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

4. Metacommentating Amos 7In order to practise metacommentary, we need to do someclose reading of commentaries. Here is my first exhibit:In eighth-century Israel the rich got richer and the poor gotpoorer . . . Amos sketches the well-being enjoyed by the upperclasses in the capital cities, the splendid society that was builtupon the misery of the weak and poor . . . Expensive furniture,indolent ease, succulent food, the sound of music, and extravagantindulgence—so the affluent in Samaria live. Every itemrepresents a luxurious sophistication that had been possible inearlier times only for royalty, and remained a world apart fromthe life in the villages. The hollowness of it all only becomesapparent in 6c where this heedless hedonism is thrown into reliefagainst the ‘ruin of Joseph’ from which it is completelyinsulated. 8Such a rich text repays close reading.In eighth-century Israel the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. 9If it is true that the rich got richer, can we be sure that the poorgot poorer? The gap between rich and poor can widen evenwhile everyone’s standard of living is improving. What aboutthose who were neither rich nor poor (? the majority). And inany case, how can we possibly know whether the poverty portrayedin Amos was widespread; how can we know whether therich were in some way responsible for the poverty of the poor orwhether there was some structural cause, which was really noone individual’s fault, for the poverty of a minority?Amos sketches the well-being enjoyed by the upper classes in the capitalcities, the splendid society that was built upon the misery of the weakand poor. 10‘Splendid’ is ironic, is it not? It is not an objective scholarlydescription, is it? It is actually representing Amos’s (ironic) pointof view in the guise of a scholarly description, is it not? Andwhen, at the end, we start to read about what is ‘agreed’ and are told that‘we’ may ‘draw closer and ask him who he is’ (how?), we can feel sure thatthe authors’ trumpeted scholarly interests in the ancient world have beensubmerged by their own ideological beliefs.8 . Mays, Amos, pp. 114, 116.9 . Mays, Amos, p. 114.10 . Mays, Amos, p. 114.