In spite of these difficulties, since the section is so long, attempts at division have been made. Ewald distinguished three parts in three different tempers: _First_, iv.-vi. 11 _a_, God's Plaint against His people; _Second_, vi. 11 _b_-ix. 9, Their Punishment; _Third_, ix. 10-xiv. 10, Retrospect of the earlier history--warning and consolation. Driver also divides into three subsections, but differently: _First_, iv.-viii., in which Israel's Guilt predominates; _Second_, ix.-xi. 11, in which the prevailing thought is their Punishment; _Third_, xi. 12-xiv. 10, in which both lines of thought are continued, but followed by a glance at the brighter future.[436] What is common to both these arrangements is the recognition of a certain progress from feelings about Israel's guilt which prevail in the earlier chapters, to a clear vision of the political destruction awaiting them; and finally more hope of repentance in the people, with a vision of the blessed future that must follow upon it. It is, however, more accurate to say that the emphasis of Hosea's prophesying, instead of changing from the Guilt to the Punishment of Israel, changes about the middle of chap. vii. from their Moral Decay to their Political Decay, and that the description of the latter is modified or interrupted by Two Visions of better things: one of Jehovah's early guidance of the people, with a great outbreak of His Love upon them, in chap. xi.; and one of their future Return to Jehovah and restoration in chap. xiv. It is on these features that the division of the following Exposition is arranged.
3. It will be obvious that with a text so corrupt, with a style so broken and incapable of logical division, questions of AUTHENTICITY are raised to a pitch of the greatest difficulty. Allusion has been made to the number of glosses which must have been found necessary from even an early period, and of some of which we can discern the proofs.[437] We will deal with these as they occur. But we may here discuss, as a whole, another class of suspected passages--suspected for the same reason that we saw a number in Amos to be, because of their reference to Judah. In the Book of Hosea (chaps. iv.-xiv.) they are twelve in number. Only one of them is favourable (iv. 15): _Though Israel play the harlot, let not Judah sin._ Kuenen[438] argues that this is genuine, on the ground that the peculiar verb _to sin_ or _take guilt to oneself_ is used several other times in the book,[439] and that the wish expressed is in consonance with what he understands to be Hosea's favourable feeling towards Judah. Yet Hosea nowhere else makes any distinction between Ephraim and Judah in the matter of sin, but condemns both equally; and as iv. 15 f. are to be suspected on other grounds as well, I cannot hold this reference to Judah to be beyond doubt. Nor is the reference in viii. 14 genuine: _And Israel forgat her Maker and built temples, and Judah multiplied fenced cities, but I will send fire on his cities and it shall devour her palaces_. Kuenen[440] refuses to reject the reference to Judah, on the ground that without it the rhythm of the verse is spoiled; but the fact is the whole verse must go. Chap. v. 13 forms a climax, which v. 14 only weakens; the style is not like Hosea's own, and indeed is but an echo of verses of Amos.[441] Nor can we be quite sure about v. 5: _Israel and Ephraim shall stumble by their iniquities, and_ (LXX.) _stumble also shall Judah with them_; or vi. 10, 11: _In Bethel I have seen horrors: there playest thou the harlot, Ephraim; there Israel defiles himself; also Judah_ ... (the rest of the text is impracticable). In both these passages Judah is the awkward third of a parallelism, and is introduced by an _also_, as if an afterthought. Yet the afterthought may be the prophet's own; for in other passages, to which no doubt attaches, he fully includes Judah in the sinfulness of Israel. Cornill rejects x. 11, _Judah must plough_, but I cannot see on what grounds; as Kuenen says, it has no appearance of being an intrusion.[442] In xii. 3 Wellhausen reads _Israel_ for _Judah_, but the latter is justified if not rendered necessary by the reference to Judah in ver. 1, which Wellhausen admits. Against the other references--v. 10, _The princes of Judah are as removers of boundaries_; v. 12, _I shall be as the moth to Ephraim, and a worm to the house of Judah_; v. 13, _And Ephraim saw his disease, and Judah his sore_; v. 14, _For I am as a roaring lion to Ephraim, and as a young lion to the house of Judah_; vi. 4, _What shall I do to thee, Ephraim? what shall I do to thee, Judah?_--there are no apparent objections; and they are generally admitted by critics. As Kuenen says, it would have been surprising if Hosea had made no reference to the sister kingdom. His judgment of her is amply justified by that of her own citizens, Isaiah and Micah.