Devotional Commentary on Hosea 8
In this chapter there are many times
the comment by the editors of the BHS in the lower register that some words are
part of a gloss that was added. My comments to these cases are that when one is
dealing with an old man of nearly 90 years old, then one must expect that he
can add and recast his own story and text in the process of multiple retelling.
One cannot delete ad hoc just because something sounds strange in a certain
position. There are cases where the editors of the BHS wished to transpose the
sentences, for example, when they wanted to move a section of verse 9 to the
beginning of verse 8. My reaction to this is that the way geronti communicate
is similar and it is better to leave it the way they speak. In verse 13 the
editors are attempting to improve on the text or harmonize seemingly
inconsistencies by suggesting that what is the third person singular should
actually be changed to the first person singular. This methodology was exactly
what created the problems in the Greek manuscripts of the Septuagint.
Harmonization and the desire to read sensibly made them add, delete and improve
ad hoc. It appears as if the Targum of the
sixteenth century had a Vorlage similar to the Greek translator of the fifth
century CE in front of him and what Jerome saw as a beth and the Greek
translator of the fifth century CE saw as a kaph this Targum reader
incorporated both by reading the kaph and the beth. The Lord is speaking here instructing
someone with a shophar to blow it. As we have pointed out in Hosea 5:8, the
blowing of the shophar was done in the fulfillment of the executive judgment
against Jericho in 1410 BCE. It is probable that the Lord is asking the angels
(or one angel) to blow the shophar as a witness to His investigative judgment
that found that they have transgressed and trespassed. That would inaugurate
His executive judgment. Hosea 5:8-10 is dealing with the same theme. In both
cases it is only one shophar that should be blown. In Revelation 8:6ff. there
are seven angels with trumpets and they blew it successively and there followed
certain executive judgments upon the earth. Their problem is twofold namely
that they have transgressed His covenant and His Law. His covenant is His
relationship with them and His law is the ten commandments that He wrote with
His own finger to them and are the precepts of that covenant-relationship. The
person has to blow the shophar "as an eagle over the house of the
Lord". This means, similar to an eagle who has wings and can circle slowly
over one spot. That is why it is interpreted here to be an angel. The shophar
is blown over the house of the Lord because that is the place where His law was
kept and where the economy of atonement for transgressing it was to take place.
Absence of atonement leaves the transgressor of the law (in toto or any one of
its precepts) in a broken covenant relationship. In verse 2 God says through Hosea:
"To me they shall cry: 'My God, we know you, Israel.'" The Targum interpreted it to mean that
cymbals are too noisy and should not be used for worshipping God. "In all
the times that came upon them limit cymbals before me and calling: Now we know
because that is not to us, God, a son from you. Save us. Because we are your
people Israel".In the Syriac there was an omission by haplography and the
translation reads: "For me they are screaming and they say: our God, we
know you." What is personal in the direct speech
is made corporative to agree with the indirect speech in the Peshitta or Syriac
translation: "For me they are screaming and they say: our God, we know
you." The Septuagint manuscripts made a mistake of haplography here due to
the closeness of the double reading in the last part of this verse and the
beginning of the next verse. They deleted "Israel". The Syriac
manuscripts did the same probably due to cross-contamination or vice versa.
That means we do not know whether the Syriac manuscripts got it from the Greek
manuscripts or whether the Greek manuscripts got it from the Syriac. The
interesting feature is that the Syriac added the variant synonym of the Targum
"and they said" as a plus to the text next to "they
scream". It appears as if the Syriac translator had both the Vorlage of
the Greek of the fifth centuries and the text of the Targum in front of him for
this verse. The Targum of the seventeenth century
is reading the same as the Greek of the fifth century in the variant where it
is not reading "my God" but only "God". At some point in the transmission
history of this verse, not only was there a misreading of characters but also a
double entry. The variant could have originated in the following phases:
Phase one (correct original) misread of some characters due to
illegibility Phase two omission of last word due to
haplography Phase three Phase two and three could have been at
the same time and was the basis for the misreading in the Greek of the fifth
centuries. The handwriting of this manuscript was not good at the area of
"my God" for there were problems in this area also by the Syriac and
the Targum. uncertain correction of misreading
above by addition Phase four harmonizing of suffixes and addition
of "our" Phase five This was the basis for the Syriac
translation. a decision to retain only one of the
two entries and to add "Israel" according to the Masoretic Tradition Phase six This was the basis for the Targum
translation of the seventeenth century.
There are two lines of thinking that
we can follow according to this scenario: either the mistakes entered into
Hebrew copies in the transmission history or, alternatively, the translators
used the same Hebrew manuscript as the consonantal text of the Masoretic
tradition but that they made reading errors (half reading etc.). To entertain
the idea that they consulted each other and that errors entered their
translations through cross-mutation is an excellent idea for one verse, but the
problem is that it is not consistent. The bottom line is: who translated like a
drunk fly getting out of an alcohol invested bottle in circles over the
versions and picking up variants in all colors and shapes ad hoc from any
version with no concern for the form of the text at all? To explain this
situation for one verse, namely the cross-mutation theory, is wonderful
"Einsicht" or insight, but surely is empty of "Perspektiv"
or perspective. As the late prof. Charles Fensham, a student of Albright but my
teacher used to say: "Hulle het die bome gesien maar nie die bos nie"
(they saw the trees but not the forest). The editors of the BHS want (prp =
probably) to change the preposition to "unto" but that is not
necessary and to be very frank, pure speculation based on no textual,
translational, or version evidence. The prediction is that when they receive
the executive judgment that they will cry out: "My God, we know you, we
are Israel". There is a parable in the gospels of people coming to say to
the Lord in the day of reckoning: "Lord didn't I cast out demons in your
name?" and He will say to them: "Go away, I do not know you".
This is the same emotion that is at stake here. The verdict of God on Israel's
spiritual condition is that they rejected good and an evil enemy would come
(verse 3). "Israel rejected good, an enemy will pursue him." The Targum interpreted it
homiletically and is way off the text of the Hebrew original of Hosea:
"The house of Israel went astray from my worship because it was in
poverty. I will send over them the good. From now the enemy shall follow
them." There is no promise by God of good that will be sent. The Targum is
patching evil up to look good here. The Targum text read apparently the
same Vorlage as the Greek translation of the fifth century CE but it divided
the next verse later than the Greek namely after two more letters were pulled
back into this verse giving the reading "them". The Greek of the
fifth century read here an extra two letters in the initial part of the verse,
but then it must be remembered that it also omitted "Israel" from the
last part of the previous verse. Could it be that the letters were so illegible
at this part of the verse that the Greek read "Israel" as
"because"? Even if this theory would uphold, then it means that in a
later stage the Targum reader or another copier decided to keep the
"because" but to restore the omitted "Israel" existing in
the consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition in the previous verse. Jerome
who could have used the same manuscript as the Greek did not read it the same
way simply because he could see the correct reading either in a second
manuscript that he consulted or he simply guessed the letters correctly? Israel rejected the goodness of God
and the result is that an enemy will pursue him. We know that Israel was
particularly inclined to be orientated towards Aramaean political powers, but
that with the upsurge in Assyrian power, they will suffer after 734 BCE. A few
verses further this prediction was carried out. Hosea was by now a man of about
47 years old when this event occured. He was warning Israel about this problem
for the past nearly 20 years of his life. These were the years that Pekah was
the king of Samaria and he followed in the sins of Jeroboam I which features
prominently in the list of sins that Hosea is complaining about. In verse 4 the Lord is complaining
that they have engaged in setting up the monarchy king after king without
consulting God. They made idols and worshipped them. "They, they have set
up kings but not from me. They have made princes and not did he notify me.
Their silver and their gold they made unto them idols so that he may be
cut." God rejected the calf they made at
Samaria (verse 5). "He rejected your calf Samaria. My anger is kindled
upon them. Until when can they not be innocent?" The ad mty: "Until when"
question was used also by the prophet Daniel in his prophecy in Daniel 8:13-14.
Here the third person singular is the Lord Himself. He has rejected the calf of
Samaria. It is not a continuation of the previous third person singular in the
previous verse. There is a fluctuation here of an indirect speech and a direct
speech, of a third person singular to a first person singular. We have
indicated that in Ancient Near Eastern historiography this was a common
phenomenon and also the fact that some of the material of Hosea's book could
have been recasted by himself in his old age. Retelling the story could cause
him to fluctuate and add "explanatory footnotes". God's anger is
kindled upon them. They are not innocent anymore and the question is asked:
"until when can they not be innocent?" This question "until
when" is one that features prominent in Daniel 8:13-14. In that verse it
was asked by a divine being. The question was how long will that
which is predicted to happen in the vision lasts? In Daniel 8:14 an answer was given as
to the dating, but in Hosea there is no time periods given. These idols of Samaria is predicted by
God to be broken in future (verse 6). "Therefore from Israel, and he, his
workman made it and not God is he, for pieces it shall be, calf of
Samaria." It appears in this verse that Jerome
switch two Hebrew characters around (an error known as metathesis). He thus
translated with a preposition "in". A word is read differently by
Jerome. The second error that occured in this
verse was of course the misreading of a /tav/ where it should have been a
/mem/. The targum reader read the above
metathesis example from Jerome the same as a variant as the Greek translation
of the fifth century CE. This probably indicates that this area in the Hebrew
manuscript was illegible and they all consulted the same Hebrew manuscript. The
Targum read the letters for "God" differently and translated it as
"worthless". Two groups are addressed in this
verse: Israel is condemned for his idols. Samaria receives the prophecy of the
breaking of the calf. They will not be innocent since it is from Israel that a
workman was assigned the task of making their idols and the workman was not
God. The result of this workmanship is that it is a purely human construct and
they are calling those objects their god now. It will be in pieces. This calf
of Samaria will be in pieces. This verse is typical of the way one would expect
a person of 90 years will speak. The thoughts are not necessarily coherent. It
is erratic and jumping back and forth. There is no need to improve the text or
read it otherwise. Our task is to understand the prophet the way he speaks and
under what constraints he is speaking. We have to understand him, 87 years old
or not. Evil works this way that if one sow
small the results are big and destructive in a wider sphere (verse 7).
"For a wind they have sowed and a whirlwind they will reap. Standing is
not for him a stalk. Not shall he make a bud. If so it makes, strangers will
swallow it". In 190 CE the Old Latin translator
called the wind they sow a "corrupt wind" = corrupta vento. Jerome in
389-403 removed the "corrupt" of the Vetus Latina in his Vulgate
Latin translation. The later Jewish Targum translator translated: "The
house of Israel is like he that sows to the wind and reap confusion". The form of the Targum text in this
verse gives us an understanding to the kind of misreading that could have
resulted by the Greek translator. The letters of the Targum of the seventeenth
century as it is in Walton's polyglot and the misreading in the same section
for the Greek translator of the fifth century a word of the Hebrew original
became something else for the Greek translator of the fifth century. With
metathesis and letter-confusion it is possible to see how the Greek translator
could have misread the characters in this area. Did the Greek translator of the
fifth century consult an Aramaic Targum Vorlage? The meaning is not the same
but we don't know whether the copiers of these manuscripts could always
understand what they were copying and whether the process became just a
mechanical "nine to five job" that must be done so that they can go
home? Did a copier of the Greek Vorlage consult an Aramaic Targum causing the
changes in the reading? Some would like to make it just a translation technique
but we must remember that a translation technique is only applicable when all
other cases are ruled out. It takes more time to investigate a variant as a
Vorlage possibility than a translation technique and that is why modern
scholars prefer to just allocate variants to translation techniques. That
means, keep versions away from each other and treat them separately. This
method will not always work. There are cases where all the versions went
bananas on a particular word and nearly in all cases the variants share the
same Hebrew characters in different word order. Is this just coincidence that
the translation differences just happen to be the same Hebrew characters? I
don't think so. Illegibility of a shared Hebrew manuscript is behind this but
even if this is the case what puzzles me is why are not all the variants shared?
If it is cross-mutation, why is the cross-mutation eratic and non-consistent?
The eratic non-consistent character of the variants is a big headache to me. It
seems to me we are working with the tip of the iceberg and that the process far
below is more complex than we think. The Aramaeans are like a wind and
Israel had good relations with them. The problem was that Assyria came against
the Aramaeans like a whirlwind. There would be no harvest and if there is
strangers would take it. The result is that Israel is
swallowed-up and they are among nations like a vessel with no desire in it
(verse 8). The Old Latin said the vessel is "useless" = inutile but
Jerome changed the reading in Latin later to "unclean". The Old Latin
read almost the same as the Targum with "like a vessel of which there is
no use in it". The Targum did not follow the variant
of the Greek and the Latin at the end but this variant of these two
translations from the same or nearly the same century cause us to rethink the
situation as an origin of a variant due to translation technique per se. It
seems as if both had a manuscript at hand that was illegible at the last two
words and furthermore seems to have been written with continuous script for
Jerome (as so often) connected the letters differently (see the contrary in
Johann Erbes, The Peshitta and the Versions: A Study of the Peshitta Variants
in Joshua 1-5 in Relation to Their Equivalents in the Ancient Versions. Acta
Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 16 [Stockholm: Elanders
Gotab, 1999] 52):“The assumption that the Hebrew text was of scriptio continua
can, with the Qumran material now at hand, no longer be generally
maintained.”Johann Erbes was my teacher at Andrews University and was excellent
in his linguistic abilities. This is the year in which
Tiglath-Pilezer came and many parts and cities of Israel was taken. As we will
show in the next verse, there are many times that Israel was swallowed up by
Tiglath-Pilezer, in 743 BCE, 727 BCE and Israel was also swallowed up in 721
BCE by another Assyrian king. Hosea lived through all these troubled times. He
had the ability not only to predict, but to experience and then to reflect on
both the prediction and experience. It is possible that verse 9 dates
between 743-731 CE "For they, they went up to Assyria. A wild ass unto
him. Ephraim has hired lovers". Origen in 240 CE read that "Ephraim
loved gifts". The Coptic translation is "Ephraim has given gifts to
his lovers". The case of the variant with Jerome
deserves attention. One can argue that it is just his translation technique to
be tautologous in entering two translations for one Hebrew word, but that would
not solve the problem. Is it just coincidence again that the two words that he
entered happened to have the same Hebrew characters? Is it Jerome's translation
technique to imagine other similar Hebrew words and then to translate them
also? I don't think so. This reading of "gifts" is
also shared by the Greek translation of the fifth century CE. Here Jerome and
this Greek translation of the fifth century CE are the same. Again just
coincidence? Cross-mutation? It is a mystery why the Targum of the
seventeenth century misread the Hebrew at another area in the text. The Targum
shares with the other versions the addition of the prepostion /l/ to the word
"Assur" to read "to Assur". The Syriac translator shares the
omission with the Targum and also the comparative particle that is attached to
"wild ass" namely "like a wild ass" but then mostly follow
the reading of the Greek of the fifth century CE. Did the Syriac translator use the same
Vorlage as the Greek here and a similar Vorlage as the Targum had for this
verse borrowing from both? One can say that he was using the same Hebrew
manuscript that was used by the Greek translator of the fifth century CE but
was the Syriac translator the introducer of the comparative particle
"like" and the omission of the preposition /l/ meaning "to
himself"? What is amazing is to see the mosaic
in the variants of each versions, sometimes agreeing with one, two or all and
sometimes running its own course. Scholars would like to see this as follows:
when they agree, it is due to cross-mutation. When they disagree, it is due to
translation technique. This approach is too simplified and cannot answer all
the problems. Jerome for one, was very insistent to translate the Hebrew
literally as opposed to the Greek of the fifth century that was not done
literal enough in his opinion. The two points of translation technique and
cross-mutation cannot answer some of the variants of Jerome. The appearance of
variants in the same text zone is also a situation that cancels the above two
considerations especially when the word displays the same Hebrew characters but
in different order in the word for each of the versions in the retroversion
section of our analysis. The Israelites went up as captives to
Assyria. They were like a wild ass unto Assyria. On the big relief in the
throne room of Sennacherib displaying the captivity of Lachish, the donkey is
very prominent in one of the sketches. Of course the donkey is only carrying
belongings but it is part of the great trek to Assyria. Sennacherib ruled from
707 BCE from Babylon with his father and from 705 BCE out of his own accord at
the death of his father. This iconographical piece is thus too late for Hosea
to draw any parallels for. It could be that the donkey in such captivity scenes
were prominent and vivid. In 1892/1876 BCE in the 6th year of Sesostris II, a
total of 37 Asiatics visited Khumhotep III (an Egyptian official) bringing
stibium (alimony) for khol (eye shadow). The leader has an Amorite name Abishar
and is called a Hyksos or "ruler of a foreign country". It is the
famous Beni Hasan relief (see K. van Wyk, "The Archaeology of Jacob to
Egypt until the Exodus" in Archaeology in the Bible and Text in the Tel
[Berrien Center, Michigan: Louis Hester Publications, 1996], 57-74, especially
60-65). According to biblical chronology, Joseph died in 1880 BCE, and
according to the latest Egyptian chronology, the Beni Hasan relief dates twelve
years before the death of Joseph (old reckoning) and three years after the
death of Joseph (new reckoning). When the animosity against Amorites in Egypt
started according to the evidence in the Berlin and Brussels execration texts,
Joseph was already dead. Exactly thirty years after the death of Joseph the
enslavement period started in Egypt in which Israel had to work very hard. It
is on that Beni Hasan relief that we also see a donkey used by these
West-Semitic traders. Working with two iconographical extremes like this it is
thus not farfetched to conclude that the donkey was a prominent part of
transportation in trading in the Ancient Near Eastern context. Even in Africa
we still have the joke/idiom when someone works very hard in carrying something
by saying: "You need a donkey or a secretary". Ephraim is accused as hiring lovers.
We know that Ahaz seeked the help of Assyria in 727 BCE against the
Aramaeans. Sixteen years before this
incident a disaster strucked Israel when Tiglath-Pilezer III came against some
cities of Israel in 743 BCE and he deported people from Gilead and Galilee and
all of the land of Naphtali to Assyria (2 Kings 15:29). This is the time
"Israel was swallowed up" (Hosea 8:8) and they were dispersed among
the nations. They were "an undesireable vessel". Israel went up to Assyria in 743 BCE
(Hosea 8:9) and they were a "wild ass" unto Assyria. In this verse
the description of Hosea jumps sixteen years by saying that "Ephraim has
hired lovers" referring to the pact that was made between Pekah and Rezin
of Aram or Syria around 731 BCE. Hosea 8:9 should be seen as a descriptive
comment of Hosea giving explanation to the words of the Lord that continue in
verse 10 again in the first person. We cannot separate Hosea's words and the
verbatim words of the Lord as human words as opposed to divine words. The total
scripture is the Word of God and He took care of it even when Hosea
commented. Even though they are taken by force
among the nations God is willing to gather them to give them another chance but
they will still suffer some burdens due to their attitude (verse 10). Atheists
will cry whether God cannot just leave them alone. The answer is, no. He
created them perfect, many things went wrong. He died for them to bring them
back to perfection. So He has a right twice to not giving up ever. "Also that they are given among
the nations, now will I gather them and they shall sorrow a little from the
burden of the king's princes." If one looks at the variants among the
versions one can see that the Latin and Targum had problem readings at the same
area. Nearly all of these versions share the variant of the inclusion of the
waw-copulative at the end before "princes". Jerome reads one word in
the original again double. It means that he either translated it twice or his Vorlage
really read it that way. If it is his translation technique then this is
another example of a double translation for a single entry. The letters of the
manuscript that the Targum used was very poor since at two places different
words were read with nearly the same characters. Surely this is not done on
purpose although the Targumist is elaborating in his own way exegeting on
phrases throughout his translation. From an exegetical point (in our view) all
the versions made a mistake in the addition of the waw-copulative since the
application of the "king" is Jotham but the "princes" is
firstly Ahaz (and other probably sons of Jotham?). Jotham was good and Ahaz was
bad. The origin of the suffering is not from the king but from the princes and
that is why there is no waw-copulative. If there is an "and" between
the king and the word for princes it will mean that they both equally share
responsibility for the suffering incured upon the people but the historical
text of the book of Kings and Chronicles only places the responsibility upon
the prince Ahaz. This is a verbatim uttering of the
Lord and Hosea is quoting it as he received it. Hosea has supplied the detail
of past experiences in Israel and Ephraim and thus the listeners or readers can
now understand the verbatim words of the Lord better by knowing that He is
referring in this instance to a time after 743 BCE at which date "they are
given among the nations" to another time closer to 727 BCE when they were
to be brought back "now will I gather them" (Hosea 8:10). This
"now" in the text refers in all probability to a time shortly before
the 16th year of Jotham king of Judah (who was apparently a good king 2 Kings
15:34 'and he did the straight thing in the eyes of the Lord'). The text
continues to say that they will suffer a little from the king's princes. The
king was good but the princes were bad. Ahaz's reign is counted from his
father's 10th year and it was in his (Ahaz's) eighth year that he became sole
ruler and appealed for help from Assyria. Ahaz was very young (20 years old)
when he started to reign as crownprince with his father. We are not sure
whether Jotham had other sons too and probably he did since Hosea is talking in
this verse of "princes". Jotham lived to see the year 727 BCE and in
our calculation Ahaz made war with Rezin and Pekah even when his father was
still alive, that means a time before 731 BCE. During the siege of Jerusalem in
729 BCE that followed in this dispute of Ahaz with the Israelites (when Ahaz
was about 23 years old), many people suffered for the Judean people in Elath
was driven out of the city (2 Kings 16:6). This uttering of the Lord is
probably made in 732-731 BCE when the dispute started. The suffering (729 BCE)
is fully described in 2 Chronicles 28:5-8. A large number were taken to
Damascus. 120 000 Judean soldiers were killed. We know that Ahaz had at least
three sons since he offered one as a sacrifice, and during this war with Syria
described here, his son Maaseiah was killed. 200 000 Judean women and children
were taken to Samaria. Hezekiah the third son of Ahaz survived and was a good
son of Ahaz. The "king" is Jotham and the "princes" is at
least Ahaz [and other sons of Jotham?]. The historical entry about Jotham in 2
Kings 15:34 and 35 contains positive data but also a very negative footnote
that the shrines and worship of images continued. It is our understanding that
this footnote is against Jotham but that the actual activities were carried out
by the newly appointed crownprince Ahaz who started at the age of 20 to rule
with his father in the year 734 BCE. During the years 734-731 BCE Ahaz
participated in the erection of these practices since the resulted dispute with
Syria and Israel in 731 BCE is described as a punishment for such practices by
Ahaz. That is why Hosea refers to "suffering" by the "king's
princes" and that is why the historical account in the book of Kings has a
negative footnote interspersed in the description of the reign of Jotham. The
chronology of the Hebrew Kings we have discussed at length supra in the
Introduction section of this commentary. Ephraim's problem is that they never
learned from their mistakes. They multiplied idol altars (verse 11). "For Ephraim multiplied altars.
To sin is life to him. Altars unto sin." The Septuagint did something strange
to the end of the verse. It translated "altars they loved". This
phrase is then repeated at the end of the next verse as a plus to the original
text. Plusses at Qumran cannot help to establish the reliability of a text. It
does not mean that if Qumran agrees with the Septuagint that one must now
change the Masoretic text to align with those texts. The date of the placing of
these scrolls in the caves are not ipso facto established. There are too many
problems. On the other hand the dates and differences in the Greek manuscripts
calls for an alert. Cross-contamination must first of all be ruled out before
one can make any decisive claims. In more than fifty years of research on
Qumran that has not been done effectively. It is a challenge still ahead and
not likely to be reached. Jerome did not read the Septuagint way here. He
translated the last part as "arae in delictum". Delictum is
"sin" and his translation is the same as ours. The misreading of the original for
"to sin" at the end of the verse by the Targum is interesting. The
letters of the Hebrew word was misread as
in Aramaic which is another word in Hebrew. All the versions had problems with the
reading of the last word. Is this again a case of cross-mutation when they are
all reading variants at the same place but each one differently with sometimes
no correlation in the Hebrew characters between any of them? It seems rather
that they all consulted a Hebrew manuscript that was illegible at this part of
the verse that gave rise to many variants. Since so many Hebrew manuscripts do
exist that they all could have consulted it seems that this particular
illegible Hebrew manuscript had some famous and popular "cloud"
around it that they all felt they are obliged to try to read it in particular
as opposed to other available possibilities. Altars were multiplied in the cult
centers of Ephraim which include Bethel. It is known that Ahaz had a special
interest in the altar of Tiglath-Pilezer III that he erected in Damascus, but
he made the replica for the temple in Jerusalem and one cannot connect Ephraim
to this event. The description is very telegraphic and in short style. It is
almost the speech of an old man who is suffering from shortness of breath. If
this particular sentence was recorded by a writer who listens to the prophet
speaking at his senior age then he is recording what he hears. Short sentences
by an old man out of breath. This verse opens with the causative
particle "because" going back to the reason for the
"suffering" mentioned in Hosea 8:10. Why do they suffer so severe as
is said in the previous verse, is now explained in this verse. Hosea 8:11
refers back to 2 Chronicles 28:1-4 cf. 2 Kings 16:2-4. This is a biographical statement about
the life of Ahaz which is no different in these historical books on the Kings
of Israel and Judah. The old sources supported what Hosea was saying. The only
difference is that Hosea was predicting and recounting before and during the
very event and these events were then recorded by palace and temple personnel
which were later used in the composition of the book of Kings and Chronicles.
The scribes of Kings and Chronicles are looking at events that happened
already. Hosea is looking at events that will and is happening. In Hosea's case
he does not refer to the king's name directly. In the books of Kings and
Chronicles the king's name is mentioned directly. We interpreted this time of
the making of the altars as before the war in 731 BCE thus between 734-731 BCE. God has revealed Himself to them about
His law and its greatness but they considered the law as something strange
(verse 12). "I have written to him, its greatness, my law. It was
considered like something strange". The Lord said that He has written to
Ahaz about the greatness of His law but those preceps were considered as
something strange. In our interpretation the law in this verse refers to the
Ten Commandments as is recorded in Exodus 20. Ahaz has broken the first two of
the ten commandments by making images of idols and altars of the heathen gods.
He worshipped to them and broke the second commandment. All the commandments
are inter-twined so that if you break one you break all of them. For an artist
to make an image or statue or replica of anything that comes to his mind is not
in this category of the first commandment. It is when art lovers and people
start to communicate to these art pieces with a fever of sentimentalism and awe
that the zones of danger are crossed over. The young singers here in Japan
appear on the stage from the rising smoke, fires, lightning, and all kinds of
visual effects dressed in a fashion keeping to the theme of their kind of music
and the content of their music. They want the crowds to be in a frenzy of
howling, jumping, shaking and chanting "out of themselves" in awe
inspiring impression about their own singing "idols" as they call
them here in Japan. We have to keep perspective what is a truely vertical
experience and what is a horizontal experience. At times they appear to be the
same and they can be confused for the same. It is an awesome responsibility to
face people and be in a position to influence them with one's words and deeds.
Unless that person is born again with the Spirit of God, humble in His grace,
unselfish in his pursuit, the crowds will be fascinated by his eloquent
niceties and deceivingly drawn away by their own imaginations. Even if it is a
preacher for God, he can be an idol of worship. Any worshipper who sighs when
he sees who is preaching that Sabbath as opposed to another favorite preacher
whom he prefer to listened to, has crossed the danger zone mentioned above. If
the worshipper must be exited by the speaker, must be attracted by the speaker,
must be emotionally controlled by all kinds of technical support, then that
worshipper is only worshipping an idol, a preacher idol. When Ahaz saw the ten commandments it
was as something strange to him. The ten commandments is the Law of God. It is
the Law of the Lord. They convict people of sin. Someone who is breaking one of
the ten commandments and knows it, will rationalize the effects of the other
nine also. It will seem strange to him/her. But when the Spirit of God takes
control in the life of the worshipper, the worshipper can see his/her sin
clearly and humbly begging God for grace and forgiveness will find it and stand
up again. The more the person comes to God the more the person will realize
his/her own imperfections. The person will feel that he/she is a breaker of the
law but the freedom from that feeling is a daily submission to the grace of
forgiveness. Even if nobody can point anymore against any commandment that the
worshipper is breaking, to the point of not breaking anything, the worshipper
will still feel inside that something is broken for the relationship spirals up
to God. It is eratic and wild and wide in the beginning but the deeper it goes
with God the smaller the circles of the spiral in a never ending pattern of
grace and forgiveness until the righteousness of God will rain from heaven at
the end of times and all imperfections will be made perfect. The cycle of human sin and suffering
is clear here in the life of Ahaz: the young man Ahaz sins in many ways between
734-731 BCE. Grace approached him with the ten commandments to convict him from
sin. Someone wrote it or copied it for Ahaz visually because Grace desired to
imprint it upon the heart of Ahaz. It was to Ahaz like something foreign. Ahaz
was so full of himself that he couldn't see any meaning in it. His rejection of
it shut out the opportunity Grace gave him to repent. The very ten commandments
that was to be his prompter to Grace now became his accuser in an executive
judgment scene. Ahaz had to suffer for his sins and punishment was meted out by
God for him in 731 BCE with the dispute of Israel and Syria. Coming back from a short spiritual
detour we have to say that the style is that of an old man out of breath. We
will not follow the editors of the BHS who want to delete the pronominal-suffix
at the end of the noun to follow the reading of the Septuagint and the Syriac
translation. The Syriac reader was reading a Hebrew
Vorlage since the next error could only have occured in a Hebrew context. He
came to the end of the line and since it was written in scriptio continua or
continuous script he or someone in the copy process of the Hebrew manuscript
that he was using read the first word of verse 13 as if it belongs to verse 12
but misread the Hebrew characters from the original. If a Hebrew copier made
the mistake at an earlier stage preceding the Vorlage that the Syriac was using
then it could mean that a certain copier made a double entry of the Hebrew word
in the form that resembles it. In our understanding the second entry was so
illegible that another copier copied it as something different. At this stage
that Hebrew Vorlage fell in the hands of the Syriac reader and either the
letters of the previous copy phase was misread by himself or a Hebrew copier
misread those letters one phase before him (Syriac reader). This is not a case
of translation technique or exegesis nor of cross-mutation from other versions.
We need to make some qualifications here: the word dbry or "words"
exists only in Hebrew not in Aramaic. However, the word in verse 13 of the
Hebrew text is always in Syriac and Aramaic in the form ????. This form is even
closer than the Hebrew form to the variant. Does this mean that the Syriac
reader was surrounded with a Hebrew manuscript similar to the consonantal text
of the Masoretic tradition plus a Hebrew manuscript with Qumrannic
characteristics similar to the Septuagint plus an Aramaic text that also served
the Targum of the seventeenth century? Was this double entry in the Aramaic and
did the Syriac reader made the mistake when he just for a moment consulted what
he at that moment by mistake thought was the Hebrew text when it was indeed the
Aramaic text? Did he see the double entry with the first one very illegible
thinking that it is the Hebrew word. This last possibility seems very plausible
at this case. Aramaic and Hebrew scripts are the same and in a hurry one can
make such an error especially if one is surrounded by a number of manuscripts
to consult. In the next verse the Greek translation read something extra in the
beginning of the verse of which at least two characters could resemble the last
two characters in this word of the Syriac included here at the end of verse 12.
The Greek added in verse 13 at the beginning of the verse the words
"therefore if". A very interesting double reading in the Hebrew
Vorlage of Jerome's Latin translation can be found in the beginning of verse
thirteen. Suddenly everything falls into proper perspective. The origin of the
Syriac reading is then in the fact that the Syriac translator was using a
similar Hebrew manuscript as that which Jerome had in which there indeed was a
double entry of the root "word" substituting the root
"offering" in the original. Lets look at the structures in the Latin,
Syriac and the Greek here: What this means is that in the same
area of the text the Latin Greek and the Syriac are sharing some problems in
the same zone of the reading. This variant is particularly insightful since it
is now understandable where the Syriac got its reading of "my words"
of at the end of verse 12. He read the same Hebrew manuscript that Jerome was
using reading the root dbr twice subtituting the root zb?. This area in the
Hebrew manuscript was somewhat illegible but that the copier did enter the word
twice and substituted one word in the original. The Greek translators of the
fifth century CE probably consulted the consonantal text of the Masoretic
tradition here and kept to a conditional format "if" which was also
used by Jerome translating in the same century. This Hebrew Vorlage had typical
Qumrannic characteristics in the copy errors that one can see. Here is thus a
number of errors by the copiers and translators: 1. misreading of Hebrew characters 2. double entry of words 3. substitution of roots 4. misdivision of the end of the verse
or the beginning of the next. If one reads the translations other
than in this commentary, it is not so easy to see these connections but we have
consulted alternative translations for example the word in Latin adfer in verse
13 which does not only mean "offer" but also "speak" and
the root for "speak" and "word" are the same in semitic
languages which finally led us to see the connection with the Syriac version's
addition in verse 12. There is one variant that all the
versions share and that is the omission of the pronominal suffix
"its" of "its greatness". Many modern scholars use this
vote count to decide how to change the Hebrew text and like that editors of the
BHS with their incomplete information they agree similar to the lower register
of the BHS in this verse to follow (only the Greek and the Syriac!) in leaving
out this suffix. Lets look at the issue. What must we do when we are confronted
with a variant in the versions that all agree against the reading of the
consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition? Change it? God forbid. If the
Qumran material did not contain a text that is 100% the same as the consonantal
text of the Masoretic tradition I would have been a strong contender to
"pick and choose" with an eclectic method a "better" text.
But, the absolute precision over more than a millenium in this tradition as
opposed to the flaky and swinging condition of the other versions definitely
places the other versions in a secondary position. Some of the Greek readings
can be found in the Qumran material but only minor phrases occasionally and
then not always with exactitude. The same can be said about the Vulgate and
Syriac and Targum with varying degrees of correspondence but none of them get
even close to 50% correspondence. The evidence speaks for itself. And despite
the evidence you still find scholars pushing for the importance of one or some
of the versions. Hermann-Joseph Stipp is one who pushes for the superiority of
the Greek of Jeremiah over the Hebrew of the Masoretic tradition. The true
philosopher Edward Heppenstall once said that the Word of God cannot be decided
by the opinion of scholars or the voice of the majority or the vote of a
committee. It is the Word of God by itself. Sinful habits continued in against
God's promptings to stop, leads to God "not accept them". In verse 13
Hosea continues saying: "Now will He remember their iniquity and He will
visit their sins. They themselves shall return Egypt." Notice how the later Jewish Targum
recoiled the text to take an action away from the Lord and put it in the hands
of Israel. It is for the Targum scribe not that God does not accept the
offering rather than that Israel has no desire for it: "They shall offer
distress that is plundered. They shall offer flesh and they shall eat, and
before the Lord not is their a desire in them. Now he shall return their sins and
let loose their iniquities. They themselves shall return to Egypt". The Septuagint manuscripts are adding
some words at the end to the original, namely: "and in Assyria they will
eat unclean things". This is an attempt by the translators of the Septuagint
or their copyists in the Middle Ages to harmonize the text in accordance with
what is known elsewhere in the same book. In this case they have taken a
similar phrase in Hosea 9:3 and conflated it with this verse and aligned it
subsequently. We do not even know if it was corrupters to the Septuagint that
did this conflation of data. The original Septuagint that we do not have could
have been very much similar to the Vulgate text form but shortly after 100 CE
it was corrupted? resulting in the attempts by private translators like
Theodotian, Symmachus and Acquila to rescue the situation. Given also the fact
of anti-semiticism prevailing at certain times during this early period and
also the power struggle of the Roman empire and the Christian Church, this theory
is not impossible (see the research of Franken in the Victorian Age on the
Septuagint). The current Septuagint that we have seems to have had translators
that reserved for themselves the right to add, delete, transpose, harmonize,
make explicit what is implicit, identify what is not clear. The disagreements
in the many Greek manuscripts at various points makes it impossible to come to
a clear understanding of what the original Septuagint read. J. Wevers said that
he does not live under the illusion that the Gottingen edition that he has help
to create is in any way the real Septuagint. Before we can give any positive
value to the Septuagint we need to clarify the following situations: 1. it was
not a careless translator; 2. there was not a misreading (human error); 3.
there is not genre differences; 4. there is not an attempt to give a
dynamic-equivalence translation; 5. that the word division were not changed; 6.
that there is not evidence of Aramaisms; 7. that there were no exegetical
considerations in the translation process; 8. that there were no
harmonizations; 9. that there were no contextualizations. Only then can one
assume the presence of a Vorlage different than the Masoretic consonantal text
that has legitimization to change the Masoretic text. Unfortunately,
impossible. The reason that Jerome started to use Hebrew manuscripts in
Bethlehem was his concern on the state of the Septuagint. He did not add these
words that the Septuagint is doing here in his Latin translation. The Syriac in this verse used a Hebrew
manuscript with many problems. It is not uncommon to find similar kind of
problems in manuscripts discovered at Qumran. The problems in the Hebrew
Vorlage consulted by the Syriac in this verse is related to the problem in the
initial zone of the verse that all the versions share here, but in the other
additions and changes it stands alone. Nearly all the versions read their own
way the major variants in the beginning of this verse. There is one semantical
connection between the Vulgate with hostias and the Syriac in the first that is
worth noting. However, the other problems of the Syriac is not found in the
Latin. What makes a translator like the Syriac follow the consonantal text of
the Masoretic tradition, follow at times the Hebrew Vorlage that the Septuagint
had, follow at other times the Hebrew Vorlage that the Targum had, and even use
the same Hebrew Vorlage that Jerome used but then suddenly used a very
defective Hebrew Vorlage? It leads us to the consideration that the translator
of the Syriac had at least five Hebrew manuscripts around him. One can argue
for translation technique in this verse but if so is the break in consistency
due to the switch in translators? Did a second translator come to continue the
work with a more free translation technique than the previous translator in the
Syriac of the same chapter? It is a misconcept to try to change
the original text as if it is reading the first person. A fluctuation in
persons is a normal phenomenon in the historiography of Ancient Near Eastern
literature (see A. Kirk Grayson, "Assyria and Babylonia" Or 49/2
[1980]: 140-194, especially 165-167). Examples include the 30th and 31st years
of Shalmanezer III on the Black Obelisk a century before Hosea's text. The
editors of the BHS stands under severe correction here. The narrative art of
people in modern times illustrate well how a person can fluctuate from using
the direct speech of a person he/she is impersonating with the usage of the
first person singular to an indirect speech using the third person singular. To
smooth out and harmonize the text is to fall captive of the same methodological
errors that one can find in the Greek manuscripts of the Septuagint. The Lord
will not accept their sacrifices that they offer to Him. As punishment for
their sins they shall return Egypt. The original text does not read any
preposition here but all the versions tried to add a preposition in their
translations before the word "Egypt". The text just reads "they
shall return Egypt". It does not read "in Egypt" or "to
Egypt" or "unto Egypt". What this means is that sometimes when
countries are in negotiation with each other the diplomatic representatives are
visiting the court. When something embarasing happen these diplomats return to
their own countries. That is what is meant here. We know that in 730 BCE Ahaz
seeked help from Egypt during the time of Sheshonk V, in vain (see our comments
at 5:13 and again at 7:11). We also know that they received help from Tirhaka
the king of Egypt in 688/9 BCE (K. van Wyk, "Black Presence in Israel in
the days of Isaiah: Tirhaka the Ethiopian" in Archaeology in the Bible and
Text in the Tel [Berrien Center, Michigan: Louis Hester Publications, 1996],
281-297, especially 289-290). Hezekiah died in 686 BCE and we are not told that
Hosea lived longer than his reign (Hosea 1:1). We must remember that 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. As we have pointed out about the date of the
Syro-Ephraimite war, it was in the year 731 BCE which is the third year of Ahaz
counting as crownprince but not sole ruler. It was in 730 BCE that Ahaz seeked
help from Egypt for this suffering that came over them in our interpretation of
events (using the book of Hosea to fill in gaps in the history of the Kings).
Sheshonk V could not help them and he died in that year. In later years some
settlements like Elephantine would house many Jews but that was after the death
of Hosea. This is a rehearsal of events between
734-731 BCE when they were offering to images and idols. The words "they
themselves return Egypt" means that during these years of their sins a
conflict started in 731 BCE with Syria and Israel and that in 730 BCE they
seeked help from Sheshonk V. The diplomats came but Sheshonk V died and they
(Ephraimite court) had to send them back themselves. Judgments are sent by God against
Israel and Judah for they forgot the Lord their God (verse 14). "And Israel shall forget their
maker and he shall built temples and Judah shall increase cities in rocks and I
will send fire in the cities and I will devour their palaces." It is amazing how all the versions
follows in this verse very close to the consonantal reading of the Masoretic
text. It seems as if they have consulted what was available in translation and
original and when the translations and Hebrew Vorlages were illegible or run
apart, they felt that they have a license to make their own decision coming up
with a further variant and or a new reconstruction and or a new composition. In
this verse they all kept to the consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition
which seemed to be the guiding line or principle all were to follow? Does it
mean that the superiors told their copy scribes or translators the following
rules: 1. Follow the consonantal text of the
Masoretic tradition when the versions agree and there are no apparent problems. 2. If the versions display differences
and the Hebrew manuscripts have similar problems, use your own discression. Unfortunately we do not know if this
was the case. These rules we only deduct from our own modern investigation of
the nature of variants. Compare Hosea 8:14 with verse 13 and verse 12. It seems as if this verse could be a
continuation of the last part of the previous verse. The meaning would then be
that Israel would seek refuge in Egypt and settle there and built temples. At
Elephantine temples were indeed found during the Persian period. Judah is said
that they will increase cities in rocks. God will send a fire there and will
devour their palaces. During the war in 729 BCE much destruction resulted and
this verse should be seen as part of the description of the results of the
Syro-Ephraimite war with Pekah of Israel and Rezin of Syria. In 2 Chronicles
28:25 it reads that Ahaz built shrines in every city of Judah. The Philistines
came and raid the cities of Judah and took possession of many of them during
his time as a punishment for his deeds.
Dear God How many times you tried to bring us
under Your protection and like Israel of old we also keep running our own ways.
Enough is enough and so we want to stay steadfast in You knowing that with You
is all our blessed future. In Jesus Name, Amen.