¹tn Heb “do not rejoice unto jubilation.”
²tn Heb “you have committed adultery.”
³tn Heb “you love the wages of the prostitute.”
⁴tn Heb “them”; the referent (the people) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
⁵tn Heb “her.” This is taken as a collective singular.
⁶tn The deictic particle hN}h! (hinneh, “Behold!”) is used frequently in prophetic announcements, introducing a solemn or important declaration, particularly in threats of judgment (BDB 244 s.v. hN}h! b.b).
⁷tn The conjunction yK! (ki) introduces a concessive clause: “Although, when, if, even if” (BDB 473 s.v. yK! 2.c.b). It has a force approximating “even if,” but it represents a situation as more likely to occur than <a! (‘im, “if”). The concessive use of yK! 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).
⁸tn The verb Jb^q* (qavats, “to gather together”) should be nuanced “grab hold” in this context (HALOT 1063 s.v. Jbq). This pictures personified Egypt taking the fugitives prisoner.
⁹tn Heb “the treasured things of their silver.”
¹⁰tn Heb “their tents.”
¹¹tn Heb “the days of the visitation.”
¹²tn Heb “has come” (WaB*, ba’u). The two perfect tense (suffix-conjugation) verbs WaB* (Qal perfect 3cpl from aoB, 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.
¹³tn Heb “the days of the retribution.”
¹⁴tn Heb “has come.”
¹⁵tc The Aleppo Codex and Leningrad Codex (the MT ms employed for BHS) both place the athnak (colon-divider) after la@r*c=y] Wud+y} (yed^e’u yisra’el, “Let Israel know!”), indicating that this line belongs with 9:7a. However, the LXX reads kakwqhvsetai (kakwqhsetai) which reflects an underlying Vorlage of Wur@y` (yare’u, Qal imperfect 3cpl from ur^y`, yara’, “to cry”), as opposed to the MT Wud+y} (yed^e’u, Qal jussive 3cpl from ud^y`, yada’, “to know”). The Old Greek connects la@r*c=y] Wud+y} (“Israel cries out”) with the following lines, which appear to be quotations of Israel mocking Hosea. Aquila (e[gnw, egnw) and Symmachus (gnwvsetai, gnwsetai) both reflect the proto-MT tradition. For a discussion of this textual and syntactical problem, see H. W. Wolff, Hosea (Hermeneia), 150.
<sup>16</sup>tn Or “is distraught.”
<sup>17</sup>tn Heb “the man of the Spirit.”
<sup>18</sup>tn Or “is driven to despair.” The term uG*v%m= (m<sup>e</sup>shugga’, Pual participle ms from ug^v*, 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 BDB 993 s.v. ug^v*). The prophetic context of 9:7 favors the latter option. 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).
<sup>19</sup>tn Heb “great.”
<sup>20</sup>tc The Leningrad Codex (the MT ms used for BHS) and Aleppo Codex both place the athnah (colon divider) after yhla (“my God”) and connect ayb!n` (navi’, “prophet”) with the following colon. On the other hand, BHS suggests that ayb!n` (navi’, “prophet”) belongs with the first colon. For discussion of this syntactical problem, see F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman, Hosea (AB), 533-34.
<sup>21</sup>tc The syntax of this line is difficult, and the text is questionable. The major options include: (1) Adopt the MT vocalization and BHS line division: ayb!n` yh*Oa$-<u! <y]r^p=a# hp#x) (tsofeh ’efrayim ’im-elohay navi’, “The prophet is a watchman over Ephraim with my God [= on behalf of God]”). There are two problems with this: (a) Although BHS places ayb!n` (“prophet”) with this colon, the Aleppo Codex and Leningrad Codex both connect ayb!n` with the next colon. (b) The phrase yh*Oa$-<u! (“with my God”) is difficult to explain. (2) Adopt the MT vocalization and the MT line division: <y]r^p=a# hp#x) yh*Oa$-<u! (“Ephraim is a watchman with my God”). The problem with this, of course, is that Ephraim hardly fits the description of a prophetic watchman. (3) Revocalize the MT and adopt BHS line division: ayb!n` yh*Oa$ <u^ <y]r^p=a# hp#x) (“Ephraim—the people of my God!—lies in ambush for the prophet”) This involves: (a) revocalization of the preposition <u! (’im, “with”) to the noun <u^ (’am, “people”), (b) taking yh*Oa$-<u^ (“people of my God”) in apposition to <y]r^p=a# (“Ephraim”), and (c) nuancing hp#x) as “to lie in wait (=set ambush)” (e.g., Ps 37:32). This is contextually attractive and harmonizes well with the following line: “traps are laid along all of his paths.” However, it has two problems: (a) there is no textual evidence supporting the revocalization of <u as “people” and (b) the unusual nuance “to lie in wait” for hp#x) occurs only in Ps 37:32, where it takes the preposition l= (lamed, i.e., “to lie in wait for the righteous”; HALOT 1044 s.v. hpx 4). (4) Emend yh*Oa$ (“my God”) to lh#a) (’ohel, “tent”), as suggested in the BHS textual apparatus: hp#x) ayb!n` lh#a)-<u^ <y]r^p=a# (“Ephraim spies on the prophet’s tent”). The verb hp*x* may mean “to spy” (BDB 859 s.v. hp*x*; HALOT 1044 s.v. hpx 3); however, the preposition <u! (’im) does not normally mean “upon” and hp*x* is not used with <u! elsewhere.
²²tn Or “Ephraim is a watchman with my God.”
²³tn Heb “with my God.”
²⁴tn Heb “bird trap of a bird catcher” or “snare of a fowler.”
²⁵tc Or “The prophet is like a trap along all of his paths.” The Aleppo Codex and Leningrad Codex (ms used in BHS) both connect ayb!n` (navi’, “prophet”) with this colon. On the other hand, BHS places ayb!n` (“prophet”) at the end of the preceding colon.
²⁶tn Heb “house.” The term ty]B^ (bayit, “house”) is used as a figure of speech, referring to either (1) the temple or official sanctuaries or (2) the land of Israel (e.g., Hos 9:15).
²⁷tn Or more literally, “they are deeply corrupted.” The two verbs Wtj@v!-Wqym!u=h# (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 (GKC §120.g). Here Gesenius suggests “they are deeply/radically corrupted.” Several translations mirror the syntax of this hendiadys: “They have deeply corrupted themselves” (KJV, RSV), “they have been grievously corrupt” (NJPS), and “they are hopelessly evil” (TEV). Others reverse the syntax for the sake of a more graphic English idiom: “they have gone deep in depravity” (NASB) and “they have sunk deep into corruption” (NIV). Some translations fail to represent the hendiadys at all: “You are brutal and corrupt” (CEV). The translation “they are deeply corrupted” mirrors the Hebrew syntax, but “they have sunk deep into corruption” is a more graphic English idiom.
²⁸tn Heb “fathers.”
²⁹tn Heb “their glory.”
³⁰tn Heb “no childbearing, no pregnancy, no conception.” The preposition /m! (min) prefixed to the three parallel nouns functions in a privative sense, indicating deprivation (BDB 583 s.v. /m! 7).
³¹tn Heb “I will bereave them from a man.”
³²tc The MT is corrupt in 9:13. The BHS editors suggest emending the text to follow the LXX reading. See D. Barthélemy, ed., Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, 5:250-51.
³³tn Heb “breasts that shrivel up dry.”
³⁴tn Heb “from my house.”
³⁵tn Or perhaps, following the plant metaphor, “will be blighted.”