suggesting occasionally a reconsideration of some question, or a fuller treatment of difficult passages, and the like. Beyond this he has not attempted to interfere, feeling it better that each Commentary should have its own individual character, and being convinced that freshness and variety of treatment are more than a compensation for any lack of uniformity in the Series. DEANERY, Peterborough. The Text adopted in this Edition is that of Dr Scrivener's Cambridge Paragraph Bible. A few variations from the ordi- nary Text, chiefly in the spelling of certain words, and in the use of italics, will be noticed. For the principles adopted by Dr Scrivener as regards the printing of the Text see his In- troduction to the Paragraph Bible, published by the Cambridge INTRODUCTION. CHAPTER I. The Prophet's name and origin.-His period and its characteristics. THE Book of Hosea stands first among the writings of the 'Minor Prophets', not because it was thought to be the earliest (for of this there is no proof), but because it is the longest. Joel (at least according to the ordinary opinion) and Amos are both prior in time to Hosea, and Amos in particular ought to be very carefully compared with the subject of our present study. Hosea indeed is throughout enigmatical and obscure compared with Amos, partly from the peculiarities of his style, partly from the want of such illustrative details as those with which we have been supplied by his predecessor (Am. vii. 10—17). The prophet's name is one specially characteristic of Northern Israel; it was borne by the last king of the Ten Tribes (2 Kings xv. 30), and also originally by Joshua (Num. xiii. 8, 16; Deut. xxxii. 44). True, the prophet appears in Auth. Vers. as Hosea, but there is no difference between the names of the three persons in the Hebrew. The form in our Bibles was suggested by the Osee of the Septuagint and the Vulgate; St Jerome bears witness that even in his time there was no distinction between the letters Sin and Shin. It is St Jerome again who informs us (see his note on i. 1) that in some Greek and Latin MSS. the name of the prophet was written Ause, which reminds us of the form which the name assumes in the Assyrian inscriptions—Ausi'. Nothing is known of the prophet's father Beeri; it was a Jewish fancy that he too was a prophet, and verses 19, 20 of Isa. viii. (see Delitzsch's note) were even declared to be words of Beeri which had intruded into the text of Isaiah1. That Hosea was a native of the northern kingdom needs no proof to any one who has read his book. Without laying any stress on occasional Aramaisms, or on the phrase 'our king' in vii. 5, which is probably enough a popular phrase taken up half-satirically by the prophet, it would seem that the flow of sympathy towards the Israelites, the intimate knowledge of their circumstances, the topographical and historical allusions, point unmistakably to one born and bred in the northern state. How different is the superficial though not untruthful survey of things and people given by a mere visitor from Judah—the prophet Amos! In addition to this, consider Hosea's apparent familiarity with the great love-poem of Northern Israel, which is of course not counterbalanced by his probable knowledge of the Book of Amos3— a Judahite prophet, but commissioned to prophesy to Israel (vii. 15). A subtler argument in favour of the same view may be derived from the tone of Hosea's religion, which is on the whole both warmer and more joyous (see especially chaps. ii. and xiv.) than that which prevails in the great Judahite prophets. Hosea seems indeed to have been affected by the genial moods of nature in the north, and to have partaken of that expansive, childlike character, which as a matter of fact led his countrypeople astray, but which might have issued in loving obedience to the God of love. We have taken some pains to prove the Israelitish origin of the prophet, because it is this which gives his book such a high historical importance. There is very much to interest us in that northern people of which we have for the most part such fragmentary and indirect notices. It embraced the larger part of the old Israelitish community, and, sad as were the final 1 It need hardly be said that there is no inconsistency of style between these two verses and those which precede and follow to justify the theory of interpolation. 2 See v. 1, vi. 8, 9, xii. 11, xiv. 5, 6. |