14 Act three, scene one begins with Amos’s twofold response (וַיַּעַן) to Amaziah’s charges. The exact nuance of his reply, however,
still baffles the exegetes, who have resorted to many (at times ingenious and
inventive) suggestions to unravel the meaning of Amos’s self-justification. The
basic problem lies in the apparent contradiction between his denial of being a
prophet (לֹא־ נָבִיא אָנֹכִי) and the ensuing
verse in which Amos acknowledges that God selected him to prophesy to Israel.
The first part of his response (vv 14–15) consists of three
nominal clauses, two negative and one positive (v 14), each one of which
contains an emphatic first-person subject, אָנֹכִי,
“I.” Nominal sentences, however, are neutral in reference to time, which can
only be determined by either the context of the passage (which here is
ambiguous) or by the tense of other verbs that appear in the contiguous verses49
(here, too, the situation is equivocal). If one refers to Amos 7:13a, the
passage should be translated in the present tense; if one relies on Amos 7:15,
then the past tense would be correct. Hence the dilemma: Is Amos denying that
he is not or was not a prophet, nor a son of a prophet (בֶּן־נָבִיא),
that is, belonging to a group or guild of prophets?
In a tortuous attempt to resolve
the problem of a contradiction with v 15 (where Amos definitely declares that
he was sent to prophesy), some commentators have suggested that Amos is not
denying at all that he is or was a prophet but is asserting exactly the
opposite, that he is a prophet. Thus
Driver interprets the sentence as a rhetorical question: “Do you suppose that I
am not a true prophet because I am a seasonal laborer? Why the Lord called
me….” So, too, Ackroyd, but without the tones of indignation: “Am I
not a prophet…?” Translating any sentence as a rhetorical question without any
clear contextual guidelines, however, is extremely hazardous. Even if this were
possible, it would then clearly imply that Amos is admitting that he is also a
son of a prophet, “a member of a prophetic guild,” which is obviously totally
untenable. If he is declaring that he is a prophet, why does he need to add
that he also has a secular profession? By stating that he has such a vocation,
Amos clarifies that, contrary to whatever Amaziah may think, he does not earn
his livelihood by delivering oracles.
Cohen attempts to solve the
enigma of vv 14 and 15 by interpreting the first לֹא
as an emphatic negative, referring to Amaziah’s charge that Amos was a חֹזֶה: “No! [= “I am not a חֹזֶה!”] I am indeed a
prophet, but not a ‘son of a prophet.’” According to Zevit, who accepts this
punctuation, Amos is emphasizing that he is not a prophet enjoying royal
patronage (חֹזֶה) but “an independent prophet—my own man.”
Amos is thereby identifying himself with those who preceded him as נְבִיאִים. Hoffman attacked this manner of exegesis linguistically and
contextually. According to him, לֹא is never employed absolutely as an
independent clause to express denial. Although Zevit subsequently countered
Hoffman on this point and brought some examples to support this “exegetical
probability” (for example, Num 22:30b; Judg 12:5b), Hoffman’s other criticisms
are still valid. He correctly noted that the repetition of the subject אָנֹכִי points to “two parallel negative sentences, rather than a
positive statement followed by a negative one.” Furthermore, it is patently
clear that Amos’s response, which reappears in Zech 13:5, was understood as a
denial: “And he will declare, ‘I am not a prophet; I am a tiller of the soil.’”
The following two affirmative statements identifying Amos’s secular profession
(בּוֹקֵר, בּוֹלֵס שִׁקְמִים), which also include
the same emphatic subject, אָנֹכִי, are obviously
presented as a contrast to his double denial, לֹא־נָבִיא אָנֹכִי
וְלֹא בֶן־נָבִיא. Hoffman concludes that the issue remains a paradox, reflecting
“a very serious inner conflict and his [Amos’s] ambiguous feelings regarding
his own identity.” Amos felt different from previous נְבִיאִים,
but not entirely detached from them.
Another approach, but in the same
direction, was offered by Richardson, who interprets the first לֹא
not as a negative but as an asseverative, vocalizing לֻא,
“I am surely a prophet, but not a member of a prophetic guild.” Although there
are some sporadic examples of an emphatic lamed
in biblical Hebrew, the obvious symmetry and parallelism between the first and
second לֹא clauses raise serious obstacles to this
exegesis. Moreover, Amos, after asserting who he is not, continues by declaring
his profession. This would be totally superfluous if he had already positively
stated that he was a prophet.
Tur-Sinai obviates the issue by
translating אָנֹכִי as “at the time when,” which is a very
dubious solution. Watts bypasses the problem by emphasizing the mood and not
the tense: “No prophet did I choose to be! Nor did I seek to become one of the
prophetic guild.” This approach, as well, is fraught with many difficulties.
Most commentators accept that
Amos unequivocally denies that he is to be categorized as a prophet.
Nevertheless, even within this general consensus, several different ways to
understand the verse still exist. Some interpret the waw before the second denial as a waw explicativum: “I am not a prophet, that is, not a professional
prophet.” If this were Amos’s intention, he would obviously confound any
audience, listening or reading. How would they ever decipher his meaning: “I am
no prophet in the sense that you think I am, namely a member of a prophetic
guild”? Furthermore, Amaziah never charged or insinuated that Amos was a member
of such a professional group. Another proposal that has been raised is that
what Amos is denying is that “I am neither the head (נָבִיא)
nor a member (בֶּן־נָבִיא) of such a guild.” Such a terminological
distinction, however, is simply unfounded.71 Others suggest that
there is no difference between the two terms and assume that Amos is expressing
an emphatic denial by means of synonymous repetition—extremely dubious—or by an
a fortiori argument; such a syntax, however, is attested only in postbiblical
Hebrew.
The most commonly accepted
approach to avoid a contradiction with v 15 is to interpret the nominal
sentence as an absolute negation that is expressed either in the present or
past tense. Those who prefer the present tense (which is supported by V, sum, “I am”) note that if the past were
intended, the verb הָיִיתִי (“I was”) would have been written. This,
however, is incorrect, for in nominal sentences the past can be expressed
without the addition of this verb. An additional argument employed by those who
favor the present tense is that there is no contradiction with v 15. Amos is
only repudiating the assertion that he is a prophet by profession and a member
of a prophetic guild. These are no grounds, however, to interpret נָבִיא here as a “prophet by profession.”
Those who favor the past tense
(see G, ἤμην, “I was”) place
the entire emphasis on the Lord’s initiative. The cause for the radical change
was divine constraint (see 3:8). Amos’s prophetic activity was not by choice:
“I was not a prophet nor a son of a prophet,” until that dramatic moment when
the Lord took me and charged me to prophesy against Israel. With this
interpretation, too, a problem still exists. If Amos declares that he formerly
was not a prophet but now is one, does it not follow that he is also admitting
that as he was formerly not a “son of a prophet,” he now is one? Does this also
imply that he no longer makes his living, as he used to, by practicing his secular
profession? Wolff states that there is no intention to contrast then and now.
Amos merely wishes to correct Amaziah’s assessment and distinguishes between
the office and the act, “between a prophet by office and one called by Yahweh,”
that is, temporarily a messenger of Yahweh.
If an unambiguous solution were
available, the problem would have been resolved ages ago. In the meantime one
must opt for that interpretation that, within the vast profusion of
possibilities, makes the best sense. Amos is obviously denying that he is a professional
prophet and that he makes his living by such a calling. He is also asserting
that his present prophetic activity is due entirely to his being selected by
the Lord, who commanded him to address northern Israel. Thus, although he
formerly had no connections with any prophets or prophetic guilds, he now is a
prophet of Yahweh, and Yahweh’s authority supersedes Amaziah’s.
Amos continues his
self-justification by stating that he has his own vocation—he is both a בּוֹקֵר and a בּוֹלֵס שִׁקְמִים—and thus has no need
to resort to delivering oracles for his livelihood as Amaziah insinuated. Both
terms for his profession, however, are enigmatic hapax legomena.
The first, בּוֹקֵר,
is commonly interpreted as a denominative from בָּקָר
(“cattle”) and is variously translated as a “herder of cattle, herdsman,
cattle/livestock breeder.” The problem is that in the superscription to the
book, Amos 1:1, Amos is called a נוֹקֵד (“a herdsman of
sheep”) and not a breeder of cattle. Moreover, in the following verse here, he
declares that the Lord took him from following the צֹאן,
a term that refers to “flocks, sheep and/or goats” but is never applied to
cattle. In order to avoid this apparent contradiction, many commentators simply
resort to emending בּוֹקֵר to נוֹקֵד, a fine example of
unnecessary harmonization.
Others, who accept the
correctness of the spelling בּוֹקֵר, attach an entirely
different meaning to it. They assume that it refers either to a supervisory
official appointed by the owners of herds in order to inspect the flocks and to
collect the owner’s portion of the levy or that it has a cultic meaning, a hepatoscoper,
that is, one who practices divination by inspecting the livers of sacrificial
animals. Both these latter suggestions have been correctly criticized and
refuted.
The “problem” can be resolved,
however, by realizing that the contradiction between נוֹקֵד
and בּוֹקֵר simply does not exist. First, נוֹקֵד, as seen previously in connection with its Akkadian
interdialectal cognate and semantic equivalent, nāqidu, is an all-embracing term that may refer to either a breeder
of cattle or herdsman of sheep and goats. בּוֹקֵר,
moreover, may denote one who owns cattle and, as such, would not preclude one
who also tends sheep and goats.
The designation of his other
vocation also contains a unique word; he calls himself a “בּוֹלֵס
of sycamore trees” (שִׁקְמִים). The tree, whose growth is dependent upon
a warm climate, is not found in the vicinity of Tekoa but does grow in the
lowlands by the Mediterranean coast and in the Jordan Valley (see 1 Kgs 10:27;
Ps 78:47; 1 Chr 27:28). Heb. בּוֹלֵס is a denominative
from the Semitic root, בלס, which in Arabic, balasu, refers to a species of figs, and in Ethiopic, balasa, is applied to both figs and
sycamores. Hence all exegetes agree that בּוֹלֵס
describes one who has something to do with the fruit of the sycamore tree, Ficus sycamorus. The versions interpret
the verb as referring to the activity of “scraping” (G, κνίζων); “nipping” (θʼ, χαράσσων); or “pinching” (V, vellicans)
the fig fruit of the sycamore. (See σʼ ἔχων, “owner.”)
This process of incising the fig hastens its ripening by increasing the
ethylene production and also removes the infestation of the insect Sycophaga crassipas. If the fruit were
not treated in such a manner, it would dry up and become inedible. Such a
procedure is well attested in early documents, Egyptian reliefs, and
contemporary Egypt. The fig “cannot ripen unless it is scraped, but they scrape
it with iron claws; the fruits thus scraped ripen in four days.” The tree can
thus produce “seven crops of extremely juicy figs in a summer.” Modern
experiments have confirmed that when these figs are gashed on the fifteenth to
the twentieth day of the month, their ripening is accelerated to three or four
days, and they are not plagued by insects.
Because this activity does not
demand total monthlong attention, there is no difficulty in Amos’s practicing
both vocations (Shalom M.
Paul and Frank Moore Cross, Amos: A Commentary on the Book of Amos [Hermeneia—a
Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress
Press, 1991], 243-48)
