Reviewed Book: Paul, Shalom M. Amos: a commentary. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1991. Hermeneia

Miller, John W.

English

Wilfrid Laurier University

ConsensusVolume 19Issue 2 Liberation Theology Article 1211-1-1993Amos: a commentaryJohn W. MillerFollow this and additional works at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensusThis Book Reviews is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for inclusion in Consensus by anauthorized editor of Scholars Commons @ Laurier. For more information, please contact scholarscommons@wlu.ca.Recommended CitationMiller, John W. (1993) "Amos: a commentary," Consensus: Vol. 19 : Iss. 2 , Article 12.Available at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus/vol19/iss2/12142 ConsensusAmos: A Commentary on the Book of AmosShalom M. PaulHermeneiaMinneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991409 pages $44.95When launching the Hermeneia series, its editors boldly promised thatpublished volumes would be revised and eventually, new commentarieswould “replace older works in order to preserve the currency of the series”.With this commentary on Amos by Shalom Paul a step toward realizingthat promise has been taken, for this is the second commentary on Amos tobe published in this series. However, the editors warn that it should not bethought of as a replacement for Hans Walter Wolff’s earlier commentary,since the two works are different enough that both will continue to be usefulto the serious student. I would hope their recommendation is heeded, forWolff’s older commentary (published in 1977) contains useful insights intothe locale of Amos and the compositional history of his book which areignored or neglected by Shalom Paul.As might be expected, Paul’s commentary makes rich use of the wealthof research on Amos that has appeared since Wolff’s commentary was pub-lished. Paul is also persuasive in his defense of the essential theologicalunity of the book in all its parts, including its opening and closing words(1:3; 9:10- -15), which are frequently attributed to later editors. Moreover,his work is marked by extended and extremely helpful comments on thegeneral geopolitical history of the times, as well as on the book’s diverseliterary genres, especially as these are illuminated by a wealth of extra-biblical literature.Where Paul’s commentary is not so successful is at the point of situat-ing Amos and his book within a specific Israelite social or theological milieu,or in tracing the book’s compositional history within the institutional de-velopments leading up to canonization. Paul seems to be working witha rather undifferentiated picture of Israelite theological and institutionaldevelopment. As a consequence, Amos is portrayed as a lonely figure whobroke with Israel’s monolithic past and was the first to introduce the “novelideal of the supremacy of morality” into the stream of Israelite religion. In-deed, Paul states that Amos’s concept that morality was the determiningfactor in the destiny of his nation is “a radical shift from the basic outlookexpressed in the Torah literature and in the Former Prophets, where thesin of idolatry was considered the primary transgression”.Were Amos in reality such a pivotal figure in the evolution of Israelitereligion, all the more important would it seem to be to pay some attentionto the question of what community it was that first embraced this radicallynew message, and how it came about that the book of Amos was compiledand preserved and eventually joined to others in the Book of the Twelve,and then added to “the Law and the Prophets”. That Paul neglects to\Book Reviews 143address these issues leaves us with many questions and the rather unsat-isfactory assumption that Amos and his book were a bolt from the blue.Nevertheless, taken as a whole this volume is a substantive contributionwhich pastors and scholars alike will consult with great profit for manyyears to come.John W. MillerProfessor Emeritus, Conrad Grebel CollegeWaterloo, OntarioFrom Jewish Prophet to Gentile God. The Origins andDevelopment of New Testament ChristologyMaurice CaseyLouisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991197 pp.Maurice Casey, lecturer in New Testament and Christian Origins at theUniversity of Nottingham, has written a delightfully provocative book, thethesis of which aims not only for an accurate historical reconstruction ofNew Testament christology, but ultimately a revision of Christianity itself.The book is in the liberal British Anglican tradition, similar in aim andmethodology to the book of essays edited by John Hick in The Myth ofGod Incarnate (London: SCM, 1977), whose contributors, liberal Anglicantheologians, sought to present a contemporary, rationally defensible accountof the Christian faith. As such, Casey’s book represents both the bestand worst of the liberal Anglican tradition: a rigorous, brutally honest,historically grounded appropriation of the Christian faith, but one thatultimately fails to satisfy existentially and begs important questions aboutthe multiple meanings and interpretation of Christian texts. The bookwould be of interest to anyone who is interested in seeing how more radicalNew Testament theology is done in the United Kingdom.Casey’s thesis is that the christology of John’s Gospel, in his estima-tion fully incarnational and latest in the New Testament canon, bears noresemblance to the historical self-understanding of Jesus and that one maydiscern a development in the Christian canon from affirmation of Jesus asa prophet (as testified especially in Q sayings and the historically authen-tic self-designations of Jesus) to the incarnate, pre-existent Word of Godof John. The book is an attempt to account for that development. To dothis Casey describes three stages of New Testament christologicaJ refiection.The earliest stage occurred when the Jesus movement was still exclusivelyJewish. Christological affirmations from Jesus’ own mouth and those of hisimmediate followers, such as Messiah, Son of Man, Son of God, prophet andteacher, when compared with analogous intertestamental titles for agentsor emissaries of God, show that neither Jesus nor his first followers be-lieved that he was God simpliciter,but rather a prophet who in teaching

Amos: a commentary

Scholars Commons

https://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1798&amp;context=consensus

Amos: a commentary

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Wilfrid Laurier University

Scholars Commons