Metacommentating Amos* Metacommentary, what is that ... - Fontes

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$Nota Bene-- C:\COURSES\ISRAEL~1\SILOAM.NB Job 1$

2 Interested Partiesus that it has been kept from us. We innocent members of thepublic, who go on laying out good money on commentaries,need protection against these commentators who are failing totell us what it is they are failing to tell us. So it becomes anurgent public duty to create a neighbourhood watch committeeof metacommentators who will investigate for us how we arebeing shortchanged.You can search high and low for metacommentary on Amosand Amos commentators, for it is a rare scholar who will stepoutside the ideology of the text and notice how severely traditionalcommentary has been constrained by the outlook of thetext. But I did find one, whose feminist perspective gave her avantage point, outside the text, from which the Amos landscapesuddenly took on new and surprising contours. Judith Sanderson,in The Women’s Bible Commentary, noticed, as everyone elsehas, how the oracles of Amos vigorously condemn the wealthywomen of Samaria for oppressing the poor, but also, as no oneelse has, that they they do not champion the women amongthose poor. And when Amos condemns the wealthy women ofSamaria, because Sanderson is a feminist reader she does notautomatically adopt the prophet’s standpoint, but suspects thathis condemnation is yet another scapegoating of women, whoare being blamed now not only for sexual sins (as usual) but forsocial and economic injustices in society as well. 1 ‘A survey ofmodern commentaries on Amos 4.1 reveals the alacrity withwhich women are blamed for societies’ evils, [and] their relativepowerlessness is disregarded’, she writes, metacommentatingly. 2She is quite right; but her feminist critique is only a paradigm forseveral types of criticism that can be made. 31 . These women, we must recall, are ‘the pampered darlings of societyin Israel’s royalist culture . . . ruling the society of Israel from behind thescenes with sweet petulant nagging for wealth to support their indolentdalliance’ (James L. Mays, Amos: A Commentary [Old Testament Library;London: SCM Press, 1969], p. 72).2 . Judith Sanderson, ‘Amos’, in The Women’s Bible Commentary (ed.Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe; London: SPCK, 1992), pp. 205-209(205-206).3 . I am speaking here only of more or less contemporary commentators.Some older commentators, especially when writing from an avowedlyChristian perspective, did not feel the same degree of inhibition towards
4. Metacommentating Amos 3Metacommentating Amos myself, I propose noticing some ofthe things commentators do. First, they adopt the view of thetext regarding the social and economic situation in ancient Israel.Secondly, they adopt the ideology of the text regarding the existenceof God and the authenticity of the prophetic vocation.Thirdly, they conceal from their readers that this is what they aredoing.1. Commentators and the Social Critique of AmosI take here the woe against the rich in Amos 6.4-7:Alas for those who lie on beds of ivory,and lounge on their couches,and eat lambs from the flock,and calves from the stall;who sing idle songs to the sound of the harp,and like David improvise on instruments of music;who drink wine from bowls,and anoint themselves with the finest oils,but are not grieved over the ruin of Joseph!Therefore they shall now be the first to go into exile,and the revelry of the loungers shall pass away (NRSV).Let me engage first in a little Sachkritik as a backdrop to readingsome commentators. There is undoubtedly a great deal of angerin this passage against the rich in Samaria, and its spirit ofdenunciation against idleness and luxury strikes a chord withdemocratically minded and hard-working readers. But a readerwho has not yet opened a commentary pauses, at least longenough to ask, What exactly is the crime of these Samarians forevaluation of their text. Here, for example, is Richard S. Cripps: ‘[T]heProphet’s conception of God is not perfect. One of the mistakes which theChristian Church has made, resulting in damage impossible to calculate,has been to standardise as eternal and ultimate truth that which was but astage—however lofty—in the slow process of its revelation and discovery . . .If any picture of God found within the O.T. had been perfect, then one ofthe reasons for the appearing of Jesus would have become unnecessary’ (ACritical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Amos [London: SPCK, 1929],p. 25). However unacceptable today the theory of ‘progressive revelation’may be, at least it enabled its adherents to adopt a critical stance towardtheir texts.
Page 1: David J.A. Clines, Interested Parti
Page 5 and 6: 4. Metacommentating Amos 5denly bec
Page 7 and 8: 4. Metacommentating Amos 7In order
Page 9 and 10: his own bread and butter?And here i
Page 11 and 12: same world of discourse:4. Metacomm
Page 13 and 14: 4. Metacommentating Amos 13b. Inner
Page 15 and 16: 4. Metacommentating Amos 15who had
Page 17 and 18: 4. Metacommentating Amos 17Amos’s
Page 19: 4. Metacommentating Amos 19change i

Metacommentating Amos* Metacommentary, what is that ... - Fontes

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?