Amos 7:1: At a Glance
The question: Does Amos 7:1 refer to “the king’s mowings” (Masoretic Text) or “Gog the king” (Septuagint), and what does the difference reveal about the text’s transmission and meaning?
Key Scripture: Amos 7:1
“Thus hath the Lord GOD shewed me; and, behold, he formed grasshoppers in the beginning of the shooting up of the latter growth; and, lo, it was the latter growth after the king’s mowings.” --- Amos 7:1 (KJV)
The SCAR Analysis:
| Component | Key Finding |
|---|---|
| Scripture | The MT reads gizzey hammelek (“the king’s mowings”); the LXX reads Gog ho basileus (“Gog the king”). Every ancient version except the LXX supports the MT. The consonantal shift (g-z-y to g-w-g) is difficult to explain as a simple visual confusion. Dead Sea Scrolls manuscripts that include this verse (4Q78, 4Q82) are too fragmentary at the critical point to settle the question. |
| Christocentrism | Jesus does not quote Amos 7:1, but the apostles used the LXX of Amos as authoritative Scripture at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15). The Gog tradition appears in Revelation 20:8. Jesus’s example calls for humility before ambiguity. |
| Antiquity | Greek-speaking fathers read “Gog the king” and identified him concretely: Cyril said Gog = Sennacherib; Theodoret compared Gog to the Scythian horde; Theodore identified Gog as a Scythian vassal-king. Jerome followed the Hebrew “king’s mowings.” Rabbinic tradition (Targum, Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Radak) universally supports the MT. The church lived with both readings for centuries. |
| Reality | Scholarly consensus leans toward MT priority (Wolff, Paul, Stuart, Jeremias). A serious minority gives weight to the LXX Vorlage (Tov, Dines, Glenny). A mediating view holds both as valid textual traditions (Andersen & Freedman, Nogalski). |
Major views:
- MT is original (“king’s mowings”): Fits Amos’s agricultural context and social justice themes; supported by all ancient versions except LXX; grammatically unproblematic. Majority scholarly position.
- LXX preserves an older reading (“Gog the king”): The translator did not randomly generate “Gog”; the coordinated changes (singularization, personification) suggest a coherent reading; the LXX is the oldest translation. Minority but serious position.
- Both readings are valid traditions: Textual plurality was a reality in the Second Temple period; both readings are theologically fruitful. Mediating position.
Common ground: The theological message is identical in both readings --- God reveals judgment, the prophet intercedes with compassion, and God mercifully relents. The character of God is not in dispute.
For every believer: This textual question does not affect any doctrine of the faith. It deepens our appreciation for Scripture’s rich transmission history and calls us to approach ambiguity with humility, honesty, and love for those who see it differently.