The Book of Hosea

Written by J. Andrew Dearman Reviewed By Matthieu Richelle

J. Andrew Dearman is professor of OT at Fuller Theological Seminary's regional campus in Houston, Texas, and has authored, among other books, the commentary on Jeremiah and Lamentations in the NIV Application Commentary series. He is also well-known among archaeologists because of his field work in Jordan andhis publications on ancient Moab. He understands the realities of Iron Age II, and he authored Property Rights in the Eighth-Century Prophets (SBLDS 106; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998). So he is particularly well-suited to write a commentary on Hosea.

Of course, there are already plenty of commentaries on Hosea, from the massive work of Andersen and Freedman (Anchor Bible) to the “application commentary” by Gary V. Smith (NIVAC). Yet publishing a new item in the NICOT series is always an event, and the present one is no exception to the rule. Dearman's commentary distinguishes itself by (1) elegantly treating philological difficulties, (2) explaining metaphors and themes that are so important to understand Hosea's thought, and (3) noting intertextual links with other biblical books and historical background.

The text of Hosea is one of the most difficult to translate in the entire OT, and Dearman rightly devotes a significant part of his commentary to understanding obscure verses. While there could be the danger of losing the reader in technical details, the author clearly and succinctly exposes the problems and solutions he adopts. Admittedly, scholars in search of a complete technical study of every philological problem will probably not find all the details and references they need here, but that is not the purpose of the present work. Instead, the author solidly and efficiently treats the difficulties, and we should be grateful for this choice.

This study points out many links with Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Jeremiah. Regarding the precise nature of Hosea's relationship with Pentateuchal texts, Dearman prudently leaves open the question of whether ancient editions of these books or traditions close to theminfluenced Hosea. In any case, the intertextual links he points out are very useful to understand Hosea's thinking and his own influence over subsequent prophets.

In keeping with these efforts to understand the text of Hosea, Dearman also focuses on the metaphors that pervade his prophecies. I appreciate that he pays attention not only to the well-known questions concerning Gomer (Hos 1-3), but also to many other images in the rest of the book (e.g., Israel's sonship, vegetal metaphors). Likewise, he highlights the importance of several themes in Hosea's theology (e.g., election). In addition to the discussions pursued during the commentary, he judiciously adds ten interesting appendices on various subjects (e.g.,”Baal in Hosea,” “Terms for Election in Hosea,” “Flora and Fauna Metaphors in Hosea”).

This commentary also sheds light on the historical background of the book of Hosea. It reflects the author's sound knowledge of archaeological data and of cultural and religious realities of the eighth century b.c. in Israel and Transjordan.

Though they do not alter these qualities, we might raise two issues. First, while Dearman sometimes points out the inner structure of verses, there is almost nothing in the commentary about the structure of entire passages. Hosea is certainly more flexible than other authors in this regard, but some soundings convinced me that taking into account structure on a larger scale might help us to better understand his message.

Second, the hermeneutical status of what Dearman identifies as “editorial updating” is open to discussion. He highlights the “persuasiveness of the conclusion that little or nothing in the book itself requires a date later than the end of the 8th century B.C.” (p. 6), but sees a number of glosses here and there in the book, especially when references to Judean realities are made. For instance, the expression “David their king” in Hos 3:5 might be a “canonical updating” made during the reign of Hezekiah (pp. 144-45). At the same time, Dearman stresses the “acceptance of the final form” and thinks that “the task at hand” is “to interpret a received text” (p. 6). He also notes,”we should not draw lines in the sand with respect to affirming the work of the prophet Hosea and then dismissing or denigrating the work of editors in the collecting and composing of the book. The text is a gift. If one can affirm that God worked through Hosea, son of Beeri, then one can give that same affirmation to editors of his work, whatever their role” (p. 21).

This raises interesting questions. What are the criteria for identifying an expression as an “updating”? Should we regard the Masoretic Text as a “received text” or try to reconstruct the autographa? (See Bruce Waltke, “Aims of Textual Criticism,”WTJ 51 [1989]: 93-108). From the moment that we regard a verse as a later gloss, should we accept it as necessarily inspired because it entered the “traditional text” or reject it as illegitimate because it was not contained in the originals? Or should we consider that the originals were completed in a “final form” once these glosses were added? (See also N. C. Grubbs and C. S. Drumm, “What Does Theology Have to Do with the Bible? A Call for the Expansion of the Doctrine of Inspiration,”JETS 53 [2010]: 65-79.) There is no difficulty in accepting that disciples gathering the oracles could have inserted editorial features like titles and third-person narratives (as in Amos 7). But does not the addition of a sentence in the middle of an oracleas if it were uttered by the original prophet—sometimes more than a century later and without any indication of the insertion—look like “local pseudepigraphy”? These difficult issues cannot be addressed in this review, and they would receive different answers depending on our hermeneutical convictions. In any event, they concern only a small part of the commentary.

Finally, this work is a welcome addition to the NICOT series that will be very useful to pastors and students in search of a readable commentary on Hosea. It does not eschew the philological difficulties but tackles them clearly, enlightening Hosea's message by setting it against its historical, cultural, and religious background.


Matthieu Richelle

Matthieu Richelle
Faculté Libre de Théologie Evangélique
Vaux-sur-Seine, France

Other Articles in this Issue

Evaluating a new English translation of the Bible can be extremely difficult...

Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) is remembered today as a saint, scholar, preacher, pastor, metaphysician, revival leader, theologian, Calvinist—the list goes on...

Almost two decades ago I wrote an essay titled " When Is Spirituality Spiritual? Reflections on Some Problems of Definition ...

He was the youngest son of elderly parents. His childhood was secluded and unhappy, which might in some measure account for his lifelong melancholy...