James R. Linville, «Visions and Voices: Amos 7–9», Vol. 80 (1999) 22-42

The final chapters of Amos are read synchronically to highlight the relationship between the divine voice, which demands that its hearers prophesy (Amos 3,8), the voice of Amos, and those of other characters. Amos’ intercessions soon give way to entrapping word-plays and these are related to the rhetorical “traps” in Amos 1–2. Divine and prophetic speech defy the wish of human authority that they be silent. The figure of Amos eventually disappears from the reader’s view, but not before the prophet has been used as a focal point for the readers’ projections of themselves into the literary world of the text. As the scenes change from ultimate destruction to restoration, the readers appropriate the prophetic voice themselves, especially in the final verse which ends with a declaration of security uttered by “your God”.

prophets), the producers of our book did not provide simple descriptions of Amos’ life, but produced a work of religious literature of the highest order and, in so doing, said something about themselves. What Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi writes of myths is, in my opinion, also true of the literature ascribed to ancient prophets. He writes that through identification with the characters, members of the audience participate in the cosmic drama. To be acceptable, a myth must be reliable from an artistic, or psychological perspective, no other⁷ . He adds that mythology presents believers with moving, dramatic narratives into which the believers project themselves. "The power of these moving stories is in creating powerful identification, and that is the power of art in every case"⁸ . It is one of my premises that such an engagement with the prophet and the deity as a means of self-discovery was a deliberate goal of the literary effort represented by the book of Amos itself, perhaps even above and beyond the need to promulgate particular moral and religious doctrines and viewpoints.

        Scholars have long recognized that, at least in places, the book of Amos does seek a response from the audience as part of the book’s rhetorical scheme. Scholars sometimes speak of the prophetic "rhetoric of entrapment", a phrase which stems from Robert Alter’s comments on 2 Samuel 12,1-15⁹ . There, David is given a case to judge, and he enthusiastically pronounces the death sentence for the misappropriation of a poor man’s sheep. Only then does the prophet Nathan reveal the subterfuge and declare David equally guilty of the murder of Uriah and adultery with Bathsheba. Such a rhetorical trap is often seen in the first two chapters of Amos, although here it is