Case Study in Topic to Thesis: Amos 4:1-3

Introduction

Perhaps the greatest indicator of success when writing a research paper is proper planning. An effective and efficient method of planning allows the researcher to increase the chance for success. Accordingly, the following analysis develops a research foundation for a twenty-five-page research paper involving a point of interpretive or biblical theological interest from the book of Amos. The planning process involves choosing a topic, developing a bibliography, documenting issues and positions, and formulating a thesis.

Finding Direction

The first step in finding direction is to begin narrowing the topic. Michael Kibbe explains that during the finding direction stage, the argument should not yet be established, secondary sources should be avoided, tert0526+3.3[=ilary sources should be used for introductory purposes, and primary sources should remain the focus.[1] In light of Kibbe’s advice, I began by reading the primary source, the book of Amos.

Due to the broad topic and my limited knowledge, I then read three tertiary sources. First, the introduction to the book of Amos in the ESV Study Bible provided the author, date, theme, historical background, literary analysis, and key theological themes, which prompted a few observations.[2] Historically, Amos sounds a message of judgment against the northern kingdom possibly around 760 BCE during a time of economic prosperity. The people thought their wealth was a blessing from God, but they were wrong. The literary genre is prophecy, and the literary structure consists of three parts: oracles (1-2), judgment (3-6), and visions (7-9). The theological themes include topics such as ethical norms, religious rituals, Israel’s covenant relationship with God, the day of the Lord, and remnant theology.

Second, Tremper Longman and Raymond Dillard’s Old Testament introduction provided a substantial list of commentaries, monographs, and journal articles for potential secondary sources. Perusing the titles revealed several possible topics: social reform, foreign nations, literary composition, rhetorical analysis, eschatology, covenant lawsuits, God as a Warrior, hymnic elements, and the plumb-line metaphor.[3]

Third, since the focus of the research is biblical exposition, rather than systematic theology or literary theory, I reviewed the New Dictionary of Biblical Theology to limit the potential topics. A few possible topics included: (1) the day of the Lord (5:18-20), (2) divine names (9:1-5), (3) Warrior King (1:2, 3:8), and (4) the plumb-line metaphor (7:7-9). However, the topics with the most potential included: (1) Israel’s injustice and oppression (3:9-4:5), (2) religious ritualism (5:21-24), (3) eschatological vision of restoration (9:11-15), and (4) God’s sovereignty and the oracles against the nations (1:3-2:3).[4]

Gathering Sources

Undersanding the Book of Amos

At this point, I have a basic understanding of the primary source, a limited understanding of the issues, several potential topics, and a start on a potential bibliography. Kibbe explains that the keys to gathering secondary sources are skimming, narrowing the topic, and allocating time.[5] Regarding narrowing the topic, I discovered a book by Gerhard Hasel entitled Understanding the Book of Amos: Basic Issues in Current Interpretations, which was written in 1991.[6] Although the book is dated, I confirmed that scholars had debated three of my potential topics for many decades: injustice and oppression (3:9-4:5), eschatology (9:11-15), and the oracles against the nations (1:3-2:3).

The first topic I explored was the oracles against the nations. Using the ATLA religion database, I briefly perused a few scholarly articles, but nothing sparked my interest. The second topic I explored was injustice and oppression. Various keyword searches revealed a scholarly interest in the fourth chapter of Amos. I began reading an article entitled, A Fresh Look at Amos 4:1-3 and Its Imagery.[7] A significant amount of scholarly debate revolved around the meaning of these three verse

s. Accordingly, I began searching for journal articles using keyword phrases such as Amos and cows, Amos and Bashan, Amos and fishhooks, and Amos and Harmon.

As I gathered scholarly sources, I remembered reading about a mountain called Hermon. Amos 4:3 stated, “You shall be cast out into Harmon.”[8] I wondered if there might be a connection between the two. Elmer Dyck explains that many scholars “repoint the word (Harmon) to read Hermon.”[9] Some scholars associate the language of sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 and 1 Enoch 6:1-7 with the supernatural divine beings who cohabited with women to produce the Nephilim.[10] According to 1 Enoch 6:5, Mount Hermon was the location where the sons of God descended to earth. If the backdrop of Mount Hermon was part of the supernatural worldview of the Israelites, then it may illuminate the meaning of Amos 4:1-3. The question that began to form was whether the presuppositions associated with modern exegesis may have diminished the importance of the ancient Israelite’s supernatural worldview. Accordingly, I compiled a bibliography consisting of resources from a broad range of perspectives related to the interpretation of Amos 4:1-3.

Understanding Issues

During this phase, I began reading the selected sources and making notes on the source documents to decrease time when returning to them.[11] While reading the sources, the goal was to understand the major positions of the relevant scholars, recognize shifts in scholarship, identify the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments, and begin formulating a preliminary thesis. The issues surfaced from considering the historical-cultural, literary, and theological context.

The historical-cultural context is not highly disputed. The date of Amos’ writing was likely around the middle of the eighth century BCE; Israel was governed by King Jeroboam II and Judah by King Uzziah. Both Israel and Judah were experiencing a stable government and significant wealth and prosperity. Amos’ primary purpose was to communicate God’s condemnation of Israel on several counts: (1) abuse of the poor, (2) sexual indiscretion, and (3) worshiping foreign gods (Amos 2:6-8).

The literary context provides the impetus for much scholarly debate. First, the prophetic utterances create a challenge for interpreting the meaning of the metaphors. Specifically, what does the phrase, “cows of Bashan” mean (v 1)? Amos states that the cows will be taken away “with hooks” and the last of them with “fishhooks” (v 2). What do the fishing metaphors represent? Finally, Amos suggests the cows will be “cast out into Harmon” (v 3). Is Harmon a metaphor or a place name? Several textual issues also exist. Emmanuel Nwaoru identifies three text critical issues, and each one relates to the differences between the LXX and MT: (1) in verse 2 the LXX omits the MT’s אֲדֹנָי, (2) in verse 3 the LXX changes the word “breaches” in the MT (פְרָצִים) to the adjective “naked” (γυμναί), and in verse 3 the destination of the cows in the LXX is “mount Remman” (ὄρος τὸ Ρεμμαν) as opposed to Harmon (הַהַרְמוֹנָה).[12] Other semantic issues are also evident. No consensus exists for the condemnation associated with the phrase, “bring, that we may drink” (v 1), or how the cows are taken into exile (v 2). Furthermore, the meaning of the word “to your husbands”’ (לַאֲדֹנֵיהֶם) is also disputed (v 1). Finally, the possible place names are problematic. Are Bashan, Samaria, and Harmon all considered geographical locations, extensions of metaphors, or both?

The theological messaging emerges from the literary challenges. Scholars such as Terence Kleven, Shalom Paul, Brian Irwin, and Emmanuel Nwaoru align with a historical-critical perspective that emerged from the Enlightenment. For example, these scholars assert that the cows of Bashan relate to overturning social order, the elite citizens, or high-class licentious ladies. Alternatively, a recent shift in scholarship is represented by Michael Heiser, Hans Barstad, and Archie Wright who suggest that Amos 4:1-3 includes supernatural overtones. For example, Michael Heiser explains that the cows of Bashan may represent “the deities themselves in the form of the idols.”[13] Further, by translating לַאֲדֹנֵיהֶם as “to their lords,” rather than “to their husbands,” Hans Barstad suggests that the cows of Bashan may refer to both the inhabitants and their deities.”[14] Regardless of the interpretive perspective, the criticism leveled against oppression is applicable to all generations.

Entering Discussion

It is time to enter the discussion. The sources appear to be conversing with each other. For example, most of the relevant contemporary articles seem to engage with two specific commentaries, one written by Francis Andersen and David Freedman and the other written by Hans Walter Wolff.[15] Furthermore, the sources obtained often cite each other. Although numerous issues exist regarding the interpretation of Amos 4:1-3, a significant concern relates to whether a supernatural understanding permeates the exegesis. My argument involves a point of interpretive interest that does not deny that the situation of oppression literally occurred, but that the exegesis is illuminated by the context of the supernatural worldview of the ancient Israelites. Specifically, the cows of Bashan refer to real human oppressors, but the original authorial intent and the meaning understood by the original audience included supernatural messaging.

The evidence to support the preliminary argument is fivefold. First, the oracles against the foreign nations in Amos 1:1–2:3 hearken back to the Babel event in Genesis 10-11, where, according to Heiser, “the nations were placed under the authority of members of Yahweh’s divine council” (See Deut 32:8).[16] Upon disinheriting the nations, Yahweh then called Abraham to create a new nation, Israel, who would bring all nations back to God (Gen 12).

Second, Amos 2:9 describes the Amorites as having “the height of the cedars,” which appears to be an allusion to divine beings. Admiel Kosman explains that Og, king of Bashan, was an Amorite in the lineage of the Rephaim, who were ancient giants (See Deut 3:11; Joshua 12:4-5).[17] In Ugaritic literature, the Rephaim were considered “quasi-divine dead warrior kings who inhabit the underworld.”[18] The Rephaim’s divine nature stems back to the Nephilim produced by divine beings mating with humans in Gen 6:1-4 (See Deut 2:11; Num 13:23-33).

Third, G. del Olmo Lete explains that Bashan was known as the land of the Rephaim (Deut 3:13), and, for the Ugaritic Canaanites, Bashan “clearly represented ‘Hell’, the celestial and infernal abode of their deified dead kings.”[19] Fourth, as mentioned above, the potential reference to Mount Hermon in Amos 4:3 may be linked to a supernatural worldview as the location of the fallen divine council gods who descended to earth (1 Enoch 6:5).[20] Finally, Heiser explains that Bashan has a connection with demonic powers: Matthew references Jesus’ use of Psalm 22:1 on the cross, but the Messianic Psalm likely refers to evil powers when stating, “Many bulls encompass me; strong bulls of Bashan surround me” (Ps 22:12).[21] The spiritual connotations between bulls and cows, Bashan and Hermon, and between Yahweh and other gods would not go unnoticed by the ancient Israelites.

Establishing Position

Reasonable arguments support various interpretive perspectives of Amos 4:1-3. However, it is now time to write the paper. It appears that enough preliminary work exists to formulate a thesis that will mold the research. Furthermore, I believe I can participate in the conversation, while continuing to be open to modifications as the research unfolds. Accordingly, the preliminary thesis is as follows: Although the situation of oppression literally occurred, the exegesis of Amos 4:1-3 is illuminated by the context of the supernatural worldview of the ancient Israelites.

Conclusion

The research foundation established provides a strong methodology for writing a twenty-five-page paper involving a point of interpretive interest from the book of Amos. By first reviewing the tertiary sources and discovering the scholarly issues, I was able to effectively narrow the topic to Amos 4:1-3. By developing a bibliography around the three verses, I was able to determine a manageable size for the project. By documenting the issues and positions, a thesis began to emerge. Finally, by synthesizing the content, a position was established in the form of a preliminary thesis statement. Without question, an effective and efficient method of planning enhances the possibility for research success.

Bibliography

• Andersen, Francis I., and David Noel Freedman. Amos: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Vol. 24A. Anchor Yale Bible. New Haven: Yale, 2008.
• Barstad, Hans. The Religious Polemics of Amos: Studies in the Preaching of Am 2, 7B-8 ; 4, 1-13 ; 5, 1-27 ; 6, 4-7 ; 8, 14. Leiden: Brill, 1984.
• Chisholm, R. B. Jr. “Amos.” In New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, edited by T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000.
• Dyck, Elmer H. “Harmon (Place).” In The Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by David Noel Freedman, 60–61. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
• Hasel, Gerhard F. Understanding the Book of Amos. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1991.
• Heiser, Michael S. The Unseen Realm. Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2015.
• Kibbe, Michael. From Topic to Thesis: A Guide to Theological Research. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2016.
• Kosman, Admiel. “The Story of a Giant Story: The Winding Way of Og King of Bashan in the Jewish Haggadic Tradition.” Hebrew Union College Annual 73 (2002): 157–90.
• Longman, Tremper III, and Raymond B. Dillard. An Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006.
• Nickelsburg, George W. E., and James C. VanderKam. I Enoch: The Hermeneia Translation. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012.
• Nwaoru, Emmanuel O. “A Fresh Look at Amos 4:1-3 and Its Imagery.” Vetus Testamentum 59, no. 3 (2009): 460–74.
• Olmo Lete, G. del. “Bashan.” In Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. 2nd ed., 161–63. Leiden; Boston; Cologne; Grand Rapids; Cambridge: Brill and Eerdmans, 1999.
• Oswalt, John. “Introduction to Amos.” In The ESV Study Bible. Wheaton: Crossway, 2016.
• Wolff, Hans W. Joel and Amos: A Commentary on the Books of the Prophets Joel and Amos. Edited by S. Dean McBride. Hermeneia-A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977.

Additional Research Bibliography

• Doak, Brian. The Last of the Rephaim: Conquest and Cataclysm in the Heroic Ages of Ancient Israel. Cambridge: Harvard, 2013.
• Freedman, David Noel., and Francis I. Andersen. “Harmon in Amos 4:3.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 198 (April 1970): 41.
• ’Heureux, C. E. L. “The Ugaritic and the Biblical Rephaim.” Harvard Theological Review 67, no. 3 (1974): 265–74.
• Irwin, Brian P. “Amos 4:1 and the Cows of Bashan on Mount Samaria: A Reappraisal.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 74, no. 2 (April 2012): 231–46.
• Jacobs, Paul F. “‘Cows of Bashan’: A Note on the Interpretation of Amos 4:1.” Journal of Biblical Literature 104 (March 1985): 109–10.
• Kleven, Terence. “The Cows of Bashan: A Single Metaphor at Amos 4:1-3.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 58, no. 2 (April 1996): 215–27.
• Paul, Shalom M. “Fishing Imagery in Amos 4:2.” Journal of Biblical Literature 97, no. 2 (June 1978): 183–90.
• Walton, John H. “The Mesopotamian Background of the Tower of Babel Account and Its Implications.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 5 (1995): 155–75.
• Williamson, Hugh G. M. “A Christian View of Wealth and Possessions: An Old Testament Perspective.” Ex Auditu 27 (2011): 1–19.
• Wright, Archie T. The Origin of Evil Spirits: The Reception of Genesis 6:1-4 in Early Jewish Literature. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015.

References

[1] LMichael Kibbe, From Topic to Thesis: A Guide to Theological Research (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2016), 45–47.

[2] John Oswalt, “Introduction to Amos,” in The ESV Study Bible (Wheaton: Crossway, 2016), 1655–58.

[3] Tremper Longman III and Raymond B. Dillard, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 420–21.

[4] R. B. Chisholm Jr., “Amos,” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, ed. T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000), 242–45.

[5] Kibbe, From Topic to Thesis, 56–57.

[6] Gerhard F. Hasel, Understanding the Book of Amos (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1991), 57–71, 101-120.

[7] Emmanuel O. Nwaoru, “A Fresh Look at Amos 4:1-3 and Its Imagery,” Vetus Testamentum 59, no. 3 (2009).

[8] Unless otherwise noted, all biblical passages referenced are in the English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008).

[9] Elmer H. Dyck, “Harmon (Place),” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 61.

[10] George W. E. Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam, I Enoch: The Hermeneia Translation (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 23nd.

[11] Kibbe, From Topic to Thesis, 65–72.

[12] Nwaoru, “A Fresh Look,” 462–64.

[13] Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm (Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2015), 290.

[14] Hans Barstad, The Religious Polemics of Amos: Studies in the Preaching of Am 2, 7B-8 ; 4, 1-13 ; 5, 1-27 ; 6, 4-7 ; 8, 14 (Leiden: Brill, 1984), 37–47.

[15] See Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Amos: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 24A, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven: Yale, 2008). Hans W. Wolff, Joel and Amos: A Commentary on the Books of the Prophets Joel and Amos, ed. S. Dean McBride, Hermeneia – A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977).

[16] Heiser, The Unseen Realm, 114.

[17] Admiel Kosman, “The Story of a Giant Story: The Winding Way of Og King of Bashan in the Jewish Haggadic Tradition,” Hebrew Union College Annual 73 (2002): 162.

[18] Heiser, The Unseen Realm, 200.

[19] G. del Olmo Lete, “Bashan,” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, 2nd ed. (Leiden; Boston; Cologne; Grand Rapids; Cambridge: Brill and Eerdmans, 1999), 161-62.

[20] Nickelsburg and VanderKam, I Enoch, 24.

[21] Heiser, The Unseen Realm, 290-91.