×

The Prophecy of Hosea Introduction II (Reception)

RECEPTION

*Biblical Intertextuality — Inner-biblical Reception

These notes inventory the biblical passages that shed light on the text. While examining the biblical text from the point of view of the reader in a resolutely dialogical perspective, these notes describe the factual connections within the biblical corpus on a scale that goes from a simple word to the entire work, from the use of one simple expression to a complete narrative pattern, by way of a particular narrative motif, idea, story or practice. The traditional hermeneutic of intra- biblical ‘typology’ and of the ‘fulfillment of the Scriptures’ has its place here.

Canonization

The Hebrew Bible and its various versions give the Book of Hosea first place among the Twelve Prophets (the “Minor Prophets”), without doubt because Hosea and Joel were believed to precede Amos, though Amos is older.

  • “Four prophets prophesied in one age [i.e. the 8th c. BC], and the greatest of all of them was Hosea” (b. Pesaḥ. 87a).

In the Jewish canon, the Book of Hosea lies at the head of the collection of the Twelve Prophets. Owing to its reduced size when compared to large prophetic books (e.g. Isaiah, Jeremiah), this book was associated with other, shorter prophetic books.

  • In fact, the Babylonian Gemara b. B. Bat. (14b-15a) suggests such a scenario: “The order of the prophetical books is Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, the Twelve. Inasmuch as Hosea was the first, as it is written, ‘the beginning of the word of the Lord by Hosea’ [Hos 1:2], we should expect the book of Hosea to occupy the first place, at least of the four contemporary prophets, Hosea, Isaiah, Amos, Micah. But because his prophecy is written together with those of the latest prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, he is counted with them.”

Beginning with Augustine of Hippo (Civ. 18.29), a new title, “Minor Prophets” (Prophetae minores), was invented to describe this collection. The adjective minores refers not to the value of these prophets but rather to the size of their books.

The Twelve Prophets as a collection was concluded sometime during the 3rd c. BC. The Book of Sirach (Sir 49:10), composed around 190-180 BC, is the first literary evidence to mention the “Twelve Prophets” (tôn dôdeka prophêtôn) as part of the Hebrew Bible. In the Jewish (Josephus) and early Christian (Melito, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Jerome) canons, the collection of the Twelve was considered to be one book. And in this Christian canon, the Book of Hosea maintained its pride of place among the Twelve Prophets. This can be seen in the 4th-5th c. Septuagint codices. Its correct placement in the Jewish and the Christian canons has never been seriously questioned.

In the Catholic Bible the Book of Hosea is placed between the Book of Daniel (as the last of the “Major Prophets”) and the Book of Joel — an even shorter work.

In the OT

Hosea is a unique witness to the antiquity of the Scriptures, as he offers a number of the oldest testimonies to various traditions, such as the Exodus (Biblical Intertextuality Hos 2:16–23), the Decalogue (Biblical Intertextuality Hos 4:2a Vocabulary Hos 4:6d), as well as patriarchal legends such as the cycle of Jacob (Biblical Intertextuality Hos 11:12a Biblical Intertextuality Hos 12:2b–4,12 Biblical Intertextuality Hos 12:3b Biblical Intertextuality Hos 13:15a).

Hosea is presumably one of the oldest prophetic books and as such it is possible to imagine that the similarities of themes and metaphors traceable in other books can be understood in view of inner-biblical reception. Such dependence is of course a matter of hypothesis, and the following list is meant first of all to indicate shared elements.

  • The prophet’s personal fate is intrinsically unified with his message: Hosea’s marriage (Hos 1-3), Isaiah’s children (Is 7:3; 8:3), Jeremiah’s celibacy (Jer 16) and Ezekiel’s state as a widower (Ez 24:18).
  • God is deeply involved in the relationship with humans. The language of familial relations makes use of the relative semantics: love, compassion, sonship, etc.
  • The metaphor of prophetic marriage (cf. the synthetic note →Marriage Metaphor) becomes an important theological model of monotheistic faith. Just as a wife can be legally married to only one husband, so Israel can have only one God. Hosea provides elements which can also be traced in other poetic books: the fornicating/adulterous woman (Jer 2-3; Ez 16; 23); forgiveness and reconciliation (Is 54:1-6), seeking and finding the beloved one (Song of Songs).
  • The language of prostitution/fornication (cf. the synthetic note →Prostitution Metaphor) is shared with the Pentateuch (Lv 17:7; Nm 15:39) and with the Deuteronomistic history (e.g. Jgs 2:17). In Hosea it constitutes the narrative that opens the entire book (Hos 1-3).
  • God also appears as a parent of the nation that remains a son (Hos 1:10; 11:1). This presumes the people’s complete dependence on their God and God’s love, which is faithful, demanding and formative. This theme permeates both the OT (e.g. Ex 4:22; Dt 14:1) and the NT (Lk 15:11-32).

The following themes are present also in other biblical books, but the way Hosea formulates them became particularly influential:

  • God is the source of life and therefore capable of restoring life (Hos 6:2,5). In the history of reception Hosea has been interpreted as the prophet of the resurrection.
  • The relationship with God is more important than sacrifices (Hos 6:6). Other prophets similarly announce that cult without obedience to God and his teaching is worthless and even offensive (Is 1:11-17; Am 5:21-27; Mi 6:6-8; etc.).
Use in the NT

It is worth noting that in the NT, the Lord and his apostles often quote from Hosea.

*Peritestamental Literature

Here are cited in Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic, Jewish texts of biblical inspiration from the so-called Second Temple period which have not been retained in the canonical Testament. These texts offer expressions, motifs, ideas, story lines or practices that are parallel to the annotated text.

This edition of Hosea gives the parallels to Hosea that were found in the fragments from Grotto 4 in Qumran, some interesting parallels for contextualizing the reading of Hosea, as well as some re-uses of motifs in various OT apocryphal writings.

*Jewish Tradition

The Bible in Its Traditions retains the Catholic canon. The Jewish or Reformed reader will at times find certain references in the rubric *Biblical Intertextuality, which he or she would have expected to find under *Jewish Tradition. Likewise, the reception of the Scriptures by Jewish liturgists, literary authors, visual artists, movie producers or composers has its place in the rubrics dedicated to these arts respectively.

The abundance of the Jewish tradition is still to be assimilated by the Christian commentators, and our publication is far from complete (cf. Ben-Yashar 2003).

Targums and Commentators

The present edition regularly makes use of the interpretation contained in the Targum Jonathan (Tg. Jon.). This Targum sometimes features — as a probable witness to ancient variants — in the rubric *Comparison of Versions but (most often) in the rubric *Jewish Tradition, whenever it expands the text of Hosea, thus witnessing to ancient Jewish interpretations of the polysemic prophecy.

On the other hand, great Jewish commentators such as ibn Janāh, Rashi, ibn Ezra and Kimchi are referred to less regularly. They appear as the proponents of some grammatical and linguistic solutions in the *Grammar and *Vocabulary rubrics. When their commentary is theological or when it proposes an intertextual connection or a historical-scriptural interpretation, it appears in *Jewish Tradition.

Rabbinic Literature

Regarding the rabbinic tradition strictly speaking, our much too brief annotations must be completed by the writings of Jacob Neusner (Neusner 2006; Neusner 2011). As we conclude our first edition of the great prophet, we regret that such a famous verse as Hos 6:6 (“I desire kindness and not sacrifice and knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings”), does not receive the expected attention in *Jewish Tradition (cf. however Biblical Intertextuality Hos 6:6 and Ancient Texts Hos 6:6a). This can be completed by referring to the excellent work edited by Eberhard Bons (Bons 2004).

Following the rabbis, let us characterize the rabbinic reception of Hosea at least in broad strokes. As with Amos, the rabbis are not interested in the Book of Hosea as a coherent whole. In the form of brief paragraphs, they put its verses in a row with other biblical verses as ‘scriptural proofs’ that are available to confirm the one or other position in the halakhic system (Neusner 2011, 79-146). Less often, the verse is analyzed for itself or quoted as the main source of a proposal that is important to the rabbis (ibid. 177-180).

Different phrases are used to understand or confirm a teaching of the Torah. Sometimes this is an aggadic detail, as when Gen. Rab. 82:2 sees in the odd plural in Hos 12:4c (“he will speak with us”) a proof that God appeared to Jacob and to an angel, as is said in Is 44:26-28. Or when Lev. Rab. 10:6,1 places Hos 3:4 in a row with Gn 37:3; Ex 28:42; Lv 8:1-3 in order to explain the high priest’s ephod. More often a halakhic point is being made. In Sifre Deut. 41:2, Hos 4:1 is put in a row with Dt 5:1; Prv 23:23; Ps 119:64 and Hos 4:6 to prove that the study of the Torah must have priority over every other “good work.” Hos 2:1 serves Sifre Deut. 47:4 to teach about the growth or waning of the number of children of Israel, depending on whether they obey God or not.

As for the ‘dogma,’ so to say, it is interesting that the rabbis pair Hos 6:2 with Nm 23:10 and Dt 33:6 in order to establish faith in the resurrection of the dead on the third day after their decease (Sifre Deut. 329:2). Hos 9:10 also serves to establish that the number of patriarchs corresponds with the ten entities that were first created (Gen. Rab. 1:4).

Finally, the ‘canon’ of Hosea in rabbinic literature resembles more a heterogeneous collection than a unified corpus (Neusner 2011, 80-81), which does not prevent Hosea’s central and innovative ideas from being entirely integrated into the rabbis’ teachings, as for example when Sifre Deut. 306:1-3, Hos 2:19 and Hos 11:9 are placed in a row with Jer 3:1, Dt 30:19 and Is 65:17 to establish that God’s love will come to Israel at the end of idolatry. Hosea’s profound intuition thus becomes a topos in the rabbinic reading of the Scriptures!

Modern Times

In order not to limit ourselves to ancient times and to have a glimpse of Hosea’s reception in more recent periods of Jewish history, another extremely useful source has proven to be the Jewish Encyclopedia. It enables us to integrate phenomena of the social reception of Hosea, such as the marriage of Shabbetai Ẓevi (Jewish Tradition Hos 1:2–3:5), or even of his political reception, such as the foundation and expansion of the Israeli city of Petaḥ Tikvah, a flagship of historical Zionism (Jewish Tradition Hos 2:15b).

*Christian Tradition

From the Fathers of the Church and the medieval Doctors to the great authors of the Reformation and of the Catholic Counter-Reformation, the main Christian writers who read the passage are cited here. The breadth of the corpus is such that the works considered to be commentaries on Hosea in the narrower sense will be given priority. The works that merely cite the text in passing will be indicated only in cases of exceptional importance because of their authority or their known consequences.

On the Twelve

As a reminder, let us recall first of all the long Christian tradition of composing commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets. For instance, the commentaries by

  • Hugh of Saint-Cher (†1263), Albert the Great (†1280),
  • Francis Lambert (†1530), Johannes Oekolampad (†1531), John Calvin (†1564), Victor Strigelius (†1569), Jean Mercier (†1570), Pablo de Palacio (†1582), Johann Wigand (†1587), Francisco de Ribera (†1591), Pedro de Figueiró (†1592), Lambert Daneau (†1595), Benito Arias Montano (†1598), Franciscus a Messana (16th c.), Michael de Palacio (16th c.),
  • Niels Hemmingsen (†1600), Polycarp Leyser (†1610), Christophorus de Castro (†1615), Johannes Drusius (†1616), Philipp Heilbrunner (†1616), Jacobus Pontanus (†1626), Johann Winckelmann (†1626), Gaspar Sánchez (†1628), Johann Tarnow (†1629), Tommaso Calona (†1644), Pierre Maucorps (†1649), Johann Schmidt (†1658), Charles-Marie de Veil (†ca. 1685), Edward Pocock (†1691),
  • Johannes a Marck (†1731), Johann Heinrich Daniel Moldenhawer (†1790) and William Newcome (†1800).
On Hosea

Although the figure of Hosea attracted less attention than the great prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah, to whom a number of pseudepigrapha were attributed, the former also inspired some Christian authors.

The Earliest References to Hosea in the Christian Tradition

They appear in the context of the anti-Gnostic polemic. Hippolyte of Rome (†235) Refutatio omnium haeresium (5.27) is the first to refer to Hosea’s marriage (Hos 1:2). Tertullian (ca. 160-230) is the first to understand Hos 6:1-3 as a prophecy of Christ’s resurrection on the third day, “according to the Scriptures” (1Cor 15:4). For Irenaeus of Lyons Haer. 4.20.12, the marriage with the debased woman serves as a type to express the salvation of the sinful world and the Church.

The texts that are of particular interest to patristic literature are the promise of salvation on the third day in Hos 6:1, the oracle about the divine preference for mercy in Hos 6:6, and Hos 11:1 that is applied to Jesus’ phrase concerning the son called from Egypt. Monastic milieus seem to have been partial to the prophet, and monastic writers actualized him through their exegesis.

From the Syriac Church Fathers a homily by Jacob of Sarug (5th-6th c.) comments on Hosea’s marriage. Jacob of Sarug Memra explains that prior to his prophetic call, Hosea was almost an angelic figure, a monk of sorts, whose goal was to walk “as Elijah on the pure road in everlasting purity. […] He watched Adam whose wife caused his fall, and watched Elijah, who without (marital) union was raised to heaven” (111-112). “He himself was the best censor for the Godhead, letting the pleasant odor rise before the Majesty” (133-134).

In the Coptic world Shenoute (ca. 347-450/451) — an Egyptian monk, ascetic and saint whose life was made known by his disciple Besa (5th c.) and whose literary corpus is being reconstituted from more than 10,000 fragments preserved in numerous libraries throughout the world — makes an interesting polemical use of the prophet in his denunciation of the cult of the martyrs.

Commentaries on the Entire Book

The earliest one was written by Origen, who wrote a treatise on the Dodekapropheton (245-246). This work is preserved only in small fragments (PG 13:825-828). Similarly, the work of Didymus the Blind (†398) survived in Sacra Parallela, attributed to John of Damascus (PG 95:1381B; 96:520A). Nothing remains of the commentary by Apollinaris of Laodicea (†390) or of the long treatise by a certain presbyter Pierius mentioned by Jerome in the prologue to his commentary. The commentary attributed to Hesychius of Jerusalem (†433?) needs reediting but may preserve some original fragments (PG 13:1345-1369).

There are three fully preserved ancient commentaries to Hosea:

  • Theodore of Mopsuestia (†428) and
  • Theodoret of Cyrus (†457) from the Antiochene school,
  • Cyril of Alexandria (†444), who follows the more allegorizing tendency of the Alexandrian tradition.

These authors have been regularly referred to in the present commentary, as well as

  • the Latin commentary by Jerome of Stridon (†420). His work is the fruit of his expertise as a translator. He comments both on the Septuagint and the Hebrew text, often referring to other Greek translations. Jerome is concerned with grammar and possible literal and historical meanings; however, his readings almost always conclude with a Christological and ecclesiological perspective.

Another Latin author dealing with Hosea is Julian of Eclanum (†455), a bishop who was associated with Pelagianism and was a theological opponent to Augustine of Hippo. Later commentaries by Haimo of Auxerre from the Carolingian period (†865, PL 117:11-98) and the Greek Theophylact of Ohrid (†1126?) depend on patristic sources. Our commentary makes special reference to Theophylact. Patristic exegesis also influenced the commentaries by Guibert of Nogent (†1124, PL 156:341-416) and Rupert of Deutz (†1129, PL 168:15-204).

With these authors, the foundations of Catholic and Orthodox interpretations were laid. We do not want to neglect the commentaries that came out of the Reformation and the Catholic Counter-Reformation. Let us cite in particular:

  • Wolfgang Köpfel (†1541), Johannes Brenz (†1570), Léon de Castro (†ca. 1586), Jean Cinquarbres (†1587), Jerónimo Luna de Guadalupe (†1598),
  • Balthasar Meisner (†1626), André Rivet (†1651), Johannes Heinrich Ursinus (†1667), François Vavasseur (†1681), Sebastian Schmid (†1696),
  • Ludwig Joseph Uhland (†1803).

Reformed Readings

We follow the two main Reformers in greater detail.

Calvin

John Owen (1616-1683), an English Puritan pastor and theologian, was Cromwell’s chaplain as well as the translator of John Calvin into English. His introductory remarks go in the sense of Calvin’s commentary and encapsulate his central intuition, which is essentially polemical:

  • “Having this case of the Israelites in view, we need not be surprised at the fascinating and blinding influence of Popery, whose idolatry and superstitions are exactly of the same character with those of the Israelites; no two cases can be more alike. Their identity is especially seen in this, — that there is an union of two worships — of God and of images; and this union was the idolatry condemned in the Israelites, and is the very idolatry that now exists in the Church of Rome: and as among the Israelites, so among the Papists, though God is not excluded, but owned, yet the chief worship is given to false gods and their images. That the two systems are the same, no one can doubt, except those who are under the influence of strong delusion; and this is what is often referred to and amply proved in this work” (John Owen, in Calvin In Hos.).

Rather than systematically giving the word to those who at the time contradicted Calvin in response to his constant polemical projections against the rite, we offer some synthetic notes on the history of theology and liturgy that put these into perspective.

On the other hand, Calvin’s commentary cannot be reduced to an anti-Catholic diatribe; he actualizes the ancient prophet in view of political events of his time, in a way slightly resembling of the ancient Pesharim (thus he compares Hosea’s conjugal life to that of Henry VIII: Christian Tradition Hos 1:3f). Finally, Calvin regularly rises to prayers of which we shall quote several that can still be prayed today.

Luther

Luther lectured on the Minor Prophets at Wittenberg between the summer of 1524 and that of 1526, a troubled time on the political level (the turmoils around the Edict of Worms), the liturgical level (the translation of the Mass into German), and the personal level (Luther’s attempted marriage in June 1525). Technically speaking, Luther’s commentary is a reportatio. It has been passed to us in the form of notes taken by students who attended his lectures. The book published in Basel in 1526 was based on these. It goes verse-by-verse, usually offering short glossae.

Luther’s commentary (Luther Lect. Hos.) also strongly actualizes and does not lack polemical points. As Luther affirms in Chapter 1, the prophet’s message was certainly “against the hypocrites of his time and against the wicked.” But it also addresses Luther’s time! He speaks of the Roman Catholic rites and of his own monastic experience in order to condemn the idolatry that he suspects. In annotating Hos 2:8 he condemns those who become monks and claim to “serve God with vows and ceremonies.” In commenting on Hos 7:11, he targets the bishops as being responsible for the people’s general spiritual mindlessness: “He is misled by false prophets and passes no judgment on their doctrines. […] In this way our bishops have taken away our sense. They have removed judgment from us and have kept it for themselves.”

From the first chapter, the preacher Luther discovers in the prophet Hosea a harbinger who preaches faith by means of the Word: “The true seed that purifies our souls is the Word of God. When you depart from this, you commit harlotry. He transfers a simile of the flesh to the spiritual realm. Committing harlotry means practicing idolatry. Idolatry is the genuine trust in works; harlotry is to sin with unfaithfulness against the First Commandment. Properly, harlotry is to act against the First Commandment in the name of God, that is, to do without faith what you imagine you are doing to worship God.”

The most profound trait in Luther’s teaching on Hosea is its Christocentric nature. According to Luther, this is an essential trait in biblical prophecy (as it is also for the writers at the beginning of Christianity), and from his first chapter Luther asserts this: “All the prophets look forward to the kingdom of Christ.” Hosea preaches a discernment between idolatry and faith in the merciful God, incarnated in Christ himself, as well as a return to Christ and his kingdom (Christian Tradition Hos 11:7a). Noting that Hosea brings past and future together in Hos 12:9, Luther explains that God’s Word which once came in the Law now comes in Christ (Christian Tradition Hos 12:9b).

Luther is sensitive to the characterization of God given by Hosea. He teaches that God’s mercy stems from God’s nature. Before the divine reticence in punishing (Hos 11:9), Luther teaches persevering trust in God’s mercy: “He is saying, as it were, ‘I strike down and I heal. Man wants to uproot everything, but not I.’ This is a wonderful promise of the mercy of God: ‘I want My reputation for mercy to remain safe. I also want people to flee to Me for refuge.’ Satan wants no one to remain a Christian. In the midst of death God promises mercy. ‘If I oppress you, you should flee for refuge to Me. Stay here.’”

Continuity

In spite of denominational differences, one can only be struck by the continuity of Christian receptions of Hosea.

The Christological interpretation of the prophecy is maintained by Luther. He inherits from the first patristic commentators (Christian Tradition Hos 6:2 Christian Tradition Hos 1:4a), whose ideas were taken over by books with illustrations produced by Christian visual artists (Visual Arts Hos 1:3a Visual Arts Hos 1:3b).

If Calvin is characterized by the systematic nature of his polemics, he is nevertheless not the first to reactivate the bitter ancient prophecy in the context of a polemic in his time; before him Shenoute of Egypt (Christian Tradition Hos 8:6a), Gregory the Great (Christian Tradition Hos 4:8a Christian Tradition Hos 4:9a), John Gower and Jacopone da Todi (Literature Hos 1:2c ) used oracles of Hosea to denounce in their time the behavior of men of the Church that was unworthy of the Gospel (Christian Tradition Hos 8:4ab).

Finally, the few examples of casuistic piety that we take from Jeremiah Burroughs (for example Christian Tradition Hos 6:6) and the testimonies of spiritual writers and of saints in *Mysticism suggest how, beyond all denominational polemics, sincere believers know how to make honey out of the polysemy of the prophetic text.

*Theology

Under this rubric the text’s multiform reception in the teaching tradition of the Councils and popes and in the writings of the great theologians in the history of Christianity are presented in their contexts. The notes are organized according to the classical distinctions in Latin theology (dogmatic theology, moral theology and spiritual or mystical theology, with all the necessary subcategories), and as far as possible discussed in a chronological order.

In the present edition of Hosea we have systematically gone through the theological Summa of Thomas Aquinas as well as the Catechism of the Catholic Church to see how they use Hosea. At times this use is a little extrinsic to the aim of the text itself; a look at the Orthodox and Reformed authors cited in *Christian Tradition and in *Philosophy as well as at the writers cited in *Mysticism makes it possible to bring in other theological harmonics. We underline the question of political theology that goes through the book and is marked by a tense and dialectic relationship between God and human monarchies (Historical and Geographical Notes Hos 8:4ab Biblical Intertextuality Hos 8:4ab Theology Hos 8:4ab and the synthetic note →God and the King in the Old Testament). Various collective or personal eschatological openings also mark the prophecy: allusions to the election of Jacob give Calvin the opportunity to emphasize Paul’s interpretation of predestination (Christian Tradition Hos 12:3a; cf. the synthetic note →Theological Development of the Notion of Predestination). And of course the famous question regarding ‘the immortality of God,’ raised by the strange orders that God gives to the prophet, run through Judaism as well as Christianity. In response to this, the respective sages use analogous strategies to safeguard God’s honor (Jewish Tradition Hos 1:2f).

*Liturgy

The liturgy, the total art that appeals to all the senses, sees itself as the actualization of the mystery to which the Scriptures refer. It constitutes the privileged context of the reception in faith of the Scriptures. In addition, many ritual texts are real centos of the Scriptures. The notes under *Liturgy present the biblical text’s reception in the worship of the Christian Churches and ecclesial communities, both Western and Eastern. They describe the use of the annotated passage in lectionaries, rituals, and popular devotion.

The rubric’s main contribution to our edition of Hosea is to indicate the use of the text in both Jewish and Christian liturgies. When seen from the perspective of the other prescribed readings or of the commentaries coming out of these respective traditions (*jew, *chr), these uses witness to the main lines of interpretation. Hosea accompanies a rite (like the wearing of tefillin), or he lends some verse to Cabasilas’ mystagogical commentary, and so forth.

Over and beyond these uses, the prophecy of Hosea raises radical questions regarding liturgy and religious uses. Four of the ten synthetic notes at the end of the volume discuss historical or theological questions regarding liturgy, and the reader might be surprised by this. The proportion responds to the importance of the anti-ritual polemics in Hosea’s prophecy that have been regularly actualized in the course of the readings by Christians, as has been shown.

*Mysticism

This rubric presents commentaries and amplifications on the writings by canonized saints and mystical authors (but not by religious poets, who appear under the rubric *Literature). May our benevolent reader kindly note that for purely contingent reasons several medieval authors have been translated from the French rather than from the original Latin.

From Gregory of Narek to Gregory the Great, from Bernard of Clairvaux to Bonaventure, from William of Saint-Thierry to John of the Cross, Francis de Sales, Elizabeth of the Trinity and Thérèse of Lisieux, Hosea’s prophecy has left numerous traces in several works by monastic and mystical authors. These deal with elements of language that are naturally grafted on to thought, with prayer or with the preaching of medieval authors (who were so immersed in the liturgy that the Scriptures had become their language), or with theological and moral themes that were developed as so many rules of life. The themes of knowledge and teaching are essential: Mysticism Hos 4:6c Mysticism Hos 10:12cd.

Within the confines of mysticism, theology and literature, the admirable amplifications in Hos 13:14 in particular are not lacking. They contributed to the dogmatic development of the theme of Christ’s descent into hell during his paschal mystery. There is a synthetic note on this (→Christ's Descent into Hell).

*Philosophy

This rubric is similar to the constitution of a philosophical Midrash on the margins of the Scriptures. The ways in which various philosophers use the biblical text in their own works (ever since their discipline declared its independence from theology) are recalled. The rubric also presents philosophical developments that are not necessarily directly linked to the biblical text at hand, but that can shed light on the reading together with other disciplines, such as theology and literature.

In this edition we focus on the way Hosea has been read among modern and contemporary philosophers such as Ricœur, Kierkegaard, Russell, Bacon, Hobbes, and so forth. The philosophical reception may be direct or indirect. It is direct when philosophers develop their arguments using Hosea’s quotations. It is indirect when the philosophers’ ideas are inspired by the works of philosophers who preceded them and who quoted Hosea.

The philosophical reception of Hosea enriches biblical and philosophical hermeneutics on many subjects, including metaphors, allegories and parables (Hos 1:3; 12); the ideas of righteousness (Hos 2; 6; 10), knowledge (Hos 4) and redemption (Hos 13). All of these illustrate the importance of the relationship between biblical and philosophical hermeneutics.

*Literature

The notes in *Literature explore the non-biblical intertextuality, in particular the literary works to the creation of which the text might have led or that drew inspiration from it. The study of the literary reception makes it possible to assess the text’s influence and the transformation of its understanding in the course of the cultural changes experienced by a given society. “Literature” will thus be understood not only in the sense of fine arts but also in a more sociological sense of literary production, even without any poetic claim: the works resulting from ‘contextual’ approaches inspired by the ‘humanities’ will have their place here.

Numerous individual sayings of Hosea are recalled in literary contexts, notably through the mediation of liturgy (DBTEL 364). The prophet’s conjugal and family story is obviously what strikes the imagination the most: commanded by God to marry Gomer, a prostitute, the prophet finds in his wife’s unfaithfulness a mirror of Israel’s turning-away from God. The symbolic wealth of Hosea’s drama brought forth two main lines of interpretation which developed in the course of centuries:

  • An eschatological line: Paul (Rom 9:25-26) uses Hosea’s observation that true faith passed from Israel to Judah as a prefiguration of the New Covenant to be made with the Gentiles (cf. 1Pt 2:10). Jerome of Stridon explains the relation between Hosea and his wife and the relation between God and Israel as types of the later marriage between God and the Church.
  • A theological-moralistic line: the at least seeming immorality of the order given by God to his prophet obliges one to enquire into the personality of this God, into the relation between God’s transcendence and the human idea of justice.

Less well known but no less important than the erotic and conjugal theme, Hosea’s noetic theme very soon raised interest. Several passages found among the prophetic and sapiential texts were deemed by the Gnostics to be the recipients of a hidden knowledge transmitted by Sophia and other entities in the spiritual world (Literature Hos 1:2–3:5 ). From Lodge and Greene to Stevenson and to the contemporary Israeli novel (Literature Hos 1:2d) and televised series (Cinema Hos 1:2–9), Hosea does not cease to inspire artists of every period.

*Visual Arts

The biblical texts have been received non-verbally. This rubric gives an account of the main visual representations (drawings, paintings, sculptures) of the scenes and episodes recounted in the texts. As far as possible, the first known representation will be described, and the history of the representations is given according to periods and cultural areas, pausing at major works that are part of the culture of a 21st c. person.

Hosea has not been particularly cherished by visual artists. The remarkable inventiveness of the old representations of the prophet, the echoes and contexts of ecclesiastical interpretations, are nevertheless very rich in their teachings:

  • The famous stained glass windows of the prophets in the Augsburg Cathedral, which are reputed to be among the oldest windows in situ in Europe (created between 1065 and the first half of the 12th c.), give a place to Hosea, who is represented with a scroll on which can be read: “Ecce eruditor omnium Dominus” (cf. V-Hos 5:2).
  • In medieval Bibles an illumination of Hosea embracing Gomer often introduces the Book of Hosea. During the Renaissance Raphael painted Hosea with Jonah (1510). Because of Hosea’s vibrant plea for religious reform, the Reformers found in Hosea a model and a precursor; they were happy to depict him.
  • The Mountain Landscape with River Valley and the Prophet Hosea by the Flemish painter Gillis van Coninxloo (†1607), and The Prophet Hosea Praying by the Flemish engraver Nicolaes de Bruyn (†1656) are well known.
*Music

The Book of Hosea has not been copiously exploited for the liturgical life or for the musical art of religious communities; there is not a vast repertoire of musical works based on his prophecies. Nevertheless, there are interesting examples that pick up some of the most remarkable and famous passages of Hosea. For example, chapters 2, 10 and 11 can be found in movements of some of J. S. Bach’s Cantatas (BWV 49, 89, 96, 140, 168). Chapters 6 and 14 have inspired a variety of anthems and songs for ministry and worship, mainly from the 18th to the 20th c.

*Synthetic Notes

As in all of our volumes, the edition of the biblical text is followed by a dozen synthetic notes. These are short essays bearing on themes relevant to passage(s) of Hosea’s prophecy to which they are attached, but also to other passages of the Scriptures. Three such notes pick up *Biblical Intertextuality and *Ancient Cultures in order to expand the ideological and religious context, four pick up *Liturgy and its history, and four *Theology, in order to put into perspective several phenomena of reception to be found in the notes, in particular the anti-ritual polemics developed within Christianity, based on Hosea.

In the course of this introduction, we have noted several limitations and gaps in the present edition of Hosea. The reader will without doubt find others. Rather than distancing readers, may they stimulate readers to join us in our great project! The edition of Hosea and the inventory made of his reception in our cultures does not end with this printed book: it continues in the online laboratory, on the digital site of The Bible in Its Traditions (bibletraditions.org). Every suggestion for correction, every enrichment will be welcome. The progress will be made accessible on our digital scroll: scroll.bibletraditions.org.

The Editorial Committee of The Bible in Its Traditions Jerusalem, Pentecost 2017

info@bibletraditions.org