Hosea 6:6. For the word hesed see Glueck, Das Wort hesed (Giessen, 1927) translated by A. Gottschalk, Hesed in the Bible (Cincinnati 14 1967) pp. 56 ff. “The Concept of Grace in the Book of Hosea,” ZAW 70 (1958), pp. 98–106.


Amos 5:24.


Micah 6:8.


Isaiah 1:17.


Jeremiah 22:3.


Amos 5:21. See also vv. 22 and 23. On vv. 25–27 as a possible later gloss see Jozaki, The Secondary Passages in the Book of Amos (Nashinomiya, Japan, 1956), p. 42. See also J. Morgenstern, “Amos Studies IV,” Hebrew Union College Annual, Vol. 32 (1961), p. 346.


Hosea 6:6. Cf. 8:11, 13.


Isaiah 1:13–15.


Jeremiah 6:20.


Micah 6:7.


Among the representative articulations of this position, we may cite C. J. Ball, The Prophecies of Jeremiah (New York, 1893), especially p. 166; J. B. Gray, Isaiah (New York, 1912), p. 17; L. Kohler, Amos (Zurich, 1917), pp. 5, 21–25; G. A. Smith, Jeremiah (New York, 1922), pp. 156ff.; J. Skinner, Prophecy and Religion: Studies in the Life of Jeremiah (Cambridge, England, 1922), p. 181; R. S. Cripps, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Amos (London, 1929), p. 198; A. Lods, The Prophets and the Rise of Judaism (New York, 1937), pp. 69, 85; N. Snaith, Mercy and Sacrifice: A Study of the Book of Hosea (London, 1953); W. Rudolph, Hosea (Gutersloh, 1966), pp. 6 f.; J. L. Mays, Hosea: A Commentary (Philadelphia, 1969), p. 98; O. Kaiser, Isaiah 1–12: A Commentary (Philadelphia, 1972), pp. 14–16. Cf. also, for example, among the rabbinic commentators, Kimhi to Micah 6:8 and Abravanel to Hosea 6:6.


Thus, for example, T. K. Cheyne, The Prophecies of Isaiah Vol. I (New York, 1895), p. 6; A. S. Kapelrud, Central Ideas in Amos (Oslo, 1956), pp. 75 f.; G. E. Wright and R. H. Fuller, The Book of the Acts of God (Garden City, 1957), pp. 154, 160, 162; W. Harrelson, Interpreting the Old Testament (New York, 1964), pp. 263, 426. (Harrelson incidentally believes, without foundation, that “Jeremiah goes farther than his predecessors Amos, Hosea, Isaiah and Micah in attacking the sacrificial system as such,” pp. 262 f.); and G. Fohrer, History of the Israelite Religion (Nashville, 1967), pp. 281 f., 287.


Thus, for example, Y. Kaufmann Toledot ha-Emunah ha-Isrelit Vol. X (in English translation, abridged as well as translated by M. Greenberg, under the title The Religion of Israel) (Chicago, 1960, New York, 1972), pp. 160 f., 345, 365 ff.; J. Mauchline, Hosea, The Interpreters Bible, Vol. VI (New York-Nashville 1956), p. 628; J. Bright, Jeremiah (Garden City, 1965); and E. W. Nicholson, Jeremiah (Cambridge, England, 1973), pp. 80 f. Others appear clearly to contradict themselves. See, for example, E. J. Young, The Book of Isaiah (Grand Rapids, 1965), pp. 61, 66.


B. Thorogood, A Guide to the Book of Amos (London, 1971), p. 65; cf. J. Bewer, The Prophets (New York, 1949), p. 197.


Unfortunately, sociological studies on the Bible (notably the works by Fenton, Buhl, Lods, Causse, Wallis and Weher) are few, for the most part substantively flawed and methodologically obsolete. Sociopolitical analysis is practically a virgin territory. See for the problem, H. M. Orlinsky, “Whither Biblical Research?” JBL, 110 (1971), pp. 1 ff., and for the method, M. A. Cohen, “The Role of the Shilonite Priesthood in the United Monarchy of Ancient Israel,” HUCA, 36 (1965), pp. 59–98, esp. pp. 59–62; idem, “The Rebellions During the Reign of David—An Inquiry into Social Dynamics in Ancient Israel,” Studies in Jewish Bibliography, History and Literature in honor of I. Edward Kiev (New York, 1971), pp. 91–112; idem, “In All Fairness to Ahab: A Socio-Political Consideration of the Ahab-Elijah Controversy,” Eretz-Israel, Vol. XII (Jerusalem, 1975), pp. 87–94; and J. R. Rosenbloom, “Social Science Concepts of Modernization and Biblical History—The Development of the Israelite Monarchy,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 40 (1972), pp 437–444.


Considerable light on divergent political positions has been shed by analyses of revolutions. For an overview and bibliography, see W. Laqueur, “Revolution,” International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. 13, pp. 501–507. Such analysis is a sine qua non for the understanding of the Biblical world and its faith. Regrettably, neither Laqueur nor most other social and political scientists pay enough attention to pre-modern revolutions. The ancient period is woefully neglected.


Recognizing this fact, Max Weber remarks that “the pre-exilic prophets … from Amos to Jeremiah and Ezekiel, viewed through the eyes of the contemporary outsider, appeared to be, above all, political demagogues … ” Ancient Judaism (Glencoe, 1952), p. 267.


Jeremiah 1:1.


J. Lindblom conjectures that Amos “joined the sanctuary staff at Bethel.” Prophecy in Ancient Israel (Oxford, 1962), p. 208. Of the others we know nothing. Some claim on the basis of passages like Isaiah 8:2 that Isaiah was a nobleman, but this is just a guess. Lindblom’s assertion (loc. cit.) that Isaiah “seems to have been a prophet of the non-sacral type” and that “Micah was a man from the country-side, perhaps a small freeholder” falls into the same category.


Hardly atypical is Adam C. Welch’s characterization of Amos as an “individual with his personal conviction.” Kings and Prophets of Israel, N. E. Porteous, ed. (London, 1952), p. 117. Obviously the statement was not intended as a truism.


Such is the view, for example, of E. W. Heaton, The Hebrew Kingdoms (London, 1968), p. 276.


Amos 7:12 f.


Jeremiah 32:2 ff., 37:15 ff.


Jeremiah 26:20 ff.


For example, Jeremiah 26:11, 37:13 f., 38:4. See also S. H. Blank, Jeremiah, Man and Prophet (Cincinnati, 1961), pp. 9 ff.


Amos 7:10.


Parallels between the Temple and the contemporary synagogue or church are infelicitous. See, for example, the typical statement by G. E. Wright and R. H. Fuller, The Book of the Acts of God (Garden City, New York, 1957), p. 154, where, speaking of the prophets, they say, “What God wants is not simply pious acts in church; he wants a righteous national life from his people. And anyone who thinks that worship can be used as a substitute or as a cover for social responsibility, or in modern terms, that “religion can be used as an opiate to hide the need for social justice, must understand that God hates this kind of worship and will have nothing to do with it.”


Amos 7:10–17. For an analysis of this key passage, see L. Rost, “Zu Amos 7, 10–17, ” Zahn-Festgabe (Leipzig, 1928), pp. 229–236.


See G. Kateb and B. F. Skinner, “Utopianism,” International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. 16 (New York, 1968), pp. 267–275 and the bibliography therein. As this bibliography reveals, there has been practically no application of contemporary techniques for pre-modern utopias. For an insight, albeit underdeveloped, into this aspect, see J. Morgenstern, “Amos Studies—Part IV”, HUCA 32 (1961), pp. 330 f.


Arguments such as that of W. H. Bennet, The Religion of the Post-Exilic Prophets (Edinburgh, 1907) that “the prophets from Ezekiel onwards for the most part recognize the sacrificial ritual as an antecedent or accompaniment of the restoration of Israel to full fellowship with Yahweh; while … they are even more insistent on the moral conditions of reconciliation,” do not sufficiently stress the fact that by this time there was no chance whatever of their separating ritual and morality.


See M. A. Cohen, “The Hasmonean Revolution Politically Considered,” Salo Wittmayer Baron Jubilee Volume (Jerusalem, 1975), Vol. 1, pp. 265–285; revised version, Journal of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, Fall 1975, pp. 13–34.