A. Alt (“Israels Gaue unter Salomo,” Alttestamentliche Studien für Rudolf Kittel; Beiträge zur Wissenschaft des alten Testaments, 13 [1913], 1-19) has argued that Solomon exempted his own tribe, Judah, from his district organization. W. F. Albright (“The Administrative Divisions of Israel and Judah,” Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society, V-1 [1925], 17-54) has disagreed. The debate hinges about the very ambiguous verse, I Kings 4:19. Regardless of the correct reading of the verse in question, one may doubt if Solomon could have afforded to favor his own tribe to such an extent.
7 Cf. J. Morgenstern, Amos Studies I (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1941), pp. 202-5.
8 The extent of Shishak’s depredations is known from his own inscription, found at Karnak, which lists over 150 places—many of them in northern Israel and Edom as well as in Judah. Cf. Albright, “The Biblical Period,” p. 30. The reader will find excerpts from Shishak’s list conveniently in G. A. Barton, Archaeology and the Bible (7th ed.; Philadelphia: American Sunday School Union, 1937), pp. 456-57.
9 Dates given for the kings of the Divided Monarchy are those of W. F. Albright and will be found in table form on the back cover of the reprinted article mentioned in note 3 above. Cf. idem, “The Chronology of the Divided Monarchy of Israel,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 100 (1945), 16-22.
10 A. Alt (“Das Königtum in den Reichen Israel und Juda,” Vetus Testamentum, I-1 [1951], 2-22) has recently related the inability of the northern state to achieve a stable dynasty to the lively charismatic tradition that existed there. It seems to me that Alt is correct. But the dynastic stability of Judah cannot be explained by the supposition that such a tradition was largely lacking in the southern state. The strong prestige of the Davidic house, and the growing influence of the “David idea” must be taken into account.
11 On the function of the cherubim and the winged bulls cf. Graham and May, Culture and Conscience (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1936), pp. 248-60; W. F. Albright, “What Were the Cherubim?” The Biblical Archaeologist, I-1 (1938), 1-3.
12 The Samaria ostraca are a group of inscribed potsherds which list quantities of oil and wine received as revenue at the court. They date from the reign of Jeroboam II (contemporary of Amos), but the administrative system which they represent may be assumed to be much older. Cf. W. F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1942), pp. 141-42. For a translation of some of them with bibliography cf. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, J. B. Pritchard, ed. (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1950), p. 321.
13 The Bible speaks of Jezebel’s father as “king of the Sidonians.” The power of the Sidonian Phoenicians (Canaanites) was now at its height. Tyre was the chief city. Cf. Albright, “The Biblical Period,” p. 33. For an excellent, brief discussion of Phoenician civilization, idem, “The Role of the Canaanites in the History of Civilization,” Studies in the History of Culture (Menasha, Wis.: Banta Pub. Co., 1942), pp. 11-50.
14 Cf. Chap. I, p. 38.
15 Far our richest source of knowledge are the texts discovered at Ras Shamra on the Syrian coast in the decade prior to World War II. For a useful introduction cf. C. F. A. Schaeffer, The Cuneiform Texts of Ras Shamra-Ugarit (London: Oxford University Press, 1939). For a complete translation of the texts cf. C. H. Gordon, Ugaritic Literature (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1949); cf. idem, The Loves and Wars of Baal and Anat (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1943) for a popular treatment. For an excellent and brief discussion of Canaanite religion cf. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, ch. III.
16 Cf. Chap. I, pp. 23, 37.
17 For a thorough discussion of the prophet orders cf. A. R. Johnson, The Cultic Prophet in Ancient Israel (Cardiff: University of Wales Press Board, 1944).
18 That one of them should curse Ahab for sparing the life of Ben-hadad is to be explained only in the light of the strongly nationalistic and isolationist bias of the early prophets. Ahab’s clemency would ordinarily seem not only humanitarian but politically wise in view of the impending Assyrian menace. Cf. note 21 below.
19 Although the prophets did not themselves go so far, some of them—especially Hosea and Jeremiah—to an extent sympathized with their feelings. After all, Jeremiah highly commended their loyalty to their principles; cf. Jer. 35; 2:1-2; Hos. 9:10 ff.; 11:1-7. Cf. W. F. Albright, “Primitivism in Western Asia,” in A Documentary History of Primitivism, Vol. I (A. O. Lovejoy and G. Boas, Primitivism and Related Ideas in Antiquity [Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1935]), pp. 421-32.
20 Albright, “The Biblical Period,” p. 38, points out that proper names compounded with Baal are quite frequent in the Samaria ostraca of the next century. In any case a reading of Hosea alone is enough to show that Baal worship was far from uprooted.
21 The Bible does not mention this battle at all, but we know of it from Shalmaneser’s own inscriptions. Awareness of the danger which the Assyrian posed for them both is the best explanation for Ahab’s desire to make peace with Ben-hadad (I Kings 20:31-34). For translation of relevant portions of the cuneiform texts, cf. Pritchard, op. cit., pp. 278-79.
22 In 841 B.C. This too is known from Shalmaneser’s inscriptions; cf. Pritchard, op. cit., p. 280.
23 This has been partially illustrated by archaeology; cf. Albright, “The Biblical Period,” pp. 39-40.
24 Most commentators see in the cryptic words of Amos 6:13, “thing of nought” (Heb. lō’ dābār) and “horns” (Heb. qarnayim), the names of two places known from other references in the Bible to have existed in north-central Transjordan. The verse would then read, “You that rejoice over Lodebar, that say, ‘Is it not by our might that we have seized Qarnaim for ourselves?’ ” Presumably allusions to victories of Jehoash or Jeroboam over the Arameans are intended.
25 I am in agreement with those who regard the popular notion of the Day of Yahweh as eschatological, i.e., the time when Yahweh would break into history to judge his foes and establish his rule. See my article “Faith and Destiny,” Interpretation V-1 (1951), 9 ff.
26 His home was Tekoa (1:1), a site which still wears its ancient name (Khirbet Taqû‘), a few miles southeast of Bethlehem overlooking the steep pitch down to the Dead Sea.
27 It is difficult to agree with those—recently A. Haldar, Associations of Cult Prophets Among the Ancient Semites (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells, 1945), p. 112; Miloš Bič, “Der Prophet Amos—Ein Haepatoskopos,” Vetus Testamentum, I–4 (1951), 292-96—who maintain that the words (1:1; 7:14) nôqēd and bôqēr (“herdsman”) denote a cultic functionary. Even granting that the words may on occasion have had a cultic significance, this is no proof that they must always do so. The fact that the early prophets were closely linked to the cult must not be driven to such extremes. The sense of Amos 7:14 is that Amos was not a professional religionist at the time of his call; cf. H. H. Rowley, “Was Amos a Nabi?” Festschrift Otto Eissfeldt, J. Fück, ed. (Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1947), pp. 191-97.
28 Literally, “that reproves in the gate.” The city gate, as we know from numerous references in the Old Testament, was where the elders sat to administer justice. It thus corresponds to the court, as we would understand it.
29
