서론
Amos 1 Introduction
日本語
英語原文
AMOS.
Amos
BY
THE REV. H. R. REYNOLDS, D.D.,
AND
THE REV. PROFESSOR WHITEHOUSE.
INTRODUCTION
TO
AMOS.
THE early life of the prophet Amos was spent at Tekoa, the modern Tekûa, an elevated spot between four and five English miles due south of Bethlehem. This spot, according to Robinson (Biblical Researches, i. 486), has “a wide prospect. Towards the north-east the land slopes down towards Wady Khureitûn; on the other side the hill is surrounded by a belt of level table land, beyond which are valleys, and then other higher hills. On the south, at some distance, another deep valley runs off south-east towards the Dead Sea. The view in this direction is bounded only by the level mountains of Moab, with frequent bursts of the Dead Sea seen through openings among the rugged and desolate intervening mountains.” No fitter scene can be imagined as the home of the prophet, whose far-seeing vision and trumpet voice were to awaken the corrupt and selfish life of the northern kingdom. Amos was by birth not a prophet, but a herdsman, and likewise a dresser of sycamore-fruit. How long he plied his peaceful tasks in his Judæan home, secure against invasion or disturbance under the strong rule of King Uzziah, we do not know. But to him—a layman, and no prophet—there came the Word of the Lord as he meditated among the lonely hills and their wide prospects, urging him to utter God’s doom against nations and kingdoms.
Respecting his prophetic work, we know that it was directed almost entirely to the northern kingdom, and was likewise exercised there. It is uncertain whether the striking episode described in Amos 7:10-17 belonged to the beginning or the end of his ministry. We there read that the prophet boldly presented himself at Bethel, celebrated for its ancient historic associations, its important temple, and as being a place of royal residence. There Amos delivered the striking series of symbolic oracles contained in Amos 7, 8. This provoked the hostility of Amaziah, priest of the sanctuary, who endeavoured to obtain from King Jeroboam a sentence of banishment against the prophet, on the ground that he was speaking treason against the throne. To the charges and menaces of Amaziah Amos replied with a sentence of doom against king and priest.
It is extremely difficult to assign a probable date for the entire collection of oracles. We know from the superscription (1) that they were delivered two years before “the earthquake,” an event so terrible and marked in its character that it is referred to again by Zachariah (Zechariah 14:5); (2) that he prophesied during the reigns of Jeroboam and Uzziah. But we do not know the date of the earthquake, nor whether the prophetic ministry of Amos continued after the death of Jeroboam II. It is also doubtful how long a period is covered by the extant collection of oracles, though internal indications favour a short rather than a long interval. To this must be added the uncertainty which now prevails respecting Biblical chronology. (See Introduction to Hosea.) If we adopt Mr. Sharpe’s chronology, which seems more free from difficulties than other systems, the death of Jeroboam II. took place in 764. The Assyriologist, Professor Brandes, would put it several years later (Geo. Smith, Assyr. Eponym Canon, pp. 14, 15). We might, therefore, place the period of the prophet’s activity between 804 (the year of Jeroboam’s accession, according to Sharpe) and about 760 B.C. We shall assign reasons for showing that the prophetic career of Amos was probably subsequent to 780 B.C. The fact that the prophet never makes mention of the name of Assyria, though he refers expressly to the destinies of surrounding nations, seems to imply that Assyria was at that period not so disturbing a force in Syro-Palestinian politics as it had been in a former generation, and as it was destined to become during the ministry of the prophet Hosea, when the terrible invasions of Tiglath-Pileser made the names of Asshur and King Combat (Jareb) to be names of dread. Accordingly we prefer to regard the prophetic ministry of Amos as exercised when Svria had begun to recover from the disastrous invasion of Vulnirari III. (see Geo. Smith, Assyr. Eponym Canon, p. 115; Schrader, Cuneiform Inscriptions, second edition, pp. 212-216, calls him Ramman-nirari), i.e., about 780 B.C.[14]
[14] Additional confirmation of this view is to be found in the reference of chap. 8:9 to an eclipse, which probably occurred in 784 B.C. (See Excursus to the passage.)
For the social, moral, and religious condition of the northern kingdom during this period we fortunately possess varied sources of information. Apart from the accounts contained in the historical books, we have the numerous allusions scattered throughout the prophet Hosea, whose discourses belong to a somewhat similar period, and are extremely valuable as illustrating those of Amos.
We thus obtain a tolerably vivid conception of this momentous and tragic century—the last days of Israel’s history. The energetic rule and successful wars of Jeroboam II, had extended the bounds of the kingdom. Syria had been compelled to yield up to him a large tract of country extending from Hamath to the Dead Sea. Ammon and Moab had become tributary. But the ease with which these conquests were obtained were due to the dangers which threatened the very existence of the Syrian states from the Assyrian power which had for many centuries been formidable, but was now extending itself westward, under the energetic sway of Vulnirari III. Under that monarch, as we learn from his inscription, Syria received a terrible blow;[15] and it is extremely probable that the recovery of the Transjordanic district by Jeroboam from Syrian domination is to be closely connected with this temporary overthrow of Syria and the neighbouring kingdoms. (See Note on Amos 6:14.)
[15] “To Syria I went. Mariha, king of Syria, in Damascus, his royal city, I besieged. Fear and terror of Assur his lord overwhelmed him, and my yoke he took. Submission he made; 2,300 talents of silver, 20 talents of gold. 3,000 talents of copper, 5,000 talents of iron, clothing of wool and flax, a couch of ivory, a high table, his goods and his furniture without number in Damascus, his royal city, in his palace, I received.” This event is placed by Schrader in 800 B.C., and by G. Smith in 797.
But the external power and foreign conquests of Jeroboam were evidently viewed with mistrust by the prophet; and, though Assyria is never expressly named, it looms in the background of the seer’s gaze, as the sword of Jehovah’s vengeance, which is one day to make a full end of Israel. (Comp. Isaiah 10:5.) The oracles of both Amos and Hosea abound in allusions to the moral and social rottenness of the northern kingdom. Amos dwells upon the splendour of the public buildings and of many private dwellings of the land (Amos 3:15; Amos 5:11 : comp. Hosea 8:14). Within Samaria’s strong fortresses the wealthy nobles indulged in their drunken orgies, stretched upon ivory divans, singing their “lean and flashy songs” in wretched parody of David’s minstrelsy, and bidding farewell to all thoughts of coming evil (Amos 6). He rebukes the empty boasts of power in which these profligate leaders indulged (Amos 6). He sternly censures the ladies of fashion who encouraged their lords to acts of gross self-indulgence (Amos 4:1). Meanwhile their luxurious life is purchased at the cost and on the gains of frightful oppression. In the days when Amos lived, the simple agricultural life of earlier times had given place to the changed social conditions produced by growing civilisation and commerce (Hosea 12:7-8), by the growth of large towns, and by the extension of art and refinement, of unscrupulous trade, and accumulated wealth (Amos 8:5; Isaiah 2:7). The poor cultivators of the soil were ground down to abject poverty by the princely landowners. The debts of the peasant, however paltry, could only be redeemed by a personal service, which was slavery (Amos 2:6-7). Their lords were also their judges in the courts of justice at the city gates, and extortionate bribes were the appointed means of averting a harsh sentence (Amos 5:11-12).
But the root of all the social and moral disorder was indicated by Amos and Hosea (especially the latter) to consist in the idolatrous and sensuous corruption into which the people had sunk. Baal and calf-worship had become to the popular intelligence the degraded substitute and symbol of the ancient pure conception of the one true God inculcated in the Mosaic law and worship to which the prophet Hosea endeavoured to restore Israel. The whole of Canaan, from Dan to Beersheba, was studded with local shrines, in which Baal or the calf-symbols were adored. Of the former, probably Beersheba and Gilgal, of the latter, Samaria, Bethel, and Dan were the chief centres. (See Amos 8:14, Note, also Amos 4:4; Hosea 12:11.) Moreover, all these sanctuaries possessed an elaborate ritual and calendar of feast-days (Amos 5:21-22). Both prophets threaten foreign invasion and exile as the penalty for this abandonment of ancient law and observance (Amos 5:26-27; Hosea 2:11). There are likewise traces, though obscure, of the worship of the Ammonitish star deity, Moloch, of the star deity Kevan, and of the Syrian Hadad-Rimmon. But the passages on which this is based are doubtful (Amos 4:3, Amos 5:26).
That the herdsman of Tekoa was a man of wide and varied culture, in the current acceptation of the times, is clearly evidenced by his writings. In that age the free movements of human intercourse diffused knowledge more widely and equably among all classes of mankind than is possible under present social conditions. The mind of the prophet was especially open to all physical phenomena. The rising of the Nile, the constellations of the sky, the eclipse, and the earthquake stirred his imagination. It is noteworthy that in Amos we have the first clear indication of the enlarging sweep of the prophet’s gaze. His eye ranges over the surrounding kingdoms. Israel is no longer thought of exclusively, its destiny is no longer contemplated apart from that of the surrounding empires with which it was closely connected. Jehovah is God of the world, and not of his peculiar people the Hebrew race only. He brought Philistia from Caphtor as well as Israel from Egypt.
This conception of universal Divine sovereignty was certainly not a new one in Israel. But it was made especially prominent by Amos, and is the key-note of his prophecies. It is from this standpoint that the oracles are delivered. While to Hosea, Ephraim’s sin, whether in morals or worship, appeared as an outrage to the relationship of loyalty and love to the Divine Lord, it was regarded by Amos as the violation of a supreme rule and a supreme justice.
The prophecies may be divided according to their contents as follows:—
I.Amos 1-6. Prophetic threatenings directed against the nations.
-1Amo 1:2 to Amo 2:5. Brief denunciations of surrounding peoples;—against Damascus, Philistia, Tyre, Edom, Ammon, Moab, and closing with Judah.
-2Amos 2:6-6. Indictment against Israel. The prevailing idolatry—The oppression of the poor, and the debauched and indolent lives of the nobles.
II.Amos 7-9. Symbolic visions of the coming doom of Israel interrupted by the episode of the hostility of the priest Amaziah to the Prophet. The series closes with the Messianic anticipations of reunited and restored Israel dwelling in peace under the reign of the house of David.
EXCURSUS ON NOTES TO AMOS.
EXCURSUS A (Amos 4:3).
The rendering of the LXX., “to the mountain Remman (or Romman),” has suggested to Ewald the interpretation, And shall cast Rimmona to the mountain, i.e., in their flight (comp. Isaiah 2:18-21), Rimmona being the idol-goddess of love, corresponding to the masculine deity Rimmon (2Kings 5:18). In this ingenious, though somewhat far-fetched, interpretation of a difficult passage, it will be observed that Ewald takes the Hebrew verb as an active, and not a passive. In this he is supported by most MSS.
But the credit of suggesting the most plausible explanation belongs to Hitzig, who, in his commentary, proposes to read Hadad-Rimmon, and translates, Ye shall be cast away to Hadad-Rimmon. On Zechariah 12:11, there is a long note by Steiner supporting the supposition that Hadad-Rimmon was a modified designation of the sun-god, and was likewise the counterpart of the Greek Adonis, over whose wounding and death there was an annual lamentation, in which the women took part, and gave way to all kinds of excess. Hadad-Rimmon was, therefore, the name of the deity and the locality of his worship (comp. Ashtaroth Karnaim and other examples), now called Rummâne, four miles south of Ledshûn (Megiddo). To this spot the women were to be carried off for purposes of prostitution. (Comp. the threat pronounced by the prophet, Amos 7:17.)
EXCURSUS B (Amos 5:26).
Three obscure points render this verse one of the most difficult in the Old Testament.
-
As to tense. The interpretation to which preference has been given in the commentary on the text—the time being regarded as future—has been decided on grounds of grammatical usage only. But certainly the larger number of commentators have rendered the verb as a past tense, “But ye bore the tabernacle,” &c., the time referred to being that of the desert wanderings. This view is upheld by Hitzig, Kuenen, Keil, Henderson, and also by R. S. Poole. It is also supported by the LXX.
-
The word Sikkûth, rendered tabernacle, or tent, in the E.V. and by the LXX., is derived from a root signifying both to interweave and to cover—an etymology which confirms the above rendering. Ewald’s conjecture that it signifies “stake,” inferred from the Aramaic Sekkitho, is to be rejected. The conception of Moloch being carried in a tent may be illustrated from the Egyptian monuments of Rameses XII. Birch (Egypt, S. P. C. K., p. 149), refers to a tablet found in the south-west corner of Karnak: “The picture of the tablet represents Rameses holding a censer, and worshipping the ark of the god [Khons], which, partly covered with curtains, is placed in a boat . . . Figures of priests, a sphinx, and standards are in the boat, while twelve priests carry it on their shoulders.”
-
Both Moloch and Chiun were evidently star-deities. R. S. Poole endeavours to connect Chiun with Semitic deities worshipped in Egypt (see art. “Remphan,” Smith’s Dict. of the Bible). The name Chiun appears as Remphan in the quotation of this passage in Stephen’s speech (Acts 7:43). And both Remphan and Chiun were held by Mr. Poole to be the corresponding male and female deities of Asiatic type, Renpu and Ken. But the form Remphan can be clearly shown to have arisen from textual corruption, originating, perhaps, in some false analogy. In the New Testament passage the best MSS. read Rephan, and this reading has been adopted in our Revised Version, and occurs in nearly the same form in the LXX., from which Stephen was freely quoting. In the LXX. the original order of the clauses has suffered transposition, and it is certainly safer to adhere to the Hebrew text (as in Amos 9:11-12).
Rêphan arose from the Hebrew text by the change of a single character. Instances of such interchange are not infrequent in the Old Testament. Yet the form Rephan, though corrupt, is invaluable, as indicating the true reading of the Hebrew word. The word for Chiun was read by the Masoretes as Kiyyûn (according to Ewald, “pedestal” [?]). But the LXX. indicate, and much confirmatory testimony establishes the fact, that the word is to be read Kêvan, and that Kêvan, like the Ammonitish Moloch, represented the star-deity Saturn. Thus Kaivono is the form of the word in the Peshito. This view is supported by Aben Ezra and Kimchi, who cite Kivan as the name for the star Saturn in the Persian and Arabic. This star (see quotations in Henderson’s Commentary) was held to exert malignant influence. Schrader (Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament, p. 443) compares the name Ka-ai-vanu, the Assyrian name for that planet.
EXCURSUS C (Amos 8:9).
That an eclipse is here referred to, and employed as a figure to express the overwhelming calamities which were to darken Israel, can hardly admit of doubt, when we compare the similar figurative use of the earthquake in the preceding verse. But to what eclipse does the prophet refer? Mr. J. W. Bosanquet has attempted to identify it with a very special one, mentioned in the Assyrian annals:—“In the eponymy of Bursagale, prefect of Gozan, the city of Asshur revolted, and in the month Sivan the sun was eclipsed.” This has been calculated by Hind to have occurred on June 15, 763 B.C. (So Rawlinson, Schrader, G. Smith, &c., as against Oppert’s view, which is untenable.) If this eclipse was in the mind of the prophet, it is a fact of considerable importance in chronology. On the whole, however, it is more probable that the prophet was thinking of an earlier eclipse, which took place in 784 B.C., Feb. 9. It was a total eclipse, the time of totality being about 1 p.m. at Jerusalem, thus exactly corresponding with the phraseology of this verse. So remarkable a phenomenon would naturally stamp itself for many years upon the mind of the people, and this vivid impression the prophet summons to his aid in foreshadowing the calamities of the last time.
1
Amos 1:1
日本語
まだ翻訳がありません。
英語原文
The Prologue to the Prophecies of Amos consists of a series of denunciations of the surrounding peoples. The ground of the awful threatenings is the word of Jehovah made known to the prophet. The reason for the doom predicted on such high authority, is the resistance and cruelty that were offered by these nations to the theocratic people, and, still more, their own moral offences, condemned by universal conscience. The denunciations begin with a judgment upon Syria, the age-long enemy of Judah, sometimes confederate with Israel. Then he passes to Philistia, which had been a thorn in the side of Israel and Judah from the days of the Judges till his own. Then he directs his gaze upon Phœnician cities, the emporium of the most extensive commerce in the world, Next he passes in review other three tribes, or nations, more closely related to Israel in blood, language, and proximity, and which, nevertheless, had often manifested an undying hatred of the covenanted people. After this Judah, his own tribe, does not escape. Lastly, the prophet gathers up all his strength to denounce Israel, then at the height of prosperity and splendour.
(1) See Introduction.
2
Amos 1:2
日本語
まだ翻訳がありません。
英語原文
(2) Roar.—The prolonged thunder-peal, or lion’s roar, of the Divine voice, reverberates from the theocratic metropolis of Zion, to the luxuriant slopes of the noble Carmel, which forms the southern promontory of the Bay of Acre. The “pastures of the Shepherds” remind us of Psalms 23, and refers us to the prophet’s own home in the wilderness of Tekoah. The same expression “head (or ‘top’) of Carmel” occurs in 1Kings 18:42, and in Amos 9:3. Compare the modern name Ras-el-Kerum. The whole country from south to north is summoned to listen to the Divine voice.
3
Amos 1:3
日本語
まだ翻訳がありません。
英語原文
CURSE ON DAMASCUS.
(3) Three transgressions . . .—This form of transgression, which occurs eight times in the prologue, is not an arithmetical, but a strongly idiomatic phrase, signifying “multiplied or repeated delinquencies” (Henderson).
Turn away . . .—Rather, will not turn it back—i.e., the sore judgment I have purposed. (Comp. 2Kings 10:32-33.)
4
Amos 1:4
日本語
まだ翻訳がありません。
英語原文
(4) I will send a fire . . .—Compare Jeremiah 49:27, where this language is repeated at a time when punishment had fallen for a while on Damascus, and she had become, as Isaiah predicted, “a ruinous heap” (Isaiah 17:1).
5
Amos 1:5
日本語
まだ翻訳がありません。
英語原文
(5) I will break . . .—The “bar” means the bolt of iron or brass with which the city was defended. But it is possible that it may be used of persons, i.e., princes or leaders (comp. Hosea 4:18; Hosea 11:6); and this seems confirmed by the parallelism. The plain or valley cleft between Libanus and Antilibanus is still called by the Arabs by a name closely resembling the rendering in the margin, “the valley.” It is probable that the word rendered “vanity,” (aven) is simply a Masoretic reading, and not what Amos intended. It is better to follow the LXX. and read the word On (as in Ezekiel 30:17), the reference being to the Temple of Baalbec, then in ruins, the Syrian Heliopolis. (Comp. Hosea 4:15.)[16] The site of Beth-eden (house of Eden) cannot be satisfactorily determined. Kir is the region of the river Cyrus, or, perhaps, the E. of the Upper Euphrates (see Amos 9:7). (2Kings 16:9, we see fulfilment of this doom.)
[16] On the other hand the Masoretic reading seems to have been suggested (if not confirmed) by Amos 5:5, where LXX. read aven.
6
Amos 1:6
日本語
まだ翻訳がありません。
英語原文
CURSE ON PHILISTIA.
(6-8) The marginal reading is more literal, and points to the special bitterness of the proceedings of Philistia, here represented by Gaza as the principal city (comp. 2Chronicles 21:16-17, which implies a veritable sack of Jerusalem). The extreme barbarity from which Judah suffered was that her children were delivered up to the implacable enemy Edom. (Comp. the language of Joel 3:4-6.) This may have occurred in the border warfare, in which defenceless Judæan villages were overpowered, and the inhabitants sold to the Oriental tribes through the medium of the Edomites. The utter fall of Philistian independence is depicted (comp. Amos 6:2). The cities here mentioned are often referred to in the books of Joshua, Judges, and Samuel, and by the prophet Zephaniah.
9
Amos 1:9
日本語
まだ翻訳がありません。
英語原文
CURSE ON TYRUS.
(9) The brotherly covenant.—The “covenant of brethren” (margin) was the league made between Hiram and David, and afterwards between Hiram and Solomon (2Samuel 5:11; 1Kings 5:1; 1Kings 5:12). This ancient covenant was forgotten in Phœnicia’s mercantile cupidity, and Tyre was tempted to sell Hebrew captives to Greeks and Idumeans. (Comp. Isaiah 23; Ezekiel 26, and the special excursus in the Speaker’s Commentary.)
11
Amos 1:11
日本語
まだ翻訳がありません。
英語原文
CURSE ON EDOM.
(11) Edom.—Comp. the prophecy of Obadiah and Isaiah 34:5. See also Dict. of the Bible, art. “Edom.” All through their history Edom sided with the enemies of Israel. (Comp. 1Samuel 14:47; 2Samuel 8:14; Psalm 60:9; and 2Chronicles 21:8-10.)
Cast Off.—It would be better to render stifled. In the following clause read “And his indignation rended continually, and his wrath lurked ever on the watch.” But another punctuation of the Hebrew original yields a different sense. “As for his wrath, he hath kept it for ever” (almost as E.V.). This corresponds closely with Jeremiah 3:5.
12
Amos 1:12
日本語
まだ翻訳がありません。
英語原文
(12) Teman.—According to Genesis 36:11, a name for a grandson of Esau. The district and chief town of this name are often referred to in the Prophets (Jeremiah 49:7-8; Ezekiel 25:13; Habakkuk 3:3; Obadiah 1:8-9). The wisdom and might of the Temanites were well known, and Eliphaz the Temanite was one of the sage interlocutors of the Book of Job. It was situated, according to Burckhardt and Robinson, south of the Wady Musa.
Bozrah.—Referred to in Jeremiah 49:13; Jeremiah 49:22; Micah 2:12; Isaiah 34:6; Isaiah 63:1. Quite distinct from Bozrah in Moab (Jeremiah 48:24). The former is situated south of the Dead Sea, identified by Robinson and Burckhardt with the village of El Buseireh in Jebal.
13
Amos 1:13
日本語
まだ翻訳がありません。
英語原文
CURSE ON AMMON.
(13) Ammon.—See art. in Smith’s Dict. of the Bible. The precise event of atrocious cruelty is not mentioned in the historical books; but the barbarous modes of warfare which prevailed in those days are darkly conveyed in 1Samuel 11:2; 2Kings 15:16; Hosea 13:16, &c., and in Assyrian inscriptions passim.
14
Amos 1:14
日本語
まだ翻訳がありません。
英語原文
(14) Jeremiah gives a vivid account of the impending doom of Ammon, quoting and expanding this very passage (Jeremiah 49:1-3).
15
Amos 1:15
日本語
まだ翻訳がありません。
英語原文
(15) Their king.—Not as Syrian and Vulg. read the original, Malcam or Milcom, i.e., Moloch. E.V. is supported by LXX., Targ., and context of the passage. So far we find the prophet denouncing the sin which trifles with blood, covenants, and ancient agreements, and recognising the responsibilities of race; but closer inspection shows in this, and in Amos 2, that the prophet condemns all violations of those natural laws and rights of which he regards Jehovah as custodian and executor.
アモス書
アモス
著
H. R. レイノルズ牧師、神学博士
および
ホワイトハウス教授
アモス書
序論
預言者アモスの初期の生涯はテコア、現代のテクアで過ごされた。それはベツレヘムの真南4~5マイルの高台である。ロビンソン(『聖書研究』i. 486)によれば、この場所は「広い眺望を持つ。北東の方へはワディ・フレイトンに向かって土地が下っていく。反対側では、丘は平らな台地の地帯で囲まれ、その向こうには谷があり、さらに他のより高い丘がある。南には少し離れて、別の深い谷が南東の死海に向かって延びている。この方向の眺望は、険しく荒涼とした中間の山々の間の裂け目から覗く死海の姿が頻繁に見えるだけで、モアブの平らな山々によってのみ限られている」。北王国の腐敗した利己的な生活を呼び覚ます、遠くを見通す視野とラッパのような声を持つ預言者の故郷として、これほどふさわしい場所は想像できない。アモスは生まれながらの預言者ではなく、牧者であり、またイチジクの実の世話をする者であった。強き王ウジヤの治世下で、侵入や妨乱を免れて、彼がユダの家でどれほど長く平和な務めに励んでいたかは分からない。しかし彼に――平信徒であり預言者ではない彼に――主のことばが来た。孤独な丘々とその広い眺望の中にあって瞑想する時、彼に国民や王国に対する神の宣告を語るよう促したのである。
彼の預言の働きについては、それがほぼ完全に北王国に向けられ、またそこで行われたことを知っている。
アモス7:10-17
に記されている印象的な挿話が彼の奉仕の初めに属するか終わりに属するかは不確実である。そこで預言者は、その古代の歴史的連想、重要な神殿、そして王室の居住地として有名なベテルに大胆にも姿を現したと読む。そこでアモスは
アモス7、8
に含まれる印象的な一連の象徴的な託宣を語った。これは聖所の祭司アマジヤの敵意を引き起こした。彼は預言者が王位に対する反逆を語っているという理由で、ヤラベアム王から預言者に対する追放の判決を得ようとした。アマジヤの告発と脅しに対し、アモスは王と祭司に対する破滅の宣告をもって答えた。
託宣全体の集合に確からしい年代を割り当てることは極めて困難である。標題(1)から、それらが「地震」の2年前に与えられたこと、その地震はその性格がそれほど恐ろしく顕著であったため、ゼカリヤ(ゼカリヤ14:5)によって再び言及されるほどであったことが分かる。(2)彼はヤラベアムとウジヤの治世中に預言した。しかし地震の年代も、ヤラベアム2世の死後、アモスの預言的奉仕が続いたかどうかも分からない。現存する託宣の集合がどれほどの期間をカバーするかも疑わしいが、内的証拠は長い期間よりも短い期間を支持している。これに加えて、現在聖書年代学について優勢な不確実性がある。(ホセア書の序論を見よ。)他の体系よりも困難が少ないと思われるシャープ氏の年代学を採用するなら、ヤラベアム2世の死は紀元前764年に起こったことになる。アッシリア学者のブランデス教授はそれを数年後とする(Geo. Smith, Assyr. Eponym Canon, pp. 14, 15)。それゆえ預言者の活動の時期を紀元前804年(シャープによるヤラベアムの即位の年)と紀元前760年頃の間に置くことができる。アモスの預言的生涯はおそらく紀元前780年以降であったと示す理由を後に挙げる。預言者は周囲の国民の運命に明示的に言及するにもかかわらず、アッシリアの名を一度も言及しないという事実は、アッシリアがその時期においてシリア・パレスチナ政治における妨害勢力として、かつての世代であったり、預言者ホセアの奉仕の時代に――恐るべきティグラト・ピレセルの侵入がアッシュールと王コンバト(ヤレブ)の名を恐怖の名とした時――なるであろうほどではなかったことを暗示しているようである。したがって私たちは、アモスの預言的奉仕が、スリアがヴルニラリ3世の災難的な侵入から回復し始めた時(Geo. Smith, Assyr. Eponym Canon, p. 115;Schrader, Cuneiform Inscriptions, second edition, pp. 212-216は彼をラムマン・ニラリと呼ぶ)に行われたと見なすことを好む。すなわち紀元前780年頃である[14]。
[14] この見解に対するさらなる裏付けは、8章9節の日食への言及に見出される。それはおそらく紀元前784年に起こった。(当該箇所の補論を見よ。)
この時期における北王国の社会的・道徳的・宗教的状態については、幸いにも多様な情報源を持っている。歴史書に含まれる記述とは別に、ホセア書全体に散らばる多くの言及がある。その講話はやや似た時期に属し、アモスのものを説明するものとして極めて価値がある。
それゆえ、この重大で悲劇的な世紀、すなわちイスラエルの歴史の最後の日々について、かなり鮮明な概念を得る。ヤラベアム2世の精力的な支配と成功した戦争は、王国の境界を広げた。スリアはハマテから死海に至る広い地域を彼に明け渡すことを余儀なくされた。アモンとモアブは貢ぐものとなった。しかし、これらの征服がいとも容易く得られたのは、何世紀もの間恐るべきものであったが、ヴルニラリ3世の精力的な支配下で西方へと拡大しつつあったアッシリアの力から、スリア諸国の存在そのものが脅かされていた危険によるものであった。その君主のもとで、彼の碑文から学ぶように、スリアは恐るべき打撃を受けた[15]。そしてヤラベアムによるスリア支配からのヨルダン川向こうの地域の回復は、スリアとその隣接王国の一時的な転覆と密接に結びついている可能性が極めて高い。(アモス6:14の注を見よ。)
[15] 「スリアへ行った。スリアの王マリハを、その王都ダマスコで包囲した。その主アッシュールへの恐れと恐怖が彼を圧倒し、彼は私のくびきを取った。彼は服従した。銀2300タレント、金20タレント。銅3000タレント、鉄5000タレント、羊毛と亜麻の衣、象牙の寝台、高い卓、その品々と家具を数えきれぬほど、その王都ダマスコの、その宮殿で受け取った」。この出来事はシュラーダーによって紀元前800年に、G. スミスによって797年に置かれている。
しかしヤラベアムの外面的な力と外国征服は、預言者によって明らかに不信の目で見られていた。そしてアッシリアは決して明示的に名指されないが、ある日イスラエルを完全に終わらせる主の復讐の剣として、予見者のまなざしの背景に立っている。(イザヤ10:5を比較せよ。)アモスとホセアの両者の託宣は、北王国の道徳的・社会的腐敗への言及に富んでいる。アモスは公的な建物や地の多くの個人の住まいの壮麗さについて述べる
(アモス3:15; アモス5:11: ホセア8:14を比較せよ)。 サマリアの強力な要塞の中で、富める貴族たちは酒盛りにふけり、象牙の寝台に身を横たえ、ダビデの音楽を悲惨にも皮肉った「やせた、つまらない歌」を歌い、来るべき悪についてのすべての思いに別れを告げていた
(アモス6)。 彼はこれらの放蕩の指導者たちがふけった力への空しい誇りを責める
(アモス6)。 彼はその主君たちに粗野な自己満足の行いを奨励した流行の婦人たちを厳しく非難する
(アモス4:1)。 その一方で、彼らの贅沢な生活は恐ろしい抑圧の犠牲と利益の上に買い求められている。アモスが生きた時代には、初期の単純な農業生活は、成長する文明と商業
(ホセア12:7-8)、 大都市の成長、そして芸術と洗練、無節操な取引、蓄積された富の拡大
(アモス8:5; イザヤ2:7)
によってもたらされた変化した社会状況に取って代わられていた。土の貧しい耕作者たちは、君主的地主たちによって悲惨な貧困にまで搾り取られていた。農民の借金は、どんなに取るに足らないものであっても、個人的な奉仕、すなわち奴隷によってのみ贖うことができた
(アモス2:6-7)。 彼らの主人はまた、町の門にある裁判所で彼らの裁判官でもあり、強欲な贈り物が過酷な判決を覆すための定められた手段であった
(アモス5:11-12)。
すべての社会的・道徳的混乱の根は、アモスとホセア(特に後者)によって、民が陥った偶像的で感覚的な腐敗にあるると示された。バアルと子牛礼拝は、民衆の知性にとって、モーセの律法と礼拝において教えられた古代の純粋な唯一の真の神の概念の劣化した代用品と象徴となっていた。預言者ホセアはイスラエルをその礼拝に回復しようと努めた。カナンの全土、ダンからベエルシェバまで、バアルまたは子牛の象徴が礼拝された地元の聖所でちりばめられていた。前者ではおそらくベエルシェバとギルガル、後者ではサマリア、ベテル、ダンが主要な中心であった。(アモス8:14の注を見よ。またアモス4:4;ホセア12:11。)その上、これらの聖所はすべて精巧な儀式と祭りの暦を持っていた
(アモス5:21-22)。 両預言者は、この古代の律法と慣習の放棄に対する罰として、外国の侵入と追放を脅す
(アモス5:26-27; ホセア2:11)。 また、アモン人の星の神モロク、星の神ケヴァン、およびスリアのハダデ・リンモンの礼拝の痕跡もあるが、それは不明瞭である。しかし、これに基づく箇所は疑わしい
(アモス4:3、 アモス5:26)。
テコアの牧者が、当時の一般的な意味で、広く多様な教養を持つ人物であったことは、その著作によって明確に証明されている。その時代には、人間の交わりの自由な動きが、現在の社会状況の下では不可能なほど、すべての階級の間に知識を広く均等に広めた。預言者の心は特にすべての物理的現象に対して開かれていた。ナイルの増水、空の星座、日食、地震が彼の想像力をかき立てた。注目すべきは、アモスにおいて預言者のまなざしの広がりの拡大についての最初の明確な兆候があることである。彼の目は周囲の王国をくまなく見渡す。イスラエルはもはや排他的に考えられず、その運命はもはや密接に結びついていた周囲の帝国の運命から離れて考えられることはない。主はへブル民族という特別な民だけでなく、世界の神である。彼はイスラエルをエジプトから引き出されたのと同様に、ペリシテをカフトルから引き出されたのである。
この普遍的神の主権の概念は、イスラエルにおいて決して新しいものではなかった。しかしそれはアモスによって特に際立たせられ、彼の預言の基調である。託宣はこの視点から語られる。ホセアにとっては、エフライムの罪が道徳においても礼拝においても、神の主君への忠誠と愛の関係に対する侵害として現れたのに対し、アモスにとってそれは最高の規則と最高の正義の違反として見なされた。
預言は内容に従って以下のように分けることができる。
Ⅰ. アモス1-6. 国民に向けられた預言的な脅し。
-1 アモス1:2~アモス2:5. 周囲の民々への簡潔な非難。――ダマスコ、ペリシテ、ツロ、エドム、アモン、モアブに対し、ユダで終わる。
-2 アモス2:6-6. イスラエルに対する訴追。蔓延する偶像礼拝、貧しい者の抑圧、貴族たちの放蕩して怠惰な生活。
Ⅱ. アモス7-9. イスラエルの来るべき滅びの象徴的な幻、祭司アマジヤの預言者への敵意の挿話によって中断される。この一連の幻は、ダビデの家の支配の下で平和に住む、再結合され回復されたイスラエルのメシヤ的期待で終わる。
アモス書注解への補論
補論A(アモス4:3)
七十人訳の「レマン(またはロマ)の山へ」という訳は、エヴァルトに「そしてリンモナを山へ投げる、すなわち彼らが逃げる時に(イザヤ2:18-21を比較せよ)」という解釈を示唆した。リンモナは男性の神リンモン(Ⅱ列5:18)に対応する愛の女神である。この難しい箇所の巧みだがいくぶん牽強付いた解釈において、エヴァルトはヘブル語の動詞を受動態ではなく能動態として取ることに注目せよ。この点で彼はほとんどの写本に支持されている。
しかし最ももっともらしい説明の功績はヒツィヒに属する。彼は注解の中でハダデ・リンモンと読み、「あなたがたはハダデ・リンモンへ追い払われるであろう」と訳すことを提案する。ゼカリヤ12:11には、ハダデ・リンモンが太陽神の修飾された名称であり、またギリシャのアドニスの対応物であったという仮定を支持するステイナーの長い注がある。アドニスの傷と死に対しては毎年、女たちが参加し、あらゆる種類の過度にふける嘆きが行われた。それゆえハダデ・リンモンは神の名であり、その礼拝の場所の名でもあった(アシュタロテ・カルナイムおよび他の例を比較せよ)。現在ルッマーネと呼ばれ、レジュン(メギド)の南4マイルにある。この場所へ女たちは売春の目的のために連れ去られることであろう。(預言者によって語られた脅し、アモス7:17を比較せよ。)
補論B(アモス5:26)
三つの不明な点がこの節を旧約聖書で最も難解なものの一つにしている。
時制について。本文の注解で優先された解釈――時は未来と見なされる――は文法的用法の根拠のみに基づいて決定された。しかし確かに、より多くの注解者たちが動詞を過去時制「しかし、あなたがたは天幕を運んだ」と訳しており、参照される時は荒野の放浪の時である。この見解はヒツィヒ、クエネン、カイイル、ヘンダーソン、およびR. S. プールによって支持されている。七十人訳によっても支持されている。
英訳および七十人訳で「天幕」または「幕屋」と訳されるシックートという語は、「織り交ぜる」と「覆う」の両方を意味する語根に由来し、この語源は上記の訳を裏付ける。アラム語のセッキトから「杭」と推測するエヴァルトの推測は退けられるべきである。モロクが天幕で運ばれるという概念は、ラメセス12世のエジプトの記念碑から例証できる。バーチ(『Egypt』S. P. C. K., p. 149)はカルナクの南西の角で見つかった板に言及する。「板の絵は、ラメセスが香炉を持ち、部分的に幕で覆われ、舟の中に置られた神[コンス]の箱を礼拝している様子を表している……祭司たちの像、スフィンクス、軍旗が舟の中にあり、12人の祭司がそれを肩に担いでいる」。
モロクとキウンはともに明らかに星の神であった。R. S. プールはキウンをエジプトで礼拝されたセム族の神々と結びつけようと努める(スミス『聖書辞典』「レムファン」の項を見よ)。キウンという名はステパノの説教(使徒7:43)でのこの箇所の引用にレムファンとして現れる。レムファンとキウンはともに、プール氏によってアジア型の男性と女性の神レンプとケンの対応物であると見なされた。しかしレムファンの形は、おそらく何らかの誤った類推から生じた、本文の誤りから明らかに起こったものであることが示せる。新約聖書の箇所では、最良の写本はレパンと読み、この読みは改訂訳で採用され、ほぼ同じ形で七十人訳に現れる。ステパノはそこから自由に引用していた。七十人訳ではもとの節の順序が入れ替えられており、ヘブル語本文に従う方が確かに安全である(アモス9:11-12のように)。
レパンはヘブル語本文からの一字の変更によって生じた。そのような入れ替えの例は旧約聖書において珍しくない。しかしレパンの形は誤っているとはいえ、ヘブル語の語の真の読みを示すものとして極めて貴重である。マソラ学者たちがキウンと読んだキウンの語は、エヴァルトによれば「台座」[?]である。しかし七十人訳は示唆し、多くの裏付けとなる証拠がその語をケヴァンと読むべきことを確立する。そしてケヴァンはアモン人のモロクと同様に、星の神サトゥルヌスを表した。それゆえカイヴォノがペシッタ訳における語の形である。この見解はアベン・エズラとキムヒによって支持され、彼らはペルシャ語とアラビア語でキヴァンを土星の名として引用する。この星(ヘンダーソンの注解の引用を見よ)は悪意ある影響を及ぼすと考えられていた。シュラーダー(『Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament』p. 443)はカ・アイ・ヴァヌという名、その惑星のアッシリア名を比較する。
補論C(アモス8:9)
日食がここで言及され、イスラエルを暗くする圧倒的な災難を表すために用いられていることは、前の節の地震の同様な比喩的用法と比較する時、疑い得ない。しかし預言者はどの日食を指しているのか。J. W. ボザンクェット氏はそれをアッシリアの年代記で言及される非常に特殊なものと同定しようとした。「ブルサガレ、ゴザンの長官のエポニム年において、アッシュールの町が反逆し、シワンの月に太陽は食された」。これはヒンドによって紀元前763年6月15日に起こったと計算された。(したがってローリンソン、シュラーダー、G. スミスなど。オペルトの見解は成り立たない。)もしこの日食が預言者の心にあったなら、それは年代学においてかなりの重要性を持つ事実である。全体として見ると、しかし、預言者が紀元前784年2月9日に起こったより早い日食を考えていたとする方がより可能性が高い。それは皆既日食であり、エルサレムでの皆既性の時刻は午後1時頃であり、この節の言葉遣いに正確に合致する。これほど顕著な現象は自然に何年にもわたって民の心に刻み込まれ、預言者はこの鮮やかな印象を、終わりの時の災難を予型するために召し出すのである。