Devotional
Commentary on Hosea 7
God
promised that when He will heal the remnant in the future, He will do a good
work of it. "When I healed Israel, the iniquity of Ephraim is also
revealed and the evil of Samaria. For they have done falsehood. And the thief
will come. Stripped off is a troop in the street" (verse 1).
The
Coptic Tattam 1836 in this verse definitely misread not a Greek text but a
semitic one. In fact a copy was made from dictation of the text that Origen
also used and those errors of misreading by the one who copied the Hebrew for
Origen also were done by the dictating reader to the Coptic copyist but added
to those errors were other errors of dittography and phonetic simulations.
The
Coptic reads the verse as follows: "When I will convert Israel and reveal
the iniquity of Ephraim and the wickedness of Samaria for they have committed
falsehood and it shall be advanced inward to him of his evildoing with his
stealing and he shall be stripped of a robber in his way."
The
underlined phrase was a dittography or double reading of the Hebrew text that
Origen used in 240 CE since these readings were absent from Aquila 130 CE,
Symmachus 170 CE and Theodotion 190 CE Field1875:950. The inclusion of ??? to
him indicates that the same text as that for the Greek of Origen's Hexapla was
used. The miscopying of a word “stripped off” as “of his evildoing” is a proof
that the copying process was that of dictation or an acoustic error. The word
for thief/stealing was copied later in the sentence of the Hebrew of the text
for the Coptic. The word “inside/inward” in the Coptic is also a double entry.
An
interesting connection can be found in the comment of the Jewish Rabbi Ibn Ezra
on this verse where he rendered:
their
wickedness stands in front of me in their hearts (our translation)
their
wickedness still stands in their heart
(Ibn EzraHebrew and
English Text Rosenberg 1986Hos7:1)
When
one looks at the full text of Ibn Ezra here, he definitely weaved his
information according to the tenets and additions in the Targum Jonathan to the
prophets as is represented for us in the late copies of Walton and Rosenberg.
One does not find in the Jewish commentator Rashi the addition of in the night
as one finds in the Targum and in Ibn Ezra. It is not in the Syriac or any of
the other versions. The Coptic text also included a similar phrase as we have
indicated above, namely an addition reading: inward to him of his evildoing.
The
inclusion of "in the night" originated from the Semitic text that was
the miscopy used by Origen and the Coptic whereby they included an extra
"to him". It seems to us that a reader who used this very same Hebrew
text available to the Coptic Scribe and Origen. He copied another Hebrew text
that was miscopied for the Vorlage of the Targum and the text Ibn Ezra knew as
"in the night". This can easily happen if the letters are all
continuous and the copyist can only rely on hearing the text.
Rabbi
Ibn Ezra is known to have travelled North Africa for the greater part of his
life. The Semitic Vorlage for the Coptic scribes and Origen as found in some
Greek versions was probably familiar to him prior to 1140 CE. Since we do not
have an earlier copy of the Targum on this verse, and since it is not included
in the Syriac, we must assume that this misreading as in the night can be found
c. 1140 CE the earliest.
Also
with the Rabbi Kara (the contemporary of Rashi) is there the interpretation
that "the thief will come in the night" (KaraHebrew and English Text
Rosenberg 1986Hos7:1). Rabbi Rashi is silent about this addition in his
commentary but he added "constantly" in his commentary to indicate
that they lie and coming to steal constantly. Rabbi Rashi was a predecessor of
Rabbi Ibn Ezra but he apparently did not share this addition by later scholars.
Our question is: when did the Targum Jonathan to the prophets as we know it
today, incorporate this addition. Was it there before Rashi and did the Syriac
scribe miss it, and was the Semitic text that underlies the Coptic and Greek of
Origen's time a misreading of this "in the night" as "inward to
him"? The question is: which error came first?
The
verse is saying that when the Lord healed Israel the sins of Ephraim and
Samaria is also revealed. Healing in this sense is an act of atonement. Daily
atonement was available for Israel and daily the Lord healed the sinners who
confessed their sins with a true heart. Every time true healing took place for
the contrite sinner, the desired iniquity of Ephraim and the evil of Samaria is
revealed. Our interpretation is very close to that of the medieval scholar
Rashi who said that “every time the Lord wishes to save them and heal them,
their iniquities were revealed before Him for they sinned constantly” (a plus
expression by Rashi). This addition in Rashi implies that the sins were carried
on for a long time and that is what we also stress in our interpretation. Ever
since the time of Jeroboam they were sinning even though there was a temple in
Jerusalem where atonement on a daily basis was available. We have been seeing
in previous chapters how Ephraim was the focus of God's case or lawsuit. Cities
like Shilo, Beth-el and Gilgal were in Ephraim. North of Shechem was the city
of Samaria in the area of West-Manasseh. Samaria had a long history of evil
(compare Jewish commentator Rashi's addition of the word constantly in this
verse). In the cities of Samaria (1 Kings 13:32) there were high-places after
930 BCE in the days of Jeroboam. Priests were appointed for these high places
by Jeroboam (verse 33). During the years 874-853 BCE there was a famine in
Samaria (1 Kings 18:2). Near the gate of Samaria there was a threshing floor
where Ahab and Jehoshaphat (870-854 BCE) placed their thrones. There was also a
vineyard near the palace (1 Kings 21:1). When Jehu came to Samaria in 841 BCE,
he adopted Baal worship (2 Kings 10:18). The ritual functionaries there were
prophets of Baal. They sacrificed for Baal and had burnt offerings. There was a
temple (verse 21) and they wore special paraphernalia (verse 22). During
812-799 BCE it was the period of Aramaean oppression but the Israelites,
although they did not live in their own homes, continued in the sins of
Jeroboam (2 Kings 13:6). That means that the Asherah pole remained standing in
Samaria (1 Kings 13:6). When Jeroboam II became king in 782 BCE, he followed
also in the sins of the first Jeroboam (2 Kings 14:24). There was a shrinkage
of Aramaean power between 782-754 BCE. During the time of Zechariah and Menahem
(752-742 BCE) they did the sins of Jeroboam (2 Kings 15:9). The Assyrian
invasion was in 743 BCE. Even after this invasion Pekahiah followed in the sins
of Jeroboam (2 Kings 15:24) between 742-740 BCE. Pekah also followed in the
sins of Jeroboam (2 Kings 15:29) and again Tiglath Pilezer, the Assyrian, came
and took a number of areas including Hazor, Gilead and Galilee and the areas of
Naphtali (2 Kings 15:29) between 734-732 BCE. Between 731-728 BCE a very good
relation existed between the Aramaeans and the Edomites and Pekah lined up with
Aram against Judah. A third time Tiglath Pilezer came against Damascus in 727
BCE. Ahaz of Judah was exuberant about this help. It is in this setting that we
find the book of Hosea complaining about Ephraim and Samaria with its evil. The
institution of a Baal cult at Samaria in the days of Jeroboam became synonymous
for the sins of Jeroboam and that expression is carried through the book of
Kings indicating one after the other king that followed in that same practice.
In Hosea's day the evil of Samaria is then synonymous to this Baal cult. What
the iniquity of Ephraim was one should probably look at Bethel. It was at
Bethel that Jeroboam placed a golden calf (1 Kings 12:29) in 930 BCE. He also
erected there an altar (verse 33). One would expect at Bethel a temple of some
kind where the altar and the golden calf could be placed. At that time there
was an old prophet in Bethel (1 Kings 13:11) and he did not participate in
these practices but was probably the man of God for that generation. A prophecy
was made about that altar that it would split in two and that priests would be
offered on it by a man with the name of Josiah (1 Kings 13:2-5). That means
there was already a prophetic condemnation of that action way back in 930 BCE.
Another prophet was at Shiloh, also in Ephraim (1 Kings 14:2) during that time.
In 851 BCE there was a company of prophets at Bethel which means that there
were men of God prophesying to that generation (2 Kings 2:5). The description
is typical of that of a senior citizen which fluctuates quickly into
"footnotes added with evaluative statements". "For they have
done falsehood" is such an evaluative "footnote" adding more
information to a generation that might misunderstood this past generation or
history of those areas.
The
wayward remnant does not admit their wrongs in their hearts for if they do, God
acts as a great eraser to erase the records. But they do not and their sins
heap up in front of God like garbage that is not collected for days (verse 2).
"And not do they say according to their hearts that I remember all their
evil deeds. Now their deeds surround them. Against my face they have
been."
My
translation is here very literal and so is the translation of Jerome.
Coptic
Tattam 1836 used the same Hebrew text as the Greek of the time of Origen 240 CE
but there are variants probably due to a copying of the same manuscript by
dictation or from memory. There is thus a difference from the Greek that the
Greek is reading "my face" while the Coptic is reading "their
face". When the Hebrew copy was made that served the Greek translator that
Origen entered in 240 CE as the Greek, dittography happened in the beginning of
the sentence but also was one letter misread. Both the Greek and the Coptic
read here "they may sing like singers" instead of the consonantal
text of the Masoretic tradition reading of "and not do they say".
Such a dittography can originate when the reader misread the word and then
correct himself but the listener who is copying the dictated piece does not
realize that there was a mistake followed by a correction. If this part in the
original Hebrew manuscript was very illegible then this phenomenon could
explain this double entry of mistaken letters. Both the Hebrew copier for the
Greek of Origen 240 CE and the Hebrew copier from this Hebrew copy for the
Coptic copier did not have access to the original Hebrew manuscript from which
the reading was done (in our estimation the same as the consonantal text of the
Masoretic Tradition).
The
negative particle that we find here at the beginning of the verse in the
original is a Phoenician grammatical construct. Why is Hosea speaking in
Phoenician now? Why was Hosea or the scribe that he used, writing with a
Phoenician dialect Hebrew? Whether we ascribe the writing to Hosea or the
scribe, either case, must have had friendly relations with Phoenician people.
Cross-cultural influence shows itself in the dialect or loanwords adopted. If
God is speaking here then it would mean that God is pointing out the cultural
direction of their evil, namely the Phoenician gods. It would fit in with the
problem of Hosea's wife which ran after Baal cults. It is not impossible that
Hosea is familiar with some popular Phoenician literature and that he is
employing a well-known phrase from a hymn or poem to reach his audience more
effectively.
Of
course, evil makes evil very happy: "With their wickedness they will make
glad a king, and with their lies, princes" (verse 3).
Jerome
is always very literal and one can only occasionally bring some aspects of
difference with the original. Whenever this happens we do it with the utmost
care in our observations. His translation is still the best for the book of
Hosea. There is a plural masculine suffix added to the noun in the beginning of
the verse, but he translated it as "his wickedness" = malitia sua
instead of "their wickedness".
It
seems that in this verse and in the next few verses that follows, some palace
information leaked out to the public. Hosea is using the actions of those in
the palace and compares it to that of the baker with his dough and oven. This
Palace = Baker simile is carried through verses 3-9. The application is of
course afterwards indicating that they ask for help from Egypt and ran to
Assyria. We know that Ahaz suffered a severe blow from the Aramaeans in 731-728
BCE and that he was seeking help from Assyria. Ahaz reigned from 735-716 BCE in
Judah. He made his son pass through the fire "fire-walking" (2 Kings
16:3). It was in 727 BCE that Ahaz went to Damascus to meet the Assyrian king
Tigalth-Pilezer.
The
problem with the wayward remnant is that they are ecumenical or all adulterers:
"They are all adulterers, like an oven burning from the baker, he will
cease from the city from kneading dough until it is leavened" (verse 4).
The
later Jewish Targum wanted to be literal about real intermarriage problems in
Hosea's day: "All of them desire to bother their friends wives, they are
hot like an oven that the baker heated, for that reason exposing in their
losing of their cities otherwise they resemble to decree the thoughts of evil
and upon what they do not remember signs and the greatness of what they did to
them on the day of their departure from Egypt from this time of kneading the
leaven until it is not fermented."
The
Coptic translation in English would be: "They are all adulterers like an
oven kindled to boil in the heat of her flames from the mingling of the leaven
till it was leavened."
The
Coptic Tattam 1836 also read the variant in the same position as the Greek of
the time of Origen 240 CE. The Coptic translated "in the heat of her
flame" and the Greek translated "the heat from the flame".
Scholars are taking shortcuts and claim that the Coptic is just a translation
of the Greek LXX, but that seems not to be supported by evidence in my own
research. What actually happened here is that the Hebrew reader pulled up
information that appear in verse 6 and attached it to verse 4 substituting the
phrase there with that of verse 6 on the basis of a similar Hebrew word in the
area of both verses. The Coptic misread a letter kaph as a beth. Looking at the
text of Eusebius in 320 CE it is clear that there is a strong connection with the
Targum but also that there are a number of redivisions of the letters to arrive
at fellowship, and dittography in order to read small, as well as dittography
later in the verse to add the words and with a little all. The presence of the “not”
in the Targum at the end gives us a hint how a misreading to all could have
originated. In fact, this all can also be found in the Hebrew text that Jerome
used in order to translate the Vulgate in 403 CE. One also finds it in the
Syriac Leiden Gelston 1980 as nwhlK. It simply indicates that there was a Semitic
text, Hebrew or Aramaic that was very literal but that misread the original by
adding this extra word at the end. The Targum Walton 1654 consulted this same
literal translation but misread the "all" as "not". The
problems of Eusebius are uniquely his, and are not shared by other versions. It
almost appears as if he tried to include all variants in an attempt to bring an
ecumenical text?
In
my opinion the word "he will cease" functions twice in this sentence
reading: "he will cease to stir from a fire, he will cease from kneading
the dough". The second time it is only implied and not repeated.
Alcoholism
in high places is a downfall of any nation: "The day of our king, the heat
of the wine made sick the princes. He has stretched out his hand to
scorners" (verse 5).
The
Greek from Origen's day (240 CE) reads: "he stretched out his hand with
pestilences". This was also the earlier reading of the Old Latin dating to
190 CE. The Syriac translation read: "They stretched out their hand with
the wicked". The Coptic translation from 290 and later read: "He
stretched out his hand with the plagues".
I
am again very impressed by the literalness of Jerome's translation. The Targum
however reads "On the day of their king". I do not follow this
interpretation of the text here. Like Jerome I am keeping to the literal
rendering.
The
Coptic Tattam 1836 read the same Hebrew manuscript as that which resulted in
the Greek of Origen's Hexapla in 240 CE. All the misreadings cannot be dated
earlier than Origen. Symmachus 170 CE and Theodotion 190 CE Field1875: 951 did
not read these variants. They are reading the consonantal text of the Masoretic
tradition. The Coptic does not read exactly the same as the Greek.
The
Syriac misread an Aramaic Vorlage that read similar to the Targum in this
verse. The origin of the extra letters in the Syriac in one word could only
come from a misconstruing of a correct reading in the Targum (in which one
letter was misread and connected to the previous word) or correct reading of a
misconstruing in the Targum (we cannot say for sure) of the literal Aramaic
manuscript that served both the Targum translators and the Syriac translators.
If the error originated in the Targum then it is by way of a misreading by the
reader (word divisions, letter confusion) plus a mishearing by the listener
copyist of a word. This Aramaic text was in any way a misreading of the Hebrew
original here. In the final run all are wrong except the Hebrew.
Palace
information leaked out that the king in his palace and the princes visiting
there were all drunk with wine and that the king is trying to make alliances
with them, but they are all scorning. Trying to make friends with the other
nations will not help.
Woman,
wine and songs the whole night brings hangovers with it "For they have
drawn near. Like an oven is their heart. In their lying in wait all night will
sleep their baker. Morning he is burning like a flaming fire" (verse 6).
The heart will not be in a good condition in the morning.
The
Coptic translation read it the following way: "Because they have burnt
their hearts like their ovens in a curse is Ephraim filled all night. When the
morning comes he is inflamed like their lights of a fire."
Coptic
Tattam 1836 also reads the variants of the Greek of Origen 240 CE "they
have heated and their hearts". Aquila 130 CE and Symmachus 170 CE did not
read these variants in their Greek translations. There is a difference between
the Coptic and Greek Hebrew retroversions. What happened here is that the
Hebrew reader to the Greek copyist was misled by the similar phrase in the beginning
of verse 7 and that phrase was moved to the beginning of verse 6. This same
Hebrew copy was then used by the Coptic translator. There is a difference
between the Coptic and Greek Hebrew retroversions.
At
the end of the verse the Coptic is reading the last two Hebrew words in
inverted order. This can happen in a number of ways: (1) copying by dictation
by another reader whereby the copyist has to rely on his memory, (2) copying by
memory after a session of memorization. This verse also supports the conclusion
that the Coptic was not done from the Greek. Besides the omission of a letter
in the Coptic there was also a different division of letters of the Semitic
text at the end than the Greek.
These
princes all came but due to too much drinking, they could not sleep and in the
morning they all had hangovers. These scorners have come close to the palace.
One wonders whether the sleeping Baker is a picture of God who is looking at
the condition of the heart of the person in the morning. In the morning their hearts
is burning is a picture of the executive judgment of these individuals in the
eschaton?
This
is judgment time for the remnant and God is not happy with their relationship
to Him: "All of them will be hot like an oven and they eat their rulers.
All their kings have fallen. No-one is calling through them unto me"
(verse 7). The Old Latin had it "there is none among them that calls unto
me". The Jewish Targum read: "There is none from them that calls
before me". The later Coptic read: "Not is there one who calls upward
towards me".
If
there was just a hint that harmonization took place between the beginning of
verse 6 and the beginning of verse 7 in the Greek of the time of Origen 240 CE
then the Coptic Tattam 1836 has established this fact. The Coptic displays that
it has fully harmonized verses 6 and 7 whereas in the Greek the harmonization
is only in verse 6 (from verse 7 of course). This means that words from verse 6
are used in 7 and words from verse 7 are used in 6. In the Greek only words
from verse 7 are used in verse 6 and not vice versa.
Verse
6 and 7 needs more explanation as far as the variants in the Coptic Tattam 1836
are concerned. The first time that the variant of verse 6 they have burnt or
they have heated can be found is in the days of Origen in his Greek 240 CE.
This variant was originally a moving of a phrase from verse 7 to verse 6 on the
basis of similar words in both verses. Both the Coptic and Greek consulted the
same Hebrew text. It appears as if the Coptic text copied this Hebrew text of
the Greek from memory or by way of dictation and extra variants can be found in
the Coptic that is not in the Greek. In verse 7 there is an addition by the
Coptic of of their heart from verse 6. The first record in the Greek traditions
for this addition is in the fifth century CE in Codex Alexandrinus. The
translator of Codex Alexandrinus also took a word from verse 4 and introduces
it with one from verse 6 in verse 7. The second time that one can find this
addition in the Greek traditions where there is a removal of the word from
verse 4 used by Codex Alexandrinus is in the sixth century in Codex
Marchalianus (Vat. gr. 2125). In the Coptic we also find this addition but
rather similar to Codex Marchalianus (with the word fire from verse 4 absent).
There is a very strong relationship between Codex Alexandrinus and Codex
Marchalianus. This is understandable since they are less than a century apart
from each other. Codex Alexandrinus harmonized information from different
verses and felt the right to move and add that information in phrases that
looked similar. We are suggesting that the translator of Codex Alexandrinus
read the Greek translation of Origen 240 CE very carefully in verse 6 and
noticed that the "Septuagint" took a word from verse 7 and introduced
it in verse 6 and since Jesus used the Septuagint in His sermons He sanctified
not only the Greek translation but also this modus operandi or method of
translation and this gave him (the translator of Codex Alexandrinus)
authorization to continue harmonization in places where the
"Septuagint" did not. In the Coptic Tattam 1836 there is also an
inversion of the last two words in the Hebrew. This is not in the Greek
traditions. This phenomenon can be found in the Arabic Walton 1654. The Arabic
also added of their hearts in verse 7 similar to the Coptic and Codex
Marchalianus but not similar to Codex Alexandrinus. There is a very strong
relationship between the Coptic and Arabic in these two verses. At least the
inversion of the two Hebrew words at the end of verse 6 in the Coptic and Arabic
link them to such an extent that one has to ask the question: who came first,
the chicken or the egg? In previous verses we have established the fact that
the Coptic translation was done not from the Greek but from a Semitic text that
corresponds to the Semitic text that was used by the Greek translator of the
days of Origen 240 CE. We have also established the fact that the Coptic
translation was not done from the Arabic Walton 1654, in a number of other
cases prior to this verse. These two verses are the strongest connection so far
between the Arabic and Coptic.
All
these princes are in their drunkeness speaking against their rulers. All their
kings (the kings of Israel and the kings of Judah) have spiritually fallen ever
since the time of King Solomon (974 BCE) and no-one is calling through the
functions of the monarchy unto the Lord. There is here a failure in the
missiological function of the monarchy as an instrument for evangelization and
atonement with God. "All their kings" could be in the sense of all
the kings of Israel for nearly three hundred years of the monarchy. Hosea is
familiar with the history of the book of Kings and these lists of sins as are
described by the books of Kings and Chronicles were probably available to the
schools of the prophets at Bethel, Shilo and Jericho. Just as the book of Kings
epitomized the sins of Jeroboam I centered around Samaria and Bethel so did
Hosea. There is no way a person can guess the history of your country unless it
is educated to you in one way or another and no one can educate it to you
unless there is a historiography of that history. When the Chronicler wrote the
book of Kings and Chronicles in the days of Josiah or later he had access to
palace records or some records kept somewhere for the chronology of the kings
of nearly four hundred years. Palace diaries were an Ancient Near Eastern
custom and Hosea is familiar with the reputation of all the kings that preceded
him. That is why he is saying that "all the kings have fallen". You
cannot guess such a statement. Hosea was informed.
Hosea
explains the problem of Ephraim that they mix with peoples: "Ephraim is
with peoples, he mixes himself. Ephraim has become a cake without turning"
(verse 8). The Jewish Targum explained it as follows: "The house of
Ephraim himself is mixed among the nations. The house of Ephraim is likened to
a bread that is until it is not turned, consumed." The Greek said
something about the ashes: "Ephraim is become as bread baked under the ashes".
But, this reading was already in the Old Latin in 190 CE so this form in the
Greek in 240 CE in Origen's format is not the first time. Then it was repeated
also in the Vulgate of Jerome in 389 CE.
The
Coptic translation later read as follows: "Ephraim is mixed to himself
with his nation, Ephraim became a dough concealed, not is it to be
carried".
The
Coptic Tattam 1836 reads a number of variants in this verse and differs largely
from the Greek of the day of Origen 240 CE or later. Instead of nations as the
Hebrew original of the consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition read, the
Coptic read (even contrary to the Greek) nation. Besides this variant, there is
also a case of dittography (double entry = 'concealed', and a mishearing of
letters of the last word. The mishearing of a /b/ instead of a /p/ in this case
is easier to understand rather than a misreading of these two letters.
The
Greek is very interesting in this verse as far as the semantics of a word is
concerned. It elaborates the meaning as "baked in the ashes". This
compares very well with the Jewish tradition in the Midrash Tanhuma (edited by
Buber in 1885) Bo 9 the word has the meaning which led Marcus Jastrow to
conclude that it means: "cake baked on coals" (Jastrow, Dictionary of
the Targumim, The Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature
Vol. 1 1903: 1047).
Contrary
to the Coptic I could not find a variant in the Greek tradition with the
consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition.
This
verse and the next one seem to be in one unit for there is repetition as if it
is a well-designed poem or hymn. Ephraim was apparently some kind of a door to
the outside world and he catered very well for them. However, such a function
is a give and take situation and the demands from the outside and the failure
from the inside caused Ephraim to spiritually slipped-away from the relation
with God. It has become a burnt cake. This verse and the following one is
almost as if it is part of a popular poem or hymn. The stanzas flow in wonderful
echoes. Repetition is very clear.
The
problem with the wayward remnant is that strangers are eating their strength
but they do not know it (verse 9). "Strangers eat their strength and he
does not know it. Also old age has sprinkled upon him and he does not know
it." The Old Latin from 190 CE read the "old age" as "grey
hairs" = cani which in Latin can also mean "white hairs".
The
Jewish Targum wanted to make a homiletical application and paraphrase that:
"The nations have devoured their treasures, and they themselves did not
know also the sickness affected them and they themselves do not
understand." Notice how "he" becomes "they" in the
Targum.
The
Coptic Tattam 1836 shares with the Greek here the omission of the translation
of a particle [word] "also" in the consonantal text of the Masoretic
tradition. Instead of reading ke = "also" the Coptic read
"and". This omission of the word also can be found since the time of
Origen 240 CE. It was translated by Eusebius in 320 CE as "already"
(see Field 1875: 951). The Latin of Jerome in 403 CE translated this particle
as sed = "but". The Targum Walton 1654 also read the particle as
"and" but the Syriac read the same as the Coptic and the Greek by
omitting the particle.
Like
the words of a hymn or poem the repetition is very clear in the form of a
refrain. The resources of the country were taken by other nations every time
there was an invasion.
Even
though the wayward remnant is humbled among the nations, yet they do not become
a faithful remnant: "And humbled is the pride of Israel in his face and
not is there a return unto the Lord their God and not do they seek him in all
this." (verse 10).
This
is what life is all about, this relationship with God and return to God amid
trial and suffering and seeking of God in all this chaos. But they don't and we
still don't.
A
couple of misreadings happen here and one can look at them. The Old Latin read
instead of "pride" the "insults" = contumelia in 190 CE.
Simultaneously with the Old Latin's origin was a similar misreading of the
Hebrew by Theodotion in 190 CE of his private Greek translation by omitting
"pride" and entering a misreading of the word as a dittography ending
with "arrogance". Theodotion's text read as follows: "and he humbled the arrogance of Israel".
Origen in 240 CE presented an error due to mishearing/acoustic error from the
one dictating. He read a double reading of the /h/, a misreading of the /g/ as
an /r/ and the omission of the /aleph/. It could be that the presence of the
guttural at the end of the first word and the /g/ in the beginning of the next
word were assimilated in the ear of the copyist. The Greek was translated as
"and the violence of Israel shall be humbled with "violence".
When Jerome translated in 403 CE he kept not to the consonantal text of the
Masoretic tradition by translating arrogance" = superbia, the same
misreading that the Hebrew Vorlage of Theodotion had earlier in 190 CE. The
Targum Walton 1654 and the Syriac Leiden Gelston 1980 also translated
"dignity" similar to my choice of the word "pride". The
Coptic Tattam 1836 misread the second word in the Hebrew text, which has the
meaning "and the scattering of Israel shall be humbled". I am using
the Coptic Tattam 1836. So, nearly all the versions misread the beginning of the
verse. The salepoint is that we should never run to the versions for
"truth" since they are degenerative texts from degenerative original
Hebrew manuscripts just like Qumran were degenerative texts full of slips of
all kinds, paraphrases what we can call: "parabiblical texts" but not
the exact Word of God. Case by case though, Qumran did come close to the very
Word of God in the original as the authors first wrote it. People say, we never
can know the original. Yes we can. If a fragment from Qumran dates to 150 BCE
and it compares 99% with a full Hebrew preserved text of 1008 CE then this
remarkable precision means that 1000 years before 150 BCE the likelihood is 99%
that it was kept in the original. Is this principle fair? Well, 4QDana is a
case in point and there are many more at Qumran. What about deviations. They
are what it is said. Degenerative and deviations.
From
the situation of Ephraim there is a fluctuation here to the pride of Israel
that was apparently given a blow. The comment is that even though there was
some kind of blow that there was not a will to seek God.
God
then predicts that Ephraim would run for help from Egypt and go to Assyria in
exile in 723 BCE: "And Ephraim shall be like a simple dove without a
heart: Egypt they have called, Assyria they have run." (verse 11).
The
later Christian era Jewish Targum paraphrases it interpretatively as: "And
the house of Ephraim is becoming similar as a simple dove that is captured by
the son and there is not to it a heart. They approached to Egypt, they are
deported to Assyria".
People
say: 'but the Targums were in the Persian period between 538-333 BCE when
Aramaic was the lingua franca.' Maybe, but prove that the current Walton 1654
form or the A. Sperber form represents that original? Impossible. All
manuscripts are preserved by Christians in the Christian period. So caution is
advised here for running to conclusions.
The
Greek from Origen's day read instead of "they called", "he
called". During the period represented in Revelation by the church of
Ephesians (100 CE and further) when it was predicted that the church would
leave the Godly love and decay will creep in (Revelation 1:4). The biblical
text was preserved but variants popped-up like cancer.
Coptic
Tattam 1836 also divided the Semitic text differently with a waw cut off from a
word and attached to the next word forming a singular to the previous word and
adding a copulative to the next one. It simply means that the Semitic text that
the Greek and the Coptic used was written continuous. This is how the variant
originated "he called...and".
Ephraim
is said to have run unto Assyria. Ahaz was ruler of Judah not of Ephraim and in
727 BCE he went to Damascus to meet the Assyrian ruler. It indicates to us that
there was a close relation between Judah and the area of Ephraim so that the
action of Judah is associated with that of Ephraim in this verse. The
infliction that Ahaz suffered was in 731 BCE and at that time he probably first
consulted for help in Egypt before he turned to Assyria for help. In Hosea 5:13
we have identified the king of Egypt as "and they shall ask unto king
Jareb" which in our opinion is Sheshonk V, the son of Pami that reigned 38
years between 767-730 BCE. His throne name was '3-pr-Rc (Lexikon der
Agyptologie, Band V: 586). In a cross-cultural situation the inversion of the
/p/ /'3/ and /r/ /?/ resulted so that the form Hosea gave this king is yrb
= Jareb. It was in his last year that
Ahaz turned for help to this king of Egypt but he was unable to help.
God
the Hunter will punish the wayward Remnant according to the faithlessness:
"As they are going, I will cast over them my net, like birds of heaven I
will bring them down, I will chastise them according to the hearing to their
assembly" (verse 12).
The
Old Latin in 190 CE (see Pierre Sabbathier 1743 page 743 column 899) read it
"in the hearing of their tribulation." Jerome in 389-403 translated
Hosea here as: "I will strike them as their congregation hath heard."
Origen in 240 CE translated it with: "I will educate them in the hearing
of their distress". Tribulation is a disciplinary education for them. The
late Jewish Targum read: "I will strike over them upon what they heard
from their counsel". The Leiden Peshitta or Syriac by A. Gelsten in 1980
read here: "I will strike them as their congregation hath heard". The
Coptic as represented by Henry Tattam's text read: "I will punish him in
the hearing of their distress".
It
appears as if there was an illegible part in the Hebrew manuscript used by
these versions in this zone.
In
this verse we have again a reference to a net as there was one also in Hosea
5:1. In that verse we have interpreted it as the time of Tiglath-Pilezer who
came in 727 BCE and captured Gilead and areas north of Galilee so that it seems
as if a net is spread over Tabor. In this verse and that of the previous one it
is stated that Ephraim ran unto Assyria for help. In 731 BCE Ahaz suffered a severe
blow and sought help from the Assyrians. That he sought help from Egypt too is
now established in this verse. The ones who sought help from the Assyrians
would have been Judah and Ephraim (in the light of these verses).
God
is lamenting this act of divorce with the wayward remnant: "Woe to them
for they have wandered from me. Destruction to them for they have transgressed
against me. And I, I will save them and they, they speak against me lies."
(verse 13).
Notice
the love of God not to give up on these wayward ones. He is going to save them
later in 538 BCE when Gobryas as Darius the Mede and Cyrus come to send them
back to Israel from captivity. God can see that. "I, I will save
them". But, Daniel prayed very deeply for a return in his prayer in Daniel
9.
Some
mistranslations happen to the ancient versions here: In 190 CE the Old Latin
read instead of "destruction to them" the reading "manifested
are they" = manifesti sunt; Jerome in 389-403 read "they shall be
colluded = praevaricati sunt"; "they are wretched ones" as in
Origen 240 CE; a second Origen form as represented by Jerome: "clear they
are"; in 130 CE Aquila translated it in his private Greek translation as
"harvest to them" as one can see in Field's Edition of the translation
of the Hexapla in 1875; "destruction [to them]" in the private Greek
translation of Symmachus 170 CE; "distress [to them]" in the private
Greek translation of Theodotion in 190 CE as reconstructed from the Commentary
of Jerome on Hosea in 403 CE as presented in Field's Edition of the Hexapla of
Origen in 1875: 952; "Wasters/plunderers I shall bring upon them" is
the reading of the late Jewish Targum as one can see in Walton's polyglot of
1654 but rather use A. Sperber's Leiden edition; the Syriac read: "the
evil I will bring upon them"; the Coptic from the edition of Tattam 1836
read "in poverty are they". Tattam is reconstructed from British
Library MS Or. 11557A.
In
Jerome's commentary he said: ""For that which we read, they shall be
wasted, and in the Hebrew writing is SOD LAEM, that is, a waste to them, they
interpreted it: Sym.[machus] destruction [to them], Theod.[otion] distress [to
them]. Formerly in the conventional duplicated edition we read, at least in the
codices they have, it is clear that is, clear they are; others wretched they
are that is, frightful ones, or frightful they are."
I
raise the issue: who are the "we" in Jerome's commentary? Why does
his individual and personal translation of the Hebrew differ from the
translation of what we read? Who is the "they" in Jerome's
commentary. He said "they" have duplicated codices of which there are
variants, with some reading one way and others reading another way. Of course
the duplication that was done between 240-403 CE here is that of the text of
the Greek in Origen's Hexapla 240 CE. It means Jerome was aware of errors in
the transmission process of the Greek of Origen in his (Jerome's) day 403 CE.
It is clear that the oldest available manuscript of Jerome's Vulgate, namely
manuscript s of 480 CE reads vastabuntur and that is what Jerome said that
which we read. Why did Jerome continue in the next line to correct [our
translation] by rendering his own personal literal translation as vastatio eis?
The issue is that we are expecting to find in Jerome's Vulgate not vastabuntur
but vastatio est. Is vastabuntur the reading of the Vetus Latina and vastatio
eis the reading of Jerome's Vulgate? We tend to argue for this situation since
Jerome was very literal of his Hebrew text. Subsequently we are presenting the
true Vulgate of Jerome and tend to think that the reading in this verse of
Weber is a pseudo-Jerome expression. This verse casts some doubt upon the fact
whether even the earliest manuscript s of 480 CE was a pure copy of Jerome or an
realignment with some expressions in Vetus Latina? One can interpret that
Jerome is saying in his commentary: we are all reading in the Vetus Latina
vastabuntur but according to the Hebrew it is vastatio eis.
Another
point that I raise is that Jerome was not correct that the private Greek
translations of Theodotion and Symmachus interpreted their different readings.
It was not interpreted but misread or misheard. Jerome is still an excellent
literal and informed translator and judging the quantity of the project he undertook,
this shortcoming of a fuller analysis on his part is understandable.
The
misreading that one finds after Origen and before Jerome is one of substituting
similar consonants with different vowels resulting in two different meanings.
Scholars are arguing that the Greek in Origen's Hexapla is that of the
Septuagint and this case in the commentary of Jerome is a proof that the
Septuagint was not that carefully copied after the time of Origen, if it was
indeed the Septuagint. It is a case of errors in the Greek transmission.
It
is possible to see how the errors originated in the reading of Hosea 7:13. In
the time of Aquila that copyist did not see the text but only heard it.
He
copied the consonantal reading of the Masoretic tradition but in continuous writing
of the letters. When the Hebrew reader to Aquila 130 CE read this text it
sounded to Aquila as he translated it and he translated "a forager/harvest
to them." When Symmachus translated the text he read it correct and the
same as the consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition, namely with the
reading "destruction [to them]"
Theodotion
190 CE seems to have consulted the Hebrew copy that Aquila used and he could
see that it was supposed to read according to that errorful Hebrew copy that he
used, "distress [to them". There is a link in the Hebrew text that
these three Greek translators were using for their translations in the second
century CE. The Greek in the time of Origen 240 CE shows that its translators
were using a Hebrew copy that misread the consonantal text of the Hebrew as
indicated above.
The
Coptic Tattam 1836 misread the Hebrew text as follows: "in poverty are
they". The way it was misread is that its reader misread the letters of
the Hebrew copy of the text that was used by the Greek translators of the text
of Origen 240 CE. The letters are seen as a dittography. The /r/ was seen as a
yod. The dittography of the /h/ as a /t/ preceding the /h/ is also part of the
error of the Coptic translator.
The
Syriac variant of "the evil I will bring upon them" gives us a hint
of the origin of the Coptic variant but also vice versa. There is a link
between the form of the Syriac and the form of the Coptic if retroverted back
into Hebrew.
The
Targumist misread the text as "wasters/plunderers I shall bring upon
them". There is a link between the Targum and the Syriac but that link is
rather to a common lost literal Aramaic Vorlage than to each other.
This
is very poetic or cast in a hymn form. There is the double emphasis in the use
of independent personal pronouns with the suffixes attached to the verbs.
One
can arrange the poem as follows:
Woe
to them
for they have wandered from me
Destruction to them
for they have transgressed against me
And I, I save them
and they, they speak against me lies
God
foresaw their rebellion because their hearts are hardened and they do not
approach God for solutions in their lives (verse 14). "And not do they cry
out unto me with their hearts for they shall howl upon their beds. For the sake
of corn and wine will they assemble themselves. They will rebel against
me."
The
question is which text did Victor of Antioch used in his notes of Jeremiah
2:23? The form is very literal to the reading of the consonantal text of the
Masoretic tradition. It was using this Greek text the way someone would use the
Septuagint and then make reference to the private translations along with it by
mentioning their names. We interpreted this situation as a citation of the
Septuagint and a comparative comment on the private translations of the big
three.
But
Hosea the prophet said: they howled upon their bed.
The
same thing Aquila and Symmachus presented "called extravagantly".
One
should notice the differences with the conventional presentation of the Greek
of the fifth century and later. This Greek of Victor does not read
"in" but "upon" and does not read "beds" but
"bed". The consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition reads
"beds" but it also reads "upon". A misreading or error
crept into the text of Victor for this singular. He probably used a copy of the
text very similar to the consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition except for
a miscopy of the omission of a waw in the word for "beds" resulting
in a singular reading. The different translations in the Greek tradition are
due to various interpretations of the semantics of the Hebrew words and not to
a specific Hebrew form. This is a very exceptional situation comparing to all
the other verses prior to this one.
The
Coptic Tattam 1836 does not follow the translation of the Greek of the fifth
century CE and later. It does not share that variant in the Vulgate 403 CE,
Symmachus 170 CE, and Theodotion 190 CE of an "in" instead of an
"upon". Different than all these translations the Coptic omitted the
copulative and in the beginning of the sentence. Except for the variant of the
omission of the and at the beginning of the verse, the Coptic does read the
rest of the sentence similar to that Greek translation that one finds in 425 CE
in Victor of Antioch's Nobil. ad Jeremia 2:23 (Origen?) which is unique in form
to the rest of the Greek traditions.
We
have seen that the form of the Greek of Victor of Antioch 425 CE (presumably a
quote of the socalled Septuagint of Origen?) is very close to a literal reading
of the consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition. Victor also quotes the
readings of the great three private Greek translations of the century preceding
Origen. After the death of Origen in the middle of the third century CE, the
Origenic disciples moved to Caesarea and Theoctistus followed by Pamphilus and
followed by Eusebius collected the works of Origen in a library, corrected
Origen's Hexapla and editing the text of the Old and New Testament. Jerome 403
CE mentions that he had available Greek codices that reads variants for the
text of Origen, and in our opinion the above three men should be held
accountable for them. The hectic state of the presence and absence of
hexaplaric sigla in the copies and transmission of the Hexapla should probably
be also connected to the work of these three. Origen 240 CE was known for his
attitude of carelessness for the sacredness of the letter of the Bible. One
should expect that some form of influence rubbed off on his disciples and the
elaborations and paraphrastic style of representation of the Greek text one can
also find with Eusebius of Caesarea in this verse:
Eusebius'
Greek text is ignoring the literalness of the Hebrew text and is focused more
on the spirit of the text than the text itself. Origen's Semitic text was
misread as follows: The word is the result of a misreading of the orthography
of the letters in the text, namely reading in the consonantal text of the
Masoretic tradition a word as "is cut". There are two errors here,
haplography of the resh and substitution of zayin for waw.
Eusebius
translated: "to depart".
"through
delicacy and filling wheat and wine departed from me".
Origen
translated: "to teach"
"upon
wheat and wine is cut. They are taught in me".
From
this data we can see that Eusebius deleted the misreading of the Hebrew word
"is cut" by Origen and used another root to translate the last verb.
The rest was paraphrased by Eusebius.
Lucian
is said to have made his own translation in Antioch before his death in 312 CE.
The Antiochian center of learning had men like Theodoret of Antioch and Victor
of Antioch 425 CE. Our question is: was Victor of Antioch in 425 CE citing from
Lucian's translation of Hosea or that of Origen and if Origen, which one?
Is
it the original, Origen, or the Theoctistus-Pamphilus-Eusebius adjusted Origen?
It further leads us to the question whether the preserved Origen in the Field
1875 edition is in fact the original Origen reading or the adjusted one by the
above mentioned three men? After the time of Lucian and his translation, a
prominent figure is said to have been the eloquent preacher and commentator
John Chrysostom. He was known for the fact that he did not care if he repeats
himself. What this means, is that he did not care for double entries of the
same information? The flexible text that one finds in the Greek manuscripts v,
t, p and d as well as n, g, l and w for the books of Judges and Joshua should
rather be traced back to either Eusebius and his predecessors in Caesarea or to
Chrysostom of Antioch and his preaching style than to Lucian. The literalness
of Victor of Antioch 425 CE in this verse stands in contrast with the general
spirit of translation in the manuscripts generally ascribed to Lucian of
Antioch 312 CE by modern scholars.
I
am mentioning Jerome in this commentary and he is admired despite his
shortcomings. Anyone familiar with the works of his rival Augustine of Rome
will know that Augustine was a lazy biblical reader. In fact, if you look
through his works, most of the times he cites the same passages over and over
again like a preacher who once preached one good sermon and now goes from
church to church to preach the same sermon verbatim (with gestures included!).
His biblical understanding is rather thin compared to the endless study of the
scriptures that one finds in Jerome. The Jacques Maritain Center explains that
Jerome had some defects: He has the unfortunate defect of his extraordinary
swiftness, that he is extremely inaccurate, and his historical statements need
careful control (see here http://www.yahoo.com under the term Victor of
Antioch). Augustine is a
controversialist who is not interested in the letter of the bible but only its
spirit. Is it not interesting that the two men who viewed their sexual life as
traumatic (Origen 213 CE and Augustine 380 CE) are the two who care nothing for
the letter of the scriptures but only its spirit?
There
is a remarkable close correspondence between the biblical text of Lucifer of
Cagliari ?354 (adult) - 371 CE in his commentaries and some text from Qumran.
He went to Scythopolis in Syria and from there to Eleutheropolis (Beit Guvrin,
Tel Marasha) in Palestine, to Thebaid
and then to Antioch.
The
friend and fellow brother in exile was Eusebius of Vercelli 283-371 CE.
Eusebius translated into Latin a Greek commentary of Eusebius of Caesarea.
Eusebius of Caesarea 260 - 341 CE in his turn was a friend and admirer of
Pamphilus who came from Phoenicia and was tortured in 307 CE.
Pamphilus
copied many scriptures and books of Origen 250 CE. He worked in the Library at
Caesarea and according to Jerome 400 CE, Pamphilus use to give away many of the
copies of the scriptures to poor students (Jerome, Adv. Rufi. l, ix). Jerome
himself had 25 volumes of commentaries of Origen copied by Pamphilus in his
possession. He said that Pamphilus transcribed the greater part of the works of
Origen with his own hand (Jerome, De Vir. III, lxxv). Most of the copies of
Pamphilus were translated from the Hexapla which was in the library of Caesarea
and compared with a copy subscribed I, Eusebuis, corrected [the above] as
carefully as I could (Harnack, "Altchrist. Lit.," 544-545.
In
the preface to Ezechiel of Codex Marchalianus (see Swete, OT in Greek, Vol.
III, viii; Migne; Mai, "Bib. nov. Pat." IV: 218) it is stated:
"It
was transcribed from the Tetrapla of Origen himself which also had been
corrected and furnished with scholia in his own handwriting, whence I, Eusebius
added the scholia, Pamphilius and Eusebius corrected."
In
the Codex Sinaiticus of the Book of Esdras (see Swete, OT in Greek, Vol. II,
212) it is stated:
"It
was compared with a very ancient copy that had been corrected by the hand of
the blessed martyr Pamphilus to which is appended in his own hand this
subscription: It was transcribed and corrected according to the Hexapla of
Origen, Antoninus compared, I Pamphilus corrected."
Origen
copied the Tetrapla but added scholia (learned discussions) to it. Eusebius
also added his own scholia. The translation of Eusebius is then a complex
combination of readings from the original Tetrapla of Origen, his scholia and
Eusebius own scholia. No wonder that the text of Eusebius does not correspond
exactly to that of Origen. Pamphilus copied from the Hexapla of Origen,
Antoninus compared and Pamphilus corrected. Copies were not only made but also
corrected by the scribes (see http://www.newadventorg/cathen/09410b.htm).
In
verse 15 the Lord said that He will instruct and strenghthen their arms but
still unto the Lord they will think evil: "And I, I will instruct and I
strenghtened their arms and unto me they will think evil." Many parents
suffer with the same problem. They have given their children all that they
could but they almost disown their parents, love slapped away and cast into a
garbage can. People have not changed at all in our age of digital modernism.
The
Septuagint left out the word "I will instruct". The way this word
dropped out of the original is the similarity of words earlier in the verse. In
the original the letters are all in the same line with no spaces.
In
this case two words show similarity in the original.
After
translating and remembering the first word, he translated "and I"
looked up (maybe talked to someone) and returning saw the similar word and
mistakenly thought that it is the word he already translated and continued
without translating it. There is no need to follow the suggestion by some
scholars in the lower register of the BHS (or Masoretic text edition that we
are using) to delete this word from the Hebrew on the basis of the Septuagint.
It
is remarkable how Hosea is using two different forms of first person indepedent
pronouns in the same chapter, namely in 7:13c and in 7:15a. It is apparent that
Hosea was multi-lingual and that he could speak in the dialects of both his own
mother-tongue and that of the Phoenicians.
Even
though the Lord is good to them, it will not help. The wayward remnant is going
to suffer in Egypt. Later in Jeremiah's days they were warned not to go to
Egypt and yet they went (verse 16). "They shall turn, not upward. They are
like a deceitful bow. Their princes shall fall by the sword from the rage of
their tongue. This, their derision in the land of Egypt."
God
talks centuries ahead and sometime millennia. He is not like humans that only
see next year as a maybe situation.
Here
the demonstrative pronoun is a Phoenician form namely, zw. This chapter was
remarkable for its evidences of Phoenician linguistic features. As to what this
"upward" is, one can speculate. Why would the prophet not say the
name of God or the Lord here but use the expression "upward"? Since
the verse has an arrow and bow in mind it is more likely that they are like
arrows which does not turn upward but goes the opposite way. Such an effect
makes the bow really "deceitful". The meaning of "upward"
as "divine" or "God" or "Most High" is ruled out
by our translation and interpretation.
Calvin
in his commentary are trying to make a case here for the reading to refer to
God "as it is also in other places" but he did not provide any
reference for us to control check the situation. He complains that some
scholars see it as the preposition "they return but not for
anything". He considers this rendering as "strained". We are
interpreting this as a preposition but meaning "upward". The Geneva
Bible reads "They return, [but] not to the most High". The word
"most" does not appear in the original and is merely an
interpretation.
Dear
God
Constant
Godly love you bestow upon them without stop, even over hundreds of years from
Hosea to Jeremiah predicted but they threw sand in Your eyes. Help us to be a
proper arrow going upward properly for God. In Jesus name, Amen.