The ‘Hymn’ of Amos: An Ancient Flood Narrative

Abstract

A comparison of Amos with Sumerian City-Lament (SCL) reveals that SCL was likely used as the literary template for Amos’ prophecy. Amos also contains references to the flood, used as a covenant-curse to warn Israel of her treaty violations. This article compares these flood passages, 4.13; 5.8+9; 8.8; 9.5+6, (described by scholars as ‘hymnic’), with SCL, Genesis’ flood account, and Job 9.5–10, a similar flood-like hymn, in order to determine common vocabulary and themes. Analyzing the Amos hymn's vocabulary roots reveals an ancient narrative source. Exploration of the passage's literary connections to Amos in terms of a ‘flood covenant-curse',’, demonstrates why such literature was utilized. This article also discusses a new proposal that Amos’ hymn should be extended to incorporate a fragment at 7.4.

Keywords

Ancient Near East covenant treaty-curse flood hapax legomenon seismic theophany Sumerian City-Lament wāw-consecutive

1. Introduction

Amos of Tekoa, Israel's first ‘writing prophet’ (c. 750 bce), erupts onto the pages of biblical history, prophesying against Israel, Judah and surrounding nations, calling for repentance, two years before ‘the earthquake’ struck (1.1), thus authenticating Amos’ message.¹ Amos’ earthquake became ‘synchronous with the introduction of “seismic theophany” imagery into Hebrew literature, with the appearance of the “Day of the Lord” eschatological motif…'²

Fresh insights have been gained from studying Sumerian City-Laments (SCLs) and their relation to the writing prophets.³ A comparison of Amos with SCL reveals it was probably utilized as a ‘literary template'. Amos also illustrated his prophecy by quoting passages describing the flood, in order to warn Israel of the covenant-curses resulting from treaty violations. I offer a new proposal that a fragment of this hymn also occurs at 7.4. I present my translation of Amos’ hymn below:⁴

4.13 a	Lo! Behold!
b	He formed mountains,
c	He created wind,
d	He declared Adam's thoughts,
e	Making dawn into darkness.
f	He trod down the high-places of the earth;
g	[Yhwh]ʾ^elōhě ṣ^ebāʾôt š^emô!
5.8 a	He formed Kima and Kesil;
b	And overthrew morning into the shadow of death,
c	Making day dark as night.
d	He called for the waters of the ocean,
e	And poured them out upon the face of the earth;
f	[Yhwh] š^emô!
5.9 a	Flashing forth devastation upon the strong,
b	Devastating their defenses.
7.4 a	Lo Behold!
b	ʾ^adōnāy [Yhwh]
c	Called for judgment by fire,
d	Which consumed the Great Deep,
e	And consumed its portion.
8.8 a	Did not the earth quake for this?
b	And all its inhabitants lament?
c	All things arose like the light,
d	And all was expelled, permeated and subsided,
e	Like the River of Misrayim.
9.5 a	ʾ^adōnāy [Yhwh] ṣ^ebāʾôt!
b	He struck the earth and it melted,
c	And all its inhabitants lamented;
d	Everything arose like the River,
e	And subsided like the River of Misrayim.
9.6 a	He built ascending-ascents into heaven,
b	And plumes from beneath earth's foundations.
c	He called for the waters of the ocean,
d	And poured them out upon the face of the earth;
e	[Yhwh] š^emô!

2. Amos Contains Hymnic Material

Criticisms focusing on these verses’ differences in style compared to Amos have largely been settled by recognizing they possess ‘participles characteristic of hymnic measure'.⁵ Scholarly opinions are diverse, arguing that these verses could represent two or three hymns, or one hymn having two to four different strophes. However, due to similarities of the verses’ participles, and given that 9.6 repeats 5.8, one is ‘forced’ to think in terms of one hymn, due to shared formal characteristics and themes.⁶ In what follows I will build a new case that 7.4 contains a hymn fragment.

Some scholars reason Amos himself composed the hymn because its verses connect to their contexts so closely.⁷ Others believe Amos quoted verses from a familiar but older hymn.⁸ Gaster clearly stated Amos ‘embodied quotations from an ancient poem'.⁹

3. Amos vs. SCL

A number of scholars have concluded Amos is ‘pervaded’ by City-Lament motifs, a ‘key to understanding the text'.¹⁰ Five Laments (Ur; Sumer and Ur; Nippur; Uruk; and Eridu) dating from Ur III, have been translated, describing the destruction of Sumerian cities and temples. Throughout these Mesopotamian laments the destructive agent par excellence is the flood of Enlil.¹¹ D. Hillers compared Lamentations and Amos 5 with SCL, concluding Amos probably drew upon SCL: ‘“books are made out of other books”, and, to the extent that this maxim is true, biblical books are no exception'.¹²

Dobbs-Alsopp concluded that SCL influenced Jeremiah's Lamentations, that all Old Testament writing prophets ‘would seem to be established’,¹³ and that a native Israelite city-lament existed, where Israelite scribes included ‘techniques from the dominant Assyrians in their education'.¹⁴

Radine thoroughly compared Amos with SCL,¹⁵ concluding, ‘the Sumerian “Curse of Agad” (CA) has numerous similarities to both the literary-predictive texts and to the central body of the book of Amos'.¹⁶ Radine suggested Amos and the writing prophets utilized lament themes, which traced back to ‘Mesopotamian traditions'. Gwaltney argued for a ‘direct connection’, features of which were adapted for monotheistic theology.¹⁷

Green pointed out SCL displays two complimentary facets: Sumer's destruction and celebration of the ‘cities’ restoration and return of their gods'.¹⁸ Lamentation over the Destruction of Nippur contains clear examples of the city's restoration.¹⁹ I note Amos 9.8–15 reveals striking parallels with Uruk Lament's (UrL) restoration passage.²⁰

Amos 9.8–15 has been criticized as ‘secondary’ by ‘the overwhelming majority of modern commentators’,²¹ being viewed as a late insertion ‘contradicting and canceling’ Amos’ prophecy.²² However, hoped-for restoration was essential to SCL, which evidence reveals Amos used as the literary template for his prophecy of Israel's destruction and restoration, thereby making redaction theories of 9.8–15's secondary insertion, invalid.

In particular Amos’ hymn is strikingly reminiscent of Lament for Sumer and Ur (LSUr) 72–84:²³

On that day, Enlil brought the Guti out from the mountains.

Their coming was the flood of Enlil that cannot be withstood,

The great storm of the plain filled the plain, it went before them,

The wide plain was destroyed, no one passed by there…

On that day, heaven rumbled, earth trembled, the storm never slept,

The heavens were darkened, they were covered by a shadow…

The sun lay down at the horizon, the dust passed over the mountains,

The moon lay at the zenith, the people were afraid.

I present below my thematic comparison between Amos’ and Job's hymns versus SCL:

Amos	Phrase/Vocabulary	SCL	Phrase/Vocabulary
4.13b	Former of mountains (‭םירה‬)	K.3238²⁴	The word [of Enlil] shattered the mountain (kùr)
5.8b	And overthrew morning into the shadow of death	LSUr²⁵ 72–84	The heavens were darkened, they were covered by a shadow…
5.8c	Making day dark (‭ךישחה‬) as night	UL 1.12	That One turned pitch black (hé-ši); as at night…
5.9a+b	Flashing forth (‭גילבמה‬) devastation upon the strong… Devastating their defenses	UL 1.14 LSUr 72–84	That One filled (the world) with its roar (balag)… The storm was a harrow coming from above, the city struck by a pickaxe
7.4d+e	…consumed the Great Deep, and consumed its portion (plain)	LSUr 72–84	The great storm of the plain went before them. The wide plain was destroyed…
8.8d+e	Arose…and subsided as the	UL 3.3	a devastating deluge…
9.5d+e	Nile	3.15a	makes the Tigris and Euphrates quaver…
9.5c	And all its inhabitants lamented	LSUr 72–84	…the people were afraid
9.5d	Everything arose as the River	UL 5.20	Subir, rising up like a swelling floodwave
9.6a	He built ascending-ascents (‭זתזלעמ‬) into heaven	UL 5.7	…rose up (il) to heaven…heaven perished…
Job
9.5	He removes the mountains (‭םירה‬)	UL 3.16b	At its reverberation the mountain (hur) peaks shall be uprooted
9.6	shakes the earth…pillars tremble	UL 3.15b; 17	it shall make the mountains rumble. Sumer and Akkad shall shiver…

Themes of flood, fire, darkness and earthquake are shared between Amos’ and Job's hymns versus SCL. However, SCL contains much divergent material. The question of shared vocabulary should be quantified. To investigate, I compared Amos’ and Job's hymn vocabulary roots to standard ancient Near Eastern sources,²⁶ to establish any commonalities.

My table below presents common parallel roots of both hymns as %min–max range:²⁷

Amos Hymn	%Akkadian	%Babylonian	%Sumerian	%Ugaritic
4.13	31–37	47	16	63
5.8	31–38	56	19	69
5.9	0	80	40	80
7.4	33–42	33–42	33–42	75–83
8.8	79	64	50	86
9.5	53	27	33	73
9.6	54–69	46	15	85
Σ%	35–40	48–49	28–29	74–76

Job Hymn	%Akkadian	%Babylonian	%Sumerian	%Ugaritic
9.5	67–83	67–83	33	50–83
9.6	20	40	40	50–83
9.7	71	71	43	71
9.8	17–33	33	0	83
9.9	20	40	60	60
Σ%	41–48	52–55	34	66–79

Jefferson discussed Psalm 110, which has 71% of its vocabulary ‘paralleled by Ugaritic words'. Within the Psalter only four other psalms have such high percentage Ugaritic vocabulary: Psalms 18, 29 and 93, which all mention the flood—and Psalm 68.²⁸ Jefferson concluded such strong Canaanite colouring ‘supports the view’ that Psalm 110 is ‘primitive and pre-Exilic in date'.²⁹ I hold this view for Amos’ and Job's hymns. Both hymns utilize a striking number of rare verbs (possibly hapax legomena [HLs]), summarized below.³⁰

(BDB#) HL	Amos	Job	Akkadian	Babylonian	Sumerian	Ugaritic
(102) ‭ותרךגאת‬	9.6			gudūdu	gud	/ˤ-g-d/ (?)
(7533) ‭קיתעמח‬		9.5	qatû	etēqu		/ˤ-t-q/
(1234) ‭גילבמח‬	5.9		bala	balû	zalag	/p-l-g/
(1951) ‭חשרגנו‬	8.8		rahāsu	râsu	riši	/g-r-š/
(2453) ‭םבפהךפהו‬	5.8	9.5		abâku	kàm	/h-p-k/
(3549) ‭ךישחה‬	5.8			heši
(3468) ‭םרחל‬		9.7	harāsu		ḥarāsu	ḥrḥt
(5091) ‭סרחל‬	9.5				mug (?)
(7725) ‭ןולפתי‬		9.6		buluh		plšn (?)
(8891) ‭זגרת‬	8.8			rgš		/r-š/
(10299) ‭חקשנז‬	8.8		šagia		a-šèğ-ğá	šqh
(10312) ‭חצשנזק, ‭חץקשז‬	8.8; 9.5		ša qû (?)	šaqalû	ešsad	šq
(9424) ‭וחש‬	4.13			seḥû

The following table expresses these rare verbs as % parallel foreign roots:

Hymn (ΣHLs)	%Akkadian	%Babylonian	%Sumerian	%Ugaritic
Amos (12)	33–50	92	58–67	58–67
Job (4)	50	75	50	75–100

The numbers suggest ancient source(s), and invite investigations into the passages’ redaction history.

4. Discussion of Rare Verbs within Amos’ Hymn

Rare verbs (possibly HLs) appear clustered within Amos’ hymn. I briefly discuss below some of the more interesting cases, giving attention to their ancient Near Eastern origins, and the issues I consider for my hymn translation.

5.9a: ‭גילבמח‬ (BDB-1234), ‘flashing forth’, is equivalent to balağ, Sumerian for ‘drum'.³¹ The Sumerian ‘Balag-Laments’ (accompanied by thunderous drum music) describe the destruction of cities by flood, thunder and invasion.³²

8.8d: this text contains three possible HLs, sharing ancient parallel roots.

‭חשרגנו‬ (BDB-1951), ‘cast out, drive out, expelled’ (Ugaritic /g-r-š/; Sumerian riši). This verb describes movement away from an original position/state.

‭חקשנז‬ (BDB-10299), ‘give drink, be irrigated’ (Ugaritic šqh; Sumerian a-šèğ-ğá, šagia; Old Babylonian/Akkadian ša qû). This verb is reminiscent of Gen. 2.6, ‘a mist went up from the earth and watered/irrigated the whole face of the ground'. I therefore translate ‭חקשנז‬ as ‘permeation'.

‭חצשנזק‬ (BDB-10312), ‘sink down’ (Ugaritic šq; Sumerian ešsad; Old Babylonian šaqalu). In particular the Babylonian is said of ‘rainfall or floodwater'.³³ I translate ‭חצשנזק as ‘subsided’, which may be applied to both flood waters and light that decreases in strength.

9.6a: ‭ויתולעמ‬ ‭ותולעמ‬ (four times) (BDB-7097), ‘step/stair/ascent’ (cf. Ezek. 40.6). Paas recognized Egyptian temple–throne allusions,³⁴ I suggest nilometer allusions, where Nile floods were measured by ascending steps.³⁵ 9.6 therefore describes ocean waters ascending to the heavens; an immeasurable flood, upon which Yhwh ascended and sat enthroned (cf. Ps. 29.1–11).

Smith comments on Egyptian Demotic texts which describe massive Nile inundations ascending up to the sky, and inundating mountains and hills. Such Nile floods were theologically compared to the Primeval Ocean (Nun) covering the earth at creation. Such texts bear striking resemblance to the Amos hymn, so lending an authentic ancient Egyptian influence.³⁶

9.6b: ‭חקשנז‬ (BDB-102), ‘band/thong'. Using active imagery, the language of 9.6a+b describes ascent into the sky, then descent back to earth. ‭חקשנ‬ includes ideas of ‘band, or bunch',’,³⁷ and ‘troop’ (fighting men, plural). ‭חקשנ‬ shares its root with (BDB-1650) ‘grow up, become great’, also (BDB-1662) ‘tower'. I have translated ‭חקשנז‬ as ‘plumes’, to describe volcanic plume imagery. Sumerian and Babylonian words gudūdu, sukud, zugud include ideas of ‘military troop’, ‘height’, and possibly ‘cauldron'.

5. Extents of Amos Hymn Fragments

a. General Comments on Extents

For these verses to be considered as separate literary units, their extents within Amos must be established. Scholars generally regard the specified verses as the textual limits of the fragments. The mt preserves the ‘‭ם‬’ division marker at 4.13; 5.7; 8.8, indicating their strophic limits. Watts maintained the status quo with 8.8; 9.5–6, but attempted to connect 5.6+7 with 5.8, and 4.12c with 4.13. Is Watts's analysis correct? Watts described Amos’ redaction as ‘cumbersome',’, revealing it was not a single composition, but 4.12c+13 ‘appears to be a quotation which was used to support the prophet's point'.³⁸

I agree the ‘supporting quotation’ as a ‘whole’ is ‘not a single composition’, but 4.12c-13's transition is not ‘cumbersome'; rather, it is highly significant when seen in covenant-treaty terms. 4.12c's repetition of ‘thus will I do to you’ doubly emphasizes Lev. 26.16, ‘I also will do this to you'. Israel faces the results of her treaty violations, and is commanded, ‘Prepare to meet your God…’ (cf. Exod. 19.15–17). It has been rightly observed that the hymn proper starts at 4.13a, ‘Lo! Behold!'³⁹ Watts extends the limits of 5.8 to include 5.6–7, preferring the more ‘hymnic style’ of lxx over mt.⁴⁰

The majority of scholars follow mt, maintaining the strophe's limits as 5.8–9. Is the lxx to be preferred over mt in Amos? Cramer rejected Watts's lxx reading.⁴¹ Gelston noted ‘unusual concentrations’ of 23 lxx discrepancies (including the hymn verses) compared to mt Amos.⁴² Arieti discusses general lxx vocabulary mistakes, and loss of depth during translation.⁴³ Therefore Watts's reliance upon lxx, connecting 4.12c with 4.13 and 5.6–7 with 5.8, should be rejected. The localized names ‘Israel’ (4.12c), ‘Joseph’, and ‘Bethel’ (5.6) should not be included in a pre-Israelite hymn.

There is general agreement that a divine name closed each verse.⁴⁴ The clause Yhwh Šemô connects 4.13 to 5.8–9 with 9.5–6, ‘making the phrase important for a study of the relationships between the [verses]'.⁴⁵

b. Amos 7.4—A Vision Report/Hymn Fragment

Paas recognized ‘striking relationships’ between Amos’ hymn and vision reports, showing Amos structured his book around both,⁴⁶ thereby linking 9.5b's melting earth with 7.4's fiery vision. Szabó recognized flood traditions within Amos’ hymn and 7.4's vision report.⁴⁷ I therefore propose 7.4 utilizes a hymn fragment starting at ‘Lo! Behold!’ and terminating at 7.5. Presented below are common themes between Amos’ hymn and 7.4.

Amos	Vision Report	Amos	Hymn Fragments
7.4b	Lo! Behold! (‭הנהו‬)	4.13a	Lo! Behold! (‭הנהיכ‬)
7.4b	ḥ^adōnāy [Yhwh]	9.5a	ḥ^adōnāy [Yhwh] ḥ^ebāḥôt
7.4c	‭שאבבדלארק‬	9.6c	‭םיהימלארקה‬
7.4c	(called for judgment by fire)	9.6c	(called for ocean waters)
7.4d	Great Deep	9.6b	beneath earth's foundations
7.4e	consumed its portion	9.5b	struck … earth and it melted

Strong parallel themes, vocabulary and emphasized divine names are common to Amos’ vision report and hymn fragments, indicating co-dependency.

6. Amos’ Hymn: Creation or De-creation?

Some notable scholars have viewed the hymn fragments as praise doxologies to Yhwh as Creator.⁴⁸ I will demonstrate these passages praise Yhwh's judgments as De-creator. When scholars maintain a ‘creation-praise doxology’ perspective, the verses’ perceived positions within Amos automatically appear to them as contextually incomplete—obtrusive, misplaced, later insertions, or replacement verses⁴⁹—so inviting a myriad theories of redaction.⁵⁰ Phrases pivotal to my argument are analyzed below to show the difference in interpretive results.

Some scholars believe 5.8; 9.5d-6 describe natural hydrologic cycles and fertilization of the earth, viewing these verses as a seasonal harvest hymn. Watts and Gaster rely heavily upon reconstructing mt to fit their paradigm. Seasonal interpretations drive Watts's translation of 9.5–6 by making ‘slight orthographical change[s]'. Watts replaces ‘swelling’ and ‘subsiding’ with ‘reservoirs’ and ‘irrigate'.⁵¹ The context is the land rising up and down, like the Nile, an illustration of seismic theophany. Such reinterpretations ignore Amos’ earthquake context, where the verb ‭שץרה‬ (1.1—lxx σ∊ισμoû) depicts ‘cosmic upheaval'⁵² (cf. ‭זגר‬, 8.8a). The context of 9.2–4 is Israel's vain attempt to escape from Yhwh's judgment, so 9.5–6 is the judgment's climax; a harvest hymn certainly would seem ‘misplaced’.

When 4.13 is viewed as a creation-praise doxology, then it appears out of context with 4.6–11, which presents ‘a series of five catastrophes (with growing intensity)'.⁵³ Carny realized the hymn fragment's purpose must be judgment: ‘4.13 is by no means a verse of praise, but a prophecy of destruction, and is actually the punishment the prophet proclaims’ (4.12).⁵⁴ However, Carny did not specify how 4.13 is the punishment, i.e., an allusion to flood annihilation. 4.12's verbs are ‘highly military in character'; Israel must prepare to do battle with Yhwh.⁵⁵ So are the hymns creation-praise doxologies? Gillingham reasons not: ‘Amos’ God comes as the destroyer of the natural order He has created… [This] is seen in the doxologies… [T]he evidence clearly shows that the purpose of all three doxologies was to proclaim in hymnic form… Israel's God was able to create and to destroy.'⁵⁶

7. Amos’ Hymn: Wisdom Literature?

Crenshaw defined wisdom literature as ‘based on experience'.⁵⁷ It was the wise man's function to offer courtly advise from personal experience.⁵⁸ Crenshaw demonstrated Amos utilized wisdom motifs, which were particularly concentrated within the hymns. Specifically, Crenshaw analyzed vocabulary used in Amos 5.8, 9: ‭, ‘gleam, flash forth’, occurs four times (Ps. 39.13, a ‘wisdom Psalm'; and Job 9.27; 10.20, classical wisdom literature); ‭גלב‬, ‘shadow of death’, occurs 17 times (Job 9 times; Psalms 4 times; Isa. 9.2, Amos 5.8; plus two non-wisdom uses found in Jer. 2.6; 13.64); ‭רש‬, ‘violence, ruin’, occurs exclusively in the wisdom literature and in Psalms.

Crenshaw discusses motifs, including ‘woe oracles’, identified by Wolff in his analysis of wisdom literature, as well as theological issues such as ‘an interest in astronomy’ and ‘Israel's end'—all of which specifically apply to Amos’ hymn.

Crenshaw recognized Amos’ hymn came from a ‘subsequent stage textually and historically’, and that the ‘kinship’ with Job is ‘striking'. Wisdom influences within Amos’ hymn are not limited to linguistics, but extend to theology. ‘In a word, the faith of the wise is creation theology'.⁵⁹ I would add that Crenshaw's definition should include de-creation. Crenshaw asked if wisdom literature as a genre sufficiently describes Amos’ hymn ‘simply on the grounds of wisdom's basis in experience’, but was rather ‘mediated through the ancient theophanic tradition'.⁶⁰ Crenshaw later defined creation's role within wisdom literature, and noted an interest in the natural order (earthquake and storm), which ‘link[s] together theophanic tradition and wisdom'.⁶¹ I suggest that the original ancient author of Amos’ hymn was eye-witness to a great seismic event, and thus continued this theophanic tradition, or even initiated it.

Cassuto recognized Hebrew literature is genre-defined by its use of divine names; in particular, wisdom literature uses appelatives ḥēl, ḥ^elōha, ḥ^elōhîm or ṣ^ebāḥôt, as apposed to Yhwh.⁶² However, Amos’ hymn uses a combination: ḥ^elōhîm + Yhwh (4.13). Does Cassuto's definition deny Amos’ hymn its wisdom status? Maybe not. As previously mentioned, Jefferson discussed the high percentage of Ugaritic roots contained in Psalm 110 etc. Jefferson identified non-Canaanite vocabulary within Psalm 110, including the divine title Yhwh. Gaster postulated Psalm 110 was ‘Yahwized from an earlier Canaanite model’,⁶³ and discussed Amos’ hymn in terms of other ‘non-Yahwistic hymns'.⁶⁴

Cassuto described Yhwh's title as a ‘proper noun’, the ‘specific name of Israel's God’, compared to ḥ^elōhîm, an appellative common noun applied to both Israel's God and heathen gods.⁶⁵ I suggest therefore that Amos’ hymn was Yahwized', personalizing it for Israel. I therefore bracket [Yhwh] in my translation, to indicate a theoretical editorial insertion.⁶⁶

8. Amos' Hymn: Poetry or Prose?

Cassuto explains that Hebrew poetic literature only uses the tetragrammaton, but that in narrative literature (i.e. the Pentateuch's narrative sections, the earlier Prophets, Job's narrative section), 'Tetragrammaton and ḥ^elōhîm are both used in close proximity. These are the facts.'⁶⁷

Amos 4.13 combines ‘Yhwh + ḥ^elōhîm’ ‘in close proximity’, just as Cassuto's definition of narrative requires. Yhwh is not singly used in Amos’ hymn. The usage of divine names, therefore, defines Amos’ hymn as narrative.⁶⁸ But if, as my previous remarks suggest, ‘Yhwh’ was edited into the hymn, can we still define Amos’ genre?

Andersen and Freedman show that Amos’ hymn does not possess features of classical poetry: its syllables, beat, and line lengths are all irregular, and parallelism is minimal. Therefore, ‘Attempts to find regular verse forms without recourse to drastic emendation have not been successful'.⁶⁹

Andersen and Freedman define Amos’ hymn as narrative: ‘Two fragments of a flood narrative do survive in 5.8b and 9.6b, where the use of the wāw-consecutive construction requires that the preceding participle be construed as past tense. The same is true [for 9.5a; 5.8a; 9.6a].'⁷⁰ Also, 7.4's ‘use of ḥet and the definite article shows that it is composed in standard prose'.⁷¹ I summarize verb tenses of Amos’ and Job's hymns below:

Tense	Amos Hymn
Four preterites	5.8; 9.6—‭םכפשיו‬; 7.4—‭לכאחו‬; 9.5—‭גומו‬
Two imperfects	5.9—‭אוכי‬; 8.8—‭זנךח‬
Three perfects	5.8—‭ךישחח‬; 7.4—‭ינאךה‬; 9.6—‭הךםי‬
Nine wāw-perfects	8.8—‭לבאו‬; ‭החלעו‬; ‭השךגנו‬; ‭הקשנו‬; ‭הצקשנו‬
	7.4—‭הלכאו‬; 9.5—‭ולבאו‬; ‭החלצו‬; ‭הצקשו‬
Tense	Job Hymn
Three imperfects	9.6—‭ןוצלפחי‬; 9.7—‭חךזי‬; ‭םחהי‬
Two perfects	9.5—‭וצךי‬; ‭םכפה‬

The above table shows Amos’ hymn's use of the wāw-consecutive construction compared to Job, which has none (cf. 9.10–13). At a glance Amos is narrative, Job is poetic. On closer inspection, Amos uses nine wāw -perfects (future tense), interspersed with four imperfect wāw-consecutives (preterite, past tense). This odd tense-mixing is explained by mt's preservation of two different ancient Semitic tense systems. Driver stated, ‘this strange phenomenon, whereby two tenses apparently exchange functions [is only accounted for by recognizing] two different systems, drawn from different sources, merged in the Hebrew scheme of tenses'. Driver compared Akkadian and Aramaic verb constructions.⁷² The tense-mixing in Amos’ hymn may further evidence antiquity. Amos’ hymn is narrative, not poetic (as are wisdom texts), yet possesses clear wisdom themes. Amos is therefore not wisdom poetry, but wisdom prose, an unusual genre.

9. Covenant Treaty: An Exegetical Key?

Hillers surveyed ancient Near Eastern treaty documents and discovered striking parallels within biblical covenantal passages, particularly the curse formula. The sealing of promises by curses was characteristic of ancient legal practice—curses were regarded as ‘more important than blessings which were promised for obedience’, and blessing formulae were ordinarily shorter than curse formulae.⁷³

Hillers analyzed Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 for ancient Near Eastern treaty patterns of blessings and curses in list form, arguing that Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 are ‘essentially authentic ancient Israelite curse-lists [that] may profitably be drawn into the discussion of treaty-curses and the prophets'.⁷⁴ Hillers analyzed twenty ancient Near Eastern treaty-curses, successfully comparing them with the Sinai treaty and writing prophets. In particular I am interested in Hillers's identification of the flood treaty-curse.

According to Hillers,

The treaty-curse which calls for flooding of the infidel's land has close Old Testament parallels in comparisons of a conqueror to a deluge… In Esarhaddon's annals, Enlil curses Babylon with a terrible curse, and a flood destroys the city. ‘Like a deluge’ (abūbis, abūbaniš) is a fairly common simile for the onrush of the king in the Assyrian royal inscriptions.⁷⁵

Once Hillers identified this specific genre, he recognized similar flood-curse language in Isa. 8.7 and Jer. 46.7–8; 47.2, which describes Yhwh's flooding of rebellious lands with invading armies.

I suggest Amos’ hymn was utilized as a ‘flood treaty-curse’, the most catastrophic in Amos’ arsenal, describing Yhwh's seismic theophany (1.1), and Israel's exilic ‘flood’ of invaders.⁷⁶ The Noachian covenant involved salvation within the Ark of a faithful remnant. Amos’ hymn was used to warn of Israel's destruction, as when the flood came, but Yhwh's faithful remnant would be saved to enjoy a restored Edenic world (9.11–15). I further establish the hymn's flood relatedness by offering the comparisons below.

10. Flood: An Exegetical Key?

I compare Amos’ hymn, Job 9.5[−13], and Genesis’ flood account to investigate common flood themes. First, is Job's material relevant or hymnic? Scholars recognize Job 9.5–10 as hymnic;⁷⁷ F.I. Andersen compares it with Amos 4.13.⁷⁸ Others view vv. 5–13 as a literary unit.⁷⁹ Gordis stated Job was ‘citing older sources'.⁸⁰ Habel recognized that Job's hymn describes ‘an earthquake of such cataclysmic proportions that the pillars of the earth totter'.⁸¹ Hartley saw ‘language descriptive of theophany'.⁸² Carny sees great similarities between Amos’ and Job's doxologies, referring to their ‘threats of doom’, rather than praise.⁸³ Clines noted Job 9.5–10's ‘strict hymnic form’, possessing five introductory participles⁸⁴ (strikingly reminiscent of Amos 4.13's five participles). I present below my thematic comparison of Amos, Job and Genesis’ flood account.

4.13	Amos Hymn	Ref.	Genesis Flood	vv.	Job Hymn
a	Lo! Behold! (‭הנה‬)	6.17	Lo! Behold! (‭יננה‬)	[12]	[Lo! Behold! (‭ןה‬)]
b	Former of mountains (‭םיךה‬)	7.20	Mountains (‭םיךה‬) were covered	5	He removes the mountains (‭םיךה‬)
c	Creator of wind (‭הוך‬)	8.1b	God made a wind (‭הוך‬)	9	He made…the south [wind]
c	Declarer of Adam's (‭םךא‬) thoughts	8.21	The thoughts of Adam's (‭םךא‬) heart	[11]	[I do not understand him]
f	He trod down (‭ןךךו‬)	7.19	Were covered	8b	And treads (‭ןךוךו‬)
f	High places of the earth (‭ץךאיחמכלצ‬)	7.19	On the earth (‭ץךאהלצ‬) all high hills	8b	On waves of the sea (‭םייחמכלצ‬)
g	[Yhwh] ʾ^elōhě ṣ^ebāʾôt š^emô	9.26	Yhwh ʾ^elōhě šēm	[13]	[ʾ^elōha]
5.8
a	Formed Orion and Pleiades (‭ליםכ המיכ‬)			8, 9	Made Pleiades and Orion (‭המיכליםכ‬)
b	And overthrew (‭ןפהו‬)			5b	He overturns (‭םכפה‬)
c	Making day (‭םוי‬) dark as night (‭הליל‬)	8.22	Day (‭םוי‬)and night (‭הליל‬) not cease	7	The sun, and it does not rise
d	He called for	6.17	I myself am bringing	7	He commands
d	Waters of the ocean (‭םיהםימ‬)	6.17	Flood waters (‭םימלוכמ‬)	8b	Waves of the sea
E	Face of the earth (‭םי‬)	7.4b	Face of the earth (‭ץךאהינפ‬)	6	Shakes the earth (‭המךאהינפ‬)
5.9
a	Destruction upon the strong (‭זצ‬)	6.4	Became strong men	[13b]	[Allies (‭ךזצ‬)of the proud]
b	Devastating their defenses	6.13	I will destroy them with the earth (‭ץךא‬)	6	Shakes the earth (‭ץךא‬) out of its place
7.4
a	Lo! Behold! (‭הנהו‬)	6.17	Lo! Behold! (‭יננה‬)	12	[Lo! Behold! (‭ןה‬)]
b	ʾ^adōnāy [Yhwh] called for	6.17	I myself am bringing	7	He commands
d	Consumed the Great Deep (‭הכךםוהח‬)	7.11	Great Deep (‭הכךםוהח‬) broken	6a	Shakes…earth out of its place (‭םוקמ‬)
8.8
a	Earth quake (‭ץךאזגך‬)			6a	Earth…its pillars tremble (‭ץךאזיגך‬)
b	All its inhabitants lament?	6.13	Earth… filled with violence	13c	[Allies…lie prostrate beneath him]
c	All things arose as the light			8a	Spreads out the heavens
9.5
d	Everything arose (‭החלצו‬)	7.20	Waters (‭םימ‬) prevailed… upwards (‭הלצמלמ‬)	8b	The high (‭לצ‬) sea (‭םימ‬)
e	Subsided (‭הצקשו‬) like the River	8.1	The waters (‭םימ‬) subsided (‭וכשיו‬)	8b	Treads upon the… sea (‭םימ‬)
9.6
a	Built… ascents (‭וחולצמ‬)	7.11	All the fountains (‭ךיצמ‬)	8	Spreads out the heavens (‭םיגש‬)
e	Yhwh š^emô	9.26	Yhwh ʾ^elōhě šēm	[13]	[ʾ^elōha]

My comparison demonstrates strong vocabulary and thematic correlations between Amos, Job, and Genesis 6–9. I further present an analysis of shared vocabulary (and their Old Testament frequencies) between the hymns of Amos and Job.⁸⁵

Shared Vocabulary	Amos Hymn	Job Hymn	Frequency
‭המיכ‬	5.8a	9.9	3
‭ליםכ‬	5.8a	9.9	3
‭ןךדו‬	4.13f	9.8	6
‭יחמכלצ‬	4.13f	9.8	6
‭םידה‬	4.13f	9.5	58
‭םי‬	5.8d; 9.6c	9.8	254
‭םימש‬	9.6a	9.8	394
‭הנה‬	4.13a; 7.4a	[9.11, 12]	448
‭ץךא‬	4.13f; 5.8e; 8.8a; 9.5b, 9.6 b, d	9.6	1529

The two hymns share much vocabulary (including rare occurrences and five participles), adding to the probability that both hymns are co-dependent literature.

11. Are the Hymn's Divine Names Associated with the Flood?

The divine names used in Amos’ hymn are unique and highly significant, occurring at the book's pivotal point (5.8), and conclusion (9.6).⁸⁶ The abbreviated form (9.5a) of the redactor is ‘unique’,⁸⁷ and ‘highlighted as key'.⁸⁸

The linguistic roots of the divine names used in Amos’ hymn are known from ancient Near Eastern sources (see table below). Yhwh is unique to Israel.⁸⁹

Hebrew	BDB Definition	Akkadian, Babylonian	Sumerian	Ugaritic
ʾ^adōnāy	147 ‘Lord, master'			adn
ʾ^elōhě	482 ‘god, angel, ruler, judge'	ilu	il	il
š^emô	10046 ‘name'	šemû		šm
ṣ^ebāʾôt	7982 ‘host, army, war, warfare'	ṣābu		ṣbu
Yhwh	2314 ‘Proper name God of Israel'

Crenshaw analyzed Yhwh ʾ^elōhě ṣ^ebāʾôt š^emô (occurring twice in mt); Yhwh š^emô (four times); Yhwh ṣ^ebāʾôt š^emô (twelve times). Crenshaw summarized his findings as follows: ‘These passages possess a striking formal similarity, manifest a surprising degree of uniformity of themes, and appear to come from the same general period’.⁹⁰ I present my analysis of these passages to determine any flood vocabulary/allusion they may contain.

Divine Name	Ref.	Flood Allusion/Vocabulary
Yhwh š^emô	Exod. 15.3	15.1, 4, 19, 20, 21 (‭םי‬); 15. 5, 8 (‭חמהח, םימ‬)
	Jer. 33.2	33.20, 25 (Noahic covenant); 33.22 (‭םי‬)
	Amos 5.8–9, 27; 9.6e	5.8d (‭םי, םימ‬); 5.24 (‭םימ‬, ‭לחנ‬); 9.6c (‭םי, םימ‬)
Yhwh ʾ^elōhě šēm	Gen. 9.26	9.2 (‭םי‬); 9.9–18 (Noahic covenant);
		9.11 (‭םימ‬); 9.11, 15 (‭לוכמ‬)
Yhwh ṣ^ebāʾôt š^emô	Isa.	47.2 (‭חוהניךכצ‬)
	47.4	48.13 (‭םימשהחפט‬); 48.18 (‭ךהנ, םיהילגכ‬); 48.21 (‭םימ‬)
	48.2
	51.15	51.9 (‭כהך‬); 51.10 (‭םי, םימ, םוהח כד, םיקמצמ םי, ךכצ‬); 51.13 (‭הטנםימש‬); 51.15 (‭םיה, וילג‬)
	54.5
		54.9 (‭חנימ‬); 54.10 (‭םיךהה‬); 54.11 (‭הךצם‬)
	Jer.	10.12 (‭םימשהטנ‬);⁹¹ 10.13 (‭םימןומה‬)
	10.16	31.35 (Noahic covenant, ‭םיה, וילג‬)
	31.35	32.17, 21–21 (multiple embedded allusions)
	32.18	46.7, 8 (‭חוךהנכ, םימ; ךאי, ךהנ, םימ‬); 46.18 (‭םי‬)
	46.18
	48.15	48.32 (‭םיוךכצ‬); 48.34 (‭םימ‬)
	50.34	50.38 (‭ישכיוהימימ‬);⁹² 50.42 (‭םי‬)
		51.13, 16, 55 (‭םיכך םימכ םהילג‬); 51.15 (‭םימש הטנ‬); 51.36, 42 (‭כךה םי, ךוקמ‬)
[Yhwh] ʾ^elōhě ṣ^ebāʾôt š^emô	Amos 4.13e	4.13a-c, f (multiple embedded allusions)

Crenshaw stated regarding the š^emô affixed to the epithet that it ‘derives from the theophanic tradition'.⁹³ My thematic analysis re-specifies Crenshaw's theophanic analysis to flood-theophanic vocabulary and metaphor, demonstrating an absolute correlation, suggesting these ‘+ š^emô’ epithets represent unique flood-theophanic divine epithets and/or known literary devices which allude to the flood. Crenshaw cites Wambacq, who recognized Amos, Isaiah and Jeremiah may all have quoted from an ‘ancient hymn'.⁹⁴ I suggest the representative of this literature is Amos’ flood hymn, which presents a literary key in terms of its use of flood epithets, enabling identification of these Old Testament examples.

These passages include Egypt, Red Sea and Jordan-crossing motifs. Gunn comments on Isa. 54.9–10's reference to Noah and the flood, revealing Isaiah saw Israel's exile and deliverance as being of the ‘same order as the events of the flood’, being an ‘event of great paradigmatic value for the people'.⁹⁵

Gunn demonstrates metaphors such as sea-splitting, paths and crossings-over, all of which contain multiple embedded allusions to the Ark's journey from old world to new (cf. Ps. 77.16–20). Wind occurs within the Red Sea passages, and is a prominent motif in Genesis’ flood account where Yhwh sent a wind to dry up the flood waters (Gen. 8.1b). Gunn asked, ‘if this primeval story was one of such significance for the prophet, is it not likely that it has left its mark elsewhere in his poetry?'⁹⁶ I would suggest this is the case, with Amos Israel's first writing prophet blazing a trail from the start.

12. Covenant and Flood Exegetical Keys: Unlocking Meaning within Amos' Hymn?

My analysis demonstrates Amos’ hymn describes the flood. I will now provide the reader with two exegetical keys with which to test further the hymn's flood-relatedness, unlocking meaning within the hymn and surrounding context. The first key is Covenant (plus treaty-curses), the second, flood (plus seismic theophany). If my keys are valid they will unlock the hymn's contextual relationships and develop a flood-hymn Sitz im Leben. A condensed working commentary is presented below.

a. Hymn Fragment 4.13a-g

4.13a: ‘Lo! Behold!’ (cf. 7.4a) emphasizes Yhwh's action of initiating the flood (cf. ‭יננה‬, Gen. 6.17). Israel comes face to face with this same God. Amos presents Yhwh as Suzerain, who executes the full force of the covenant curses, outlined in 4.2–12.

4.13b: ‘formed mountains'.⁹⁷ ‭ךצוי‬ describes clay formed by a potter. Amos prophesied Israel would be ‘re-formed’, by the God who judged and re-formed the mountains during the flood (Gen. 7.20). Samaria's mountains (3.9; 4.1) are therefore not immoveable. The rich oppressed the poor, resulting in judgment, ‘great tumults in her midst’ (3.9), where their only escape route would be ‘through broken walls’ (4.3a), a metaphor describing earthquake damage.

4.13c: ‘created wind'. Yhwh sent a wind to dry up the flood waters (Gen. 8.1). Yhwh sent an ‘east wind’ to part the Red Sea on behalf of his covenant people (Exod. 14.21; cf. Exod. 10.13). Yhwh who blew on Red Sea and flood, now blows upon Israel in judgment.

4.13d: ‘his thought’, ‭ךחש‬. Yhwh declares to Israel what their thoughts are (cf. 5.12–15). The pre-Diluvians’ thoughts were ‘evil continually’ (Gen. 6.5; 8.21), provoking the flood judgment. Amos judges Israel's complete degeneracy of thoughts and minds—they ‘despised the law',’, not ‘keeping the commandments’ (2.4).

4.13e: ‘making dawn into darkness’, Yhwh's cosmic-scale theophanic judgment (cf. 5.8b). The ‘Day of the Lord’ (5.18, 20) meant ‘darkness and not light…very dark, with no brightness’ (cf. 8.9). Yhwh reverses blessings upon his people, with this covenant-curse (cf. 4.10), where the ninth plague, darkness, covered Egypt (Exod. 10.21–23). Egypt's plagues are turned against Israel for treaty violations in accordance with Deut. 28.60. Yhwh's judgment causes even daylight to fail (cf. 4.13e; 5.8b, c, and 5.18, 20).

4.13f: ‘tread’, ‭ךךדו‬, a military term. Israel ‘treads down the poor’ (5.11); therefore Yhwh treads down Israel. Leviticus 26.30 describes a covenant-curse unleashed upon Israel's cult centres (cf. Mic. 1.3). Bethel's altar horns would be ‘cut off by earthquake (3.14–15). Amos reminds Israel there is no way to escape Yhwh of Hosts’ wrath against her idolatrous religion. Yhwh, the mighty conqueror, will tread/thresh down Bethel's altars (3.14; 5.5–6), as he trod down the mountains during the flood.

b. Hymn Fragment 5.8a-9b

5.8a: ‭המיכ‬ (possibly Pleiades) reminds Israel that Yhwh of Hosts (5.16) has power to remove Israel from their gods, and into captivity (5.26–27; 7.17). ‘Hosts’ refers to stars/angelic powers (cf. Gen. 2.1) with prohibitions not to worship them (Deut. 4.19; cf. Gen. 6.2–7). Idolatry brought down Yhwh's covenant-curses upon Israel (Deut. 5.6–10; 6.14–15). The God of Hosts alone must be worshiped, not the host of gods!

‭ליםכ‬ (possibly Orion, ‘fool/giant'⁹⁸) occurs alongside a reversal of the Noachian covenant in a proclamation against Babylon (Isa. 13.10). The mention of Orion and Pleiades (strongly associated in Rabbinic literature with the flood)⁹⁹ would evoke fear of cosmic-scale judgment within the ancient Hebrew mind.

5.8b: ‘overthrew morning’, ‭ךפהו‬, binds the hymn grammatically to its context (5.7). Night becoming morning cannot be viewed as punishment for Israel's sins (cf. Job 5.14; 9.7). My translation follows the natural Hebrew word order, which is: ‘overthrows morning into deep-darkness'. This then parallels the next phrase.

5.8c: ‘making day dark as night’ (cf. 4.13e; 8.9). This is a reversal of the Noachic covenant (Gen. 8.22b), of dependable day–night cycles.¹⁰⁰ Considered by some to be ‘eclipse’ language,¹⁰¹ or else a ‘darkness covenant-curse'¹⁰² comparable to Deut. 28.29 (‘You shall grope at noonday… in darkness’), 5.8c describes the cosmic ramifications of Israel's sin.

5.8e: ‘poured out'. Israel lays/casts-down righteousness to the earth (5.7), therefore judgment is poured upon Israel. Hillers suggests the flood-treaty curse,¹⁰³ a metaphor of invasion (cf. 5.27; 6.7; 7.17). 'Upon the face of the earth’ (cf. 9.8) strikingly parallels Genesis’ flood account,¹⁰⁴ revealing the universality of Yhwh's judgment on Israel's population and land. Amos’ audience, aware of Torah's flood account, would appreciate the full implications of Amos’ hymn's metaphor and threatening use of it. Woods recognized that Amos’ interpretation of the Day of Yahweh resembled the ‘great Flood which Yahweh once summoned and poured out upon the surface of the earth (5.8)'.¹⁰⁵

c. Hymn Fragment 7.4

Amos’ vision-report parallels eight motifs of fiery judgment associated with Amos’ earthquake.¹⁰⁶

7.4a: ‘Lo! Behold!’ connects this vision-report to hymn 4.13a, and Yhwh's personal involvement in the flood (Gen. 6.17).

7.4c: ‘Called for judgment by fire'. Andersen and Freedman see a ‘great similarity’ between this phrase and two calling for water phrases (5.8; 9.6).¹⁰⁷

7.4d: Yhwh's fire consumes the ‘Great Deep’, a specific flood term,¹⁰⁸ and its ‘portion, tract, territory’ (BDB-3115). Andersen and Freedman explain that ‭קלחה‬ refers to ‘patrimonial land’, and in the case of Amos 7.4 ‘must be something matching the Great Deep… not a synonym, but a compliment'.¹⁰⁹ Deuteronomy 32.9 describes Jacob as Yhwh's ‘portion’ (‭קלח‬). Andersen and Freedman suggest this ‘portion’ refers to Israel and Judah which are consumed along with all nations. The vision provoked Amos to intercede for ‘small Jacob’ (7.5), causing Yhwh to repent (‭םחנ‬), a word first used in Gen. 6.6 to describe Yhwh's repentance over creating humankind, thereby bringing the flood.¹¹⁰

d. Hymn Fragment 8.8

8.8a: ‘Did not the earth quake for this?’ (‭זגךח־אל‬). Cosmic-scale destruction is assured. The land itself suffers for Israel's sins, and soon would spew them out as ‘wormwood/bitterness’ (5.7; cf. 6.12). Commentators generally recognize 8.8a's earthquake metaphor.¹¹¹

8.8c: ‘All things arose (‭החלצו‬) as the light (‭ךאכ‬)’. The subject is ‘the trembling land’ of 8.8a. This cannot refer to the Nile's natural irrigation as some scholars theorize.¹¹² When compared with 8.14, ‘they shall fall and never rise again’ (cf. 5.1–2), 8.8 is anything but ‘seasonal'. Recognizing 8.8c's ‘light’ disturbance imagery links to 8.9's eclipse language, thus binding text to context, suggesting cosmological ramifications for Israel's sins in response to Israel's covenant violations (8.4–7).

8.8e (cf. 9.5e): ‘River of Mizraim’ (‭םיךצמ ךאי‬). The juxtaposition of seismic theophany next to Nile seasonal imagery has caused scholars some confusion. Cripps called 8.8 a ‘perplexing simile’,¹¹³ because earthquakes are sudden, compared to Nile flood seasons. Such ‘perplexing similes’ cannot be resolved within a creation-praise doxology understanding, the language describes a prolonged and catastrophic judgment.¹¹⁴ 8.8 clearly describes the year-long flood, metaphorically used by Amos as a flood-covenant curse.

e. Hymn Fragment 9.5

9.5b: ‘He struck the earth and it melted'. ‭עגונה‬ (BDB-5885), ‘touch, reach, strike'. Amos’ fire motifs are highly significant, describing Yhwh's theophanic judgments upon Israel and her neighbours for their sins.¹¹⁵ ‭עגונ‬ indicates ‘catastrophic and permanent change’ to the place being struck.¹¹⁶ Amos reminds Israel using seismic theophany language that Yhwh descended at Sinai in smoke, fire and earthquake (Exod. 19.18) to ratify Israel's covenant (Exod. 24); Yhwh now descends in fiery judgment to fulfill its curses upon Israel as treaty violators.

9.5d, e (cf. 8.8c, d): Verbs describing the rise and fall of the Nile waters are reminiscent of the rise and fall of the flood waters in Genesis: Amos 8.8 reads ‘everything arose’ (‭החלצו‬; cf. Gen. 7.20, ‘waters prevailed… upwards [‭הלעמלמ‬]’), while Amos 9.5 reads ‘and subsided (‭העקשו‬) like the River of Egypt (cf. Gen. 8.1, ‘the waters subsided [‭וכשיו‬]’). Context must not be confused; the ‘land’ is the subject, which is disturbed, ‘like the Nile',’, best understood as vivid earthquake imagery.¹¹⁷

9.6a: ‘He built ascending-ascents into heaven'. Escape from Yhwh's wrath is impossible ‘though they climb up to heaven’, Yhwh will ‘bring/cast them down’ (9.2). Wolff described 9.6's imagery as ‘unparalleled'.¹¹⁸ The verbs point towards the structure's height into the heavens, as well as the depths from which it ascends from beneath the earth.¹¹⁹ I conclude with Möller: ‘Like the second fragment, it features an allusion to the flood (5.8b; 9.6b) and stresses the cosmic dimension of Yahweh's rule (5.8a; 9.6a)… 9.5–6 envisages a divine intervention on a more cosmic scale, causing all who live on the earth to mourn.'¹²⁰

13. Conclusions

Amos, Israel's first writing prophet, predicted Jerusalem's destruction and drew upon extant and familiar literature for his book's ‘template'. SCL came pre-packaged, with flood metaphor as its destructive agent par excellence. Amos both drew upon and parodied this genre, but rather than quoting from SCL, it seems an ancient flood narrative was utilized as a flood covenant-curse, a narrative which authentically reflected both Sumerian and Egyptian flood motifs. Analysis of these passages’ use of wāw-consecutive and divine names leads to the conclusion Amos’ hymn is prose, not poetry. The hymn's genre is further defined by its use of wisdom-specific vocabulary, making it wisdom prose, a rare genre. Comparisons with Job's wisdom flood-hymn 9.5–9[−13] demonstrates probable co-dependency.

Amos’ flood narrative seems to have started life as an ancient cuneiform tablet deriving from the cradle of civilization judging by its high percentage of Sumerian, Akkadian and Babylonian parallel roots, before being updated with Canaanite vocabulary (c. 75% linking it with the Ugaritic flood psalms); wāw-consecutive tense-mixing is further evidence of antiquity. Such a tablet(s) could well have been stored in Jerusalem's temple library, before being redacted into Amos’ prophecy as a potent covenant curse. I suggest this literature was also used within 7.4's fiery vision report, judging by its use of wāw -consecutive, common flood vocabulary, and rare ancient Near Eastern parallel roots.

The context of Amos’ hymn demands a treaty-curse understanding, specifically the flood-curse identified by D. Hillers. The hymn's vocabulary is clearly flood related when compared to Genesis 6–10. The strong correlation between ‘+ š^emô’ compound divine names and flood-related verses within the writing prophets suggests a unique divine-flood epithet and literary device. Identifying flood-judgment and covenant-curse as exegetical keys has unlocked meaning within Amos, demonstrating these are valid keys to exegete the original intent and message of the author, revealing the hymn fragments and their contexts are inseparable, so dismissing historically extended, multiple editor redaction theories. Identifying SCL as Amos’ literary template has also shown 9.11–15's ‘SCL-like’ restoration passage could well be genuine to Amos’ prophecy of destruction and restoration.

Using SCL as his template, Amos carefully wove these ancient but familiar flood verses, like strands, into the literary fabric of his book, thus providing a potent flood covenant-curse and an illustration for his vision report (7.4). By so doing, Amos emphasized Yhwh's threat of imminent destruction of a covenant-violating Israel, but also offered eschatological restoration for a repentant remnant.

Amos’ prophecy was seismically fulfilled at 1.1, ‘two years before the earthquake’ (c. 750 bce). The political ramifications were felt in 722 bce when Shalmaneser V besieged and captured Jerusalem (cf. 2 Kgs 17.3–7). Isaiah prophesied this event using strikingly ‘Amosian’ flood-curse/SCL language.

Behold, the Lord has a mighty and strong one,

Like a tempest of hail and a destroying storm,

Like a flood of mighty waters overflowing,

Who will bring them down to the earth with his hand. (Isa. 28.2; cf. vv. 17–18)

Footnotes

1.

S.M. Paul, A Commentary on the Book of Amos (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1991), p. 36.

2.

S. Austin, G.W. Franz, and E.G. Frost, ‘Amos’ Earthquake: An Extraordinary Middle East Seismic Event of 750 B.C.’, International Geology Review 42.7 (2000), pp. 657–71 (657).

3.

D.R. Hillers, Lamentations (AB, 7A; New York: Doubleday, 2nd edn, 1992); F.W. Dobbs-Allsopp, Weep, O Daughter of Zion: A Study of the City-Lament Genre in the Hebrew Bible (Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1993); D.L. Petter, ‘The Book of Ezekiel: Patterned after a Mesopotamian City Lament?’ (unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Toronto, 2009); L.I. Li-Chiou, ‘Semerian City-Laments and Lamentations in the Hebrew Bible’ (unpublished MA dissertation, Boston University, 2012); J. Radine, The Book of Amos in Emergent Judah (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010); T.F. McDaniel, ‘The Alleged Sumerian Influence upon Lamentations’, VT 18 (1968), pp. 198–209.

4.

All Hebrew definitions and reference numbers are taken from BDB.

5.

J.D.W. Watts, ‘An Old Hymn Preserved in the Book of Amos’, JNES 15 (1956), pp. 33–39 (33).

6.

HW. Wolff, Joel und Amos (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), p. 215.

7.

T.E. McComiskey, ‘The Hymnic Elements of the Prophecy of Amos: A Study of Form Critical Methodology’, JETS 30 (1987), pp. 139–57 (156).

8.

Watts, ‘An Old Hymn Preserved in the Book of Amos’, p. 35.

9.

T.H. Gaster, ‘An Ancient Hymn in the Prophecies of Amos’, Journal of the Manchester Egyptian and Oriental Society 19 (1935), pp. 23–26 (23).

10.

Radine, The Book of Amos in Emergent Judah, pp. 140–41.

11.

Dobbs-Allsopp, Weep, O Daughter of Zion, pp. 57–58; Radine, The Book of Amos in Emergent Judah, pp. 144–46.

12.

Hillers, Lamentations, p. 33.

13.

Dobbs-Allsopp, Weep, O Daughter of Zion, p. 156.

14.

Dobbs-Allsopp, Weep, O Daughter of Zion, pp. 143–46.

15.

Radine, The Book of Amos in Emergent Judah, pp. 142–43. Lament for Sumer and Ur (LSUr) 31–37, 71, 153, 184, 446; cf. exile themes in Amos 4.2–3; 5.5, 27; 6.7; 7.17; 9.4).

16.

Radine, The Book of Amos in Emergent Judah, p. 158.

17.

Radine, The Book of Amos in Emergent Judah, p. 151.

18.

M.W. Green, ‘The Uruk Lament’, JAOS 104 (1984), pp. 253–79 (253).

19.

S.N. Kramer, ‘The Lamentation over the Destruction of Nippur’, Acta Sumerologica 13 (1991), pp. 1–26 (20–23, 25). See 8th Kirugu, lines 248–99.

20.

Green, The Uruk Lament, pp. 275–76. UrL-12.12; UrL-12.13 (cf. 9.13)—'flowing wine; abundant produce'; UrL-12.6–7 (cf. 9.11)—'exalted temple; restored sacrifices'; UrL-12.29–30 (cf. 9.13–15)—'Edenic restoration'.

21.

E. Hammershaimb, The Book of Amos: A Commentary (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1970), p. 135.

22.

F.I. Andersen and D.N. Freedman, Amos: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 24A; New York: Doubleday, 1989), pp. 863–64.

23.

Dobbs-Allsopp, Weep, O Daughter of Zion, p. 58.

24.

S. Langdon, Babylonian Liturgies (Paris: Librairie Paul Geuthner, 1913), pp. 1–274, see Litany of Nebo, a striking earthquake hymn (p. 65). See also Green, The Uruk Lament, pp. 265–66, 270, 273–75.

25.

Dobbs-Allsop, Weep, O Daughter of Zion, p. 58.

26.

T.M. Roth (ed.), The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, I–XXI (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956–2010) (CAD); G. del Olmo Lete and G.J. Sanmartín, A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition, I and II (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2003); J.A. Halloran, Sumerian Lexicon Version 3.0 (http://www.sumerian.org/sumerlex.htm, 2009); S. Tinney, Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary (, 2006).

27.

Further work could reveal more ancient Near Eastern connections. A %min–max range reflects any uncertainties of comparison. (My basic vocabulary analysis did not include grammatical particles, or comparisons of grammatical constructions.)

28.

H.G. Jefferson, ‘Is Psalm 110 Canaanite?’, JBL 73 (1954), pp. 152–56. Ps. 68, which is ‘noted for its Ugaritic parallels’, also contains strong theophanic imagery (p. 154).

29.

Jefferson, ‘Is Psalm 110 Canaanite?’, p. 153.

30.

BibleWorks®8.0 morphological searches suggests (but does not prove) these HLs. Researchers may feel free to amend my list. I restricted by search to Job 9.5–9.

31.

J.S. Cooper, ‘Genre, Gender and the Sumerian Lamentation’, JCS 58 (2006), pp. 39–47 (41 n. 6); R.J. Dumbrill, The Archaeomusicology of the Ancient Near East (Victoria, BC: Trafford, 2005), pp. 224–26.

32.

J.A. Black, ‘Eme-Sal Cult Songs and Prayers’, Aula Orientalis 9.1 (1991), pp. 23–36 (28).

33.

CAD, vol. 17, Š, II, p. 12.

34.

S. Paas, ‘He Who Builds His Stairs into Heaven’, UF 25 (1993), pp. 319–25.

35.

B. Bell, ‘The Oldest Records of the Nile Floods’, Geographical Journal 136 (1970), pp. 569–73 (572). Measurements are known from the First Dynasty.

36.

M. Smith, On the Primaeval Ocean. The Carlsberg Papyri 5 (Denmark: Museum Tuscalanum Press, 2002). Smith discusses the rising of the Nile in the Berlin hymn to Ptah, which states: ‘[Ptah] the one who makes the Primaeval Ocean rise up to the sky, who causes water to come upon the mountains’ (pp. 116–17).

37.

The phrase ‘bunch of hyssop’ describes a shape (cf. Exod. 12.22).

38.

Watts, ‘An Old Hymn Preserved in the Book of Amos’, p. 33.

39.

McComiskey, ‘The Hymnic Elements of the Prophecy of Amos’, p. 147.

40.

Watts, ‘An Old Hymn Preserved in the Book of Amos’, p. 35.

41.

Watts, ‘An Old Hymn Preserved in the Book of Amos’, p. 35 n. 24. Watts admits Cramer rejects the lxx reading, even though v. 7 ‘seems hymnic’ in the lxx.

42.

A. Gelston, ‘Some Hebrew Misreadings in the Septuagint of Amos’, VT 52 (2002), pp. 493–500 (495, 500).

43.

JA. Arieti, ‘The Vocabulary of Septuagint Amos’, JBL 93 (1974), pp. 338–47 (340, 346).

44.

Wolff, Joel und Amos, p. 215: ‘formal characteristics of these passages especially stand out…the closure of several cola with “Yahweh (God of Hosts) is his name”’.

45.

C.I.K. Story, ‘Amos. Prophet of Praise’, VT 30 (1980), pp. 67–80 (69).

46.

S. Paas, ‘Seeing and Singing: Visions and Hymns in the Book of Amos’, VT 52 (2002), pp. 253–74 (274).

47.

A. Szabó, ‘Textual Problems in Amos and Hosea’, VT 25 (1975), pp. 500–24 (504).

48.

John Calvin, Commentary on Joel, Amos, Obadiah (Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, n.d.), pp. 259, 395–96; Watts, ‘An Old Hymn Preserved in the Book of Amos’, p. 39; Gaster, ‘An Ancient Hymn in the Prophecies of Amos’, p. 23; Story, ‘Amos: Prophet of Praise’, p. 72.

49.

Gaster, ‘An Ancient Hymn in the Prophecies of Amos’, p. 23: ‘obtrusive'; p. Carny, ‘Doxologies: A Scientific Myth’, Hebrew Studies 18 (1977), pp. 149–59 (150): ‘misplaced'; r. Gordis, Studies in the Book of Amos (New York: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1980), pp. 201–64 (226): ‘later insertions'; Wolff, Joel und Amos, p. 222.

50.

J.R. Wood, Amos in Song and Book Culture (JSOTSup, 337; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002). Wood goes as far as saying the editor/commentator who later redacted Amos’ prophecy ‘contradicts’ Amos (pp. 68, 78, 88, 90, 123), and ‘downplays’ (p. 78) Amos’ message of judgment: ‘Editorial comments are added piecemeal and alter the meaning of Amos's final vision about the day of Yahweh’ (p. 77).

51.

Watts, ‘An Old Hymn Preserved in the Book of Amos’, p. 38; Gaster, ‘An Ancient Hymn in the Prophecies of Amos’, pp. 23–26.

52.

Wolff, Joel und Amos, p. 342.

53.

Story, ‘Amos: Prophet of Praise’, p. 75.

54.

Carny, ‘Doxologies: a Scientific Myth', p. 157.

55.

J.H. Hayes, Amos the Eighth-Century Prophet: His Times and his Preaching (Nashville: Parthenon Press, 1988), p. 149.

56.

S. Gillingham, ‘“Who Makes the Morning Darkness”: God and Creation in the Book of Amos’, Scottish Journal of Theology 45 (1991), pp. 165–84 (167, 172).

57.

J.L. Crenshaw, ‘The Influence of the Wise upon Amos’, ZAW 79 (1967), pp. 43–51 (44).

58.

Crenshaw (‘The Influence of the Wise upon Amos', p. 43), cites McKane, ‘who re-examines the broader question of the relationship between prophets and wise men, emphasizing the negative stance of prophecy over against the royal court of advisers who could not afford the luxury of faith, but were forced to give realistic practical political counsel'. Wise men spoke from their experiences; cf. Solomon's proverbs of natural observations related to life.

59.

Crenshaw, ‘The Influence of the Wise upon Amos’, pp. 49–50.

60.

Crenshaw, ‘The Influence of the Wise upon Amos’, p. 51.

61.

J.L. Crenshaw, Amos and the Theophanic Tradition (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1967), pp. 203–15 (214).

62.

U. Cassuto, The Documentary Hypothesis (Jerusalem: Shalem Press, 2008), p. 25.

63.

T.H. Gaster, ‘Psalm 110’, Journal of the Manchester University Egyptian and Oriental Society 21 (1937), pp. 37–44. Gaster suggested praise of Ba'al (p. 44), but offered no further linguistic support for this assertion.

64.

Gaster, ‘An Ancient Hymn in the Prophecies of Amos’, p. 23.

65.

Cassuto, The Documentary Hypothesis, p. 22.

66.

Jefferson, ‘Is Psalm 110 Canaanite?’, p. 156: ‘It is tempting to see in [Ps. 110] an adaptation of Jebusite [sic] ritual used by David when he became ruler of Jerusalem'. Amos’ hymn could therefore contain Davidic or Amosian redactions.

67.

Cassuto, The Documentary Hypothesis, pp. 24–25.

68.

Job 9.13 refers to ʾ^elôah, though 9.5–9 does not directly use a divine name.

69.

Andersen and Freedman, Amos: A New Translation, p. 454.

70.

Andersen and Freedman, Amos: A New Translation, p. 453.

71.

Andersen and Freedman, Amos: A New Translation, pp. 745–46.

72.

G.R. Driver as quoted in J. Weingreen, A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), pp. 252–53.

73.

D.R. Hillers, ‘Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets’ (unpublished PhD dissertation; Rome Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964), p. 6.

74.

Hillers, ‘Treaty-Curses’, p. 42.

75.

Hillers, ‘Treaty-Curses’, pp. 70–71.

76.

K.J. Cathcart and R.P. Gordon, The Aramaic Bible. XIV The Targum of the Minor Prophets (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1989), pp. 93, 95. Utilizing flood-curse metaphor, Aramaic Targum Amos paraphrases 8.8; 9.5 as ‘A king shall come up against it with his army which is great like the waters of a river, and he shall cover it all and drive out its inhabitants'.

77.

J.E. Hartley, The Book of Job (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), p. 41; G.V. Smith, ‘Is there a Place for Job's Wisdom in Old Testament Theology?’, Trinity Journal 13 (1992), pp. 3–20 (13); Crenshaw, ‘The Influence of the Wise upon Amos’, pp. 49–50; Wolff, Joel und Amos, p. 217.

78.

F.I. Andersen, Job, an Introduction and Commentary (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1976), p. 145.

79.

A. Lo, Job 28 as Rhetoric in the Context of Job 22–31 (VTSup, 97; Leiden: Brill, 2002). Lo cites Hartley, Habel, Westermann, Newsom, all of whom view Job 9.5–13 as a single ‘hymn’, pp. 133–40.

80.

R. Gordis, The Book of Job (New York: Moreshet, 1978), p. 522.

81.

N.C. Habel, The Book of Job (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1985), p. 190.

82.

Hartley, The Book of Job, p. 169.

83.

Carny, ‘Doxologies: A Scientific Myth’, p. 154.

84.

D.J.A. Clines, Job 1–20 (WBC, 17; Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1989), p. 224.

85.

S occurrences were established using Bible Works® 8.0 morphological searches.

86.

R.W. Byargeon, ‘The Doxologies of Amos: A Study of their Structure and Theology’, Theological Educator 52 (1995), pp. 47–56 (56).

87.

Wolff, Joel und Amos, p. 341.

88.

M.D. Carroll R., Contexts for Amos (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), p. 217.

89.

See the discussion below.

90.

J.L. Crenshaw, 'Yhwh ṣ^ebāʾḥôt š^emô: A Form-Critical Analysis', ZAW 81 (1969), pp. 156–75 (156).

91.

Cf. Job 9.8; Zech. 12.1.

92.

Cf. Gen. 8.7, 13, 14.

93.

Crenshaw, 'Yhwh ṣ^ebāʾḥôt š^emô', p. 168 (Exod. 20.24; 3.14; 6.2; 24.3–18; 33.19; 34.5–35; 2 Sam. 7.5–29; Hos. 12.9; 13.4).

94.

Crenshaw, 'Yhwh ṣ^ebāʾḥôt š^emô', p. 158.

95.

D.M. Gunn, ‘Deutero-Isaiah and the Flood’, JBL 94 (1975), pp. 493–508 (493).

96.

Gunn, ‘Deutero-Isaiah and the Flood’, p. 493.

97.

Andersen and Freedman, Amos: A New Translation, p. 453: ‘The participles are in effect titles [“Former of mountains”], almost names. As such there could be any number of them and in any kind of arrangement'.

98.

Clines, Job 1–20, p. 231: Kesil associated with Orion the giant in Targum and Peshitta.

99.

C. Milikowsky, ‘“Kima” and the Flood in “Seder ‘Olam” and B.T. Rosh Ha-Shana Stellar Time-Reckoning and Uranography in Rabbinic Literature’, Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 50 (1983), pp. 105–32 (127).

100.

I. Drazin and S.M. Wagner, Onkelos on the Torah: Genesis (Jerusalem: Gefen, 2006). Ibn Ezra comments on Gen. 7.11: ‘The flood was so strong that it was impossible to distinguish between day and night, which is why God promised in His subsequent covenant (8.22) that “day and night will not cease”’, p. 38.

101.

Gillingham, ‘“Who Makes the Morning Darkness”’, p. 169; R.S. Cripps, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Amos (London: SPCK, 1969), p. 248; Hayes, Amos the Eighth-Century Prophet, p. 209; D.A. Hubbard, Joel and Amos (TOTC; Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1989), p. 222.

102.

D.J. Wiseman, ‘The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon’, Iraq 20 (1958), pp. i-ii and 1–99 (60, 66)

103.

Cf. Isa. 8.7; Jer. 46.7–8; 47.2.

104.

Cf. Gen. 6.7, 23; 7.3–4, 23; 8.9, 21; 11.8.

105.

J.R. Wood, Amos in Song and Book Culture (JSOTSup, 337; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), p. 66.

106.

Andersen and Freedman, Amos: A New Translation, p. 748 (cf. Gen. 19.24; Amos 4.11). Cf. Amos 1.4, 7, 10, 12, 14; 2.2, 5; 5.6.

107.

Andersen and Freedman, Amos: A New Translation, pp. 746–47; cf. Deut. 32.22.

108.

Cf. Isa. 51.10, tehom also describes earth's depths Gen. 49.25; Deut. 33.13.

109.

Andersen and Freedman, Amos: A New Translation, p. 747.

110.

Andersen and Freedman, Amos: A New Translation, pp. 748–49.

111.

Hayes, Amos the Eighth-Century Prophet, p. 209; Hammershaimb, The Book of Amos, p. 125. Cf. Job 9.6b, which says the earth's ‘pillars tremble'.

112.

Hammershaimb, The Book of Amos, p. 125. Hammershaimb reasoned Amos never visited Egypt, not comprehending the Nile's behaviour.

113.

Cripps, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, p. 246.

114.

Hayes, Amos the Eighth-Century Prophet, p. 209.

115.

Cf. 1.4, 7, 10, 12, 14; 2.2, 5; 4.11; 5.6; 7.4.

116.

Story, ‘Amos: Prophet of Praise’, pp. 76–77.

117.

Paul, A Commentary on the Book of Amos, p. 261.

118.

Wolff, Joel und Amos, p. 342.

119.

Andersen and Freedman, Amos: A New Translation, p. 719: ‘This structure is in the heavens but has been founded upon the earth (or even the underworld); in other words its foundations are deep… cf. Ps. 78.69'.

120.

K. Möller, ‘“Hear this Word against You”: A Fresh Look at the Arrangement and the Rhetorical Strategy of the Book of Amos’, VT 50 (2000), pp. 499–518 (514).