¹tc The textual problems in Hosea are virtually unparalleled in the OT. The Masoretic Text (MT), represented by the Leningrad Codex (c. a.d. 1008), which served as the basis for both BHK and BHS, and the Aleppo Codex (c. a.d. 952), are textually corrupt by all accounts and have a multitude of scribal errors. Many medieval Masoretic mss preserve textual variants that differ from the Leningrad and Aleppo Codices. The Qumran materials (4QXII^c,d,g) contain numerous textual variants that differ from the MT; unfortunately, these texts are quite fragmentary (frequently in the very place that an important textual problem appears). The textual tradition and translation quality of the LXX and the early Greek recensions (Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion) is mixed; in some places they are inferior to the MT but in other places they preserve a better reading. The textual apparatus of BHK and BHS contains many proposed emendations based on the versions (Greek, Syriac, Latin, Aramaic) that often appear to be superior readings than what is preserved in the MT. In numerous cases, the MT readings are so difficult morphologically, syntactically, and contextually that conservative conjectural emendations are necessary to make sense of the text. Most major English translations (e.g., KJV, NKJV, NEB, RSV, NRSV, ASV, NASB, NJPS, NIV, TEV, CEV) adopt either occasionally or frequently textual variants reflected in the versions and occasionally adopt conservative conjectural emendations proposed in BHK and/or BHS. However, many of the textual problems in Hosea are so difficult that the English translations frequently are split among themselves. With this in mind, the present translation of Hosea must necessarily be viewed as only preliminary. Further work on the text and translation of Hosea is needed, not only in terms of the NET Bible but in Hosea studies in general. Perhaps the text of Hosea will be better clarified when the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project completes work on the book of Hosea. For further study of textual problems in Hosea, see D. Barthélemy, ed., Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, 5:228-71
²tn Heb “The word of the Lord which was to Hosea.” The words “This is” are supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons.
³tn Heb “in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, kings of Judah.”
⁴sn Joash is a variation of the name Jehoash.
⁵tn Heb “in the days of Jeroboam son of Joash, king of Israel.”
⁶tn The construct noun tL^j!T= (tékhillat, “beginning of”) displays a wider use of the construct state here, preceding a perfect verb rB#D! (dibber, “he spoke”; Piel perfect 3ms) rather than a genitive noun. This is an unusual temporal construction (GKC §130.d). It may be rendered, “When he (= the Lord) began to speak.” This time-determinative was not correctly understood by the LXX or by the KJV: “The beginning of the word of the Lord.”
⁷tn The preposition B= (bet) on u^v@ohB= (b^ehoshea’) is an instrumental use of the preposition (BDB 89 s.v. B= III.2.b): “by, with, through Hosea” rather than a directional “to Hosea.” This focuses on the entire prophetic revelation through Hosea to Israel.
⁸tn Heb “the Lord.”
⁹tn Heb “to Hosea.”
¹⁰tn Heb “Go take for yourself.”
¹¹tn Heb “a wife of harlotries.” The noun <yn]Wnz+ (z^enunim) means “prostitute; harlot” (HALOT 275-76 s.v. <yn]Wnz+). The term does not refer to mere adultery which is expressed by the root [a^n~ (na’af, “adultery”; HALOT 658 s.v. [an). The plural noun <yn]Wnz+ (zénunim, literally, “harlotries”) is an example of the plural of character or plural of repeated behavior. The phrase “wife of harlotries” (<yn]Wnz+ tv#a@, ’eshet zénunim) probably refers to a prostitute, possibly a temple prostitute serving at a Baal temple.
¹²tn Heb “and children of harlotries.”
¹³tn Heb “the land.” The term “the land” is frequently used as a synecdoche of container (the land of Israel) for the contained (the people of Israel).
¹⁴tn Heb “prostitution.” The construction hn\z=t! hn{z` (zanoh tizneh, infinitive absolute + imperfect of the same root) repeats the root hn^z* (zanah, “harlotry”) for rhetorical emphasis. Israel was guilty of gross spiritual prostitution by apostatizing away from Yahweh. The verb hn^z* is used in a concrete sense to refer to a spouse being unfaithful in a marriage relationship (HALOT 275 s.v. hnz 1), and figuratively meaning “to be unfaithful” in a relationship with God by prostituting oneself with other gods and worshiping idols (Exod 34:15; Lev 17:7; 20:5, 6; Deut 31:16; Judg 8:27, 33; 21:17; 1 Chr 5:25; Ezek 6:9; 20:30; 23:30; Hos 4:15; Ps 106:39; see HALOT 275 s.v. 2).
<sup>15</sup>tn Heb “from after.”
<sup>16</sup>tn Heb “so he went and took” (jQ~Y]w~ El#Y}w~, vayyelekh vayyiqqakh).
<sup>17</sup>tn Heb “I will visit.” The verb dq~P* (paqad, “to visit”) has a very broad range of meanings: (1) “to pay attention to; to look at” (a) favorably: to look after; to provide for; to care for; (b) unfavorably: to seek vengeance for; to punish for; (2) militarily: (a) “to muster; to enroll”; (b) “to inspect; to review”; (3) leadership: (a) “to rule over; to oversee”; (b) Hiphil: “to appoint an overseer” (see BDB 823 s.v. dq~P*; HALOT 955-58 s.v. dqp). In this context, the nuance “to punish” or “to take vengeance” (see 1b above) is most appropriate.
<sup>18</sup>tn Heb “house.”
<sup>19</sup>tn The plural form of <D* (dam, “blood”) refers to “bloodshed” (BDB 196 s.v. <D* 2.f). This is an example of a plural of abnormal condition (GKC §124.n). The plural is used to represent natural objects which are found in an unnatural or abnormal condition. The plural is used because the natural object is normally found as a whole or in one unit, but in the abnormal condition the object is found in many parts. Normally, blood is contained as a whole within the body. However, when a brutal murder occurs, blood is shed and literally spilled all over the place.
<sup>20</sup>tn Heb “I will visit the bloodshed of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu.”
<sup>21</sup>tn Heb “the kingdom of the house of Israel.”
<sup>22</sup>sn The proper name lau#r+z+y] (yizré’e’l, “Jezreel”) sounds like la@r*c=y] (yisra’el, “Israel”). This phonetic wordplay associates the sin at Jezreel with the judgment on Israel, stressing poetic justice.
<sup>23</sup>tn Heb “in that day.”
<sup>24</sup>tn Heb “I will break the bow.” The phrase “break the bow” (tv#q#-ta# yT!r+b*v^w+, véshavarti ’et-qeshet) is figurative. The term tv#q# (qeshet, “bow”) frequently refers to the warrior’s weapon (2 Sam 22:35; Ps 18:35; Job 20:24; Hos 2:20; Zech 9:10; 10:4). The reference to the warrior’s bow is a synecdoche of specific (bow) for general (military weaponry or power; see HALOT 1155 s.v. tv#q# 3). The noun tv#q# is used figuratively for “power” several times (e.g., Gen 49:24; 1 Sam 2:4; Jer 49:35; Job 29:20; Ps 37:15; BDB 906 s.v. 1.e).
<sup>25</sup>tn Heb “Then he said”; the referent (the Lord) does not appear in Hebrew, but has been specified in the translation for clarity.
<sup>26</sup>sn The negative particle a{l (lo’, “no, not”) and the root <j^r* (rakham, “compassion”) are repeated in 1:6, creating a wordplay between the name Lo-Ruhamah (literally “No-Pity”) and the announcement of divine judgment, “I will no longer have pity on the nation of Israel.”
<sup>27</sup>tn Heb “house.”
<sup>28</sup>tn The particle yK! (ki) probably denotes cause or result here (GKC §166.c; BDB 473 s.v. yK! 3.c).
<sup>29</sup>tn The verb ac*n` (nasa’, “to take away”) frequently denotes “to forgive” meaning to take away sin (BDB 671 s.v. ac*n` 3.c). The construction aC*a# acn` (naso’ ’esa’, “I will certainly take away,” infinitive absolute + imperfect of the same root) repeats the root ac*n` for rhetorical emphasis, stressing the divine resolution not to forgive Israel.
<sup>30</sup>tn The phrase “their guilt” does not appear in Hebrew, but is supplied in the translation for clarification. The ellipsis of the accusative direct object of aC*a# acn` (naso’ ’esa’, “I will certainly take away”) is an example of brachyology. The accusative “guilt” must be supplied frequently with ac^n` (see BDB 671 s.v. ac*n` 3.c; e.g., Num 14:19; Isa 2:9; Ps 99:8).
³¹tn Heb “house.”
³²tn The word order in this line is rhetorical, emphasizing the divine decision to withhold pity from Israel but to bestow it upon Judah. The accusative direct object, which is introduced by a disjunctive vav (to denote contrast), appears before the verb: <j@r^a& hd*Why+ tyB@-ta#w+ (vé’et-bet yéhudah ’arakhem, “but upon the house of Judah I will show pity”).
³³tn Heb “by war.”
³⁴sn These military weapons are examples of the metonymy of adjunct for subject (warfare).
³⁵tn The preterite lm)g=T!w~ (vatigmol, literally, “and she weaned”) functions in a synchronic sense with the following preterite rh^T^w~ (vattahar, literally, “and she conceived”) and may be treated in translation as a dependent temporal clause: “When she had weaned…she conceived.”
³⁶tn Heb “Then he said”; the referent (the Lord) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
³⁷tn The independent personal pronoun <T#a^ (’attem, “you”) is a plural form, referring to the people of Israel as a whole.
³⁸tn The pronominal suffix on the preposition <k#l* (lakhem, “your”) is a plural form, referring to the people of Israel as a whole.
³⁹tc The MT reads <k#l* hy\h=a#-aO (lo’-’ehyeh lakhem, “I will not be yours”). The editors of BHS suggest emending the text to <k#yh@Oa$-aO (lo’-’elohekhem, “I will not be your God”). The emendation creates a tighter parallel with the preceding yM!u^ aO <T#a^ (’attem lo’ ’ammi, “you are not my people”). Because of a lack of external evidence, however, the MT should be retained.
tn Heb “I am not yours.” The divine name “God” is supplied in the translation.
sn This is an allusion to Yahweh’s promise to Moses EM*u! hy\h=a# (’ehyeh ’immakh, “I will be with you”; Exod 3:12, 14). In effect, it is a negation of Exod 3:12, 14 and a cancellation of Israel’s status as vassal of Yahweh in the conditional Mosaic covenant.
⁴⁰sn Beginning with 1:10, the verse numbers through 2:23 in the English Bible differ by two from the verse numbers in the Hebrew text (BHS), with 1:10 ET = 2:1 HT, 1:11 ET = 2:2 HT, 2:1 ET = 2:3 HT, etc., through 2:23 ET = 2:25 HT. Beginning with 3:1 the verse numbers in the English Bible and the Hebrew Bible are again the same.
⁴¹tn The vav prefixed to hy`h*w+ (véhaya) functions in an adversative sense: “however” (see R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, §432).
⁴²tn Heb “sons.”
⁴³tn Heb “in the place” (<oqm=B!, bimqom). BDB 880 s.v. <oqm* 7.b suggests that <oqm=B! (preposition B=, bet, + noun <oqm*, maqom) is an idiom carrying a concessive sense: “instead of” (e.g., Isa 33:21; Hos 2:1). However, HALOT suggests that it functions in a locative sense: “in the same place” (HALOT 626 s.v. <oqm* 2b; e.g., 1 Kgs 21:19; Isa 33:21; Hos 2:1).
⁴⁴tn The predicate nominative, “You are…,” is supplied in the translation.
⁴⁵tn Heb “sons.”
⁴⁶tn Heb “sons.” This occurs a second time later in this verse.
⁴⁷tn Heb “head.”
⁴⁸tn Alternatively, “gain possession of the land” or “rise up from the land.” This clause may be understood in two ways: (1) Israel will gain ascendancy over the land or conquer the land (e.g., Exod 1:10) or (2) Israel will be “planted” in the land (Hos 2:24-25).
⁴⁹tn Or “For.”