II. Hosea
II. Hosea(TOC)
The Book of Hosea is thought to have been even more extensively interpolated than that of Amos. This was to be expected in advance, since this prophet is more versatile and many-sided than his Judean companion, and it is proportionately more difficult to adjust him to any preconceived program of teaching. In Amos there is at least the undisputed sway of one idea forcing everything else into the background, rendering it possible for the critics to claim this idea as the sole content of his prophetic consciousness, to throw upon it an emphasis exclusive of all other truth, and to remove by a few excisions what little may crop out of a different nature. Nothing of the kind is possible in Hosea. Even after all the manipulation to which the latter's prophecy has been subjected, the critics are compelled to admit that it anticipates trains of thought on the whole identified with a later stage of development. Another feature of Hosea to be remembered in this connection is the abruptness of his style. This abruptness of style, says Cheyne, "made it easy for editors to work in fresh passages;" but he seems to forget that such a characteristic may as easily become a temptation for our present-day critics to scent insertions where there are none, as it is supposed to have been for the editors to work in the same.
The center of attack is the Messianic prophecy 2:1-3 in connection with 1:7; 3:4, 5 in part,[36] 4:15, 8:14, all of which contain references to Judah, and reveal more or less partiality for the southern kingdom and the Davidic dynasty, a feature already observed in Amos, but especially noteworthy in a prophet from Ephraim. The natural explanation of these statements lies in the Messianic promises given to David (2 Samuel 7) and in the prerogative of Judah as possessed of the true sanctuary and relatively less apostate than the northern kingdom. But for these two facts, as has been shown already in connection with Amos, there is no place in the modern hypothesis. Belief in the special election of Judah and the Davidic dynasty is assumed to have sprung from the events under Hezekiah, the destruction of Samaria and the salvation of Jerusalem as predicted by Isaiah, and still more from the Deuteronomic reform a century later. Hosea, on the other hand, is said to have rejected on principle every form of the kingdom, the Davidic dynasty included, as apostasy from Jehovah. Because later readers found his expectations of the future on this point out of harmony with the type of Messianic prophecy which dates back from Isaiah, they supplied the deficiency by interpolations. The abrupt transition from threatening to promise in 1:9, 2:1, is held to be a sure sign of such editorial expansion of an original prophecy. As this canon is quite generally applied, we shall have to inquire more fully into its merits, which may be best done in connection with certain prophecies of Isaiah, included among the later additions to that prophet's work almost on the strength of it alone. In reference to this concrete case in Hosea, we observe that the presence of chapter 2:1-3 where they stand is required by the symmetrical structure of the first part of the book, which consists of three divisions each, beginning with the prediction of judgment and ending with promise.[37] It is true that chapter 1-2:3, differ in this respect from the two other sections—that the disciplinary purpose of the exile does not here appear as the mediating thought between threatening and promise; but there was no need at the opening of the prophet's book to explain immediately the inner nexus of these two broad aspects of his message; it was sufficient to introduce them side by side by way of prelude, the sharp contrast serving admirably to bring out in strong relief the distinct features of each. Elsewhere also Hosea startles the reader by the suddenness and boldness of his transitions (cf. 11:7, 8; 12:3, 4, 5). On this view it is unnecessary to look for any other connection.[38] Some critics think that 2:1-3 anticipate the ideas of the latter half of chapter 2, that the reference to "the day of Jezreel" can be understood only on the basis of the etymology given in verse 25, that the change of Lo-Ammi to Ammi and of Lo-Ruhamah to Ruhamah in ver. 1 renders the similar change in the verse 25 superfluous—all of which are said to be indications of the secondary character of the suspected passage.[39] On a closer view of the matter it will be seen that these points are not well taken. The thoughts of 2:1-3 remain entirely within the terms of the first chapter, in which thepoliticalaspect of the judgment stands in the foreground. Here the prophet's oldest son symbolizes, by his name Jezreel, the place wherethe kingdom of the house of Israelis to cease andthe bow of Israelis to be broken (verses 4, 5). To this corresponds in 2:3 "the day of Jezreel" as a day of national victory and conquest, the day of battle in which the reunited Israelites and Judeans meet their foes. Everything in the context is subordinate to this theme and should be interpreted in accordance with it. Jehovah's having no mercy upon the house of Israel and his having mercy upon the house of Judah, His being Judah's God and no longer Israel's God, have their primary reference to the gift or withdrawal of the divine saving help in war. Consequently verse 7, referring to the salvation of the southern kingdom in the Assyrian crisis, is entirely in place here.[40] To the same cause must be ascribed the indirect way in which the captivity is introduced, simply as the background for the national restoration, so entirely different from the manner in which it is treated in 2:4-25 and in chapter 3. The marvelous increase of the children of Israel also is preparatory to their organization into the great army which verse 2 represents as marching up from the hand to fight the day of Jezreel.[41] Even the future king is not defined any further than in this military capacity, as "the head" which the children of Judah and the children of Israel shall appoint themselves. Finally, this is the point of view from which the prophecy mentions the reunion of the two kingdoms. The "for" of verse 2 indicates that all these various features are dwelt upon to produce some adequate idea of the greatness of "the day of Jezreel." In so far as the same thoughts reappear in the sequel of chapter 2, they assume an altogether different color from the central idea of the second discourse, that of the religious and ethical marriage between Jehovah and Israel. Hence the symbolism of Jezreel is changed from that of "the day of battle" to that of the peoplesown unto Jehovah in the land, their increase being viewed not so much as a means to swell the Messianic army, but rather as a result of the mystical union between Jehovah and Israel. In agreement with this the reversal of the names obtains here a far more profound and tender meaning than was the case in 2:1-3.
The favorable opinion of the Davidic house expressed in some of these passages is said to be irreconcilable with Hosea's attitude elsewhere toward the kingdom in general. The places where the kingdom is referred to in condemnatory terms are 1:4, 7:3-7, 8:4, 10:3, 7, 13:10, 11.[42] Of these the first is primarily directed against the house of Jehu, but the cessation of the kingdom is at the same time a punishment for the house of Israel, no doubt because, on a principle elsewhere also recognized by Hosea, the judgment strikes first those institutions which have been to Israel the chief instruments of sinning; this is confirmed by the juxtaposition of the kingdom, the idols, the high places in 8:4 and 10:7, 8. In 8:4, the words, "they have set up kings, but not by me, princes and I knew it not," are most naturally understood of the entire succession of kings in the northern realm, from Jeroboam onwards, because of the obviously close connection in the prophet's mind between the self-willed making of kings and the making of idols. Chapter 13:10, 11, favor the same view, for the repeated "taking away" of a king given in the divine anger must refer to the frequent removal of dynasties and individual princes, which was one of the chief sources of weakness in the kingdom of the ten tribes. So far, then, nothing indicates that Hosea extended his condemnation beyond the kingdom of Jeroboam and his successors. Whether he went further than this and included the kingdom of Saul depends on the view taken of chapter 9:9 and 10:9 : "They have deeply corrupted themselves as in the days of Gibeah;" "O Israel, thou hast sinned from the days of Gibeah." The context of the latter passage is so obscure (and possibly corrupt) that its reference can hardly be ascertained, and the former, though standing in a perfectly clear connection, leaves us equally in doubt concerning the events it alludes to. What little light there is to go by would seem to fall on these passages from the history related in Judges 19-21. But even if Wellhausen and Smend should be correct in rejecting this interpretation and in understanding "the days of Gibeah" of the days of Saul's appointment to the royal office, this could create no prejudice against the kingdom of David, whose origin was altogether different. The rejection of the whole northern kingdom together with the kingdom of Saul is rather favorable toward the recognition of David's house as legitimate. On this point Hosea is in entire harmony with the judgment of the historical books which the critics are accustomed to represent as colored by Deuteronomistic ideas. Consistency would require not the excision of such clauses merely as favor the Davidic house, but the removal of all disparaging references to the kingdom of Saul as well as to that of Jeroboam and his successors, on the ground of affinity with the Deuteronomistic philosophy of history. From our standpoint we consider it remarkable that while the condemnation of the Ephraimitic kings (and possibly of Saul) is explicit, no passage can be quoted from Hosea in which the Judean kingdom is referred to in similar terms.
No argument against the passages favorable to Judah can be drawn from those that coordinate it with Israel as equally sinful. The statements of this character appear in the second division of the book, so as to justify the inference that the prophet changed his opinion owing to a change for the worse in Judah's religious condition under the reign of Ahaz. And it is to be observed that in the later chapters no commendations of Judah occur, so that with the exception of this one change the judgment expressed is a perfectly consistent one.[43] The interpolator who is supposed to have inserted the favorable passages did not feel any discrepancy between them and the other series, else he would not have stopped short of expunging everything to Judah's discredit. Why then should Hosea have been unable to express both opinions in successive periods? There is, moreover, one statement in favor of Judah which is entirely above suspicion so far as the context is concerned, and for the insertion of which precisely at that place no imaginable reason can be assigned—chapter 4:15. The only things breathed against it are that Judah ought to have been addressed (Wellhausen),[44] or that the style is weak (Cheyne)—the former an arbitrary restriction upon the prophet's rhetorical license, the latter wholly a matter of taste.[45]
Another passage here to be considered is chapter 5:15-6:4. Commenting on it, Cheyne says that the ordinary view, according to which these words are dramatically put by Hosea into the mouth of Israel as expressive of a superficial conversion, is unsatisfactory. They are rather an earnest expression of faith and zeal, and were inserted by a late writer who was thinking of his own times, not of Hosea's, and failed to realize what was natural and possible in the latter. This is but a variation on the well-known theme that an eighth-century prophet cannot express ideas or speak in a tone considered by the critics characteristic of a later development. The difficulty is all the greater since in this case the prophet speaks not in his own person, but impersonates his people. Now it is certainly true that, if the words were "an earnest expression of faith and zeal," it would be hard to understand how Hosea could put them upon the lips of the degraded and apostate people so vividly portrayed on every page of his book. But this difficulty is wholly of the critic's own making. The explanation which understands these verses as the confession of Israelonly superficially convertedby the first blow of Jehovah's withdrawal, is the only one that suits the context. Although a certain earnestness is not to be denied in them, there are other features which fully justify the charge of superficiality (actually made by Jehovah in verse 4): the Israelites expect the return of Jehovah too soon, "after two days," "on the third day," and too confidently, "his going forth is sure as the morning;" verse 3 still reflects the fatal influence of the naturalistic conceptions, Jehovah's return being compared to the processes of nature in point of necessity. The connection with verse 5, which Cheyne finds imperfect, leaves nothing to be desired. The Perfects are historical and describe how Jehovah has responded to similar premature and transitory conversions in the past by severer judgments.[46] Now, taking for granted that the conversion of which the words are the expression lacks depth and permanency, and is not psychologically inconceivable in such a people as the Israel described by Hosea, so that on this score we have no reason to doubt the genuineness of the passage,[47] it should none the less be urged that in a formal point of view it presents great difficulty to the critical conception of the character and the historical antecedents of popular religion among Israel in Hosea's time. The state of mind revealed in this confession no doubt is deficient in true spirituality, but the language in which the sentiments are clothed reflects a relatively high degree of religious culture and maturity such as points back to something quite different from the primitive religion of Israel as described by the critics. Long ago it had been urged from the conservative side that such a religious past could not have produced the forms of expression of which the early prophets avail themselves and which must have been intelligible to the people. The force of the argument is now indirectly acknowledged as often as an attempt is made, like the present one, to get rid, on the plea of interpolation, of modes of thought and language deemed unnatural and impossible at thus early a period.
Hosea shares with Amos the fate that his prophecy is left without a conclusion by the newest criticism. Wellhausen and Cheyne both deny the genuineness of chapter 14:2-10. The latter finds these verses akin to the writings of the age which begins with Jeremiah; the spirituality of the tone is surprising; to understand Hosea we must omit them; to have added to the stern warning in 14:1 would have robbed it of half its force. Against thisa priorireasoning it should be sufficient to call attention to the numerous points of contact between the suspected verses and the main body of Hosea's book. Verse 2 reflects the prophet's well-known judgment on the worthlessness of external sacrifice; verse 3 contains a reference to the two principal forms of sin against which elsewhere his polemic is directed, political pride and idolatry, and besides expresses together with verse 4 the principle of Jehovah's free forgiving grace; while in verses 5-8 the nature blessings so long abused by Israel to the injury of true religion are represented as mere symbols and instruments through which Jehovah's personal love is communicated to Israel—all Hoseanic ideas to the very core. The whole piece is so entirely in the most characteristic vein of Hosea, so clearly the outgrowth of his fundamental conceptions, so absolutely required to round off his book harmoniously, that the later redactor would have had to possess not only a literary skill greater than that of the prophet himself to compose it, but also an unusual degree of historical sense to reproduce so well a remote situation.
A number of minor interpolations have been assumed by individual critics, the most important of which are 8:1b, 12, 14, 12:1b. The first of these deserves attention because the words it is proposed to strike out contain the significant combination of covenant and Thora, and the second because it is attempted to eliminate the reference to the Thora as existing in written form. In both cases the critical excision strikes at elements obnoxious to the development hypothesis.[48]
The degree of reliability of the critical judgment in some of these instances may be inferred from the widely distant periods to which the Judaistic interpolations are assigned by the various critics. Oort thinks that the redactor belonged to the reign of King Josiah and that the purpose of his new edition of the prophecy was to induce the northern Israelites to reform their religion in the spirit of Deuteronomy and to recognize the Judean authority. Giesebrecht assumes that the interpolations were written towards the close of the exile. Still others make them post-exilic.