Hosea 1:10-11

PROMISE OF A GLORIOUS RESTORATION, Hosea 1:10 to Hosea 2:1.

With Hosea 1:9 chapter 1 closes in the common editions of the Hebrew Bible. The division of the English Bible found also in some Hebrew texts, in LXX., Luther, Calvin, etc. is certainly unfortunate, for Hosea 1:10 to Hosea 2:1, belong close together. But scholars have long disagreed as to the exact relation of these verses to Hosea 1:2-9, and Hosea 2:2 ff., since the transition from Hosea 1:9-10, and also from Hosea 2:1-2, is exceedingly abrupt. Some make Hosea 1:10 to Hosea 2:1, the continuation of Hosea 1:2-9, regarding Hosea 2:1, as the close of the first section; others feeling that the promises of Hosea 1:10 to Hosea 2:1, following immediately upon the threats in Hosea 1:2-9, would take from the latter much of their force, regard the verses as the beginning of the second oracle, which would then begin with a promise (compare Isaiah 2:2-4, a promise followed by threats in Hosea 2:5 ff.). But this does not relieve the situation, for the transition from Hosea 2:1-2, is at least equally abrupt. As a result, some scholars, seeing in the verses nothing that would militate against the authorship of Hosea and yet recognizing their loose connection with the context, think that the verses have been misplaced. Steiner, Cheyne, and others would place them after Hosea 2:23, A.B. Davidson after Hosea 3:5. The former find some support in Romans 9:25-26, where part of Hosea 1:10, is quoted immediately after Hosea 2:23. This, however, is not conclusive, since Paul might quote verses in any order he chose. The objections to the transposition theory, raised by Nowack, Marti, and others, rest, in part at least, upon misinterpretation of Hosea 1:10-11, and are of little weight. The transition from Hosea 2:23, or Hosea 3:5, would undoubtedly be smoother; but, if the verses were transposed, how, why, and when did it happen? The reply that a later age sought to break the sting of the prophetic denunciations by rearranging the prophecies so that each would end with a promise of a brighter future rests upon mere assumption, and cannot be considered satisfactory. The most recent commentators, Wellhausen, Nowack, Marti, and Harper, take Hosea 1:10 to Hosea 2:1, to be a later exilic or postexilic addition, made for the purpose just suggested. If so, the later writer must have followed and imitated Hosea very closely, for the verses are clearly dependent in thought and mode of expression on Hosea 1:2-9. All one can do is to state the case and the views held; which is the correct one it is impossible to say with any degree of certainty, since the data, indecisive themselves, will appeal with varying force to different readers. So far as the contents are concerned, Hosea might be the author; abrupt transitions are not infrequent in the book; indeed, they are one of its chief characteristics. On the other hand, we know very little about the collection of prophetic oracles into books, and it is not unlikely that later additions were made to separate oracles, as well as to whole books, though one may not be ready to go in this matter to the extent to which some modern commentators are inclined.