[112] The full list of suspected passages is this: (1) References to Judah--ii. 4, 5; vi. 1, _in Zion_; ix. 11, 12. (2) The three Outbreaks of Praise--iv. 13; v. 8, 9; ix. 5, 6. (3) The Final Hope--ix. 8-15, including vv. 11, 12, already mentioned. (4) Clauses alleged to reflect a later stage of history--i. 9-12; v. 1, 2, 15; vi. 2, 14. (5) Suspected for incompatibility--viii. 11-13. [113] So designated to distinguish him from the first Jeroboam, the son of Nebat. [114] Apart from the suspected parentheses already mentioned. [115] Chap. vii. [116] And, if vi. 2 be genuine, Hamath. [117] 2 Chron. xxvi. 6. In the list of the Philistine cities, Amos i. 6-8, Gath does not occur, and in harmony with this in vi. 2 it is said to be overthrown; see pp. 173 f. [118] 2 Kings. In Amos ii. 3 the ruler of Moab is called, not king, but שׁופט, or regent, such as Jeroboam substituted for the king of Moab. [119] According to Grätz's emendation of vi. 13: _we have taken Lo-Debar and Karnaim_. Perhaps too in iii. 12, though the verse is very obscure, some settlement of Israelites in Damascus is implied. For Jeroboam's conquest of Aram (2 Kings xiv. 28), see p. 177. [120] In 775 to Erini, "the country of the cedars"--that is, Mount Amanus, near the Gulf of Antioch; in 773 to Damascus; in 772 to Hadrach. [121] vi. 1. [122] vii. 9. [123] Even König denies that the title is from Amos (_Einleitung_, 307); yet the ground on which he does so, the awkwardness of the double relative, does not appear sufficient. One does not write a title in the same style as an ordinary sentence. [124] Zech. xiv. 5, and probably Isa. ix. 9, 10 (Eng.). [125] iv. 11. [126] Of course it is always possible to suspect--and let us by all means exhaust the possibilities of suspicion--that the title has been added by a scribe, who interpreted the forebodings of judgment which Amos expresses in the terms of earthquake as if they were the predictions of a real earthquake, and was anxious to show, by inserting the title, how they were fulfilled in the great convulsion of Uzziah's days. But to such a suspicion we have a complete answer. No later scribe, who understood the book he was dealing with, would have prefixed to it a title, with the motive just suspected, when in chap. iv. he read that an earthquake had just taken place. The very fact that such a title appears over a book, which speaks of the earthquake as past, surely attests the _bona fides_ of the title. With that mention in chap. iv. of the earthquake as past, none would have ventured to say that Amos began to prophesy before the earthquake unless they had known this to be the case. [127] Except for the later additions, not by Amos, to be afterwards noted. [128] Cf. ii. 13; v. 11.; vi. 8, 10; vii. 9, 16; viii. 8 (?). [129] See below, p. 221. CHAPTER VI _THE MAN AND THE PROPHET_