Amos 6 : 1-7 as an intensification of Amos 3 : 9-11

The composilion o f the book o f Amos has caused a lively discussion in which many different answers have been given. One o f the many proposals, namely that o f J. Jeremias, holds that Amos 3-4 (a Gottesworl) should he separated from Amos 5-6 (a Prophetenwort), with 3-4 seen as representing, an earlier stage in the form ation o f the book. In this contribution the proposal made by Jeremias Is put to the lest by examining two pericopes in Amos 3-6 i.e. 3:9-11 and 6:1-7. The result o f the Investigation leads to the conclusion that Amos 6:1-7 serves as an Intensification o f Amos 3:9-11, thereby confirming the results o f Jeremias on the composition o f the book o f Amos.


I . Introduction: views on the composition of the book of Amos
The composition o f the book o f Amos has caused a lively discussion where many different answers have been given.A quick and cursory survey o f recent hterature on tlie question o f the composition o f tlie book o f Amos portrays a wide variety o f conflicting viewpoints on this matter.Koch (1976a:81) in his study as well as Andersen and Freedman (1989:23-72) divide the book into four parts.K och's option consists o f Amos 1-2, 3-4, 5-9;6 and 9;7-15 while Andersen and Freedman distinguish the Book o f Doom 1:1-4:13, the Book o f W oes 5:1-6:14, the Book o f Visions 7 :l-9:6 and an Epilogue 9:7-15.According to Paul (1991:6-7) the book o f Amos can be divided into five literary units: 1:2-2:16, 3:1-5:17, 5:18-6:1-7, 7:1-9:10 and 9:11-15.According to several scholars the book o f Amos displays a three part structure.Smalley (1979:124-125) distinguishes three parts in the book: Amos 1-5: 3, 5:4-15, 5:16-9:15. Stuart (1987:287) argues that Amos should be divided into a first group o f oracles 1:2-6:14, visions 7:1-8:3 and a final group o f oracles 8:4-9:15.Another scholar who maintains a threefold composition o f the book o f Amos is Smith (1989:7-9): judginents on the nations, 1:1-2:14, are followed by the verification o f G od's warnings o f punishment on Samaria, 3:1-6:14, and finally 7:1-9:15 which deals with visions and exhortations o f the end.A ccording to Jeremias (1988aJeremias ( : 126, 1988b:218) :218) the book o f Amos can be divided into mainly three sections: a middle part containing the w ords o f Amos Am os 6:1-7 as an inlenstficalioii o f Am os 3:9-11 and characterised by the saying "hear this word" (chapters 3-6), surrounded by two other parts, the oracles against the nations or Volkerworte at the beginning o f the book (chapters 1-2) and the vision reports or V isio n sh erich ie at the end o f the book (chapters 7-9).Van der Wal (1983) argues for a tw o part division in the book, the first part consisting o f chapters 1-6 and the second part consisting o f chapters 7-9.Little w onder then that Hasel (1991:95) in a recent publication on the book o f Amos concluded that the compositional picture o f Amos in current scholarship is anything but unified.

2, Problem statement
The aim o f this contribution is to focus on only one o f the many proposals on the composition o f the book o f Amos by putting the views o f Jerem ias to the test by examining in more detail two pericopes in Amos 3-6 and to establish w hether his thesis would be valid in a particular case in Amos 3-6.The two pericopes under discussion are Amos 3:9-11 and 6:1-7.On the m atter o f method Jeremias (1988b:218) is o f opinion that synchronic questions pertaining to the surface of the text must be bound together with diachronic questions about the individual stages through which the book passed before attaining its final form.This contri bution will follow these methodological guidelines by subjecting the two peri copes under discussion to a structural analysis and also to pay attention to matters such as Gatlung, Silz im Lehcn and redactional issues.

The views of J. Jeremias on the composition of Amos 3-6
In the above-mentioned article Jeremias (1988a: 131) calls for a closer exam ina tion o f Amos 3-6.He notes that the introductory verses beginning with "hear this word" in 3:1, 4:1 and 5:1 are not in.eachcase exactly the same.According to him "hear this word" in 4:1 should be taken as an introduction to only 4:1-3: on the one hand it lacks the relative clause characteristic o f 3:1 and 5:1 and on the other hand it is directed spesifically to the wealthy women o f Samaria over against 3:1 and 5:1 with a more general address.A closer examination o f 3:1 and 5:1 also brings significant differences to the fore.In 3:1 it is a word from Yahweh (riTri]' "13^) to ■ '3 3, while in 5:1 it is a word from the prophet C p iX ) directed to the bs<"l 0 '' IT'S .He noted further that the term b x "IÉ7-' ^2 ^ is used throughout Amos 3-4 as a designation for the people o f God while the term n ''3 is used in Amos 5-6 to denote the people o f God.Amos 3-4 is thus clearly a G otteswort followed by a Prophetenwort in Amos 5-6.These ob servations lead Jeremias to the conclusion that Amos 3-4 should be distinguished from Amos 5-6, as 3-4 represents an eariier stage in the formation o f the book.Yet, in spite o f the separation o f Amos 3-6 into two parts the Zusam m enhang o f these parts must also be recognised (Jerem ias, 1988a: 135).The conclusion Jere mias reaches is that the tradents of Amos's words did two things simultaneously.On _________________________________________________________________________ S.D. Snymaii tlie one hand tliey sharpened A m os's accusations, extending tliem to all Israel, and brought them into confrontation with Y ahw eh's saving acts.On the other hand, they dared to call people to a new beginning in the establishment o f justice even more clearly than Amos dared to do (Jerem ias, 1988a: 136;Jeremias, 1988b;227).Amos 3:9-11 and Amos 6:1-7 ♦ Amos 3:9-11
Stich 9.1 and 9.2 (verse 9) are linked because o f the w aw copulative in 9.2 and because H D ln S and n 3 " lp ?can be seen as synonyms.The participles in both 9.1 and 9.2 also call for the linkage o f stich 9.1 with stich 9.2.The w aw at the beginning o f stich 9.1 and the imperatives found in stich 9 and 9.1 are indications that stiehoi 9 and 9.1-9 2 (verse 9) must be joined.Stiehoi 9, 9.1 and 9.2 link with stich 10 (verse 10) due to the waw beginning o f stich 10 (verse 10).
in stich 10 (verse 10) also brings the divine utterance o f stiehoi 9-10 (verses 9-10) to an end.Stich 3 (verse 3) introduces a new unit in Amos 6:1-7.No further mention o f fo reign cities and no more plural imperative fonns -characteristic o f stichoi 2-2.1 (verse 2) -are found from stich 3 onwards.Stichoi 3-6.1 (verses 3-6) are further characterised by a number o f participles alternating with finite verbs -a pheno menon which is an indicator that these stichoi should be joined.Paronomasia links "131^ in stich 6.1 (verse 6) with in stich 3 (verse 3) acting at the same time as an inclusio (Carroll, 1992:262) providing yet another argument for the joining o f stichoi 3-6.1 (verses 3-6).Carroll (1992:258) also notes that the perspective changes in verse 3 from Israel's relations with foreign pow ers to that o f internal affairs.
Stichoi 1-2.1 (verses 1-2) are interlinked with stichoi 3-6.1 (verses 3-6) due to the flow o f tiie argument presented in the pericope and because o f the continuation o f participle fonns in both parts.
There is almost general agreement that stich 7 (verse 7) constitutes the third part o f this pericope.Stich 7 (verse 7) begins with the prominent P in y "[D*?drawing the pericope to a conclusion by introducing the verdict pronounced upon the people.Ultimately stich 7 (verse 7) links up with stichoi 1-6 (verse 1-6).

Amos 3:9-11 and 6:1-7 related
Following the thesis o f Jeremias, Amos 3-4 and 5-6 can and even should be re lated to each other.There are indeed several arguments pointing in the direction o f a relationship between Amos 3:9-11 and 6:1-7.
Jerem ias him self (1988a: 135; 1988b:225) noted that the enumeration o f the transgressions in the capital city o f Samaria combines the divine speech o f chap ters 3-4 and the prophetic speech o f chapters 5-6.
The results o f a structural analysis reveal that both pericopes display a similar structure.In each case the pericope consists o f three parts, in Amos 3:9 mention is made o f foreign cities followed by the actual accusation in Amos 3:10 and finally the pericope concludes by the verdict pronounced upon the guilty party in verse 11.In Amos 6:1-7 the pericope also com mences with a reference to fo re ip cities (in verses 1-2).This reference is also followed by the actual accusation (in verses 3-6) and the pericope comes to a close (in verse 7) by the verdict intro duced by ] p b as in 3:11.
It has already been referred to that in both cases foreign cities are mentioned.In Amos 3:9 the foreign city o f Ashdod is mentioned as well as Egypt while in Amos 6:2 the foreign cities o f Calneh, Hamath and Gath are mentioned.Both Gath and Ashdod are Philistine cities.
There is, however, an important difference between the mentioning o f the cities which should also be kept in mind.In Amos 3:9 the cities are called upon to come and look at Samaria while in Amos 6:2 Samaria and Zion are called upon to look at the foreign cities.Carroll (1992:256)  going to another country (in Amos 6;2) is reminiscent o f Amos 3:9 but that the difference in purpose could not be greater.In 3:9 the pagan nations come to bear witness to the sin and observe the judgm ent on the people, while Israel's leaders in 6:2 attempt to bolster their pride and in doing this confirm themselves in that sin.
In both cases the sin o f which Samaria (and Zion in Amos 6:3) is accused o f is described with the same word: D O n.In Amos 3:10 the inhabitants o f Samaria T T are accused o f the violent way in which they acquire their wealth ("filling their mansions with things taken by crime and violence" -G ood N ew s Bible).In Amos 6:3 they are accused o f "bringing near the throne/rule o f violence" (W itten berg, 1987:57).It should also be noted that Amos 3:10 and 6:3 are the only two instances where the w ord DDFI occurs in the book o f Amos.This observation has lead several scholars to allude to a possible relation between Amos 3:9-11 and 6:1-7 (Wolff, 1975:320;Wolff, 1977:275;Mays, 1976:116-117;Carroll, 1992:258;Van Gelderen, 1933:164).
The verdict is in both cases introduced by -c f Amos 3:11 and Amos 6:7 (Cripps, 1969:208;Koch, 1976b:185;Limburg, 1988:112).In both cases the verdict pronounced upon them hints back on w hat they are accused o f In Amos 3:11 mention is made o f their mansions which will be destroyed.In Amos 3:10 they are accused o f filling their mansions with things taken by crime and violence.In Amos 6:7 it is predicted that their feasts and banquets will come to an end (□ ''n i D was also mentioned in verse 4), while in Amos 6:4-5 they are accused o f feasting and o f com posing songs.
To sum up the first part o f the argument: There are a nimiber o f indications that Amos 3:9-11 and 6:1-7 can be Unked; the enumeration o f transgressions con ducted in the capital city o f Samaria mentioned in both pericopes, the similar structure o f both pericopes, the foreign cities mentioned in each o f the pericopes, the occurrence o f 00^* these two parts o f the book o f Amos and the verdict introduced by all point to a link between Amos 3:9-11 and 6:1-7.

The accused
In Amos 3:9-11 only Samaria is addressed while in Amos 6:1-7 it is not only Samaria which is addressed, but also Zion -more so, Zion is mentioned in a pro minent and initial position right at the beginning o f the oracle.It strikes one as rather surprising that Zion is also included in the w oe-oracle as Amos directs his prophecies mainly to Israel, the northern kingdom, and not to Judah.Yet, in this case Zion is explicitly mentioned.This observation fits in with the conclusion Jerem ias (1988a: 136;1988b:227) reached that the tradeiits o f Amos's words sharpened the accusations o f Amos and at the same time also extended them to all Israel.Although some scholars (Wolff, 1977:269-270;D eissler, 1981D eissler, :1 19, Markert, 1977:164) :164) hold tlie reference to Zion to be a later addition to the book and others (Rudolph, 1971:215) emend the text albeit with no textual evidence, there are many scholars (Harper, 1960:143;Cripps, 1969:202;M ays, 1976:115;Koch, 1976b:184, Deissler, 1981:119;Roberts, 1985:157, Van Leeuwen, 1985:237, Stuart, 1987:358, Limburg, 1988:110) who regard this reading as the orginal -es pecially due to the reference to David in verse 5.The consequence o f Jerem ias' point o f view is that not only the reference to Zion should be taken as a later addition to the book, but that the whole o f Amos 6:1-7 represents a later edition.
The intensification is obvious: the intensification is implied in the fact that not only Samaria is included in the w oe-oracle but, contrary to what one would expect, Zion as well.The span o f the prophet's judgem ent is thus w idened by the tradents o f A m os's initial w ords to include not only Israel but Zion as well.M arkert, 1977:167^168;WolfT, 1964:13;Wolff, 1977:273;Andersen & Freedman, 1989:548, 557) W hile D o n is only mentioned in Amos 3:10, it is now given a much more specific and elaborate meaning in 4-6.It is also significant that the sin o f the people is described by the word D O n.Not only the w ay in which wealth was acquired but also the w ay in which it was enjoyed with no concern for the demise o f Joseph are judged by the prophet.

The content of the judgement pronounced
The judgem ent pronounced upon the people in Amos 3:11 holds that an (unnamed) enemy will surround the land and that their palaces or strongholds will be devastated.In Amos 6:7 exile is predicted: not only their palaces will be de stroyed but they will be taken captive, which ultimately means the loss o f the land promised to them by Yahweh him self In Amos 3:11 the rich people only stand to lose their palaces.No mention is made o f the loss o f people.In Amos 6:7 people are involved: they will be taken into exile.
In Amos 3:11 it is only those who live in their palaces who will be punisiied.In Amos 6:7 it is not only the affluent people who will go into exile, they will merely lead the whole nation o f Israel into exile.

Conclusion
From this preliminary investigation it seems as if the view o f Jeremias on the composition o f Amos 3-6 at least deserves serious consideration and calls for an even more detailed analysis o f the whole o f Amos 3-6.When applied to Amos 3:9-11 and 6:1-7 it seems as if his thoughts on the composition o f Amos 3-6 hold valid.The inclusion o f Zion in the w oe-oracle o f Amos 6:1-7 which has always been a crux interpretum , is explained in a more satisfactory manner, the sin o f D D n only mentioned in Amos 3:10 is given a more elaborate meaning in 6:1-7, the G attung o f the w oe employed in Amos 6:1-7 also indicates a sharpening (to use the w ords o f Jerem ias) o f the m essage o f Amos 3-4 and the final verdict o f 6 :1-7 is much m oie severe than the verdict pronounced in 3:11.
An investigation o f this kind also brings something else to the fore.Different pericopes or units in the books o f the Old Testament should not merely be ana lysed and interpreted in isolation from each other.To investigate the possible re lationship betw een different units in a particular book may prove to be a fhiitful way o f gaining a better understanding o f the particular book and its theological trends.
The w aw at the beginning o f stich 11.1 (verse 11) continuing the '' 3 "IX 1 D X n 3 utterance in stich 11 (verse 11) necessitates the joining o f stich 11.1 with stich 11 (verse 11).The w ord at the beginning o f stich 11 (verse II)-"[D^ -indicates that a conclusion is drawn on the basis o f the foregoing argumentation and 1 10 and 11-11.1 are interlinked.is found in stichoi 9, 10 and 11, binding the stichoi together in a unity./xn •' n p ;: 'n 3 ii n o n n 3 'p5 n a v □■'n b b s ' n : ^"I'n nn'nx n'pxn niobpQri']D □ ■ 'nlon r c iD b n s n □ 'p i n ?:D o n H32Í a n ] v i di^S □•' i 3 n ii D n l & " i y 'p y □■>nnpi ]?; D'-D pts'n :p i " i ó Tiinp n '' T i s S n 3 n ■ 'E 'b y b n n ^n ; ' D''3n t í r r 'c x n t ■ 'p i t n : ?□ ^riB n n 3 E '-'p ý 6 n 3 x 'b ;i □•' b'3 :c^x'Í3 n'piy p S : □■' m i o n T n o n o 1 is little doubt that Amos 6:1-7 constitutes a dem arcated pericope.Tiie call ■ 'I n in verse I (stich I ) marks the beginning o f a new pericope and as in the case in Amos 3:9-11, i p b denotes the idea o f a conclusion reached on the basis o f a foregoing argumentation.Paranomasia links rT'C^Xn in stich 1.1 (verse I) with n^'tíX n T in stich 6 (verse 6) and C ^x n s in stich 7 (verse 7).Roberts (1985:155) makes the remark concerning the demarcation o f Amos 6:1-7 that there is a fairly general agreement on the extent o f the oracle.Stichoi 1 and 1.1 link because o f the participles common to both stichoi.Stichoi 2 and 2.1 link because o f the imperative forms found in both stichoi.Stichoi 1-2 (verses 1-2) should be grouped together.The many proper names occurring only in stichoi 1-2 point to the linkage o f verses 1-2.The reference to kingdoms 2nd territory ( D p b p S D 0 ^1 3 3) in stich 2.1 points back to the foreign cities mentioned in stich 2 as well as Zion and Samaria in stich 1 which serves as another argument in favour o f the linkage o f stichoi 1-2 (verses 1-2 ).
rightfully rem arks that the idea o f in die Skriflig 2H(2) 1994:213-222 _________________________________________________________________________ S.D. Sityman A m os 6:1-7 as an mtensifwation o f Am os 3:9-11 noted, the w ord D O n occurs only twice in the book o f Amos i.e. in Amos 3:10 and Amos 6:3.In Amos 3:10 the meaning o f D D n can be described as "acquiring wealth and property by the exploiting o f others," c f especially verse 1 0 .In Amos 6:3 the people are accused o f dismissing the day o f disaster and bringing near the seat/throne o f violence -being the reason for the announced w oe in verse 1.The meaning o f this is elaborated on in verses 4-6 by the use o f H + participles.The great number o f participles in verses 3-6 have long been recog nised by scholars ( . The use o f the participle plus n has inter alia the function o f relative clauses (W altke & O 'Connor, 1990:621; Gemser, 1968:225) so that verses 4-6 can be understood as a closer definition and clarification o f what is actually meant by D O n The luxurious lifestyle o f the people (verses 3-6a) without any regard to the plight o f Joseph (verse 6b) is sharply criticised and is rendered as nothing else but violence.It is their conduct and attitude o f indifference coupled w ith a luxuriant lifestyle which are labelled as violent.