conclusion, for Haran, the likelihood of any slave transaction between Tyre and Edom is extremely unlikely.

Rebtibution

Amos’ oracle against Edom in 1:11-12 appears to demonstrate a concrete historical tragic act against Israel by the hands of Edom. This event followed the takeover of crucial trade routs that stymied Edom’s economic impact in the region. Here McDonald surmises, “surely Judah’s takeover of that strategic bit of land after one-half century of Edomite control would have incited bitter acts of vengeance by Edomites against Judah and would haveprovoked the sort of animosity that would not die down quickly.”138 As to the specific event in question, Amos does not give further clues to the historical nature of the event. Freedman notes that most historical events in Amos remain elusivein their particular historical context as even the oracles are vague are vague enough to elude historical reconstruction.139

General History

One difficulty in determining the date of Edomite sites in the ANE and its territory is the lack of archaeological data that allows a fixed date. First, no primary Edomite locale has a “complete Iron Age sequence; nor, of course does the historical framework for Palestine bear any relation to the material

137 Ibid., 205.


139 Francis I. Andersen, and David Noel Freedman. Amos: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Yale Bible Series(New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989), 276.

39

cultural framework of Transjordan.”140 This lack of remains adds alevel of complexity when attempting to reconcile the nation of Edom with the standard Palestinian chronological system. The onlyinstance from an Edomite site is a clay seal impression from Umm el-Biyara of the King of Edom Qos-Gabr dated to around 673-672.141

Unfortunatly, one does not find any archeological data that specifically and clearly can be dated to the 8th century that pertains to Amos.

Although no specific date can be given to certain Edomite cities, other data suggests that the region experienced a rise inpopulation in Iron II illustrated by inflation in the number of sites found.142 Current debate about Edomite settlement patterns now revolves around the research of Nelson Glueck who recognized main sites as military forts and concluded, “that the boundaries of Edom were protected by a system of border fortresses.”143Although some question the analysis and conclusionsby Glueck this system of forts would add insight into the oraclesand threat of war for Israel. These systems of forts may be the explanation for Israel not being able to completely conquer Edom.Also, this frontier armament would allow Edom to raid his nearby neighbors and pursue Israel with the sword.

Haran echoes the rising anti-Israelite growing sentiment within Edom. First, although some suggest that Amaziah controlledEdom, the author does support any subjugation of Edom by Amaziah and the biblical text records only one major victory at Sela.144 This lack of control combined with a horrible and humiliating defeat at Gey Melah and a national pride since the days of


141 Ibid., 44.

142 Ibid., 54. The Iron II Age spans 1000-586 BCE.

143 Ibid., 55.

144 Haran, “Observations on the Historical Background,” 211.

40

Jehoram gave rise to a background where “many a local outbreak and acts of ‘pursuit with the sword’ were apt to occur.”145 This proposal by Haran with many local outbreaks appears to be the most likely situation referred to by Amos. The lack of any major historical event in the biblical or archaeological records does not support an alternative theory at this time. Whatever the situation, the attacks by Edom were deemed at the least as intrusive and a betrayal of trust and brotherhood.

Social and Economic Background

For the most part, the administration of Edom consisted of a system of related tribes rather than a formal monarchy with succession with the lone exception coming from the late 7th century.146 This type of administration allowed for some organization yet Edom never enjoyed a powerful political internalstructure. The loose formation of tribes was able to tap some of the resources in the region. In particular, large copper depositsin the plateau of central Wadi Arabah were mined extensively in the 12th and 7th centuries.147 The gap in production is explained by the breakdown of the Mediterranean world economic system around 1200 BCE and then the resurgence of world economics under the control of Assyria and its relationship with Phoenicia.148 Although Edom experienced some economic success in its history, archaeological data does not affirm a long period of economic growth.

Religion

145 Ibid.


147 Ibid., 111.

148 Ibid., 112.

41

Israel was constantly embracing and retreating from the cultic practices of surrounding nations. Thus, a quick survey of Edomitereligion should illuminate the message of Amos and the judgment against Edom. Yet, a large geographic area, lack of written sources, and ambiguous nature of religion make this venture difficult.149 Most scholars affirm that Edom venerated the deity Qos.150 More striking about Qos is the complete silence of biblical material about this religion.151 Also, one finds a lack of cultic centers in Edom that are identified with the deity Qos.These sources provide little information apart from the deity’s name.

Adding to the confusion of Edomite religious practices are the similar roots with Israel and Judah. Bartlett suggested that “in fact, Edom’s religion may not have differed very much from that of Israel and Judah, for various Old Testament texts presentEdom and Seir as the homeland of Israel’s god Yahweh, an Doeg theEdomite as worshipping at a Yahwist shrine.”152 In addition, no biblical text castigates the gods of Edom. Some evidence for the cultic practices in Edom is found in temples of Petra. One particular sanctuary was located far above Petra and appears likemost ordinary high places within the region.153 Some evidence of female figures and small animal statues, especially horses contribute to the Edomite cult.154 Although not entirely certain,

149 Ibid., 119.

150 Ibid. This suggestion comes from an examination of Edomite kings who had theophoric names Qos-malaku and Qos-gabr. Also this name is preserved on a few Edomite seals in southern Jordan.

151 Ibid. 121.



154 Ibid., 192.

42

the female figurines may have represented the goddess Astarte whowas worshipped along with local deities Hadad, El, and Baal from surrounding nations.155

Edom as Brother

Next, one must turn attention to the curious phraseology in Amos that accuses of pursuing his brother.156 Here the obvious reference to Israel as a brother of Edom would also entail this nation as having brotherhood status. Stuart proclaims that Edom was truly a brother and the animosity between the two nations wasforetold in Genesis 25 and the connection with Esau most likely serves as the foundation of this brother label.157However, some suggest that this relationship did not exist before the Davidic monarchy, as it was not until this period that Edom became a political entity and had importance for Israel.158 Bartlett traces the link of brotherhood back to Genesis and concluded, “the identification of Esau with Edom meant that Edom received somewhat unfairly, a label which stuck.”159 He further explained that this unfair label was only enhanced when “Edom’s attempts toresist Israel’s domination and to preserve her own kingdom were naturally given an unfavorable interpretation by Israel.”160

155 Ibid., 194.

156 See Amos 1:11.

157 Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 313. See also Genesis 36 for a full genealogy of Esau and particular reference to Esau as Edom.

158 John R. Bartlett, “The Brotherhood of Edom.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 4 (1977), 4.

159 Ibid. 21.

160 Ibid. 21.

43

John Priest took a different approach to his analysis of brotherhood in the ANE and in relation to Amos 1:1.161 First, he asserted that Hittite treaties and the Achaean civilization stressed the concept of brotherhood in their legal documents.162 Priest established a direct link between the brotherhood accusation in Amos and a treaty made by David and Hiram. For the author Amos actually refers directly to this treaty event.163 Although this treaty is in reference to a Tyrian-Israelite pact, the scenario lays a foundation of a covenant of brothers for the surrounding territories.164 In conclusion, Priest summarized his convictions that brotherhood formed an integral part of the Israelite treaty process, Tyre and Israel had a brotherhood bond,and that Edom was included in this covenant of brothers.165 Thus this author understood the brotherly bond of Edom to refer to some specific historical treaty with Israel.

BETHEL

Name

161 John F. Priest, “Covenant of Brothers.” Journal of BiblicalLiterature 84 (1965), 400.

162 Ibid., 400.

163 Priest, “Covenant of Brothers,” 404.

164 Ibid., 405.

165 Ibid., 406.

44

The site of Bethel was originally known by a different name. Genesis relates that the city had been acknowledged as z…wñl before Jacob.166 After his great encounter with God, Jacob gave this location the nomenclature l¡Ea_ty`E;b as was the customof renaming important revelatory locations. Later in the Jacob narrative the Lord identifies himself as l$Ea_ty`E;b ‹ lEaDh. Following this episode Jacob again set up a memorialat the site and reinforced the new name of Bethel for this prominent location.167

Biblical References

The text of Amos refers to Bethel seven times. Consequently, thislocation is mentioned more than three times more than any other locale in the prophetic message. For this reason alone, one should give attention to the textual importance. One first notices that the Lord promised destruction upon the “alters of Bethel and that the horns of the alter will be severed and fall to the earth.”168 The next remark about Bethel is the sarcastic challenge and call for worshipers to “come to Bethel and transgress.”169 This forceful satire is then followed by the

166 See Genesis 28:19.

167 R.K. Harrison, “Bethel.” Pages 465-467 in vol. 1 of The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1982), 465 and Harold Brodsky, “Bethel (Place).” Pages 710-712 in vol. 1 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 710. Genesis 35:15.

168 Amos, 3:14.

169 Amos 4:4. The theological significance of this statement will be explored in a later section.

45

message to flee from Bethel and Gilgal as they will “certainly gointo exile and Bethel will be iniquity” and fire will consume theregion and Bethel will not be quenched.170 The final mention of Bethel in Amos is found in chapter seven as Amaziah the priest ofBethel confronts Amos and admonished him to never prophesy in thelocation again.171 The multitude of these references beg several questions; first, why the hostility of the prophets message? Second, is Bethel serving merely as a symbol for the entire cultic region or is there a particular historical background thatjustified the Lord’s judgment? The following historical survey will attempt to illuminate the reason for the admonishment of Amos toward this place.

The importance of Bethel predates the text of Amos and is the second most frequently occurring place name in the Old Testament.172 The significance of the locale in the biblical text is rooted in the religious and cultic sanctuaries found in Betheland its strategic location at the crossroads, “near a physical and political frontier that divided the central hill country of Palestine into two parts.”173 Bethel is located twelve miles northof Jerusalem and just west of Ai and was also known for its numerous perennial springs among the mountainous region.174

The history of this location is rooted deep within biblical history and its origins are first found in the Middle Bronze Age when Abraham paused to offer a sacrifice to the Lord in this spot.175 The next significant event has its heritage in the Jacob story. Here Jacob rested on his journey from Beersheba to Haran

170 Amos 5:5, 6.

171 Amos 7:10, 13.

172 Brodsky, “Bethel,” 710. The most sited place in the Hebrew Bible is Jerusalem.

173Ibid.

174 Harrison, “Bethel,” 465.

46

and had his famous dream of the My$IhølTa y∞EkSaVlAm ascending and descending from a ladder into heaven.176 Following the dream Jacob was blessed by Yahweh and told that his descendants would be as the dust of the earth and that his seed would be blessed.177 Not until many years later did Jacob return to this location of blessing and set up alter and renamed the place Bethel.178

Other biblical events that transpired predating the Divided monarchy include Deborah a nurse of Rebekah who was buried under an oak tree here.179 Also, the prophetess Deborah, in the period of the Judges, sat or dwelled under a tree between Ramah and Bethel in the mountains of Ephraim.180 Another biblical reference is that of Samuel who would go from year to year through Bethel, Gilgal, and Mizpah to judge for the people.181 These significant events place a great importance on the region. Yet the weightiness of this location within the history of Israel began to decline with the ascension of Saul to the throne as he established his capital in Gibeah a move to Benjamite territory.182However this decline continued by rapid pace, “with the establishment of the United Kingdom by David and the

175 Ibid. See Genesis 13:3. This event is often dated between1950-1550 BCE.

176 Brodsky, 710. See Genesis 28.

177 Genesis 28:13.

178Brodsky, 710. See Genesis 35:15.

179 Brodsky, “Bethel,” 711. Genesis 35:8.

180 Judges 4:5.

181 1 Samuel 7:16.


47

placement of the temple in Jerusalem the importance of Bethel as a sanctuary declined.”183

Israel did not forget completely the cultic significance of Bethel. The division of the monarchy brought a renewed interest in this locale. Jeroboam I not wanting his subjects to be dividedor remain loyal to Rehoboam in Judah feared the great city of Jerusalem as a cultic epicenter for his nation.184 To counter thisthe king forged two calves made of gold and set them up to prominence in both Bethel and Dan.185 At Bethel, Jeroboam I went as far as to establish and install a priest in this high place where the people could sacrifice to the Lord.186 On the fifteenth day of the of the eighth month the king made various offerings atBethel and “made a feast for the children of Israel he went up upon the alter to make sacrifices.”187

High Places in BethelCochel articulates that the bull idols produced by Jeroboam at Bethel and Dan “likely were not objects of worship but pedestals upon which the invisible deity stood.”188 Thus the idols were not only graven images but venerated another god above Yahweh. The use of the calf at Bethel may have been specific to this region. Following Cross, Cochel proposed, “that the golden bull-calf incident in the Sinai narrative once served as a cult legend at Bethel. Standing alone, this cult legend lacked the polemic

183 Brodsky, “Bethel,” 711.

184 1 Kings 12:27.

185 1 Kings 12:29

186 1 Kings 12:32.

187 1 Kings 12:33.

188 Trevor Cochell, “The Religious Establishments of JeroboamI.” Stone-Campbell Journal 8 (2005), 91.

48

nature of its current form and had the purpose of authorizing thebull iconography at Bethel by crediting Aaron with its manufacture.”189 If true, Jeroboam not only attempted to establishBethel as a rival cultic center to Jerusalem but also used the tradition and authority of Aaron and the Levitical priesthood to establish this location as the spiritual nucleus of Israel. Also,this traditional link would serve to perpetuate the sins of the people in the north. Not only did Jeroboam turn the children of Israel away from Yahweh worship, he sanctioned their veneration and this apostasy was one of the most grievous sins in biblical history.190

De Vaux adds a different element to the history of Bethel

and Jeroboam. First, he understood the calves as young bulls withthe attention of not changing the religion of the people.191 In fact, he proposed, “the God Jeroboam asked his subject to adore was Yahweh who brought Israel out of Egypt.”192 More important forthe understanding of this cult location is the reality that Eliasand Jehu “fought strenuously against paganism in Israel, yet neither spoke a word against the golden calves.”193 Also the lack of any admonishment of the calves by Amos points to true worship at Bethel for de Vaux.194

Festivals

189 Ibid., 92.

190 See Exodus 32 and Deuteronomy 9.

191 Roland De Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. Translated by John McHugh (London: Darton, Longman, and Todd, 1961), 333.

192 Ibid.

193 Ibid., 334.

194 Ibid.

49

Some confusion exists on the dating of Jeroboam’s festival in Bethel. Scholars argue whether the northern feast was indeed one month prior to the festival in Jerusalem. Morgenstern presented an excellent argument where he concluded that “Jerobeam celebrated his festival at Bethel in the month Bul, just as it was celebrated in Judah; in other words, it corresponded exactly to the festival celebrated in Judah.”195 This identical date wouldhave prevented northern communities from traveling to worship in Judah and in Jerusalem, accomplishing the purpose of the northernshrine. Concerning the events of the festival, one would have participated in a spectacular eight-day event where “various rights of widely ranging nature were performed, of homoeopathic magical character, designed to secure suitable weather conditionsand to further the growth of the crop, and thus ensure an adequate food supply for the ensuing year.”196 Thus the festival at Bethel was established to continue Israel’s tradition of celebration during times of harvest and sowing.

Jeroboam II

Despite the abundance of archeological evidence and the extensivebiblical narrative surrounding Bethel, one finds precious little information about the 8th century occupation of the location or its cultic practices. R.K. Harrison observed, “a prophetic guild appears to have existed in Bethel and had some contact with Elisha; but according to Amos and Hosea, Canaanite religion with its terrible moral, social, and religious degradations was dominant at Bethel.”197 Also, Hosea began to demean the town of Bethel by the name Beth-aven that meant “house of nothingness.”

195Julian Morgenstern, “The Festival of Jerobeam I,” Hebrew Union College Annual 12/13(1968), 27.

196 Ibid., 23.


50

For the purpose of this paper, examining how the historical background of the 8th century formed the message and theology of Amos, one must avoid circular logic and shy away from using the message of Amos as the primary source to reconstruct the history of Bethel.

Archaeological Evidence

Bethel was first identified as el-Bireh by American topographer Edward Robinson in May 1838.198 This was preceded by years of little to no interest in Bethel by scholars in the Middle Ages. Although this identification had little resistance, not much datawas found within the site and no major excavation took place until W.F. Albright began studying the region in 1927.199 The results of the excavations most significant to the background of Amos are those in Iron II phase of the site that was given a dateof 900-587 BCE.

Some figurines were found by the excavators that could be dated to around the 9th-8th century. Although most of these artifacts were extremely small or fragmented, they identified dolls with a “crudely fashioned” head and eight small fragments identified as animal figures; yet, very few of the houses contained any cultic evidence which is surprising for such an important religious location.200 The greatest collection of data is grounded in the extensive pottery shards in the region. Kelso and Albright give many details about their pottery finds and concluded, “Iron II pottery of Bethel adds little new to the ceramic story beyond that already learned.”201 Unfortunately

198 James L. Kelso, The Excavation of Bethel (1934-1960). The Annual ofthe American Schools of Oriental Research Vol. 34 (Cambridge: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1968), 1.

199 Ibid.

200 Kelso, The Excavation of Bethel, 83. See also Kelso, 51.

201 Ibid., 66.

51

through these finds the archaeologist could not reconstruct the idols or the altars that were attributed to either Jeroboam II orlater cultic practices. Also of note is the lack of any temple mound. The researchers noted that “until the temple is found it is not wise for a serious historian to speculate about it.”202

Location

Albright noticed that the location of Bethel had many natural advantages to other locations. First, as mentioned above there was an abundance of springs that provided a perpetual water source. In the Byzantine period these springs fed a large reservoir.203 These springs would only have run dry in extreme periods of drought. Also, Albright observed that the location of Bethel was, “poor in grain fields but rich in valleys and terraced slopes suitable for cultivation of orchards and vineyards.”204 These vineyards may have allowed the 8th century population to bring libations to the nearby cultic center. Another interesting remark made by excavators was the extensive forests of the Bronze and Iron Age and the suggestion that “wild animals must have been abundant and several passages in the Biblerefer to the presence of bears and lions around Bethel.”205 The abundance of animals surely would have aided the sacrificial demands of the people as they journeyed to the high places of Bethel.

202 Ibid., 51.

203 Ibid., 2.

204 Ibid., 3.

205 Ibid. See 1 Kings 13:24; II Kings 2:23; 17:25-26.

52

ANALYSIS OF HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND THEOLOGY OF AMOS

The Oracles Against the Nations (Amos 1:1-2:16)

The first major issue in the book of Amos, especially historical,is whether the oracles against the nations should be included as authentic or given a post-exilic date. Although this paper does not purpose to be a textual critical discussion of the book of Amos, a late date for this section would make the historical background irrelevant. However, Andersen and Freedman laid out anextensive rhetorical argument for the completeness and authenticity of the oracles as summarized below:

1. They see the list of eight oracles complete as it now appears. Furthermore, “Amos’ list comprehends the entire region from Egypt to the Euphrates, an expanse of territory of enormous importance in Israel’s historyand memory.”

53

2. The authors recognized several numerical patterns. Included is the 3 / / 3 +1 parallelism, the use of the number seven and a 7 / / 7+1= 8 design.

3. All eight of the oracles commences with the same introductory formula “for three violations . . . and for four. This sequence 3 / / 4 is part of the traditional poetic conventions of Canaanite and Israelite literature.

4. The symbolic pattern “three . . . four” sums up to seven.

5. Amos had a basis for this view of regional territories based on earlier biblical tradition.

6. The design of 3 / / 3+1= 4 also applies to the internalstructure and organization.

7. Both Andersen and Freedman found a significant balance to the oracles

8. The culmination of Israel as the eighth and final oracle “makes dramatic and poetic sense.”206

Steinman agrees with the authenticity of the eight oracles yet hedoes not recognize this rhetorical structure as giving a definitive organization to the text.207 Rather he follows a three-fold pattern of those nations bordering Israel and those

206 Andersen and Freedman, 206-10.

207 Andrew E. Steinmann, “The Order of Amos’s Oracles Againstthe Nations: 1:3-2:16.” Journal of Biblcal Literature 111.4 (1992), 687.

54

bordering Judah.208 The presentation of the oracles forms an organized and unified message.

More important to the historical and theological background of the prophetic message, what historical material founds the principles and theology of these oracles? Referenced earlier, thebiblical background does not conclusively paint the early years of Jeroboam II’s reign as one of unmitigated control of the region. Haran, suggested that this historical understanding is “of special significance for the comprehension of the initial prophecy of the Book of Amos.”209 The political reign of Jeroboam II was one of great success; yet debated is the exact period and precise moments of his decisive victory. This author follows the arguments of Haran who suggested a later political expansion of Israel under Jeroboam. This historical outlook helps explain the message in Amos 1:3-2:16. First, these initial oracles appear “instereotyped strophic form and proclaim destruction for all Israel’s neighbors, culminating in Judah and Israel themselves.”210 The transgressions of nation Damascus, Gaza, Tyre,and peoples of Ammon, Moab, and Edom would have been difficult ina region completely dominated by the strong hand of an Israelite king. If the early reign of Jeroboam II was mixed with fighting and weaker control, these oracles would help explain the historical content of his rule.

208 See Steinman, 687. Damascus (1:3-5) is presented as a City-state and borders Israel. Gaza (1:6-8) is also a City-state and neighbors Judah. Next, Tyre (1:9-10) concludes the city-states and borders Israel. Edom (1:11-12) is the first nation presented and touches Judah. Ammon (1:13-15) is a nation and borders Israel. Moab (2:1-3) is the final nation and neighbors Judah. Judah (2:4-5) is characterized as a special nation and borders Israel. Lastly, Israel (2:6-16) is the final special nation and touches Judah.


210 Ibid.

55

Next if the expansion of Israel was prophesied by Jonah, then the activity and resistance of these nations would have been a heinous sin against Israel and their God.211 Although many commentators attempt to move the theological impact of the oracles against the nations toward morality, Haran noticed a morenationalistic character in this section.212 This nationalistic flavor fits well within the growing expansion and political cloutof Israel. The capital Samaria was swelling and this was accompanied most likely with a growing national pride and swagger. Thus the oracles of Amos played right into the pomp and circumstance of the current immediate state of history. The people hearing the message of Amos would have been cheering the castigation of Yahweh’s judgment on other nations. Yet, as will develop below, latter messages of Amos drop the hammer of judgment upon Israel which no one in the north was ready.

The allegations against the six nations and people groups isgiven force with the word oAvRÚp. Andersen and Freedman understood this word to signify the “rebellion against the rule of Yahweh” although they recognized the connections of rebellion against a suzerain.213 A better comprehension including the historical background is the more foundational idea of the breaching of a relationship.214 Specifically, “in a context of international relationships, the verbal form designates a castingoff of allegiance, a rebellion against rulers.”215 This

211 See 2 Kings 14:25.


213 Andersen and Freedman, 26.

214 R. Laird Harris, ed., “oAvRÚp,” Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. The Moody Bible Institute, 1980. Electronictext hypertexted and prepared by OakTree Software, Inc. Version 1.5.

215 Harris, ed., “oAvRÚp.”

56

international relationship explains the initial turmoil and struggle of Israel against these nations and the particular historical histories alluded by the prophet Amos in these openingoracles. Likewise all of the nations and peoples mentioned in theoracles occupied substantial lands near Israel in the 8th centurycasting a shadow against the expansive hopes of Israel and Judah.216

Judgment of Edom

The verdict against Edom is of special interest although this oracle is similar in style and part of the unified message of theoracles against the nations. First Edom was condemned for pursingwith the sword his brother and his anger and wrath tore perpetually.217 The first admonishment, whether rooted specifically in the bond of Esau and Jacob or some special treatyclearly put Edom to the forefront of Amos’s message. The infringement on Edomite territory by Amaziah and Jeroboam II musthave evoked the anger of this brotherly nation. Here, the theory of local outbreaks and a series of retributions due to the major victory at Sela fits well within the context of “pursuing with sword his brother.”218 As mentioned above in the study of Edom, the total deficiency of any major archeological record dating to the 8th century of Edomite retribution lends itself to a systematic anger driven small level siege against Israel by Edom.These instigations brought the ire of Amos and the doom of Yahweh’s judgment.

The phrase wy$DmSjår t∞EjIv◊w may provide insight into the theological impact of Amos’s admonishment against Edom.


217 Amos 1:11.

218 Haran, “Observations,” 211.

57

Michael Fishbane in a thorough investigation of these words foundconnections to other diplomatic texts with Edom in the biblical record coupled with external sources.219 To this point the author concluded, “Thus it appears wy$DmSjår like ra'âmu — ra'amütu . . . is an experiential, noncognitive term, reshaped and adapted to a new context, so as to express a special legal or treaty relation.”220 Unfortunately, historical data cannot verify any specific treaty between Edom and Israel during this period. However, if the assumptions listed by Fishbane are correct, then the message of this oracle is given a clearer focus.

Adding to the stinging judgment of Edom may be the similar cultic roots of Israel. The historical survey revealed that Edomites appeared to worship Yahweh, as Seir was the home of Israel’s Yahweh.221 Also, even in Amos, no specific local deity ofEdom is castigated. If factual, the religious historical connections must have factored into Amos’s thinking and message as he delivered Yahweh’s ultimate verdict on Israel’s neighbor.

Judgment of Israel and Judah

Clearly, the harshest oracle in this unit was reserved for Israel.222 Among the many offenses listed by Amos are the selling of the righteous and poor, boasting of victories, and the corruption of the Nazirites.223 These iniquities bring the

219 Michael A. Fishbane, “Treaty Background of Amos 1:11 and Related Matters.” Journal of Biblical Literature 89.3 (1970), 315.

220 Ibid.


222 See Amos 2:6-16.

223 Specifically, Israel’s oracle brings condemnation: “because they sell with silver a righteous person and a needy onefor the sake of sandals” (2:6), “some are trampling over the dust

58

judgment of the Lord now upon His chosen people. Paul remarked “the previous oracles serve as one grand prolegomenon to his final surprise indictment against Israel.”224

2 Kings 14:24 reiterates the trouble of Israel during this period as Jeroboam ben Joash did evil in the sight of the Lord. Amos’s first indictment is the abuse of the poor. The ivory inlays found in Samaria and the extravagant building in this region attest to the growing population of the extremely wealthy class.225 Jagersma attested to the increased urbanization and the forced dependence of the rural population on the cities.226 Although the historical record does not afford particular detailsof specific abuse, the historical scene definitely allows for this possibility. Certainly, Samaria would have been the hub of this abuse as the wealthy gathered in the capital and took advantage or the more rural and poorer communities.

The second iniquity alluded to by the prophet Amos is the boasting and prideful position because of military expansion and victory. The void in power left by a weakened Egypt and Assyria paved the way for Israel. The death of Shalmanaser IV devastated Assyria and brought with it one of their weakest positions in history.227 Under the able leader Jeroboam II, Israel conquered

of the earth with heads of the poor and the way of the meek they turn aside” (2:7), “a man and his father they go into the girl soas to profane my Holy Name” (2:7), “and over pledged garments they stretch out beside every alter and fine wine they drink in the house of their gods” (2:8), and “you causes the Nazirites todrink wine” (2:12).

224 Paul, 76.

225 Jagersma, 150.

226 Ibid., 151.

227 Haran, “Rise and Decline,” 279.

59

Damascus and Hamath and extended territory to the Sea of Arabah.228 Military expansion coupled with new tribute from conquered territories allowed Israel to grow their economic power, and new nationalistic pride began to swell. Also, if the oracles against the nations have a strong political undercurrent then the message of Amos points directly to the historical arrogance of Israel. Although there is no historical document that attests to the pride of Israel, apart from 2 Kings and Amos,the political landscape lends itself to the behavior. Especially,for a small nation living constantly in the shadows of Egypt and Assyria among other world powers.

Lastly, the oracle denounces Israel for silencing the prophets and corrupting the Nazirites. The silencing of the prophets will be further pursued later in this evaluation and theinterchange between Amos and Amaziah the priest of Bethel. The above historical survey does not afford enough data to either prove or disprove this claim by Amos. However, one curious detailwas the observation by Albright the region near Bethel was particularly suitable for orchards and vineyards.229 This coupled with the growing non-Israelite population and the new cult centerat Bethel would have put pressure on the religious elite to include other practices. The historical information does not givespecific information to the corruption of the Nazirites in the 8th century. However, again this historical portrait definitely affords the opportunity for this type of behavior.

Pride and Arrogance

Stuart remarked that “ Whatever one may wish to say about his style, Amos’ message was essentially unoriginal on two counts: itwas God’s word, not his, and it conformed closely to the already long-revealed Mosaic covenant.”230 Through the message of Amos one

228 2 Kings 14:25.

229 Kelso, The Excavation of Bethel, 3.

230 Stuart, 288.

60

notices a prideful position on their election and recent political resurgence. The oracle against Israel relates that it was the sovereign Lord who “destroyed the Amorites before them whose height was a the cedar’s height and his strength is as oaksand I destroyed his fruit form above and his roots beneath.”231 This further reliance and hope in the past is revealed in the next verse as God proclaimed, “I caused you to go up from the land of Egypt and I caused you to go in a wilderness forty years to possess the land of the Amorite.”232

The history of Jeroboam II again adds color to this proclamation. The political expansion moved Israel to heights notseen since the Davidic dynasty. Paul understands the above reference to the Amorites to conjure up the image of the Divine Warrior and here is “a collective title for the inhabitants of Canaan during the time of the conquest.”233 If Paul is correct andthis admonition refers to distant history, no doubt the current success of Israel under the powerful Jeroboam II would have againinstigated great nationalistic pride in the recent victories. Although this nationalism is not condemned, the safety and internal peace afforded by the new political prowess fueled complacency in the people. This theological message of God going before his people and establishing their path was being exploitedwho took the covenant of Yahweh for granted.

The boasting of Israel and the turn from faith in Yahweh to their own hands is also displayed in the satirical mocking of Jeroboam II and his kingdom. Amos retorts, “You who are rejoicingabout nothing; why are some saying by our strength we took for ourselves Karnaim.”234 In view of these transgressions the Lord

231 Amos 2:9.

232 Amos 2:10.

233 Paul, 87.

234 Amos 6:13.

61

promised to raise up a more powerful nation against Israel and this new power, “will oppress you coming from Hamath until the Valley of Arabah.”235 This later declaration, according to Cohen, “was apparently a favorite boast of Jeroboam’s courtiers, for Amos mocks it in his prediction.”236 The pride had now infiltratedthe king and Amos addresses the principal person of pride in the nation.

In a turn of events, Amos abruptly turns the attention of the people from boasting in their past to the present and future political and spiritual implications of their iniquity. Von Rad calls this emphasis on the future the “characteristic feature of the prophets message.”237 Also this shift brought the salvation ofthe Lord out of the historical setting, one where the pride of the surging Israel under Jeroboam ben Joash had taken root, and transferred the message of salvation to the future event.238 Also most references to the past in Amos, “serve mainly to show that the present state of unfaithfulness to God’s covenant is not a novelty, although they also demonstrate his sovereignty over Israel. Amos does not, however, speak of the past for its own sake his focus is set on what is coming and why.”239 This lack of interest in the past must have been quite ironic and distressing for one of the most victorious and celebrated historical events in Israel’s history.

One of the most contrasting moments in the message of Amos is found in Amos 5:18 where he mentions the Day of the Lord. Fromthis text one finds that the Day of the Lord will bring accusation and judgment, filled with darkness and gloom, and be

235 Amos 6:14.

236 Cohen, 154.

237 Von Rad, Message of the Prophets, 91.

238 Ibid., 93.

239 Stuart, 289.

62

followed by no safety and constant fleeing.240 The emphasis on thefuture and not the immediate past would have been puzzling for the Israelites. In fact, what Amos strives to do is not place hope in the historical success of the king but the revelatory actions of Yahweh and His covenant faithfulness.

Yet another indication of the arrogance of the king in his self-made history is the prophetic advisor relationship. The later portions of Amos reveal a confrontation between Amaziah who, “sent out to Jeroboam king of Israel saying: ‘Amos conspiredagainst you in the midst of the house of Israel, the land is not able to contain all his words.”241 First, this episode appears to indicate some type of prior relationship between the priest Amaziah and Jeroboam the king. Next, this confrontation demonstrates a strained relationship between the prophet Amos andthe throne. Andersen and Freedman noted that both the Uzziah of Judah and Jeroboam of Israel had spiritual advisors who guided their military adventures.242 Likewise, “the kings could feel secure in the theological implications and applications, undertones and overtones of their policies, which would most likely make them very resistant to any criticism offered by other

240 See Amos 5:18-20. For more study on the Day of the Lord see Hoffmann, Yair. “The Day of the Lord as a Concept and a Term in the Prophetic Literature.” ZAW 93.1 (1981): 37-50; Ishai-Rosenboim, Daniella. “Is Dh◊ Mwâøy (the Day of the Lord) a Term in Biblical Literature?” Biblica 87.3 (2006): 395-401; and Von Rad, Gerhard. “The Origin of the Concept of the Day of Yahweh.” Journal of Semitic Studies 4.2 (1959): 97-108. The refernces here in Amosto the Day of the Lord is one of the first textual attestations of this term. The definition and concept in this passage is stillin its infacy, yet one cannot deny the emphasis on some future divine event.

241 Amos 7:10.


63

but effectively unlicensed prophets.”243 The growing pride of Jeroboam II most certainly affected his relationship with Amos who was dismissed as insignificant in his message. Historical data does not clearly evidence the reason for a fracturing of theprophetic message and the throne. Possibly, Jeroboam had surrounded himself with advisors that would speak well of the kingdom. Regardless, the hubris of the nation and throne contributed to this relationship.

Idolatry and Immorality

The final element in the theology and message of Amos that will be examined in this paper is the underlying issues of idolatry and immorality. This message is brought with stinging accusations and satire. First, the prophet challenges the community, “come to Bethel and transgress, in Gilgal multiply transgressions, and bring in the morning your sacrifices and every three days your tithes.244 Obviously, the messenger of Yahweh is not advocating improper worship at these locations. Rather, this rebuke points to some historical transgression already occurring at these high places.

The above historical survey of Bethel revealed several startling facts. First, the high places at Bethel had a rich biblical tradition beginning with Abraham and Jacob.245 Yet this tradition became infamous when Jeroboam I set up alters at Betheland Dan in the form of calves or young bulls. 246 This move by Jeroboam led to the continued use of Bethel as a cultic center, arival to Israel, where local deities could be worshiped. Includedin this was the new festival that reinforced the false worship of

243 Ibid.

244 Amos 4:4.

245 See Genesis chapters 13 and 28.

246 See 2 Kings 12.

64

fertility gods.247 This tradition does not immediately implicate the reign of Jeroboam II. However, one can hardly imagine Amos castigating the current generation for the distant past traditional sins at Bethel.

By the time of Amos, Amaziah is established as the priest ofBethel with close connections to the throne and has a strained relationship with the prophet. Not only did Jeroboam ben Joash allow the priesthood of Bethel, Amaziah described it as the “sanctuary of the king and Bethel his kingdom.”248 Wolff understood this description of Bethel as the place where the, “king himself, as the chief authority, exercised supervision, andin which the king could perform cultic acts.”249 Not only had the throne bleed into the cult at Bethel, this place was designated as the location of official proclamation.250 To this Wolff again noted that Amaziah was simply attempting “to extricate himself from the conflict by recognizing both the right of Jeroboam in Bethel and the right of Amos to engage in proclamation.”251

Amos not only chastised the high cultic offices in Bethel but also denounced worship across the land. He proclaimed throughfirst person accusation of the Lord, “I hate, I reject your feasts and I will not smell your assemblies even though you causeyour offerings to go up to me I will not be pleased, and the peace offerings of your fatlings I will not look.”252 John Bright

247 See De Vaux, 333.

248 Amos 7:13.

249 Hans Walter Wolff, Joel and Amos: A Commentary on the Books of the Prophets Joel and Amos. Hermenia—A Critical and Historical Commentaryon the Bible (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1977), 311.

250 Ibid.

251 Ibid.

252 Amos 5:21-22.

65

surmised in the 8th century “social disintegration went hand in hand with religious decay. Though the great shrines of Israel were busy, thronged with worshipers, and lavishly supported, it is evident that Yahwism in pure form was no longer maintained.”253

The social and religious decay was attributed directly to Jeroboam II not departing from the iniquities of Jeroboam son of Nebat.254 The sins were attested to in the biblical text due to the luxurious lifestyle and indifference to the poor and to true worship. Although the political success of the king is not a direct motive for spiritual decay, the false sense of peace created by political victory certainly contributed.


254 2 Kings 14:24.

66

SPECIAL RELEVANCT TO NEW TESTAMENT

The history and success experience in the 8th century reminds oneof the New Testament church at Corinth. A place gifted with geographical importance and economic independence. Yet to the disappointment of the apostle Paul he had to address this affluent community as “not as spiritual but as worldly.”255 Even though the word of God through Jonah son of Ammitai prophesied the restoration and blessing of Israel, Amos cautions that political and economic success do not necessarily translate into spiritual strength.256 On the contrary economic success has a propensity to stunt spiritual growth as seen in Israel and Corinth. The historical background of Amos and the 8th century BCE also cautions the reader to remain faithful to the covenant and to true worship. The Israelites were admonished for the lack of proper worship both in location and in spirit. John reminds that those who worship God “must be worshiping Him in spirit and in truth.”257

255 1 Corinthians 3:1.

256 2 Kings 14:25.

257 John 4:24.

67

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Phillip King commented, “the first half of the eighth century marked the final period of greatness for Israel and Judah. In power and prosperity they were comparable to the kingdom of Davidand Solomon.”258 Yet, through this greatness and majesty the biblical record sums up the reign of Jeroboam II as “doing evil in the sight of the Lord.”259 The message of Amos fits well within the historical reconstruction of the eight-century, especially under the reign of Jeroboam II, the nation of Edom, and the cultic center of Bethel. For Amos, the historical landscape not only allowed his message but shaped his theologicalconcerns for Israel and Yahweh’s faith community. Sadly, a king so closely resembling the splendor of David failed to achieve what the greatest leader in Israel’s history did, becoming a kingwho sought after the heart of Yahweh.260

258 King, 4.

259 2 Kings 14:24.

260 1 Samuel 13:14.

68

Appendix

Locations in Amos

ARABAH 6:14ASHDOD 1:8; 3:9ASHKELON 1:08BEERSHEBA 5:5; 8:14

BETH EDEN 1:05BETHEL 3:14; 4:4; 5:5,5,6; 7:10, 13BOZRAH 1:12CALNEH 6:02

69

CAPHTOR 9:07Carmel 1:2; 9:3DAN 8:14EKRON 1:08GATH 6:02GILEAD 1:03GILEAD 1:13GILGAL 5:5,5GOMORRAH 4:11

HAMATH 6:2; 6:14HARMON 4:3;5:5,6Jerusalem 1:2, 2:5KARNAIM? 6:13KERIOTH 2:02LO DEBAR? 6:13MOUNT SAMARIA 6:02

RABBAH 1:14SODOM 4:11TEMAN 1:12VALLEY OF AVEN 1:05

Zion 1:2; 6:1

Nations in Amos

DAMASCUS 1:3,4; 5:27ETHIOPIA 9:07AMMON 1:13;SYRIA 1:5; 9:7KIR 1:5; 9:7GAZA 1:6,7EDOM 1:6,9,11;2:1; 9:12TYRE 1:8,9

70

PHILISTINES 1:8; 9:7

MOAB 2:1,2JUDAH 2:4,5EGYPT 3:1,9;4:10; 8:8; 9:5SAMARIA 3:9,12; 4:1; 8:14ISRAEL 5:1,2,3

BIBLIOGRAPHY

71

Aharoni, Yohanan. The Archaeology of the Land of Israel. Translated byAnson F. Rainey.

Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982.

Albright, William Foxwell. Archaeology and the Religion of Israel. Louisville: Westminster

John Knox, 2006.

Allen, Spencer L. “Understanding Amos vi 12 in Light of His OtherRhetorical Questions.”

Vetus Testamentum 58 (2008): 437-448.

Andersen, Francis I. and David Noel Freedman. Amos: A New Translation with Introduction and

Commentary. The Anchor Yale Bible Series. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,

1989.

Assis, Ellie. “Why Edom? On the Hostiility Towards Jacob’s Brother in Prophetic Sources.”

Vetus Testamentum 56.1 (2006): 1-20.

Baly, Denis. The Geography of the Bible: A Study in Historical Geography. New York: Harper

and Brothers, 1957.

Bartlett, John R. Edom and the Edomites. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement

Series 77. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989.

. “The Brotherhood of Edom.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 4

(1977): 2-27.

. “The Land of Seir and the Brotherhood of Edom,” Journal for the Study of the Old

Testament 20 (1969), 1-20.

72

Ben-Tor, Amnon. Ed. The Archaeology of Ancient Israel. Translated by R. Greenberg. New

Haven, Mass.: Yale University Press, 1992.

Berthoud, Pierre. “The Covenant and the Social Message of Amos.” European Journal of

Theology 14.2 (2005): 99-109.

Birch, Bruce C., Walter Bruggemann, Terence E. Fretheim, and David L. Petersen. A

Theological Introduction to the Old Testament. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1999.

Bridge, Edward. “Polite Israel and Impolite Edom: Israel’s Request to Travel Through Edom in

Numbers 20.14-21.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 35.1 (2010): 77-88.

Bright, John. A History of Israel. 4th ed. Louisville: Westminster JohnKnox Press, 2000.

Brodsky, Harold. “Bethel (Place).” Pages 710-712 in vol. 1 of TheAnchor Bible Dictionary.

Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Brueggemann, Walter. “Stereotype and Nuance: The Dynasty of Jehu.” Catholic Biblical

Quarterly 70.1 (2008): 16-28.

Childs, Brevard S. Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on

the Christian Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993

Cochell, Trevor. “The Religious Establishments of Jeroboam I.” Stone-Campbell Journal 8

(2005): 85-97.

73

Cohen, Simon. “The Political Background of the Words of Amos.” Hebrew Union College

Annual 36 (1965): 153-160.

Coogan Michael D. ed. The Oxford History of the Biblical World. New York: Oxford University

Press, 1998.

Couey, J. Blake. “Amos vii 10-17 and Royal Attitudes Toward Prophecy in the Ancient Near

East.” Vetus Testamentum 58.3 (2008): 300-314.

Crowell, Bradley L. “Nabonidus, as-Sila’, and the Beginning of the End of Edom,” Bulletin of

the American Schools of Oriental Research 348 (2007): 75-88.

De Vaux, Roland. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. Translated by JohnMcHugh. London:

Darton, Longman, and Todd, 1961.

Edelman, Diana Vikander. ed. You Shall Not Abhor an Edomite for He Is Your Brother: Edom

and Seir in History and Tradition. Archaeology and Biblical Studies.Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995.

“Edom.” Pages 287-295 in vol. 2 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Editedby David Noel

Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Ewald, Georg Hinrich. The History of Israel. Vol. 4. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers,

2004.

Fishbane, Michael A. “Treaty Background of Amos 1:11 and Related Matters.” Journal of

Biblical Literature 89.3 (1970): 313-318.

Free, Joseph P. Archaeology and Bible History. Wheaton, IL: Scripture Press, 1962.

74

Geyer, John B. “Mythology and Culture in the Oracles Against the Nations,” Vetus

Testamentum (1986) 129-145.

Glueck, Nelson. “The boundaries of Edom.” Hebrew Union College Annual 11 (1936): 141-157

Gordis, Robert. “Edom, Israel and Amos: An Unrecognized Source for Edomite History.” Essays

on the Occasion of the Seventieth Anniversary of the DropsieUniversity (1979): 109-132.

Gordon, Cyrus H. and Gary A. Rendsburg. The Bible and the Ancient Near East. 4th ed. New

York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1997.

Gottwald, Norman K. The Politics of Ancient Israel. Louisville: John Knox Press, 2001.

Grabbe, Lester L. Ancient Israel: What Do We Know and How Do We Know It? New York: T

and T Clark, 2007.

Haran, Menahem. “Observations on the Historical Background of Amos 1:2—2:6.” Israel

Exploration Journal 18 (1968), 201-12.

. “Rise and Decline of the Empire of Jeroboam Ben Joash.” Vetus Testamentum

17.3 (1967): 266-297.

Harris, R. Laird. ed. “oAvRÚp.” Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. The Moody Bible

Institute, 1980. Electronic text hypertexted and prepared byOakTree Software, Inc. Version 1.5

Harrison, R.K. “Bethel.” Pages 465-467 in vol. 1 of The InternationalStandard Bible

75

Encyclopedia. Edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 4 vols. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1982.

Hayes, John H. and J. Maxwell Miller. Ed. Israelite & Judean History. Philadelphia: Trinity

Press International, 1990.

Hoerth, Alfred J., Gerald L. Mattingly and Edwin M. Yamauhchi, eds. Peoples of the Old

Testament World. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1994.

Hoffmann, Yair. “The Day of the Lord as a Concept and a Term in the Prophetic Literature.”

ZAW 93.1 (1981): 37-50.

Holladay, John S. “Assyrian Statecraft and the Prophets of Israel.” Harvard Theological Review

63.1 (1970): 29-51.

Irvine, Stuart A. “The Southern Border of Syria Reconstructed.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly

56.1 (1994): 1-21.

Ishai-Rosenboim, Daniella. “Is Dh◊ Mwâøy (the Day of the Lord)a Term in Biblical Literature?”

Biblica 87.3 (2006): 395-401.

Ishida, Tomoo. The Royal Dynasties in Ancient Israel: A Study on the Formation andDevelopment of Royal-Dynastic Ideology. New York: Walter de Gruyter,

1977.

Jagersma, H. A History of Israel in the Old Testament Period. Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1983.

Kaufman, Ivan T. “The Samaria Ostraca: An Early Witness to HebrewWriting.” Biblical

Archaeologist 45.4 (1982): 229-239.

76

Kelso, James Leon. “Excavations at Bethel.” Biblical Archaeologist 19.2(1956): 36-43.

.The Excavation of Bethel (1934-1960). The Annual of the American Schools of

Oriental Research Vol. 34. Cambridge: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1968.

. “The Kyle Memorial Excavations at Bethel.” Bibliotheca Sacra 91 (1934):

417-420.

Kenyon, Kathleen M. Archaeology in the Holy Land. 5th ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985.

King, Philip J. “The Eighth, The Greatest of Centuries?” Journal of Biblical Literature 108

(1989): 3-15.

Kitchen, K.A. On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids:William B. Eerdmans

Publishing, 2003.

Kuhrt, Amélie. The Ancient Near East c 3000—330 BC. Volume Two. New York: Routledge, 1995.

Lemche, Niels Peter. The Old Testament Between Theology and History: A CriticalSurvey.

Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008.

Levin, Christoph. “Amos und Jerobeam I” Vetus Testamentum 45.3 (1995): 307-317.

Lipinski, Edward. “Israelite King of Hamat.” Vetus Testamentum 21.3(1971): 371-373.

Lyon, David Gordon. “Hebrew Ostraca from Samaria.” Harvard Theological Review 4.1 (1911):

136-143.

77

Malamat, Abraham. History of Biblical Israel: Major Problems and Minor Issues. Boston: Brill,

2001.

Mazar, Amihai. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000-586 B.C.E. The Anchor Bible

Reference Library. New York: Doubleday, 1990.

McNutt, Paula M. Reconstructing the Society of Ancient Israel. Louisville: Westminster John

Knox Press, 1999.

Miller, J. Maxwell and John H. Hayes. A History of Ancient Israel and Judah. 2d ed. Lousville:

Westminster John Knox Press, 2006.

Morgenstern, Julian. “The Festival of Jerobeam I.” Hebrew Union College Annual 12/13(1968):

20-34.

Na’aman, Nadav. “Sources and Composition in the Biblical History of Edom.” Sefer Moshe

(2004): 313-320.

. “The Contribution of Royal Inscriptions for a Re-Evaluation of the Book of

Kings as a Historical Source.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 82 (1999): 3-17.

. “Historical and Chronological Notes on the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah in

the 8th Century BC.” Vetus Testamentum 36.1 (1986): 71-92.

. “Azariah of Judah and Jeroboam II of Israel.” Vetus Testamentum 43.2 (1993):

227-234.

78

Nichols, David. “Ancient Near East 853-745 BC.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological

Society 18.4 (1975): 243-253.

Noth, Martin. The History of Israel. 2d ed. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1958.

O’Doherty, Eamonn. “Date of the Ostraca of Samaria.” Catholic BiblicalQuarterly 15.1 (1953):

24-29.

Oded, Bustenay. “Historical Background of the Syro-Ephraimite WarReconsidered.” Catholic

Biblical Quarterly 34.2 (1972): 153-165.

Pannenberg, Wolfhart. ed. Revelation as History. New York: MacMillan, 1968.

Paul, Shalom M. Amos: A Commentary on the Book of Amos. Hermenia—A Critical and

Historical Commentary on the Bible Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press, 1991.

Perdue, Leo G. The Collapse of History: Reconstructing Old Testament Theology. Minneapolis:

Fortress Press, 1994.

Pfeiffer, Charles F. The Divided Kingdom. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967.

Priest, John F. “Covenant of Brothers.” Journal of Biblical Literature 84(1965), 400-406.

Pritchard, James B. The Ancient Near East. Vol. 1 An Anthology ofTexts and Pictures.

Princeton: Princetone University Press, 1958.

Pritchard, James B. ed. The Ancient Near East. Vol. 2. An Anthology of Texts and Pictures.

79

Princeton Princeton University Press, 1975.

Provan Iain; V. Philips Long and Tremper Longman III. A Biblical History of Israel. Louisville:

John Knox Press, 2003.

Rendtorff, Rolf. The Old Testament: An Introduction. Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1986.

Sauer, James A. “Ammon, Moab and Edom.” Biblical Archaeology Today (1985): 206-214.

Schoville, Keith N. “A Note on the Oracles of Amos against Gaza, Tyre, and Edom,” Studies on

Prophecy (1974): 55-63.

Seale, M.S. “Jeroboam II.” Pages 997-998 in vol. 2 of The International Standard Bible

Encyclopedia. Edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 4 vols. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1982.

Smith, Ralph L. Old Testament Theology: Its History, Method, and Message. Nashville:

Broadman and Holman, 1993.

Steiner, Richard C. “Incomplete Circumstances in Egypt and Edom: Jeremiah (9:24-25) in the

Light of Josephus and Jonckheere.” Journal of Biblical Literature 118.3 (1999): 497-505.

Shea, Willaim H. “Date and Significance of the Samaria Ostraca.” Israel Exploration Journal

27.1 (1977): 16-27.

Stiebing Jr., William H. Ancient Near Eastern History and Culture. 2d ed. New York: Pearson

Longman, 2009.

80

Steinmann, Andrew E. “The Order of Amos’s Oracles Against the Nations: 1:3-2:16.” Journal of

Biblcal Literature 111.4 (1992): 683-689.

Stern, Ephraim. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: The Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian

Periods 732-332 BCE. Volume 2 of The Anchor Bible Reference Library. NewYork: Doubleday, 2001.

Stuart ,Douglas. Hosea-Jonah. Word Biblical Commentary 31, Waco Texas: Thomas Nelson,

1987.

Sumner, W.A. “Israel’s Encounters with Edom, Moab, Ammon, Sihon, and Og According to the

Deuteronomist.” VT 18.2 (1968): 216-228.

Tappy, Ron E. The Archaeology of Israelite Samaria: The Eighth Century BCE. Vol. 2. Volume

50 of the Harvard Semitic Studies. Winona Lake: Ind.: 2001.

Van De Mieroop, Marc. A History of the Ancient Near East: ca. 3000—323 BC. Malden, MA:

Blackwell Publishing, 2004.

Von Rad, Gerhard. Old Testament Theology: The Theology of Israel’s Prophetic Traditions. Vol.

1. Translated by D.M.G. Stalker. Louisville: John Knox, 2001.

.The Message of the Prophets. Translated by D.M.G. Stalker. London: SCM

Press, 1965.

. “The Origin of the Concept of the Day of Yahweh.” Journal of Semitic

Studies 4.2 (1959): 97-108.

Wagenaar, Jan A. “’From Edom He Went Up . . .’: Some Remarks on the Text and Interpretation

81

of Micah II 12-13.” Vetus Testamentum 50.4 (2000): 531-539.

Wellhausen, Julius. Prolegomena to the History of Israel. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994.

White, Hugh C. “Defending Zion: Edom’s Desolation and Jacob’s Restoration (Isaiah 24-25) in

Context.” Journal of Biblcal Literature 116.3 (1997): 546-548.

Whitelam, Keith W. “Jeroboam.” Pages 745-746 in vol. 3 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary.

Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Wiseman, D.J. ed. Peoples of the Old Testament Times. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973.

Wöhrle, Jakrob. “’No Future for the Proud Exultant Ones’ The Exilic Book of the Four Prophets

(Hos., Am., Mic., Zeph.) as a Concept Opposed to the Deuteronoistic History.” Vetus Testamentum 58 (2008): 608-627.

Wolff, Samuel R. ed. Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Landsin Memory of

Douglas L. Esse. Atlanta: ASOR Books, 2001.

Wolff, Walter Hans. Joel and Amos: A Commentary on the Books of the Prophets Joel and

Amos. Hermenia—A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Philadelphia, PA:

Fortress Press, 1977.

Woudstra, Marten H. “Edom and Israel in Ezekiel.” Calvin Theological Journal 3.1 (1968): 21-

35.

Wright, G. Ernetst. God Who Acts: Biblical Theology as Recital. London, SCM Press Ltd, 1952.

82

History as Theology: An Examination of the Historical Background of Amos

Documents

Transcript of History as Theology: An Examination of the Historical Background of Amos