2. Date of Hosea's Activity

The note of time in i. 1 bespeaks an activity covering sixty years, in itself not incredible, since at the beginning of his ministry Hosea appears as a young, unmarried man. But it is hard to explain omission to mention the Syrian-Ephraimitic war. It is better to place the book before 734 B.c. and to ascribe the mention of the kings of Judah who appear in Ise. i. 1 and Micah i. 1 to the dire to make Hosea appear throughout a contem porary of those whose early contemporary he was. The period of his activity was coincident with the most glorious period of the northern kingdom, when Jeroboam II. had reestablished the old boundaries of his realm, but when at the same time religiously and morally the conditions were low. Syncretism of worship with the cults of surrounding states was progressing rapidly. Under these conditions it was Hosea's task to bear witness against the ruling sins

of the northern kingdom and to summon it to judgment, yet without forgetting the grace God had promised to his people.

The book falls into two parts: i.-iii., where prophecy is united with the relation of personal experiences of the prophet; iv.-xiv., 3. Contents where the personal element does not of the appear. Internal evidence indicates Book. that at the end of the prophet's life he put together the essential contents of his prophecies condensed into short, separate oracles. The book begins with the narration of two prophetic experiences of the prophet, not put in allegorical form, but as in the sphere of external events which he was called upon to undergo in the service of God. Chap. i. tells of his marriage to a woman of whom it is implied that she will not be true to him, to represent the case of Israel unfaithful to its God, for which judgment comes, but with the prospect of salvation (ii. 1 sqq.). The symbolic names of the prophet's children (i. 6, 9) are changed, in consequence of the people's repentance, to their opposites (ii. 1), while Jezreel (i. 4) is changed in significance from a place stained with blood to a place sown with seed. Chap. iii. makes the experience of the prophet with his unfaithful wife the symbol of Yahweh's experience with unfaithful Israel. A long-continued deprivation of enjoyment of political and religious associations (in exile) is to bring the people to order aright its common life, when that people will return to its God and its king. The second part of the book, which unmistakably exhibits the unrestful period following the death of Jeroboam II., is composed of separate pieces. Chap. iv. portrays the thorough religious and moral dete rioration of the whole people; v.-vii. impeaches the leaders whose duties it had been to direct the people in right ways; , viii.-ix. 9 recounts anew the sins of the people committed under a false sense of security, which must lead to the destruction of the northern kingdom; in viii. 10-xi. the prophet three times recalls Israel's beginnings only to show its repeated fall from duty; xii-xiii. shows that in spite of experiences of grace and of punishment the people had opposed God and refused his help, with the result that the death of Israel is decreed, out of which a miracle of resurrection shall restore them, meanwhile judgment must come; the book closes,

370

chap. xiv., with exhortation to make confession of sin, which is to be accepted with the result of renewed prosperity.

Of the three reproaches of Hosea against the people, viz., ethical degeneracy, religious demoral- ization, and coquetting with world 4. The powers, the second is important here. Complete The tendency of Israel to idolatry, to Law worship of Baal and to calf-worship, Implied. is bewailed by the prophet, also the erection of altars and images, though they suppose that they worship in them Yahweh, the God of revelation. Of their Baal-worship they are to be so ashamed that the name Baal as name for husband will be abandoned (ii.16-17). The aim of the prophet is to portray the dire results of the syncretism of worship which made worship of their own God take the form of worship of Baal and so denied real honor to Yahweh. The prophet speaks of a torah (" law "), the infringement of which he deplores, and that this was in writing is indicated by viii. 12: " Though I record [not, as Wellhausen would have it: though I prescribe for him] myriads [of precepts] of my law, they are counted as a strange thing." The sense is that, if the law were even more comprehensive and more specific than it is, yet neither as a whole nor in its particulars would Ephraim regard it. Since the preceding complaint is grounded upon the fact that Israel, which should have had only one altar in the place chosen by God, had multiplied altars to the increase of sins, and since the prophet inveighs against idolatry, the precepts of the law can not have been simply ethical, but must have been cultic and of such a form as exist in the Book of the Covenant, in Deuteronomy, and in the Priest Code. The various kinds of sacrifice and of materials of sacrifice and the sacred times, persons, and seasons appear in one or the other of these books (of. Hosea ii. 13, v. 6,8, vi. 6, ix. 3-5, xii. 10-12; Amos ii. 11-12, iii. 14, iv. 4-5, v. 21-22, viii. 5, 10). The position of the priests appears in Hosea iv. 4-9, though their actual character is revealed in vi. 9.

That the sentence of disapproval which Hosea pronounces upon the northern kingdom relates to this only in its degenerate performance and to its syncretistic obacuration, and not to the matter of sacrifice in itself, is shown by ix. 1-3, where the prophet tells Israel not to rejoice, since the days come when they will be able to bring to Yahweh neither wine as drink-offering nor well-pleasing sacrifices, for they are to return to Egypt and are to eat unclean food in Assyria where consecration of offerings will not be possible for them. When be says that God prefers mercy to sacrifice and knowledge of God to burnt offerings (vi. 6), he refers not to sacrifice in general but to sacrifice in which the soul does not join and by a people which can not distinguish between Yahweh and Baal. Indeed, Hosea does not appear as the herald of a new religious idea or of a new knowledge of the being of Yahweh and of the right method of worshiping him. He and Amos proclaim the God of the fathers of the people who had been known throughout Israel's history through prophetic instruction and revelation. If it be said that Hosea first developed the idea of a marriage between Yahweh and Israel, it must be recalled that this idea underlies the "jealous God" of Ex. xx. 5; and, if he carried it out more thoroughly, it was not on a basis of legalism, but on one of mutual love (ii. 1718, 21).

The dependence of Hosea upon Amos is indisputable, and in part verbal (cf. iv. 3 with Amos viii. 8; iv. 15 with Amos v. 5; viii. 14 with g. Literary Amos ii. 5; vii. 12 with Amos ix. 2). Features. But while Amos and Hosea agree closely in the basis of their prophecies and in their liking for reviewing the history of their people, they differ in methods of speech and exposition. Hosea is full of uncommon words, forms, and collocations, and has a distinct northern cast of idiom. His style is leas polished than that of Amos, but more emotional; consequently there is more abruptness in his sentences, less sequence in his figures. The text is at times corrupt, and often the Septuagint, Indicates the method of emendation. Certain passages of the Masoretic text are full of difficulty, especially vii. 5-6, viii. 10, and xiii. 1. (W. VOLCK+.)

II. Critical View:

1. Questions of Text and Authorship.

There are several important questions in relation to the writings and even the person of the prophet Hosea about which it is unsafe to dogmatize. Here, to a greater degree than almost anywhere else in the Old Testament, the principle holds true that no critic except the moat cautious and reserved can afford to make positive statements on difficult literary questions. Criticism, however, has advanced so far that at least it may confidently be said (1) that the book as it stands is very loosely constructed and cab not be called a unit, even in the most general sense; (2) that large portions were not written by Hosea or in the northern kingdom or under eighth-century conditions; (3) that many portions of the book can not be understood till the text has been radically amended; (4) that the original compilation of the discourses of Hosea was much simpler and plainer in its arrangement, its language, its rhetorical and poetical structure, its historical allusions and its general and particular argument than is the book accredited to him which has come down in canonical form.

From the point of view of structure the moat striking feature of the whole book is the difference in plan and contents between the two main sections (chaps. L -iii.; iv.-xiv.). Each chapter of the former section has a separate motive and significance. Chap. i. tells of the prophet contracting a marriage with a woman of unchaste

2. Problem of Chaps. i.-iii.

mind or habits at the command of Yahweh, and explains the symbolism of the significant names given to the children born after this remarkable union. Chap. ii. is, primarily at least, an indictment of Israel under the image of the unfaithful spouse of Yahweh. Chap: iii. resumes the marital history of Hosea and apparently represents him as winning back by purchase his faithless wife, with whom after a probation of "many days" he would

371

resume conjugal relations, this to be a figurative expression of the idea that the recreant Israelites after their probation of a long exile would "again seek Yahweh and David their king." Disregarding meanwhile the irrelevant passages which are attached to these chapters, a brief judgment of the questions that present themselves as to the genuineness of the section may be offered and the relation of its contents to the actual life and work of Hosea and to the rest of the book.

Taking chap. iii. first as the least perplexing, it may be said with some confidence: (1) The action prescribed and ascribed to Hosea was considered by the original writer as in some sense symbolical. It would have been impossible for any respectable man to act literally as Hosea is here 3. Chap. commanded to do and is represented iii. a Con- as actually doing. (2) The woman tinuation described in chap. iii. is intended by of Chap. i. the writer to be the same person as that of chap. i. There would be nothing gained, but much lost, in the force of his message, if the prophet had to choose two different persons of precisely the same characteristics to symbolize the conduct and the fortunes of the same people, especially when he is told to "go once more and love a woman" of precisely the same character as that of the one presented in chap. i. Again, if two women so alike were different persons; the fact would naturally be indicated in some way, if only to preclude misunderstanding. Besides, no name is given to the woman in chap. iii. while all the other persons of the story are named, apparently because she had been named already in i. 3.

Probably chap. i. is the most diversely inter preted chapter in all prophetic literature. The most familiar and obtrusive of the many problems of the chapter is the question whether the narrative of Hosea's marriage should be un- 4. Inter- derstood as a record of facts or as a pretations figurative representation of Yahweh's of Chap. i. relations to Israel. If the latter, it The might be understood as an allegory Literal related to a group of listeners, or an View. object lesson given in a symbolical action. The figurative interpretation, in one or other of its forms, had until recent times perhaps the larger body of supporters. But, chiefly through the influence of Ewald (Die Propheten des alter Bundes, Göttingen, 186?) and W. R. Smith (The Prophets of Israel, Edinburgh, 1882), the lit eral view has of late been held in most favor. The obvious difficulties in the way of giving to such a matter-of-fact narrative an allegorical or symboli cal interpretation in any ordinary form are very great. On the other hand, the chief support of the literal explanation is not its antecedent reason ableness, but the belief that it was the prophet's own experiences which enabled him to do the things which he is declared to have done. Thereby did he come to realize to such a degree as he did the profound relations between Israel and Yahweh, the perfidy and ingratitude of Israel in forsaking Yah weh, and the grief and resentment of Yahweh in losing the love of his people. It is doubtful, how- ever, if this sentimental inference is justifiable. It fails to distinguish between the personal subjective appreciation which the votary of Yahweh had of the love and faithfulness of his God, and the intellectual process which objectivized this conception and illustrated it by a figure. Historically the use by Hosea of the figure of the married state was not based upon or developed from any human marital experiences; it was probably an outgrowth from the old conception of the marriage between the god of the land and the land itself or secondarily, the people of the land, all three of whom, according to old Semitic notions, formed an inseparable trinity. The idea had been deepened, refined, and dignified by experiences of Yahweh's favor and devotion to his people, and the image had grown correspondingly in distinctness and reality. But the expansion and enriching of the similitude were accomplished by reflection and not by emotion, and the use which Hosea or any prophet could make of the figure of the marriage relation would be made through the imagination alone and merely for illustrative purposes (of. II., § 5 below). Accordingly one should exclude from consideration any argument for a literal interpretation of the story based on the plea that Hosea's own actual experience was needed to qualify him to set forth adequately the attitude of Yahweh toward his unfaithful people. Bereft of this support the defense of the literal acceptation of the narrative of chap. i. is not very strong. The anomalous character of the actions demanded of Hosea make it necessary for its advocates to hold that he did not know the adulterous character of his wife till years had passed and all his children had been born and endowed with their significant names. Accordingly to make it still a real experience in his life it has to be assumed that he did not regard his actions as having been done under the divine impulse and command until he learned of the gross and habitual adulteries of his wife. And further that he gave to each of the children a significant name without any perception that they were " children of harlotry "-a fact which is of the very essence of the whole transaction (verse 2). Such $ view of Hosea's prophetic career would make him an absent-minded visionary living entirely outside of that world of sin and folly which is so amply described in his own discourses. A literal interpretation, even when thus deliteralized, would eooordingly seem to be untenable (see further the overwhelming array of objections in Harper, Amos and Hosea, pp. 2011`210).

The defenders of the two leading views have in fact completely refuted one another, and it is one of the marvels of Biblical exegesis that a positive attitude is still stoutly maintained by eminent critics upon each side of the question. The only remaining assumption that seems g. A , compatible with Hosea's or any con-

Possible temporary authorship is that the whole Alternative. proceeding was thought out by the prophet in the natural process of figuring or picturing to himself (not to his people) the character of Israel's relations and conduct towards Yahweh (of. §4). Its history would then perhaps

372

have been somewhat as follows: Without any reference to his own family life, the prophet, pondering on the problem of Israel's infidelity, adopted the most direct and natural way of objectivizmg the 'situation: he put himself in the place of Yahweh and an immoral woman, perhaps known as such to the community, in the place of the land of Israel (of. the application to the land in u. 4-l6), and the children imagined as born of the union in place of the people of Israel viewed in various a&pects. The original conception of the marriage relation between Yahweh and Israel being thus objectivized by him, it became so vivid and concrete that it gave character to his whole prophetic ministry; and in right Hebrew prophetic fashion it was ascribed to the direct inspiration of Yahweh, while the successive mental images, thus visualized, were dramatised and recited as an actual personal experience.

Though fewer objections can properly be brought to this hypothesis of the origin of chap. i. than to the literal view, it still has this difficulty, among others, that the mass of detail may seem incompatible with an imaginary personal

6. Date situation. And those who can not of Chaps. accept any solution involving Hosea 's L -iii. own authorship of the narrative may have recourse to an assumption that chaps. i.-iii. are of later origin, as indeed much of the remainder of the book (see II, 1 7 below) undoubtedly is. The chief occasion of the composition (if such an assumption be true) was possibly the existence of a tradition with regard to the per sonal history of the eccentric prophet (cf. ix. 7), starting from stories which accompanied the cir culation of his prophecies in Judah after the fall of the northern kingdom and growing with in- creasing reflection upon the reaching ideas of his writings.

,..--o... --------------- - But there is such a marked difference in style and mode of treatment (see II, § 7) between the two sections that they would in any terse pre sumptively, be kept apart. The hypothesis of late origin also accounts best for this difference in style and logical method. Moreover, the use of the third person in chap. i. and the first in chap. iii. is not favorable to the view that Hosea himself was the author of the section. ` In the larger division of the book (chaps. iv. xiv.) the student finds himself on more solid ground. The main thread of the discourse is held steadily to the end; the style is not smooth and flowing like that of the earlier section (cf. II, § 6 above), but nervous and somewhat abrupt. Yet, contrary to the general impression, the sen- t'. Features fences are not unusually irregular or of obscure but simple and well-balanced, Chaps. the supposed roughnesaea being due to iv.-aiv. the corruption of the test which is doubtless to be accounted for in large part by its precarious fortunes in its early history after the fall of the northern kingdom. Another source of great difficulty in the interpretation is the fact that considerable additions have been made to the original utterances of Hosea, apparently by men belonging to different schools at different periods. These additions may be classified as fol lows: (1) repetitions or close imitations of more original passages; (2) explicative glosses; (3) am- plifying statements; (4) prophetic allusions to Judah; (5) promises of restoration from the impending exile and of a return of the divine favor. The last-named class is the lengthiest and most valuable of all. References to Judah are found in chaps. i.-iii. .also (II, 16), and if this section is of late origin they were of course added at a still later profound and far- date and constituted the last important series of After the fuller de- velopment of the figure of the marriage relation by Jeremiah (chap. iii.) anal Ezekiel (chap. xvi.) attention must have been all the more fixed upon the originator of the conception, the prophet of Samaria; and thus the tradition may have been handed down in one form and another that his appreciation of the marriage bond was due to his own personal experience. Finally some prophetic genius developed the story in literary form, giving it coherent significance throughout and adapting to it a detailed exposition of Hosea's dominating thought in chap. ii. This hypothesis suggests that nearly all of the section in question may have had a common author or literary origin. If the glosses and the additions relating to Judah and the exile

(i. 7, ii. 1-3) are set aside, the whole three chapters may be read continuously without a break. Since from the later standpoint the restoration of Israel to favor came within the domain of prophecy relevant to the times and needs of the writer or writers, the two magnificent passages ii. 4-15, lfi-25 may be brought into close association. It may also be noted that these passages, the main prophetical utterances of the section, are not provided with the customary introductory formula giving the name of the, speaker-a circumstance which might suggest that they belong to the main division, chaps.

872 supplementary insertions. The augmenting proo ess went on in a constantly increasing ratio from the beginning to the end of the main section of the book. Thus the additions in chaps. iv.-vi, that may be fairly made out amount to 26 per cent of the whole tent of these chapters; those in chaps. vu.-a. to 37 per cent of the whole; those in chaps. xi.-xiv. to 56 per cent, making an average for chaps. iv.-riv. of nearly 40 per cent of presumable additions. It is not probable that the original text of the prophet of Samaria will ever be separated from the accretions with absolute accuracy throughout. But ultimate approximate correctness is certainly obtainable; and the result will be to enhance greatly the simplicity, intelligibility, and value of the book of Hosea.

J. F. McCurdy.

Bibliography: Commentaries worth consulting are: A. Simeon, Gotha, 1851; A. Wüneche, Leipsic, 1888; Tgttermann, Heleingfore, 1879: W. Nowack, Berlin, 1880, sad Göttingen, 1897; A. Scholz, WOrsburg, 1882; T. K. Cheyne. abridge, 1884: J. Sharps. London, 1884; J. T. de Vieear, Utrecht, 1886; J. J. P. Vsleton, Nijmwegen, 1894; W. R,. Harper, New York, 1903 (contains a complete bibliography, to which extensive references are made in the notes). Consult also the commentaries on the Minor Prophets by E. B. Pussy, London. 1877: F. Hitsig, ed. Steiner, Leipsic, 1881: C. von Orelli, N3rdlinBen, 1888, Eng. transl., New York, 1893; J, Wellhsueen, Berlin, 1892; and G. A. Smith, London. 1898 (especially good, aid with Harper, ut sup., constituting the best that can be had): R. Marti, Dodekaprophe

373

Tübingen, 1904. Consult also the appropriate section in the Introductions of Driver, London, 1897; W. H. Bennett, ib. 1899; J. E. McFadyen, New York, 1905; and F. E. C. Gigot, ib. 1906. Discussions of the various problems presented by the book are to be found in DB, ii. 419-425; EB, ii. 2119-26; JE, vi. 473-475; and P. Vols, in ZWT, 1898, pp. 321-335 (very valuable).

Teat-critical matters are discussed in ThT, 1875, pp. 555 sqq., by Houtsma, and 1890, pp. 345 sqq., 480 sqq., by Oort; H. Billeb, Die uriehiipeten Sates der aiaestamentlichen Kritik vom Standpunke der Propheten Hones and Amps, Halle, 1893; J. Bachmann, Alttmtamsattiehe Un tersuchungen, pp. 1-46, Berlin, 1894; P. Ruben, Critical Remarks upon some Passages of the O. T., London, 1896; Patterson, The Septuagint-Text of Hosea, in Hebraiea, vol. vii. Various questions are taken up in: J. H. Kurtz, Die Eke dee Prophstan Hosea, Dorpat, 1859; S. oettli, Der Kultua bei Amos and Hosea, Greifewald, 1895; O. Seesemann, Israel and Juda bei Amps and Hosea, Leipsic, 1898; Smith, Prophets, Lest. iv.