Posts tagged: Amos

Hebrew: Beyond the Basics

These are just a few books that I’ve read recently that have helped me get a little beyond the basics of Biblical Hebrew.

Arnold, Bill T., and John H. Choi. A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Bilingual. Cambridge University Press, 2003.

This is a great book for a quick review of Biblical Hebrew syntax, and the wealth of examples makes it an enjoyable reading. Although it was written to be used as a reference, I recommend reading through the whole book at least once as it may help you get a general sense of syntactical issues and exegetical possibilities. This might be a good book to read before working through An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax by Bruce Waltke and M. O’Connor which is a much larger work and also highly recommended.


Garrett, Duane A. Amos: A Handbook on the Hebrew Text. Baylor University Press, 2008.

Tucker, W. Dennis. Jonah: A Handbook on the Hebrew Text. Baylor University Press, 2006.

These volumes are useful for those familiar with the basics of Hebrew syntax. The quality varies from book to book, and some passages are more insightful than others. There is some (unnecessary) repetition, so the reader may find himself skipping some sections if he is working his way through a volume. I found the handbook on Amos to be more helpful than the one on Jonah, but that may be due to the book’s genre and size.

I recommend that the reader work on the Hebrew text first on their own and then work through the handbook (most will probably just use it as a reference). Often times the authors will point things out in the text that you may have missed in your first reading or will provide some much needed background on the passage.

Let me give you an example from a small part in Jonah 1:3 (in red).

וַיָּקָם יוֹנָה לִבְרֹחַ תַּרְשִׁישָׁה מִלִּפְנֵי יְהוָה וַיֵּרֶד יָפוֹ וַיִּמְצָא אֳנִיָּה בָּאָה תַרְשִׁישׁ וַיִּתֵּן שְׂכָרָהּ וַיֵּרֶד בָּהּ לָבוֹא עִמָּהֶם תַּרְשִׁישָׁה מִלִּפְנֵי יְהוָה

Tucker points out that בָּאָה is a participle instead of a Qal qatal 3rd femine singular because the accent (which is not in the text above) is on the final syllable. Students familiar with the pronunciation of verbs like בוא will not be surprised by this observation, but it may take a trip to a commentary or article to know that some translators assume this to be a future predicate particle yielding the translation “about to go to Tarshish.” However, Tucker also says that הנה usually appears when impending action is indicated so this reading may not be justified (see NIV). He then talks about Sasson’s contention that בוא “typically directs the movement toward the narrator of the story.” After observing that Tarshish does not have the directive he, this may well imply that the ship has returned from that city. Tucker does not decide on the correct reading, and the student is responsible to evaluate what makes sense. Although this is a small example (and not all comments may be contain this much information), it gives you a flavor of what the handbook does. As you can see, it is more than a parsing guide.

Although I think these handbooks can be very helpful if used properly, I still wish something could be written with the same goal of helping students get into the text, but that would also follow the format and approach in Readings in Biblical Hebrew (see below).

Update:

There is a scathing review by John Engle in the Review of Biblical Literature on Garrett’s Amos. He concludes “that it offers only limited guidance to its readers due to its large number of errors and uncertain methodologies.” My suggestion is that you read the review, mark his observations and then enjoy the rest of the book. That Engle could hardly find anything good to say about a 300+ page book may indicate that his concerns, though legitimate they may be, ignore the usefulness of this resource of which there are not many.


Ehud Ben Zvi, Maxine Hancock, and Richard A. Beinert. Readings in Biblical Hebrew: An Intermediate Textbook. Yale University Press, 1993.

This is an intermediate level Hebrew reader that inductively introduces the student to passages in the historical, legal, prophetic and wisdom literature of the Hebrew Bible. This textbook is sort of a continuation of the introductory grammar by Kittel. You will be exposed to lots of genres and the notes are fantastic. Because the textbook inductively introduces the student to Hebrew syntax, A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax may be a good complement.

You may be wondering how this book may differ from the Baylor handbook series. If we take the same example from Jonah, which is not covered in this book, Zvi and Beinert may start by asking the reader what the function of the accent is in determining how one parses בָּאָה and whom or what this verb is modifying. They may include notes (which may contain different translations of the verse) and a “For Further Thought” section with background information and questions. The main difference is that the handbook is designed to be a reference whereas Readings is like a professor walking you through the passage without giving all the answers but enough to orient the student.

Sadly, I think this is the only one there is. I am a bit surprised that nobody has seen fit to write other volumes.

Amos in the First and Twentieth Century

I had the privilege of preaching on Amos 5:18-27 in my church, and the time spent preparing for it was precious. One of the things that impressed me as I read what people had to say about chapter 5, and in particular 5:18-27, is the different ways that Amos can be appropriated and used in various times and cultures.

I would like to show you an example of how Amos is used in the 1st and 20th centuries. First I want to consider how Stephen quoted verses 5:26-27 in Acts 7 and then how Martin Luther King Jr. quoted verse 5:24 in his famous I Have a Dream speech.

Beyond Babylon

As Stephen talked about the idolatry of Israel in the wilderness, he makes a connection between that idolatry and later worship of false gods. He cites Amos 5:25-27 which basically follows the Septuagint (LXX) with minor variations. Although the differences between the Masoretic Text (MT) and the LXX are worth studying, I am only interested here in Stephen’s use of “Babylon” at the end of Acts 7:43. The basic context is that Israel committed idolatry and, because of that, God would send the people into exile. Here are the verses:


And I will send you into exile beyond Babylon. (Acts 7:43b)


And I will send you into exile beyond Damascus (Amos 5:27a, MT)


And I will send you into exile beyond Damascus (Amos 5:27a, LXX)

Both MT and LXX agree that the exile will be beyond Damascus whereas Stephen changes it to Babylon. On the reason why Stephen chose “beyond Babylon” instead of “beyond Damascus” (i.e., in Assyria), I. Howard Marshall says,

“Stephen, with the advantage of hindsight, took the prophecy to include the definitive captivity of Judah in Babylon and paraphrased it accordingly.” (Commentary of the NT Use of the OT [Baker Academy, 2007] p. 566).

If I understand Marshall correctly, the more significant exile of the Southern Kingdom of Judah became paradigmatic of the very idea of exile and his use of Babylon gives us a bigger picture of the extent of God’s punishment.

If this is correct, it is interesting to observe that Stephen preserves the spirit of what Amos was saying. In this sense, the other differences that we see between the MT and the LXX still keep the main point intact, that is, because of the people’s idolatry, God will send them into Exile.

Can we call this a hindsight use of Scriptures?
Read more »

WordPress Themes