(W. VOLCKf.)
II. Critical View: 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
1. Ques- degree than almost anywhere else in tions of the Old Testament, the principle holds Text and true that no critic except the most Author- cautious and reserved can afford to
ship. 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 can 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 most striking feature of the whole book is the difference in plan and contents between the two main sections (chaps, i.-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. Prob- mind or habits at the command of lem of Yahweh, and explains the symbolism
Chaps, i.-iii. 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
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Hosea
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 interpreted 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 alien Bundes, Gottingen, 1867) and W R. Smith {The Prophets of Israel, Edinburgh, 1882), the literal 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 symbolical interpretation in any ordinary form are very great. On the other hand, the chief support of the literal explanation is not its antecedent reasonableness, 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 Yahweh, 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 (cf. 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 a 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 accordingly seem to be untenable (see further the overwhelming array of objections in Harper, Amos and Hosea, pp. 209-210).
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 5. 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 (cf. §4). Its history would then perhaps
Hosea
Hosius of Cordova