Chapter 4: Reality --- Scholarly Views on Amos 7:1

The Views in Practice

View 1: The Masoretic Text Is Original (“King’s Mowings”)

Held by: The majority of evangelical and critical Old Testament scholars; all major English translations (KJV, ESV, NASB, LSB, NIV)

Core claim: The Hebrew gizzey hammelek (“the king’s mowings”) is the original reading. The LXX “Gog the king” is a secondary development --- either a scribal error, a different Vorlage, or a deliberate apocalyptic reinterpretation by the Greek translator.

The strongest case:

Hans Walter Wolff (Joel and Amos, Hermeneia, 1977) regards the MT as original. He interprets gizzey hammelek as a technical term for the royal prerogative of the first hay cutting. Wolff argues the agricultural imagery fits Amos’s rural background --- he was a shepherd and sycamore fig dresser from Tekoa (Amos 7:14) --- and the vision’s emphasis on economic oppression. The LXX reading, in Wolff’s view, is a secondary apocalypticizing interpretation influenced by the Ezekiel Gog tradition. The vision’s power lies precisely in its mundane realism: the locusts destroy what little the poor have left after the king has taken his share.

Shalom M. Paul (Amos, Hermeneia, 1991) is perhaps the most thorough defender of the MT reading. He provides extensive philological analysis of gez and its cognates in Akkadian (gizzu, “shearing”) and notes that the construct plural gizzey is perfectly regular Hebrew morphology. Paul argues that the LXX translator either misread the consonants or reinterpreted the passage under the influence of the Gog-Magog eschatological tradition already established by the time of the Greek translation (3rd-2nd century BCE). The agricultural reading is more consistent with the concrete, this-worldly character of Amos’s visions.

Douglas Stuart (Hosea-Jonah, WBC, 1987) follows the MT without significant discussion of the LXX variant. He treats “the king’s mowings” as an established agricultural practice and focuses on the timing element --- the locusts come after the royal levy, when the people are most vulnerable.

Jörg Jeremias (The Book of Amos, OTL, 1998) follows the MT and interprets the first vision as a concrete agricultural scene that becomes a vehicle for theological vision. He sees the progression from concrete (visions 1-2) to symbolic (visions 3-4) to direct (vision 5) as a carefully structured rhetorical strategy.

Strengths of this view:

Supported by every ancient version except the LXX (Vulgate, Peshitta, Targum, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion)
Fits Amos’s agricultural background and social justice concerns
The morphology (gizzey from gez) is grammatically unproblematic
The literary progression from concrete to cosmic is aesthetically satisfying
Rabbinic tradition universally supports it

Honest challenges:

The LXX Minor Prophets translator is generally competent --- why would such a dramatic divergence occur?
If this is merely a misreading, why does the LXX also singularize the locusts (“one locust-larva”) and add the title “the king”? These changes suggest something more than a simple scribal error.
The consonantal shift from g-z-y to g-w-g is difficult to explain as a visual confusion alone

View 2: The Septuagint Preserves an Older Reading (“Gog the King”)

Held by: Some text-critical scholars; those who give significant weight to the LXX Vorlage hypothesis

Core claim: The LXX reflects a Hebrew Vorlage that read Gog hammelek (“Gog the king”), and the MT’s gizzey hammelek represents a later domestication of an originally apocalyptic reference. Or alternately: the LXX translator accurately rendered a genuinely different Hebrew text that circulated alongside what became the proto-MT.

The strongest case:

Emanuel Tov (Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed., 2012) provides the theoretical framework. Tov has demonstrated that the LXX often reflects a Hebrew Vorlage that differs from the proto-MT, and that in some cases the LXX preserves an older reading. He classifies many LXX variants in the Minor Prophets as reflecting genuine textual differences rather than translation errors. The Dead Sea Scrolls have confirmed that multiple text forms circulated in the Second Temple period. The Amos 7:1 variant is an example where the Vorlage question is genuinely open.

Jennifer Dines (The Septuagint, 2004) notes that the LXX Minor Prophets translation is early (likely 2nd century BCE) and that its divergences from the MT cannot be uniformly attributed to translator error. The “Gog the king” reading may reflect a genuine Hebrew textual tradition.

W. Edward Glenny (Amos: A Commentary Based on Amos in Codex Vaticanus, Brill, 2013) provides the most thorough modern treatment of the LXX variant and its reception. This Septuagint Commentary Series volume examines the Greek text on its own terms, not merely as a translation of the Hebrew.

If the LXX reading is original, the implications are significant: Amos (8th century BCE) would predate Ezekiel (6th century BCE) as the earliest biblical reference to Gog. The Gog tradition would not be an Ezekielian innovation but a figure from earlier prophetic tradition that Ezekiel massively expanded.

Strengths of this view:

The LXX translator did not randomly generate the name “Gog” --- something in the Vorlage prompted it
The singularization of the swarm into “one locust, Gog the king” suggests a deliberate, coherent reading, not a simple error
The LXX’s early date (2nd century BCE) means the translator was closer to the original than the Masoretes (6th-10th century CE)
Tov’s work on textual plurality provides a strong theoretical framework
The Acts 15 precedent shows the apostles treated the LXX of Amos as authoritative Scripture

Honest challenges:

The LXX stands alone --- no other ancient version reads “Gog”
The Targum does not read Gog here, despite the Gog tradition being well known in Jewish circles (the LXX reads “Gog” in Numbers 24:7; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan references “armies of Gog” in Numbers 24:17)
The consonantal shift from g-z-y to g-w-g requires either a genuinely different text or a deliberate reinterpretation
If Amos (c. 760 BCE) referenced Gog, this predates Gyges of Lydia (c. 680-644 BCE), the most common identification for the historical Gog
Building significant theological claims on a variant unique to one textual tradition is methodologically precarious

View 3: Both Readings Reflect Valid Textual Traditions

Held by: Scholars who emphasize textual plurality in the Second Temple period; scholars of the Book of the Twelve as a redactional unit

Core claim: Both readings may derive from different stages of the text’s transmission history. The “king’s mowings” may be the earlier reading that was later reinterpreted as “Gog the king” in some manuscripts (reflected in the LXX), or both may reflect independent ancient traditions. Rather than asking “which is original?”, this view asks “what does each reading contribute?”

The strongest case:

Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman (Amos, Anchor Yale Bible, 1989) provide the most balanced assessment. While they ultimately favor the MT reading, they give serious weight to the LXX and note that the translator is generally competent and not prone to wild departures from the Vorlage. They suggest the LXX may reflect a variant Hebrew text rather than a simple error. Their position is that the MT is more likely original, but the LXX cannot be dismissed.

James Nogalski (Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve, 1993) and Ehud Ben Zvi have noted that intertextual connections between the prophets were created and strengthened during the editorial process of compiling the Book of the Twelve. The Gog reading in Amos 7:1, whether original or secondary, participates in a network of cross-references within the Twelve and between the Twelve and Ezekiel.

Myrto Theocharous (Lexical Dependence and Intertextual Allusion in the Septuagint of the Twelve Prophets, 2012) examines the translation technique of the LXX Twelve and argues that some divergences reflect deliberate intertextual connections. The Gog reading could be an example of the translator connecting Amos’s locust vision to the Ezekiel tradition.

Strengths of this view:

Avoids the false dilemma of forcing one reading to be “right” and the other “wrong”
Consistent with what we know about textual plurality in the Second Temple period
Recognizes that both readings are theologically fruitful
Honors the church’s historical experience of living with both texts

Honest challenges:

Some readers will feel this approach avoids the question rather than answering it
Textual criticism traditionally aims to reconstruct the “original” text, not simply accept all variants
If one reading is secondary (whether MT or LXX), understanding how it arose illuminates the text’s reception history

Summary of the Evidence

Evidence	Supports MT	Supports LXX	Neutral
Hebrew morphology (gizzey is regular)	Yes
Agricultural context of Amos	Yes
1 Kings 18:5 parallel	Yes
Targum Jonathan	Yes
Peshitta	Yes
Vulgate	Yes
Jerome’s commentary	Yes
Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion	Likely
LXX text (2nd c. BCE)		Yes
Greek patristic commentaries		Yes (they read it)
Singularization of the swarm		Suggests deliberate reading
Consonantal analysis	Slightly favors	Possible
Dead Sea Scrolls			No evidence either way
8HevXIIgr			Not preserved for this verse
Tov’s textual plurality theory			Both could be ancient
Extra-biblical Gog traditions		Gog is a known name
Acts 15 (LXX of Amos as authoritative)		Indirect support

Pastoral Considerations

How does a textual criticism question affect the life of a believing community? This may seem like a purely academic exercise, but it touches on questions that matter pastorally:

Can we trust our Bibles? Yes. The textual variant in Amos 7:1 does not affect any doctrine of the faith. The theological message --- God’s judgment, prophetic intercession, divine mercy --- is identical in both readings. Textual criticism is not an enemy of faith but a tool for understanding Scripture more deeply.
What does humility look like? When the evidence is genuinely ambiguous, the humble posture is to present the evidence honestly, acknowledge uncertainty, and refrain from dogmatic pronouncements. This is not weakness --- it is intellectual integrity.
How do we handle disagreement? The same way the early church did: Eastern Christians read “Gog the king” and Western Christians read “the king’s mowings,” and both traditions produced faithful, edifying commentary. Disagreement about textual variants need not divide the body of Christ.

“Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.” --- 1 John 4:7 (KJV)

Summary

The weight of the versional evidence (Targum, Peshitta, Vulgate, the revisional Greek translations) strongly favors the MT reading. The LXX stands alone in reading “Gog the king.” However, as Tov and others have demonstrated, the LXX sometimes preserves genuinely older readings even when all other versions follow the MT. The question remains genuinely open, though the scholarly consensus leans toward the MT.

A thoughtful reader can hold any of the three positions presented above with integrity. What matters most is not which reading one prefers, but the disposition with which one engages the evidence: honestly, humbly, and with love for those who see it differently.