14. prophet. There can be no
question that Amos functioned as a prophet. The Lord told him to prophesy, and
he did. Here he disclaims the title nābīʾ
or even ben-nābīʾ, as a member of a
class whose status in society was recognized. Amaziah had not called him by
this title. He does not disown the title ḥōzeh,
neither does he claim to be a ḥōzeh.
The fact that he denies the title nābīʾ
but asserts the activity of the denominative verb has made v 14 one of the
best-known cruxes in the book. Just what did Amos mean when he said “I am not a
prophet,” when he obviously was one? The discussion continues unabated and
without resolution. (Besides the inevitable discussion in every commentary, the
following have given special attention to the verse: van Hoonacker 1941, Rowley
1947, Danell 1951, MacCormack 1955–56, G. R. Driver 1955, Ackroyd 1956–57, Vogt
1956–57, Gunneweg 1960, Cohen 1961, Smend 1963, Schmid 1967.)
In the immediate context he could be refuting Amaziah’s insinuation.
“I am not the kind of prophet you think I am.” This reading would be all right
for the part of Amaziah’s speech that hints that Amos was a hireling. But
Amaziah had called him ḥōzeh, as if
he were a true seer.
The parallel ben-nābîʾ could
mean “a member of a prophetic community,” of the kind known from the earlier
days of Samuel and Elijah/Elisha but not attested in the eighth century. More
likely the term would apply to an apprentice (“disciple” [JPS]) than a
successor in hereditary office. As Amos disowns any such traditional or
institutional affiliation, we must assume that that kind of prophet was now in
disrepute, at least in Amos’ estimation. Perhaps they had degenerated into
soothsayers and diviners, prophesying for pay (cf. Mic 3:5–7).
Another approach is to make all of the verbless clauses in v 14
dependent on the subsequent narrative clause for their (past) time reference: I
[was] not a prophet …; on the contrary (kî)
I was a herdsman. And [then] Yahweh took me … [and then I did become a
prophet]. In other words, Amos is making the point that he is not the kind of
prophet that Amaziah considers him to be. He is only a prophet because Yahweh
took him and ordered him to prophesy. Although he does not use the term “raised
up,” his account of his call (or, rather, his being taken) places him in the
succession of 2:11, and his steadfastness places him under the compulsion of
3:8. (Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Amos: A New
Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AYB 24A; New Haven: Yale University
Press, 2008], 777-78)
