• The s.lrne oivler is observed in our c<litionH of the Ilet). Hible, but in tlie \.\\ v\nio» follows Iloseft. The sanuj is the caj*e iu tlu' Syrlac Lives of the I'l-ojiliets. t^Jreg. Nuz. says —
Miai- txitf tiaiv i<i ypaittrtv oi Sut&tKa 'iluift, K afif^f, Ka't /At\a(ac o TpiTOC.
t The natne has been very variously explained. »Terome, In his prefiiee to -Joel, uiulerstand.s It as ineanlni; one who h^iirn a load, but In the prefaee to .\mios he makes it cquivuieiit to the jif'pft/f that in torn tltiniitfr. Kusebius pives the alternatives Htrotn;, faith ful, tearing thf peojtfe aiutu/er. A Kabbitiieal tradition asserts thai ' the propliet was called Amos because he was heavy (ealleb. 'aitiai) of ronffue,* and represents the Lord as sayinu', ' I sent .\nios. and tiu-y called MmMtamiiterfr.^ Tlio Kabbls ascribed the same physical intlrrnity to Moses, Isatah, atid .leremiah. Gesenius ( Then. 104-1 1 was disposed to seek an K(fyp. etyiuolojry, eomparlnf: such familiar Kcyp. forms as Ainoitin, Anianiti. Kut the most prr>bable view Is that which traces it to the verb 'aman (=to bear), and look.s on It as meau- \netiunli'n-lifaveryiv hurdfncil. 'I'henttetuptat explanation is carried too fur when it Is siiirirested that the name was tm[>osed by the cliiid's parents because of tho heavy load of poverty which ho was doomed to carry.
the OT.* It is almost certain that he was a Judsean by birth : Am li is not absolutely de- cisive, but taken in conjunction with 71- seems to prove that he was a citizen of the southern kingdom. The attempts which have been made to prove his northern origin from the spelling of certain words (4'" o" G»- '■" «^) must be pronounced failures. He owned a small Hock of a peculiar breed of sheep, ugly and short-footed, but valuable for their excellent wool [cf. 2 K 'i*, the only other passage where the word nol-rd (Am V) occurs]. These he pastured in the neighbourhood of Tekoa, in the wilderness of .ludah. (See Tkkoa.) Part of his livelihood was derived from the lightly- esteemed fruit of a few .sycomore trees (T"). His own account of himself (T"- "•) gives us the impres- sion that, though poor, he was independent, anti able, when occasion deiiiaiideil, to leave his flock for a while. This is more probable than the sup- position that he brought his sheep with him from Tekoa to Bethel. It is extremely likely tliat his father had followed the sann^ occupation, for in the East avocations are hereditary. The omission of the father's name in the super.scriptiim of the I)ropliecy would .seem to inilicate that he did not belong to a distinguished family (contrast Is li, Jerli, Ezk P, Hos fi, .loel P etc.). A worth- less Jewish tradition makes the wise woman of Tekoa (2 S 14) to have been his gramlmother.
In his day it wa-s still connnon for those who appeared a.s prophets to come forth from circles where the pr.actices and influences cherished were of such a nature as to prepare men for tliis hjoh office. But he was doing his ordinary work when the impulse came which brought him to Bethel, the ecclesiastical capital of the N. kitigdotn, there to denounce the sins of Israel. Gotl calletl him, with- out any intermediary (7'^ ; cf (Jal 1'), and the call came with a constraining force which left no choice but to follow (.'!»). External events, no doubt, had their influence. It is impossible to read the book without feeling how deeply A. had been im- pressed by the westward movement of the Assyr. colossus, and we may reasonably believe that the campaigns prosecuted in this direction by Salma- nas.sar III. (78:5-773 n.c), or by Assurdanil (773- 7')r) lie), had excited his al.arin. The note of time 1 1, ' two years before the earthquake,' does not afford nmch help in dating his mission. Zee 14' .assigns this earthquake to the reign of Uzziah of .Judah ; and .lerome, on Am P, makes bold to identify it with the one which Josephus (.4)i(. I.X. X. 4) .asserts to have occurred as a punishment of Uzziah's sacrilege : ' quaiuh) iram Domini non solum poina ejus, qui sacrilegus fuit, sed et terne motus ostendit, (juem Hebr;ei tunc accidisse commemorant.' Am U lixes tlie prophet's activity in the jieriod when .Jeroboam II. of I.sr.tel was contemporaneous with Uzziah. This perioii extended from 775 to 760 n.c. The tone of the prophecy leaves little doubt that, when it w.a.s delivered, the bulk of Jeroboam's
• Our Enellsh Dlbles, agreeing In this with tho matorlty o( modern VSS, mention a second Amos. This Is in St'. Luico's account of the (teuealogy of .loseph, the puliitlve father of our Loril, Lk M». Tliere is, however, some nncertaiutv as to whether the correct form is not Aiuoz. Tiie Or. 'Amwc Is luit docl.sive, since it Is used in the L.V.\ inditferently for }'1CN (Is 1') and DIDJ! (Am I'), precisely as , lerome has Amoa In both ca.ses. The I'eshltta also fails to help us. Whereas it transliterates tlie prophet's name . wsC^V antI that ol
Isaiah's father i*^', at Lk S" it comliines the two forms I " '-"'' Dellt/sch and Salklnsoii, In Ih.ir llib. New Testa-
mentti, decide in favour of Amoz, both ctvini; )*i?;n. The (picstlon Is not Important. In nnv case we know nothing con- cerninc the person named, and it is not possible to d.i nnu'e than Btnte the nej;ntive coiu-iuslon that he cannot have lii'en either the [iropbet of Tekoa or the fnllier .>f Isaiah. sceinR he is removed fom .lusepli by an interval of only seven pciioratlone.