Page images

recently alleged connection of the prophet Amos with the “South (or rather Dry) country,” and the identification of his “river of the wilderness” (Amos vi. 14), with the modern Wady el-Jeib, I feel it to be due, alike to Mr. Grove's eminence as a Biblical geographer, and to myself as the humble originator of these suggestions, to make some remarks in defence and explanation of them. As a subscriber and occasional contributor to The Journal of Sacred Literature from the beginning, I shall feel obliged by your kindly inserting my rejoinder in your correspondence, in the hope that the subject may not be without its interest to Biblical students generally.

I. In disputing the propriety of the designation, “ Prophet of the Negeb,” which I applied to Amos, Mr. Grove appears to stand alone. No other writer, I believe, has called it in question. Indeed, the only other reference to this point, so far as I am aware, is in the Reader of May 2, 1863, which is thus expressed : “For general readers, perhaps the most interesting section of the book is that in which the author draws out the fact that Amos was pre-eminently the Prophet of the Negeb.' Every district of Palestine had its own peculiar prophet-Ephraim its Samuel, Gilead its Elijah, Samaria its Hosea, Jerusalem its Isaiah ; and it is pleasant to be reminded that even the dry, rocky, remote south country' had its Amos.” Of course, when I spoke of Amos as “the Prophet of the Negeb," I did not for a moment suppose that I should be understood to assert that his prophetical functions were exclusively or even chiefly exercised in the Negeb. I merely intended to express my conviction that the imagery employed by Amos proved him to be familiar with the phenomena of the Negeb; which, indeed, is no matter of surprise when we know that he was a sheepmaster” of Tekoa. The connection of Amos with the Negeb had not even crossed my mind when I began to write, but as I found instance after instance in which the most appropriate illustration of Negeb characteristics was supplied by Amos, I was startled by the coincidence, and led to look into the subject; when the whole was explained by the fact of his personal familiarity with life in the Negeb, recorded by himself (Amos i. 1; vü. 14. 15). Being thus no preconceived idea, but one which has grown with the progress of the work, it is the more likely to be a true statement, and not a mere theory.

(1.) I had previously satisfied myself that the Negeb (or Dry country) extended, on the east side of Judah, quite up to its northern limits. The word "wilderness” (midbar) is applied to the pasture grounds east of Maon (1 Sam. xxiii. 25), of Ziph (1 Sam. xxüi. 15), of Tekoa (2 Chron. xx. 20), and of Bethlehem (1 Sam. xvii. 28), as well as to the region west of the Jordan near its mouth (Matt.

« See The Negeb; or " South Countryof Scripture, pp. 17, 34–36, 41, 4548, 60, 189.

See Negeb, p. 45, note. Surely there was at least as much propriety in designating Amos “the Prophet of the Negeb," as in designating Elijah (from a single incident

his life) " the Prophet of Horeb"—which is the title of a published lecture by a popular preacher of the present day.

iii. 1). Nay, the very word Negeb is used in connection with the inheritance of Caleb (Joshua xv. 19; 1 Sam. xxx. 14), which, we know, was adjacent to Hebron (Joshua xxi. 11, 12), and therefore immediately adjoined the wilderness of Tekoa." Thus while these

“” cities (Tekoa perhaps excepted) were themselves in the “Hill country" (Joshua xv. 51, 55), their respective “commons” (as we should call them) were in the Negeb.

(2.) Such is the testimony of Scripture as to the extent northeastwardly of the “Dry country," and as to the strict application of that term to the district of Tekoa; and with this agrees that of Dr. Robinson. I need only refer, in passing, to his map, which repre

, sents the “Wilderness of Judah” as extending to the latitude, not of Tekoa only, but of Jerusalem itself. Of the Arab tribe Ta'âmirah, he writes, “They may be said to occupy, in general, the district lying between Bethlehem, Tekoa, and the Dead Sea ; the eastern part of which is a mere deserť (Bib. Res., ii., 176. First edition). And in reference to the oasis at the fountain of Engedi, he says,

“So far as the water extended, the plain was covered with gardens, chiefly of cucumbers, belonging to the Rashậideh. These Arabs were now encamped in the tract called Husâsaha towards Tekoa; and had only watchmen here to protect the gardens. The soil of the whole plain is exceedingly fertile, and might easily be tilled and produce rare fruits” (Bib. Res., ii., 212). It will be observed that the district, thus jointly occupied by these two Arab tribes, is the identical tract which was known in Scripture both as the “wilderness of Tekoa” and the “wilderness of Engedi.”

(3.) This evident connection, in ancient as in modern times, between the pasture grounds of Tekoa and the fruit gardens of Engedi, throws a curious and interesting light upon the double occupation of Amos, as an owner of sheep and goats, and a “gatherer" or "dresser of sycamore fruit” (Amos vii. 14), and so far strengthens the views for which I am contending.

(4.) In proof of the homogeneousness of this north-eastern extension of the Negeb and its main portion further south, we find Dr. Robinson thus expressing himself, when travelling between Carmel and Engedi: “We recognized among the shrubs many old acquaintances of the southern desert, the 'Ajram, the Retem, and several others; and found ourselves thus in an hour transported back into the scenes of our former journey” (Bib. Res., ii., 202). A little southeast of Maon, he says, “ The extensive tract we now overlooked had

• Lynch says these gardens “ were owned by the Ta’âmirah” (p. 291). This slight discrepancy simply proves the intimate connection of the two tribes.

- This word, applied both to the district and to one of its wadys which "rises near Tekoa(Bib. Res. ii. 244), is evidently a trace of “Hazazon-tamar which is Engedi” (Gen. xiv. 7; 2 Chron. xx. 2); the other part of the compound having doubtless survived in the Ta’âmirah, just mentioned, who give their name to a wady which rises near Bethlehem, and falls into the Dead Sea, a little north of the Husâsah, and whose only village is named Beit-Ta’mar (Bib. Res., ji. 176, 244. • See 1 Sam. xxiv. 1; and compare 2 Chron. xx. 2, with verse 20.


[ocr errors]


much of the general character of that around Beersheba ; with which indeed it is connected, stretching off in that direction around the southwestern termination of the long ridge which we were now crossing... The tract belonged anciently to the south of Judah, lying beyond the mountainous district of that tribe, and extending 80 as to comprise Beersheba and Kadesh(ii., 467).

I think it will now be admitted that Mr. Grove was "incautious (to say the least)" in hazarding the assertion that my identification of Amos's “river of the wilderness" with the Wady el-Jeibs is “a mere conjecture, without a single consideration in its favour beyond the magnitude of the Wady el-Jeib, and the consequent probability that it would be mentioned by the prophet.” But even this partial concession is withdrawn in a note, where he adds, “It has not even the support that it was in the prophet's native district. Amos was no ‘Prophet of the Negeb. He belonged to the pasture grounds of Tekoa, not ten miles from Jerusalem, and all his work seems to have lain in Bethel and the northern kingdom. There is not one tittle of evidence that he ever set foot in the Negeb, or knew anything of it" (Smith's Dict. of Bible, iii., 1772)

II. Notwithstanding this strong language, I will venture to assume, after what has already been adduced, that Amos, as "a sheep owner of Tekoa,” may with propriety be designated the “Prophet of the Negeb.” But it is equally capable of easy demonstration that a Tekoite may not unnaturally be supposed to have some acquaintance with the south-eastern extremity alike of the Negeb and of Palestine. (1.) It is well known that the Bedawîn Arabs do not invariably confine themselves to their own districts, but roam about with their flocks, according to the exigencies of the season. (a.) Scriptural examples of this occur in the persons of Abraham (Gen. xii.) and Moses (Exod. iii. 1). (6.) And the usage is still the same. Dr. Robinson, when at 'Akabah, “met a large caravan of the Haweitât coming from the eastern desert, whence they had been driven out by the drought. They were now wandering towards the south of Palestine” (Bib. Res., i. 239). It is in reference to these same Arabs that he elsewhere adds the important remark, “The right of pasturage in a given region does not belong exclusively to the tribe inhabiting the tract; but any foreign tribe that choses may come in and pasture, and go away again without asking permission (i. 268). (c.) Now it so happens that Ta’âmirah (i.e., Tekoite) Àrabs acted as De Sauley's guides and protectors from Jerusalem, vid Bethlehem, Mar Saba, Engedi, and so southwards along the Dead Sea, to the country of Moab (Trav., i., 136 ; ii., 7). The same tribe with their fellow-Tekoites, the Rashaideh, were encountered by Lynch at 'Ain el-Feshkhah, 'Ain Terabeh, 'Ain-Jidy (Engedi), Sebbeh (Masada), Wady Mubughỉk , (the probable site of Hazar-Gaddah, see Negeb, pp. 114--121), and Usdum; and he actually introduces the portrait of a Ta'âmirah of his party, just after passing the spot

Negeb, p. 34–36.

[ocr errors]

where the Wady el-Jeib finds its way into the Dead Sea (E.rp. to Dead Sea, pp. 279—314). (2.) This, it will be remembered, is the wady which I have ventured to identify with the Nachal ha-'Arabah of Amos, and against which Mr. Grove takes exception. I would, however, invite comparison between this very natural and indeed obvious identification of " the water-course of the 'Arabahwith the Wady el-Jeib, twice described by Dr. Robinson as the vast DRAIN or WATERCOURSE of all the 'ARABAH” (Bib. Res., ii. 497; see also p. 500), and Mr. Grove's proposal to locate it “at the brook of the willows” (Isaiah xv. 7). "His frequent experience and acknowledg. ment of the precision of the sacred writers should make him the last

person to affirm that the difference between singular and plural is of slight importance. I would argue, on the contrary, that it makes all the difference in the world, and is enough, in itself, to indicate that two distinct wadys are intended. I must leave him, however, to explain how the southern boundary of Moab (south-east of the Dead Sea) can also be the southern boundary of the northern kingdom (west of the Jordan); for such seems to be the purport of his article, which scarcely exhibits the accurate research and sagacious reasoning that usually mark his writings.

III. I am equally at a loss to see how he can, with propriety, restrict the application of Amos vi. 14 to "the northern kingdom.” (1.) The prophecy in general is undoubtedly addressed to “ the whole familyof the children of Israel (iii. 1). This is evident from the preamble, which employs the comprehensive term “ Israel," and specifies the southern as well as the northern king (i. 1); thus intimating, in accordance with the prophetic usage, that his work lay in both kingdoms (compare Hosea and Micah, and contrast Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Zephaniah). It is equally apparent from the reference to Zion and Jerusalem, and to Carmel (i. 2), which is clearly the southern, not the maritime Carmel, from the pastoral context, and whose“ dark mountain ridge” (still called Jebel Kurmul, according to Seetzen) would be so familiar an object in the southern horizon to the Tekoite shepherd-prophet (Bib. Res., ii. 189, 194). The same inference is deducible from the allusion to Judah and Jerusalem (ii. 4, 5); to events common to the twelve tribes (ii. 9—11; iii. 1, 2; v. 25); to the general expression “house of Israel” (v. 1–4, 25), as opposed to the more restricted terms “ house of Joseph” and “remnant of Joseph” (v. 6, 15); to Gilgal and Beersheba as well as Bethel (v. 5). This brings us to the sixth chapter, of which the verse now in question is the conclusion ; and there the two kingdoms are clearly alluded to, from the mention of Zion side by side with Samaria (verse 1), and of David with Joseph (5, 6), and then of the two combined under the name Jacob (8); the whole being wound up with the prediction of Assyrian invasion, when the “house of Israel” should be “afflicted from the entering in of Hamath unto the nachal of the 'Arabah,”-evidently referring to the extremes of Palestine north and south, just as in viii. 14, where the more usual formula is implied in the mention of Dan and Beersheba. Not until

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

we reach the seventh chapter is there distinctive reference to Bethel and the northern kingdom, and to the prophet's actual presence there: but even then, the allusion, though special, is not exclusive (see “Jacob,” “My people Israel,” “the high places of Isaac,” " the house of Isaac,” verses 2, 5, 8, 9, 15, 16); and the eighth chapter resumes the former method of regarding the two kingdoms in one comprehensive glance. This is plain from the reference to “My people of Israel” (verse 2); to “the songs of the temple” (3); to “the excellency of Jacob" (7); to “the altar" and other parts of the temple (ix. 1); to the natural caverns of the southern Carmel, frequented by fugitives such as David (verse 3, cf. Bib. Res., ii. 472); to the Exodus of “the children of Israel” (7); to “the house of Jacob” (8); to the dispersion of “the house of Israel among all nations" (9), which is especially true of Judah; to “the tabernacle of David” (11); and to the return of Israel from captivity (14), which has hitherto been fulfilled in respect of Judah only.

(2.) After this analysis of the book of Amos, it may scarcely appear needful to adduce any further considerations in reply to Mr. Grove's assertions that “ Amos was no 'Prophet of the Negeb," ' and that “all his work seems to have lain in Bethel and the northern kingdom.” I will therefore conclude with a short extract from the article on “ Amos" in Dr. Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, by the Bishop of Calcutta, whose opinion may fairly be set against that of his fellow-labourer in the same great work: “He travelled from Judah into the northern kingdom of Israel or Ephraim, and there exercised his ministry, apparently not for any long time. . . . . As the book is evidently not a series of detached prophecies, but logically and artistically connected in its several parts, it was probably written by Amos, as we now have it, after his return to Tekoa from his mission to Bethel(i. 62, 63).

Scofton Parsonage, Worksop, Notte.

5th January, 1864.

[ocr errors]


PERMIT an American reader and admirer of your Journal to offer upon an old question some considerations which he has never seen published. Is Luke iv. 16—31 identical in the events narrated with Matthew xii. 54-58 and Mark vi. 1-6? We believe that it is, and that Mark best indicates the actual historical order in which they stand in the life of our Lord. All that is necessary to prove this is to shew that Luke has placed them by anticipation at the opening of our Lord's Galilean ministry, instead of at the point of their occurrence in order of time. And we may say, once for all, that students of the Gospel history find abundant reason to understand Luke's promise to write with connected arrangement (κοθεξής γράψαι) of logical rather than chronological order. We find then a sufficient logical reason for his placing this account out of its order of time.

« PreviousContinue »