Hosea 9–10

Footnotes

1. 1 Heb “do not rejoice unto jubilation”; “Rejoice not … for joy”; “Do not rejoice … with exultation.”
2. 2 Heb “you have committed adultery”; “you have played the whore.”
3. 3 Heb “you love the wages of the prostitute” ( similar); “loving a harlot’s hire.”
4. 4 Heb “them”; the referent (the people) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
5. 5 Heb “her” (so , ). This is taken as a collective singular (so also most modern English versions).
6. 6 The deictic particle הִנֵּה (hinneh, “Behold!”) is used frequently in prophetic announcements, introducing a solemn or important declaration, particularly in threats of judgment ( 244 הִנֵּה b.β). Many modern English versions leave this particle untranslated here.
7. 7 The conjunction כִּי (ki) introduces a concessive clause: “Although, when, if, even if” ( 473 כִּי 2.c.β). It has a force approximating “even if” (so , , , , ), but it represents a situation as more likely to occur than אִם (̑im, “if”). The concessive use of כִּי is normally followed by an imperfect, but occasionally a perfect is used, as is the case here (e.g., Mic 7:8; Nah 1:10; Pss 21:12; 119:83).
8. 8 The verb קָבַץ (qavats, “to gather together”) should be nuanced “grab hold” in this context ( קבץ). This pictures a personified Egypt taking the fugitives prisoner.
9. 9 Heb “the treasured things of their silver”; , , , “treasures of silver.”
10. 10 Heb “their tents” (so , ); “your tents.”
11. 11 Heb “the days of the visitation”; , , , “the days of punishment.”
12. 12 Heb “has come” (בָּאוּ, ba’u). The two perfect tense (suffix-conjugation) verbs בָּאוּ (Qal perfect 3rd person common plural from בּוֹא, bo’, “to come”) repeated in this verse are both examples of the so-called “prophetic perfect”: the perfect, which connotes completed or factual action, is used in reference to future events to emphasize the certainty of the announced event taking place.
13. 13 Heb “the days of the retribution”; “of reckoning”; “of recompense.”
14. 14 Heb “has come”; “are at hand”; “is almost here.”
15. 15 The Aleppo Codex and Leningrad Codex (the employed for ) both place the atnach (colon-divider) after יֵדְעוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל (yedé’u yisra’el, “Let Israel know!”), indicating that this line belongs with 9:7a (cf. , , ). However, the reads κακωθήσεται (kakōthēsetai) which reflects an underlying of יָרֵעוּ (yare’u, Qal imperfect 3rd person common plural from יָרַע, yara’, “to cry”), as opposed to the יֵדְעוּ (yedé’u, Qal jussive 3rd common plural from יָדַע, yada’, “to know”). The Old Greek connects יֵדְעוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל (“Israel cries out”) with the following lines (cf. ), which appear to be quotations of Israel mocking Hosea. Aquila (ἔγνω, egnō) and Symmachus (γνώσεται, gnōsetai) both reflect the proto- tradition. For a discussion of this textual and syntactical problem, see H. W. Wolff, Hosea (Hermeneia), .
16. 16 Or “is distraught”; cf. , “are crazy.”
17. 17 Heb “the man of the Spirit”; , “spirit.”
18. 18 Or “is driven to despair.” The term מְשֻׁגָּע (méshugga’, Pual participle masculine singular from שָׁגַע, shaga’, “to be mad”) may be understood in two senses: (1) It could be a predicate adjective which is a figure of speech: “to be maddened,” to be driven to despair (Deut 28:34); or (2) it could be a substantive: “a madman,” referring to prophets who attempted to enter into a prophetic state through whipping themselves into a frenzy (1 Sam 21:16; 2 Kgs 9:11; Jer 29:26; see 993 שָׁגַע). The prophetic context of 9:7 favors the latter option (which is followed by most English versions). Apparently, the general populace viewed these mantics with suspicion and questioned the legitimacy of their claim to be true prophets (e.g., 2 Kgs 9:11; Jer 29:26).
19. 19 Heb “great.”
20. 20 The Leningrad Codex (the used for ) and Aleppo Codex both place the atnach (colon divider) after אלהי (“my God”) and connect נָבִיא (navi’, “prophet”) with the following colon. On the other hand, suggests that נָבִיא (navi’, “prophet”) belongs with the first colon. For discussion of this syntactical problem, see F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman, Hosea (), .
21. 21 The syntax of this line is difficult, and the text is questionable. The major options include: (1) Adopt the vocalization and line division: צֹפֶה אֶפְרַיִם עִם־אֱלֹהָי נָבִיא (tsofeh ’efrayim ’im-elohay navi’, “The prophet is a watchman over Ephraim with my God [= on behalf of God]”). There are two problems with this: (a) Although places נָבִיא (“prophet”) with this colon, the Aleppo Codex and Leningrad Codex both connect נָבִיא with the next colon (as do , ). (b) The phrase עִם־אֱלֹהָי (“with my God”) is difficult to explain. (2) Adopt the vocalization and the line division: עִם־אֱלֹהָי צֹפֶה אֶפְרַיִם (“Ephraim is a watchman with my God,” cf. ). The problem with this, of course, is that Ephraim hardly fits the description of a prophetic watchman. (3) Revocalize the and adopt line division: צֹפֶה אֶפְרַיִם עַם אֱלֹהָי נָבִיא (“Ephraim—the people of my God!—lies in ambush for the prophet”) This involves: (a) revocalization of the preposition עִם (’im, “with”) to the noun עַם (’am, “people”), (b) taking עַם־אֱלֹהָי (“people of my God”) in apposition to אֶפְרַיִם (“Ephraim”), and (c) nuancing צֹפֶה as “to lie in wait (=set ambush)” (e.g., Ps 37:32). This is contextually attractive and harmonizes well with the following line: “traps are laid along all of his paths.” However, it has two problems: (a) there is no textual evidence supporting the revocalization of עם as “people” and (b) the unusual nuance “to lie in wait” for צֹפֶה occurs only in Ps 37:32, where it takes the preposition לְ (lamed, i.e., “to lie in wait for the righteous”; צפה 4). (4) Emend אֱלֹהָי (“my God”) to אֹהֶל (’ohel, “tent”), as suggested in the textual apparatus: אֶפְרַיִם עַם־אֹהֶל נָבִיא צֹפֶה (“Ephraim spies on the prophet’s tent”). The verb צָפָה may mean “to spy” ( 859 צָפָה; צפה 3); however, the preposition עִם (’im) does not normally mean “upon” and צָפָה is not used with עִם elsewhere.
22. 22 Or “Ephraim is a watchman with my God”; cf. , .
23. 23 Heb “with my God” (so , ).
24. 24 Heb “bird trap of a bird catcher” or “snare of a fowler” (so ).
25. 25 Or “The prophet is like a trap along all of his paths.” The Aleppo Codex and Leningrad Codex ( used in ) both connect נָבִיא (navi’, “prophet”) with this colon. On the other hand, places נָבִיא (“prophet”) at the end of the preceding colon.
26. 26 Heb “house.” The term בַּיִת (bayit, “house”) is used as a figure of speech, referring to either (1) the temple or official sanctuaries (so , ) or (2) the land of Israel (e.g., Hos 9:15).
27. 27 Or more literally, “they are deeply corrupted.” The two verbs הֶעְמִיקוּ־שִׁחֵתוּ (he’miqu-shikhetu; literally, “they have made deep, they act corruptly”) are coordinated without a conjunction vav to form a verbal hendiadys: the second verb represents the main idea, while the first functions adverbially ( §120.g). Here Gesenius suggests “they are deeply/radically corrupted.” Several translations mirror the syntax of this hendiadys: “They have deeply corrupted themselves” (, , ), “They have been grievously corrupt” (), and “They are hopelessly evil” (). Others reverse the syntax for the sake of a more graphic English idiom: “They have gone deep in depravity” () and “They have sunk deep into corruption” (). Some translations fail to represent the hendiadys at all: “You are brutal and corrupt” (). The translation “They are deeply corrupted” mirrors the Hebrew syntax, but “They have sunk deep into corruption” is a more graphic English idiom and is preferred here (cf. “They have sunk to the depths of corruption”).
28. 28 Heb “fathers”; a number of more recent English versions use the more general “ancestors” here.
29. 29 Heb “their glory” (so ); “Israel’s greateness.”
30. 30 Heb “no childbearing, no pregnancy, no conception.” The preposition מִן (min) prefixed to the three parallel nouns functions in a privative sense, indicating deprivation ( 583 מִן 7).
31. 31 Heb “I will bereave them from a man”; “I will bereave them until no one is left.”
32. 32 The is corrupt in 9:13. The editors suggest emending the text to follow the reading. See D. Barthélemy, e.d., Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, 5:250–51.
33. 33 Heb “breasts that shrivel up dry”; cf. , , , “dry breasts.”
34. 34 Heb “out of my house” (so , , , ); , , “my land.”
35. 35 Or perhaps, following the plant metaphor, “will be blighted” ( similar).
36. 1 The phrase “to Baal” does not appear in the Hebrew text here, but is implied; it is supplied in the translation for the sake of clarity. Cf. “altars for idols”; “altars of their foreign gods.”
37. 2 Heb “he”; the referent (the Lord) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
38. 3 The referent of the 3rd person common plural verb דִּבְּרוּ (dibbéru, “they speak”) is the masculine singular noun וְהַמֶּלֶךְ (véhammelekh, “a king” in v. 3) which is used generically, representing all human kings of Israel to which the 3rd common plural verb refers. Although this is a bit syntactically awkward, it is not necessary to emend the to the 3rd masculine singular verb form דָּבַר (davar, “he speaks”) as the editors suggest. The , however, reads the singular form λαλῶν (lalōn, “uttering”).
39. 4 Heb “they speak words.” The cognate accusative construction דִּבְּרוּ דְבָרִים (dibbéru dévarim; literally, “they speak words”) is an idiom that means “they speak mere words” (so ; similar) or “they utter empty words” (so ), that is, they make empty promises (e.g., Isa 58:13; 180–181 דָּבַר 2). The immediately following collocated phrase אָלוֹת שָׁוְא (’alot shavé’, “swearing an empty oath”) confirms this nuance. The understood this idiom in the same way: λαλῶν ῥήματα προφάσειας ψευδεῖς (lalōn rhēmata prophaseias pseudeis, “speaking false professions as his words”).
40. 5 The two infinitive absolutes אָלוֹת (’alot, Qal infinitive absolute from II אָלָה, ’alah, “to swear an oath”; 46 II אָלָה) and כָּרֹת (karot, Qal infinitive absolute from כָּרַת, karat, “to make [a covenant]”; 503 כָּרַת 4), which appear without conjunctions, continue the description of the action of the preceding finite verb דִּבְּרוּ (dibbéru, Piel perfect 3rd person common plural from דָּבַר, davar, “to speak”). Although the infinitives continue the description of the action of the finite verb, they call special attention to the action of the infinitive rather than the action of the finite verb. See §35.5.2b.
41. 6 The word “empty” is not in the Hebrew text, but is implied. It is supplied in the translation for clarity. Cf. “useless treaties.”
42. 7 The noun II רֹאשׁ (ro’sh) refers to a “poisonous plant” (Deut 29:17; Hos 10:4) or “bitter herb” (Ps 69:22; Lam 3:5; 912 רֹאשׁ 1; רֹאשׁ 1).
43. 8 The reads the singular construct noun שְׁכַן (shékhan, “the inhabitant [of Samaria]”), while the and reflect the plural construct noun שְׁכַנֵי (shékhane, “the inhabitants [of Samaria]”). The singular noun may be a collective referring to the population of Samaria as a whole ( 1015 שָׁכֵן; e.g., Isa 33:24). Most English translations view this as a reference to the inhabitants of the city as a whole (, , , , , , , , , ).
44. 9 The reads יָגוּרוּ (yaguru, Qal imperfect 3rd person common plural from III גוּר, gur, “to dread”; see 159 III גוּר 1). This reading is followed by most English versions but is syntactically awkward because III גוּר (“to dread”) is used nowhere else with the preposition לְ (lamed, “they are in dread for …”?). suggests reading יָנוּדוּ (yanudu, Qal imperfect 3rd person common plural from נוּד, nud, “to lament”; 626 נוּד 2.a) which harmonizes better with the parallelism with אָבַל (’aval, “to mourn”) in the following line. The verb נוּד (“to lament”) is used with the preposition לְ in the idiom “to lament for” (e.g., Isa 51:19; Jer 15:5; 16:5; 48:17; Nah 3:7). This involves simple orthographic confusion between ג (gimel) and ן (nun), as well as ר (resh) and ד (dalet) which were often confused by the scribes.
45. 10 The reads the plural לְעֶגְלוֹת (lé’eglot, “for the calves”), while some Greek versions (, Theodotion) and the reflect the singular לְעֵגֶל (“for the calf [calf idol]”). The singular reading is preferred on the basis of internal evidence: the oracle denounces the calf idol worship of Samaria. The plural form probably arose due to the ambiguity of the term “calf” when a scribe did not realize that the term was being used as a metonymy for the worship of the Egyptian calf goddess. Most recent English versions adopt the singular form and relate it to the calf goddess cult (, , , , , , , ); however, older English versions follow the plural (, ).
46. 11 See the note on the place name Beth Aven in .
47. 12 The appears to read יָגִילוּ (yagilu, “they will rejoice”; Qal imperfect 3rd person masculine plural from גִּיל, gil, “to rejoice”), but this is likely an example of semantic polarization. See F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman, Hosea (), . The editors propose the reading יְיֵלִילוּ (yéyelilu, “they will lament”; Hiphil imperfect 3rd person masculine plural from יָלַל, yalal, “to lament”), which also appears in Hos 7:14. If this reading is original, the textual variant may be attributed to: (1) orthographic confusion between ל (lamed) and ג (gimel), and (2) haplography or dittography of י (yod). English versions are split; some follow the (, , , ), others the proposed emendation (, , , , , ).
48. 13 This line division follows the rather than the line division suggested by the editors.
49. 14 Heb “from it” (so , ).
50. 15 The antecedent of the 3rd person masculine singular direct object pronoun אוֹתוֹ (’oto, “it”) is probably the calf idol of Beth Aven mentioned in 10:5a. This has been specified in the translation for clarity (cf. , ).
51. 16 The reads מֶלֶךְ יָרֵב (melekh yarev, “a king who contends”?) which is syntactically awkward: מֶלֶךְ (“king”) followed by יָרֵב (“let him contend!”; Qal jussive 3rd person masculine singular from רִיב, riv, “to contend”). Note that , , treat this as a proper name (“king Jareb”). The reading is probably the result of faulty word division. As the editors suggest, the original reading most likely is מַלְכִּי רָב (malki rav, “the great king”). The suffixed י (yod) on מַלְכִּי is the remnant of the old genitive ending. This is the equivalent of the Assyrian royal epithet sarru rabbu (“the great king”). See also the note on the same phrase in .
52. 17 The preposition מִן (min) functions in a causal sense specifying the logical cause: “because of” or “on account of” (e.g., Exod 2:23; Deut 7:7; Nah 3:4; 580 מִן 2.f; מִן 6).
53. 18 The meaning of the root of מֵעֲצָתוֹ (me’atsato, preposition מִן, min, + feminine singular noun עֵצָה, ’etsah, + 3rd person masculine singular suffix) is debated. There are three options: (1) “its counsel” from I עֵצָה (“counsel; advice; plan”; 420 עֵצָה; I עֵצָה 3.a); (2) “its disobedience” from II עֵצָה (“disobedience,” but the existence of this root is debated; see II עֵצָה); and (3) “its wooden idol” from III עֵצָה (“wood”; cf. Jer 6:6) referring to the wooden idol/effigy (the calf idol in 10:5), a stick of wood covered with gold ( ). The last option is favored contextually: (a) the idol is called “a stick of wood” in Hos 4:12, and (b) the calf idol (probably the referent) of the cult is mentioned in 10:5. The English versions are divided: (1) “his idol” (, ), “its wooden idols” (), “image” ( margin), “that idol” (), “this idol” (); and (2) “his own counsel” (, ), “its own counsel” (), “his plans” (), “his schemes” (), “the advice” ().
54. 19 The term נִדְמֶה (nidmeh, Niphal participle feminine singular) is derived from II דָמָה (damah; so 198 דָמָה; III דמה): “be cut off, cease to exist, be destroyed.” The Niphal form נִדְמֶה (“will be destroyed”) is paralleled by the Niphal וְנִשְׁמְדוּ (vénishmédu, “will be destroyed”) in 10:8. Several English versions nuance the literal wording for the sake of the idiom: “will float away like a twig on the surface of the waters” (), “Like a twig in a stream … will be swept away” (), “will be carried off like a chip of wood on an ocean wave” ().
55. 20 The noun II קֶצֶף (qetsef) is a (a term that occurs only once). Historically, it has been understood in two different ways: (1) “foam” (, Aquila, Symmachus) and (2) “snapped-off twig” (, Theodotion, ). Both interpretations make sense in the light of the simile. The latter has more support because of the related verb קָצַץ (qatsats, “to cut off, chop off”) used in reference to wood ( 893 קָצַץ; קצץ) and the related feminine noun קְצָפָה (qétsafah, “stump; splinter” of fig-tree; 893 קְצָפָה; קְצָפָהs). English versions differ along these lines: (1) “foam” (, , ) and (2) “chip” (, , , ), “stick” (), “twig” (, ).
56. 21 Alternately, “Aven” (, , , ) for the city name “Beth Aven.” The term “Beth” (house) does not appear in the Hebrew text here, but is implied (e.g., Hos 4:15). It is supplied in the translation for clarity.
57. 22 The reads בָּמוֹת אָוֶן (bamot ’aven, “high places of Aven”); however, several Hebrew read בָּמוֹת בֵּית אָוֶן (bamot bet ’aven, “high places of Beth Aven”). In Hos 4:15 the name בֵּית אָוֶן (“Beth Aven”; Heb “house of wickedness”) is a wordplay on “Bethel” (Heb “house of God”). It is possible that בָּמוֹת בֵּית אָוֶן (“high places of Beth Aven”) was original: בֵּית (bet, “house”) dropped out as an unintentional scribal error by haplography due to presence of the consonants בת in the preceding word במות (bamot, “high places”). Heb “high places of wickedness” (בָּמוֹת אָוֶן, bamot ’aven); so . The noun אָוֶן (“wickedness”) is an attributive genitive: “wicked high places.”
58. 23 Heb “days” (so , , , ).
59. 24 Heb “in my desire”; , “When it is my desire”; “When I am ready.”
60. 25 The reads וְאֶסֳּרֵם (vé’essorem, vav conjunction + Niphal imperfect 1st person common singular + 3rd person masculine plural suffix from אָסַר, ’asar, “to bind”). The reads παιδεῦσαι αὐτούς (paideusai autous, “to discipline them”) which reflects a of אִיסַּרֶם (’issarem, Qal imperfect 1st person common singular + 3rd person masculine plural suffix from יָסַר, yasar, “to discipline”; 416 יָסַר 3). The textual variant was caused by orthographic confusion between ו (vav) and י (yod) with metathesis of the two letters.
61. 26 Heb “Nations will be gathered together against them.”
62. 27 The verb אָסַר (’asar, “to bind”) often refers to conquered peoples being bound as prisoners ( 63 אָסַר). Here it is used figuratively to describe the Israelites being taken into exile. Cf. “to put them in bonds.”
63. 28 The Kethib is לִשְׁתֵּי עֵינֹתָם (lishte ’enotam, “for their two eyes”), while the Qere reads לִשְׁתֵּי עוֹנֹתָם (lishte ’onotam, “for their two sins”). The phrase “two sins” could refer to (1) the sinful episode at Gibeah and the subsequent war between the tribe of Benjamin and the other tribes (Judges 19–21), or (2) the entire Gibeah incident (Judges 19–21) and Israel’s subsequent failure to repent up to the time of Hosea: “the time of Gibeah” (first sin) and “there you have remained” (second sin).
64. 29 The is unintelligible: עַל־טוּב (’al-tuv, “upon a fine [thing]”?). Cf. “I passed over upon her fair neck”; “I spared her fair neck.” The editors suggest the revocalization עֹל־טוּב (’ol-tuv, “a fine yoke”), followed by many modern English versions (e.g., , , , , , ). The noun עֹל (’ol, “yoke”) also appears in 11:4 in a metaphor which compares Israel to a young heifer as well.
65. 30 Or “Judah will plow” (so ); , , “Judah must plow.”
66. 31 Or “Jacob will break up.”
67. 32 Or “righteousness” (so , , , , ); “justice.”
68. 33 The (followed by , ) reads the enigmatic בְּדַרְכְּךָ (bédarkékha, “in your own way”) which does not seem to fit the context or the parallelism with בְּרֹב גִּבּוֹרֶיךָ (bérov gibborekha, “in your multitude of warriors”). The editors suggest the original reading was בְרִכְבְּךָ (vérikhbékha, “in your chariots”), a reading followed by , . If this is correct, the textual corruption was caused by orthographic confusion between רֶכֶב (rekhev, “chariot”) and דֶּרֶך (derekh, “way”).
69. 34 The phrase “you have relied” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is implied by the parallelism in the preceding line.
70. 35 Heb “as the devastation of Shalman.” The genitive noun שַׁלְמַן (shalman, “Shalman”) functions as a subjective genitive: “as Shalman devastated [Beth Arbel].”
71. 36 For location see ; ; ; ; .
72. 37 Heb “when the dawn is cut off” or “when the day ceases.” Cf. “When the day of judgment dawns.”
73. 38 The root דָמָה (damah, “to be cut off, cease to exist, be destroyed”; 198 דָמָה; דמה) is repeated in the Hebrew text. The form נִדְמֹה (nidmoh, Niphal infinitive absolute) appears in the first colon, and the form נִדְמָה (nidmah, Niphal perfect 3rd person masculine singular) appears in the second colon. This striking repetition creates a dramatic wordplay which, for stylistic reasons, cannot be reproduced in English translations: “The moment the dawn ceases to exist (i.e., at the break of dawn), the king of Israel will cease to exist.”