Hosea Through Three Lenses: Classic Commentaries Compared

Monday, August 8 Santa Clara University

David Penchansky
University of St. Thomas
St. Paul, Minnesota

In what ways does a biblical commentary become a classic, or for that matter, what
makes a commentary dated, having outlived its usefulness? Is there a sense of
progress, in which later work builds on the earlier? Or do we see an Oedipal
conflict, where we murder our Doktorvater? In order to begin my own interpretation
of the Book of Hosea, I decided to examine closely three foundational
commentaries. From the Hermeneia series, the commentary from Hans Walter Wolf
(German edition, 1965, English edition 1974). From Old Testament Library, James
Luther Mays (1969), and the Anchor volume from David Noel Freedman and Francis
Anderson (1980).1 I stayed aware of some contemporary work on Hosea to
triangulate, but I wanted most to see what these venerable scholars might teach
me about the Book of Hosea, and of course, I learned also about twentieth century
biblical scholarship, its insights and limitations.
Three main issues come up consistently in all three commentaries, and they each
have been recently questioned in contemporary Hosea scholarship:
1) The unity of the book
2) That an eighth century prophet named Hosea wrote the book (or
substantial portions of it)

1 Anderson/Freedman and Mays quote Wolf scores of times, sometimes for support
of an interpretive position, sometimes as a foil, but always as their prime
conversation partner.
1

3) That the sexual promiscuity of Hoseas wife is related to the religious

practices taking place in the bare temples and shrines. 2
First I will describe the contents of the Book of Hosea. Then I will examine how the
three commentaries address some of the major interpretive issues in the book.
Finally, I will make a few summative observations.
I.

The Contents of the Book of Hosea

On a purely descriptive level, the Book of Hosea consists of two macro-sections.

The first, chapters 1 through 3 include two or three loosely and problematically
connected narratives. The second, chapters 4 through 14, consists of a series of
prophetic discourses connected by a number of major themes.
At the beginning of the book is a preface or colophon 3 which identifies the author.
The word of the LORD that came to Hosea son of Beeri, in the days of Kings
Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah of Judah, and in the days of King
Jeroboam son of Joash of Israel. (Hosea 1:1)
These two, Hosea and Beeri, are otherwise unknown. Whoever placed this
introduction at the beginning meant the reader to read the whole as having been
written by this otherwise anonymous figure, Hosea, who gives name to the book.
Whoever added this brief introduction, also gave the reader temporal cues as to
when this Hosea lived out the events of his marriage, and when he gave the
2 In 1-3, Gomers promiscuity blends in with Israels religious promiscuity However, when
the narrative moves into Israels religious promiscuity, it is no longer about sex, but about
worship of Baal, idolatry, and in 4-14 are added diplomatic promiscuity, (Assyria or Egypt),
and promiscuity regarding kings.

3 Or superscription. Wolf and others see this as a later addition by a Judaic

redactor. P. 3
2

messages embedded in chapters 4 through 14. A series of kings are mentioned,

corresponding to kings ruling in Israel and Judah in the middle and late eighth
century BCE.
The second part, chapters 4 through 14 has no overriding structure. Certain parts
seem to gather under a particular theme, for instance, unlawful sexual activity, the
worship of Baal, the corruption of the monarchy, the false security of foreign
alliances, glimpses of divine hesitancy and self-doubt, threats of destruction and
promises of redemption, personal attacks on unnamed individuals, and reflections
on sacred history (all over the map!). This prophetic discourse defends the purity of
Israelite worship. The prophet accuses the people of worshipping Baal and idols
instead of Yahweh;4 He further accuses the Northern monarchy of being
illegitimate5 and condemns the leadership for seeking alliances with Egypt or
Assyria.6
Spiritual promiscuity is the major link between the two macro-sections. In 1 through
3 the wifes unfaithfulness to her marriage serves as a symbol: . . . for the land
commits great whoredom ()
( zanoh tizneh) by forsaking the LORD. (1:2)
Likewise, in 4 through 14, Israel is described as a promiscuous woman. . . . they
4 . . . the god Baal is the foil of most of Hoseas sayings. . . [he] adapts the motifs
and rubrics of the fertility cult to portray the relations of Yahweh and his people.
(Mays, p. 8) I think rather a tension between two ideas one that Baal is
competitive, the other is that Baal assimilates with Yahweh, or perhaps, Baal and
Yahweh were always assimilated, and are only now dividing. See also
Anderson/Freedman, p. 5.
5 Wolf things Hosea condemns whole Israelite monarchy. Anderson/Freedman
thinks just the house of Jehu. (Anderson/Freedman p. 184)
6 adulteries. . . zenumim is somewhat ambiguous. .. sexual activity. . sexual
misbehavior that violates the bonds of marriage [definition of promiscuous and
adulteries]. (Anderson/Freedman, p. 224)
3

have forsaken the LORD to devote themselves to whoredom (( ) zanut). (Hosea

4:10) This is what the two sections have in common, and likely why they were
joined. However, there is no place in 1 through 3 that accuses Gomer, Hoseas wife,
of the worship of Baal. Hosea 2:8 might suggest otherwise. Yahweh says:
. . . it was I who gave her the grain, the wine, and the oil, and who lavished
upon her silver and gold that they used for Baal. (2:8)
Two diferent pronouns (she and they) both refer to Israel, building statues of
Baal. They do not refer to Gomer.
And further, there is no place in 4 through 14 that alludes in the smallest way to
Gomer, or to the prophets marriage, or to their children.
II.

Interpretive Issues
A. Gomer, Wife of Promiscuity

God commands the prophet to marry an

, a wife of promiscuity, and have
children of promiscuity (( ) yeldai zenunim). The phrase
might mean:
1) A common prostitute, that is, one who peddles her sexual favors in order
to survive.7
2) An adulterous wife.
3) A cult or temple prostitute8
4) A woman obligated by social custom to have sex in the temple with a
priest or worshiper on or before her wedding night.
For some reason, never stated, (but I have my suspicions) it is quite important for
the authors of all three commentaries to establish that when the prophet marries
Gomer, she is not at that moment sexually promiscuous. The three commentaries

7 Wolf, pp. 34-35 He says The mother is denounced as a prostitute who chases
men. His hold on the sacred prostitute interpretation appears to slip now and
then.
4

then move on to other possible meanings of the word. In addition to these four I
mentioned, they suggest:
5) That she was promiscuous before, but no longer is, but might revert.
6) That she is not promiscuous but God knows that she will be promiscuous
at some future date.
Their argument is, God commanded Hosea to marry a woman with indications in the
direction of promiscuity, or perhaps a woman perfect in every way, but God knows
she will stray, or she was that way in the past but not now, although she may (will)
relapse in the future. (Anderson/Freedman, p. 159) 9
They conclude that Hosea married a virtuous woman, a virgin, who may or may not
have ofered her virginity at the Temple in some kind of Baal cult. (Mays, p. 26)
But according to the three commentaries, she was neither a prostitute nor
promiscuous when he married her. They have no evidence of this, none, except
their sense of the impropriety of Hosea marrying a promiscuous woman. (Mays, p.
25)
8 Wolf, p. 82. He later takes his fancy further stating that, all refer to that initial act of
intercourse in the sacred forest. (p. 86) See also Anderson/Freedman, p. 159: These
epithets describe a womans relationship to her husband . .. describes a wife who becomes
promiscuous, not a prostitute or promiscuous woman who becomes a wife [not convincing] .
.. [wife of contention]: Their argument is: God did not command Hosea to marry a woman
known to be promiscuous. God commanded him to marry a woman with indications in that
direction, or perhaps a woman perfect in every way, but whom God knows she will stray, or
she was that way in the past but not now, although she may (will) relapse. . . married . ..
violated her marriage vows . .. identification of the lovers with Baal or Baalim suggests
involvement with or participation in the fertility cult [not necessarily if Hoseas behavior
symbolic. .. . issa zona [but same root] . . never a common streetwalker . .. zona and qedesa
[Znwnym parallel with word for adultery. Therefore it refers to someone already married.
(Anderson, Freedman, p. 159, 171)
9 Chapter 3 can be accounted for as an attempt to remedy the tragedy described in cc 1-2
. . by way of anticipation . . . no slur on wife or children . ..If Gomer were already involved in
Baal ceremonies before her marriage, her condition would resemble that of Israels remotest
ancestors, who served idols on the other side of the River . . Gomer was not promiscuous
when Hosea married her. (Anderson/Freedman, p. 165)

The children are described as children of promiscuity (( ) yeldai zenunim). The

obvious understanding is that if they are born to a promiscuous woman, they are
bound to be children with serious doubt as to their biological father. Once again,
this obvious reading makes uncomfortable our four commentators. They suggest
rather that Gomer is a worshipper of Baal. According to this narrative, she looks to
Baal to make her fertile. She becomes pregnant with Hosea the father, and
attributes her pregnancy to Baals blessing. Because she is a zenunim, the children
are (though Hoseas biologically), children of promiscuity 10 because their mother
saw them as her reward from Baal because of her activities in the Baal cult.
(Anderson/Freedman, p. 250)
There is a fundamental avoidance on the part of all three commentaries of the plain
fact that in the narrative of chapter 1, God orders the prophet to marry a
promiscuous woman.
Go, take for yourself a wife of whoredom. (Hosea 1:2)
He marries her, and she apparently continues her promiscuity in the marriage, and
thereby produces children of promiscuity, that is, children who are conceived as a
result of her promiscuous activities.
The commentators cannot allow a moral God to command a follower, no less a
prophet, to marry an unfaithful or promiscuous woman, so they look for ways to
10 Their interpretation is that children of promiscuity means children whose mother at a
certain future time would be promiscuous. When I say it like that , it sounds silly.] fatal Peor
incident which looms large in Hoseas mind . . We should not infer from this brevity that
there was any doubt that Hosea was the real father of the child . . .Jezreel was a bastard . .
.children of promiscuity . . .there may have been some doubt about their paternity. .. they
are not a safe guide to common custom . . The bizarre names served as messages from God
to be elaborated and explained by the prophet. [analysis of name Jezreel]
(Anderson/Freedman, p. 172, 228) They seem to really believe that illegitimacy inflicts a
taint to the children. And that a mothers subsequent behavior does in this case taint the
children. In the eyes of God? Of the society? Of the author?

make it something diferent. They go to great lengths to avoid the central conceit
of the narrative, that God orders the prophet to do something unthinkable.
B. The Relationship of Chapters 1 through 3 to 4 through 14
Briefly summarized, chapter 1, after the introduction, describes a man who marries
an
and bears children gives them symbolic names, signifying the doom
of Israel. Chapter 2 portrays divorce proceedings, which finally result in a
reconciliation.11 Chapter 3 describes a husband seeking after his wife who has
deserted him. He buys her back from her current owners, keeps her in a restricted
environment until the hoped for restoration takes place. The third story connects
with the earlier events because it begins with the word , again, implying that
this is happening a second time. (Anderson/Freedman, p. 293) 12

13

Each of the commentaries, with subtle diferences, argues for a common structure
to the Book of Hosea that unites the two parts. In 1 through 3 the wife leaves her
husband and sleeps with other men. This becomes the touchstone for the written
11 This would be illegal according to Deuteronomic law (Deut 24:1). (Wolf, p. 36,
Mays, p. 30, 37; Anderson/Freedman, p. 218.
12 Possible interpretations include: A sequential reading, with only one wife in which
chapter 1 portrays his marriage, chapter 2 his divorce and short reconciliation, and chapter
3, reconciliation after desertion and enslavement. Two remaining interpretations include
another sequential interpretation, with two women instead of one, and finally a synoptic
interpretation, in which the three accounts are three variant version of the same story. A
corollary of this would suggest that at one point a common ur-story produced these three,
subsequently combined by a later editor, adding the to connect them. The
commentators tend to see the stories sequentially, thus bolstering the final editors eforts
to connect them in a unified narrative. So the three stories of a prophet and his family can
be read (with some efort and gap-filling) sequentially. Alternatively, they may be read
stereoscopically as in the four Gospels -- n this case, three linked versions of the same story.

13 In the first three chapters there is no connection of Gomers sexuality in

connection with Baal Canaanite sex rites. None. Even Anderson/Freedman admit,
There is no evidence that the allegory of cc 1-3 receives any attention in cc 4-14.
(p. 472)
7

admonition to unfaithful Israel. Likewise, in 4 through 14 the Israelites

unfaithfulness is described using words from the same root, znh, promiscuity, to
describe the transgression. This root links the two parts.
For a spirit of whoredom (
( ) ruah znunim) has led them astray./ and
they have played the whore, (( )vayiznu) forsaking their God. (4:12)
They are all adulterers (
( ) nafim) . They are like a heated oven. (7:4) 14
However, these commentators go further by connecting the accusations of spiritual
unfaithfulness in 4 through 14 to Gomers sexual unfaithfulness in 1 through 3,
(even though the prophets wife is not mentioned at all in 4 through 14). They
connect Gomers unfaithfulness to lurid Canaanite sex rites. 15
In chapter 4, and only in chapter 4, is there the suggestion that people had sex in
the course of the worship in Israel.
I will not punish your daughters when they play the whore ()
( tizneynah),/
nor your daughters-in-law when they commit adultery (
( tnafnah);/ for
)
the men themselves go aside with whores ()
( tazonot),/ and sacrifice with
temple prostitutes ()
( haqdeshot). (Hosea 4:14)16

14 Out of 14 chapters, seven describe Israels sin using the terms whoredom or
adultery. Three are the first three chapters, and the remaining four
15 Notice, they used for Baal, not she.
16 Wolf p. 38. The first association of foreign worship with sex is the Baal Peor
incident in Numbers 25:3. The people began to have sexual relations with the
women of Moab. These invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the
people ate, and bowed down to their gods. Baal Peor is mentioned elsewhere in
the Book of Hosea. (Wolf, p. 165; Mays, p. 131-134; Anderson/Freedman, pp. 18,
387-388, 542)
8

The word translated as temple prostitutes is ( qedeshot), literally holy

women. In the Book of Deuteronomy, the qedeshot are condemned, their role in
the temple proscribed:
None of the daughters of Israel shall be a temple prostitute (
)
( qdeshah)
; none of the sons of Israel shall be a temple prostitute ()
( qadesh). You
shall not bring the fee of a prostitute (( )zonah) or the wages of a male
prostitute (( ) kelev) into the house of the LORD your God. (Deut 23:17-19)

( qdeshah) is parallel to the common word for prostitute, zonah ,17 and the
male form ( qadesh) is parallel to ( dog), a derogatory term for male
prostitute.18
(Back to Hosea.) The prophet describes the people as having sex with the
qedeshot. He connects this with their sacrifice.
The men go aside with whores (tazonot) and sacrifice with qedeshot.
In 4:18, there the prophet also connects acts of worship to sexual activity.
Ephraim is joined to idols. When their drinking is ended, they indulge in
sexual orgies ()
[ hoznay hiznu.]19
And in verse 19, They shall be shamed because of their sacrifices. 20
17 The root zny . .. Greek porne . .. zana describes every aspect of sexual misconduct t . . .
bet zona . . not a brothel, but the home of a married woman. .. zana . .. only one used to
describe professional prostitution. . [They make a strong distinction between zonh and
znym. (p. 160)

18 Wolf rejects interpreting qdsh as male prostitute, seeing it instead as a

majestic plural referring to all the Israelite people. (p. 210)
19 . See 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46, 2 Kings 23:7; Deut 23:17 for evidence
for sacred prostitution.
9

The writer brings together drinking, sex orgies and sacrifice in one event. It seems
absurd, but these commentators believe it is somehow more honorable if Gomers
promiscuity has a religious edge, even though they along with the prophet
thoroughly condemn the sex rites.21 The three commentaries read chapter 4 back
into 1 through 3, making Gomer either one of the ( qdeshot), understood as
sacred prostitutes, or else in some other way they participated in the sacred rites.
Here is the verse again, 4:14:
I will not punish your daughters when they play the whore,/ nor your
daughters-in-law when they commit adultery;/ for the men themselves go
aside with whores,/ and sacrifice with temple prostitutes. (Hosea 4:14)
The prophet does not connect the daughters and daughters-in-law with the cult.
Rather, they are having indiscriminate sex.22 They cannot be blamed for this
however because their elders are doing worse, having sex in the Temple with the
qedeshot. (Mays, p. 72) The Book of Leviticus decries such tolerance. It says,
when the daughter of a priest profanes herself through prostitution ()
(liznot), she profanes her father. She shall be burned to death. (Leviticus
21:9)
According to our commentators, because there is an explicit reference to sex rites in
relation to worship in Israel in chapter 4, every reference to worship in the rest of
20 See Wolf, p. 216 where he connects Jacob laboring for a wife to Canaanite sex
rites.
21 Similarly, in Genesis 38, Hirah, Judahs friend, seeks to reduce Judahs
embarrassment by asking for a qedeshah rather than a zonah, although the
narrator says that when Judah saw Tamar, he thought she was a zonah.
22 This is Anderson/Freedmans interpretation (p. 397) priests permitted their
daughters to prostitute themselves with zarim . . .
10

the book must necessarily relate to sex, and every reference to Gomers
promiscuity must be an indication of Baal worship. They read the entirety of the
prophetic discourse (4 through 14) through the lens of chapter 4, and so all
references to worship, sacrifice, and idolatry, are reduced to sex rites. It only
remains to determine the exact nature of all that sex, all the salacious details, and
in that, our commentators excel.
In more contemporary works, serious questions have been raised as to the exact
nature of the ( qdeshot) in Hosea 4. Feminist biblical critics have found two
chief flaws in identifying these words as sacred prostitutes. First, there is no
definitive references to sacred prostitution in non-biblical texts until Herodotus
(484-425 BCE), fifth century BCE. Second, uses of words similar to ( qdeshot)
in cognate languages contemporary to ancient Hebrew, suggest non-sexual
meanings, priestess or wise woman. The word is holy with a feminine ending. 23
However, parallels between qdeshot and variations on the root zanah suggest a
sexual component to Baal worship in the accusations of the prophet in chapter 4.
C. The Distinction Between Canaanite and Israelite Religion24

23See especially of M. Arnaud, La Prostitution sacree en Mesopotamie, un mythe

historiographique? RHR 183 (1973), 111, on the academic study of sacred prostitution.
He argues that the supposed ancient practice was a historiographic myth. (Cited in Yee, p.
197) Yee goes on to say, Scholarship and women have sufered immensely in the hands of
academics who are unable to imagine any cultic role for women in antiquity that did not
involve sexual intercourse. Akkadian texts describe a number of cultic and other meanings
for the qadistu wet nurse, midwife, cult singer, archivist, and even sorceress none of [p.
89] which implies cultic prostitution. Yet the word qadistu has erroneously been translated
as female prostitute on the basis of a misreading of the Hebrew qedesa. (p. 88)

24 These sweeping commentaries, highly detailed, occasionally contain significant

contradictions. For instance, in one place Mays insists that Baal worship might
have been an intrinsic part of Israelite religion. He says,
11

The commentaries in their analysis of chapters 4 through 14, paint a consistent

picture of two distinct religions, an authentic, Israelite religion and a Canaanite
nature religion.25 The Israelite religion is characterized by a rigid, aniconic
monotheism, both moral and modest. The Canaanite religion is characterized by
excessive devotion to formal ritual, while at the same time subject to sexual
excesses.26

The Canaanite worship, in this narrative, is associated with the name

Baal. There is, however, a deliberate confusion of these two religions within the
biblical text. In some places, Baal, and in the plural, Baalim, are portrayed as gods
rival to the Israelite God, Yahweh.
. . . they kept sacrificing to the Baals,/ and ofering incense to idols. (11:2)
He [Ephraim] incurred guilt through Baal and died. (13:1) 27
Baal means Lord or Husband, perhaps with an emphasis on authority. Chapter
2 indicates that it has been a designation for Yahweh, a practice the prophet wants
to stamp out
On that day, says the LORD, you will call me, My husband [ishi
] ,
and
no longer will you call me, My Baal [baali ] . (2:16) (Mays, p. 48)

25 This is contradictory, I realize. Wolf, p. 84, 88-89. See also Mays, p. 142. He
gets his facts right (that Israelites assumed Canaanite cult sites with little change)
but his conclusion is all wrong that it diverges from authentic Yahwism.
(Anderson/Freedman p. 244) state that Baal and Yahweh cults in Israel were
similar.
26Wolf calls it a fertility cult, (p.xxvii) Canaanites tried to get by rituals, Israel was able
to get by obedience to Yahwehs commands; cf. Hos 4:6 [standard accusation of the less
liturgical to the more liturgical]. . .to secure income by such means. . .Hos 4:13 [similar to
Jeremiah 3] . . Canaanite religion appealed to everything that was vile in human beings.
[this is wrong and nave] (Anderson/Freedman, p. 232)

27 The only other two occurrences of Baal have already been mentioned, 2:10 and
4:14.
12

On that day calls for some distant time. In this day, that is, contemporary to
Hosea, it has been acceptable to call Yahweh Baal.
For the commentaries, Ishi and Baali represent completely diferent symbolic
systems, alien to each other, in other words, diferent gods, with distinct rituals. In
2:16 these names represent alternate ways of addressing Yahweh. 28 The Israelites
actually did not understand themselves as worshipping other or alien gods. Rather,
they thought they were worshipping Yahweh, or Baal Yahweh, that is, Lord Yahweh,
or husband Yahweh. The prophet however, accuses them of worshiping other gods.
(Anderson/Freedman, p. 216)29
The two religions had much in common. Baal worship looked to Baal as source of
fertility. (Anderson/Freedman, p. 340) Hosea claims that Yahweh is the only
source of fertility, and that because of their unfaithfulness, Yahweh will cause nature
to be unfertile.
Therefore the land mourns,/ and all who live in it languish;/ together with the
wild animals
and the birds of the air, even the fish of the sea are perishing. (4:3)
Therefore, in terms of their relationship to nature, the religion of Yahweh and the
religion of Baal look very similar. The diferences that Hosea points to seem
hyperbolic and polemic, portraying the Canaanite-type worshippers following empty
28 The diference is assumed in the names, but the diferences in the name are not
plain to the contemporary reader. They both can mean husband. Husband of
whom? Of the worshipper? Of some unnamed goddess? Or just husband as
some masculine principle? Does Baal have more the air of authority, power over,
than does ish, which has more to do with gender? Or is that a distinction without a
diference?
29 The implication of this is either God does not receive their prayers for some
reason, or else they are praying to the wrong god. Yahweh and the great storm god
of Syria-Palestine. . . merging of identities. (Anderson/Freedman, p.2 78)
13

formal, insincere religious observance coupled with wild sex rites. And oh, do the
three commentaries delight in describing in excruciating detail their disapproval of
those sex rites.
Mays describes the sex practices of the Canaanites as having,
. . . bacchanalian character [He continues] Along with ritual drunkenness
goes the sexual perversion of the fertility cult; the harlotry is the literal
sexuality of the rites in which the holy prostitutes and occasional harlots play
a part. Wine and women in the holy place! Worship has become an orgy!
(Mays p. 78)
From Anderson/Freedman:
The combined use of sex, magic, and intoxicants in the Baal cult has
debauched and degraded the people, and the priest is responsible for it . . .
the cult provided the means for Israelite men and women to be promiscuous
together. Anderson/Freedman p. 365, 369)
Bernhard Lang, writing about sacred prostitution, described the scholars obsession
with imaginative details of the sex life of these early worshippers.
Ancient authors such as Herodotus and modern novelists and orientalists
even more so were obviously carried away by their erotic fantasies. Temple
prostitution belonged to what came easily to their daydreams packed inside
Oriental clichs: harems, princesses, princes, slaves, veils, dancing girls and
boys, sherbets, ointments, and so on. The modern as well as the ancient
East was associated with licentious sex, untiring sensuality, unlimited desire,

14

and deep generative energies; the Orient was a place where one could look
for sexual experience unobtainable in Europe. (Yee, p. 88) 30
Getting back to the main point, Hosea 2:18 (the Baali/Ishi verse) questions the
prophets construction of this binary narrative Israel or Canaan; Yahweh or Baal,
one pristine and one corrupt, one native Israelite and one foreign. Ample evidence
in Deuteronomic History lends further support to the assertion that Hoseas Israel
was not a pristine faith adulterated by a foreign element. (Anderson/Freedman, p.
326) In 1 and 2 Kings we find (usually from the perspective of the reformer),
examples of sacred poles in the temple, incense to the sun, and many other
practices subsequently designated pagan, or polytheistic. 31 It was simply the
common practice of ancient Israelites to do these things. Hosea represents a
reform movement trying to change everything in the guise of returning to the
ancient ways.32 Our commentaries have completely bought into this ideology. 33
However, by their extremism, the commentaries drain the prophets position of all
ambiguity, and make the distinction between Israelite and Canaanite, Yahweh and
Baal absolute. They see in the Hebrew Bible a consistent, profound rejection of
pagan religious ideas. (Mays, p. 152)34

30Yees comments are interspersed with Langs.

31 2 Kings 21:7, 17:10, 23:5, 11. See my Twilight of the Gods.
32 This was their way of introducing the relatively new idea of monotheism.
33 To understand Hosea, then, we must recognize that ancient Israelite religion had a
strong heritage in the Canaanite religion itself. . . what stands condemned as Baal worship in
Hosea . . . were, for centuries, accepted components of the worship of Yahweh. In other
words, Hosea condemns not Canaanite encroachment into Yahwism, but early Yahwism
itself. (Yee, p. 86)

34 Like biblical scholar Y. Kaufmann.

15

D. Hoseas Attitude Towards Women35

36

Now I will uncover her shame in the sight of her lovers, and no one shall rescue
her out of my hand. (2:10)
I will strip her naked and expose her as in the day she was born. . . turn her into
a parched land and kill her with thirst. (2:3)
In chapters 1 through 3, the picture of the prophet blends almost imperceptibly with
Yahweh, and therefore the writer portrays both as abusive husbands, who alternate
between lovingly reaching out on the one hand, and inflicting physical and
emotional abuse upon his wife, on the other. In chapter two the prophet threatens
to strip her naked in a public place, exposing her to shame and ridicule. In chapter
3, when the prophet purchases his wife back from slavery, he apparently imprisons
and isolates her.
And I said to her, You must remain as mine for many days; you shall not play
the whore ()
, you shall not have intercourse with a man (

) , nor I
with you. (3:3)
If the commentators attend to this at all, they express approval of the prophets
measures as appropriate to bring her to repentance and obedience. Even allowing
for the possibility that the biblical writer had Israel in mind, and not the prophets

35 Mays, p. 34, 35.

36 The marriage metaphor becomes an extraordinarily efective vehicle to communicate to
and reinforce in the prophets hearers the contours and demands of Gods covenant with
Israel: (1) that it is foremost an intimate, significant relationship; (2) that this relationship is
between unequal parties, a dominant and a subordinate; (3) that it involved reciprocal
commitments and responsibilities; and (4) that any violation by the subordinate of these
commitments and responsibilities will result in punishment. .. That the marriage metaphor
for Gods covenant presents interpretive problems for modern readers. . . by envisioning God
humiliating and physically punishing his wife to make her repent, the metaphor comes
dangerously close to sanctioning a husbands domestic violence against his wife. (Yee, p.
25)

16

wife, still, it represents a powerful deafness on the part of the commentators. They
seem oblivious to how the public humiliation, imprisonment and murder of a woman
is morally unacceptable. Listen to the cold and insensitive descriptions of the
commentators:
[Wolf says] By stripping her naked he indicates his own freedom from the
obligation to clothe her, a legal obligation the man assumes with marriage.
The husbands right to do this is stipulated by ancient oriental law. . . (Wolf,
p. 34)
[And from Anderson/Freedman] It is as a husband who still has claims on his
wife that he applies the various disciplines, and makes the appeals.
(Anderson/Freedman, p. 222.)
[And they further point out] The course of correlative action proposed, or
threatened . . . is not directed against the womans person, it is intended to
make her life more uncomfortable. (Anderson/Freedman, p. 241)
[And from Mays] Stripped and left naked, the wife will stand exposed to public
gaze, seen as a woman whose husband shames her in her folly. (Mays, pp.
41-42)
The commentators do not set out to endorse the abuse of women. Instead they
accept the basic moral high ground for both the prophet and Yahweh, so everything
the husband does must be moral. These four men, great scholars, were themselves
shaped in the patriarchal atmosphere of their upbringing. In a human marriage
however, Hoseas treatment of Gomer would be abusive and infantilizing. It does
not come from a place of love, but rather represents the intention to dominate. 37
37 More like Ezekiels adopted daughter/wives and the Levite and the unnamed Wolf. .
.naked body put on display as obscene. . . p. 249 Abuse of wife physical, emotional, forced
imprisonment, sexual humiliation. (Anderson/Freedman pp. 248-249; p. 117, 214

17

E. Judgment and Mercy

The Book of Hosea portrays God having deeply-held emotions and internal conflicts.
One of the commentaries (Anderson/Freedman, p. 117) suggests that much of the
content of 4 through 14 is actually Gods internal dialogue or soliloquy in which
Yahweh weighs options. It also presents some of the most violent and beast-like
images of deity.38
I will fall upon them like a bear robbed of her cubs,/ and will tear open the
covering of their heart;/ there I will devour them like a lion,/ as a wild animal
would mangle them. (13:8)
There is a stark conflict within the book between Yahwehs harsh judgment and
promises of restoration. Each commentary in its turn tries to harmonize the two.
How do we account for Yahweh expressing both forgiveness and judgment in the
same work? First, many earlier commentaries pointed to multiple authors and
editors, each having their say. 39 Wolf and Anderson/Freedman say, the explanation
is temporal, that is, first comes the inevitable judgment, then forgiveness. The
whole may be understood as I mentioned earlier, as an internal soliloquy where
Yahweh inhabits diferent possible reactions (Anderson/Freedman, p. 236) 40 Mays
suggests these are alternate realities, and Israel must make its choice. I suggest
that these are irreducible conflicts or tensions, that regardless of their origin or
source, now represent internal conflicts, seams and cracks in the Book of Hosea

38 For example,
39 It has long been noted that the final redaction of Hosea took place in Judah, long
after the destruction of the Northern Kingdom.
18

itself. This dissonance produces meaning that would be lost if one embraced one or
other position wholeheartedly.
III.

CONCLUSION

The commentaries have their diferences, but I note the similarities, the unity of
vision, which are far more prevalent. The commentators constructed a narrative
about the historical figure of Hosea, Northern prophet of the eighth century. They
work to fit the rest of the book into that narrative framework. 41

42

For Anderson/Freedman, . . . the book as a whole stems from one era, the eighth
century, and contains substantially the work of one prophet, Hosea ben-Beeri. . .
(p. 115) Mays exemplifies the quest for that in the book which is genuine Hosea,
which he determines, either thematically or stylistically. He looks for themes such
as sexual transgressions, worship of Baal, etc. or stylistic distinctives, perhaps

40Regarding the hopeful passages, some have questioned their authenticity. There are
clearly two fates in Hosea, and it is an interpretive puzzle as to how to reconcile them. For
Mays it is a short and long term future. After sufering the necessary destruction, only then
could they receive restoration. But why not two conflicting ideas juxtaposed to generate a
meaning that cannot be reduced to a single assertion? Even to say, the choice of which
fate is up to Israel does not capture the whole (Anderson, Freedman, p. 71) So for Mays
judgment is short term while restoration is long term. For Anderson/Freedman these are the
two choices for Israel to determine their future. So I would take it one step further and say
that the text is about this contradiction, that the contradiction produces meaning, rather
than saying that the positive prevails. These commitments collide and the collision tends
to an impossible situations. (Anderson/Freedman, p. 328)

41 I am aware that there are scholars who have seriously questioned the
interpretation of qedeshah as sacred prostitute. (I actually think it does mean
sacred prostitute, but for these three authors, there is no question.
42 . . . the children inevitably share the contamination of the mother, and hence
also share in the consequences of her sin [ugly sentiment] . . . there is no need to
suppose that this implies that the later children were illegitimate [why not?] . . the
question remains open . .. (Anderson/Freedman, p. 121)
19

representing a now lost Northern dialect, or perhaps a corrupt text, or perhaps we

have no idea.43
Each of the three commentaries, in their approach, accept the premise of the
Biblical Theology Movement of the 1950s and 60s, 44 that the religion of Israel is a
historical religion, based on the acts of God in history, such as the Exodus. The
Canaanite religion is based on the forces and cycles of nature. (Anderson/Freedman,
p. 206) In fact, nature never left the Israelite religion. The author of the Book of
Hosea represents a group that wants to rewrite the history of Israel so as to
expunge its so-called pagan roots. They were quite successful in shifting the entire
narrative to go their way.
The diverse parts of the Book of Hosea have now been arranged by some editor so
as to be read holistically. That is, we must read each part with an awareness of the
entire book. The authors did not worry about consistency or clarity. In spite of this,
or perhaps because of it, what rises to the surface in reading the Book of Hosea is a
binary on one side is God as the brokenhearted, but abusive, stalking husband,
and on the other, a God whose sloppy, indiscriminate love can and must overlook all
manner of unfaithfulness and rejection.45
Ultimately, biblical and Rabbinic scholar Abraham Heschels central thesis remains
after all these years that Hosea expresses the pathos of God, 46 that the theology
43 Hoseas marriage was originally good. (Anderson/Freedman p. 240). a certain
way to use prepositions. Mays, p. 47
44 See my Politics of Biblical Theology.
45 Hosea 11.
46 The Prophets.
20

of Hosea is (a) that God feels deeply the pain of separation from Israel, and (b) that
God is conflicted as to what to do about it.
In examining these old chestnuts, these three commentaries, I wonder, are we
building on their foundation, or must we reduce them to rubble in order to build a
new edifice. As with many things, the answer is, both and neither.

Hosea seeks

to make sharp and hard a division, what his surrounding culture makes soft, yielding
and cloudy. Hosea says that you either worship Yahweh or Baal. His audience
believed that you could worship both, or perhaps that they were the same.

21

Appendix
These are paragraphs and sections that I cut out of the paper to read it at
the Catholic Biblical Association. They are not edited.
Instead one finds cryptic references to place names with suggestions of dire doings
in those places. The commentators link them to paradigmatic events in Israels
past Gibeah,47 Gilgal48, Jezreel,49 or skirmishes and campaigns of the SyroEphraimite war, campaigns that only existed in the imagination of the interpreter.
Four geographic names are mentioned repeatedly with no explanation, the way
someone might say Dunkirk, or Galipoli, referring not to the place, but rather to
some historical event that took place there. You need not mention the event,
because everyone knows it and knows exactly what they mean. However, scholars
cannot agree on what they mean.
Jezreel The prophet refers to the blood of Jezreel, presumably referring to the
slaughter inflicted by the future king against the family of Ahab. But Jezreel also
mean, God sows. That is clearly in the prophets mind when he writes,

47 Wolf, p. 158. Mays observes, Gibeah has become a location in a geography of

the spirit. I see the connection of Gibeah with Judges or 1 Samuel as both arbitrary
and desperate. Im not saying that the references to Gibeah could not have in mind
the rape of the unnamed woman in Judges 19. Im just saying that other than the
use of the name itself, there are absolutely no details of the story mentioned or
alluded to. If the rape of the unnamed woman is intended: (a) there would have to
be some reason why the reference is so devoid of details; (b) it might have been
much more familiar to the audience than is reflected in the literary tradition of
ancient Israel. One expects foundational stories such as Exodus, Ancestors, to
appear in many contexts; (c) it could be almost as liley to refe3r to some other,
presently unknown association with Gibeah (or Sauls town). (Anderson/Freedman,
p. 535, 564)
48 Wolf, p. 167. He points to 1 Samuel 11:15 as the underpinning of the reference.
So all the people went to Gilgal, and there they made Saul king before the Lord in
Gilgal. See also Mays, p. 135-136.
49 Wolf, p. 54; Mays, p. 30.
22

and the earth shall answer the grain, the wine, and the oil,/ and they shall
answer Jezreel;/ and I will sow him (

) for myself in the land. (Hosea

2:22-23) (Mays, p. 53)
Gibeah It might refer to the time when all Israel came together to make
Saul king? Some see it as a reference to the murder of the unnamed woman at the
end of the Book of Judges. It could even be a battleground in the Syro-Ephraimite
war (Mays, p. 128; Anderson/Freedman, p. 401-2) Although all three commentaries
connect these passages with events of the Syro-Ephraimite war, and they even
invent campaigns back and forth where Judah captures territory, before Assyria
drives them back south. Even so, it does not fit what is known about the SyroEphraimite War from Deuteronomic history and First Isaiah. In the Book of Hosea,
Assyria still is seen as a possible ally. And keep in mind the persistent absence of
names.
Hosea mentions Gilgal. (Anderson/Freedman, p. 19) In the Hebrew Bible, the most
noteworthy thing that happens in Gilgal according to Mays is Sauls coronation. He
connects this by claiming that for Hosea, the institution of the monarchy was a
day of infamy. I disagree. For Gilgal to be such a horrible and disgraceful day that
everyone who reads it would immediately recognize that it referred to Saul strains
credibility. I think we have to say we have no idea to what he refers.
I.

The Liberal Protestant View of Hosea50

I noticed very quickly that the commentators very much and explicitly exposed their
social and religious location as midcentury liberal Protestants. Wolf, the first in

50 In Mays there is a hint of 1970s style new-agey, touchie-feelie talk of whole

purpose of justice is to restore the relationship. (P. 40)
23

print, ended each of his chapters with a pious Christological reflection, all of which
assumed that Christ was the fulfilment of all the yearnings and expectations of
Hosea. For instance,:
In this respect, 4:1-3 as a word of judgment is an Old Testament prelude to
the New Testament witness that Gods word establishes brotherly love, upon
which all existence is completely dependent. For he who does not have the
Son of God does not have life. (p. 69
The other two, in their criticism of the empty formalism of Israelite religion
criticized also by the prophet, one can see an implied criticism of high church
ceremonies. This certainly dates them when we read them in this more inclusive
era, but also it places them very much in the milieu of their own era and own
communities.51
It also leads to misinterpretation It is unclear the full extent of the prophets
criticism of Israelite religious practice does he criticize the object of their worship,
Baal instead of Yahweh? Does he criticize the mixing of alien practices into the
worship of Yahweh, sex rites, idols, or is the criticism against insincere worship? 52 A
key battlefield text over this issue is chapter 6, a ritual prayer of repentance:
51 . . . great and unexpected grace. (Mays, p. 51) See also Mays, p. 152 Like
Wolf, this commentary is Christological, but not obnoxiously so they see that the
finest in Hosea finds its culmination in the New Testament. Anderson/Freedman
describes the book as grounded in both law and love, very Lutheran. (p. 220) See
also Anderson/Freedman p. 444, 645)
52 .. treacherous unreality of devotion [nice phrase] . . .all too fleeting hesed. .. .empty
religiosity [He says form without reality and power, but what he really means is if one has
the form (in this case, sacrificial rite) it will inevitably be devoid of reality and power.
(Mays, p. 97) They try to separate the mode of worship (sacrifice, standing stones) from the
content (either sincere Yahweh or pagan Baal). The text itself problematizes this binary
sometimes Yahweh is Baal, sometimes worship criticized as insincere or selfish (but not
worship of a competing god. (For example, see Anderson/Freedman, p. 552)

24

Come let us return to the LORD, for it is he who has torn, and he will heal us/
he has struck, and he will bind us up, (6:1) 53
Expressing the confidence in Gods restoration, it goes on:
. . . his appearance is as sure as the dawn; he will come to us like the
showers,/ like the spring rains that water the earth. (6:3)
The next line, v. 4, seems to undercut the sincerity of the repentance: Your love is
like a morning cloud, like the dew that goes away early. (6:4)
In a section that seems to collect many disparate passages, are the commentators
(Wolf and Mays?) right to assume that v. 4 is meant to be a commentary on the
repentance of verses 1-3? The commentaries disagree. It is either a model of
repentance, or an arrogant presumption against the mercy of Yahweh. So for
Anderson/Freedman, for instance, their insincere repentance signifies their
dependence on detailed, outer forms and rituals without sincerity. The note, The
prophets who denounced a self-righteous arrogance and a calculated repentance
designed to trigger forgiveness rather than genuine sorrow and regret.
(Anderson/Freedman, p. 56)
So we have two passages juxtaposed with no connecting language between them.
One expresses seemingly heartfelt repentance and sorrow, and a strong confidence
in Gods coming to restore. Following, is a passage decrying the unfaithfulness of
Israel. A late editor might have put this second passage after the first in order to
undermine its faithful assertion. Once again, the tendency of these commentaries
is to take a possible, gap-filling reconstruction of an obscure text, and use it as an
53 Wolf sees this as false repentance. (p. 124) Mays for the most part sees it as a
positive liturgical pattern. (p. 93, 94. On p. 95 he hedges.)
25

interpretive key to the whole. Therefore, for Wolf and Freedman/Anderson, the
Israelite worship is not only heterodox, but also insincere, and further, by obsessing
on meticulous observances of the outward protocols of animal sacrifice, they lost
the inner meaning. (Mays, p. 122) This fits neatly with the Protestant critique of
high church emphases.54
However, most of the criticism of Israelite religious practices in Hosea have to do
with idolatry (kiss the calf the calf of Samaria) 55
With their silver and gold they made idols/ for their own destruction./ Your
calf is rejected,/ O Samaria./ . . . For it is from Israel,/ an artisan made it;/ it is
not God./ The calf of Samaria/ shall be broken to pieces. (8:4-6)
Alternatively, some have claimed (not the three commentaries) that the prophet
attacks the entire institution of ritual slaughter of animals. This fits nicely with a
free-church, bare-bones liturgy, where inward disposition completely trumps (rather
than complements or corresponds to) outward repetitive practice.
On one level, this Protestant, Christological reading of the Book of Hosea is quaint,
representing a certain moment in the history of English language scholarship. But
in another sense, it leads to some rather severe misinterpretations of the text. It
assumes (a) that one of Hoseas primary accusations against Israel is excessive
formalism, and (b) that indeed the practitioners of ancient Israelite religion were

54 True, the prophet criticizes the priests, but Mays language here brought of the current
religiosity betrays a readiness to tie in the Baalized religion of the Israelite priests to the
modern Catholic practice. Is Hosea a pre-Protestant? (Mays, p. 94)

55 . . .odious object . .at its centre, the bull in the sanctuary at Beth-awen . . opened
the door on pagan syncretism [I question his understanding of syncretism] . .
apprehension . . their endangered God [Isnt it still Yahweh?] (Mays, p. 141)
26

insincere.56 In other words, in this, as in many other cases, the commentaries

accept uncritically, without suspicion, the claims and characterizations about these
older religious practices, and in fact, the commentaries advocate for the claims
against these ancient practices.57

56 (Anderson/Freedman, p. 420) They argue against Wolf that the prayer was
sincere. They further argue that verse 4, which implies the Israels unstable faith is
poetically placed to create a chiasm, and not as a judgment on their prayer. (p.
426)
57 There are also elements of anti-Semitism in their Protestant interpretations. For
instance, Wolf says (p. 177) Israel if she refuses to let the death of Jesus, who was
obedient unto death, turn her from her own schemes and goals.
27