Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 1

Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 1 What is available in Hebrew can be found in the BHS edition and what is available in Greek can be seen in Rahlfs edition of the LXX. The Vulgate manuscripts can be found in the critical edition of the Vulgate by Weber. The Peshitta or Syriac manuscripts are dealt with by Gelston in his Leiden edition. The Targum manuscripts are found in Sperber. The Coptic manuscripts needs attention though. A complete set of the Bible in Bohairic dialect of Coptic was commissioned by French Orientalist Jean-Jacques Marcel (1776-1854) during the years 1798-1800. He had nearly 3000 manuscripts at his disposal in Cairo. The copyists were those of the Patriarch in Cairo (thus B. Layton). They copied from a model of the 7th-13th centuries in the Patriarchal library in Cairo. However this library was destroyed in a conflagaration between 20 March-25 April 1800. What remained of these copies were later bought by H. Tattam from Marcel before 1830 and they were repaired by Lee in 1829. Transcripts were made by H. Tattam for his printed edition and he also collated some manuscripts of Lee. When we think of the whole range of Coptic manuscripts available all over the world then the following libraries and museums are important for their manuscripts: Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale Musée du Louvre Vienna, Nationalbibliothek, Papyrussamlung (K = Coptic) Napels, Bibliotheca Nazionale (G. Zoega, Catalogus 1810) Cairo, Cairo Museum Coptic Museum Institut Français d' Archéologie Orientale British Museum (Catalogues of W. Crum and B. Layton) Vatican city, Bibliotheca Vaticana Venice, (Mingrelli, Aegyptirum Codicum Religuiae, 1785) Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Heidelberg, Universitätbibliothek Berlin, East Staatliche Museum zu Berlin Ägyptisches Museum-Papyrussamlung (BKU) Berlin, West Staatsbibliothek preusische KulturBesitz (Or.) Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 2 Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Bodleian Library Oxford Griffith Institute Oxford Cambridge University Library John Rylands Library of Mancester Rijksmuseum van Oudheden in Leiden New York, Pierpont Morgan Library Washington, Freer Gallery of Art Prof. Orlandi of the University of Rome's work on manuscripts from the excavations of the White Monastery of Shenut or Sohăg (Akhmīna) (see B. Layton) According to the catalogue of B. Layton manuscripts of the coptic for Hosea can be found in the British Museum under the number Or. 11551 (7) which are 48 folios. This is Marcel's Bible dating from 1798. They do not follow the Greek in Hosea. All the minor prophets including Hosea can be found at Or. 8791 dating from 1796 and comprise 136 pages. Hosea is found in folios 1 verso-24 verso. The Coptic edition of H. Tattam is available under the number Or. 11557A which is the Coptic text of 116 pages and Or. 11557B which is the Latin translation of 174 pages dating from 1835. Another text is that of Des Reviéres dating to 1848 in two numbers Or. 7561A which is the Coptic text and French and Or. 7561B which is the transcription and comments. Besides these Coptic manuscripts on the text of Hosea there are also some commentaries that are noteworthy. There is the sermons of Marcus the monk part of a commentary on the minor prophets including Hosea at Add 17217 on vellum. The biblical commentaries of Petrus Cantor in Latin dating from 1184 in hand and never been printed is available from Royal 10 C V. Marginal annotations occur throughout the text. More information can be found at http://molcat.bl.uk/msscat under Manuscripts: Descriptions. One of the most important manuscripts on Hosea is a glossary of Hosea and Amos in Coptic known as Papyrus 2575 verso and is currently in the British Museum. It was published by H. I. Bell and Sir Herbert Thompson in Journal of Egyptian Archaeology volume 11/1925: 241-246 with plates. It consists of four fragments and dates Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 3 to the end of the 3rd century CE. This means that the Coptic translation was already a fact when this glossary was compiled. One should not assume that this dictionary was compiled in order to translate the Coptic and mistakenly expect that the Coptic was made from the Greek. Our experience with the Coptic text of Hosea as represented in Henry Tattam is that it predates this glossary and is contemporaneous with the translations of the Greek represented in Origen's Hexapla 240 CE. Prospective enthusiasts are warned that there is a commercialization element involved in obtaining these manuscripts. Nevertheless, the site to find them is: http://www.bl.uk and look for British Library Reproductions. Reformation Period and Orthodoxy Period Commentaries and Translations: Figuerius, Petrus. [Latin Translation of Targum Jonathan to the Minor Prophets]. In Operum P. D. Petri a Figueiro...tomi duo. Quorum unus habet commentaries in XXV priores Psalmos...commentaries in XII Prophetas Minores, vol. 2. Lyons, 1616. In British Museum XVII, col. 930. Mercer, Johannes. Ionathae Urielis filii...Chaldaea interpretatio sex prophetarum, Hoseae, Joelis, Amos, Abdiae, Ionae & Haggaei. Paris, 1559. Tremellius, J. Immanuel. Jonathan, filii Uzielis Chaldaea paraphrasis in XII Minores Prophetas Latine reddita. Heidelberg, 1566. Targum of the London/Walton Polyglot was translated into Latin by Alphonso de Zamora and edited by Arias Montanus. Daniel et les douze petits prophètes, manuscrits coptes de la Bibliothèque impériale...par Étienne Quatremère (Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres. Notices et extraits des manuscrits. Paris. 1810. 4e, tome 8, 220-289). Duodecim prophetarum minorum libros in lingua Ægyptiaca, vulgo Coptica aeu Memphitica, ex manuscriptio Johannes Lee...collatos. Latine edidit Henricus Tattam. Oxonii: e Typographeo Academico. 1836. Duodecim prophetarum minorum versionis Achmimicae codex Rainerianus edidit Carolus Wessely. Lipsiae: Haessel. 1915. Studien Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 4 zur Palæographie und Papyruskunde. Heft 16. Fragments des petits Prophètes en dialecte de Panapolis par U. Bouriant. (Recueil de travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l'archéologie égyptienne et assyriennes. Paris, 1897. 4e, année 19. Herbert Thompson, The Coptic (Sahidic) version of certain books of the Old Testament from a Papyrus in the British Museum. London. Freude. 1908. Eric Otto Winstedt, Sahidic Biblical Fragments in the Bodleian Library. In PSBA 25 (1903): 317-325; 26 (1904): 213-221; 27 (1905): 57-64. Walter Curt Till, Rodolphe Kassers Editionen Koptischer Bibelhandschriften aus der Sammlung Martin Bodmer Cologny-Geneve (Sweitz). BSAC 17 (1963-1964). Eric Otto Winstedt, Some Unpublished Sahidic Fragments of the Old Testament. JTS 10 (1909): 233-254. Michel Malinine, Fragment d'une version Achmimique des petits Prophets. Misc. Crum, Coptic Studies in Honor of W. E. Crum. 365-416. Boston. Byz. Inst. 1950 (Bulletin Byzantine Institute 2). Moritz, Bernhard: Barhebraei in duodecim prophetas minores scholia, ad trium codicum fiem rec. Lipsiae, B. G. Teubner. 1882. Vulgate: gopher://ftp/std.com:70/00/obi/book/Religion/Vulgate. Hosea.txt Aramaic Bible: http://www.aramaic.org/ The translation of Jerome is the best of all translations where the manuscripts permit us to get close to Jerome however. This old man from Bethlehem translated with the utmost care very literal. There were sometimes small deviations where we differed. One such case was his inconsistency in the translation of mɔdm in Hosea 9:12 as "in hominibus" = "in a man" whereas the same root was translated similar to our translation in Hosea 6:7 as "Adam". An explanation for this mistranslation can probably be found in the fact that the old man misread the first letter in the word as a /b/ instead of a /m/ and since the preposition "in" did not make sense for him as referent to Adam, he translated it therefore to "man". In Hosea Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 5 11:4 Jerome translated the same root as "Adam". There are times that it is clear to this reader that Jerome's text was a continuous text with no word, sentence or chapter divisions. He had to do the division by himself. In certain cases he would divide the chapters wrongly. One such a case is the division between chapter 10 and 11. Jerome translated 10:15d as part of 11:1a but the context indicates to this reader that 10:15 is dealing with the siege of Samaria in 723 BCE and the king Hoshea is the one who will be cut off. However, in 11:1 the theme is the exodus-from-Egypt motif. The two Israels are thus not related in time zone. In the attempt to reconstruct the Vulgate, there are also textcritical problems, as we have said elsewhere. In Hosea 11:7, two codexes containing the whole old testament omitted "my" in "my people". The meus is omitted in C from ca. 870 CE and Σ from ca. 930 CE. There is a strong dependency of these two codexes that link them throughout the book of Hosea. There are a lot of additions and omissions in these codexes. The following omissions link these two manuscripts: 1:5; 6:1; 8:7 (the second et is omitted); Except otherwise indicated the et "and" is omitted in the beginning of the verse. 8:13 in is omitted of "in Egypt". 9:3 instead of "Ephraim" they both read "Israel". 9:14 instead of reading "eis da eis", they both read only "eis". 10:14 instead of reading "baal in" they both read "bahalim". 12:6 instead of "Deum" they both are reading "dominum Deum" which is "the Lord God" in order to harmonize with verse 5. 12:9 omitted the "deus" of "Dominus Deus", omitted thus the "God" of "the Lord God". 12:13 added "deus" to read "dominus deus" instead of "dominus" to harmonize with 13:4. These examples are not exhaustive but they serve to illustrate the point that the copiest of the Vulgate of the Σ codex in ca. 930 CE consulted codex C from ca. 870 CE. The copiest of the C codex was very involved in his scribal activity. He felt that he had the freedom to omit, add, harmonize or improve on the text. Another example of these scribal activities of the copiest comes from the Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 6 Vulgate manuscript Λ dating to ca. 960 CE on Judges 6:1-13. Known as Legionensis, this is a codex in the monastery of Valeranicensi in Leon. It added, harmonize, omitted the text with editorial freedom. The phenomena in this text resembles the phenomena in 4QJudga the closest of all manuscripts despite scholars insistence that the Greek manuscript n dating to 1125 CE (called the Lucian manuscript) is the closest in reading to this fragment from Qumran. Unless there were other Hosea manuscripts at Qumran, the pesher that came from cave four resembles the consonantal text of the Masoretic text almost 100%. So far the situation for Hosea is different than for the book of Judges from the same cave at Qumran. In chapter two of this commentary we are discussing this fragment from cave four. Our conclusion is that the ninth and tenth centuries saw editorial reworkings of the Old Testament by Greek (for the book of Judges manuscripts v and t and also n mentioned supra), Syriac (especially the books of Judges, Psalms, Isaiah) and Latin manuscripts especially C, Σ (for Hosea) and Λ (for Judges). Dates are very important since some of these are just copies of editorial reworkings that were done earlier. So far it seems safe to conclude that major editorial reworkings took place in the middle of the ninth century for Syriac, Greek and Latin translations after the discovery of some editorial reworked Hebrew manuscripts in caves at Qumran in 807/787 CE. This is of course just an opinion expressed on the basis of some evidence of phenomena in this century similar to phenomena in the Qumran manuscripts. The Vulgate manuscript that corresponds the strongest with 4QJudga is ΛL which consulted manuscript S dating from ca. 790 CE (after the discovery of manuscripts at caves of the Dead Sea). The Latin manuscript O also originated during this time. One wonders what the influence was of the University that was established in 855 CE in the palace of Constantinopel and the role that the mission spirit of Photius played and the translation work of Cyril who translated the bible into Slavic in 860 CE? The manuscripts C and Φ of the Latin Vulgate originated during this time. The time of byzantine expansionism is considered to be between 927 CE until 1025 CE and it is during this time that manuscripts Σ and Λ of the Vulgate originated. It is Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 7 also during this time that the manuscript v of the Greek originated and for the next few centuries a line of correlation originated between manuscripts v, t, p, n, g, w, l, d that caused scholars to suggest that it must have been the translation of Lucian. Historians consider 1025-1095 CE as the decline of the Byzantine Empire. Does the decline in the Empire reflect also on the quality of copying by the copyists in this period? One thing is for sure, not only is the most problematic manuscript of the Greek, the manuscript n dating to 1125 CE but also manuscripts 12d1 and 12d2 of the Syriac dating to 1177 CE are very careless copies of the Syriac including Hosea. It was the time of the beginning of the crusades and the turmoil of the times are reflected in these centuries in the copies made of the Bible. If one looks at the main witness line for the Vulgate it is mostly: A C Σ Λ l S M Φ (s). The dates of these texts are very important to understand the variants that one can find in the Vulgate: A dates from ca. 750 CE; O from ca. 800 CE; C from ca. 870 CE; Σ from ca. 950 CE; Λ from ca. 960 CE; l from 640/50 CE; S from ca. 790 CE; M from 772-781 CE; Φ from ca. 850 CE and (s) from ca. 480 CE. The last one is the oldest. The concept of cross-mutation is very crucial for a proper understanding of the variants. Many of the variants originated due to a consultation of other manuscripts or other translations or other old Hebrew manuscripts. Each of these manuscripts that were consulted has a history of their own: a history of origin, a history of casting into a specific form, a history of scribal activity during its production, a history of transmission, a history as consultation object during production of later manuscripts, translations, copies etc. If that history is not clearly defined or clearly understood, a pious copyist may venture into an effort of copying or altering of the text thinking that the text in front of him is an authoritative text when it was in essence the product of some functional text, paraphrase, shorter version or the like. This situation we describe as a "putative situation": the scribe thinks he is doing the right thing when he is in actual fact off the mark. In the manuscripts S, A, M, Σ, O and Λ there are a number of individual readings. The individual cases are Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 8 scribal idiosyncrasies. Λ consulted Σ, S and M. It is interesting that all these manuscripts that have individual readings or small group readings due to cross-mutation are all dated around the time of the discovery of manuscripts in the Qumran caves in 807/787 CE. In this last instance we reiterate the possible strong connection that Λ might have with Qumran if other Hosea texts would turn up. As for now, this is just an opinion and we must wait for such a situation. A Textcritical Theory for Evaluating the Latin Manuscripts on the Vulgate If one looks at the witness-line of the Vulgate then each of these manuscripts can be dated to a specific time-zone. 1. Dividing the manuscripts according to time: codex rescriptus s from ca. 480 CE. codex rescriptus l from ca. 640/50 CE Amiatinus A dates from ca. 750 CE. Maurdramni M from 772-781 CE. St. Gallen S in the monastry of St. Galli from ca. 790 CE. Ottobonianus O from ca. 800 CE. Consensus Codicum Φ from ca. 850 CE There are three other copies dating from this time: 1. ΦR Rorigonis 2. ΦG Grandivallensis 3. ΦP Paulinus Cavensis C from ca. 870 CE. Toletanus Σ from ca. 950 CE. Legionensis Λ from ca. 960 CE. 2. Edition relevant to Hosea In the years 1592, 1593 and 1598 there appeared an edition that is called (Sixto-) Clementina. The full title is Biblia Sacra Vulgatae Editionis Sixti Quinti iussu recognita (et Clementis Octavi edita) (Rome). Whenever this edition has a particular reading or agree it Hosea Commentary & Versions 9 Van Wyk will be cited in the textcritical edition of the Vulgate in the lower margin as a small c = Clementina. 3. Establishing links between the manuscripts dependence or consultation (cross-mutation). to demonstrate Λ 960 Σ 950 S 790 M 772-781 Σ 950 C 850 C 850 800 O C 850 S 790 A 750 s 480 O 800 S 790 M 772-781 A 750 s 480 S 790 M 772-781 A s 750 480 Hosea Commentary & Versions M 10 772-781 A A Van Wyk 750 750 s 480 4. Analysing the oldest Manuscript available. This last manuscript is in Italy at St. Gallen Stifts Libary and contains Ezekiel to Malachi. It is the oldest manuscript and dates back to the same century as Jerome. This copy will receive serious evaluation in this commentary since this is the oldest manuscript and it is assumed that errors will be only minor editorial oversights. It is not assumed that additions or omissions was made by this copyist intentionally on the basis of some other manuscript available. One is almost inclined to consider this manuscript as a "virgin copy" almost uncontaminated by cross-mutation of whatever kind due to its chronological proximity to Jerome's completion of the translation of Hosea in that century. 5. The theory of cross-mutation and mutilation of Jerome's text The copy s or codex rescriptus is the closest we can come to an original of Jerome's translation of Hosea. The editors who reconstructed the text of Jerome's Vulgate, ignored sometimes the reading of this manuscript in favor of later manuscripts. This is a surprise to us and we should be careful not to expect in the presentation of the text in full the original text of Jerome. One example will suffice: In Hosea 2:12 the reading is et comedet eam bestia agri by s, Φ, l and c (the Clementine edition of 1592, 1593 and 1598). What did the editors decide? The reading should be et comedet illiam bestia agri on the basis of the rest of the witness line, examples of manuscripts that added and omitted at own decision. Manuscripts of four hundred years later were used to correct a manuscript four hundred years earlier within the same century as Jerome. If it is a mistake in s and the correct grammatical reading should be illiam, is it not better to accept it as it is and suggest that either Jerome or the copyist made an error? Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 11 We have no other evidence to clear this issue. It is better to keep it as it was in its original state until other evidence turns up to proof otherwise. In this commentary then, we will take seriously the reading of s and will look very dimly on the other manuscripts as attempts to align, improve, add, omit information due to their own agendas, modus operandi, or points of view. 6. Weigh the Latin manuscripts of Hosea according to time due to the proximity of one manuscript to the time of Jerome Once one accepts the one manuscript as the blueprint from which all others were deducted, the next step is to weigh the rest of the manuscripts according to their dependency and idiosyncracies. This will mean that one analyses the scribal activities of each copyist, translator or composer to explain why the variants would have turned up. Many of the terms that we are using are somewhat interchangeable: a composer is also a copyist since he is copying some pericopes either from memory or hearing the text or reading it himself. He is also a translator who attempts to make understood what is unclear and as such an interpreter with exegetical techniques. A copyist is in a way a composer when he comes to a difficult word and drop in another word that would explain its meaning. He is also a translator who interprets the unknown to his own environment. A translator tries to copy the original in a different language but becomes a composer who interprets with exegetical techniques. All these attributes can be collected under the broad term "scribe". Aquila's Greek Translation In 130 CE Aquila translated the Old Testament into Greek. Aquila is available to us through the edition of Field of Origen's Hexapla. In turn Origen's Hexapla is available to us through codex Ambrosianus that was copied in the eighth century CE. In turn the copy was that of the Syriac Hexapla of Paul of Tella which was a translation of Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 12 Origen's Hexapla in 616 CE after the Persian conquest of Damascus, Jerusalem and Alexandria. Aquila's text is also mentioned here and there in the commentaries of Jerome who translated Hosea in 403 CE into Latin in Bethlehem. What we have seen so far of the text of Aquila in Hosea, convinced us that Aquila copied the text of Hosea first in Hebrew from a dictation situation where a reader read to him another Hebrew text written in scripta continua. Errors crept in the following ways: 1. Aquila's reader divided the words wrongly and thus in the copy of Aquila the words were also divided wrongly. 2. Aquila's reader sometimes misread some illegible parts so that some letters fell out, was transposed or substituted with similar ones. 3. Aquila's reader read correctly, but especially with gutturals Aquila heard wrongly and thus changed the text to what he heard. This is the case in Hosea 10:14 where Aquila heard for areb, jareb. After Aquila made the Hebrew copy he translated it into Greek. His translation was fairly literal and he probably translated exactly what he thought he had. Bad handwriting during the copy would be the result of further variants later by others who used his Hebrew copy. We have an example of dictation in copying or writing from a page in the Moralized Bible in the Morgan Library. It is part of their Medieval and Renaissance manuscripts and this particular image can be found on their website under COLLECTIONS under MEDIEVAL & RENAISSANCE MANUSCRIPTS under MORALIZED BIBLE. It is MS M.240, fol. 8. It is dating to about 1230 CE in France and two scribes are facing each other. The one sits slightly higher than the other one. The one who is reading seems to be a monk while the copyist is probably not since his head is not shaved similarly. The reader also sits with a kind of pen in the hand? This idea of dictation in the process of copying is definitely not new. Symmachus In 170 CE Symmachus translated the Old Testament into Greek. It is clear that he took the Hebrew copy of Aquila and also his Greek translation and control checked it during his own translation. He thus read correctly where Aquila did not but also fell victim to similar Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 13 errors that Aquila made. At times he took over the sentences of Aquila without change even the vocabulary. Theodotion In 190 CE Theodotion translated the Old Testament into Greek. He also used the Hebrew Vorlage of Aquila and the Greek text of Symmachus and translated it anew using his own vocabulary at times and that of Symmachus and Aquila at other times. The Hebrew Vorlage of Aquila became thus an important text for translators in these centuries. Origen In 230 CE Origen compiled the Hexapla or six texts in parallel columns on the Old Testament. All the above Greek texts and a Hebrew text as well as the Septuagint and a transcription of the Hebrew in Greek was written in parallel columns. It is indeed very strange that nothing of this work of Origen survived in Greek but only a Syriac translation made by Paul of Tella in 616 CE. Even of that work only portions of the texts of the big three are discussed. We can only hope that it was hidden from destruction in the past and will be discovered some day by excavation or exploration. One wonders why he listed the LXX of his day after Symmachus and before Theodotion? Does this mean he was using a copy that was chronologically dated before 190 CE? He used three signs (asterisk) at the beginning of a reading to indicate that the following words were in the Hebrew but not in the Septuagint. He used obelos to indicate that the following words were in the Septuagint but not in the Hebrew and he used metobelos to indicate the end of a chain of words started with either an asterisk or metobelos. We must remember that when we speak of the Hebrew text in the first column that we are not sure whether it was the consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition or whether it was the Hebrew text of Aquila? The two are not the same since Aquila's Hebrew copy contained many errors in it. Aquila's Hebrew copy was available to Symmachus in 170 CE and Theodotion in 190 CE so that it is not impossible that it was available also to Origen in 230 CE. If there are thus Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 14 discrepancies between the consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition and these signs and subsequent readings by Origen then that is the place to look for the explanation, namely the Hebrew copy of Aquila. The surprising aspect during our investigation was the many Origen's that are available for one verse. Take Hosea 2:13 as an example. Some sources used the metobelos and some don't. The sources are placing it at different places in the same verse! The situation is very confusing. One can ask: Who is the right Origen? One should not be surprised that there are many differences indicated between the Septuagint of Origen's day and the consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition. The Septuagint text of Origen is just what it says: the Septuagint text of Origen's day - period. It does not claim to be the Septuagint text in the days of the New Testament or the three centuries prior to that. It probably was the Septuagint of the second century CE since what else could have prompted Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion to start their retranslation of the Greek? It was also in the days between Symmachus and Theodotion that Justin the Martyr said in his dialogue with the Jew Trypho that the Jews have mutilated the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts by omitting and adding material to it. Was this process in the second century CE? Was the Septuagint part of this process? Is Origen's Septuagint the result of this mutilation process mentioned by Justin the Martyr? Why did Origen place the signs in the Septuagint of his day and not in the Private copies of the big three mentioned above? They also contained variants? Origen was probably setting the table for a new translation but never got so far. It was his way of indicating the problems with the Septuagint and the more acceptable situation with the big three. One thing is for sure, the following century took the text in that column of Origen very seriously and crowned it to be the official text for the church. Codex of the Septuagint In the fourth century CE a team of editors or compilers worked together in putting out a Septuagint for the church. They apparently used the Greek copies of seemingly the second and third centuries Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 15 CE. They also used the Hebrew Vorlage of Aquila so that some variants of Aquila can be seen in their new edition. They took the text of Origen as the basic text and designed all manuscripts and readings around that reading of Origen. Two codexes were produced: codex Vaticanus and codex Sinaiticus. After the time of Jerome another codex was produced namely codex Alexandrinus (sixth century CE). These codices attempted to be eclectic with the purpose of including as much data as possible so that all variants are found in them. In this way they tried to unify the church so that anyone can find anything in their editions and still be happy. Nothing was left out then. Jerome During the days of Jerome around 381 CE he complained about the situation of the Septuagint. He was in a vehement struggle with Augustine on this issue. He translated the Vulgate of Hosea in Latin in 403 CE. What remains of his original work is a copy of it that was done by a copyist in 480 CE in manuscript s. It is the most important work of Hosea in Latin. Secondly, with alterations and alignments to the Syriac text was that of manuscript l dating to ca. 630 CE. Jerome wanted to be fairly literal to the Hebrew text and he was a very detailed man. According to the information in his commentaries he used Aquila. It seems as if he had the Hebrew copy that Aquila made of Hosea at his disposal during his translation. He had definitely the Greek of Aquila and the other members of the big three. We are not always sure whether the information in the commentaries are really that of Jerome or a pseudo-Jerome. Jerome mentions their interpretations but he does not penetrate into their reason for that translation which would have brought him to their Hebrew Vorlage as a reason for those results. We tried to delf deeper into these issues in this commentary. Since Jerome was a geronti-scholar the candles in the cave at Bethlehem, his bad eyesight and bad hearing made him commit mistakes in reading and listening of the text. We have tried to indicate these issues also. Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 16 Syriac Translation It is said that the Syriac translation was made fairly early but the first manuscripts that we have of the Syriac translation for Hosea dates to the seventh century CE namely 7a1, 7pj2, 7k7 and 7k10. These copies were made during the Persian conquests of Palestine and Egypt until 619 CE (capture of Alexandria) and the Islamic invasions after 632 CE. The Syriac translation of this century does not follow the suggestions or idiosyncracies of Paul of Tella who translated Origen's Hexapla into Syriac in 616 CE. We have found such an example in Hosea 10:14. In 630 CE Greek became the official language of the Byzantine empire. A special interest in Greek was thus understandable. The Syriac translation seems at times to follow the Hebrew copy of Aquila and thus shares some variants with Aquila in that respect. There is a definite link between the Syriac and the Targum and at times that link is so strong that consultation is not out of the question. One wonders if an Aramaic translation was made of the Old Testament which was translated into Syriac and served as consultation text with the Hebrew text of Aquila for its translation. The Targumist paraphrased in his turn the same Aramaic text that served the Syriac translator? We have evidence in Hosea that the Syriac translator misread an Aramaic text and not a Hebrew one. Syro-Hexapla (Paul of Tella) The Greek Hexapla of Origen was translated into Syriac by Paul of Tella in 616 CE two years after the Persian conquest of Jerusalem and three years before the conquest of Alexandria. Sources for his work are the earliest codex Ambrosianus of the eighth century CE located in the British Museum as Add. 12133. According to the evidence, Paul of Tella at times adapted the Hexapla of Origen to what he perceived as information from Eusebius. Such a case is the spelling of the name of Salman in Hosea 10:14. The Syriac official text did not follow this suggestion of Paul of Tella. We used the edition of Field in 1875 for this investigation of Hosea. Coptic Translation Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 17 A coptic translation was made also fairly early but to find a text earlier than the fourth century CE is almost impossible. Factors influencing the results of our investigations Not only are we struggling with issues of human error of reading, and listening in the process of copying or translating but there are other problems. The Middle East was as usual a melting pot of political and economical interests. Wars and invasions brought about many destructions of valuable libraries that was either emptied out or burnt. Many valuable manuscripts including Coptic translations of the Old Testament was burnt during a conflagaration of Cairo between 20 March-25 April 1800). Censorship of manuscripts, books, translations, copies, and important literature resulted in their confiscation and destruction. We had several periods and dates when this happened. Texts were sometimes manipulated by copyists in order to represent a thought that their superior wanted to express. Justin the Martyr complaint about these issues. There was an element of delusion present in sofar as copyists or translators were not able to discern whether the copy they were using was a good copy or a bad copy. They were not even able to discern what was plagiarism and what was original or what was manipulation. As such they transmitted errors truthfully and faithfully. We stand under the same delusion in the present as scholars when we cross the "ugly ditch" in the past uncritically accepting the works as perfect representations for what they profess to be. All the versions of the Bible should be contested and challenged. Only the consonantal text of the Masoretic Tradition in Hebrew stands untouched by this criticism since it is the only tradition that corresponds up to a 100% margin of correctness at Qumran (errorless for more than a millennium). Quite a record! Exegesis as a Life Principle Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 18 Exegesis as we understand it is not only for preachers or scholars. Any human activity in life is an exegesis. The quest for meaning is a human attribute. The attempt to understand symbols and connect them to reality is in our understanding "exegesis". Whether it is the scribe composing, copying or translating, exegesis is the essence of his scribal activity and cannot be categorised apart from that activity. It is in our view wrong to say: "I am only interested in the translation, not in the exegesis" or to say "I am only interested in the text, not the exegesis". The text is fossilized exegesis that needs the activity of exegesis to be understood. Ralphs Septuagint: http://www.geocities.com.com/Athens/ Thebes/2600/Hos1.htm Ralphs Septuagint Morphology: gopher://ccat.sas.upenn.edu:3333/00/Religious/Biblical/LXXMorph/38.Hos ea.mlxx Parallel Hebrew Greek text: gopher://ccat.sas.upenn.edu:3333/00/Religious/Biblical/parallel/28.Hosea.p ar Versions and Translations of the Bible in English: http://www.bible?language=English&version=Darby&passage=Hosea. This reference is at the website www.gospelcom.net under Bible and then under versions: KJV, RSV, Darby, YLT (Young's Literal Translation), NASB, NIV. Version of Hosea in English: http://www4.autoelect.com/BWB/ ho.htm. This version is called Webster's Translation of the Holy Bible but the interesting thing is that it follows the KJV mostly. It rather seems as if some words of the KJV are placed in italics if they are considered not in the original. The problem with this source is that many things are taken from the KJV that is also not in the original but not indicated as such. Dead Sea Scroll on Hosea: Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 19 http://metalab.unc.edu/expo/deadsea.scrolls.exhibit/Library/hosea.html. This is a fragment from cave four of Hosea that is a commentary or a pesher on the biblical verses of Hosea 2:8-14. This site has a photo of the fragment a bibliography and also an English Translation by M. Horgan. Calvin's commentary on Hosea: http://www.iclnet.org/pub/ resources/text/ipb-e/epl-04/cvhos-09.txt The translator of Calvin's commentary from the Latin into English said: "It has been thought by many critics, that the received Hebrew text of Hosea is in a more imperfect state than that of any other portion of Scripture; but Bishop Horsley denies this in a manner the most unhesitating; and those emendations which Archbishop Newcome introduced in his version, about 50 in number, the Bishop has swept away as unauthorised, and, indeed, as unnecessary, for most of them had been proposed to remedy the anomalies peculiar to the style of this Prophet; and some of those few emendations, which the Bishop himself introduced, founded on the authority of MSS., Calvin's exposition shows to be unnecessary." This demonstrate to us the benefit of utilizing the commentary of Calvin on Hosea. This commentary has been made from an edition printed at Geneva in 1567, three years after Calvin's death, compared with another, printed also at Geneva in 1610. Calvin's translation is "a literal rendering of the original, without any regard to idiom, and to translate it has been found impracticable, at least in such a way as to be understood by common readers. His practice evidently was to translate the Hebrew word for word, and to make this his text, and then in his Comment to modify the expressions so as to reduce them into readable Latin, and his version modified agrees in most instances with our authorized version." Calvin's commentary is exciting to read since he undertook to make his own translation of the original, as it is said, he made the text his own. Calvin supported the prophetic interpretation principle of one day = to one year, see his commentary on Hosea 6:2. Calvin would sometimes shun away from any messianic attachment to a verse in Hosea. Examples of this are Hosea 6:2 and 6:3. He uses the words: "But this is too refined an Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 20 exposition; and it is enough for us to keep close to the design of the Prophet." However, he is not consistent in this rule of his and sometimes are indecisive as to what exactly to do as in Hosea 6:2. At least in two places in Hosea 6, Calvin attempted to establish his own reading: in Hosea 6:7 where he argued for a translation of "men" instead of "Adam" and in 6:9 where he argued for a translation of "with consent" instead of "to Shechem". The KJV followed his ideas mainly in these places. John Wesley's commentary on Hosea: http://wesley.nnc.edu/ wesley/notes/hosea.htm John Wesley died in 1791 and these are only notes on Hosea. They are sometimes cryptic. In the case of Hosea 4 he left out verse 9. He did consult the authorized version and some of the comments that Calvin made can also be found in the notes by Wesley. Translations that were considered by Calvin as possible but not followed, were sometimes followed by Wesley (cf. Hosea 4:5). Whereas Calvin made the point that both the people and the priest should be seen applicable in Hosea 4:8, John Wesley made it only applicable to the priest. Martin Luther's translation of Hosea: http://diderot.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/htmlpage?27.4/isk/mark/databases/luthe r_bible/ This is the 1534 translation of Martin Luther which has some very interesting translation moments. Luther sometimes translate into idiomatic-equavalent German so that certain temporal and causal particles from the original are not translated. There are sometimes a shift in persons so that objects that did not have people connected to it now have and object which were connected to people are now not. Still the translation is of tremendous help cf. the special case in Hosea 5:2 where wshth stym is read as "und eine tiefe Grube zu Schittim" by Luther (contra the Vulgate or Septuagint) which was then later also followed in the RSV as "and they have made deep the pit of Shittim". We have also followed this rendering. Luther likes to connect sentences that stands independently in the original by way of causal or temporal German particles. For example: if a Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 21 sentence reads "this and that" then Luther will translate it as "(when) this (then) that". This kind of translation is of course interpretative and should be discouraged. The Geneva Bible. O.R. Gurney and S.N. Kramer, Sumerian Literary Texts in the Ashmolean Museum. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1976. In this work we have used the execration text of Iddin-Dagan (no. 8 on page 20-23) dating to the time of Jacob indicating that eschatological lingua existed for a long time and, not as is commonly held today, that it is a late invention after the exile. The Deir 'Alla Inscription can also be used fruitfully in such an investigation but scholars have conflicting views as to the dating of it. The Polyglot: Walton, B. Biblia Polyglotta Prolegommena. London: 1657. Vol. 1-3, 4-6. We are utilizing this polyglot for this commentary. It contains the Hebrew, Vulgate, Greek, Aramaic Targum, Syriac and Arabic translations as well as Latin translations of each of these except the Vulgate. The one who translated the Syriac was very free in his translation and it gives sometimes the impression that the Syriac is widely apart from the Hebrew which it in fact is not. It also seems as if different individuals were assigned to translate the languages. A typographical error was detected in the Syriac and Arabic Latin translation at Hosea 1:4 for the word translated as Izareelem in both the Syriac and Arabic. There is no /m/ at the end in the Syriac version. In this commentary we are unable to make any comments regarding the Arabic translation. Syriac Translation: The Syriac translator of Hosea 1 was not the same as Hosea 14. While the translator of Hosea 1 was more conservative in his translations, the translator of chapter 14 was more free. The translator of chapter 14 displays the same translation characteristics that one would find generally with Martin Luther. He would introduce copulatives which is absent in the original or add words like "again" and causal particles like "because" Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 22 connecting sentences that could have been very likely apart (compare Hosea 14:4). The Syriac reader misread the original Hebrew "my repentings" as "my kindness" in Hosea 11:8. This misreading was also done by the Targum. We are not sure who followed whom in this case? The Syriac reader are translating very freely in this verse since he added adversative particles "or" to connect the questions that are not in the Hebrew text. Another particle "together" and a preposition "over me" as well as a word "shall I place you" in the Hebrew text were left out by the Syriac translator of Hosea 11:8. http://wwwstaff.murdoch.edu.au/ t-issa/syr/details/bible.htm In a note at the above website it is said about the biblical heritage of the Syrian Orthodox Church that a certain Daniel worked together with the Armenian scholar Mesrob in order to translate the Syriac bible into Armenian in the year 404 CE, the year that Jerome translated the Vulgate. In those same days a certain Yakoub of Edessa was copying manuscripts of the bible that were in Syriac in that town. ～ From a textcritical point of view, this century was thus important: 1. the period when the Greek codexes Alexandrinus and Vaticanus were compiled. 2. the period when Jerome translated into Latin the Vulgate in Bethlehem, Palestine. 3. the period when Syrian Daniel and Armenian Mesrob translated the bible into Armenian. 4. the period when Yakoub of Edessa made copies of the Syriac bible in Edessa. Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 23 Fourth Century Scribal Activities in the Mediterranean Belt Greek Greek team team of of Codex Alexandrinus Codex Vaticanus ▣ ▣ Armenian Team Daniel + Mesrob ▣ Syriac copier Yakoub of Edessa ▣ Latin Translator Jerome +Jewish reader ▣ Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 24 Rabbinic Jewish Exegesis in the Middle-Ages When we are dealing with the topic of jewish exegesis, Middle-Ages and Modern, there is a phenomenon in Jewish exegesis that needs closer attention. The Jewish religious scholars and leaders did not permit any emendation of the physical casting of the text. They were very strict and rightly so. That means, in the concrete or physical sphere the text remained the same all the centuries of transmission. However, in the abstract sphere, their own thoughts, they freely emend the text. There is a spiritual looseness with the text that is actually the greatest problem in Jewish exegesis. Rashi and Redak will explain the text in Hebrew sometimes saying things that are not in the consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition. On the other hand, when modern Rabbi A. J. Rosenberg translate their Hebrew texts into English, he will omit or add to their text words that are not in their Hebrew texts. It is the same procedure that one finds in the Aramaic translation of Targum Jonathan to the Prophets. For some reason, jewish exegetes feel that they can go outside the bounderies of the text in their exegesis as long as the physical status of the text remains intact. It is a strange and uneasy dichotomy in Jewish exegetes and exegesis. On the one hand they do not permit any change, on the other, the ideological sphere, they change everything, or almost everything. Let's look at some examples: Rashi wrote on Hosea 5:7 . ( ) (RashiHebrew Text Rosenberg 1986Hos5:7) which we translated as: They begot strange children. They intermarried among nations. Rosenberg, however, translated Rashi as: For they begot strange children for they intermarried among nations. One may argue that the addition of the causative particle for is not that big a deal and that it does not change the picture that much. The fact is that the causative concept is not explicitly stated by Rashi and even if it was implicitly possible, it is safer to stay close to the literal aspect of the text. The exegete manipulates his text on the surface, yet below the surface do not touch it's form. Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 25 Rashi could have meant it in an explicative way as synonymous: to begot strange children is equal or means the same as they intermarried among the nations. It is thus not ipso fact clear whether Rashi meant the result or causative mode. When Rosenberg translated the Targum Jonathan to the Prophets on this verse into English he rendered: Targum Jonathan to the Prophets: (Twalton1654) also (Trosenberg1986: 33) They betrayed the word of the Lord since they kept children from the daughters of the nations for themselves. We rendered this as: Against the memra/words of the Lord they have transgressed, for sons from daughters of the nations stood up to them. The preposition in is left out in the translation of Rosenberg. With Rosenberg the word sons is taken as children but the word daughters remained daughters and not children also. It brings us back to our concern regarding the exegetical treatment of the physical features of the text which undergoes a kind of permissive metamorphosis once jewish exegesis is underway. No-one easily obstructs, no-one readily objects, no-one haste to correct, no-one presents an analysis but they just review what the ancients have said, rightly and wrongly. The human frailty of these great jewish scholars is hardly a topic for consideration by them. You will not easily find them saying: Rashi was wrong when he said; or Redak misread the text when he said; or Ibn Ezra misunderstood the text when he said. Let it not be misunderstood as if it is our task to break down these great men of the past. Not in the least. There are exegetical observations by Redak, Rashi and other rabbis in the book of Hosea that will make many Christian denominations very excited e.g. Hosea 11:9 In your midst is the Holy One and I will not come into a city is explained by the Jewish exegetes to mean that God will not enter the heavenly city of Jerusalem until he enters the earthly city of Jerusalem (RedakHebrew and English Text Rosenberg 1986Hos11:9) Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 26 These are fascinating concepts. These rich concepts are not just invented, they are embedded in the corners of the prophets and by careful observation the jewish exegetes took note of them. List of Jewish exegetes relevant for Hosea Rabbi Ibn Ezra (source: article by J J O'Connor and E F Robertson available on the internet, see SEARCH of YAHOO.COM) His full name was Abraham ben Meir ibn Ezra and he was born in 1092 in Tudela, Emirate of Saragossa (now Spain). He died in 1167 in Calahorra, Spain. Rabbi Ben Ezra lived in Muslim Spain. Little is known of his life except that he was on friendly terms with the poet and philosopher Judah ha-Levi (ibn Ezra's father-in-law?). Ibn Ezra was a scholar and a poet. It is recorded that during this period of his life, up to 1140, he travelled to North Africa and possibly visited Egypt. From 1140 to 1160 ibn Ezra's life changed. He wandered throughout Europe during this period and eventually settled down in Rome, then Lucca, for a few years before his death. It was during this latter period of his life that he composed his most famous works. In addition to his poetry, ibn Ezra wrote on: grammar, exegesis, philosophy, medicine, astronomy, and astrology. In addition to these topics, ibn Ezra wrote on permutations and combinations, the calendar, the astrolabe, and Biblical studies. He spread the learning of the Arabs through Europe at a time when scholarship in Christian Europe had been neglected for five hundred or more years. Ibn Ezra's writings on grammar and poetry were often motivated by the "paytanim". Synagogues appointed official precentors, whose duty it was to compose poetical additions to the liturgy on special Sabbaths and festivals. The authors were called "paytanim" (from the Greek poietes, "poet"), and their poems were called "piyyutim". The keynote was messianic fervor and religious exuberance (see J. J. O'Connor and E. F. Robertson) Besides employing the entire biblical, Mishnaic, and Aramaic vocabularies, the paytanim coined thousands of new Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 27 words. Abraham ibn Ezra attacked the language and style of the early paytanim. He was the first to use Arabic metres in religious poems (idem). In fact to ibn Ezra there was no conflict between science and religion for he considered that science and astrology were at the basis of Jewish learning. For ibn Ezra revelation and reason are ultimately perfectly congruent. His critical reading of the biblical text and his astrological interpretations of some biblical passages arise from his consistent application of a naturalist and rationalistic exegetical method and express his commitment to the view that rationality is inherent in revelation itself. (Article by: J. J. O'Connor and E. F. Robertson available on the internet). Ibn Ezra's commentaries on Hosea is presented in full by Rabbi A. J. Rosenberg in his The Book of the Twelve Prophets (New York: The Judaica Press, Inc. 1986). Rabbi Rashi Rashi is an acronym for the name of Rabbi Solomon bar Isaac who lived between 1040-1105. He was a Jewish exegete, grammarian and legal authority born in France. He studied in Worms and Mainz, returning to his city of birth Troyes c. 1065. He taught and wrote commentaries to most of the Bible and Talmud. These are among the most authoritative in Jewish exegesis and are still important in Jewish life. Rashi's commentary on the Pentateuch (printed 1475) was the first dated Hebrew book published. His commentary on the Talmud covers the Mishnah with the Gemara. His work influenced some Christian thinkers as early as the 12th cent and even beyond, namely Johannes Reuchlin in early Reformation times. His commentary on Hosea in Hebrew is presented by Rabbi A. J. Rosenberg in his The Book of the Twelve Prophets (New York: The Judaica Press, Inc. 1986). Rabbi Kara Rabbi Joseph Kara was a student and contemporary of Rashi. His text on Hosea is presented in the original by Rabbi A. J. Rosenberg Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 28 in his The Book of the Twelve Prophets (New York: The Judaica Press, Inc. 1986). Rabbi Radak Radak is the acronym for Rabbi David Kimchi 1157-1236. When we think about Rabbi Radak, we must see him in the context of the Kimchi family. His father and older brother were his teachers. He lived in Narbonne, Provence (southern France). He was a major grammarian and the author of one of the most important Biblical commentaries. He was the son of another famous grammarian and rabbi, Rabbi Yosef Kimchi, who died while David was still young. Radak studied under his older brother, Rabbi Moshe, who also wrote several books on grammar. Radak's first book was a work on grammar titled Michlol, the second section of this work is known as Sefer HaShoroshim meaning: The Book of Roots which is a dictionary of Biblical roots of words. Later he began to write his famous commentary on Tana'ch, (the Jewish Scriptures) beginning with a commentary on Divrei HaYamim (Chronicles), which he wrote at the request of one of his father's students. His commentaries appeared in the First Rabbinic Bible edited by Felix Pratensis in 1517 and in the Great Rabbinic Bible of 1524/25. There is much discussion of Radak's system and style of commentary, but most seem to agree that he emphasized p'shat = the basic meaning with a stress on clarity and readability. This principle that the Kimchi's used was greatly appreciated by the Christian Reformers. For a more complete biography of David Kimchi see Encyclopaedia Judaica 10 (Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House Ltd., 1971) the article Kimhi, David) There is a publication on Radak's commentary on Hosea published by Harry Cohen, The Commentary of Rabbi David Kimchi on Hosea, edited with critical notes showing his sources, on the basis of manuscripts and early editions (New York: 1966). This publication was unavailable to us. Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 29 His commentary on Hosea in Hebrew and sometimes English translations is presented by Rabbi A. J. Rosenberg in his The Book of the Twelve Prophets (New York: The Judaica Press, Inc. 1986). Maimonides (Source: Joseph Telushkin. Jewish Literacy. [NY: William Morrow and Co., 1991]) His full name was Moses ben Maimon. In Hebrew he is known by the acronym of Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, namely, Rambam. He was born in Spain shortly before the Muslims came to power there. To avoid persecution by the Muslim sect who attempted to force Jews and Christians to convert, Maimonides fled with his family. First he went to Morocco, later to Israel, and finally to Egypt. He wanted to continue his studies for several years more, but when his brother David, a jewelry merchant, died he had to begin earning money. He started practicing medicine at this time. Maimonides's major contribution to Jewish life remains the Mishneh Torah, his code of Jewish law. His intention was to compose a book that would guide Jews on how to behave and react in all situations just by reading the Torah and his code, without having to expend large amounts of time searching through the Talmud. His provocative rationale upset many traditional Jews, who feared that people would rely on his code and no longer study the Talmud. Despite opposition in some circles, the Mishneh Torah became a standard guide to Jewish life. It later served as the model for the Shulkhan Arukh, the sixteenth century code of Jewish law that is still today regarded as authoritative by Orthodox Jews. Philosophically, Maimonides was a religious rationalist. He made attacks on people who held ideas he regarded as primitive, e.g. those who understood literally such biblical expressions as the finger of God". Parts of his code and all of The Guide to the Perplexed were at times banned to read. Three leading rabbis in France denounced his books to the Dominicans, who headed the French Inquisition. The Inquisitors burned the books. Maimonides also formulated a credo of Judaism expressed in thirteen Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 30 articles of faith, a popular reworking of which (the Yigdal prayer) appears in most Jewish prayerbooks. Among other things, this credo affirms belief in the oneness of God, the divine origins of the Torah, and the afterlife. Its twelfth statement of faith ? I believe with a full heart in the coming of the Messiah, and even though he may tarry I will still wait for him". Maimonides also influenced Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas refers in his writings to Rabbi Moses, and it is clear that he knew the Guide. There is a popular expression:From Moses [of the Torah] to Moses [Maimonides] there was none like Moses. Mezudath David and Mezudath Zion These are simple and concise commentaries on the Bible from the 18th century written by Rabbi Yechiel Hillel Altschuller. Both works are conveniently presented in the original by Rabbi A. J. Rosenberg in his The Book of the Twelve Prophets (New York: The Judaica Press, Inc. 1986). Eliezer of Beaugency He was a French scholar of the 12th century who wrote a book: Commentary on the Twelve Prophets and Ezekiel. Rabbi Rosenberg at times makes reference to his work. In the USA Robert Harris has worked on this scholar in his dissertation. Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 31 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS TO THE COMMENTARY Emendations: In the lower register of the BHS text of the Masoretic text, are the suggestions by a scholar or scholars for the revision of the original. One must be very cautious here, in fact alarmed. There are a number of reasons to call for a red-alert here to the student. Firstly, is the self-incriminating expression of uncertainty that accompanies the suggestions. Here we refer to the abbreviation prb = probably that is used in nearly all emendations suggested. Whenever someone uses "probably" it means that he/she is not sure and is only expressing an opinion, which may be true or may not. The expression: "Americans were probably on the moon" is quite different than "Americans were on the moon". Whenever they find a proof for an altered reading in the Septuagint or other text they do not use the prb but just order the reader to delete or alter the text. This calls for the second reason for an alert. Such arguments can go the opposite way. Take Hosea 5:18 as an example. The editors of BHS in the lower register is trying to say in that verse that one should delete a word hby since it is a dittography (a double entry) in the Masoretic text for the Septuagint reads it only once. The other way of the argument is: how do we know whether it is not a case of haplography (reading it only once) in the Septuagint? They continue in this verse to suggest on the basis of Symmachus' private translation in Greek of the Old Testament and also Hosea that one should read )hb )hbw for the MT )hbw hbw . It is clear that Symmachus' error originated as a result of an acoustic error. The gutterals do sound the same in the reading and a listener may confuse the letters. This shows that the argument can go Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 32 the opposite direction than that suggested by the editors of the BHS. A better approach for the student or reader of the original text represented in the BHS is: when they are saying that one should "probably read it in a certain way" is to probably not reading it in that way. To list evidence from the Septuagint, Syriac, Targum and the Vulgate for a reading in one way or another is not a proof of the clarity of an emendation. We have made many comments regarding the textual criticism of each of these versions in this commentary at various places. None of their manuscripts are predating the fourth century CE (for the Septuagint), sixth century CE (for the Vulgate) and eighth century CE (for the Syriac and Targum). The complexity of each of these texts is a third reason to call a red alert to any emendations to the text of Hosea. There is a fourth reason to call an alert to the emendations suggested in the lower register of the BHS. Some of these suggestions are made on the basis of a socalled conception of what "classical Hebrew grammar" is. An excellent description of the pitfalls and constraints in designing a grammar for Biblical Hebrew was written by Gesenius. The bottomline in that article or research is that middle-age Arabic grammars are used to lay down the rules of a grammar and those rules are then placed over the Old Testament. The problem as we can see it, is that Arabic rules of nearly a millennium away from the original is used to analyse the data. This aspect we have also discussed at various places in this commentary. Our so-called perfect understanding of the logistics of a Hebrew grammar does not mean that it was the Hebrew grammar of Hosea. Communication in ones own milieu makes one to adapt (perfectly acceptable) innovate, borrow, and speak with cryptic, telegraphic sentences in order to be effective to a bilingual or multilingual audience. It is not ungrammatical when one spit out a short sentence totally against the classical grammar rules if it is to serve sensibility and understanding in the art of communication. For anyone to go and suggest emendations to such a sentence is to reinterpret it and definitely not an attempt to restore the sentence. These editors of the BHS used abbreviations like crrp = "corrupt" in order to make an evaluative statement on the condition of a text. Just because they Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 33 cannot make sense out of something, the text is subsequently "corrupt" and should be emended to something else. No scholar presenting the text of the Moabite Stone, the Deir 'Alla Inscription, the Gezer Calendar, the Sefire Inscription, the Tell Fekhiriya Inscription, the Dan Text suggests in a "lower register" emendations for "ungrammatical constructions". What we have received is what we have and we have to live with it. Our notions of "corrupt" is of very little value in these cases. Of course there are cases in the lower register where the evidence from the Septuagint, Syriac, Targum or Vulgate indicate that the vowels were different. That means that the consonantal text are the same but the voweling were done differently. Since the oldest texts did not have any vowels except the matres lectiones, it is in such cases legitimate to take heed of these examples. We have found that the lower register of the BHS is not only misleading, it is incomplete as far as references are concerned about variants in other translations like the Syriac and the Targum. It is better for the beginner to ignore it completely. Let us look at one example from Hosea as it was translated in the Syriac and Targum and which the editors of the BHS suggested in the lower margin should be followed: The Syriac reader misread the original Hebrew "my repentings" as "my kindness" in Hosea 11:8. This misreading was also done by the Targum. The Syriac reader is translating very freely in this verse since he added adversative particles "or" to connect the questions that are not in the Hebrew text. Another particle "together" and a preposition "over me" as well as a word "shall I place you" in the Hebrew text were left out by the Syriac translator of Hosea 11:8. What is the "guidance" that the editors of the BHS wants to give? In the lower register they gave a note: "probably read compare the Syriac and the Targum". What an irresponsible statement. There is no reference to the addition of the adversative particle "or", the omission of one verb in the Syriac translation, the omission of a preposition and other differences in the Syriac translation of this verse. Nothing. The long elaborated additions in the Targum is not referred to by the editors. They selected this variant as "better than the Masoretic reading" and where Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 34 they received their special revelation from, is hard to say, but they authoritatively insisted that we should change the text, but only this aspect in this verse! In the final analysis, they are a-normative, using an eclectic methodology scooping up anything they like and disregard anything they dislike. Historical links in the book of Hosea: It is clear that some points help us to identify certain chapters as belonging to the Syro-Ephraimitic war in 731 BCE and the call by Ahaz for help in 730 BCE from Sheshonk V and in 727 BCE from Assyria (see our comments at Hosea 5:13 and 7:11c-d). In Hosea 10:14 the reference to Shalman is to Shalmanezer V who sieged Samaria in 723 BCE. The king who would be utterly cut off in Hosea 10:15 is king Hoshea of Israel who was cut off in his 9th year of his reign in that year. It is clear for us that Hosea was by now a man of nearly 87 years old. Another help as to the dating of Hosea came from the Samaria Ostraca. One of the wealthy recipients of products from Phoenician and other tenants was a lady with the name of Gomer, the same we conclude became the wife of Hosea. Ostraca were received in the 9th, 10th 15th and 17th years of a certain king whom we assumed to be Jehoash. This helps us to estimate the marriage of Hosea at the age of 18 and also his probable age at his death. He was ca. 87 years old at the fall of Samaria See our discussion in Hosea 1:4 on these aspects. We could not analyse any other event after this date in the book of Hosea. How he died is not easy to say, but one thing is certain and that is that he died with Psalm 1:6 on his lips, a very old man. The marriage of Hosea with this wealthy girl (also very young) is an ancient love drama similar to our modern Renaldo di Caprio Titanic saga. Hosea was the poor young boy who fell in love with this very rich young Aramaean/Phoenician girl and he made her pregnant. The young couple settled on her big estate and in the course of the years, Hosea became apparently some kind of a foreman (who used the fruits of the land) but does not Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 35 claim ownership over the land itself. In his book he talks about "her field". Parts of the land was rented out to Phoenician farmers and they became the "lovers" to whom the wife of Hosea began to pay visits. The Samaria Ostraca were thus a good source to add some background information to the book of Hosea and is thus a germ of data contributive to this book. Internal and external evidence supporting a historical dating of events in Hosea in the end of the reign of Sheshonk V in 730 BCE Hosea Commentary & Versions 750 749 748 747 Moph shall bury them 746 The inhabitants of Samaria shall sojourn 745 unto the calves of the house of Beth-aven, for its people shall mourn 744 over it, and like one who is bitter over 743 it shall they shriek ecstatically over its glory, because it is departed from it. 742 741 740 739 ☞ 738 Egypt they have called, Assyria they 737 have run 736 And Ephraim shall turn to Assyria and he shall sent to king Jareb. And he, he 735 is not able to cure you and not heal you 734 from your wound 733 △ 732 731 ☞ 730 (Hosea 9:6) (Hosea 10:5) Tiglath Pilezer III star ted to reign in Assyria (Hosea 7:5) (Hosea 5:13) Memphis Memphis △ ☞ Sheshonk V died '3-ḫpr-R( ▼ APIS BULL DIED (1) APIS BULL DIED (2) ☞ Van Wyk 36 Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 37 Linguistic features: Aramaisms: It seems as if the book of Hosea is filled with certain aramaisms. It is a common feature in the book of Daniel to have an independent personal pronoun together with a similar pronominal suffix added to the following verb: Daniel 5:16 w⊃nh sm⊂t . In Hosea ⊃ ⊃ ⊃ we have it at 1:9c w nky l - hyh ; 2:4b-c; 2:10a-b; 2:23d; 2:24c; 4:14; 5:3a; 5:14c (special case); 7:13c-d; 7:15a; 8:4a; 8:9a; 8:13f; 9:10e; In Hosea 10:9 he used the Aramaic word meaning "burnt-offering". All the versions except the Targum misread this word as = "iniquity". Hosea and "Prophecy" Hosea has a well-developed understanding of prophecy and the role of prophets. A. Weiser did not want to accept that Hosea was part of the Nebiim or prophets (see A. Weiser, 233 contra the opinions of Sellin, 0. Eissfeldt and Rost). We do not endorse the idea of Weiser at all. Hosea called Moses a "prophet" in Hosea 12:14 "and by a prophet the Lord took them up from Egypt". He understood fully the three methods God can speak through a prophet: directly "over the prophets" (Hosea 12:11a); by increasing of visions (Hosea 12:11b); by the hand of prophets simultudes (Hosea 12:11c). The last one refers to written messages or sermons that the prophets preaches and someone or himself writes (by the hand) it down. Hosea was familiar with the preposition /b/ as an instrumental function (see Hosea 12:14a 'by the prophets') and thus the form wbyd "and by the hand" is more than just an expression of the instrumental function. It is a reference to the written or production as a speech aspect of a prophet. The preacher is a prophet too. Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 38 Phoenicianisms: Hosea 7:16 zw (compare the Phoenician inscription of Kilamuwa dating to the ninth century using the demonstrative pronoun z = = in line 15 of KAI 24 as ); 2:15 w⊃ty ; Hosea 8:7 bly , also Hosea 9:16 (compare the Phoenician inscription of Kilamuwa in KAI 24 where he used in lines 2-5, 11 and 12 the negative particle bl = = a number of times). The Chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah and the book of Hosea: The opening remarks of the book of Hosea, makes it imperative to look into the chronology systems that are described in the book of Kings and Chronicles. Before we will go into detail about these kings and their respective reigns the following remarks should be made. Anyone who thinks they can just pull out a pencil and paper and start calculating the dates for the kings Israel and Judah by aligning the numbers with Julian years are going to be in serious trouble. This investigation is a serious question of methodology. How you calculate and what principles you are following or respecting are of crucial importance. An approach that will just run to the Septuagint or any other old version for so-called better understanding, fail already. There is no need to change any consonant of the Masoretic text and there are no contradictions either. The whole system is brilliantly in harmony and there need not be any concern. This researcher started out with a pencil and paper approach but failed so greatly that another method was devised. Three sets of Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 39 information were prepared. One is a Julian counting of years from 973 BCE (start of the reign of King Solomon as crownprince with his father David) until 723 BCE with the fall of Samaria. The way this was done is to use A4 pieces of paper with lines equally spaced out over each page. Strips were cut from these papers and glued together to form one continues equally spaced "ruler" for the Julian dates. Two other similar sets were prepared for each king following the reading of the Masoretic text. One set is of course for Israel and another set is for Judah. Lining them all up we finally ended with a result that places the death of Hezekiah over thirty years beyond the conventional date for his death. Somewhere was a problem and some principles were laid down. A probe was made to test the principles (which are all related to Ancient Near Eastern methods and ways of counting; different calendric systems etc.). The final result of the probe was that in two different kinds of counting methods, one set was nearly two years behind the Julian dating and one system was actualy one year ahead of the Julian counting. These were the principles and the probe. Principles of Interpretation of Calendric references in the Books of Kings and Chronicles: 1. Whereas the Julian calendar is a solar calendar with 365.25 days, the lunar calendar had only 354 days in a year. 2. The result was a "limping year" in which about 11 days were behind in the first year, 22 in the second year and 33 days in the third year. To catch up with the solar year again, they devised a system called the "intercallary month" in which a month was selected and doubled (a thirteenth month with the same name as the previous one). Every four years a double month would appear that would attempt to align the lunar year with the solar year. However, three days was still lacking and every 30 years there would be a double intercallary to bring it in line with the solar system. This point is very crucial in their counting systems for the kings if the Julian new year already started but their lunar new year is now nearly one month behind. Especially kings that reigned only one month or a Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 40 few months or one year could be seriously affected by this situation. The problem is not for them but for us attempting to align it with the Julian year system. 3. Two systems of counting were known in the Ancient Near Eastern archives, namely the ascension year calculation and the non-ascension year calculation. In the ascension year calculation they started the first year counting at the time he ascended the throne. In the non-ascension counting the first year will be only after the New Year (for fuller discussions and application of both systems in the archives of Sargon II, see K. van Wyk, "Sargonic Chronological Dilemmas and Their Solutions," in Archaeology in the Bible and Text in the Tel [Berrien Center, Michigan: Louis Hester Publications, 1996], 248-263). We refer here to the apparent conflicting data of text 0., 1141 = AR no. 113, line 58f., as compared to text K 3044 (= III R plate 2, no. xvi) mentioning the 12th year of Sargon II. Our result in that investigation was that scholars too easily allocate an "error" or "mistake" to a scribe without properly searching for underlying chronological systems that might harmonize the data. In the book of Kings and Chronicles it seems as if after the battle of Qarqar on the Orontes against Shalmanezer III, the non-ascension counting was also used for counting the length of the reigns of the kings. 4. Besides these distinctions there is also the difference to calculate according to a Nisan-Nisan year and a Tishri-Tishri year. The Babylonians use to calculate from Nisan to Nisan. However, Tishri-Tishri was very important for the Jewish leaders. That is not to say that the scribes of the palaces would not use sometimes the Nisan-Nisan counting. With a pro-Assyrian king like Ahaz one could expect something in that line. The Probe: We have set up a probe of 10 Julian years. Next to that was placed a lunar set of 10 years. It would mean that in the first Julian year, instead of starting Tishri in September, it would start about the 20th of August, 10 days earlier. In the second year it would start the 10th of August nearly 20 days earlier. In the third year it would start the 1st of August one month earlier. Of course the intrcallary Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 41 month would appear later that year to catch up with the solar calendar.Let us say a king dies in Tishri during these 10 days delay. With solar reckoning he did not yet die in the New Year if Tishri is reckoned in terms of a solar calendar. However, in their lunar system he died in the next year, whereas in the solar system or Julian reckoning he would still be in the first year accepting Tishri as the beginning month of the New Year. These kinds of calculations becomes crucial when the kings are following each other in rapid succession. If an exclusive counting system is used, they might say that he reigned only 9 years. If an inclusive counting system is used, they might say that he reigned 10 years. There are proof in the book of Kings that both systems were employed. In 2 Kings 8:25 it is said that Ahaziah became king in the 12th year of Joram. In 2 Kings 9:29 it is stated that Ahaziah became king in the 11th year of Joram. Another way to calculate would also bring discrepancy like this, is if one scribe is calculating according to the Nisan-Nisan year but another one is calculating according to the Tishri-Tishri year. The Tishri-Tishri scribe will have it in the 12th year but the Nisan-Nisan scribe will have it in the 11th year. Anyone who is not familiar with these principles are going to be very uncomfortable with the consonantal text of the Masoretes and are going to attempt to rectify the text left, right and center. We find this kind of over-reaction unnecessary. Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 42 The Harmonization of the Chronology of the Kings of Judah and Israel in the book of Kings and Chronicles: King Solomon started to reign in the year 973 BCE as crownprince with his father David. He became sole ruler in 970 BCE after his father's death (for a full discussion of the dating of the reign of Solomon see K. van Wyk, "Gezer, Solomon and Shoshenq: Chronological Reassessments" in Archaeology in the Bible and Text in the Tel [Berrien Center, Michigan: Louis Hester Publications, 1996], 201-237). He reigned for 40 years bringing him to approximately 933 BCE. The kingdom was divided and Rehoboam of Judah reigned for 17 years afterwards in Judah and Jeroboam I for 22 years in Israel. In the 18th year of Jeroboam I, Abijah became the king of Judah in approximately 916 BCE. He ruled for three years. In 914/3 BCE Asa became king of Judah which was the 20th year of Jeroboam I. He ruled for 41 years. In the second year of Asa of Judah, Nadab became king of Israel and ruled 2 years. The next king Baasha started to reign in the 3rd year of Asa, which illustrates the aspect of the application of principles of Ancient reckoning. Nadab must have reigned a few weeks before the New Year and a few weeks after the New Year in order to be given two years of reign. The palace annals would in such a situation calculate "in his first year" and "in his second year" even if it is only a few weeks. Baasha reigned for 24 years. What we have said about the situation with Nadab accounts also for Elah. He reigned only 2 years but it is said that he became king in Asa's 26th year while the next king Zimri is said to be king in the 27th year of Asa. Only a few weeks before and after the New Year was effectively his reign. Zimri only reigned for seven days. From the time that Zimri died in 887/6 BCE until the ascension of Omri there were four years of unrest. Two contestants for the throne were favored: Tibni and Omri. In the 31st year of Asa of Judah, Tibni died and Omri became the ruler of Israel 883/2 BCE. Omri ruled for 12 years. Due to the assassination of Elah by Zimri and his own assassination seven days later it is possible to put Omri into two situations: a) is where Omri's counting Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 43 started the day Zimri died (887/6 BCE) and his first year was then just a few weeks and so also his final year; or, b) to start his counting only from the 31st year of Asa in 883/2 BCE. There are thus two possibilities for the reign of Omri: 887/6-876/5 BCE or 883/2-871/0 BCE. It is most likely the first option which means that counting did not start at the 1st year on the throne as sole ruler but as co-ruler before that. If the second option is taken, then it means that Ahab started to rule before Omri died. This is not impossible either. The "House of Omri" expression was well known and used in the literature of those times and it was a reference to the dynasty at rule. Ahab became ruler of Israel in the 38th year of Asa and ruled for 22 years. He must have lived from 876/5-854/3 BCE. He is listed in the annals of Shalmanezer III at the battle of Qarqar in 853 BCE so that here is an outside control confirming our calculation so far. In the fourth year of Ahab, which is coinciding with the death of Asa, Jehosaphat of Judah became king. He ruled for 25 years until 848/7 BCE. When we enter the next set or sets of kings there is somewhat freedom as to the alignment of these kings since there are no strings attached that force us to place them only successively. We have opted for concurrency. The hint for this concept came from the text itself. We will discuss this after the next king that followed Ahab. In the seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat of Judah, Ahaziah of Israel became king. He ruled 2 years. He had no sons so his brother Joram followed him in the second year of Jehoram king of Judah and ruled for 12 years. Jehoram ruled 8 years over Judah. The interesting thing is that 2 Kings 8:16 reads that Jehoram became king of Judah in the 5th year of Joram. A discrepancy or error in the text? By all means no. The way it works for this situation is the same as during the assassination case before Omri's reign. Joram was prince in any way nearly 3-4 years before Ahaziah became king. That is where the counting starts. His first year of full kingship is of course in his own 6th year and in the 2nd year of Jehoram. Jehoram became king in his own 1st year and in Joram's 5th year. There is no attachment of Joram to the reign of Jehoshaphat so that to make him concurrent with the reign of Jehoshaphat is not a Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 44 problem. The same situation exists also for Jehoram. There are no strings to any other king that would prevent us to place him concurrent with Jehoshaphat. A date for Jehoram would be 855/4-847/6 BCE. The death of Jehoram must have occurred shortly before that of Joram and shortly after that of Jehoshaphat. The reason for this is the history and life of Jehu. Ahaziah of Judah came to the throne in the 12th year of Joram, a situation that could only be if the two kings Joram and Jehoram are placed in position as we did. We cannot make them successively, otherwise we are going to end up with a Hezekiah ending 30 years too late. Concurrent rulership was common as we will see explicitly stated in the text. It seems as if Jehoram counting is starting close or after the battle of Qarqar against Shalmanezer III so it could mean that Jehoshaphat was trying to "hide" from the international diplomatic world for some reason by using his prince to rule after 853 BCE? His first year was in the 5th year of Joram in that year? It seems as if Jehu was made king by a faction or group in the year 853 BCE. That would be about 1-2 years after the enthronement of Joram. For some years however, Jehu was just an opponent and not a ruler. It was only in his 6th year ascension counting, or 5th year non-ascension counting that Jehu took up the responsibilities as king. Ahaziah reigned only one year. One text reads that he became king in the 11th year of Joram and another reads that it is the 12th year. One counting is non-ascension counting and the other is ascension counting. From this period on two systems of counting were used and in the case of Jehu, his length of reign is indicated with a non-ascension counting system. He ruled actually 29 years but the first year is not calculated because it is the ascension year. Jehu was a terror who killed everyone around him. He ruled for 28 years from 848/7-826 BCE but only 22 of those years he was actual king. Before that only a rebel that was crowned by factions. When Ahaziah died in 848 BCE, Athaliah his mother became queen for 6 years over Judah between 847-842 BCE. The calculation systems of the palace archives do not give her a space in the royal years of the kings. What the exact reason is we do not know. It is clear in our analysis of the system that the 6 years will cause many problems Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 45 down the line if it is counted in. The priests have hidden a royal prince and six years later in 842 BCE they killed Athaliah and Joash became king over Judah for 40 years (since he was hidden) until 808 BCE. In his reign the total of his years are counted with a non-ascension counting. Similarly the reign of Jehoahaz was not calculated with the ascension year included. Jehoahaz's 17th year ended in 808 BCE. In the 37th year of Joash (808 BCE) Jehoash became ruler of Israel. His calculation was also with a non-ascension counting, just like that of Jehoahaz and Jehu before him. At least his counting starting during those years. He was king for 16 years until 794/3 BCE. In the 2nd year of Jehoash, which is the 39th year of Joash, Amaziah became ruler of Judah 808 BCE. He was in years 39-40 coregent in Judah with Joash. He ruled for 29 years until 779 BCE. Amaziah lived 15 years after the death of Jehoash in ca. 794/3 BCE which means until about 779 BCE. The last years of Amaziah was havoc. There was a plot to assassinate him and he had to flee to the city of Lachish. It appears in our analysis that Uzziah was the crownprince since his birth (at least the counting seems to start with his birth) in the 14/5th year of Amaziah. Our estimation is that Jehoash died shortly after the beginning of his 16th year. Jeroboam II's counting is from 797 BCE and he used a non-ascension counting as well and reigned for 41 years until 756 BCE. His actual rule on the throne was from 793 BCE. It was during his reign that Judah experienced the problems with Amaziah and the succession problems with Uzziah. Uzziah's counting starts in the 15th year of Amaziah probably by his own fathers consideration that he should be the crownprince. When he was 16 years old, in the 16th year of his counting, his father had to flee for his life due to a plot to kill him. The people selected him to be king that year in 780/79 BCE but he was not crowned or given a throne until the 27th year of Jeroboam II or in his own 23rd year or in 772 BCE. This correlates with what we find in the text about his life. It must be understood that people would be suspicious to continue the dynasty of Amaziah if they plotted to kill him. For those years it seems as if Uzziah had to proof himself by fighting as a general in the army and regain some territory. When he succeeded they recognized him as king in Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 46 the 27th year of Jeroboam II. Admittedly, this was the most difficult text to resolve in the harmonization of the kings of Judah and Israel. In our interpretation we do not need to change the Masoretic reading and we do not need to resort to the variants in the Septuagint to rescue their or our own construct. 2 Kings 15:1-2 does not read as one continuous line referring to the same data. Firstly the text does not say how counting was done, namely during his father's reign or after it. Secondly, the text does not say that the 27th year of Jeroboam II was the 16th year of the age of Uzziah. It is two different sentences that could act independently, and indeed should. In our interpretation counting starts at his birth, he was selected at 16 years old to be king but assumed that role only in the 27th year of Jeroboam II after his role as general in the army. The spelling of the name of this king is different in Kings than in Chronicles. In Kings it is (zryhw but in Chronicles it is (zyhw. This is not a spelling mistake and there can be many reasons in those days why the name would be like that. One reason is that it could have been his military name since he helped the army to regain some territory and the root means "the Lord is helping". Another reason is that the two scribes are from various backgrounds and that due to bilingualism or dialect, the one wrote the way his area pronounced his name and the other one wrote it of course in a different domain. The reign of Uzziah started the counting from his birth in 794 BCE until his 16th year in 779 BCE when he was selected king, and 772 BCE when he became the recognized king until his 52nd year in 743 BCE. To start the counting earlier than at his election as king is as a method acceptable as we can see in the case of the first years of Omri (supra). Jeroboam II reigned from 797 BCE until 756 BCE with a non-ascension counting system. When he died and was followed by Zechariah who reigned for 6 months in 756 BCE which was the 38th year of Uzziah of Judah with a non-ascension counting (however his total counting is from his birth and not his enthronement. Zechariah of Israel was followed in the 39th year by Shallum who reigned one month over Israel. In that same year 755 BCE Menahem became king of Israel and he reigned for 10 years over Israel. It is not impossible (if Albright's chronology of the Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 47 Samaria Ostraca is accepted) that Menahem was the son of the wealthy landowner gdyw gadiu in one of the Samaria Ostraca or the MT gadi of 2 Kings 15:17 which is seen by Albright as the owner of an area south and north-east of Samaria and by J. W. Jack as the area between Shechem and Samaria (Van Wyk, K. "Samaria Ostraca," Archaeology in the Bible and Text in the Tel [Berrien Center, Michigan: Louis Hester Publications, 1996], 239-240). His reign is given as 10 but that is with a non-ascension counting . Menahem died in the 50th year of Uzziah which is 745 BCE. As we have indicated before the counting systems could cause the years to be either one year ahead of the Julian counting or up to three years (in counting not full months) behind. What we are saying about the reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah also counts for the reigns of Assyrian kings since they also used similar systems of calculations. The Julian date is not always an absolute whereby everything else stands or fall. Probably in his last year 745 BCE Menahem had to pay silver to Tiglath-Pilezer III who invaded Israel. It is fairly simple to align the reign of Tiglath-Pilezer III with that of Menahem. Menahem seems to have lived until the 50th year of Uzziah. His son Pekahiah took over from him and reigned two years. In the 52nd year of Uzziah in 743 BCE with ascension style of counting, Pekah became ruler of Israel and he reigned 20 years. Pekah's counting does not seem to be with a non-ascension counting. The same is also true of his predecessor Pekahia. The death of Pekah is interesting. It is stated that Hoshea killed him in the "twentieth year of Jotham son of Uzziah" 2 Kings 15:30. Verse 33 states that he reigned for 16 years. It appears that at the 16th year of his reign he stopped reigning and Ahaz became king of Judah in his own 13th year as crownprince (727 BCE). According to verse 30, Jotham lived four more years so that the reference is to the 20th year of Jotham which was the 20th year of Pekah in 725 BCE when Hoshea killed Pekah and became ruler. Hoshea's counting is 9 years but it seems as if he reigned only three years after the death of Pekah in his 7th, 8th and 9th years. Those were of course the years in which Samaria was surrounded by Assyrian forces of Shalmanezer V for three years. In Hoshea's ninth year Samaria fell and the Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 48 Israelites were deported.It was in Ahaz's 15th year that Pekah died. Ahaz became king of Judah in the 17th year of Pekah but that was in the 12/3th year of his own counting. He seemed to have died at the siege of Samaria. It seems that after the death of Jotham, Ahaz became king but that his son Hezekiah's counting already started. In fact some scribes used his counting during those 13 years after the reign of Jotham to make references to other kings. He was probably crownprince during those years while his father Ahaz was still alive. It was at the age of 25 that he became king of Israel. At the death of Jotham he was but only 11 years old. That was the third year of Hoshea's counting but the 8th year of Ahaz counting. When Hezekiah was 15 years old in his 4th year as crownprince and in his father's 12th year as king, which is of course the 7th year of Hoshea, or the first year of sole rule over Israel of Hoshea, Shalmanezer V came to Samaria. When Hezekiah was 18 years old in the 15th year of his father's reign, and in Hoshea's 9th year in 723 BCE, Samaria fell and the people of Israel were deported. Shortly afterwards in the 16th year of Ahaz (the 8th year of his sole rule) Ahaz died and there were no ruler for some time over Judah but Hezekiah was crowned king at the age of 25 in 716 BCE. Hezekiah ruled for 29 years until his death in 687 BCE. Note this in the reading of the report on the dating of a king, that one do not necessarily assume that all detail in two verses are refering to the same event or events. The original does not necessarily lend support for such a way of reading and in a case like 2 Kings 18:1 and 2 one should not read verse 2 as continuing with the same data as verse one. Verse 1 is only dealing with his crownprince years. Verse 2 gives detail of his sole or actual rule, namely at what age and how long. 2 Kings 18:9 is not contradicting the report of 2 Kings 18:13 since the second reference counting is in his actual sole reign whereas the first counting is during his years as crownprince before the age of 25. Some intrigues and personal detail deducted from our analysis: Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 49 It appears that Hezekiah was born while his father Ahaz was but 15 or 16 years old. Ahaz was born while his father Jotham was only 15/16 years old. It seems as if Ahaz was born in 753 BCE and he was 20 at the beginning of his counting in 734 BCE and he died in 719 BCE. Hezekiah was born in 740 BCE and he was 25 years old in 716 BCE and started to reign for the next 29 years until his death in 687 BCE. There were two countings for Hezekiah. One counting started in the same year that Ahaz took the throne and could be by some people who objected to Ahaz going to Damascus to see the Assyrian throne in 727 BCE. The other counting is of course from 716 BCE when he actually ascended the throne at the age of 25 years old. Advantages of our system of analysis: 1. There is no need to change any consonant of the Masoretic text or to resort to other translations like the Septuagint, Syriac or any other version to employ variants to make a system work. 2. Principles of the Ancient Near East in calculation, calendar reckoning, New Year reckoning, exclusive and inclusive reckoning and other aspects and problems between solar and lunar dates helped us to understand one event as happening in the 11th year and the same event as happening in the 12th year. 3. Extra-biblical sources pertaining to the Kings of the Assyrian empire and other sources do not contradict in any way the system that we have and in fact correlate exactly with the Biblical picture. 4. Finally, it is with conviction that we say that if there seems to be any contradiction in the Masoretic text, then it pays off to spend three or four days brooding over the issue and find solutions other than emending the text or opt for errors in the text. The age of Hosea and method of writing When we are addressing the issue of the form of the book of Hosea and how it relates to the age of Hosea, we are dealing with a topic that we have expounded a number of times in this commentary. Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 50 There are scholars who are concerned that the book of Hosea is complex and that the phraseology is sometimes very unclear. In this commentary we have addressed those complaints in the following way: we explained that the age of Hosea was a factor for the complex stance of phrases. There is a second point that is fully described in Longman's Grammar for Spoken and Written English (Essex: Pearson Education Limited, 1999) by editors Douglas Biber, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, Edward Finegan and Randolph Quirk. After considering the various registers in language that differ from each other: conversation, news, fiction and academic material, the authors indicated in the Introduction that there is a difference between spoken language and written language. The transcript of spoken language compares very well with the phraseology in the book of Hosea as opposed to the well composed design in news material. Some features are well to mention: conversations are spoken rather than written and they are produced online with the words and grammatical organization being composed on the spot as the conversation itself unfolds (9). There is little time to plan ahead or to edit afterwards. Both features are true of the book of Hosea since afterwards the writer cannot edit what the prophet has spoken since he does not have authority to change divine inspiration. Here we reject any options posed by existential theology or the ideas of Rudolph Bultmann on inspiration. We do not endorse the concept of inspiration of encounter theology in which the design of the compositions is only human and remote from any divine control. If anyone argue against this stance we pose the argument that neither us nor encounter theologians were at the site of the original writing to verify which option was the reality of the situation. If encounter theology is correct then editing was done very incomplete and superficial. However, our explanation here rather enforce the idea that even if things were not the way the writer wanted it, he could not change it, since his words is not the same as that of the prophet. As Longman's Grammar stated: Although it is possible to repair an utterance by saying it a second time the way that we really wanted to say it, we cannot erase an utterance and replace it with an edited version (9). This is exactly the same role Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 51 that the writer had who wrote down the words of Hosea as he spoke. He could not ad hoc change the speech or edited it afterwards. Conversations differ further from news texts in that they are personal and directly interactive (9). As far as interpretation or analysis of conversational texts are concerned, Longman's Grammar stated: the situational characteristics of conversations make it difficult to collect and analyze. Considering the book of Hosea, it was not difficult to collect but scholars are complaining about the difficulty to analyze it. The very notion of a sentence in conversation is problematic (10). In conversation the sentences include simple responses as well as utterances that are left incomplete as a speaker changes thoughts during an utterance (10). The editors of the Longman Grammar argue that a sentence is a notion that is not applicable to spoken language (10). It is thus not correct for any Hebrew Grammarian to superimpose a modern perfectionism on the ancient text of Hosea especially if it is a writing capturing a spoken language. Longman's Grammar stated that many of the referents in a conversation are not explicitly identified so that hearers must rely on the context for understanding (12). A list of characteristics on page 11 illustrates what one also finds in Hosea: 1. there are frequent references to you 2. there are frequent direct questions 3. there are frequent references to himself, describing their own personal thoughts, feelings, past and present activities. 4. in conversations present tense and verb phrases with modals are predominant reflecting the emphasis on the participants' immediate interaction and activities or the expression of their current attitudes and feelings. Longman's Grammar concluded that linguistic features are not uniformly distributed across registers (11). This conclusion is important since you cannot analyse a well edited text, deduct the grammatical features and expect to find these features also in a text that was the result of a writing of spoken language. It is like mixing apples and oranges and expect to find similar in both and in the case of not finding the same, to attempt to repair the difference. It cannot be done. However, that is the problem with scholars who Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 52 have problems with the phrases in the book of Hosea. They attempt to repair or re-edited the text as we find in the lower register of the HBS text of Hosea. This is unacceptable to any serious investigator. We thus conclude in this commentary that there is no need to emend or re-phrase the book of Hosea since it should be considered from the angle of someone transcribing what Hosea the old man is saying without missing any thought or word. There will not be always perfect sentences since his mind fluctuates back in history and to the present without warning. The task of the transcriber is to write the words of the one who dictates to him (Hosea) and not to compose and reformulate it as a piece of art. Our task is to accept what has been transmitted to us and to interpret it as is without attempts to improve or change. Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 53 COMMENTARY Hosea 1:1 The speaking of the Lord which came unto Hosea the son of Beeri in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, kings of Judah and in the days of Jeroboam son of Joash, king of Israel. (MK1008BHS) Old Translations Old Latin English Translation The word of the Lord, that came to Osee the son of Beeri, in the days of Ozias, Joatham, Achaz, and Ezechias kings of Juda, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joas king of Israel. Old Latin Text Verbum Domini quod factum est ad Osee filium Beeri in diebus Oziae, Joatham, Achaz, Ezechiae, regum Juda, & in diebus Jeroboam filii Joas regis Israël. (OLreconPIERRE SABBATHIER1743: 891) Old Latin Retroversion (OL180Heb-reconHosea 1:1) Latin Vulgate's English Translation The word of the Lord, that came to Osee the son of Beeri, in the days of Ozias, Joathan, Achaz, and Ezechias kings of Juda, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joas king of Israel. Latin Vulgate Text verbum Domini quod factum est ad Osee filium Beeri in diebus Oziae Ioatham Ahaz Ezechiae regum Iuda et in diebus Hieroboam filii Ioas regis Israhel (Vs450reconWEBER) Latin Retroversion Hosea Commentary & Versions 54 Van Wyk (VHeb-reconHos1:1) Greek English Translation The word of the Lord, that came to Osee the son of Beeri, in the days of Ozias, Joathan, Achaz, and Ezechias kings of Juda, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joas king of Israel. Greek Text λογος κυριου ος εγενηθη προς ωσηε τον του βεηρι εν ημεριας οζιου και ιωαθαμ και αχαζ και εζεκιου βασιλεων ιουδα και εν εμεραις ιεροβοαμ υιου ιωας βασιλεως ισραηλ Greek Retroversion (GHeb-reconHos1:1) Targum's English Translation The word of prophecy from before the Lord that was with Hosea the son of Beeri in the days of Uzziah Jotham Ahaz Hezekiah the kings of the house of Judah and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash the king of Israel. Targum Text (Twalton1654) Targum Retroversion (THeb-reconHos1:1) Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 55 Syriac's English Translation The word of the Lord, that came to Hosea the son of Beeri, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah kings of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash king of Israel. Syriac Text yhwMwY*B .yrB rB O$wh lO )whd )YrMd hMGtP .)dwhYd )KLM* )YQzXdw zX)dw mtwYdw )YzwOd .lY)rsY)d )KLM 4)wY rB mOBrwYd yhwMwY*Bw (SLeiden PeshittaGelston1980) Syriac Retroversion (SHeb-reconHos1:1) Coptic's English Translation The word of the Lord, that came to Osee the son of Beeri, in the days of Ozias, Joathan, Achaz, and Ezechias kings of Juda, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joas king of Israel. Coptic Text (C) psaji mpoc etafswpi ha wsh pshri mnehrim qen niehoou nte ouziou nem iwaqam nem axaz nem ezekias niourwou nte iouda nem qen niehoou nte eiroufam pshri niouxas pouro mpicl. Coptic Retroversion (CHeb-reconHos1:1) We have dealt in this commentary not once but many times with the Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 56 same issue: The Vulgate is not without variants and one example is the spelling for the name Joash: in the C group of manuscripts it is spelled as ihosiae and in the A group of manuscripts it is spelled as iosias. The majority spelled it as ioas. It will be impossible for us to comment on every detail of difference amongst the manuscripts of the Vulgate but we will attempt to do so when crucial issues are at stake. The Syriac translation )YrMd hMGtP = is translated by Walton as sermo Domini = sermons of the Lord. It is probably better to consider this not as the "word of the Lord". The Targum explained it as the: "the words of prophecy from before the Lord which was with Hosea". The Masoretic text or the original Hebrew does not read that the words were before the Lord or that the word was "with" Hosea but rather "unto" Hosea. When we refer to the Syriac and Targum translations we are dealing at most with translations that are very late in the Middle Ages, at least the date of the survival of the manuscripts we are using. These texts are not without variants either and this must always be kept in mind. Interpretation: It is maybe not correct to translate it as the "word" of the Lord, since it were many words over many years that came to Hosea. It is better to translate it as a participle functioning as a noun, namely: "the speaking of the Lord which came to Hosea". That will mean that God is speaking in every generation before and now He came to Hosea and after Hosea He will continue in other generations to speak. He is thus speaking continuously. Jeroboam II reigned between 797-756 BCE and he followed in the sins of Jeroboam I (2 Kings 14:24). In Hosea 7:1 we gave a long description of the evil of Samaria and the iniquity of Ephraim, two places that featured prominently in the message of Hosea. The sin of Jeroboam I was that he erected a Baal cultic institution at Samaria with priests and everything that goes with it. They burnt offerings to Baal. Jeroboam II was a good soldier since he started in 797 BCE with his wars Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 57 and in 796 BCE he had assistance from Adad-Nirari III who forced the Aramaeans in a defensive in his third campaign to the west. In the Zakir inscription that dates from the year 785 BCE, one can see some foreign influence in the religion of the Aramaean world. The Aramaean ruler's deity was Baal-Shamem which is a Phoenician god. Phoenician influence was thus strong during the period of 785 BCE which was the 14th year of Jeroboam II. In the Amman Citadel inscription that dates to about 798 BCE, in our reconstruction it seems as if the last lines are reading "You shall fear the son of gods [ ] [Baal], and Sh[amash] [and Ashera]h and N[ergal?] [Thus Milkom said:] 'Peace to you and peace [to your...].'" This period seems to be a melting pot of religions in Ammonite territory as well. The instruction is to be syncretistic. The dating of Hosea must have been after 779 BCE which is the date for the death of Amaziah since Amaziah does not appear in the list as reference. It was Uzziah's 16th year and Jeroboam's 20th year. This could be the year of the birth of Hosea or it could be when Hosea was at the age of 18 or 19 contemplating marriage. If Hosea got married shortly after the killing of Amaziah then he was a young man when the young Uzziah had to prove himself to be a stout general recapturing cities for Judah. Jeroboam II was also a great soldier and general so that the young years of Hosea was during this time of great Phoenician influence in the Aramaean world and in Israel. In the Samallian Hadad Inscription, which was found to the northeast of Zincirli and which dated to 770 BCE, one can see the gods Hadad (Aramaean); El (Israelite); Rakib-el; and Shamash (Assyrian). This shows the cross-cultural influence in those days. The inscription was erected by Panamuwa I (Paul-Eugene Dion, La Langue de Ya'udi [Canada: The Corporation for the Publication of Academic Studies in Religion in Canada, 1974], 26, line 2). In the case of Uzziah, he did not become actual ruler until the 27th year of Jeroboam II in 772 BCE. Jotham was born in 767 BCE. Uzziah's son and grandson were very young when their sons were born. When Jotham was 15 years old, a son was born for him, Ahaz. When Ahaz was 14 years old, Hezekiah was born. During the years of Menahem, shortly before the invasion of Tiglath-Pilezer III dates the Aramaic Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 58 inscription of Sefire. It is a treaty that was made between Assurnirari V and Mati'el of Arpad. It dates from 753-746 BCE. The gods on this inscription are: mlṣ (Mulles = maybe neo-Hittite origin); zrpnt ; Marduk (Babylonian); Nebo (Babylonian); Nergal (Babylonian); Shamash (Assyrian); Luz (unknown); sbt (seven planets? see Koopmans, 48); El (Israelite god); Ner (Egyptian?); Nakar; Kada'ah; Elyon (Israel's God). In the Sefire inscription at IA 12, the Hebrew form for "night" is used lylh (compare Hosea 4:5c lylh ) instead of the Aramaic form lyl' . This shows that the influence of Israel in this region due to the wars of Jeroboam II was a reality not just propaganda optimism in the process of historiography. The Sefire inscription is of the utmost importance in a study of the early chapters of Hosea. There are topographical references to cities in Israel. In IA 34 Bethel is mentioned. The Aramaeans were thus familiar with this city and this city also features prominently in the book of Hosea. The neo-hittite ruler from the time of Hosea was Hattusilis. He reigned from 773-750 BCE. From his time we have the Malpinar inscription written in Hieroglyphic Luwian. The wish is expressed "may the Sun-God exalt the person" in line 11. In Assyrian letters and this inscription (line 6) corresponding phrases, SATI and SATURI can be found. During the days of Hosea and this king, the Phrygian cultural expansion started. The Late-Hittite population were standing under the influence of the Phrygians (Fahri Isik, "Zur enstehung Phrygischer Felsdenkmaler" Anatolian Studies 37 [1987]: 163-178). Especially the art forms of ceramics, bronze kettles and vase art are similar. This last aspect is important for Hosea 8:8 reads that they have become "like a vessel with no desire in it". The Phrygian art was beautiful and desireable for the females of those times. No wonder Hosea is using this simile. From the year 738 BCE during the reigns of Jotham and Pekah of Israel, comes the Inscription of Panammu II by Bar-rakib. Gods that are mentioned on this inscription from this year are: Hadad (Aramaean); El (Israelite); Rakebel (other nations around Israel maybe neo-hittite influence); Baal (Phoenician); Bayit; Shamash (Assyrian). The Aramaean world was thus a meltingpot of religions and syncretism. So was Israel in Hosea's day. One century before Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 59 this time, the Rechabites were a group who shared the Transjordanian heritage of been antipathetic to the Omrides and Phoenician culture. Maybe the rakeb-el could be connected to that group. It means "God is chariot-riding". Hosea lived through the time of Ahaz who ran to Damascus in 727 BCE to copy the Assyrian altar. A certain faction wanted to crown Hezekiah probably since they were dismayed in the actions of Ahaz but he was too young. He only became actual king later but some kept counting his reign from 727 BCE. Hezekiah was king of Judah between 716-687 BCE. Hezekiah was 25 years old when he became king in 716 BCE but he was crownprince since the age of 12 in 729 BCE which is the third year in the counting of Hoshea, not of his reign since he became only sole ruler in his 7th year. Hezekiah's father was still reigning though when Hezekiah became crownprince. Hosea also lived through the captivity of Samaria in 723 BCE and the deportation of Israelites. He lived through the times of Sargon II and he probably died when Sennacherib was coregent with his father in Babylon the last two years before the death of Sargon II in 705 BCE (K. van Wyk, "The Dilemma in the Sources surrounding Sennacherib's First Campaign" in Archaeology in the Bible and Text in the Tel [Berrien Center, Michigan: Louis Hester Publications, 1996], 264-280, especially 274b). The total period from 779 BCE until 687 BCE is 92 years. It is not impossible that this prophet indeed became very old, almost 90 years old. We are not sure which parts of this literature that we are dealing with, were written in his youth and which were written or adapted in his old age. Repetition is a common feature of old age and erratic, cryptic notes with quick fluctuations of events, genders, direct and indirect speech is also a common phenomenon in the senior years of peoples lives. To expect all the time a smooth text with coherent thoughts and foci is to misunderstand that Hosea was a person who lived long enough to tell his own story, retell it and recollate his previous descriptions in all kinds of forms. He lived long enough to be familiar with the substratum or content of the messages of Amos, Jonah, Micah, and Isaiah. It is a common feature of senior citizens that they become more "eschatological" in their dreams the older they become. What Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 60 we are saying here of Hosea accounts also for the prophet Isaiah. He also became a very old man and with such a long history some of the detail was recorded earlier and others later and some editing by himself also took place as well as recasting of material. The eschatological focus features more prominently in his senior years. There is thus no need to search for a deutero- or trito- Isaiah. My grandmother in her eighties use to give elaborate descriptions of her night-dreams she had of the second coming of Jesus. She believed every detail and it was her only hope. It gave her strength and power and vision. Anyone who has studied literature, whether it is Classical, Mishnaic or Modern Hebrew; Classical, Hellenistic, Byzantine or Modern Greek; Early, Middle or Late Dutch; Early, Middle or Late German; Early, Middle or Late English will know, that many great poets and epic writers wrote with a variety of forms and that their life history reflects sometimes in the form the content is cast. This principle is no different in the book of Isaiah and here in the book of Hosea. One cannot expect the form of a document written when the person was 20 years old to be the same as the form it is when he is 80 years old. This insistence on consistency is a computerized approach to literature that needs careful interpretation, wise observations and a full understanding of the growth of the experience of a human. This is the greatest methodological and epistemological problem of the historical-critical method. They hunt for consistency and see every deviation as a sign of a different writer or source. Only when all other factors are cancelled like: material written in earlier and later parts of a person's life; the presence of bilingualism and polyglottism with a writer of a text; young-initiative years of a writer as opposed to the advanced-reflective thinking of the same writer in his later years; self-editing and self-recasting of material due to multiple retelling; research for information whether it is a diary or poem or palace records; disability in vision, speaking and hearing which is normal with geronti; the sudden desire to be creative and artistic - only then can one attempt to expect consistency. In our view, needless to say, almost impossible. It is thus a waste of time to attempt to define what is classical Hebrew grammar "Standard" with Middle-Age Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 61 Arabic epistemology and then to go in the literature of the Old Testament written more than a millennium earlier and look for the same consistency following Middle-Age Hebrew grammar rules. This is not scientific. It is like using Otto Jespersen's English Grammar to correct William Shakespear's English. Language is not confined in a time-capsule and is also not existing uncontaminated for centuries. The rule of consistency is impossible. Computerized investigations of the text can do nothing more than just identifying the variants, as helpful as that may be. Hosea 1:2 At first the Lord spoke in Hosea saying unto him: Go take for yourself a woman who fornicated around many times (a seller of her body) and who's children are fornicators, because fornicator you fornicated the earth, which is the inheritance of the Lord (MK1008BHS) Old Translations Old Latin English Translation The beginning of the Lord's speaking by Osse: and the Lord said to Osee: Go, take thee a wife of fornications, and have of her children of fornications: for the land by fornication shall depart from the Lord. Old Latin Text principium verbi Domini ad Osee et dixit Dominus ad Osee vade tolle tibi uxorem fornicationis et filios fornicationis quia fornicans fornicabitur terra post Dominum (OLPIERRE SABBATHIER1743: 891) Old Latin Retroversion (OL180Heb-reconHosea 1:2) Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 62 Latin Vulgate's English Translation The beginning of the Lord's speaking by Osse: and the Lord said to Osee: Go, take thee a wife of fornications, and have of her children of fornications: for the land by fornication shall depart from the Lord. Latin Vulgate Text principium loquendi Dominum in Osee et dixit Dominus ad Osee vade sume tibi uxorem fornicationum et filios fornicationum quia fornicans fornicabitur terra a Domino (Vs450reconWEBER) Latin Retroversion (VHeb-reconHos1:2) Greek English Translation The beginning of the Lord's speaking by Osse: and the Lord said to Osee: Go, take thee a wife of fornications, and have of her children of fornications: for the land by fornication shall depart from the Lord. Greek Text αρχη λογου κυριου προς ωσηε και ειπεν κυριος προς ωσηε βαδιζε λαβε σεαυτῳ γυναικα πορνειας και τεκνα πορνειας διοτι εκπορνευουσα εκπορνευσει η γη απο οπισθεν του κυριου Greek Retroversion (GHeb-reconHos1:2) Targum's English Translation The beginning of the word of the Lord in Hosea and the Lord said to Hosea: Go prophecy a prophecy upon the inhabitants of the cities of idolatry that the same is increasing unto sins because the Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 63 fornicator shall fornicate the inhabitants of the earth who is after the worship of the Lord. Targum Text (Twalton1654) Targum Retroversion (THeb-reconHos1:2) Syriac's English Translation The beginning of the word of the Lord that came upon Hosea: the Lord said to Hosea: Go, take to yourself a wife of fornications, and children of fornications: for the land will commit great fornication in departing from the Lord. Syriac Text )YrM rM) .O$wh lO )whd )YrMd hMGtP 4Yd .oYNzMd )YNB*w )YNzMd )ttN) kL Bs lz .O$whL .)YrMd hrtB oM )Or) )Nzt wYNzMd l+M (SLeiden PeshittaGelston1980) Syriac Retroversion (SHeb-reconHos1:2) Coptic's English Translation The beginning of the Lord's speaking by Osse: and the Lord said to Osee: Go, take thee a wife of fornications, and have of her children of fornications: for the land by fornication shall depart from the Lord. Coptic Text Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 64 (C) tarxh mpisaji mpoc nwsh ouoh peje poc nwsh amou je mosi ouoh akgi nak noushimi mpornia ouoh nenshri mpornia fouwn qen oupornia tnaerporneuin nje pkahi ebol samenhe mpoc. Coptic Retroversion (CHeb-reconHos1:2) The Syriac does not read "in" but "upon Hosea" . It translated "the first sermon that the Lord made upon Hosea." The Targum rendered this verse quite different. It rather attempts to pass by the personal life of Hosea unto what is perceived as the understanding why he had to do what he did. Instead of "go take for yourself a woman who fornicated around many times" it translated/interpreted "go prophecy prophecies against the inhabitants of the idolatrous cities" . The translation of Jerome is all the way through this commentary probably the best of all translations. In this verse Jerome did not translate the word "inheritance". He only translated "a domino" which is "of the Lord". The targum rendered this part as "of the earth who is after the cult of the Lord". The Syriac read "of the earth from after him that is the Lord". The only explanation that we can give for this situation of omission of this word with Jerome is that the word and appeared to him to be the same and thinking that he already translated it, he skipped it. Interpretation: What we have here is an aetiological explanation of the life of Hosea, namely the first time the Lord spoke to him. Like a senior Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 65 citizen telling his own life story he reverts to the first person direct speech and then suddenly at the end of the verse on the issue of "fornication" wandered off in another direction (fluctuated) in the third person indirect speech. Textcritically: The Vulgate follows the Masoretic Text very closely here but there are some deviations: the word which I translated in my translation as "which is the inheritance of the" is left out of the Vulgate (at least the popular text of the Vulgate). We must remember that none of the Vulgate's original texts survived and that what we have of Jerome's translation into Latin from Bethlehem, is only remainders of copies through the centuries dating from after the sixth century AD until deep into the fifteenth century. The manuscripts displays minor deviations and these are normally found in the first or second register at the bottom of a critical text of the Vulgate. What is Vulgate in our understanding is really a modern construct. A committee is set up to hunt for all the manuscripts and place them side by side and then browse through them to see the correspondences and differences. Certain rules are then voted upon by the committee according to which the supposedly original text can then be redesigned. When most of the manuscripts agree that is taken to be the norm and deviants are then seen as errors or some other explanation is given for their different reading. As long as we operate here with the understanding that we are not working with the text of Jerome but a committee's construct of what they think is Jerome, we are pretty save in our research. It is in this sense that the term "Vulgate" must be understood in this work. The issue is here in the following way: Jerome who lived in Bethlehem in his old age and translated the books of the Old Testament into Latin was using also Hebrew manuscripts. The Hebrew text that we are using is a late text dating to the year 1008 AD. We use the term Masoretic text to indicate the work of those who preserved the text in this form in a very strict way. The question now arises whether Jerome left out these words because the Hebrew manuscript he was using also left it out? The second level questioning continue by Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 66 asking if Jerome was using a Hebrew text here for the elision of some words, why is this Hebrew manuscript differing from the Masoretic text which was presumably well transmitted? Which one is to be followed? The current art of selection or choice for the best in textual criticism, is a-normative in approach. That means that scholars are not specific in their choice and is willing to let anything go or accept anything which they found reason to do so. They operate with the understanding that all texts are equally bad and that a choice of the best text really is an open matter and a grey area. No text is then normative in this approach, since the text becomes only normative for the one who is making it normative. On reasons of grammar or sense or other reasons they will delete some words or replace them with others. An apriori hierarchy of texts are created in their own minds with favoratism of some and dismay of others and according to these internal positions of importance of the text to the mind of the investigator they will now "construct" what they think should be the original word of God. This approach is called eclectic and multi-textual. There is nothing wrong in the study of many texts for the understanding of the word of God but when that word does not exist initially for the investigator as an outside construct, then it becomes eventually nothing more than an internal construct or a self-designed product labelled by him/herself as "the original word of God". Now that is what they do but what we should ask is what should we do. This is the crux of the matter. We begin by accepting that the Masoretic text without the vowels in the Hebrew, the consonantal text is the original word of God. We make the leap of faith into the unknown by saying that this consonantal text of 1008 CE is the original and thus the norm which should explain all deviants and correspondences. We gain some form of security in the fact that the Hebrew manuscripts through the centuries does not display the same quantity and quality of deviants that those in the Greek translations has. The Greek text or the so-called LXX or Septuagint is standing under the same constraints as the Vulgate. None of the original texts survived and all texts are dating from 250 CE (if we are lucky) to the Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Reformation times (the last three mostly). Just as we do not have Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 67 the original Vulgate, so we do not have the original Septuagint. It is of no use to run to the Septuagint to clear up a matter of understanding of an etymological word that one cannot understand fully in the Hebrew. The construct is a current one of a committee and the meaning is maybe that of a copyist or translator in the Middle Ages. Our task is then to find the reason why a particular deviant arose or why an error was made by a translation. In the case of the word above with Jerome, his eyes were probably tired and since he was in his senior years, and take it also that the cave where he was translating was fairly dark if it becomes late in the afternoon, plus the fact that initially old Hebrew manuscripts were all written without space dividers between the words, then one can understand how the eyes slip onto similar letters than that of the word "Lord" at the end. This approach is important in this work and by now many current scholars who are only interested in publishing their friends' and club-members' ideas will put this book aside as being "fundamentalistic" and too naive. This is a gross misunderstanding of this work. This work is not the result of a "hush hush" conflation of quotes from friends and club-members research in order to meet some form of deadline for publication or to receive some form of payment from the university or government for research done or to get acceptance for publication from an editor of some prestigious journal. I am reminded of the words of G. R. Driver who said: "For it is all too often the case that European lexicographers, grammarians and commentators emensely pass on the same stock-in-trade from one generation to another, without any check on how far it corresponds to what actually happened or happens" (G. R. Driver, "Lice in the Old Testament," PEQ 106 [1974]: 160). The advantage of this approach is that it is normative (externally) goal-directed, explanatory of deviants, and the investigator remains in a constant position of clinging to a Hebrew consonantal text that is not always clear to the reader, humbly accepting it as the focus point of the universe. This is where criticism starts and where dialectics adds to an excellent future in which the investigator constantly weighs everybody's suggestions around him and critically analyse all the pro's and con's of an opinion. This approach is far Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 68 from naive but critical of any eclectic attempt or any attempt to "rectify" the text with a multi-textual approach. Even the Syriac text or Peshitta of the Leiden edition is not the actual Peshitta text but a reconstruction. The text cannot be found in any single biblical manuscript. The text stands midway between a diplomatic and eclectic text (see here the observations of Konrad D. Jenner in http://www.leidenuniv.nl/gg/peshitta/syrcom/Hugoye/Vol2No1/HV2N1PR Jenner.html at page 4). Let us look at the way in which the Lord manifests Himself to Hosea: The Lord is speaking in Hosea. The revelation of God came to Hosea in himself. The manifestation or the phenomenon is not only externally evident as with other prophets like Daniel but is internally operative in Hosea. In his mind he could experience the voice of God unto him. In a Latin Bible of the Middle Ages in the Bodleian Library in Oxford, MS. Lat.bib.e.7, fol. 295 verso, the artist of this illustrative manuscript wanted to show how the "word of the Lord came to Hosea" by drawing a hand with a pointed finger that is sticking through the clouds above and touches the lips of Hosea. Hosea is sitting in a safety zone inside the big V of the beginning of the verse with the Latin word Verbum and outside this zone on both sides of the legs of the V are two doglike snakes biting the bottom point of the V, maybe symbolizing the evil that will bite his heel? Maybe his two wives? It is possible to view this picture on the website for the Bodleian Library under IMAGES. Historically: We are dealing here with the Jehu dynasty which was to end in the days of Hosea as we will learn a few verses away. The expression: "fornicator you have fornicated the earth and inheritance of the Lord" means that the king of the dynasty of the house of Jehu in verse 4 is considered the "fornicator" which we find in verse 2. Translation: Many translations had problems with this phrase: "because fornicator you have fornicated the earth and the inheritance of the Lord". It is not the lifestyle of the people of Israel that is here at stake as many Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 69 translations thought, it is the administrative duties of the government and its interference with the true worship of God that is the focus of contention here. If one can ascribe the Vulgate text to Jerome here then he made a relative pronoun out of the particle ki in the Masoretic text. Jerome was right in viewing the word znh as a noun but he failed to see the explanatory particle ki before the noun and the possibility that the noun was the addressee since the next word is a verb with a second person form. The Vulgate reads here quia fornicans fornicabitur terra a Domino. I tend to think that we have a fluctuation from the first level direct speech (addressing Hosea) to a second level direct speech (addressing the government) here. Spiritually: There are individuals who are married to fornicators or womanizers. There are preachers and sincere believers who are married to fornicators with a history and lifestyle of fornicating around. It is not wrong in the eyes of God for a believer or to be married to such a person. We will see that Hosea had to marry this kind of person even knowing of the fact of the history of that person. If one reads my translation very carefully then it is not the woman or her children that stands condemned in this case but the one who is addressed, namely the government. It is not the physical fornication that stands in condemnation here but the government who killed innocent believers and interfered with the true worship to God. The problem with a marriage to such a person is a constant stressed out life and is a relational one. It does not add or subtract from one's spirituality or standing with God any more or less than before or without such a relation. It is not physical fornicating around that is the bone of contention here, it is spiritual fornicating. This will become clear in chapter 2 of the book of Hosea. Hosea had to physically suffering the relational problems with such a lifestyle so that he could better understand what the main problem is namely the spiritual fornicating around of believers by devoting their lifes in other directions than God and His worship. Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 70 Hosea 1:3 And he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim and made her pregnant and she bore him a son. (MK1008BHS) Old Translations Old Latin English Translation So he went, and took Gomer the daughter of Debelaim: and she conceived and bore him a son Old Latin Text et abiit et accepit Gomer filiam Debelaim et concepit et peperit filium (OLPIERRE SABBATHIER1743: 891) Old Latin Retroversion (OL180Heb-reconHosea 1:3) Latin Vulgate's English Translation So he went, and took Gomer the daughter of Debelaim: and she conceived and bore him a son Latin Vulgate Text et abiit et accepit Gomer filiam Debelaim et concepit et peperit filium (Vs450reconWEBER) Latin Retroversion (VHeb-reconHos1:3) Greek English Translation And he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim and he took hold of and she bore him a son. Greek Text και επορευθη και ελαβεν την γομερ θυγατερα δεβλαιμ και συνελαβεν και ετεκεν αυτῳ υιον Greek Retroversion (GHeb-reconHos1:3) Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 71 Targum's English Translation And he went and prophecied over them that if they return He shall leave them and if not like a leaf upon a figtree remain and they shall increase and accomplish bad works. Targum Text (Twalton1654) Targum Retroversion (THeb-reconHos1:3) Syriac's English Translation So he went, and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim: and she conceived and bore to him a son Syriac Text .mYLBd tN+Bw .mYLBd trB rMGL hL BsNw lz)w .)rB hL tdLYw tN+Bw (SLeiden PeshittaGelston1980) Syriac Retroversion (SHeb-reconHos1:3) Coptic's English Translation So he went, and took Gomer the daughter of Debelaim: and she conceived and bore him a son Coptic Text (C) ouoh afsenaf afgi ngomer tseri mbelhlem ouoh aserboki asmisi naf noushri. Coptic Retroversion (CHeb-reconHos1:3) Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 72 The Targum Jonathan to the prophets dealing with Hosea, interpreted this verse as follows: "And he went and prophesied over them that if they will convert he will forgive them". The verse of course continuous that bad things will come over them if they do not. There is no relation to the content of this verse and that of the Targum. It is as if the Targum is on a side track ignoring the issue at hand and dealing with something else. It is side stepping the moral issue. But then again, what moral issue? Classical Middle Age morals are not necessarily the morals of the Old Testament or its world. The Jewish epistemology of the Midldle Ages are not necessarily synonymous with the Old Testament epistemology. Of course it is derived from the Old Testament but many other streams of intellectualism made inroads in that epistemology so that a one for one basis cannot be easily established. Spiritually: Hosea followed the instruction of the Lord and married someone who was known to be a fornicator of many. He made her pregnant and nine months later a boy was born for him. Interpretation: The one who tells the story probably told it many times so that all the detail is not given, since there are many other things that needs to receive attention later. Between the action at the beginning of the verse and the "son" that was born at the end of the verse more than nine months past. Not much detail is given and thus it could be expected that this recasting of the life of Hosea was done by himself in his old age. There is a possibility that this Gomer is of the Samaria Ostraca who was one of the wealthy recipients of taxes from many areas and if Albright is right that these Ostraca dates to the time of Jeroboam II, then they can probably be dated between 800-781 BCE. These years are in the reign of Uzziah and Hosea began his ministry in this kings reign. There are strong indications in this chapter and the next one that Hosea's wife was wealthy and that she received many gifts from others. It would mean that Hosea married maybe at the age of 18 around 792 BCE and that he lived Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 73 probably until 714 BCE up to the age of 96. The Samaria Ostraca were collected from years 9, 10, 15 and 17 of a certain king. If these years are counted with an ascension year counting then the biblical non-ascension years of Jehoash would mean 16th year in the MT is the 17th year in the Ostraca ca. 792 BCE. The 14th year in the MT is the 15th year in the Ostraca ca. 794 BCE and the 9th year in the MT is the 10th year in the Ostraca ca. 799 BCE and the 8th year in the MT is the 9th year in the Ostraca ca. 800 BCE. Hosea 1:4 And the Lord said to him: Call his name Jezreel because again shortly and I will visit the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu and I will caused to rest the kingdom of the house of Israel. (MK1008BHS) Old Translations Old Latin English Translation And the Lord said to him: Call his name Jezrahel: for yet a little while, and I will visit the blood of Jezrahel upon the house of Jehu, and I will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel. Old Latin Text et dixit Dominus ad eum voca nomen eius Jezrael quia adhuc modicum et ulciscar sanguinem Jezrael super domum Juda et quiescere faciam regnum domus Israël (OLPIERRE SABBATHIER1743: 891) Old Latin Retroversion (OL180Heb-reconHosea 1:4) Latin Vulgate's English Translation And the Lord said to him: Call his name Jezrahel: for yet a little while, and I will visit the blood of Jezrahel upon the house of Jehu, and I will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel. Latin Vulgate Text Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 74 et dixit Dominus ad eum voca nomen eius Hiezrahel quoniam adhuc modicum et visitabo sanguinem Hiezrahel super domum Hieu et quiescere faciam regnum domus Israhel (Vs450reconWEBER) Latin Retroversion (VHeb-reconHos1:4) Greek English Translation And the Lord said to him: Call his name Jezreel because again shortly and I will visit the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu and I will caused to rest the kingdom of the house of Israel. Greek Text και ειπεν κυριος προς αυτον καλεσον το ονομα αυτου ιρζραελ διοτι ετι μικρον και εκδικησω το αιμα του ιεζραελ επι το οικον ιου και καταπαυσω βασιλειαν οικου ισραηλ Greek Retroversion (GHeb-reconHos1:4) Targum's English Translation And the Lord said to him: Call his name "Scattering" because till now speak moderately and I will visit the blood of the worship of idols that Jehu shed in Jezreel of the killing upon those that served to Baal. Return yourselves to the idols after the calves of Bethel. Now I will reckon the blood of the innocent upon the house of Jehu and I will bring to end the kingdom of the house of Israel. Targum Text Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 75 (Twalton1654) Targum Retroversion (THeb-reconHos1:4) Syriac's English Translation And the Lord said to him: Call his name Jezreel; for yet a little while, and I, I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and I will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel. Syriac Text dGd l+M .lYOrzY) hM$ yrQ .)YrM hL rM)w whYd )tYB l( LY(rzY)d hMd )N) (Bt lYLQ .LYrsY) tYBd )twKLM l+B)w (SLeiden PeshittaGelston1980) Syriac Retroversion (SHeb-reconHos1:4) Coptic's English Translation And the Lord said to him: Call his name Jezrahel: for yet a little while, and I will visit the blood of Jezrahel upon the house of Jehu, and I will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel. Coptic Text (C) ouoh peje poc nwshe ekemout epefran je iezrael je ouhi eti kouji ouoh eiegimpipsis mpsnof niezrael ejen phi niouda ouoh tnatmton noumetouro nte phi mpicl. Coptic Retroversion Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 76 (CHeb-reconHos1:4) In Walton's Polyglot that contains the Hebrew, Vulgate, Greek, Syriac, Arabic and Targum of Hosea, there is an interesting translation of the name for Jezreel. Whereas the Hebrew reads Jezreel, the Vulgate reads Hiezrahel but the Vulgate of Walton's time in the 16th century read Jezrahel. The Greek is translated in Walton's Polyglot as reading Jezrael. So far the translations follow the original that is cited next to it. However, with the Syriac there is suddenly a problem. It is translated that the Syriac reads Izareelem but in reality the original that is cited next to that does not read that. It reads Izareel . There is no /m/ at the end as is translated in the Polyglot. If one goes down to the Arabic, the same rendering is given Izareelem. I am not qualified in Arabic to deny or confirm the rendering there. One thing is for certain, the one who translated the Syriac did not consult the reading again in the Syriac. It could be typographical error that was made by an Arabic technician who transferred the spelling of the Arabic section to that of the Syriac. It seems that the Syriac follows the Masoretic text by enlarge here in this verse but that the translation in the Walton Polyglot of the Syriac into Latin was not done very literally. Walton's rendering reads: "and I will abolish the kingdom of Israel" as & aboleturus regnum Israelitaru whereas the Syriac actually reads: "and I will cause to rest the kingdom of the house of Israel". This translation is hard to explain since the Syriac and Vulgate's readings do not differ that much and the Vulgate read clearly our translation here even of the Syriac: et quiescere faciam regnum domus Israhel. This is also the reading of the Vulgate in Walton's polyglot. The mechanics of how the Latin translations were made in the Polyglot is not that clear. It appears at this stage as if more than one translator was assigned for the task of each one translating an original. The one who translated the Hebrew was not the same as the one who translated the Greek and not the same as the one who translated the Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 77 Syriac and not the same as the one who translated the Arabic. It was the task of four different translators all able to translate into Latin. Historically: It is known that Jehu was a very cunning fox in his dealings with his enemies. 2 Kings 9 and 10 is relating the story of king Jehu. He basically killed the predecessors in fulfillment of a prophetic uttering that was made concerning these kings and their sins. Many lives were lost. He killed anybody that was connected to the house of Ahab. One can see his brutal treatment of Jezebel. He proud himself that his military actions were all acts of God. Most of these killings took place in the city of Jezreel. To see an expression like the one in this verse, namely that he will visit the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu calls for some comment. Who's blood is it that is making the Lord uneasy here? Does this mean that as long as you are remaining faithful to God your acts of killing of the evil ones are no problem but that when you turn your back against the Lord then those killings are accounted against you? There is no easy answer for this situation here with Jehu. One must remember that there was a prophetic message to Jehu that his fourth generation descendants will be kings over Israel (2 Kings 10:30). It is strange that the Lord said that he is satisfied with those killings four generations ago but now he is going to punish them for those sins four generations later? For those who operate with an historical-critical scenario the matter is simple: there are two sources and the one source is in favor of the actions of Jehu and the other source is not. This solution is just an easy way out and does not fully attempt to understand the complete revelation. They do not recognize the presence of God in this history and thus history is just a human design. The prophets are just human preachers speaking their own fears and hopes. Some are right some are wrong. The burning issue is: how can the executioner of God be held accountable for his actions that he previously carried out with the approval of God? It seems that as long as they remain faithful the sins are forgiven but if they stray then those deeds are accountable Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 78 even if they were previously carried out with God's approval. Theology: This brings us to a theological issue. It tells us something about the God of the universe. He executes judgments of death upon the blood of people but those killings are not atoned for unless there is a continual faith in God. God is not a God of killing and even the killing of evil has to be accounted for. Maybe the solution lies in the word "visit". God will make an investigative judgment of the divine execution and if the executioner is not find faithful, God will deal with those acts. The punishment in the case of the house of Jehu is that he brought to rest this kingship of this house. The point of contention here is why it does not say in Hosea 1:4 "the blood of Ibleam and Jezreel"? See, Ahazia was also wounded by Jehu near Ibleam. It is impossible to have two prophet schools opposing each other here on the detail. It seems as if the theology says that killing is unlawful even of the wicked and that someone has to die for those blood. The atonement theology is probably the best answer to this dilemma. If the faithful cannot be punished for his deeds, God has to take the punishment Himself. And He did. Hosea 1:5 And it shall come to pass on that day, and I shall destroy the military of Israel in the valley of Jezreel. (MK1008BHS) Old Translations Old Latin English Translation And in that day I will break in pieces the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezrahel. Old Latin Text et in illa die conteram arcum Israël in valle Jezrael (OLPIERRE SABBATHIER1743: 891) Old Latin Retroversion (OL180Heb-reconHosea 1:5) Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 79 Latin Vulgate's English Translation And in that day I will break in pieces the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezrahel. Latin Vulgate Text et in illa die conteram arcum Israhel in valle Hiezrahel (Vs450reconWEBER) Latin Retroversion (VHeb-reconHos1:5) Greek English Translation And it shall come to pass on that day, I shall destroy the military of Israel in the valley of Jezreel. Greek Text και εσται εν τῃ ημεραι εκεινῃ συντριγω το τοξον του ισραηλ εν τῃ κοιλαδι του ιεζραελ Greek Retroversion _ (GHeb-reconHos1:5) Targum's English Translation And it shall be in that time and I will break the strong doers of approach of Israel in the valley of Jezreel. Targum Text (Twalton1654) Targum Retroversion (THeb-reconHos1:5) Syriac's English Translation On that day, I will break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel. Syriac Text lYrsY)d )t$QL h[YrBt) .wh[ )MwYB hB Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 80 .lYOrzY)d )QMwOB (SLeiden PeshittaGelston1980) Syriac Retroversion (SHeb-reconHos1:5) Coptic's English Translation And in that day I will break in pieces the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezrahel. Coptic Text (C) ouoh eseswpi qen piehoou etemmau tnaqomqem ntfit nte picl qen tqellot nte iezrael. Coptic Retroversion (CHeb-reconHos1:5) The Targum on Hosea translated that "And it shall be in that time and I will counteract the strong doers of approach of Israel in the valley of Jezreel." In essence the Targum is following the Hebrew here. The Syriac reads "in that day" which is the same root as in the Hebrew. One wonders why the Targum had to change it to "in that time"? We know that the siege of Samaria took nearly three years so that singular "day" was not really in mind here if that is the application. Historically: We have three actions here that is going to happen: a. I will visit the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu b. I will bring to rest the kingdom of the house of Israel and c. I will destroy the military of Israel in the valley of Jezreel. We have here a pyramid of actions of punishment of the evil deeds. Jehu and his descendants and then finally the military of Israel. . Jehu ........ his descendants Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 81 .................................military of Israel It is interesting that the punishment of the military is not in the town of Jezreel but in the valley of Jezreel. "That day" that is in reference here is probably the year 721 BC at the fall of Samaria. Prophetically: We have to be very careful not to think that the expression "and it shall come to pass on that day" is only a preteristic connection to 721 BC. In this verse it certainly is and a hint in that direction is the expression 1:4 "because again shortly" ki-(wd m(t . On that day that is shortly to happen in 721 BC these actions would find their fulfillment. Neither can one pull the destruction of the military of Israel and the valley of Israel to an apocalyptic or eschatological day of a Battle- in-the-Valley-of-Jezreel-Motif. This last battle so well expressed in the book of Joel and other passages in the Psalms 46, does not speak of a destruction of Israel but its victory. There is thus no connection here. The cancelation of this future application is now not a license or permission to read all the passages in a preteristic way dealing only with the time surrounding 721 BC. Hosea grew up and lived for the first part of his life during a time of military prosperity in the reign of Jeroboam II and even Uzziah was successful after his 16th year until his enthronement at the age of 23 to be military very strong. Hosea 1:6 And he knew her again and she bore a daughter, and he said to him: call her name: not is there sympathy for not will I make binding anymore: I sympathize with the house of Israel because I will surely forgive them. (MK1008BHS) Old Translations Old Latin English Translation And she conceived again, and bore a daughter, and he said to him: Call her name, Without mercy: for I will not add any more to have Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 82 mercy on the house of Israel, but I will utterly forget them. Old Latin Text et concepit adhuc et peperit filiam et dixit ei voca nomen eius Absque misericordia quia nequaquam addam ultra misereri domui Israël sed adversans adversabor eis (OLPIERRE SABBATHIER1743: 891) Old Latin Retroversion (OL180Heb-reconHosea 1:6) Latin Vulgate's English Translation And she conceived again, and bore a daughter, and he said to him: Call her name, Without mercy: for I will not add any more to have mercy on the house of Israel, but I will utterly forget them. Latin Vulgate Text et concepit adhuc et peperit filiam et dixit ei voca nomen eius Absque misericordia quia non addam ultra misereri domui Israhel sed oblivione obliviscar eorum (Vs450reconWEBER) Latin Retroversion (VHeb-reconHos1:6) Greek English Translation And he took hold of again and she bore a daughter, and he said to him: call her name: not is there sympathy for not will I make binding anymore: I sympathize with the house of Israel but the one who forgives will forgive them. Greek Text και συνελαβεν ετι και ετεκεν θυγατερα και ειπεν αυτῳ καλεσον το ονομα αυτης ουκηλεημενη διοτι ου μη προσθησω ετι ελεησαι τον οικον του ισραηλ αλλ η αντιτασσομενος αντιταξομαι αυτοις Greek Retroversion Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 83 (GHeb-reconHos1:6) Targum's English Translation And they will add and do bad works and he said to him: Call their name "Of no compassion in their works" because not will I add any longer to the compassion upon the house of Israel only if they return from leaving what is left to them. Targum Text (Twalton1654) Targum Retroversion (THeb-reconHos1:6) Syriac's English Translation And she conceived again, and bore a daughter, and the Lord said to him: Call her name: La-ethrakhmath (not beloved), for I, I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel. I will utterly cause them to be carried away captive. Syriac Text yrQ .)YrM yL rM)w .)trB tdLYw Bwt tN+Bw bwt )N) PswM )Ld l+M .tMXrt) )L h[M$ )N) lQ$ lQ$M )L) .lYrsY) tYBd lO wMXrML .nwhL Leiden Peshitta 1980 (S ) Gelston Syriac Retroversion (SHeb-reconHos1:6) Coptic's English Translation And she conceived again, and bore a daughter, and he said to him: Call her name, Without mercy: for I will not add any more to have mercy on the house of Israel, but I will utterly forget them. Coptic Text Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 84 ouoh aserboki ouoh asmisi nouseri ouoh pejas je mout epesran je qhete mpounai nas je ouhi tnaouah tot an je emenre phi mpicl alla qen out tnat eqoun ehrau. (C) Coptic Retroversion (CHeb-reconHos1:6) The Vulgate read "because I will obliviate their oblivions". The interesting phenomenon is that the Greek reading invers the first two Hebrew letters in the last part of the verse. Instead of ns the Greek reads sn . The Syriac rendered the verse "and the Lord said to me" for the Masoretic text reading "and the Lord said to him" . This difference in reading went unnoticed by the editors of the BHS and subsequently there is no reference in the lower register about that. The BHS is thus incomplete in its references in the lower register. In this commentary the work of the scholars in the lower register is viewed very critically. Again the Targum attempted to pass over the personal life of Hosea and interpreted that Israel did many wrong things. It is as if the Targum is doing its best in clearing up a misunderstanding why the Lord would allow Hosea to be involved in these actions. It avoids the issue of Hosea's life and guess that the sins of Israel multiplied. Theological: Looking at the language in this section the concept of "binding" is covenantal. It is what one would find in a covenant relationship. God will not keep to the covenant anymore a covenant that He made with Himself saying that He will sympathize with the house of Israel and that He will surely forgive them. The very name of these children were to be some form of message that is given to Israel. God will not sympathize any longer with them. It seems as if He bound Himself to a covenant of care and forgiveness. If we look at the time He did this, at least in the context of the previous verse where the case of Jezreel is mentioned, Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 85 then one has to conclude that His forgiveness for Israel and His sympathy for them remained connected for many years, at least four generations in the house of Jehu. It is as if God made an oath to Himself and He then keeps that oath despite the other party's failure to come up to the standards or goals inherent in such a relationship. What the ingredients are of a stable relationship with God will become clearer in the rest of the book of Hosea. If the translation of the last part should be "I will surely carry them" then the imagery here is that of an old lady binding a cloth around herself and carry the baby on the back because of sympathy and love. God then view Himself as the loving mother who binds her child (the house of Israel) on her back out of sympathy and love. What a beautiful metaphor to employ here. Interpretation: Here is a continuation of the life of Hosea but again the information is very cryptic and all the detail is stripped so that nine months passed between the beginning and the end of the verse. Hosea 1:7 And I will sympathize with the house of Judah and I will save them in the Lord their God and not will I save them with a bow and with a sword or with a war or with horses or with destructions. (MK1008BHS) Old Translations Old Latin English Translation And I will have mercy on the house of Juda, and I will save them by the Lord their God: and I will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, nor by horses, nor by horsemen. Old Latin Text filiorum autem Iuda miserebor et salvabo eos in Domino Deo suo et non salvabo eos in arcu neque in gladio neque in bello neque in equis neque in equitibus Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk (OLPIERRE 86 SABBATHIER 1743: 892) Old Latin Retroversion (OL180Heb-reconHosea 1:7) Latin Vulgate's English Translation And I will have mercy on the house of Juda, and I will save them by the Lord their God: and I will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, nor by horses, nor by horsemen. Latin Vulgate Text et domui Iuda miserebor et salvabo eos in Domino Deo suo et non salvabo eos in arcu et gladio et in bello et in equis et in equitibus (Vs450reconWEBER) Latin Retroversion (VHeb-reconHos1:7) Greek English Translation But the sons of Judah I will sympathize and I will save them in the Lord their God and not will I save them with a bow and with a sword or with a war or with chariots or with horses or with horsemen. Greek Text τους δε υιους ιουδα ελεησω και σωσω αυτους εν κυριῳ θεῳ αυτων και ου σωσω αυτους εν τοξῳ ουδε εν ρομφαιαι ουδε εν πολεμῳ ουδε εν αρμασιν ουδεν εν ιπποις ουδε εν ιππευσιν Greek Retroversion (GHeb-reconHos1:7) Targum's English Translation And upon the house of Judah I will be compassionate and I will Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 87 save them in the memra/words of the Lord their God and not shall I save them with the bow and with the sword and with works of the attack with horses and with horsemen. Targum Text (Twalton1654) Targum Retroversion (THeb-reconHos1:7) Syriac's English Translation But I will have mercy on the house of Judah, and I will save them by the Lord their God. I will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, and not by horses nor by horsemen. Syriac Text qwrP)w .mXr) )dwhYd oYd )tYB lO qwrP) )t$QB )L .nwhhL) )YrMB nwN) )Lw .)BrQB )L P) )PYsB )L P) .nwN) .)$r*PB )L P) )$Kr*B (SLeiden PeshittaGelston1980) Syriac Retroversion (SHeb-reconHos1:7) Coptic's English Translation And I will have mercy on the house of Juda, and I will save them by the Lord their God: and I will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, nor by horses, nor by horsemen. Coptic Text nenshri de niouda tnanai nwou ouoh tnatoujwou qen poc pounout ouoh nainatoujwou an qen oufit oude qen oushfi oude qen oupolemos oude qen hanharma oude qen hanhqwr Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 88 oude qen hangasihqw. (C) Coptic Retroversion (CHeb-reconHos1:7) It is interesting that the Targum or Jewish interpretation of the Middle Ages kept in this verse close to the Hebrew original. Minor deviations are that "and I will save them in the word of the Lord their God". Whenever the Targum feels uncomfortable about the fact that the Lord is made an object then it changes the text to read "the memra of the Lord". This is what happened in this text too. The rest are the same as the Hebrew text. The Syriac reads close to the Masoretic text here. Textually: Scholars are trying to amputate this verse from the original by claiming that this verse is an addition to this chapter or to the whole book for that matter. But this is not our business dealing with the matter before us. It is not uncommon for a person to have a double focus while in conversation. Sometimes people downplay one situation only to frame the real situation in their focus. That means there is a double vision here of seeing the ideal situation (1) and describe with dismay the unpleasant situation (2). In this case Hosea is downplaying the situation of Israel and frame the situation of Judah. But, in doing so Hosea is laying the foundation for true worship from God's perspective. True worship for God is not by power or might but in the Lord their God. Salvation is not through the sword or military maneuvers but in the Lord their God. Both the Greek and the Latin reads the last word wbprsym as meaning "horsemen". The Latin reads it as equitibus. We are not sure whether this is the only reading for this root. We must remember that the root prs was used often in military in the semitic world. From another angle and at a much earlier time, the word plst[ym] [ ] were used. This word was known also in Egypt Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 89 but the Egyptians could not say the /l/ properly as we also find in the Asian world today in South Korea and Japan. Instead they are using the /r/. Sometimes there is a interchange within the same language so that instead of /r/ they use /l/ or instead of /l/ they use /r/. This interchange of letters /r/ and /l/ is important not only as far as the word plst[ym] [ ] is concern but also for a better understanding of the root and meaning of prs . The Egyptians called the Philistines pw-r'-s'-ty "feathered headdress". This word Philistines can be found centuries before the time of Raamses II so that it is unthinkable that they wore the "feathered headdress" for that long a period. It is rather possible that the semantics of the word shifted from region to region or even from period to period. The phonics of the word could have also helped in the transition of meaning in the interchange of different forms for the same sound. The range of the semantics of this word is somewhere between: "to shake or tremble, to make level, to role oneself, to flee or escape" (see Van Wyk, Archaeology in the Bible and Text in the Tel [Berrien Center, Michigan: Louis Hester Publications, 1996], 193 footnote 178). One thing is undoubtedly clear: Judah's salvation will not come through or from any military action. Any form of activistic display for some good cause in the liberation theology framework is immediately cancelled by this verse. God does not ask any programmatic effort to "free" or "liberate" our perceived "captives". Salvation in His view comes solely in the Lord their God. Hosea preached God, not politics, God, not social structures, God, not activistic lobbying for whatever good cause. Hosea 1:8 And she weaned Lo-ruhama and became pregnant and bore a son. (MK1008BHS) Old Translations Old Latin English Translation And she weaned her that was called Without mercy. And she Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 90 conceived, and bore a son. Old Latin Text et ablactavit eam quae erat absque misericordia et concepit et peperit filium (OLPIERRE SABBATHIER1743: 892) Old Latin Retroversion (OL180Heb-reconHosea 1:8) Latin Vulgate's English Translation And she weaned her that was called Without mercy. And she conceived, and bore a son. Latin Vulgate Text et ablactavit eam quae erat absque misericordia et concepit et peperit filium (Vs450reconWEBER) Latin Retroversion (VHeb-reconHos1:8) Greek English Translation And she weaned not is there sympathy and he took hold again and bore a son. Greek Text και απεγαλακτισεν την ουκηλεημενην και συνελαβεν ετι και ετεκεκεν υιον Greek Retroversion (GHeb-reconHos1:8) Targum's English Translation And their generations that are exiled to among the nations shall discover that they are not compassionate in their works but multiplying and accomplishing bad works. Targum Text Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 91 (Twalton1654) Targum Retroversion (THeb-reconHos1:8) Syriac's English Translation And she weaned Laethrakhmath. And she conceived again and bore a son. Syriac Text .)rB tdLYw Bwt tN+Bw tMXrt) )LdL tLsXw (SLeiden PeshittaGelston1980) Syriac Retroversion (SHeb-reconHos1:8) Coptic's English Translation And she weaned her that was called Without mercy. And she conceived, and bore a son. Coptic Text ouoh astouio nqhete mpoumenrits ouoh aserboki on ouoh asmisi noushri. (C) Coptic Retroversion (CHeb-reconHos1:8) Again the Targum ignored the personal life of Hosea and interpreted it as meaning that the people became very evil and bad in those days and that they multiplied works of evil. The Syriac is said to normally follow the Targum or the Targum the Syriac but not in this verse or the similar ones above. The Syriac has a special case in reading the nota-accusativi of the Masoretic text (which is the direct object indicator) as a preposition "up to" or "until". This error occurred due to a mishearing of the reader, thus an acoustic error. The Syriac also added the word "again" which is Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 92 not in the original reading "and she became pregnant again". The Septuagint or Greek translation reads close to the Masoretic text. It is interesting that Jerome did not translate the meaning of the name of the previous son in verse 4 but gave the Hebrew transliteration Hiezrahel. Here in verse 8 he did not do that but translated it as meaning absque misericordia. One wonders why he is inconsistent here in his own method? He was an old man when he translated Hosea and examples of this are probably due to his age. Translation: The Greek and Latin translations tried to translate the parts of the personal name of her son but that is not necessary. The fact that the Lord gave meaning to parts of his name whether one word or composed, does not necessitate that we should translate those sections every time we come there. Most people today has names that are composed of a number of meanings. After they explain to you the meaning you do not begin to call them the translated meaning. You keep to the original form. Interpretation: The same situation is here, namely that nine months lapsed between the middle and the end of the verse. No detail is given. Hosea 1:9 And he said: call his name Lo-ami for you are not my people and I am not I am for you. (MK1008BHS) Old Translations Old Latin English Translation And he said: Call his name, Not my people: for you are not my people, and I will not be yours. Old Latin Text et dixit voca nomen eius Non populus meus quia vos non populus meus et ego non ero vester Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk (OLPIERRE 93 SABBATHIER 1743: 892) Old Latin Retroversion (OL180Heb-reconHosea 1:9) Latin Vulgate's English Translation And he said: Call his name, Not my people: for you are not my people, and I will not be yours. Latin Vulgate Text et dixit voca nomen eius Non populus meus quia vos non populus meus et ego non ero vester (Vs450reconWEBER) Latin Retroversion (VHeb-reconHos1:9) Greek English Translation And he said: call his name not my people for you are not my people and I am not I am for you. Greek Text και ειπεν καλεσον το ονομα ουτου ουλαοσμου διοτι υμεις ου λαος μου και εγω ουκ ειμι υμων Greek Retroversion (GHeb-reconHos1:9) Targum's English Translation And he said: Call his name: "Not my people" because you are not my people in sofar as you are stabilizing the words of my law. My memra/words are not in your support. Targum Text Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 94 (Twalton1654) Targum Retroversion (THeb-reconHos1:9) Syriac's English Translation And the Lord said to me: Call his name, Lo-ammi (not my people), for that you, not my people, you are, and I, I will not be yours. Syriac Text l+M .yMO )L hM$ yrQ .)YrM yL rM)w .nwKL )wh) )L )N)w .nwtN) yMO )L nwtN)d (SLeiden PeshittaGelston1980) Syriac Retroversion (SHeb-reconHos1:9) Coptic's English Translation And he said: Call his name, Not my people: for you are not my people, and I will not be yours. Coptic Text ouoh pejaf je mout epefran je palaos an je nqwten palaos an ouoh anok hw anok fwten an. (C) Coptic Retroversion (CHeb-reconHos1:9) The Targum translated "Call their name 'not my people for you are not my people". The Targum added that they are not keeping the words of the Law . The Targum does not say anything of the denial of God to be their covenantal God. It was probably too terrible of an idea to conceive in the Middle Ages by Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 95 the Jewish communities. The Syriac translated by adding that it is the "Lord" speaking to "me". It reads: "And the Lord said to me". The last part it translated: "and I am not I am to you" . This is very much in keeping with the Hebrew text. Interpretation: It is almost an aetiological explanation as to why he call his child the name he gave him. Textual: Scholars are suggesting that the last part of the verse should refer to God. It does but the consonants do not justify that we should rectify the text to read "God". Instead the form of the word is 'hyh which is translated as "I am". This is the same as one can find in the form of God's name to Moses when he was called cf. Exodus 3:14. At the inception of the Sinaitic covenant God revealed Himself to Moses as the one who is the great I am. God has kept faithful to that covenant and now through Hosea he is preaching that He is not going to be the great I am for Israel any more. Both at the calling out of exile and the going into exile we find the term "I am". It is clear that Hosea had a convenantal understanding here of God's dealing with Israel in salvation (out of Egupt) and judgment (going to Assyria). It is said that the term 'hyh is "unclear and disputed" (see Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament Vol. III page 379). Eissfeldt stressed that the meaning is more than just "I am". He insisted that it also means "I shall be" (Exodus 33:19). It is possible to translate it as "I am" or "I become" (Psalm 64:8). It seems as if hwh express the present status when the situation is future. When the situation is present status then hwh express the vitality and power and when the situation is dynamic and changable then hwh express the static and unchangable. This word is foreign to other Semitic languages and should probably be best analysed within the seams of the Old Testament itself. Whereas the Egyptians understood their gods to be good later to them in afterlife, the Mesopotamians feared the afterlife as something very bad (see Sabatino Moscati, Face of the Ancient Orient, page 301/317, 113/117, 31/29, 122/127, 123/128). The Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 96 Hebrews saw their God as good in the past, good in present and will be good in future. The term 'hyh in Exodus 3:14 and probably also in Hosea 1:9 is suggested to be one of the following: 1. cultic shout "O He" (S. Mowinckel); 2. He who creates (hiphil of haya) Burkitt, F. M. Cross, D. N. Freedman; 3. preserver (J. P. Hyatt, J. Obermann [1949]); 4. I will passionately love whom I will love (S. D. Gottstein [1956]); 5. reality of God (J. Hommel [1929], J. Lindblom [1964]); 6. unchanging presence (R. Abba [1961]; 7. actuality and existentiality (T. C. Vriezen [1950]); 8. his indeterminable fullness of being (O. Eissfeldt [1965]); 9. being (L. Kohler [1953]); 10 active existential being (R. Mayer [1958]); 11. He is ( E. Dhorme [1952]); 12. I am - that is what I am (W. A. Irwin [1939]); 13. He is - He proves Himself to be (W. von Soden). Theology: The translation is not so important as that we see that there is a connection here between the covenantal God of Exodus 3:14 and the God of Hosea 1:9. At the inception of both salvation and judgment we find this name or term reference to God. That Moses was important in the understanding of Hosea is clear in Hosea 12:14. Just from a cursory look at the book of Hosea it becomes clear that he had a good understanding of the atonement theology, and the covenant theology. Hosea Chapter Two Hosea 2:1 And it is written: The sons of Israel is like the sand of the sea which cannot be measured or cannot be counted. And it is in the place which He said to them: You are not my people. He said to them: Sons of the living God. Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 97 (MK1008BHS) Old Translations Old Latin English Translation And the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, that is without measure, and shall not be numbered. And it shall be in the place where it shall be said to them: You are not my people: it shall be said to them: Ye are the sons of the living God. Old Latin Text et erit numerus filiorum Israël sicut arena maris quae non mensurabitur nec numerari potest. Et erit in loco ubi dictum est eis non populus meus vos vocabuntur filii Dei viventis (OLPIERRE SABBATHIER1743: 892) Old Latin Retroversion (OL180Heb-reconHosea 2:1) Latin Vulgate's English Translation And the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, that is without measure, and shall not be numbered. And it shall be in the place where it shall be said to them: You are not my people: it shall be said to them: Ye are the sons of the living God. Latin Vulgate Text et erit numerus filiorum Israhel quasi harena maris quae sine mensura est et non numerabitur et erit in loco ubi dicetur eis non populus meus vos dicetur eis filii Dei viventis Latin Retroversion (VHeb-reconHos2:1) Greek's English Translation And was the number of the sons of Israel like the sand of the sea which cannot be measured or cannot be counted. And it is in the place which He said to them: You are not my people, there He said: Sons of the living God. Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 98 Greek Text και ην ο αριθμους των υιων ισραηλ ως η αμμος της θαλασσης η ουκ εκμετρηθησεται ουδε εξαριθησεται και εσται εν τῳ τοπῳ ου ερρεθη αυτοις ου λαος μου υμεις εκει κ ληθσονται υιοι θεου ζωντος Greek Retroversion (GHeb-reconHos2:1) Targum's English Translation And the numbers of the children of Israel shall be strong like the sand of the sea that is without measure and that cannot be counted and it shall be in that place that they will be exiled among the nations when they transgress upon the law and say to them: you are not my people the same is turned back and is magnified and it is said to them: people of the eduring God. Targum Text (Twalton1654) Targum Retroversion (THeb-reconHos2:1) Syriac's English Translation And the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, that is without measure, and shall not be numbered. And it shall be in the place where it shall be said to them: You are not my people: it shall be said to them: Ye are the sons of the living God. Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 99 Syriac Text )MYd )LX kY) lYrsY) yN*Bd )NYNM )whN n)w )rt)B )whNw )NMtM )Lw lYKttM )Ld nwrQtN oMt nwtN) yMO )L nwhL rM)t)d .)Yx )hL)L )YN*B (SLeiden PeshittaGelston1980) Syriac Retroversion (SHeb-reconHos2:1) Coptic's English Translation And the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, that is without measure, and shall not be numbered. And it shall be in the place where it shall be said to them: You are not my people: it shall be said to them: Ye are the sons of the living God. Coptic Text ouoh thpi nte nenshri mpicl nasoi mfrht mpisw nte fiom fai ete nsenasgihpi mmof an ouoh eueswpi mmwou an ouoh eseswpi qen pima etaujos nwou je nqwten paloas an euemout erwou hwou je ne nishri mft etonq. (C) Coptic Retroversion (CHeb-reconHos2:1) The Targum gave basically the same rendering but it changed the words somewhat at places. Instead of "sons of the living God" it translated "the people of the living God". It also provides an explanation why they were not called the people of God: "they were exiled amongst nations when they transgressed upon the law and he said to them: you are not my people" Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 100 . Historical: God promised to Abraham at his calling in Genesis 12:2, and 7 that He will give him many descendants. He repeated this promise in Genesis 15:5. In Genesis 16:10 He promised Abraham that He will give him so many descendants that nobody will be able to count them. In Genesis 17:6 He promised to Abraham that he will have so many descendants that they will become nations. It is in Genesis 22:17 that we find the metaphors that is similar in Hosea 2:1. It reads that He promised: I will increase your descendants like the stars in heavens and like the sand which is on the shores of the sea. Here is a fluctuation of God's speaking to Abraham on mount Moriah in Genesis 22 and His speaking to Israel in the days of Hosea. In all probability the giving of a name to a child took place in the Temple and it was in this temple mount (same as mount Moriah?) that God instructed Hosea to call his child "Not My people". That is why Hosea is saying that it is in the place meaning in the same place as He spoke to Abraham about his descendants. Fluctuating back to Genesis 22 it was in that time of Abraham the intention of God to call them "Sons of the living God". Hosea is saying that at the same place God said that they will be as the sand of the sea, the same place that He said to them that they are the sons of the living God, in that same place God is now in the days of Hosea saying: "You are not my people". Already in the middle of the eighth century, Hosea is speaking of the book written by Moses ca. 1470 CE, namely Genesis, as: "It is written". Genesis was a written document that Hosea consulted, knew of or expounding from here. Translation: The subject division for the Latin translation (the popular Vulgate) and the socalled Septuagint is not the same as the Masoretic Text. They still continue counting verses of chapter one when the Masoretic text is already in chapter two. The content though is the same. The translation is fairly literal and in essence the same in both Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 101 the Latin and Greek with no noteworthy deviations. Hosea 2:2 And they will be gathered together, the sons of Judah and the sons of Israel and they will place for them one head (or, they will establish for them one head), and they will go up from the earth, for great is the day of Jezreel. (MK1008BHS) Old Translations Old Latin English Translation And the children of Juda, and the children of Israel shall be gathered together: and they shall appoint themselves one head, and shall come up out of the land: for great is the day of Jezrahel. Old Latin Text et congregabuntur filii Iuda et filii Israël simul et ponent sibi principatum unum et ascendent de terra quoniam magnus est dies Jezrael (OLPIERRE SABBATHIER1743: 892) Old Latin Retroversion (OL180Heb-reconHosea 2:2) Latin Vulgate's English Translation And the children of Juda, and the children of Israel shall be gathered together: and they shall appoint themselves one head, and shall come up out of the land: for great is the day of Jezrahel. Latin Vulgate Text et congregabuntur filii Iuda et filii Israhel pariter et ponent sibimet caput unum et ascendent de terra quia magnus dies Hiezrahel Latin Retroversion (VHeb-reconHos2:2) Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 102 Greek's English Translation And they will be gathered together, the sons of Judah and the sons of Israel upon it and they will place for them one head (or, they will establish for them one head), and they will go up from the earth, for great is the day of Jezreel. Greek Text και συναχθησονται οι υιοι ιουδα και οι υιοι ισραηλ επι το αυτον και θησονται εαυτοις αρχην μιαν και αναβησονται εκ της γης οτι μεγαλη η ημερα του ιεζραελ Greek Retroversion (GHeb-reconHos2:2) Targum's English Translation And the children of Judah and the children of Israel shall gather themselves like one and they shall appoint to them one head from the house of David and he shall ascend from the earth their exiles because great is the day of their assembly. Targum Text (Twalton1654) Targum Retroversion (THeb-reconHos2:2) Syriac's English Translation And the children of Juda, and the children of Israel shall be gathered together: and they shall appoint themselves one head, and shall come up out of the land: for great is the day of Jezrahel. Syriac Text lYrsY) yN*Bw )dwhY yNB* nw$NKtNw Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 103 nwQSNw dX )$Yr nwhL nwdBONw .)dX kY) .lYOrzY)d )MwY wh brd l+M .)Or) oM (SLeiden PeshittaGelston1980) Syriac Retroversion (SHeb-reconHos2:2) Coptic's English Translation And the children of Juda, and the children of Israel shall be gathered together: and they shall appoint themselves one head, and shall come up out of the land: for great is the day of Jezrahel. Coptic Text ouoh eueqwout nje nenshri niouda nem nenshri mpicl eusop ouoh euexw nwou nousmh nouwt ouoh euei epswi ebolqen pkahi je ouhi ounist pe piehoou nte iezreel. (C) Coptic Retroversion (CHeb-reconHos2:2) Interpretation: This verse and probably the last part of the previous verse, namely, He said to them: Sons of the living God, should be read as one sequence and event. This is a little window into the future when God will judge in the Valley of Jehoshapat (Joel 4:2). The same motifs as are dealt with by Joel are briefly rehearsed here in this pericope. The book of Joel is dealing with an eschatological day in future (Joel 1:1). This is a contrary interpretation as that of Van Dolson who attempted to see "Joel feels that the awful plague will live in the people's memory for many years to come - they will even be telling their great-grandchildren about it" (B. J. Van Dolson, Prophets are People believe it or not [1974], page 24).It does not say that that they will tell in the future about it. The prophet Joel is asking them to tell about it. Whether they will tell about it is Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 104 another issue. To understand that they will tell in future is to claim that the event already took place. In the light of verse 2 it is clear that this event in Joel 1:1 did not take place yet, at least the one that Joel is seeing in his mind. Plagues were common in Palestine but Joel is not a newspaper reporter. Similar to C. van Leeuwen is the acceptance that "locusts and draught in Joel i are only the prelude of the Future Day" (C. van Leeuwen, The Prophecy of the Yom Yhwh in Amos v 18-20. Oudtestamentische Studien part XIX [1974], page 128. Viewing the description of Joel as a window to the day of executive judgment in the valley of decision or judgment, one can now proceed to see that Joel is speaking of an approaching God who is coming closer and closer to Zion as he proceeds in the book mentioning Zion seven times. Later God is on mount Zion and people are gathered as well as His people. He makes war with the enemies of His people. He will eventually be their ruler and they will live forever close to Him. This is the content of the book of Joel, not some kind of a description of a locust plague in the past or a terrible draught in Palestine (contrary to I. H. Eybers, Twelve Theocratic Testimonies [1977], page 8, and 80 footnote 5). Also contrary to Weiser, Fohrer, Rudolph, and Young. These are all preteristic interpretations that attempts to circumvent the imperfect forms of the verbs in the original of these verses. It is not that Joel experienced some terrible locust plague and now wants to pull some elements of this experience through to a description of the day of the Lord; it is rather the opposite, he saw the day of the Lord in vision and now are trying to find comparisons in the agricultural life of Palestine to compare it with. That is a different ball-game namely it is as if the scholars are trying to put the cart before the horses. In Jerome's translation we find the future forms like those in Joel 2:23 but in Jerome's commentaries we find the past form (see H. Wolff, Dodekopropheton 2 [Bk XIV/2] Vlyun, 1969], 67-70). For problems with the tenses in the Vulgate one should consult the article by Benjamin Kedar-Kopfstein, "The Hebrew Text of Joel as Reflected in the Vulgate," Textus Vol. IX (1981): 25. The semantics of the form and function of a future tense, cannot be found only in the sumtotal of the lexeme-semantics. It is the function of a form Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 105 amongst words, phrases, sentences, pericopes, chapters and genres that is of importance. This is a much bigger dimension that is given to the importance of a form of the tense of a verb in Bib. Orient. 1981 on Joel 2:10. The form functions in the genre. If it is narrative, the imperfect form will stress potentiality or constativeness; if it is in poetry it will be performative and if it is in prophecy, it will indicate future or will be performatively future. Sometimes however, the pericopes fluctuates between strata of other genres and it is the task of the interpreter to watch for signs of such a fluctuation. If the interpreter finds in the content some fluctuation and the elements in it cannot be connected to the immediate history of Israel neither the distant immediate history, then that material will have to shift into the domain of a future description that we call "eschatological". Where in the history of Israel and Judah (shortly before 721 BCE) were they united under one ruler? We are not speaking of either Israel or either Judah but both. A fluctuation in content is thus a key sign to the interpreter of a different time zone maybe in distant future? Such a fluctuation is evident in our pericope in Hosea here. Suddenly both the sons of Judah and Israel are spoken of. Whereas Hosea is then prophecying about something to happen in his immediate future 721 BCE he suddenly fluctuates to the same eschatological material or strata that one can find in the book of Joel. It is as if every dark cloud has a silver lining and Hosea described the black clouds but suddenly reverts to the silver lining that is in the far future at the end of time. It is thus clear that Hosea is not only a news reporter or a weather prophet forthtelling but also foretelling. He preaches the same eschaton as one can find in Joel and other passages of the Old Testament. Look at the hint in this verse in Hosea 2:2 "they will go up from the earth". What is this? If you say thay will go up from the land you can understand that they will move to another country or that many people will come from the lowlands to a higher place in Jerusalem. But, it reads that they will go up from the earth. It is a unifying somewhere else. If we have to guess where that is, one can only suggest the safe haven described by Joel and the same one that can also be found in Psalm 46. It might not be even on earth but in Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 106 mid-air. This concept is not foreign to the New Testament either. Another understanding though is that they will be scattered all over the earth and that the people of God will be gathered from [the four corners] of the earth. However, as possible as that may seem, it is just as possibe that he did not meant it this way. It also reads "great" is the day of Jezreel. Why will it be great? The day of the Lord motif in the Old Testament and the day of judgment are days that will be great. Both these motifs are as eschatological as you can get. Not for the preteristic school of interpretation though. They try to fit the "mountains that will shake", stars that will fall from heaven, sun that will be darkened and moon that will not give its glance all in the history of Israel and Judah. These actions are then nothing but some descriptive exaggeration of the severity of the event. In the futuristic school everything is in the future or today. Every element in an Old Testament prophet is reflecting "communism", bar-codes and military war. The now-ness of the prophetic statement is pulled into a presentistic way. This is not by itself wrong provided it understands the history of Israel properly and provided it makes sure that the elements are not prophecies already fulfilled in the history of Israel. If it runs contrary to already fulfilled elements in the history of Israel that whole scenario at a particular pericope disintegrates. One has to investigate like the preterists whether a particular pericope was fulfilled in the history of Israel. If not then in a later time in the history and if there is no clarity even unto the present it has to shift out as a still unfulfilled prophecy to the time of the end. Prophecies has to be read with an eye on past history, newspapers and news as well as current events and future ones Hosea 2:3 Say to your brothers "My people" and to your sisters "sympathy". (MK1008BHS) Old Translations Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 107 Old Latin English Translation Say ye to your brethren: You are my people, and to your sister: Thou hast obtained mercy. Old Latin Text dicite fratri vestro Populus meus et sorori vestrae Misericordiam consecuta (OLPIERRE SABBATHIER1743: 892) Old Latin Retroversion (OL180Heb-reconHosea 2:3) Latin Vulgate's English Translation Say ye to your brethren: You are my people, and to your sister: Thou hast obtained mercy. Latin Vulgate Text dicite fratribus vestris Populus meus et sorori vestrae Misericordiam consecuta Latin Retroversion (VHeb-reconHos2:3) Greek's English Translation Say to your brother "My people" and to your sister "sympathy". Greek Private Editions' English Translation Aquila Say to your brother "My people" and to your sisters "sympathy". Greek Text ειπατε τῳ αδελφῳ υμων λαος μου και τῃ αδελφῃ υμων ηλεημενη Greek Private Editions' Text ειπατε τῳ αδελφῳ υμων λαος μου και ταις αδελφαις υμων ηλεημενη (GAquila130reconSYRO-HEXAPLA=PAUL616reconORIGENES-HEXAPLA=FIELD1875) Greek Retroversion (GHeb-reconHos2:3) Greek Private Editions' Retroversion Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk (GAquila 108 Heb-recon Hos2:3) Targum's English Translation The prophets said to your brothers: My people turn to my laws and upon your assembly I will have compassion. Targum Text (Twalton1654) Targum Retroversion (THeb-reconHos2:3) Syriac's English Translation Say ye to your brethren: You are my people, and to your sister: Thou hast obtained mercy. Syriac Text .)tMYXd* nwKtwX*)Lw yMO nwKYX)*L wrQ (SLeiden PeshittaGelston1980) Syriac Retroversion (SHeb-reconHos2:3) Coptic's English Translation Say ye to your brethren: You are my people, and to your sister: Thou hast obtained mercy. Coptic Text ajos mpetenson palaos nem tetensoni qhet aumenrits. (C) Coptic Retroversion (CHeb-reconHos2:3) Historically: This verse belongs with the previous verse in the understanding of the day of the Lord events. They are the people of the Lord and He has sympathy with His remnant. It is in the next verse that there is a fluctuation back to the day of Hosea. Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 109 Hosea 2:4 Judge your mother. Judge, for she is not my wife and I am not her husband and take away her fornicating habits from before her face and her sleeping around from the middle of her fields. (MK1008BHS) Old Translations Old Latin English Translation Judge your mother, judge her: because she is not my wife, and I am not her husband. Let her put away her fornications from her face, and her adulteries from the middle of her fruitfullness. Old Latin Text iudicamini cum matre vestra iudicamini quia haec non uxor mea et ego non vir ejus et auseram fornicationem ejus à facie mea et adulteria ejus de medio uberum illius (OLPIERRE SABBATHIER1743: 892) Old Latin Retroversion (OL180Heb-reconHosea 2:4) Latin Vulgate's English Translation Judge your mother, judge her: because she is not my wife, and I am not her husband. Let her put away her fornications from her face, and her adulteries from the middle of her fruitfullness. Latin Vulgate Text iudicate matrem vestram iudicate quoniam ipsa non uxor mea et ego non vir eius auserat fornicationes suas a facie sua et adulteria sua de medio uberum suorum Latin Retroversion (VHeb-reconHos2:4) Greek's English Translation Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 110 Judge your mother. Judge, for she is not my wife and I am not her husband and take away her fornicating habits from before my face and her sleeping around from the middle of her breasts. Greek Text κριθτηε προς την μητερα υμων κριθητε οτι αυτη ου γυνη μου και εγω ουκ ανηρ αυτης και εξαρω την πορνειαν αυτης εκ προσωπου μου και την μοιχειαν αυτης εκ μεσου μαστων αυτης Greek Retroversion _ (GHeb-reconHos2:4) Targum's English Translation Argue with the assembly of Israel and say to her: Because she is not turning herself in my worship and my memra/words does not accept her screaming until I set her work in shame receiving her face and the worship of their idols from the middle of her city. Targum Text (? ) (Twalton1654) Targum Retroversion (THeb-reconHos2:4) Syriac's English Translation Judge your mother, judge her: because she is not my wife, and I am not her husband. Let her put away her fornications from her face, and her adulteries from between her breasts. Syriac Text yttN) twh )L yhd l+M .wNwd nwKM) mO wNwd h[YP)* oM h[twYNz rBOt .h[LOB tYwh )L )N)w .h[Ydt* tNYB oM h[rwGw h[rwGw (SLeiden PeshittaGelston1980) Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 111 Syriac Retroversion (SHeb-reconHos2:4) Coptic's English Translation Judge your mother, judge her: because she is not my wife, and I am not her husband. Let her put away her fornications from her face, and her adulteries from between her land. Coptic Text gihap nem tetenmau gihap nemas je tashimi an te ouoh anok anok peshrai an ouoh tnafwt ntespornia ebolha pesho nem tesmetnwik ebolqen qmht nnesmenot. (C) Coptic Retroversion (CHeb-reconHos2:4) In this verse we have changed the Masoretic tradition in the following way: we have changed the shin to a sin. Yes, it makes a difference in the meaning but the consonant /s/ was the same for hundreds of years after Hosea before the dot was place above to distinguish the /s/ from the /sh/. In the printed edition of the BHS the dot is on the right making it a shin and thus should be translated according to that reading her breasts. In the Targum Walton 1654 it reads her city. There is no way the Targumist could have arrived at this reading from her breasts. However, if he also read the Masoretic shin as a sin then it is easy to understand how he got from her fields to her city. The Coptic Tattam 1836 seems to read her land which means the same reading was also done by the Coptic reader. Those who wants to translate it according to the shin can argue that it refers in the synonymous parallelism to her face and therefore another body part is probably in sight here adding to a very vivid erotic picture in sex ecstacy. However, the verb preceding the word under discussion is an unusual form and in fact a hapax legomenon. Nowhere else in the Hebrew text is it used the same way. The geminate form of the /p/ seems to imply an action going around. To adulterate around from the middle of her fields could Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 112 also be the meaning just as much as an erotic jumping around between her breasts will be (as the Greek translations took it to mean). In the Latin of Jerome the word uberum means fruitful, rich, fertile but some dictionaries seem to indicate that it can also mean breast. However, there are Latin dictionaries that has no reference to breast at all in this regard. It is thus not a clearcut matter whether Jerome thought of breasts here or whether he thought of her fruitfulness. The singular usage of uberum seems to favor the adjective rather than the object (which should have been in the plural anyway). The Greek and Syriac understood it to mean breasts. If Jerome did read it as with the meaning of breasts then he did not read the plural but which is the singular. The Greek translation reads it that it must be taken away from before "my face" meaning the face of Hosea. The Vulgate reads it that it must be taken away from "her face" (mpnyh). The Greek translation seems to make more sense, but it cannot be followed since this is a clear attempt by that translation to smooth out a reading in accordance with the drift in the context and by doing so even change the text (that is elision of the final he at the end of the word). This cannot be accepted. Historically: Here we are dealing with the life of Hosea. In this chapter Hosea started with a text from Genesis 22 with the convenant of God to Israel (descendants of Abraham) and he then proceeds with God's rejection of Israel. Immediately after that Hosea still opened another window into the eschatological future (so well formulated in Joel and Psalm 46) speaking of a unification of Judah and Israel under one ruler in the valley of decision or Jezreel. He then took stock of his own personal life. From promise to judgment to hope to frustration in his own personal life, Hosea fluctuates his message dealing with different time zones. A Diagram to illustrate Hosea's fluctuation of his message in different time zones Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 113 Abraham's time (2165 BCE) promise 2:1a; 2:1b Hosea's time 721 BCE judgment 2:1c Eschatological End Time hope 2:1d; 2:2a; 2:2b; 2:2c; 2:2d; 2:3 Hosea's time 721 BCE frustration in personal life 2:4a; 2:4b Hosea 2:5 lest I strip her naked and make her status similar to the day she was born and I will place her like a desert and set her up like a waste land and cause her to die in thirst. (MK1008BHS) Old Translations Old Latin English Translation Lest I strip her naked, and set her as in the day that she was born: and I will make her as a wilderness, and will set her as a land that none can pass through, and will kill her with thirst. Old Latin Text ut exspoliem eam nudam et restituam eam juxta diem nativitatis suae et ponam eam ut desertum et statuam eam sicut terram sine aqua et occidam illam in siti (OLPIERRE SABBATHIER1743: 892) Old Latin Retroversion (OL180Heb-reconHosea 2:5) Latin Vulgate's English Translation Lest I strip her naked, and set her as in the day that she was born: and I will make her as a wilderness, and will set her as a land that none can pass through, and will kill her with thirst. Latin Vulgate Text ne forte exspoliem eam nudam et statuam eam secundum diem nativitatis suae et ponam eam quasi solitudinem et statuam eam velut terram inviam et interficiam eam siti Latin Retroversion Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 114 (VHeb-reconHos2:5) Greek's English Translation As such maybe I will strip her naked and I will make her status similar to the day she was born and I will place her like a desert and arrange her like a waste land and cause her to die in thirst. Greek Text οπως αν εκδυσω αυτην γυμνην και αποκαταστησω αυτην καθως ημερᾳ γενεσεως αυτης και θησομαι αυτην ως ερημον και ταξω αυτην ως γην ανυδρον και αποκτενω αυτην εν διψει Greek Retroversion (GHeb-reconHos2:5) Targum's English Translation Because of this I will remove my shekinah-glory from her and end his glory and I will set her punishment like the day before me until I myself comes near to my worship and my anger waits upon her similar to fear upon the generation of the people who is transgressing upon my laws in the wilderness and punish the land of the wilderness and I will kill them in the impregnable. Targum Text (Twalton1654) Targum Retroversion (THeb-reconHos2:5) Syriac's English Translation Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 115 Lest I strip her naked, and set her as in the day that she was born: and I will make her as a wilderness, and will set her as a land that none can pass through, and will kill her in thirst. Syriac Text )dYLYd )MwY kY) h[YQB$)w l+rO h[YXL$) )Ld )tYhc )Yr) kY)w )rBdM kY) h[YdBO)w .hB .)YhcB h[YtYM)w (SLeiden PeshittaGelston1980) Syriac Retroversion (SHeb-reconHos2:5) Coptic's English Translation Lest I strip her naked, and set her as in the day that she was born: and I will make her as a wilderness, and will set her as a land that none can pass through, and will kill her with drought. Coptic Text hopws ntaxas esbhs ouoh tnatasqos mfrht mpiehoou nte pesjinmici ouoh tnaxas mfrht nousafe ouoh tnaqass mfrht noukahi naqmwou ouoh tnaqoqbes qen ouibi. (C) Coptic Retroversion (CHeb-reconHos2:5) Historically: It is true that Hosea experienced some form of trauma with the relation of his wife. This problem is an age old problem ever since the fall of man from the garden of Eden. Even in the garden of Eden, Eve had mixed feelings that confused her relation not only with God but also with her husband. When a person marries a wife that person is taking her "as is". No matter what the background, or history of the person, there is always a new start or a new beginning. On the basis of the past it is not always possible to predict the future when it comes to human beings. It is possible for an alcoholic to be fully recovered from his illness. It is possible for someone to change his/her life and adopt new styles and directions. Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 116 It appears that in the case of Hosea the past experiences of his wife haunted her and sent her back to her own habits. We are not sure whether it is one incident or many, but Hosea was placed under severe stress. In this particular verse the punishment that is described here is one that is similar to ancient Mesopotamian laws regarding dishonesty of the wife in the family life. In the code of Hammurabi (1792-1750 BCE) the following grounds for divorce was given: 1. if she persisted in going out 2. if she acted as a fool 3. if she has wasted her house 4. if she has belittled her husband. The punishment in the case she is involved in a extra-marital affair is that both she and the man involved must be strangled and thrown into the river (paragraph 129). Most of these harsh laws were just on tablets and were not carried out in this extreme. Circumstantial evidence probably also played a role and the states control in the private life of citizens prevented them from carrying out these punishments to such an extreme. However, even in modern times there is a scale of punishment possibilities. The punishment for causing the death of another person is also death but can be scaled down to a mere monetary situation depending on the circumstances and other factors. Thus, what Hosea is doing is to recall the severest form of punishment. Just as the Hammurabi law ascribed to such a situation death in the severest form of punishment, so in his day in 721 BCE Hosea also present the legal situation of his day as death as the severest form of punishment. Hosea 2:6 And to her sons will I not show mercy for they are sons of fornicators. (MK1008BHS) Old Translations Old Latin English Translation And I will not have mercy on her children, for they are the children of fornications. Old Latin Text Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 117 et filiorum ejus non miserebor quoniam filii fornicationis sunt (OLPIERRE SABBATHIER1743: Old Latin Retroversion (OL180Heb-reconHosea 892) 2:6) Latin Vulgate's English Translation And I will not have mercy on her children, for they are the children of fornications. Latin Vulgate Text et filiorum illius non miserebor quoniam filii fornicationum sunt (Vs450reconWEBER) Latin Retroversion (VHeb-reconHos2:6) Greek's English Translation And her sons will I not show mercy for the children is fornications. Greek Text και τα τεκνα αυτης ου μη ελεησω οτι τεκνα πορνειας εστιν Greek Retroversion (GHeb-reconHos2:6) τεκνα πορνειας εστιν why is the Greek translator using a singular verb here with a plural noun? One reason can be that he is reading the last word as which is of course the third person singular of "to be" = he is. Targum's English Translation For her children not will I have mercy because they are sons of fornications. Targum Text Targum Retroversion (THeb-reconHos2:6) Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 118 Syriac's English Translation And I will not have mercy on her children: for they are the children of fornications. Syriac Text .nwN) )tYNz yN*Bd l+M .mXr) )L h[YNB* lOw (SLeiden PeshittaGelston1980) Syriac Retroversion (SHeb-reconHos2:6) Coptic's English Translation And I will not have mercy on her children: for they are the children of fornications. Coptic Text ouoh nesshri nnanai nwou je ouhi hanshri mpornia ne. (C) Coptic Retroversion (CHeb-reconHos2:6) Historically: It is possible that the law requires Hosea to take care of the children of such a mother, but in this case Hosea is trying to indicate that they were not his children but the children of the men who fornicated his wife. The children are not accountable for their status. They had no choice in life at that early stage except the competitive struggle to be the first sperm to reach the ovum. Hosea is not displaying the model way of dealing with children born in such a state. He is here representing the legal harsh position in the society of his day against children of such a birth in this particular case. It is a bit of family law and the law of inheritance that is recounted here. This was what was his legitimate right to do but that does not mean that Hosea ever went so far to do it or that he will do it. It also does not mean that God wants him to do it. In similar vein does this not mean that it is the spiritual right way to deal with the situation. We have an emotionally unstable Hosea here that has a vendetta against his wife and are now blasting out against adopted Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 119 children of his that belonged to her. Hosea 2:7 Because of fornicating around, their mother who carried them, are confused for she said: I will go after my lovers who give me bread and water, wool and linen, oil and wine. (MK1008BHS) Old Translations Old Latin English Translation For their mother hath committed fornication, she that conceived them is covered with shame: for she said: I will go after my lovers, that give me my bread, and my water, my wool, and my flax, my oil, and my drink. Old Latin Text quia fornicata est mater eorum confusa est quae peperit eos dixit enim vadam post amatores meos qui dant mihi panes meos et aquam meam et vestimenta mea et linteamina mea et oleum meum et omnia quae mihi necesaria sunt (OLPIERRE SABBATHIER1743: 892) Old Latin Retroversion (OL180Heb-reconHosea 2:7) Latin Vulgate's English Translation For their mother hath committed fornication, she that conceived them is covered with shame: for she said: I will go after my lovers, that give me my bread, and my water, my wool, and my flax, my oil, and my drink. Latin Vulgate Text quia fornicata est mater eorum confusa est quae concepit eos quia dixit vadam post amatores meos qui dant panes mihi et aquas meas lanam meam et linum meum oleum meum et potum meum (Vs450reconWEBER) Latin Retroversion Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 120 (VHeb-reconHos2:7) Greek's English Translation For their mother were fornicating out, she that conceived them is covered with shame: because she said: I will go after my lovers, that give me my bread, and my water, and my garment, and my flax, and my oil, and all those things which is presented to me. Greek Private Editions' English Translation Aquila For their mother were fornicating out, she that conceived them is covered with shame: because she said: I will go after my lovers, that give me my bread, and my water, and my garment, and my flax, and my oil, and my drink. Greek Text οτι εξερπορνευσεν η μητηρ αυτων κατῃσχυνεν η τεκουσα αυτα ειπεν γαρ ακολουθησω οπισω των εραστων μου των διδντων μοι τους αρτους μου και το υδωρ μου και τα ιματια μου και τα οθονια μου και το ελαιον μου και παντα ο σα μοι καθηκει Greek Private Editions' Text οτι εξερπορνευσεν η μητηρ αυτων κατῃσχυνεν η τεκουσα αυτα ειπεν γαρ ακολουθησω οπισω των εραστων μου των διδντων μοι τους αρτους μου και το υδωρ μου και τα ιματια μου και τα οθονια μου και το ελαιον μου και τον ποτισμον μου (GAquila130reconSYRO-HEXAPLA=PAUL616reconORIGENES-HEXAPLA=FIELD1875) Greek Retroversion or (GHeb-reconHos2:7) Greek Private Editions' Retroversion (GAquila Heb-recon Hos2:7) Targum's English Translation Because polluted is their assembly after the prophets of the lie, Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 121 confused is their teachers because she says: go after the people that loves me who prepares my food and my drink, garments of wool and linen. Oil, all my provisions. Targum Text (Twalton1654) Targum Retroversion or (THeb-reconHos2:7) Is this a loanword since there are four consonants? What about Greek? Syriac's English Translation For their mother hath committed fornication, she that conceived them is covered with shame: for she said: I will go after my lovers, that give me my bread, and my water, my wool, and my flax, my oil, and my drink. Syriac Text trM)w .nwhtdLY tthBw nwhM) tYNzd l+M yNt*Kw ytX*Nw yM*w yMXL yBh*Y .yMXr* rtB lz) .yL )OBtMd lKw yX$Mw (SLeiden PeshittaGelston1980) Syriac Retroversion (SHeb-reconHos2:7) Coptic's English Translation For their mother hath committed fornication, she that conceived them is covered with shame: for she said: I will go after my lovers, that give me my bread, and my water, my wool, and my flax, my oil, and my drink. Coptic Text je aserporneuin nje toumau ouoh asgisipi nje qhet asmasou je asjos je tnasenhi ntamosi samenhe Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 122 nnamenrat nhett nhi mpawik nem pamwou nem nahbws nem nasentw nem paneh nem hwb niben etqhs nhi. (C) Coptic Retroversion (CHeb-reconHos2:7) The editors in the lower register of the BHS did not say anything about these variants and the reader should be cautious about the completeness of the Hebrew-Greek alignment that is available from Pennsylvania University as the following example will show: Source: Parallel Hebrew Greek text: (gopher://ccat.sas.upenn.edu:3333/00/Religious/Biblical/parallel/28.Hosea. par) Hos 2:7 KY O(/TI ZNTH E)CEPO/RNEUSEN )M/M H( MH/THR AU)TW=N HBY$H KATH/|SXUNEN HWRT/M H( TEKOU=SA AU)TA/ KY {..^GA/R} )MRH EI)=PEN {...} GA/R )LKH A)KOLOUQH/SW )XRY O)PI/SW M)HB/Y TW=N E)RASTW=N MOU NTNY TW=N DIDO/NTWN --+ MOI LXM/Y TOU\S A)/RTOUS MOU W/MYM/Y KAI\ TO\ U(/DWR MOU CMR/Y KAI\ TA\ I(MA/TIA/ MOU W/P$T/Y KAI\ TA\ O)QO/NIA/ MOU $MN/Y KAI\ TO\ E)/LAIO/N MOU W/$QWY/Y =?W/$/DY/Y KAI\ PA/NTA O(/SA MOI ^ KAQH/KEI ▲ ▲ There is no indication at these two places (▲) that WKL should be read for PA/NTA in the Greek. Historically: Here are three categories of domestic life portrayed: basic requirements of daily support of energy of the body; textile industry for clothing, fashion and protection of the body; cosmetics and Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 123 medicine. It is almost as if Hosea's wife is plagued with the Lot's-wife-syndrome. We do not know the financial position of Hosea and maybe he was economically handicapped for some time that caused his wife to long for the better times she had in the past. The excuse to look for bread and water is a very legitimate one. If she is longing for bread and water, did she not get it from Hosea? It is as if this was a domestic dispute between him and his wife where she said to him that she wants to go since he does not supply the house with the basic commodities. We are not giving the wife a license or any wife a license to leave the husband who is in such a situation. We are only analysing the situation to see also Hosea's economical status. If it is true about Hosea's economic situation it does not justify her actions but it does tip the scale of justice in this situation a bit. It is such circumstantial evidence that could lead a court to down-scale the severity of the punishment in a similar case. Hosea 2:8 Therefore look, I will fence your way with thornbushes, and I will built her wall and she shall not find her paths. (MK1008BHS) Old Translations Old Latin English Translation Therefore look, I will hedge up your way with thorns, and I will rebuild it up with a garden-wall, and she shall not find her paths. Old Latin Text propterea ecce ego sepiam viam ejus in sudibus et obstruam vias illius et semitam suam non inveniet (OLPIERRE SABBATHIER1743: 893) Old Latin Retroversion (OL180Heb-reconHosea 2:8) Latin Vulgate's English Translation Therefore look, I will hedge up your way with thorns, and I will Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 124 rebuild it up with a garden-wall, and she shall not find her paths. Latin Vulgate Text propter hoc ecce ego sepiam viam tuam spinis et sepiam eam maceria et semitas suas non inveniet (Vs450reconWEBER) Latin Retroversion (VHeb-reconHos2:8) Greek's English Translation Therefore look, I will fence her way with thorns, and I will rebuild her ways, and she shall not find her path. Greek Private Editions' English Translation Aquila Therefore look, I will fence her way with thorns, and I will fence in her fence and she shall not find her path. Greek Private Editions' English Translation Symmachus Therefore look, I will fence her way with thorns, and I will built against her an enclosure and she shall not find her path. Greek Private Editions' English Translation Theodotion Therefore look, I will fence her way with thorns, and I will rebuild her wall and she shall not find her path. Greek Text δια τουτο ιδου εγω φρασσω την οδον αυτης εν σκολοψιν και ανοικοδομησω τας οδους αυτης και την τριβον αυτης ου μη ευρῃ Greek Private Editions' Text Aquila δια τουτο ιδου εγω φρασσω την οδον αυτης εν σκολοψιν και φραξω τον φραγμον αυτης και την τριβον αυτης ου μη ευρῃ (GAquila130reconSYRO-HEXAPLA=PAUL616reconORIGENES-HEXAPLA=FIELD1875) Greek Private Editions' Text Symmachus δια τουτο ιδου εγω φρασσω την οδον αυτης εν σκολοψιν και εμφραγμον κατ' αυτης περιοικοδομησω και την τριβον αυτης ου μη ευρῃ (GSymmachus170reconSYRO-HEXAPLA=PAUL616reconORIGENES-HEXAPLA=FIELD1875) Greek Private Editions' Text Theodotion Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 125 δια τουτο ιδου εγω φρασσω την οδον αυτης εν σκολοψιν και ανοικοδομησω το τειχος αυτης και την τριβον αυτης ου μη ευρῃ (GTheodotion190reconSYRO-HEXAPLA=PAUL616reconORIGENES-HEXAPLA=FIELD1875) Greek Retroversion (GHeb-reconHos2:8) Greek Private Editions' Retroversion (GAquila Symmachus Theodotion Heb-recon Hos2:8) Targum's English Translation Therefore look I scatter your roads similar as thornbushes in an enclosure and I block off like that which is blocked off in the wall and the road to her she shall not find. Targum Text (Twalton1654) Targum Retroversion = (variant 1) (+variant) = (variant 2) (THeb-reconHos2:8) Syriac's English Translation Therefore look, I will hedge up your way with thorns, and I will rebuild it up with a garden-wall, and she shall not find her paths. Syriac Text gws)w .)rdr*dB h[tXr*w) )N) g)s )h oYLh l+M .xK$t )L )Xrw)w h[YLY*B$ (SLeiden PeshittaGelston1980) Syriac Retroversion (SHeb-reconHos2:8) Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 126 Coptic's English Translation Therefore look, I will hedge up your way with thorns, and I will rebuild it up with a garden-wall, and she shall not find her paths. Coptic Text eqbe fai hhppe anok tnaglo mpeswit qen hanserbeni ouoh nesmwit tnaoua hemkotou ouoh peswit nnesjemf. (C) Coptic Retroversion (CHeb-reconHos2:8) There is a correction that we have to make also in this verse to the Hebrew-Greek alignments available on the internet from Pennsylvania University: Source: Parallel Hebrew Greek text: (gopher://ccat.sas.upenn.edu:3333/00/Religious/Biblical/parallel/28.Hosea. par) Hos 2:8 L/KN DIA\ TOU=TO HN/NY I)DOU\ E)GW\ &K FRA/SSW )T DRK/K TH\N O(DO\N AU)TH=S B/SYRYM E)N SKO/LOYIN W/GDRTY KAI\ A)NOIKODOMH/SW )T GDR/H =;)T DRK/YH TA\S O(DOU\S AU)TH=S W/NTYBWT/YH KAI\ TH\N TRI/BON AU)TH=S L) OU) MH\ TMC) EU(/RH| ◀ ◀ At the marker ( ) it will be seen that the Greek is using the third person singular feminine pronoun "her" but the Hebrew is using the second person singular suffix "your". One should change that reading from [ )T DRK/K ] to read rather [ )T DRK/K = )T DRK/H ]. As we have indicated above in the Targum retroversion to Hebrew, the Targum translation is the result of a conflation of two variants into one text. They were uncertain as to which one is correct so they included both. There are two cases in this same verse. The Greek translation of the fifth century CE seems to indicate that it was translated from a Hebrew Vorlage that was "Qumrannic in Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 127 nature". The Targum seems to indicate that various texts were consulted but that some options presented by the Greek translation was also among their options. Our conclusion concerning the Targum is that it is a text with a composite nature. It seems as if the Later Targumist conflated and compounded into one text no less than four textual traditions. They are the following four types: a) Consonantal text of the Masoretic Tradition which is followed nearly 85% by the Targumist. b) Qumrannic kind of MS that served also as Vorlage to the Greek translation of the fifth century CE. Less than 10% are in this category. c) An unidentified MS represented by Variant 1 in this verse. Variant 1 is not followed by either (a) (b) or (d). Less than 5% are in this category. d) A second unidentified MS represented by Variant 2 in this verse. Variant 2 is not followed by either (a) (b) or (c) above. Less than 5% are in this category. Similarly to our conclusion of the nature of the Greek translations of the fifth century CE is now our conclusion concerning the nature of the Targum: they are composite editions attempting to harmonize variants with an eclectic comprehensive and incorporative approach. It is as if they are trying to avoid schisms among their own ranks by including as much as they can. This was already our conclusion on the Greek text in the book of Judges and now it seems evident also with the Targum in Hosea 2:8. We have here "the phenomenon of double entries". It seem as if scribes were using more than one manuscript and that they were then convinced by the value of both manuscripts and that they could not make a choice so they decided to include both variants. What originally had probably markers became detached from them and drifted into the text proper to become an addition to the original. We must remember that even if two scribes are Jewish they can belong to two different world epistemologies, two different linguistic backgrounds. To put it in a nutshell: they can be two worlds apart. There is no guarantee that what is leaving the hands of the one Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 128 scribe, enters the ears of the second scribe or his eyes and ends in the hands of this second scribe, is going to be identical with what left the hands of the first scribe. And yet, for some wonderful reason the product of the consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition remained firm and well-transmitted. No other translation or version can claim this exactness in transmission. How do we know this? There are texts from Qumran that compares with the consonantal text of the Masoretes almost 99.9% if it is not 100%. No other version shares this high rate of comparison. Interpretation: Fencing people in is only a metaphor and definitely not a model way God wants Hosea to treat his wife good or bad. Nobody should be robbed of their freedom of choice even if it is a choice to the bad. The choice is free even if it is captivated by Satan or his forces. Mechanical control to subdue an adult is used by society to deal with dangerous criminals and psychological dangerous people. The choice of a woman to follow her old time lovers is not in this category. The symbol of thornbushes are familiar in the ancient world in the nomadic system of controlling the domestic animals and protect them from wild animals outside such a structure. Somehow the language in this verse seems to indicate that it is not the desire of Hosea but rather the words of the mind of God that is given to us here. This is the modus operandi of God when He desires to rescue a soul from the claws of Satan. The reason that we know this is God's words not Hosea's, is because the next verse contains a word for conversion. One can see her conversion action in the next verse as a result of a futile search for her past lovers. Hosea's previous language was couched in somewhat extreme legal language of punishment for his wife to the point of death. However, in this verse, we find a softer approach of someone (only divine) who is able to control the situation more effectively than Hosea wanted it to be. And this is the main lesson of this verse, namely, that in similar situations, humanity is to call upon God to block the way for such an individual to find what that individual is looking for. God can do that as He did with the wife of Hosea. The legal punishment of Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 129 Hosea's time is not necessary in this case. The powerful interception of God leads to a conversion as we shall see in the next verse. If one weighs the value and effect of a legal approach with that of a spiritual divine interception in the life of a problem individual then the spiritual interception is above that of the administering of laws. We must not fool ourselves with the idea that Hosea was so desperate that he wanted to lock her in her room and throw-away the key. If we want to make this the words of Hosea then we are creating an image of Hosea who is extreme to death on the one side and anxious to confine on the other. It will mean that Hosea succeeded in his attempt and what did he really do? Placed her in her room, locked her up? No, definitely not. This is a spiritual warfare in which Hosea couldn't do anything and only God could do something as He did. Hosea 2:9 And she followed those that loved her and she could not meet them and she sought them and she could not find them and she said: I will go and I will return to my first husband because he is good to me then and now. (MK1008BHS) Old Translations Old Latin English Translation And she shall follow after her lovers, and shall not overtake them: and she shall seek them, and shall not find, and she shall say: I will go, and return to my first husband, because it was better with me then more than now. Old Latin Text et persequetur amatores suos et non apprehendet illos et quaeret eos et non inveniet et dicet vadam et revertar ad virum meum priorem quia melius mihi erat tunc quam nunc est (OLPIERRE SABBATHIER1743: 893) Old Latin Retroversion Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 130 (OL180Heb-reconHosea 2:9) Latin Vulgate's English Translation And she shall follow after her lovers, and shall not overtake them: and she shall seek them, and shall not find, and she shall say: I will go, and return to my first husband, because it was better with me then more than now. Latin Vulgate Text et sequetur amatores suos et non adprehendet eos et quaeret eos et non inveniet et dicet vadam et revertar ad virum meum priorem quia bene mihi erat tunc magis quam nunc (Vs450reconWEBER) Latin Retroversion (VHeb-reconHos2:9) Greek's English Translation And she will follow those that loved her and she could not meet them and she shall seek them and she will not find them and she said: I will go and I will return to my first husband because he was good to me then or now. Greek Text και καταδιωξεται τους εραστας αυτης και ου μη καταλαβῃ αυτους και ζητησει αυτους και ου μη ευρῃ και ερει πορευσομαι και επιστρεψω προς τον ανδρα μου τον προτερον οτι καλως μοι ην τοτε η νυν Greek Retroversion (GHeb-reconHos2:9) Targum's English Translation And you shall follow peace with the nations that loves you and not Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 131 shall you hold them together and you shall bubble winds and not shall you find and say: go and return to the worship of my Lord before her because good is it to me when the worship was before me. From now on not will I serve idols. Targum Text (Twalton1654) Targum Retroversion (THeb-reconHos2:9) Syriac's English Translation And she shall follow after her lovers, and shall not overtake them: and she shall seek them, and shall not find, and she shall say: I will go, and return to my first husband, because it was better with me then more than now. Syriac Text )OBtw .nwN) krdt )Lw h[YMXr* rtB lz)tw Lz) kwPh) rM)tw .nwN) xK$t )Lw nwN) oM oYd yh yL )wh B+d l+M .)YMdQ yLOB twL yL .)$hd Leiden Peshitta 1980 (S ) Gelston Syriac Retroversion (SHeb-reconHos2:9) Coptic's English Translation And she shall follow after her lovers, and shall not overtake them: and she shall seek them, and shall not find, and she shall say: I will go, and return to my first husband, because it was better with me then more than now. Coptic Text ouoh esegoji samenhe nnesmenrat ouoh nnestahwou ouoh Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 132 esekwt ouoh nnesjemou ouoh esejos je tnamosi ouoh ntatasqo ha pahai nte sorp je nare pipeqnanef sop nhi mpishou etemmau ehote tnou. (C) Coptic Retroversion (CHeb-reconHos2:9) As Eichrodt so correctly observed, the word for conversion is used in this verse and it also features well in the preaching of Jeremiah (Eichrodt, II, page 67). And that is exactly what happened here. The wife of Hosea ran into a major wall of circumstances not achieving anything and came to her senses. She realized that Hosea was very good to her and still is. She realized that even though they do not have it so bright economically, yet her husband was good to her. She decided to return and this word return is the word for conversion. The prodigal son in the gospels and in the story of Jesus also came to his senses in a similar way and said that he wanted to return to his father. Hosea 2:10 And she did not acknowledge that it is I, I who gave to her the grain and the wine (grape juice) and oil and that I placed to her silver and gold that they made unto a Baal. (MK1008BHS) Old Translations Old Latin English Translation And this one did not know that I gave to her corn and wine, and oil, and multiplied silver to her, and gold, which they have used in the service of Baal. Old Latin Text et haec nescivit quia ego dedi ei frumentum et vinum et oleum et argentum multiplicavi ei et aurum quae fecerunt Baal (OLPIERRE SABBATHIER1743: 893) Old Latin Retroversion Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 133 (OL180Heb-reconHosea 2:10) Latin Vulgate's English Translation And this one did not know that I gave to her corn and wine, and oil, and multiplied silver to her, and gold, which they have used in the service of Baal. Latin Vulgate Text et haec nescivit quia ego dedi ei frumentum et vinum et oleum et argentum multiplicavi ei et aurum quae fecerunt Baal (Vs450reconWEBER) Latin Retroversion (VHeb-reconHos2:10) Greek's English Translation And she did not know that I, I gave to her the corn and the wine, and the oil, and multiplied to her silver but the same silver and gold she has made for Baal. Greek Text και αυτην ουκ εγνω οτι εγω δεδωκα αυτῃ τον σιτον και τον οινον και το ελαιον και αργυριον επληθυνα αυτῃ αυτη δε αργυρα και χρυσα εποιησεν τῃ βααλ Greek Retroversion (GHeb-reconHos2:10) Targum's English Translation And the same ones shall not know because I, I blessed to them grain and wine and oil, and silver I multiplied to them and gold from which they made to the idol. Targum Text Hosea Commentary & Versions 134 Van Wyk (Twalton1654) Targum Retroversion (THeb-reconHos2:10) Qumran English Translation lines 1 and 2 And she did not acknowledge that it is n and the wine (grape juice) and oil and silver that de unto a Baal. Qumran Text lines 1 and 2 ] [ ] (Q4QpHosa) Qumran Retroversion ] [ ] [ Heb-recon (Q Hos2:10) Consonantal text of Masoretic Tradition [ (MK1008BHS) Syriac's English Translation And this one did not know that I gave to her corn and wine, and oil, and multiplied silver to her, and gold, which they have used in the service of Baal. Syriac Text )rMXw )rwBO h[L tBhY )N)d tOdY )L oYd yh wdBO hNMw h[L tYGs) )Bhdw )M)sw )X$Mw .)LOB Leiden Peshitta 1980 (S ) Gelston Syriac Retroversion (SHeb-reconHos2:10) Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 135 Coptic's English Translation And this one did not know that I gave to her corn and wine, and oil, and multiplied silver to her, and gold, which they have used in the service of Baal. Coptic Text ouoh nqos mpesemi je anok ait nas mpisouo nem pihrp nem pineh ouoh etaiqref asai nas nqos de hanhat nem hannoub asqamiwou ntbaal. (C) Coptic Retroversion (CHeb-reconHos2:10) Textual: A Qumran manuscript survived from cave four. It is called 4Q166 or 4QpHosa. "I who gave her the grain" survived and is reading the same as the Masoretic text. "That I placed on her and gold which they made" also survived. There follows then a commentary that is preteristic in interpretation looking at the history of Israel and applied it to the verse. In line 2 until line 6 the interpretation of verse 10 reads: "The interpretation of it is] that [they] ate [and] were satisfied, and they forgot God who [had fed them, and all] his commandments they cast behind them, which he had sent to them [by] his servants the prophets. But to those who led them astray they listened and honored them [ ]and as if they were gods, they fear them in their blindness". This interpretation probably did not satisfy the composer since he left a line open after this interpretation and the beginning of the citation of verse 11. Was he planning to come back later and add something else before verse 11? Why did he left a line open? The interesting situation is here that the interpretation is made that the female in this verse is not the wife of Hosea but Israel. Israel is not mentioned in this verse but only the feminine third person singular suffix "she". In our interpretation we do not follow this line of thinking. We keep this verse very literal and apply it to the life of Hosea. So far we have been following the life of Hosea and there was not a hint in the previous verses that the shift should be made to Israel. Verses 7-10 is a depiction of the Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 136 life of Hosea and seems rather applicable directly to his personal relation than to corporate Israel. However, the application to "Israel" was made very strongly in the Targum and the personal life of Hosea is shifted in that translation totally in the background or nowhere at all. This phenomenon that can be found only in Jewish works of the Middle Ages is relevant for the question of the origin of some of the Qumran scrolls. It would at least opt for a Jewish background for this pesher and not a Christian one. About sixteen pesharim on the Old Testament survived from the Qumran caves: six on Isaiah, three of the Psalms, one each of Hosea, Micah and Zephaniah, four of Nahum and Habbakkuk (Bo Isaksson, "Biblioteket" in The Qumran Seminar [Department of Asian and African Languages, Uppsala University: http://www.afro.uu.se/qumran/dss04. html, 1998]. The Targum also interpreted this verse but surprisingly not as elaborate as the Qumran pesher: "And they did not know that I, I blessed them". It interpreted "Baal" as "idols" . Interpretation: Here Hosea is speaking taking stock of his good deeds. All the things she was using in her wrong doings came from him. In modern times the husband will say that she did not realize that the credit cards were paid by him that she used for her exquisite and expensive entertainments and holidays with her lovers. Hosea is tapping himself on the shoulder for the good things he did to his wife. The situation seems to change now. His wife was touched by God and she came to her senses and wanted to come back. Yet Hosea is still playing his old violin in the same tune. Hosea is not saying that the silver was placed on her. Many interpreters think that it refers to jewelry that was hanged around her neck or the like. Not for one moment is there a sanction of the idea that Hosea hanged jewelry on his wife. The preposition /l/ in this case is "to" and not "on". Anybody trying to hunt for a prooftext for jewelry in a love-relationship, certainly will not find that in this verse. He placed the silver that he received on the markets for the Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 137 selling of their products which he worked very hard to produce "to her" since she was the owner of the estate. Silver served as monetary instruments in the exchange for goods and it is in that context that the silver were obtained. None of the old versions support the idea that Hosea hanged silver jewelry "on" his wife. Anybody acquainted with the history and developments of jewelry through the ages will know that adornments are hardly ever only innocent decorations. Even modern jewelry are very symbolic with religious themes borrowed from ancient cultures: from Christianity comes Jesus, or the cross, a fish or Mary and the child; from the Roman religions and Greek religions comes various motifs, Eros, Apollo or Cupido; from the Egyptian religions are some of their gods, the eye or the ankh. Snakes are sometimes very popular and is of course fully entrenched in the witchcraft religions of Africa. Astral motifs are also very popular as for instance the star of David. Now the point is this: if these ornaments are innocent beautifiers for our female partners, why will a Jewish female not wear a little Buddha in her ear, or an ornament of Jesus or the cross around her neck? Why do Christians not wear jewelry of Buddha around their neck or in their ears? The artist of jewelry is a carrier of a baggage of content and he/she present to modern society that which they pulled out of ancient societies. Sometimes lovers exchange gifts to each other and in the absence of the other partner, they "kiss" and "hug" the objects as if the objects are now identical to the lover. It is this phenomenon that God dislikes: that objects replace the person. Love is not around your neck, in your ears, on your fingers. It is in the mind and that is where it should be. Love do not need objects to remind people that they love. We do not need fetish objects to remind us of our love-relation with our lover. Hosea 2:11 Therefore I will return and I will take my grain in its time and my grape juice/new wine in its season and I will save my wool and my linen [that was used] in order to cover her private parts. Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 138 (MK1008BHS) Old Translations Old Latin English Translation Therefore will I return, and take away my corn in its season, and my wine in its season, and I will set at liberty my wool, and my flax, which covered her disgrace. Old Latin Text Propterea revertar et tollam triticum meum in tempore suo et vinum meum in tempore suo et auseram vestimenta mea et lintemina mea ne operiant ignominiam ejus (OLPIERRE SABBATHIER1743: 893) Old Latin Retroversion (OL180Heb-reconHosea 2:11) Latin Vulgate's English Translation Therefore will I return, and take away my corn in its season, and my wine in its season, and I will set at liberty my wool, and my flax, which covered her disgrace. Latin Vulgate Text idcirco convertar et sumam frumentum meum in tempore suo et vinum meum in tempore suo et liberabo lanam meam et linum meum quae operiebant ignominiam eius Latin Retroversion (VHeb-reconHos2:11) Greek's English Translation Therefore I will return and I will take my grain according to its time and my wine in its season and I will save my garment and my linen in order not to cover her disgrace. Greek Text δια τουτο επιστρεψω και κομιουμαι τον σιτον μου καθ Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 139 ωραν αυτου και τον οινον μου εν καιρῳ αυτου και αφελουμαι τα ιματια μου και τα οθονια μου του μη καλυπτειν την ασχημοσυνην αυτης Greek Retroversion (GHeb-reconHos2:11) Targum's English Translation Therefore turn back my memra/words to remove the crops in the time of his threshingfloor and the wine in the time of his press and I will take away the clothing of silk and wool to give it to her in order that she cover her shame. Targum Text (Twalton1654) Targum Retroversion (THeb-reconHos2:11) Syriac's English Translation Therefore will I return, and take away my corn in its season, and my wine in its season, and I will set at liberty my wool, and my flax, which covered her disgrace. Syriac Text yrMXw hNNzB yrwBO bS) kwPh) )Nh l+M )SKtd h[L tBhYd yNt*Kw yrMO bs)w .hNBzB .h[YsrwP Leiden Peshitta 1980 (S ) Gelston Syriac Retroversion Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 140 (SHeb-reconHos2:11) Coptic's English Translation Therefore will I return, and take away my corn in its season, and my wine in its season, and I will set at liberty my wool, and my flax, which covered her disgrace. Coptic Text eqbe fai tnatasqo ouoh ntagi mpasouo ntefounou nem pahrp qen pefshou ouoh tnawli nnahbws nem nasentw estemhwbs mpessipi. (C) Coptic Retroversion (CHeb-reconHos2:11) Qumran English Translation lines 8 and 9 in its season her private parts. Qumran Text lines 8 and 9 ] ] [ [ (Q4QpHosa) Qumran Retroversion ] [ ] [ Heb-recon (Q Hos2:11) Consonantal text of Masoretic Tradition (MK1008BHS) It is the private parts of a women that is meant here and so we translated it as private parts (see the Anchor Bible, page 246). 4Q166 from Qumran read also the phrase "Therefore I will return and I will take my grain in its time and my grapejuice/new wine". The reading is exactly the same as the Masoretic text with minor long vowels added as was the custom with the use of matres lectiones as vowels. Also the phrase "I will save my wool and my linen in order Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 141 to cover" also survived and read the same as the Masoretic text. An interpretation is given in this fragment from Qumran lines 12-14 "The interpretation of it is that He smote them with famine and with nakedness so that they became a disgra[ce] and a reproach in the sight of the nations on whom they had leaned for support, but they will not save them from their afflictions" (Translation that of M. Horgan). See especially the next verse of the Targum from 1654 by Walton which included a variant interpreting the same way. The composer of the Qumran fragment interpreted this verse as if the actor in the drama of this verse is not Hosea but God. The grain, wine and wool that will be withheld is interpreted as a famine that God sent to Palestine. We do not follow this interpretation since the emotionally sarcastic words "in order to cover her private parts" is not only unnecessary as description, but is language that one would not expect God would used in talking about His relation with Israel. What about the men and their sex organs? This is an emotionally upset Hosea who sarcastically exercise his legal rights in the extreme. It will become clear in this chapter that the actions of God are in contrast to these of Hosea. We thus do not follow the interpretation of the composer of the Hosea pesher or commentary from cave four at Qumran. The targum does not read the same as the interpretation in the Qumran fragment. The Syriac is conservative in this translation and follows that of the MT in this verse mostly. Interpretation: Hosea is still angry despite her conversion. He is swearing or using foul language in the presence of his children. He is emotionally in an uncontrolled state. In Hosea 2:4 he said that the children must judge between him and their mother in her field. The expression "field" is interesting. It could mean that the field originally belonged to his wife and that he was the usus fructus of her property. That is why he can claim now in a future harvest a percentage back as renumeration for the losses he made with her. He was the farmer on her property. His actions are rather desperate. If the property was his, there is no reason for him to say he is going to claim Hosea Commentary & Versions Van Wyk 142 something from his own harvest. It is because of the special contractial relation that Hosea find himself in with his wife that he has to make these claims. The Samaria Ostraca (if dated to the same time as the events described in this book) can give additional information. In those Ostraca the senders or tenants are sometimes Israelites but the owner is a Phoenician. Sometimes the senders or tenants were Aramaized Phoenicians. It serves to proof that Hosea's wife could have been an Aramaean with Phoenician affinities who possessed the land but Hosea was the tenant who worked on it. That is why she is standing in "her land" Hosea 2:4 (Van Wyk, K., "The Samaria Ostraca," in Archaeology in the Bible and Text in the Tel [Berrien Center, Michigan: Louis Hester Publications, 1996], 238-248). Hosea 2:12 And now I will open her private parts to the eyes of her lovers and a man is not there to save her from my hand. (MK1008BHS) Old Translations Old Latin English T