HOSEA (veiro, the first in order of the minor prophets in the common editions of the Hebrew Scriptures, as well as of the Alexandrian and Vul gate translations. The arrangement of the other writers in the AcacKarp60,17-ov of the Greek ver sion differs considerably from that of the Hebrew copies. Jerome (Prof. in XII. Prophetas) says, Non idem est ordo duodecim prophetarum apud Hebrieos qui est apud nos.' Both, however, place IIosea first in the catalogue ; yet the reasons often assigned for the priority of place which this prophet enjoys are by no means satisfactory'. They are founded on a misinterpretation of the first clause of the second verse of his oracles, 14nri the beginning of the word of the Lord.' Ilengstenberg (Christologie, iii. 3r, E. T. [Clark] i. 192), taking n11 to be the praeterite of piel, ders the clause, the beginning of the Lord bath spoken ;' the status constructus of r6rin, according to him, being explained by the fact that the whole following proposition is treated as one substantive idea.' But the phrase has reference nat to priority of time in Hosea's commission as compared with other prophets, but to the period of the predictions to which it is the introduction. It is merely an intimation that they were the first divine commu nications which the son of Beeri enjoyed. Neither did Hosea flourish earlier than all the other minor prophets : the very early era assigned to him by the Jewish writers and other expositors of former times is altogether extravagant. By the best com putation he seems to have been preceded by Joel, Amos, and Jonah. The prophets are thus arranged by De Wette (Einleituns, sec. 225) :— The table given by Rosenmiiller (Scholia in Min. Proph., p. 7) differs from this only in placing Jonah before Joel in chronological order. Compare New come (Preface to ilfinor Prophets, p. 45). The probable causes of this location of Hosea may be the thoroughly national character of his oracles, their their earnest tone and vivid represen tatio That his priority of position may be as cribed to the notion that he discharged the duties of his office for a longer period than any of his pro phetic associates, is the less natural conjecture of Rosenmtiller.
The name of this prophet has been variously in terpreted. Jerome renders it Salvator.' But it is the infinitive absolute, Salvando,' not the impera tive, ` Salva' (0 Deus). It is ordinarily written in Greek, 'Ong, and once with the rough initial aspirate, Itcrad (Rom. ix. 25). The figments of jewish writers regarding Hosea's parentage need scarcely be mentioned. His father, 41n, has been confounded with rnrc, a prince of the Reubenites, Cbron. v. 6. So, too, Beeri has been reckoned a prophet himself, according to the rabbinical notion that the mention of a prophet's father in the introduction to his prophecies is a proof that sire as well as son was endowed with the prophetic spirit Whether Hosea was a citizen of Israel or Judah has been disputed. The pseudo-Epiphanius and Dorotheus of Tyre speak of him as being born at Belemoth, in the tribe of Issachar (Epiphan. .13e Ms Prophet. cap. xi. ; Doroth. De Praph. cap. i.) Drusius (Critici Sacri, in loc., tom. v.) prefers the reading Beth-semes,' and quotes Jerome, who says, Osee de tribu Issachar fuit ortus in Beth semes.' Conflicting traditions are also told of the -dace of his death and burial (Burckhardt, Reiseu in Syrien, 206). But Maurer contends strenu ously that he belonged to the kingdom of Judah (Comment. Theol., ed. Rosenmiiller, vol. ii., p. 391) ; while Jahn supposes that he exercised his office, not, as Amos did, in Israel, but in the principality of Judah. Maurer appeals to the superscription in Amos as a proof that prophets of Jewish origin were sometimes commissioned to labour in the kingdom of Israel (against the appeal to Amos, see Credner, yoet, p. 66, and Hitzig, Kurz. exeget. zum
d4. T. in loc.) But with the exception of the case recorded in r Kings xiii. (a case altogether too singular and mysterious to serve as an argument), the instance of Amos is a solitary one, and seems to have been regarded as anomalous by his con temporaries (Amos vii. 12). Neither can we assent to the other hypothesis of Maurer, that the men tion of the Jewish kings Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, by Hosea in his superscription, is a proof that the seer regarded them as his rightful sovereigns, the monarchs of that territory which gave him birth. Hengstenberg has well replied, that Maurer forgets the relation in which the pious in Israel generally, and the prophets in par ticular, stood to the kingdom of Judah. They considered the whole sepamtion, not only the reli gious, but also the civil, as an apostacy from God. The dominion of the theocmcy was promised to be the throne of David.' The lofty Elijah, on a memorable occasion, when a direct and solemn appeal was made to the Head of the theocracy. took twelve stones, one for each tribe—a proof that he regarded the nation as one in religious confede ration. It was also necessary. for correct chrono logy, that the kings of both nations should be noted. Jeroboam of Israel is mentioned as a means of as certaining at what period in the long reign of Uzziah Hosea began to prophesy, and Uzzialfs successors are named in particular because the con. fusion and anarchy of the several interregna in the kingdom of Israel rendered computation by the names of Jeroboam's successors difficult and un certain. The other argument of Maurer for Hosea's being a Jew, and not an Israelite, viz., because his own people are so severely threatened in his reproofs and denunciations, is evidence of the pro phees patriotic fidelity, but not of his specific nationality. At the same time, the prophetic warnings and promises meant for the southern kingdom of Judah may, along with the Israelitish oracles in which they are embedded, be easily sup posed to have reached it, and through such a cir culation may have been presenred and placed in the canon after the return from Babylon. But the proofs adduced to shew that Isaiah was acquainted with Hosea's oracles are very precarious. So that we accede to the opinion of De Wette Rosen miiller, Hengstenberg, Eichhorn, Manger kuinoel, Hitzig, and Simson, that Hosea was an israelite, a native of that kingdom with whose sins and fates his book is specially and primarily occupied. Thus he calls, in vii. 5, the king of Israel our king.' There is no reason with De Wette, Maurer, and Hitzig, to doubt the genuineness of the present superscription, or, with Rosenmiiller and Jahn, to suppose that it may have been added by a later hand—though the two last writers uphold its au thenticity. The first and second verses of the pro phecy are so closely connected in structure and style that the second verse itself would become sus picious, if the first were reckoned a spurious addi tion. Tbe first is a general, and the second a special introduction. The superscription determines the length of time during which Hosea prophesied. That period was both long and eventful, commen cing in the later days of Jeroboam, the son of Joash, extending through the lives of Uzziah, Jotham, and Ahaz and concluding in the reign of Hezekiah. Uzziaill and Jeroboam were contemporary sove reigns for a certain length of time. If we compute from the first year of Uzziah to the last of fleze kiah, we find a period of 113 years. Such a period appears evidently to be too long, and the most probable calculation is to reckon from the last years of Jeroboam to the first of Hezekiah.