Rhetorical Amos 3

A Study of Amos's Art of Speech: A Rhetorical Analysis of Amos 3:1-15
Author(s): YEHOSHUA GITAY

Source: The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 3 (July, 1980), pp. 293-309
Published by: Catholic Biblical Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/43714935
Accessed: 13-10-2016 02:02 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Catholic Biblical Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Catholic Biblical Quarterly
This content downloaded from 128.135.12.127 on Thu, 13 Oct 2016 02:02:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
A Study of Amos's Art of Speech:

A Rhetorical Analysis of Amos 3:1-15
YEHOSHUA GITAY
The University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Prophetical utterances are a form of speech. The prophet addressed

audience directly with a message to be heard. This was the case wheth
message was originally written or oral.1 In a prophetic text like Amos
verbs mac (vv. 1, 9, 13), dibber (vv. 1, 8), and Dmar (vv. 9, 11, 12), w
characterize a speech, occur frequently. The speaker's direct approach and
use of personal pronouns of the first and second person singular and p
(vv. 1, 2, 9, 1 1) as well as the series of rhetorical questions (vv. 3-6, 8) ref

speech-form.
The spoken nature of prophetic discourse should be taken into consider

tion by critics, because the literary genre determines the literary functio
establishes the relationship between the text and its audience. Since proph
speech is discourse address, the entire range of rhetoric must be utiliz
studying prophetic genres.2 Hence, since rhetoric is a discipline
explores the mutual relationship between the text and its audience, the pr
1 For the ancient period it is difficult to distinguish between written and oral materia
both were designed to be heard. See Y. Gitay, "Deutero-Isaiah: Oral or Written?" JBL99
185-97.
2 Thus stresses N. Frye ( Anatomy of Criticism [Princeton: Princeton University, 1971]

274): "The basis of generic criticism ... is rhetorical, in the sense that the genre is determined by
the conditions established between the poet and his public."
293
294 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 42, 1980

study employs the system of classical rhetoric, i.e., it employs the tools and
framework of classical rhetoric, but in light of Amos's material.3
The fact that Amos's language includes elements of speech is a phenomenon which has, of course, been frequently observed by critics.4 This finding, however, has been used mainly as a chronological aid, i.e., as a criterion for
determining the literary layers of the book.5 The rhetorical aspects of these
elements of speech have not been taken into consideration. It is the goal of the
present paper to analyze a prophetic genre as exemplified in Amos 3:1-15,

according to its rhetorical nature, i.e., in terms of the conditions established
between Amos and his audience.
I. The Rhetorical Unit
Amos 3:1-5 has generally been considered a collection of several independent literary units. Form-critical analysis usually isolates five units in this
material (vv. 1-2, 3-8, 9-11, 12, 13-15). 6 From a rhetorical perspective this
chapter constitutes a complete discourse which like any discourse is "like a
living creature, ... so put together that it has its own body and lacks neither
head nor feet, middle nor extremities, all composed in such a way that they
suit both each other and the whole."7
If we isolate the separate units of the pericope, it is clear that these units in
themselves do not constitute complete statements. The unity is in the whole,
not in the parts. For the reader or hearer of vv. 1-2 the reasons for God's
punishment by themselves are not a complete rhetorical unit. What are the
sins? Similarly, the chain of rhetorical questions in vv. 3-8, whether they
intend to prove that God is the cause of a civil disaster (v. 6b) or to demonstrate the prophet's authority (v. 8), are not a full discourse by themselves
without a context. V. 12 just by itself is not understandable without some
background or explanation for the catastrophe. Again, vv. 13-15, especially v.
3 That does not mean, of course, that Amos was a student of any traditional classical
theory of rhetoric. A study of Amos which seeks to explore the mutual relationship between the
work and its audience, can employ the principles outlined by classical rhetoric. Accordingly, the
quotations and references to the various rhetorical authorities should not be understood as if all
of them reflect a single theory of rhetoric. The various authorities were selected in each case in
order to illustrate a certain point.
4 See e.g., H. W. Wolff, Joel and Amos (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977) 91-94.
5 Ibid.; also more recently K. Koch, Amos: Untersucht mit den Methoden einer strukturellen Formgeschichte (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1976).
6 See the recent analysis of R. F. Melugin, "The Formation of Amos: An Analysis of

Exegetical Method," SBLASP (Vol. 1, ed. P. J. Achtemeier; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1978)
378-79.
7 Plato, Phaedrus, 264.
AMOS'S ART OF SPEECH 295
14a, "Indeed, on the day when I requite Israel's crime upon it,"
reason for the punishment (cf. vv. 9-10 above) and therefore suggest
must be understood in light of the previous verses.
A rhetorical analysis of the various units into which form-critica
divide 3:1-15 suggests that the units are mutually related, each to the
each to the whole, and therefore are part of a single discourse.

There is a close relationship between vv. 1-28 and vv. 3-8. The
of cause and effect utilized in vv. 3-6 appears also in v. 2. God cal
people because of certain circumstances which make it obvious ( ca
he has to call upon them. Furthermore, v. 3, which opens th

questions, is unusual.9 Unlike the following series of questions
repeated, this verse is not repeated. Moreover, v. 3 is again except
unlike the following verses, it does not portray a picture of an
concludes, therefore, that v. 3 which introduces the questions is relat

2. 10 The two who go together ( haylk nayim) probably refer to
the people of Israel. As there is a reason for God's call upon his peopl
is not accidental that the two go together.
Furthermore, v. 2 does not indicate the people's sin. It only paves
(as do vv. 3-5) for the reference of the divine origin of the catastrop
But here also God's responsibility for the civil disaster is stated gene
the details are only given later in vv. 1 1 - 1 2, 1 4- 1 5. Similarly, the des
the people's sin does not appear before vv. 9-10. The result, the pr
of the judgment, then follows (vv. 1 1-12).
V. 14 repeats the notion of God's visiting punishment upon h
The repetition of the key verb ipa at the beginning and the end is st
2, 14). Thus, the opening relates harmoniously to the conclusion.1
In short, the supposed independent units in vv. 1-15 are interrela
create one single discourse. Each part continues the thought of what
8 Even though there is reason to suspect the originality of the second half of v
W. Wolff, Joel and Amos, 176), I do not think that the ground for regarding the whole
a supplement is strong enough. R. F. Melugin ("Formation," 380-81), points out t
redaction since it differs from the pattern of the prophetic oracle of judgment. An anal
verse, however, on the basis of the art of speech indicates that there is a rhetorical r
differences (see the discussion below).
9 See H. W. Wolff, Joel and Amos, 181.
10 Notice that the LXX read the verb ycad in v. 3 as ydac( like v. 2): yvcopatoaiv auxo.
Cf. W. R. Harper, Amos and Hosea (ICC; Edinburgh: Clark, 1 936) 67-68. The view that v. 3 is to
be associated with v. 2 is developed also by H. Gese, "Kleine Beitrge zum Verstndnis des Amos
Buches," VT 12 (1962) 424-27. However, he argues that v. 3 is a later addition. His argument is
rejected by H. W. Wolff, Joel and Amos, 180.
11 Cf. M. Haran, "Amos," Encyclopedia Biblica (Jerusalem: Bialik, 1971), 6. 275-76

(Hebrew).

The function of the various parts of the discourse and the reason for the
varieties in forms and style will be discussed below in sections IV and V.
II. The Rhetorical Situation
An act of speech is an act of communication. A speaker does not deliver

his speech in a vacuum. He reacts to a certain issue or problem. It is important,
therefore, in speech analysis to trace the problem which gives rise to the given
discourse. This is the argumentative point of the discourse which rhetoricians
call the rhetorical situation.12
The key verses for tracing the rhetorical situation of Amos 3: 1-15 are vv.
3-8. This is the longest part of the discourse, and one can see that Amos is here
making a special effort to influence his audience.13 Contrary to the short

conclusion of v. 2 and even the proclamations of punishment in vv. 9-11, vv.
3-8 discuss the issue at length and in the form of a rhetorical question, a useful
device for influencing people.14
The climax of the first series of questions is v. 6b. Notice how the chain of
the double illustrations is developed gradually - from individual cases taken

from the realm of nature to a civil disaster brought on by Yahweh. V. 6b, "If
misfortune occurs in a city has Yahweh not done it?" is the first statement to
reveal explicitly the goal of the chain of examples. One concludes, therefore,
that the notion that God may cause a civil disaster is an issue which is not
understood in itself by the people and consequently requires a proof. As a
matter of fact the beginning, v. 2, already indicates that this is Amos's main
concern. The prophet is not concerned here with the people's sin, but with the
fact that God is going to punish them and in the form of a major civil calamity.
Amos's focus on the mutual relationship between cause and effect in

order to prove that God will punish his own people, that he, God, causes civil
disaster, suggests that the rhetorical situation is not merely concerned with the
people's sins. Amos's main concern is the recognition that God reveals himself
not only in matters of success but also in terms of sins and punishment. In
other words, Amos's main effort is to convince his audience that an unbroken
relationship exists between their sins and a divinely inspired catastrophe.
12 See L. F. Bitzer, "The Rhetorical Situation," Rhetoric: A Tradition in Transition (ed. W.

R. Fisher; Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1974) 247-60.
13 Cf. H. W. Wolff, Amos the Prophet: The Man and His Background (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1973) 1-2.
14 See M. H. brams, A Glossary of Literary Terms ( 3d ed.; New York: Holt, Reinhart and
Winston, 1971) 149.
Amos is thus attacking the common belief15 that God acts only i
Israel (cf. also 5: 18). 16 It is reasonable to assume that such an optimi

was based on the recent political success and the economical prosperit
northern kingdom17 enjoyed by the social elite, the object of the
attack. (Amos refers to the residences of the city, the strongholds an

vv. 6, 10, 11, 15. ,8)
III. Invention
The discovery of the modes of convincing, called inventio in classica

rhetoric,19 is significant in analyzing any argumentative speech. Here we
discover the modes and manner used in the attempt to convince. We shall
begin our analysis by the appeal to reason, a primary factor recognized by all
rhetoricians.20
7. The Reasonable Appeal.

As we have already noticed, Amos's major concern is to convince his
audience that the cause for a civil disaster is none other than God. This was a
difficult point to prove, and the prophet utilized the method of analogy
(similitude), a common rhetorical technique.
If two objects, or situations or whatever have several things in common,
and one of them has some further, related characteristic, then it can be
argued that the other has it also. ... In other words, the analogy may set
up a series of relationships between terms having, obviously, something
in common and then extend the relationship to other terms where the
relationship is not obvious.21
This is what Amos does. He sets up a series of relationships which obviously

have something in common - cause and effect - the relationship between the
15 Thus writes A. S. Kapel rud ("New Ideas in Amos," Volume du congrs, Genve 1965
[ VTSup 1 5; Leiden: Brill, 1 966] 1 98): "What he painted to his audience was for them a completely
new picture of the obligations within the Covenant, or, if one prefers another formulation of their
obligations in their relationship with God. Objectively seen, that what Amos preached was not
new, it was part of Israel's life from old. But it was forgotten knowledge, and Amos had to re-new
it. And also to him happened what is so often the fate of reformers in emphasizing certain features,
these features were broken out of their original context, and thus constituted a new element."
16 Cf. J. L. Mays, Amos (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969) 103-5.
17 See now H. Donner, "The Separate States of Israel and Judah," Israelite and Judaean
History {t. J. H. Hayes and J. M. Miller; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977) 414.
18 Cf. S. M. Paul, "Amos 3:15-Winter and Summer Mansions," VT 28 (1978) 358-59.

19 See H. Lausberg, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik (2 vols.; Munich: M. Hueber,
1960) 262.
20 See Aristotle, Rhet. 1356a.

lion's roar and his prey, the capture of a bird and the trap, the sound of the
trumpet and the fear of the people; and then he extends the relationship of
cause and effect to the dependency of a civil disaster on God (v. 6b). A similar
method is applied in v. 8. The relationship between the lion's roar and man's
fear is obvious, and the prophet extends it to God's speech which obliges him
to prophesy. It should be noted that Amos's examples utilize common experience. This is experience which is known to every one and consequently is not
deniable. Quintilian pointed out that "the most absolute form of proof is that
which is generally known as linear demonstration. And what is the aim of

oratory if not proof?"22
2. Another Means of Convincing Is Witnesses.23

In v. 9 (see also v. 13)24 Amos calls witnesses to view Samaria's corruption. Thus, the people's sins are not noticeable just by God; they are so obvious
that even outsiders, the representatives of other nations,25 can see them. It is
remarkable that Amos calls witnesses just before he proclaims or demonstrates the punishment. The argument of probability is strengthened by the
proof of witness.26
3. The Ethical Appeal.21

As we have noticed above, Amos's point that there is a relationship of
cause and effect between Israel's sins and civil catastrophe is not shared by the
people. We can assume that the prophet faced a hostile audience (produced by
his conception of God and its application to the people). Amos tried to present
his view on reasonable grounds (the analogy), but reason by itself was not
sufficient to overcome the views of his hearers.28
Amos's concern for his audience's views is reflected in vv. 7-8. From the
21 W. J. Brandt, The Rhetoric of Argumentation (Indianapolis/ New York: Bobbs-Merill,

1 970) 1 28-29. For a detailed discussion on the impact of analogy in the process of argumentation,
see also C. Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric (Notre Dame/ London:
University of Notre Dame, 1 969) 37 1 -98. For a biblical form-critical study of this pattern, see W.
M. W. Roth, Numerical Sayings in the Old Testament: A Form Critical Study (VTSup 13;
Leiden: Brill, 1965) 8-9, 96-8, and the literature cited there.
22 Quintilian, Inst. orat. 1. 10, 38. Cf. also 5.10, 1,7.

23 For the rhetorical impact, see Aristotle, Rhet. 1376a.
24 Cf. J. L. Mays, Amos, 68.
25 For the textual problems of v. 9, see W. Rudolph, Joel- Amos-Obadja- Jona (KAT 13/2;
Gtersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1971) 158-59, 163.
26 For the impact of this proof, see Aristotle, Rhet. 1375b- 1376a.
27 See Aristotle, Rhet. 1356a.
28 Thus write C. Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca {New Rhetoric, 23): "In argumentation, the important thing is not knowing what the speaker regards as true or important, but
knowing the views of those he is addressing."
rhetorical perspective, these verses function as a response to the audien

position. Amos's argument may raise two questions: (1) the prophet's aut
ity and (2) an explanation why he, Amos, is engaged in such an unpleas
mission. Thus, the prophet, first of all, has to establish his credibility.29 This
the function of v. 7.30 (For the question of the authenticity of the verse, se
below section V.) It is significant that a prophet who seeks to change

audience's conception of God and his activity reveals his source of infor
tion and stresses his intimate relationship with God.31 Without authorit
competence in the subject matter a speaker cannot be effective. Accordingly
"a speaker should inspire confidence: without it, his speech does not m
credence."32
On the other hand, v. 8 bears an apologetic tone. By utilizing the rhetorical question, "Lord Yahweh has spoken! Who will not prophesy?" the prophet
portrays himself as one of the audience, one who has no choice but to
prophesy. Such a statement has to be understood as an attempt to present the
speaker's character favorably. On this issue Aristotle wrote:

Since rhetoric exists to effect the giving of decisions ... it adds much to
an orator's influence that his own character should look right and that he
should be thought to entertain the right feelings towards his hearers; and
also that his hearers themselves should be in just the right frame of
mind.33
Furthermore, by inserting himself, the speaker "has made of himself a

dramatized character to whom we react as we react to other characters."34 The
prophet's personality and credibility, with which these two verses are concerned, are, therefore, a dramatic and integral part of the speech and establish
a relationship between the prophet and his audiences.
IV. Organization
The structure of a discourse has a strong impact on the audience. An
orator carefully plans his speech in order to reach his audience. The opening
29 For the necessity of establishing the speaker's ethos, see W. J. Brandt, Rhetoric, 53.
30 For the significance of revealing God's sd to his servants, the prophets, see J. Lindbom,
Prophecy in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Blackwell, 1962) 1 12-22. See also H. G. Reventlow, Das Amt
des Propheten bei Amos (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962) 27-28.
31 For the intimate connotation of cbad see, e.g., the relations among cbd> bhr and J hb in
Isa 41:8.
32 C. Perelmanand L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, New Rhetoric, 318.

33 Aristotle, Rhet. 1377b- 1378a.
34 W. C. Booth, The Rhetoric of Fiction (Chicago/ London: University of Chicago, 1961)

212.

must attract the audience and raise its curiosity to listen to the rest of the
discourse. Accordingly, the beginning, v. 1, stresses the relationship between
God and Israel. God helped Israel in the past, and this notion fits with the
people's present conception of God as the one who acts positively towards
them. This conception is developed further in v. 2a, by the appeal to the motif
of the chosen people. However, in v. 2b, the prophet shifts the direction,
attacking the audience by telling them that God will punish them for their sins.
Notice the use of the particle p bv, expressing the cause. According to the
people's perception the conclusion of v. 2b may sound contradictory if not
absurd. Hence, from the rhetorical perspective the unexpected turn functions
as a tool for arousing curiousity and attracting attention.
This sort of introduction is called by Whately, "introduction paradoxical":
... it will frequently happen also, when the point to be proved or

explained is one which may be very fully established, or on which there is
little or no doubt, that it may nevertheless be strange, and different from
what might have been expected; in which case it will often have a good
effect in rousing the attention, to set forth as strongly as possible this
paradoxical character, and dwell on the seeming improbability of that

which must, after all, be admitted. This may be called an "introduction
paradoxical."35
The introduction, presenting the stunning issue of the people's punishment, needs confirmation. The process of convincing cannot be effective just
by a striking statement but should appeal also to the audience's common

sense. The chain of rhetorical questions which follow the introduction stresses
Amos's position and is intended to refute the basic opinion of the audience
that God will not punish them.
The significance of refuting the audience's opinion has been emphasized
by Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca:
Since the strength of an argument depends in large measure on its

capacity for resisting objections, regard must be had to all that is admitted by the audience, even if it is something one has no intention of using
but which could stand in the way of the argument.36
After introducing the thesis (v. 2), refuting the opponents (vv. 3-6), and
establishing credibility (vv. 7-8). Amos presents the details of the case (vv.
9-12). Thus, the description of the people's sins and God's punishment is not
35 R. Whately, Elements of Rhetoric (ed. D. Ehninger, Carbonale: Southern Illinois

University, 1963) 170.
36 C. Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, New Rhetoric, 461-62.
presented without preparation. The discourse gradually leads its reade
teners to evaluate the new notion of God, not as an absurdity as it could
at the beginning, but as a reasonable deduction. This logical structu
argumentation is "to persuade, and the crux of the problem is not, ordin
to establish valid terms but to establish a persuasive relationship b
them. In all of human experience, terms give much less trouble than rela
ships between terms."37
The last part, vv. 13-15, is the epilogue to the discourse. It refreshes
audience's memory38 by repeating the main theme of the introduction (
pare v. 2 with v. 14a) in similar language (the verb pqad appears in

places), repeating (in other words) the theme of the central part o
discourse and the details of the case. The reference to the destruction of the
altar seems at first glance a new element but this is only apparently so. The
notion of self-insurance against which the discourse is designed is portrayed in
v. 14c. This notion of confidence is guaranteed by worship. Thus, the destruction of the altar "provides the witnesses with their first piece of evidence for the
total judgment."39
Such a conclusion which stresses the central theme of the discourse is to
be expected in a well constructed address:

. . . the closing remarks should be not a long one, and should be not the
least important and striking of the whole discourse; and if it contain a
compressed repetition of something that had been before dwelt on, this is
all the better. Indeed, in any composition that is not very short, the most
frequent, and the most appropriate kind of conclusion is a recapitulation,
either of the whole, or of part of the arguments that have been adduced.40
V. Style
"It is not enough," wrote Aristotle, "to know what we ought to say; we
must also say it as we ought . . . the way in which a thing is said does affect its
intelligibility."41
Let me call attention to some of the stylistic devices utilized by the

prophet in this discourse in order to increase attention and to strengthen
certain points.
V. 2, which concludes the introduction and presents the topic of the
37 W. J. Brandt, Rhetoric, 61.
38 For the rhetorical impact of this technique, see Aristotle, Rhet. 1419b.
39 H. W. Wolff, Amos, 201. See also p. 199, for the question of v. 14b.
40 R. Whately, Rhetoric, 173.
41 Aristotle, Rhet. 1403b- 1404a.

discourse, is short and simple with no figurative language. Such a structure is
advised for speakers: "A statement of facts should have three qualities:
brevity, clarity, and plausibility."42 Consequently, one should not be surprised
that v. 2, which is shaped on the basis of the genre of the oracle of doom,
presents only the framework but not the details of this particular genre.43
We have already called attention to the tension between v. 2a and b. The
first line, by utilizing the verb ydac creates an intimate and favorable atmosphere, while line b switches over, indicating that God is going to punish his
people. This should not be understood as irony but as a rhetorical technique

whose function is to attract attention.44 Commentators have already pointed
out that the verb ydac (v. 2a) is similar in meaning to bhar. The usage of
ydac in this text, with its more personal than intellectual connotation,45 is
noteworthy, and its contrast to paqad is striking. Such word-usage with its
interplay of meaning is a common rhetorical device; it gives impressiveness
and distinction.46
In vv. 3-6 we find a chain of rhetorical questions. Rhetorically, this is a

most effective device. A rhetorical question does not require an actual reply;
its function is in its emphasis, which is stronger than that of a direct

statement.47
The rhetorical question is one of the most forceful and effectful ways
employed in speech for driving home some ideas for conviction. Because
of its impressive and persuasive effect the hearer is not merely listener; he
is forced to frame the expected answer in his mind, and by doing so he
actually becomes the coexpressor of the speaker's conviction.48
Hence "it can be an effective persuasive device, subtly influencing the

kind of response one wants to get from an audience."49
42 Ad Herennium, 1. 9, 14.
43 See R. F. Melugin, "Formation," 378, 380-81.

44 Cf. J. L. Mays, Amos, 57-58. Y. Hoffmann, The Prophecies against Foreign Nations in
the Bible (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1977) 159 n. 18 [in Hebrew].
45 Cf. W. Rudolph, Amos, 153.
46 See Ad Herennium, 4.15, 21. See also Aristotle, Rhet. 1410a; Quintilian, Inst. orat. 9. 3,
81-82; W. J. Brandt, Rhetoric, 61.
47 M. H. Abrams Glossary, 149.

48 J. C. Labuschagne, The Ine ompar ability of Jahweh in the Old Testament (Pretoria
Oriental Series, 5; Leiden: Brill, 1966) 23.
49 E. P. J. Corbett, Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student (2d ed.; New York: Oxford
University, 1971)489. For the place of the rhetorical question in Israelite society, see H. W. Wolff,
Amos the Prophet, 6- 1 6. Wolffs attempt to indicate the Sitz im Leben of Amos's questions in the
"clan instructional wisdom" (p. 14) is not out of consideration. However, I think, as I intend to
discuss elsewhere, that the explanation for the prophes style and argumentation is in the
socio-political background of his activity. See, meanwhile, J. S. Holladay, Jr., "Assyrian Statecraft and the Prophets of Israel," HTR 63 (1970) 29-51.
Furthermore, each series of questions begins with the same sound h - (w
3-5) or Hm (v. 6). This sort of stylistic phenomenon, called anaphora , is

useful rhetorical device:
. . . [anaphora] has not only much charm, but also impressiveness and
vigour in highest degree; I therefore believe that it ought to be used for
both the embellishment and the amplification of style.50
Moreover, the second half of each of these questions is constructed

negatively in order to reach a positive answer. In this way the possibilities are
limited and the audience is led towards a specific answer.

The impact is increased with the rare conjunction bilt Dim5 which
appears only in this context (vv. 3, 4). The function of the usage of such rare
combinations is explained by Aristotle:
People do not feel towards strangers as they do towards their own

countrymen, and the same thing is true of their feeling for language. It is
therefore well to give to everyday speech an unfamiliar air: people like

what strikes them, and are struck by what is out of the way.52
We have already noticed the rhetorical impact of the series of examples.
The effect of this technique, i.e., stressing a certain point by "dwelling" on the
subject, is explained by Whately:

In a Description ... of anything that is likely to act on the Feelings, this
effect will by no means be produced as soon as the understanding is

sufficiently informed; detail and expansion are here not only admissible,
but indispensable, in order that the mind may have leisure and opportunity to form vivid and distinct ideas. For, as Quintilian well observed, he
who tells us that a city was sacked, although that one word implies all that
occurred, will produce little, if any, impression on the feelings, in comparison of one who sets before us a lively description of the various lamenta-
ble circumstances.53
The series of Aa-questions is concluded with the infinitive absolute, lkd

lD yilkd (v. 5b). The function of the infinitive absolute with its repetition of
the verb is to emphasize and to strengthen the idea of the verb.54
The repetition at the end of v. 5, i.e., at the end of the series of the
50 Ad Herennium, 4. 13, 19. See also Quintilian, Inst. orat. 9.3, 30.
51 Cf. H. W. Wolff, Amos, 180. See GKC 90. 3.
52 Aristotle, Rhet., 1404b.
53 R. Whately, Rhetoric, 193.
54 GKC 113. 1,3.

/z-questions, reinforces and strengthens the point.55 The emphasis paves the
way for the climax of v. 6. The particle Hm which opens v. 6a, b has to be
understood as an interrogative rather than as a conditional particle. Hence,
the variety in the form of the interrogative particle has a rhetorical function.56
The /ui-pattern is broken in order to attract the audience's attention to the

central theme. Thus the chain of questions cannot be read in one breath. The
new pattern of v. 6 causes the audience to stop and to focus their attention.
Furthermore, the double Dim particle at the beginning of an interrogative is
rare (cf. Jer 48:27; Job 6: 12); it is another stylistic device to increase attention.
Moreover, the structure of v. 6 is chiastic. V. 6a opens with reference to a
cause, while v. 6b concludes with reference to the cause. Such variety is not
just aesthetically pleasing, but it enables the speaker to conclude by focusing
on God's deeds.
Notice also the tenses of v. 6. V. 6a is in the imperfect, while v. 6b begins in

the imperfect but ends with the perfect. This is the prophetical perfect,57 which
stresses that God's deeds are not a matter of possibility, but of fact.
The authenticity of v. 7 is rejected by many commentators. Their argu-
ment is based on style and conception. It is argued that v. 7 is prose in the

midst of poetry, that it is an indicative in a series of questions, and that it is the
only statement in the pericope that does not refer to a causal relation.58 Wolff
(followed recently by Melugin) adds that the thought is late and deuteronomistic.59
Such stylistic and historical-theological opinions about a text's authenticity must be seen against a fuller methodological context.60 In assessing the
possibility of a text's authenticity, such as 3:7, it is important to trace the

reader's/ listener's activity. The text provides expectations, questions, reactions, and so on. "The reader's activities are at the center of attention, where
they are regarded, not as leading to meaning, but as having meaning."61
The nature of the discourse throws light on the structure of the audience's
activity. As we have seen earlier, Amos surprises his audience by a new or at
least an unconventional view about the nature and meaning of God's relation-
ship and behavior towards Israel. The chain of examples may raise an
55 For the rhetorical impact of repetition, see also C. Perelman and L. Olbrechts Tyteca,
New Rhetoric, 174-75.
56 Cf. H. W. Wolff, Amos , 183.
57 GKC 106n.
58 See J. M. Ward, Amos and Isaiah (Nashville: Abingdon, 1969) 38 n. 28, and the
references cited there.
59 H. W. Wolff, Amos, 113, 187-88; R. F. Melugin, "Formation," 381-82.

60 Cf. S. F. Fish's sharp criticism of the formalist analyses, "Interpretation and Variorum,"
Critical Inquiry 2 (1976) 468.
61 S. F. Fish, "Interpretation," 474.
expected question: how does he, the prophet, know? V. 7 responds to t
wonder; the prophet confirms his knowledge.62 That explains also the peculia
stylistic structure of the verse. It is clear that in this context the structure of v
is unexpected. Such a structure in poetical context is usually regarded as

later insertion. However, the study of oral performance indicates that t
performer occasionally switches the regular poetical form into prose; a tu
which enables him to add details. "Actions . . . take on greater significance as
they are more fully exploited by the use of details."63 Thus the performer has
chance to add stress and at the same time to break the stereotyped patter
The process of literary creation, as criticism has clearly recognized ...

an unceasing dialectic between the necessity to use established forms
order to be able to communicate coherently and the necessity to brea
and remake those forms because they are arbitrary restrictions an
because what is merely repeated automatically no longer conveys a
message.64
As we have noted, commentators doubt the authenticity of v. 7. At an
rate, the verse in its context and its style has a significant rhetorical functio
and in this light it may be authentic. In regard to the language of the verse, th
combination tio r* occurs in wisdom literature (Prov 11:13; 20:19; 25:9),

source which has some relationship with Amos.65
V. 8 is sometimes regarded as an independent unit by some scholars o
the basis of its meter.66 The connection between v. 7 and v. 8, however, shou
not rest on the question of the same meter. It is the flow of thought which ti
together the material for the reader/ listener and not the style or meter. Th
writes Ingarden:
62 See above.
63 A. Scheub, The Xhosta Ntsomi (Oxford: Oxford University, 1975) 137, 152-53. 1 would
like to thank Professor Charles H. Long for calling my atention to Scheub's work.
64 R. Alter, "Biblical Type-Scenes and the Uses of Convention," Critical Inquiry 5 (1978
368.
65 See Y. Kaufmann, Toledoth Haemunah Haisraelith (Jerusalem/ Tel Aviv: Bialik-Devir

1960), 3. 59-60. S. Terrien, "Amos and Wisdom," Israel's Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor
James Muilenburg (ed. B. W. Anderson and W. Harrelson; New York: Harper, 1962) 1 12. Th
does not mean, by the way, that other sources such as the cult have not made a stronger imp
upon Amos's vocabulary than have wisdom emphases (J. L. Crenshaw, "The Influence of t
Wise upon Amos," ZA W 79 [1967] 51). For the difficulties in determining the basis of th
reference to the prophets as God's servants (which appears in later prophets: Jer 7:25; 25:4; Ez
38:17; Zech 1:6), see W. H. Harper, Amos, 73; E. Hammerschaimb, The Book of Amos:
Commentary (Oxford: Blackwell, 1970) 59-60.
66 See recently D. K. Stuart, Studies in Early Hebrew Meter (USA 13; Missoula: Scholar
Press, 1976) 201.

Once we begin to move with the course of thought which the sentence
follows, we think it as separate whole; and the individual verbal meanings
are automatically accommodated into the sentence flow as phases of it

which are not separately delimited. The verbal meanings can be so
accommodated only if they are immediately thought in those nuances of
meaning which they have as parts of that sentence. This is possible only
because the sentence-generating operation consists in flling out a special
kind of system of syntactic functions. The functions are filled by the

words which make up the sentence. Once we are transposed into the flow
of thinking the sentence, we are prepared, after having completed the

thought of one sentence, to think its "continuation" in the form of
another sentence, specifically, a sentence which has a connection with the
first sentence. In this way the process of reading a text advances

effortlessly.67
Once again Amos breaks the stylistic pattern in order to attract attention.
The usage of mixed "genres" (vv. 3-6, 7, 8), each distinguished by its stylistic
pattern and meter but, tied together by the "flow of thinking," is effective. The
reader/ listener can be frustrated if the text is not developed according to his
expectations. But the discourse communicates through the flow of thought,

and this enables the text to communicate through the mixed forms. In other
words, new forms attract attention, create curiosity, and enable the speaker to
convey the message effectively.68
The tenses of v. 8 also have a rhetorical impact. The perfect at the

beginning followed by the imperfect, in the form of a question, stresses the
necessity of the result (cf. also Job 20:7; 21:31; 35:6; Lev 10: 19).69
The series of imperatives in v. 9 create a dramatic effect. It is heightened
by the shift from the third person (v. 10) to a direct approach (v. 11). It is
remarkable that v. 1 1, which confronts the audience directly, maintains the
punishment. The function of the sudden transition from the third person to
the second, called aversio ,70 is to emphasize and to raise emotion.71
Further, the alliteration of z in v. 11 strengthens the effect of the destruction of the strongholds. On the impact of sound in rhetoric, Longinus wrote:
Men find in melody not only a natural instrument of persuasion and

pleasure, but also a marvelous instrument of grandeur and emotion . . .
67 R. Ingarden, The Cognition of the Literary Work of Art (Evanston: Northwestern
University, 1973) 33-34.
68 For this theory of effectiveness of a text, consult W. Iser, The Implied Reader (Baltimore/London: Johns Hopkins University, 1974).
w See M. Z. Segal, "Studies in Language," LeS 4 (1932) 192-93, 199 [Hebrew].
70 See H. Lausberg, Handbuch , 762-65, 848-51.
7' See W. J. Brandt, Rhetoric, 153-54.
by the blending of its manifold tones it brings into the hearts of the
bystanders the speaker's actual emotion so that all who hear him share in
it ... by these very means it casts a spell on us and always turns our
thoughts towards what is majestic and dignified and sublime and all else
that it embraces, winning a complete mastery over our minds.72
In such a manner the contrast between cz, "place of safety," and bzaz,
"spoiled or plundered," is stressed since it utilizes the juxtaposition of polar
opposites.73 "Such a form of speech is satisfying, because the significance of
contrasted ideas is easily felt, especially when they are thus put side by side,
and also because it has the effect of a logical argument; it is by putting two
opposing conclusions side by side that you prove one of them false."74
Furthermore, the description of punishment is constructed by a verse of
three lines, depicting a military campaign: siege, defeat, and plunder.75 The
lines are short, with no detailed description; hence construction dramatizes
the quickness of the fall.
The use of the tricolon in vv. 9, 1 1 (while the middle v. 12 is bicolon)

"checks the flow of the verse for a moment, with an obvious rhetorical
effect."76
A simile is utilized in v. 12. The use of figurative language enables the

speaker to demonstrate the disaster in concrete terms. It should be noted that
the simile (as well as the metaphor)77 is not just a decoration, "a dress of
thought," but maintains that "no further act of interpretation is required, no
further underminings of normal readings invited."78 As Booth stresses, figura-
tive language is an integral part of culture, it is a language which communicates between the speaker and his audience in the most natural way.79 Thus the
known picture embodied in the simile (cf. 1 Sam 17:34; Isa 31:4)80 is not the
performer's creation and, therefore, by its very nature invokes an "image."
72 Longinus, On the Sublime, 39.

73 For the text and the social criticism of vv. 9-11, see M. Krause, Das Verhltnis von
sozialer Kritik und kommender Katastrophe in der Unheilsprophezeiungen des Arnos (Dissertation, Hamburg, 1972) 142-53.
74 Aristotle, Rhet. 1410a.
75 Cf. J. L. Mays, Amos, 65.
76 So C. C. Torrey (The Second Isaiah : A New Interpretation [New York: Scribner, 1928]
158) in his discussion on the impact of the tricolon. See also L. Boadt, "Isaiah 41:8-13: Notes on
Poetic Structure and Style," CBQ 35 (1973) 26-27, and the literature cited there.
77 W. C. Booth ("Metaphor as Rhetoric: The Problem of Evaluation," Critical Inquiry 5
[1978] 55) emphasizes, when speaking about the rhetorical impact, that the differences between
metaphor and simile are unimportant.
7* Ibid., 54.
79 Ibid., 50-72.
80 For the verse, see W. Rudolph, Amos, 164-65; J. L. Mays, Amos, 66-67.

Image is a visualized action or set of actions evoked in the mind of the
audience by verbal and non-verbal elements arranged by the performer,
requiring a common experience of images held by both artist and

audience, the artist seeking by a judicious and artistic use of images to
shape that experience and to give it meaning. . . . Because images are
evoked rather than created by the performer, the participation of the
audience is critical: the artist requires the active assistance of the

members of the audience in the transformation of plot clichs into vivid
images.81
Conclusion
To demonstrate that Amos's intention was to communicate influentially
has been the major concern of this paper. I have argued that scholars must
attempt to understand the prophet's activity as a rhetorical process, i.e., his
intentions to appeal to his audience. Some students of rhetoric, Kenneth

Burke, for instance, might argue that the rhetorical goal is to change the
audience's mind and behavior with no external pressure such as threatening or
punishment.82 This is, indeed, the situation in late prophecy, and DeuteroIsaiah is a remarkable illustration.83 However, one has to distinguish between
two goals, conviction and persuasion. The goal of conviction is truth and not
necessarily activity; persuasion seeks activity. Consequently, it utilizes various
sorts of appeal which are not confined just to arguments of reason. Looking at
the prophet's goal from this aspect, Amos's aim in chap. 3 is to seek conviction
(while the goal of Deutero-Isaiah, for instance, especially in chaps. 40-48, is to
persuade his audience). It is remarkable, therefore, that Amos does not

exaggerate the use of the emotional appeal in this discourse; he appeals
reasonably as well as ethically. (However, even if the prophet's goal is to
convey a message of truth and not necessarily to push to act, his credibility is
still an important factor and this throws light on the function of the ethical
appeal in vv. 7-8).
81 H. Scheub, "Oral Narrative Process and the Use of Models," New Literary History 6
(1975) 353.
82 K. Burke, Rhetoric of Motives (Berkeley/ Los Angeles: University of California, 1969)
50.
83 See my book, Prophecy and Persuasion (Forum theologiae linguisticae; Bonn: Linguistica biblica, 198?).
In summary, rhetorical analysis explores the mutual relationsh
three dimensions of the discourse: the speaker/ writer, the audience,

work itself. The present paper which analyzes these relationships fin
3: 1-15, a careful discourse which seeks intentionally to appeal to its
in a convincing way.84
84 Professor John H. Hayes took a deep interest in the article, and his fruitful
helped crystallize it. For this, I am deeply grateful to him. I also thank Professors Jo
and George A. Kennedy for reading the manuscript.

Rhetorical Amos 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rhetorical Amos 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Study of Amos's Art of Speech: A Rhetorical Analysis of Amos 3:1-15

Author(s): YEHOSHUA GITAY

A Study of Amos's Art of Speech:

Prophetical utterances are a form of speech. The prophet addressed

(vv. 1, 2, 9, 1 1) as well as the series of rhetorical questions (vv. 3-6, 8) ref

The spoken nature of prophetic discourse should be taken into consider

speech is discourse address, the entire range of rhetoric must be utiliz

studying prophetic genres.2 Hence, since rhetoric is a discipline

2 Thus stresses N. Frye ( Anatomy of Criticism [Princeton: Princeton University, 1971]

294 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 42, 1980

present paper to analyze a prophetic genre as exemplified in Amos 3:1-15,

I. The Rhetorical Unit

6 See the recent analysis of R. F. Melugin, "The Formation of Amos: An Analysis of

7 Plato, Phaedrus, 264.

AMOS'S ART OF SPEECH 295

each to the whole, and therefore are part of a single discourse.

he has to call upon them. Furthermore, v. 3, which opens th

concludes, therefore, that v. 3 which introduces the questions is relat

a supplement is strong enough. R. F. Melugin ("Formation," 380-81), points out t

11 Cf. M. Haran, "Amos," Encyclopedia Biblica (Jerusalem: Bialik, 1971), 6. 275-76

296 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 42, 1980

II. The Rhetorical Situation

An act of speech is an act of communication. A speaker does not deliver

making a special effort to influence his audience.13 Contrary to the short

the double illustrations is developed gradually - from individual cases taken

Amos's focus on the mutual relationship between cause and effect in

relationship exists between their sins and a divinely inspired catastrophe.

12 See L. F. Bitzer, "The Rhetorical Situation," Rhetoric: A Tradition in Transition (ed. W.

AMOS'S ART OF SPEECH 297

Israel (cf. also 5: 18). 16 It is reasonable to assume that such an optimi

northern kingdom17 enjoyed by the social elite, the object of the

attack. (Amos refers to the residences of the city, the strongholds an

The discovery of the modes of convincing, called inventio in classica

7. The Reasonable Appeal.

This is what Amos does. He sets up a series of relationships which obviously

18 Cf. S. M. Paul, "Amos 3:15-Winter and Summer Mansions," VT 28 (1978) 358-59.

298 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 42, 1980

which is generally known as linear demonstration. And what is the aim of

2. Another Means of Convincing Is Witnesses.23

3. The Ethical Appeal.21

21 W. J. Brandt, The Rhetoric of Argumentation (Indianapolis/ New York: Bobbs-Merill,

22 Quintilian, Inst. orat. 1. 10, 38. Cf. also 5.10, 1,7.

AMOS'S ART OF SPEECH 299

rhetorical perspective, these verses function as a response to the audien

below section V.) It is significant that a prophet who seeks to change

competence in the subject matter a speaker cannot be effective. Accordingly

speaker's character favorably. On this issue Aristotle wrote:

Furthermore, by inserting himself, the speaker "has made of himself a

a relationship between the prophet and his audiences.

32 C. Perelmanand L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, New Rhetoric, 318.

34 W. C. Booth, The Rhetoric of Fiction (Chicago/ London: University of Chicago, 1961)

300 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 42, 1980

... it will frequently happen also, when the point to be proved or

paradoxical character, and dwell on the seeming improbability of that

by a striking statement but should appeal also to the audience's common

by Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca:

Since the strength of an argument depends in large measure on its

35 R. Whately, Elements of Rhetoric (ed. D. Ehninger, Carbonale: Southern Illinois

AMOS'S ART OF SPEECH 301

presented without preparation. The discourse gradually leads its reade

teners to evaluate the new notion of God, not as an absurdity as it could

at the beginning, but as a reasonable deduction. This logical structu

to establish valid terms but to establish a persuasive relationship b

pare v. 2 with v. 14a) in similar language (the verb pqad appears in