The Cows of Bashan: A Single Metaphor at Amos 4:1-3

Author(s): TERENCE KLEVEN

Source: The Catholic Biblical Quarterly , April 1996, Vol. 58, No. 2 (April 1996), pp. 215-
227
Published by: Catholic Biblical Association

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43724272

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Catholic Biblical Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to The Catholic Biblical Quarterly

This content downloaded from

1.159.98.155 on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 01:23:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Cows of Bashan:
A Single Metaphor at Amos 4:1-3

TERENCE KLEYEN
Yad Hanadiv/Barecha Foundation
Jerusalem
Israel

In a social situation where the barest necessities of life were a luxury

for one class of people so that affluence and indolence might be a way of
life for another extremely privileged group, Amos believed that nothing
less than the judgment of God, in the form of a terrible reversal of con-
ditions, was imminent. In an economic system where the symbols of a man's
success in the marketplace of the day included the manner in which he was
able to 'keep' his wife, wives, or consorts, the women were obvious signs of
economic imbalance. Nor was their role merely a passive one, however pas-
sive it seemed to be. According to Amos, the unscrupulous behavior of the
men in their political and business affairs (Amos 5:10-12; 8:4-6) was signifi-
cantly motivated by the ambition and greed of their wives or women - in the
background.
Amos, the countryman, searching for a suitable metaphor with which
to characterize the contemptible lives of the women of the privileged class
in Israel, selected a pastoral one. These pampered women reminded him
of the herds of beautiful cattle he had seen in the prosperous pastureland
of Bashan. In both instances, their every need was supplied - to the pampered
women by "their lords," and to the beautiful cattle by nature and by their
herdsmen. For a regular supply of the best in food and drink they had no
concern whatever; by habit and intuition they knew it was no responsibility
of theirs. Whatever the women commanded from "their lords," they received

215

This content downloaded from

1.159.98.155 on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 01:23:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 216 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 58, 1996

(Amos 4: 1). 1 The herdsmen kept the cattle beautifully groomed, as though
for an exhibition or a fair, while the "lords" supplied the expensive wardrobes
which their women might, or might not, choose to wear. The poor, mean-
time, were exploited by someone at every attempt on their part to sustain life.
Amos reports that the poor were the victims of the greedy and successful
businessmen. They were oppressed, trampled over, and crushed down.
Against this scene of real exploitation in the background, Amos imagines
a second scene in which the judgment of God is operative. God, he says, has
sworn by himself, by his own holiness, that the exploitation of the poor for
the benefit of the rich must, and will, come to an end (Amos 4:2). The tolera-
tion of unimaginable hardship for those whose only crime is their poverty
must be matched by a punishment whose extent has not previously been
experienced in Israel. The favored women of Samaria will receive brutal and
humiliating treatment when they are led away to a foreign land.

I. The Problems

The precise sense of this powerful poetic re-creation of the social in-
justice has been a matter of controversy. The MT of Amos 4: 1-3 is as follows:

paw ina ton jrcan rms ntn ivorc 1

msnn d*Vi rnptrwn
:nrwn iwan orrnNV moxn
d*ns dw run īunpa mrr tin vnvn2
nrrcn prmnio nmn osnx new
:mrr-DN3 nrunnn ruroVwm mn ton nmn d^idi3

The English translation of this text in the RSV reads:

1 "Hear this word, you cows of Bashan, who are in the mountain of Samaria,
who oppress the poor, who crush the needy,
who say to their husbands, 'Bring, that we may drink!'
2The Lord GWhas sworn by his holiness that, behold, the days are coming upon
you,
when they shall take you away with hooks, even the last of you with fishhooks.
3And you shall go out through the breaches, every one straight before her; and
you shall be cast forth into Harmon,"
says the Lord.

Although several difficulties emerge in a study of the passage, the central

aporia concerns the nature and number of the metaphors found therein. It

1 F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman ( Amos [AB 24A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday,
1989] 421) correctly judge the force of "their lords" (Drmx) when they say that the title is
"sarcastic, for this exalted title is used of persons who are ordered about like slaves."

This content downloaded from

1.159.98.155 on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 01:23:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 AMOS 4:1-3 217

is commonly agreed that "cows of Bashan" is a metaphoric phrase for

of Samaria, but it is uncertain whether the condemnation is against a
class, or whether it is against women who, as consorts of the divin
the religious rituals, call themselves "cows of Bashan." The latter i
tation has been proposed by P. F. Jacobs, following a suggestion by K.
Jacobs bases his work on the inscriptions above the male and female f
with bovine characteristics on the pithoi discovered at Kuntillet cAjru
also uncertain whether the powerful poetic movement of the passage
ated through a collocation of more than one metaphor, or whether
a single metaphor which animates the whole. This problem emerges, i
ticular, in v 2b, in the description of the manner in which these wom
taken into exile. In order to arrive at an answer to these questio
necessary to make a brief inquiry into (1) the place of the passag
overall message of Amos, (2) the precise force of the phrase "the
Bashan," (3) the sense of three rare words in v 2, perhaps hapax le
having to do with God's judgment and (4) the political context of
prophecy in light of our knowledge of Egyptian and Assyrian pra

II. The Purpose of the Book

The Book of Amos is a forceful condemnation of the apos
northern Israel during the period of Jeroboam II (Amos 1:1). Amos cr
the surrounding cities and countries, Damascus, Gaza, Tyre, Edom, Am
even Judah, and the political orders they symbolize. The burden
accusation is against Israel; the condemnation of the nations, and
Judah, reminds Israel of God's judgment. Amos depicts Israel's tr
sion as multifaceted and complex, but one of the most persistent aspe
Israel's error is the oppression of the poor. The Book of Amos r
complex interplay between the cultic apostasy introduced by Jeroboam
continues in the northern kingdom, and the theme of economic explo
During the reign of Jeroboam II (ca. 787-747 b.c.), Israel enjo
prosperity which had not been known since the days of Solomon.
in part due to the quiescence of the threat of foreign invasion. Eg
preoccupied with her own political concerns, and the Assyrians were y
begin their resurgence under Tiglath-pileser III (745-727 b.c.). A
influence in the west was checked by Urartu, which maintained consi
control over territories. Had these territories been controlled by Assyr
would have strengthened her economic domination considerably. The g
threat to Israel was from the Aramaeans of Damascus, but even he

2 P. F. Jacobs, "'Cows of Bashan' - A Note on the Interpretation of Amos 4:1,"

(1985) 109-10.

This content downloaded from

1.159.98.155 on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 01:23:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 218 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 58, 1996

forces of the North were in control. Jeroboam II extended the borders of

Israel at the expense of Hamath and Damascus (2 Kgs 14:25-28). 3
The Book of Amos condemns Israel on several accounts. These charges
are summarized in the first address to Israel, Amos 2:6-8. The verses follow
a sequence of condemnations of various nations, including Judah, and they
form a climax to this sequence by delineating Israel's sins. In this passage,
Israel is initially condemned because she abuses the "righteous" (P'HS), the
"needy" (jvax), the "poor" (D^Vr), and the "afflicted" (D^av, see vv 6-7). The
import of this initial criticism is financial. Wealth is preferred to justice.
Second, Israel is condemned for her deplorable sexual practices (v 7). Third,
she is condemned because she participates in the practices at the altars of
foreign gods (v 8).
These three charges are interwoven throughout the book; they surface
at various points and in various forms. The idolatrous cultic practices are
addressed, for example, in 3:14; 4:4-5; and 5:21-22. The metaphor of the loss
of virginity is used in 5:2 to depict Israel's apostasy, although the sexual
waywardness of Israel does not predominate in Amos's prophecy. In religious
matters, too, Israel is unfaithful. Israel commands the young men raised up
to be prophets to be silent, and those who are to be Nazirites are made to drink
wine (2: 1 1). The sacrifices at Bethel and Gilgal are a transgression (4:4-5; 5:5).
But Amos's preeminent charge is against Israel's financial exploitation. There
is "robbery in her strongholds" (3:10), bribery (5:12), luxury without concern
for spirituality (6:4-7); the needy are trampled down (8:4 and throughout the
book). The causal link between these patterns of economic exploitation and
the cultic practices in Bethel and Gilgal is a complex and delicate one. In
dispersing both themes throughout the book, Amos establishes a link between
the perpetuation of the sins of Jeroboam I and Israel's oppression of the poor
under Jeroboam II. It is sufficient here to note that Amos's condemnation of
economic exploitation is the most persistent charge in the book. It was during
this time of political security and prosperity under Jeroboam II that the
exploitation of some people by other Israelites was at its peak.

III. The "Cows of Bashan"

In the midst of Amos's sustained criticism of various aspects of Israelite

politics stands our passage, singling out a particular group who are complicit
in the exploitation. The women of Samaria are censured in our passage b

3 H. W. F. Saggs, The Wonder That Was Babylon: A Survey of the Ancient Civilization
of the Tigris-Euphrates Valley (London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1988) 99. M. Noth, The Histo
of Israel (2d ed.; New York/ London: Harper & Row, 1960) 249-50.

This content downloaded from

1.159.98.155 on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 01:23:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 AMOS 4:1-3 219

the use of the forceful metaphor of the "cows of Bashan." The eleme
economic exploitation is powerfully evoked in this metaphor, becaus
we know from numerous biblical texts, the region of Bashan is a pr
example of prosperity. Although the precise borders of this Transjordan
region are uncertain, "Bashan" seems to have designated primarily a
north of the Yarmuk River; it may have included land near the la
Huleh and Kinneret. It was a region known for its fertile land and
rainfall. The numerous references to Bashan in biblical passages atte
the bounty of this land (Deut 32:14; Ps 22:13 [MT]; Isa 2:13; 33:9; Jer
Mie 7:14; Ezek 27:6). Bashan is especially noted for the prosperity o
cattle (Deut 32:14; Ps 22:13 [MT]; Ezek 39:18). Mount Hauran (Jebel
Druze) is probably the biblical Mount Bashan (Ps 68:15), which ranks
with Lebanon and Carmel in beauty and grandeur (Isa 33:9; Jer 22:20;
Nah 1:4), even when the loss of this beauty is depicted. Bashan is also
famous for its oaks (Isa 2:13; Ezek 27:6; Zech 1 1:2). 4 Some of the land to
the northwest of Bashan (part of the Golan) is rocky desert, of marginal
value for production, but Bashan itself was renowned for its prosperity.5
Thus, the mention of the geographical location vividly evokes the wealth
of this land; the phrase "cows of Bashan" in its totality denotes the ani-
mals which are the recipients of the goodness of this land. There was no
scarcity for anyone living in this bountiful land, but the prosperity also
generated the injustice.
Jacob's suggestion that the phrase may also designate women who seek
to be the consort of Adonai is possible.6 The pithoi at Kuntillet cAjrud confirm
that the Canaanite mythology - and related Egyptian mythology - surrounding
"the bull El" and his consort Asherah was also a part of the Israelite tradition;
we await further elucidation of the nature of the practices in Dan and Bethel.
Nevertheless, there is good reason to maintain the interpretation of the
metaphor as a poignant criticism of financial exploitation. The emphasis of
the Book of Amos as a whole confirms this, and the mention of Bashan points
to the economic import of the phrase. Moreover, the context here in 4:1-3 is
concerned with the poor and needy rather than with cultic practice.7

4 Y. Aharoni, The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography (London: Burns & Oates,
1966) 34-35.
5 On Bashan see also P. T. King, "Amos," JBC, 249: "Bashan . . . was a fertile area of the
east side of the Jordan, extending south from Mt. Hermon to the Yarmuk River, famous for its
prize cows and rich pastures." See also EncJud, 4. 291-93.
6 S. M. Paul ( Amos [Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991] 128) says "this conjecture
... is totally unfounded," although he gives no reason for his assertion.
7 Targum Jonathan (see A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic 3: The Latter Prophets [Lei-
den: Brill, 1962] 421) translates the phrase as jnmun ND1D3T KłDD3 'TTiy, which K. J. Cathcart

This content downloaded from

1.159.98.155 on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 01:23:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 220 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 58, 1996

Verse 1 is an explication of the errors of these "cows of Bashan." They

oppress the poor (Vt) and crush the needy (jvax). The way in which this
exploitation takes place is revealed in the control they wield over their "lords."
In the concluding two cola of the six-colon line, the women speak to their
lords: "Bring, that we may drink" (nnwn nx^n). The (long-form) imperative
verb nx^n, "bring," makes the order of rule explicit. The women command
their "lords," perhaps, though not necessarily, their husbands,8 to act. These
pampered women are accustomed to having servants, and those who are their
"lords" are ironically commanded to fulfill their every wish. The singular
imperative here is germane, as the poetry moves from the statement of
Amos to the direct speech of each woman to her lord. Whether the request
here is for water (that is, for the daily necessities of life) or for wine (an
exemplification of luxury) is difficult to determine. The verb "to drink" (nnw)
is used of drinking both water and wine in the Book of Amos (see 4:8 and
6:6). If the force of the verb is "to imbibe," as it is sometimes translated, it
reinforces the sense of these women's indulgence. Whatever the precise sense
of the verb may be, Amos depicts these women both as being in control and
as spoiled. The erotic relation of these women to their lords cannot be
dismissed, inasmuch as the women would be pampered because of their
favors. Paul accurately judges that the rhetorical force of the three active
participles (moxn, mxnn, mpwyn) marks the continuous exploitation by
these women.9

IV. God's Judgment

In forceful contrast, Amos 4:2 soberly reminds these women of the
nature of God's holiness. The pampered of Bashan will be conquered by
foreigners and exiled from their luxurious land. The theme of defeat and
exile is not unique to this passage in the book. Gaza is condemned for
carrying a people into exile (1:6); the king and the princes of the Ammonites
are to go into exile (1:15); and even as the Lord does not spare the foreign
nations who live by oppression, so Israel will be punished (3:11) and exiled
(5:5,27; 6:7; 7:11,17).

and R. P. Gordon ( The Targum of the Minor Prophets [The Aramaic Bible 14; Edinburgh:
T. & T. Clark; Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1989] 82) in turn translate as "you who are
rich in possessions in the city of Samaria." The translation includes both men and women. At
the end of the verse, the MT's "lords" is translated as "nobles" (prma"i). The Aramaic translation
unequivocally indicates the financial import of the phrase.
8 Either "lords" or "masters" is preferable to the ÄSK's "husbands."
9 Paul, Amos, 129.

This content downloaded from

1.159.98.155 on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 01:23:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 AMOS 4:1-3 221

It was basic to Israel's belief in Adonai that her Lord might u

nation as the instrument through which he exercised judgment on
one, even against Israel and Judah (2 Sam 7: 14; Isa 10:5; 45: 1; Jer 27:6)
is a suggestion in the Book of Amos that the nation to do this would r
in the east (5:27; 6:14; perhaps here in 4:3), but it is also possible that e
Ashdod (the symbol of the Philistines) or Egypt could be the instrume
God's judgment. Both nations are invited to look upon the oppres
Israel (3:9), as though neither the Philistines nor the Egyptians were ca
of the treachery practiced in Samaria. We know that in this case the ag
of God's anger would be the Assyrians, but in Amos's time the Philisti
the Egyptians could be adversaries just as well as Assyria.
Even the horrible means of the exile is foretold. The precise manne
which the "cows of Bashan" are taken into exile is a central diffic
understanding the passage. There are three nouns in v 2 whose un
meaning raises the question of the nature and number of the metaphor
even the question whether there is a metaphor at all in this description
words translated "hooks" and "fishhooks" are nm and nm nvro; if
singular nouns are mx and to, they are understood in this sense nowhe
in the Hebrew Bible.10 There are two main lines of interpretation, exem
in the two commentaries on Amos by H. W. Wolff and S. M. Paul.
judgment is that the word max is an irregular plural of 1X which refe
hook, and, by extension, to a rope used to lead cattle.11 Thus, Wolff se
maintain the metaphor introduced with the phrase "cows of Bashan," t
he does not emphasize the use of the metaphor. In the other main
interpretation, there is a reference to fishing in the use of these term
strength of this reading has always been that nm nvro seems to refer
type of fish pots.12 To this argument, Paul adds that max is related
talmudic usage of Aramaic xax meaning "basket."13 Paul also cites a
in one of the Mari letters which contains a reference to captured e
wriggling and writhing in a fisherman's basket: "Then I, Dagon, wi
the Benjaminite sheiks wriggle [or "writhe"] in a fisherman's bask
deliver them in front of you."14
The word nan seems to have something to do with fishing, but wh
it was meant to be taken as a word suggesting that the exiles were carr
fish pots is uncertain; in any case, the Hebrew terminology for "h

10 J. L. Mays, Amos (OTL; London: SCM; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969) 72

11 Hans W. Wolff, Joel and Amos (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977) 203-4
12 Paul, Amos, 133. See also S. M. Paul, "Fishing Imagery in Amos 4:2," JBL 97
183-90.

M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the
Midrashic Literature (2 vols.; London: Luzac; New York: Putnam, 1886-1900) 2. 1277, 1290.
14 G. Dossin, "Une révélation du dieu Dagan à Terqa," RA 42 (1948) 130, cited by Paul,
Amos, 134.

This content downloaded from

1.159.98.155 on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 01:23:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 222 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 58, 1996

ambiguous and perhaps equivocal, and the same word for hooks may have
been used in both agriculture and fishing.15 The translation of the NEB (and
also of the REB ), "when men shall carry you away on their shields, and your
children in fishbaskets," depends, as A. J. Williams reminds us, on under-
standing the words max and nrvo as the plural forms of the nouns rtax,
"shield," and TO, "pot."16 The LXX translator may have understood max as
"shields"; he translated it as ônXoiç. One meaning of this Greek term is
"shield," but it also means "tool" or "implement," and especially "rope."17
Furthermore, the translation "shields" is not what is wanted here, and it may
confuse instead of promoting what the prophet is saying.18 Although a
reference to fishing remains a possibility, it is not clear what its purpose might
be, and with it the poetic impact of the phrase is weak. Israel is not being taken
across a sea to exile, and there is no particular poetic impact if, for some
strange reason, an army brings fish baskets to carry off its prisoners of war.
The Mari correspondent's reference to Dagon's capturing the Benjaminites
is in itself a forceful poetic line, but the emphasis is on the wriggling or
writhing of the captured, a sense which fish in the fisherman's basket evoke
very well. There is no wriggling mentioned in our passage in Amos. Moreover,
the Akkadian term for fisherman's basket is not cognate to any of the words
we have here, nor, indeed, does Paul, in his commentary on Amos, seek to
show that it is.
The lexicographic inventory supports the first reading. One of the classic,
standard léxica, entering the max of Amos 4:2 as a plural of *nax, "apparently"
meaning "hook, or barb (of fishing-spear?)," associates it radically both with
D*»ax (Job 5:5; Prov 22:5), plural of a *]X to which the meaning "thorn(?),
barb(?)" is assigned, and with □a'OX (Num 33:55) or D^aax (Josh 23:13), plural
of a *px supposed to mean "thorn, prick," placing all three of these separate
entries under a common hypothetical root *]ax whose meaning is said to be
obscure.19 S. J. Schwantes notes a plausible philological cognate in the
Akkadian word sinnatu, which, like serretu, means "nose-rope, halter, or
reins"; Schwantes adds that the Greek term onka may have the sense of

15 M. A. Canney, "Amos," A Commentary on the Bible (ed. A. S. Peake; London/ New

York: Thomas Nelson, 1920) 550: "Fish hooks may, of course, mean hooks like fish hooks."
A. J. Williams, "A Further Suggestion about Amos iv 1-3," VT 29 (1979) 207.
A. Oepke, "öttXov," TDNT, 5. 293; but compare the entry in LSJ s.v.
18 W. R. Harper (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Amos and Hosea [ICC;
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1905] 87) notes that "The translation 'shields' gives no sense here; the
same is true of "thorns'." See F. H. W. Gesenius (A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old
Testament [tr. E. Robinson; 2d English ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1910] 216) for a translation and
comment on 4:2: "'he will take you away with hooks . . . your posterity with fishing hooks' - a
figure taken from animals which are tamed by putting hooks or rings in their noses; compare
with Isa 37:29."
19 BDB, 856b.

This content downloaded from

1.159.98.155 on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 01:23:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 AMOS 4:1-3 223

"ropes."20 Although the LXX never uses ônXov for a rope, the Greek ma
be naming a bridle which includes both a hook and reins. Paul judge
the Akkadian parallel is not justified, because the term is used rarel
contexts where the sense is uncertain. It must be remembered, however,
the first clue for the sense of the term comes from Biblical Hebrew itself
that the Akkadian at best supplements what can already be known f
biblical contexts. Although the philological solution to these unpreced
Hebrew forms is not definitive, the standard lexicographic proposals are
strong possibilities. When we add to this the forceful literary context of
passage, the numerous references to certain relevant practices in other b
lical texts, and what we know of both Egyptian and Assyrian activity
plausible to judge that the term may well designate some type of hook t
was used for animals - and in some cases, for humans.
If we reflect on the parallel term nvro, we have another clue to the
of v 2b. The word TO is definitely used in the sense of "thorn" or "
(Isa 34:13; Hos 2:8 [MT]; Nah 1:10; Qoh 7:6). 21 These occurrences are,
sure, masculine plural forms of the noun; the only attested feminine plu
are found in our text. It is possible, however, for a noun to have both m
line and feminine forms,22 and in a context in which the sense of the n
is difficult it is best not to state dogmatically that the feminine nouns
exist. Moreover, a word with a sense related to mTD is mn, which may h
as its basic meanings "brier, bramble" and "hook [or] ring"; mn is related
nn,23 which may mean "hook, ring, [or] fetter."24 With both mn and n
have allusions to prisoners being led away into captivity, either metaphori
by analogy with animals, or literally.
A significant part of the uncertainty surrounding the translation of t
verses has been the assumption that the oracle began with one metaphor
of cattle, only to change without warning to a second one, that of fish.2
assumption that Amos changed his subject or metaphor from cattle to fi
for whatever reason - presumably the better to make his point abou
future of Israel - may not be necessary. Actually, a change of the metap
which is perceptive already in the first instance would weaken, rather t
strengthen, what he wants to say. He deliberately selected the cattle of Ba

20 S. J. Schwantes, "Notes on Amos 4:2b," Z AW 19 (1967) 82-83.

21 BDB, 696b.
22 GKC §124e.
23 BDB, 296a.
24 Gesenius, Hebrew and English Lexicon, 307: the primary meaning of nn (pl. D'nn) is
"a hook, ring, inserted in the nostrils of animals, to which a cord was fastened in order to drag them
about, or subdue and tame them." See 2 Kgs 19:28; Isa 37:29; Ezek 19:4; 29:4; 38:4; cf. Job 40:26.
25 H. E. W. Fosbroke, "Amos," IB, 4. 802.

This content downloaded from

1.159.98.155 on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 01:23:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 224 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 58, 1996

a particular geographical region so closely identified with pastoral prosperity

and bovine quality that nothing more than the name was needed to set the
stage for his awesome prediction. It is possible that the Hebrew terms for hook
were used in both fishing and agriculture, even as the word hook is used in
English in both contexts, but this twofold usage does not imply that Amos
is mixing metaphors.
The metaphor is continued in the next line (v 3). Each woman (nwx) will
go out through the breaches in the walls, each behind the other (rraa nwK).
The mention of women is a central indication that the metaphor of the "cows
of Bashan" continues. Moreover, the exiles move in single file, like animals
being led in or out of a pasture. These two precise details are strong indica-
tions of Amos's elaboration of the metaphor of cows.
This reading also precludes suggestions that the punishment is death.
K. Marti, in an attempt to make sense of the text without getting drawn too
seriously into trying to understand the role of "fishhooks" or "fishbaskets" in
this prophecy, understood 4:2b-3 in a way that implied death:

They will lift up your noses with hooks, and your hinder parts with barbed
poles,
As dung and dirt shall ye be dragged away, And naked shall ye be cast forth.26

But the theme of exile, well attested in the book, is also found here. Paul
affirms that it is more reasonable to explain the text, with the verb mxsn, "go
out" (perhaps pual), as referring to exile.27 The finality of death, which may
indeed have been thought a blessing, does not parallel the long-term oppres-
sion of the poor, against which Amos is moved by God to speak, as closely
as does the prospect of a living death in exile. Amos forcefully builds his
poetic passage to make the point.

V. Egyptian and Assyrian Practices

Egyptian and Assyrian evidence confirms and elucidates this reading.
The Egyptians used leashes and rings for leading cattle.28 We also know
that prisoners of war were tied in various ways, often excessively cruel, as they
were led into captivity.29 The Egyptians also used ropes to lead the conquered

26 Cited from R. S. Cripps, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Amos
(London: SPCK; New York: Macmillan, 1929) 167.
27 Paul, Amos, 135-36.
ANEP, fig. 101 and p. 261. A. Mekhitarian, Egyptian Painting { The Great Centuries of
Painting; New York: Skira, 1954) 40.
29 ANEP, fig. 1 and p. 249.

This content downloaded from

1.159.98.155 on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 01:23:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 AMOS 4:1-3 225

into captivity. In the temple of Amon at Karnak there are two reliefs whi
show prisoners being led by ropes: in a victory relief of Thutmose III, a god
uses a rope to lead the conquered chiefs of the enemy,30 and in another reli
Amon leads captives into slavery with cords held in his right hand.31
The Assyrians too were infamous for their cruelty in warfare and
their inhumane treatment of the victims of war. It was quite within t
pattern of behavior to burn children alive and to maim, mutilate, and dec
tate adults.32 Those who were physically able to contribute to the Assyrian
economy were taken as captives, to be used as slave labor, and even that w
done in a particularly cruel way, for the Assyrians would drive hooks into
faces of their captives and would drag them along by a rope.33 Nor is eviden
in pictorial form lacking for the Assyrian movement of prisoners. On a st
from Zinjirli, Esarhaddon is shown holding two captives on a leash.
leashes appear to be attached not to a collar around the neck of the prison
but to a ring (a hook?) on the men's faces.34 The ring appears to be below
nose, not in it. In some instances a ring or hook was put through the lip,3
but given the fleshy character of the lip, this would be more likely to inf
pain and humiliation than to serve as a lead point for the captive.36 When
ring was put through the nose of a prisoner, it was, as with animals,
through the cartilage or gristlelike material between the nostrils.37 Certa
it appears that Assyrian prisoners of war, future slaves, were led away fr
their homeland like animals into exile, and it was a well-known Assyr
policy to deport prisoners from one captured city or part of the country
another.38

10 Ibid., fig. 312 and p. 286.

31 Ibid., fig. 349 and p. 290.
32 J. W. Wevers, "War, methods of, " IDB, 4. 804.
33 W. A. L. Elmslie, How Came Our Faith: A Study of the Religion of Israel and Its Sig
ficance for the Modern World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1948) 257.
34 ANEP, fig. 447 and pp. 300-301.
35 G. Rawlinson, The Five Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World (New Y
Dodd Mead, 1881) 243.
36 See Williams, "A Further Suggestion," 206-11, esp. p. 208, where, in n. 9, he qu
G. Fohrer ( Das Buch Hiob [KAT 16; Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1963] 529 n. 6) on Job 40:26: "
Gefangene wurden an Stricken geführt, die in den Lippen oder Nasenlöchern befestigt w
37 ANEP, fig. 440 and p. 300, where we find J. B. Pritchard's description: "In a pane
the top of a broken obelisk is shown the Assyrian king . . . standing before four of his ene
whom he holds by ropes tied to rings through their noses." He refers to Isa 37:29; 2 Kgs
Ezek 38:4.

See B. Oded, Mass Deportations and Deportees in the Neo-Assyrian Empire (Wies-
baden: Reichert, 1979); I. Ephcal, "Israel: Fall and Exile," The Age of the Monarchies : Political
History { WHJP 1/4/1; Jerusalem: Massada, 1979) 189-90.

This content downloaded from

1.159.98.155 on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 01:23:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 226 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 58, 1996

There is, then, nothing in Amos's imaginative description of the behavior

of either the Egyptians or the Assyrians as conquerors that would exceed their
actual reputation. The judgment of God, meted out by the foreign nation,
would be terrible.

VI. Conclusions

As a countryman, Amos knew that large or otherwise difficult cattle,

both male and female, often had a ring fixed through their noses.39 This had
the effect of making the animals manageable, after the wound created to
insert the ring had healed, and of allowing even young boys to lead animals
that would otherwise be well beyond their control. He knew as well that
unless domestic cattle are frightened into a panic, they will move single file
to and from pasture and will move out of bounds through a breach in their
fenced-off enclosure in precisely the same way. Associated with the image
of the cattle of Bashan were all of the features the prophet thought neces-
sary to contrast vividly the present economic security and comfort of the
women of Samaria, and the insensitive system that supported them, with
their undignified and traumatic future under the humiliating policies of a
brutal foreign army.
These women, along with those able-bodied enough to serve as slaves or
as leaders of the nation, are to be led away in a pitiful procession into exile,40
with rings in their noses, or hooks in their foreheads.41 They will go single
file, like cattle, through a breach which an enemy has made in the walls of
their defenses. But unlike the cattle who are led out in contentment to the
security and providence of their pastures, the women of Samaria, and the men
whom they have enslaved as companions, will be led out into exile and an
unknown future as prisoners of war. Amos is astutely aware of the subtle
control exercised by these women of Samaria and of the exploitation they
have been causing. Exploitation of the needy, whether by men or women, will
receive the most humiliating judgment. Amos knows that the exploiters are
not above the judgment of God. With finely constructed poetry drawing upon
one central metaphor, Amos delivers his cutting rebuke. Schwantes com-
ments that "any attempt to translate this difficult line [Amos 4:2b] must do
justice to the picture the prophet is describing."42 This is precisely what is

39 Probably not only large cattle but other animals as well, particularly swine in rural
areas where interdictions against swine were ignored.
40 Mays, Amos, 9.
41 Williams, "A Further Suggestion," 207.
42 Schwantes, "Notes," 83.

This content downloaded from

1.159.98.155 on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 01:23:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 AMOS 4:1-3 227

done when we recognize that Amos maintained throughout his orac

single and most suitable metaphor, that of the cows of Bashan.43

43 I wish to thank Dr. Sheldon MacKenzie, a colleague at Memorial University of

foundland, without whose inspiration in the daily affairs of teaching and in the int
contributions to the understanding of this passage this essay would not have been writte
wish to thank the Yad Hanadiv/ Barecha Foundation for the financial support which allo
to complete this essay here in this ancient city of Jerusalem, and the Hebrew Unive
Jerusalem for tenuring my fellowship.

This content downloaded from

1.159.98.155 on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 01:23:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms