Interpretation of the reasons for judgment in Amos 2.6-16 in the redactional compositions ...

289 Pages·2016·1.5 MB·English

INTERPRETATION OF THE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT IN AMOS 2.6-16
IN THE REDACTIONAL COMPOSITIONS
UNDERLYING THE AMOS-TEXT

Graham Richard Hamborg, BSc (Econ), BA, MTh.

Thesis submitted to the University of Nottingham
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

October 2008
ABSTRACT

This redaction-critical study interprets the reasons for judgment in Amos 2.6-16 in
the literary context of each of the redactional compositions which, I argue,
underlie the Amos-text. It is proposed that the Amos-text is both a theological
work and a tractate of social criticism. In the earlier redactional compositions the
dominant reasons for judgment concern mistreatment of the weak. In the later
redactional compositions these are overshadowed, in terms of length of text, by
more theological reasons for judgment; however, these strengthen, rather than
weaken, the force of the older reasons for judgment.

After an introductory first chapter, Chapter 2 describes and defends the
methodology employed, and establishes the terminology of “composition” and
“redactional composition”.

Chapter 3 makes proposals concerning the compositional history of the Amos-text,
attributing each unit to one of four redactional compositions. This chapter builds
on the significant works of Hans W Wolff and Jörg Jeremias, following one or
both of them at many points. Chapter 4 then describes the structural, linguistic and
thematic coherence of each redactional composition in order to confirm the
likelihood of its existence, and to note perspectives or significant themes relevant
to the interpretation of the whole composition, including 2.6-16.

Chapter 5 addresses two issues pertinent to the interpretation of Amos 2.6-16.
Firstly, the relationship of Amos 2.8 to verses in the so-called Book of the
Covenant is explored in the light of current scholarly views concerning its dating;
its relationship to verses in Deuteronomy 24 is also considered. Secondly, the
question of whether 2.10-12 exhibits Deuteronomistic influence is examined.

ii
Chapter 6 then conducts an exegesis of Amos 2.6-16 in each of the redactional
compositions underlying the Amos-text, with particular attention paid to the
reasons for judgment. The final chapter summarises the argument, draws
conclusions, and notes possible areas of future study.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am immensely grateful to my supervisor Mr Edward Ball for his steady support
over the years of part-time research which have led to this thesis. It is the nature of
part-time study that there are periods in which the desired study time is simply not
available, necessitating extra time when it is resumed. This requires perseverance
and stamina from researcher and supervisor alike, and Mr Ball has shown both,
being consistently rigorous, patient and supportive.

I could not have engaged in research at all without the backing of colleagues and
employers, and my thanks are due to the churches of St James the Great,
Ruscombe and St Mary the Virgin, Twyford, and to the Anglican dioceses of
Oxford and Chelmsford. I have also received financial assistance from a number
of sources, among whom I mention particularly the Faculty of Arts at the
University of Nottingham and the Culham Educational Foundation.

I would like to thank the staff of the library at Tyndale House, Cambridge, where I
have written up much of this thesis. It is both a well-stocked biblical studies
library and a place of warmth and friendship.

Finally, my thanks to my wife Ruth, and our children, for the encouragement to
persist with my research when the pressures of other parts of life threatened to
overwhelm. I could not have completed this thesis without their support.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract……………………………………………..……………………………. ii
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………… iv
Table of Contents…………………………………….…………………………... v
Notes on Presentation……………………………………………………………. xi
Works Cited by Author’s Name Only……………………………………...…… xii
Abbreviations…………………………………………………………………… xiii

Chapter 1 Introduction…………………………………………………….… 1
Chapter 2 A Redaction-critical Study: Methodology and Terminology…..… 4
2.1 Source Criticism……………………………………………….…. 4
2.2 Form Criticism…………………………………………...………. 6
2.3 The Challenge of J Van Seters to Redaction-critical Method…..... 7
2.4 Negative and Positive Redaction-criticism……………………… 10
2.5 Terminology……………………………………………………... 12
2.6 Processes of Redactional Composition………………………….. 15
2.7 Indicators of Development in the Text………………………….. 17
2.8 Indicators of Structure and Development in the Amos-text…….. 19
2.9 This Study……………………………………………………….. 22

Chapter 3 The Redactional Compositions Underlying the Amos-text……... 23
3.1 Three Twentieth-century Commentaries to H W Wolff……….... 24
3.1.1 W R Harper………………………………………………….…. 24
3.1.2 R S Cripps………………………………………………...……. 26
3.1.3 J L Mays…………………………………………………….….. 27
3.2 The Commentaries of H W Wolff and J Jeremias………………. 28
3.2.1 H W Wolff………………………………………...…………… 28
3.2.2 J Jeremias……………………………………………………… 36
3.2.3 Comparison of the Commentaries of Wolff and Jeremias…… . 40
v
3.3 Alternative Views to those of Wolff and Jeremias…………...… 41
3.4. The Proposal of This Study………………………………… ….. 46
3.4.1 Amos 1.3-2.16: The Oracles Against the Nations Series…….... 47
3.4.2 Amos 7.1-9.4: The Visions Series……………………………... 49
3.4.2.1 The Visions………………………………………………… 49
3.4.2.2 Amos 7.9-17……………………………………………..… 50
3.4.2.3 Amos 8.3-14…………………………………..…………… 55
3.4.3 Amos 3 – 6: The Words of Amos…………………………….... 62
3.4.3.1 Amos 3.1-2………………………………………………… 63
3.4.3.2 Amos 3.3-8……………………………………………….... 64
3.4.3.3 Amos 3.9-11……………………………………………. ….67
3.4.3.4 Amos 3.12-15…………………………………………….... 68
3.4.3.5 Amos 4.1-3……………………………………………...…. 71
3.4.3.6 Amos 4.4-13 and the Doxologies………………………….. 71
3.4.3.7 Amos 5.1-17……………………………………………….. 76
3.4.3.8 Amos 5.18-27…………………………………………….... 81
3.4.3.9 Amos 6.1-14……………………………………………….. 83
3.4.4 Amos 9.7-15…………………………………………….……… 89
3.4.5 Amos 1.1-2………………………………………...…………… 92
3.4.6 Conclusions…………………………………………………….. 94

Chapter 4 The Coherence of the Redactional Compositions
Underlying the Amos-text……………………………………… 96
4.1 The Coherence of the Post-722 Composition………………...……. 97
4.1.1 Structural Coherence……………………………………...…… 97
4.1.2 Linguistic Coherence……………………………….……….... 101
4.1.3 Thematic Coherence…………………………………….….… 105
4.1.4 The Origins of the Post-722 Composition……………….…… 113
4.2 The Coherence of the Late Pre-exilic Redactional Composition ... 114
4.2.1 Structural Coherence……………………………………...….. 114
4.2.2 Linguistic Coherence…………………………………….….... 115
vi
4.2.3 Thematic Coherence…………………………………………. 116
4.2.4 The Origins of the Late Pre-exilic Redactional Composition.. 117
4.3 The Coherence of the Exilic Redactional Composition ………… 118
4.3.1 Structural Coherence………………………………………… 118
4.3.2 Linguistic Coherence………………………………………… 120
4.3.3 Thematic Coherence…………………………………...…….. 123
4.3.4 The Origins of the Exilic Redactional Composition ……...… 124
4.4 The Coherence of the Post-exilic Redactional Composition…… ..125
4.4.1 Structural Coherence……………………………………….... 126
4.4.2 Linguistic Coherence………………………………………… 126
4.4.3 Thematic Coherence……………………………………….. ...127
4.4.4 The Origins of the Post-exilic Redactional Composition……. 128
4.5 Conclusion……………………………………………………..… 131

Chapter 5 Investigation of Issues Pertinent to the Interpretation of
Amos 2.6-16…………………………………………………... 132
5.1 The Relationship of Amos 2.8 to Exodus 22.25-26 (26-27) and
Deuteronomy 24.10-18………………………………….……..... 132
5.1.1 The Relationship Between the Book of the Covenant and the
Laws of Deuteronomy………………………………………. 134
5.1.2 Exodus 22.25-26 (26-27) and Amos 2.8……………………. 144
5.1.3 Deuteronomy 24.10-18, Exodus 22.24-26 and Amos 2.8 ...... 148
5.1.4 Conclusions…..………………………………………...…… 153
5.2 The Presence of Election Traditions in Amos 2.9-12…………... 154
5.2.1 Amos 2.10-12 as a Deuteronomistic Addition……………… 155
5.2.2 The Exegetical and Theological Significance of the Addition
of Amos 2.10-12 in the Exilic Redactional Composition
Underlying the Amos-text………………………………...… 170
vii
Chapter 6 Interpretations of the Reasons for Judgment in Amos 2.6-16
in the Redactional Compositions Underlying the Amos-text... 173
6.1 Delineation of the Redactional Compositions Underlying
Amos 2.6-16…………………………………………….……… 174
6.2 Amos 2.6-16 in the Post-722 Composition…………………….. 178
6.2.1 Translation and Textual Notes…………………………… 178
6.2.2 The Structure of Amos 2.6-16 in the Post-722
Composition……………………………………………… 181
6.2.3 The Announcement of Judgment in Amos 2.6-16 in
the Post-722 Composition…………………………….…. 184
6.2.4 The Reasons for Judgment in Amos 2.6-9 in the
Post-722 Composition………………………………….... 187
6.2.4.1 “Because they sell the righteous for silver and the
needy for a pair of sandals” (2.6b)………….….…… 188
6.2.4.2 “they who trample the head of the poor, and they
turn aside the way of the afflicted ones” (2.7a)….…. 193
6.2.4.3 “a man and his father go into the same girl” (2.7b) ..... 196
6.2.4.4 “and they spread out garments taken in pledge, and
they drink the wine of those being fined” (2.8)…..... 198
6.2.4.5 Concluding Comments on the Reasons for Judgment
in Amos 2.6b-8 in the Post-722 Composition……...... 203
6.2.5 Victims and Oppressors in Amos 2.6b-8 in the
Post-722 Composition…………………………………… 203
6.2.6 “Yet I destroyed the Amorite before them,…” (2.9)…….. 206
6.2.7 The Theological Basis of the Reasons for Judgment in
Amos 2.6-16 in the Post-722 Composition…………….. ...208
6.2.8 The Rhetorical Effect of the Reasons for Judgment in
Amos 2.6-16 in the Post-722 Composition………………. 211
viii
6.3 Amos 2.6-16 in the Late Pre-exilic Redactional Composition.... 214
6.3.1 Amos 2.8 in the Late Pre-exilic Redactional
Composition……………………………………………… 214
6.3.2 Amos 8.4-6 in the Late Pre-exilic Redactional
Composition……………………………………………… 216
6.3.2.1 Translation and Textual Notes……………………... 216
6.3.2.2 The Literary Context of Amos 8.4-6 in the Late
Pre-exilic Redactional Composition …………….… 219
6.3.2.3 The Reasons for Judgment in Amos 8.4-6………… 219
6.3.3 The Inclusion of 7.9-17 and 3.8 within the Late
Pre-exilic Redactional Composition………………………. 221
6.3.4 Victims and Oppressors in Amos 2.6b-8 in the Late
Pre-exilic Redactional Composition…………………….… 222
6.3.5 The Theological Basis of the Reasons for Judgment in
Amos 2.6-16 in the Late Pre-exilic Redactional
Composition…………………………………………….…. 223
6.3.6 The Rhetorical Effect of the Reasons for Judgment in
Amos 2.6-16 in the Late Pre-exilic Redactional
Composition…………………………………………….…. 224
6.4 Amos 2.6-16 in the Exilic Redactional Composition…….…… 225
6.4.1 Additions in the Exilic Redactional Composition of the
Amos-text………………………………………………..... 225
6.4.1.1 The Hymnic Verses 4.13; 5.8-9; 9.5-6……………..…. 225
6.4.1.2 References to “Judah”…………………………….…... 227
6.4.1.3 The Addition of Amos 1.2 and 3.7 in the Exilic
Redactional Composition………………………….….. 230
6.4.2 Additions to Amos 2.6-16 in the Exilic Redactional
Composition…………………………………………....…. 231
6.4.2.1 The Additions in 2.14-15 and 2.7aα…………….……. 231

ix
6.4.2.2 Amos 2.10-12 in the Exilic Redactional Composition. 231
6.4.2.3 The Reasons for Judgment in Amos 2.6-16 in the
Exilic Redactional Composition……………………… 233
6.4.3 The Theological Basis of the Reasons for Judgment in
Amos 2.6-16 in the Exilic Redactional Composition…….. 234
6.4.4 The Rhetorical Effect of the Reasons for Judgment in
Amos 2.6-16 in the Exilic Redactional Composition…….. 236
6.5 Amos 2.6-16 in the Post-exilic Redactional Composition…… 237
6.5.1 Amos 2.7b in the Post-exilic Redactional Composition…. 237
6.5.2 The Addition of Amos 9.11-15……….………………….. 241
6.5.3 The Effect on the Interpretation of Amos 2.6-16 of
Semantic Change in the terms , ,
קידצ ןויבא םילִד
and םיונע……………………………………………….…. 243
6.5.4 Victims and Oppressors in the Post-exilic Redactional
Composition……..…………………………………….….. 245
6.5.5 The Theological Basis of the Reasons for Judgment in
Amos 2.6-16 in the Post-exilic Redactional Composition. 246
6.5.6 The Rhetorical Effect of the Reasons for Judgment in
Amos 2.6-16 in the Post-exilic Redactional Composition. 247
6.6 Conclusion…………………………………….……….......… 247

Chapter 7 Summary and Conclusions……….……………………….. 248
7.1 Summary…………………………….………………...…….. 248
7.2 Significance of This Study…………….…………………….. 252
7.3 Areas for Future Study……………….……………………… 253
7.4 Conclusion……………………………..…………………….. 254
Bibliography…………………………………………..……………..……. 255
x