The Book of HOSEA

William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company

Contents

Chapter One

The book of Hosea owes its origins to one Hosea, the son of Beeri, and his anonymous supporters/disciples. Hence the common title of the work as "Hosea." Apart from inferences in the book itself, nothing else is known about him or his family. Internal clues mark him as an Israelite, an inhabitant of the kingdom of Israel, to whom the vast majority of his prophetic compositions are directed. They indicate also a context for his prophetic activity, the mid- and later part of the 8th century B.C., when Israel struggled to maintain its identity in a treacherous international environment and was rent from within by competing religious and political factions. No call narrative is preserved in the book to mark him specifically as a prophetic figure or to provide a clear indication of his profession. Some elements of his dramatic family circumstances, however, are provided in chs. 1–3.

Hosea was an accomplished poet as well as a prophetic figure, a wordsmith whose oral presentations were likely perceived as artful but eccentric. That they were also deemed inspired by God is the primary reason that they were preserved in written form. They interpret the calamities that struck Israel as self-inflicted and the consequences of rebellion against YHWH. Moreover, the projections of a reunion with Judah and transformation for both provide grounds for hope in the future.

In literary terms his book is among the most poetic of the prophetic collections in the OT, particularly in the allusive character of individual units of speech and a propensity for metaphor and simile. It is, therefore, one of the most difficult to interpret. He himself may well have had a hand in initial collections of his prophecies, so that they might be disseminated more widely in his own day and preserved for later generations, but unfortunately we know nothing about his role in such a process. His prophetic efforts were spread out over three decades or so, coming to an end at some point at or near the siege of Samaria (2 Kgs. 17:1-6). Only a small portion of the book preserves first-person speech (e.g., 3:1-3) that may be attributed to Hosea; the rest of the book represents him or someone else in speaking roles. It is likely that anonymous disciples had a role in collecting and editing what became the book of Hosea, but one reason for the uniqueness of the book may be that he was a literary figure as well as a prophetic one. Perhaps his prophetic tasks included literary composition as well as speaking and interpreting visions. For decades scholarship has been dedicated to the proposition that prophets were speakers, not authors; however, in the case of Hosea this presupposition is being reassessed. In any case, once a work was deemed worthy of preservation through writing down, scribes carried out the tasks of copying and editing.

"There is little or nothing in the present text that requires its completion later than the end of the eighth century." This is a statement worthy of some reflection. On the one hand, it suggests a relatively short time between the prophetic activity of Hosea himself and a penultimate form of the book by his name. It is a point of view adopted undogmatically in the present work. On the other hand, one must acknowledge that too many variables are at work in interpreting the book to make this a firm conclusion. While nothing in the book clearly reflects an exilic or postexilic date, some interpreters continue to posit significant additions to the Hosea materials after the fall of Jerusalem in 587/586 B.C. (see below). By the end of the 8th century, for example, the kingdom of Israel had been incorporated into the Assyrian Empire and Judah faced its own crises in relating to the Assyrians. Israel's fall was predicted by Hosea, but the aftermath offered a changed situation in which to reflect upon his prophecies. It is not clear from the book's contents whether Hosea himself lived to see the fall of Samaria (ca. 722). We should reckon, therefore, with the possibility that the book (as opposed to the earlier [oral?] presentations by the prophet) originated in the aftermath of Samaria's fall and was produced in Judah by refugees from the Assyrian onslaught. Public dissemination of Hosea's prophecies would provide confirmation that Israel's political demise was an act of YHWH's judgment. It is certainly to Judah that we should look for an early written collection of Hosea's prophecies, even if not the first one, and in Judah also for the subsequent preserving of them. Hezekiah's resurgent and reforming policies in Judah offer a plausible context for the collecting of prophetic oracles and national traditions. In the superscription to the book, Hezekiah is the fourth and last Judean king named. And he may be the model for the reference to "David" in 3:5, the king who would be head over both Israel and Judah (1:11 [MT 2:2]).

In spite of the summary offered above, a wide disparity exists among scholars with regard to the early editorial history of the book and its dating. Much of this has to do with broader conclusions about the development of religious traditions in Israel and Judah and how those in the book of Hosea fit the developmental models. For example, it has been proposed that the book is composed of two parts, one going back to a 9th-century prophet (chs. 1–3), when the struggle against baalism was at its height, and the second going back to an 8th-century prophet (chs. 4–14). This has failed to persuade, given the stronger evidence for connections between the two parts of the book as a reflection of a common author/speaker. Two recent studies further illustrate the continuing disparity regarding origins. One concludes that the book was essentially put together in the 720s, while another finds very little in the book that can be attributed to Hosea himself, and little more that can be attributed even to the preexilic period. There are, of course, mediating positions, but in one sense these serve to illustrate the lack of consensus over the origins and early transmission of the book.

With respect to my viewpoint, two matters are decisive. The first is the persuasiveness of the conclusion that little or nothing in the book itself requires a date later than the end of the 8th century B.C. As noted, elements of the book may have originated at a later, or even considerably later, date, but nothing in the vocabulary itself or allusion to historical events demands such a conclusion. For example, the terminology of "return" (š{b) is frequent in the book. It has to do primarily with Israel's repentance and return to YHWH, however, not with Israel's return to the land (a favorite exilic and postexilic theme). In the one place that a return of Israelites from dispersion is explicitly described, they come from Egypt and Assyria, two entities with extensive interaction with Israel in the second half of the 8th century B.C. And the verb used is yašab, "to settle," rather than š{b. With the employment of the lexeme š{b in Hosea, one would expect it to be associated with a return to the land if exilic or postexilic additions to the text were made.

The second matter is acceptance of the final form of the text as the proper focus of attention. This is not a rejection of historical analysis or denial of literary growth in the Hosea tradition, but an attempt to see these matters as interpreting events in the second half of the 8th century. That is what they purport to do. In the commentary I accept some examples of editorial updating and consider others as an option, without losing sight of the task at hand, which is to interpret a received text.

With respect to Judah and the production of the Hosea book, there are clear links between Hosea and the book of Jeremiah, the latter a Judean literary production from the late 7th/early 6th century. The two books correspond in numerous matters of vocabulary and theme, whatever form of Hosea's prophecies the author(s) of Jeremiah drew upon. This is consistent with the view that a penultimate Hosea book was a product of prophetic circles during the reign of Hezekiah (or Manasseh) and was kept in circulation in subsequent decades to influence reformist movements. Indeed, Jeremiah's reception of essential elements from Hosea is solid evidence that a collection of Hosea's prophecies was extant in Judah before the fall of Jerusalem in 587/586. For good reason Jeremiah has been called Hosea's "spiritual son" and "most devoted imitator."

At some point in the postexilic period, Hosea's prophecies were collected with other "minor" prophets to form the Book of the Twelve. There may have been earlier stages in the process of collecting the prophetic oracles of the Minor Prophets, but a scroll for the Twelve was likely completed by the 2nd century B.C. The Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sirach (49:10), dating ca. 130 B.C., refers to the "twelve prophets," indicating that they are a recognized collection. Hosea is placed first among the Twelve, which may reflect a conviction that he is the earliest of them or that the collection is the largest from the 8th-century contributors. In recent years interpreters have looked at the collection of the Twelve as a whole and asked about editorial arrangements and intertextual relations. It has been suggested that the collection bears marks of editorial work to facilitate an intracollection reading. If so, there is little evidence that Hosea has undergone an updated arrangement. It is more likely that as the initial "book" Hosea sets a tone for what follows.

There is manuscript evidence for the Book of the Twelve from the region of the Dead Sea dating to the last century B.C. and the 1st century A.D. The evidence exists in both Hebrew and Greek. Fragments in Hebrew from the majority of chapters in Hosea have been found, along with small portions of a pesher-style analysis of the book. The latter demonstrate that Hosea was studied and his words applied to the time of the readers in Palestinian Judaism. Portions of Hosea in Greek translation were discovered in a cave in Nahal Hever (Wadi Murabba{at). They were part of a leather copy of the Book of the Twelve. Citations and allusions to Hosea in the NT are further evidence for the book's importance in Judaism and early Christianity. Thus with regard to the origins of the book and the transmission of the Hosea traditions, we have more evidence with which to work than with many other preexilic books. Ironically, the identifiable stages in the book's transmission and influence are not matched by a textual tradition free of difficulties.

II. LITERARY FEATURES AND COMPOSITION

A. LITERARY FEATURES

The received texts of Hosea (Hebrew or MT; Greek versions) are among the most difficult in the OT. "With the possible exception of Job, the book of Hosea has the dubious distinction of having the most obscure passages of the entire Hebrew Bible.... The text is traditionally regarded as the most corrupt and poorly preserved of the Hebrew Bible."

There are several reasons for this. One may be the vagaries of handling the text over time, with the inevitable errors associated with sight and hearing in the repetitive task of copying. The MT of Hosea appears to have suffered more in the centuries of transmission than that of most other books. The other reasons are likely due to Hosea himself, and they made the preservation of the text more difficult for the tradents who handed it on. His poetic elliptical style, frequent shift of subject, penchant for wordplay and assonance, formidable vocabulary, and even elements of a northern dialect, all contribute to the difficulty of handling and interpreting the text. Interpreters vary considerably whether to describe a feature in the text as a corruption or an anomaly. On the one hand, there are corruptions in the Hebrew text and examples of befuddled rendering in the early versions. On the other hand, there are also examples where "standard" Hebrew syntax is violated, but it is likely that some of these are either the product of Hosea's individualistic poetry or reflect aspects of speech in his day that simply deviate from the norm. Difficulties with the text of Hosea are noted as far back as Jerome, the greatest Christian biblical scholar of his day, who began his commentary with the following:

If in the interpretation of all the prophets we stand in need of the intervention of the Holy Spirit ... how much more should the Lord be invoked in interpreting Hosea and in St. Peter's words should it be said, "Expound for us this parable" (Mt 15.15); more especially is this the case since the author himself wrote at its end, "Whoso is wise, let him understand these things" ... thereby giving a precise indication of the obscurity of the book.

It is not that the text is hopelessly corrupt — far from it — but that every translation of Hosea has degrees of certainty and uncertainty, depending on the passage in question. Modern translations navigate between the MT, various early versions, and comparative Semitics, as well as the proposals of earlier interpreters for emendation, in search of coherence for readers. That is the case with the rendering offered in this volume, and no one will be happier than I will be to find new and more firm options for old difficulties I was unable to unravel.

Three prominent features of the book are reasons for its uniqueness: the use of metaphors (including similes), paronomasia or wordplays, and allusions to prior national history. In terms of frequency of use, the book exceeds all other prophetic books in these three areas. Hosea has the distinction of being the prophetic book most poetic in the employment of metaphor and wordplay, and most historical with respect to allusions to prior national traditions.

Recent decades have seen a marked increase of interest in metaphors in the OT, with several studies dedicated to Hosea. It is not necessary here to review various theories of metaphor in any detail, but only to offer some brief definitions of terms for when they appear elsewhere. Suffice it to say that a metaphor is "a figure of speech whereby we speak about one thing in terms of which are seen to be suggestive of another." A simile is a type of metaphor in which the preposition "like" or "as" functions to compare one thing in terms of another. In the analyses of metaphor the "one thing" can be referred to as a tenor or a target domain, while the "terms of the suggested other" are the vehicle or source domain. Thus YHWH's statement in 14:5 (MT 6), "I will be like the dew to Israel," has the "tenor" of divine care and refreshment of Israel which is compared to or explicated by the "vehicle" of dew, an important phenomenon for agricultural produce in Syria-Palestine during the dry summer season. It is important to stress that metaphors and similes are not simply literary devices, but also evidence of cognition:

Metaphor is considered not so much as a way in which people speak, but rather as a way in which people think. We use metaphors in our language because, to a large extent, we think metaphorically. The essence of metaphor, according to cognitive linguistics, is that we make use of our knowledge of one conceptual domain (the source) in order to gain new understanding of a second, non-related domain (the target).

Hosea, for certain, does not simply employ metaphors as clever literary devices, but thinks metaphorically, making connections between phenomena in order to instruct an audience. Some of his conceptual comparisons he may have inherited; others undoubtedly were the product of his fertile mind and more particularly his search for coherence in his historical context. For him both nature and history were not impersonal autonomous spheres but revelatory of God. In one sense divine activity was the great tenor (target domain) to which Hosea employed a variety of vehicles (source domain) for explication. Elsewhere I propose that a root metaphor (a model that holds together a variety of images) for the prophet Hosea is that of God as head of his household. 28 While the household metaphor certainly does not undergird the significance of every other metaphor used for YHWH or Israel in the book, it assists us, the readers, to see coherence in such different metaphors for YHWH as husband, father, shepherd, farmer, and king. Rather than thinking of these as disparate means of portrayal, they are rooted in the source domains of family and property. Various ways of portraying Israel as YHWH's spouse, child, land, inheritance, and animals are similarly rooted in this encompassing metaphor.

(Continues...)

Excerpted from The Book of HOSEAby J. ANDREW DEARMAN Copyright © 2010 by J. Andrew Dearman. Excerpted by permission of William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.