_THE BOOK OF HOSEA_
The Book of Hosea consists of two unequal sections, chaps. i.-iii.
and chaps. iv.-xiv., which differ in the dates of their standpoints,
to a large extent also in the details of their common subjects,
but still more largely in their form and style. The First Section
is in the main narrative; though the style rises to the pitch of
passionate pleading and promise, it is fluent and equable. If one
verse be omitted and three others transposed,[394] the argument
is continuous. In the Second Section, on the contrary, we have a
stream of addresses and reflections, appeals, upbraidings, sarcasms,
recollections of earlier history, denunciations and promises, which,
with little logical connection and almost no pauses or periods, start
impulsively from each other, and for a large part are expressed in
elliptic and ejaculatory phrases. In the present restlessness of
Biblical Criticism it would have been surprising if this difference
of style had not prompted some minds to a difference of authorship.
Grätz[395] has distinguished two Hoseas, separated by a period of
fifty years. But if, as we shall see, the First Section reflects
the end of the reign of Jeroboam II., who died about 743, then the
next few years, with their revolutionary changes in Israel, are
sufficient to account for the altered outlook of the Second Section;
while the altered style is fully explained by difference of occasion
and motive. In both sections not only are the religious principles
identical, and many of the characteristic expressions,[396] but there
breathes throughout the same urgent and jealous temper, which renders
Hosea's personality so distinctive among the prophets. Within this
unity, of course, we must not be surprised to find, as in the Book of
Amos, verses which cannot well be authentic.
FIRST SECTION: HOSEA'S PROPHETIC LIFE.
With the removal of some of the verses the argument becomes clear and
consecutive. After the story of the wife and children (i. 2-9), who
are symbols of the land and people of Israel in their apostasy from
God (2, 4, 6, 9), the Divine voice calls on the living generation to
plead with their mother lest destruction come (ii. 2-5, Eng.; ii. 4-7,
Heb.[397]), but then passes definite sentence of desolation on the land
and of exile on the people (6-13, Eng.; 8-15, Heb.), which however
is not final doom, but discipline,[398] with the ultimate promise of
the return of the nation's youth, their renewed betrothal to Jehovah
and the restoration of nature (14-23). Then follows the story of the
prophet's restoration of his wife, also with discipline (chap. iii.).
Notice that, although the story of the wife's fall has preceded the
declaration of Israel's apostasy, it is Israel's restoration which
precedes the wife's. The ethical significance of this order we shall
illustrate in the next chapter.
In this section the disturbing verses are i. 7 and the group of
three--i. 10, 11, ii. 1 (Eng.; but ii. 1-3 Heb.). Chap. i. 7
introduces Judah as excepted from the curse passed upon Israel; it is
so obviously intrusive in a prophecy dealing only with Israel, and
it so clearly reflects the deliverance of Judah from Sennacherib in
701, that we cannot hold it for anything but an insertion of a date
subsequent to that deliverance, and introduced by a pious Jew to
signalise Judah's fate in contrast with Israel's.[399]
The other three verses (i. 10, 11, ii. 1, Eng.; ii. 1-3, Heb.)
introduce a promise of restoration before the sentence of judgment is
detailed, or any ethical conditions of restoration are stated. That is,
they break and tangle an argument otherwise consistent and progressive
from beginning to end of the Section. Every careful reader must feel
them out of place where they lie. Their awkwardness has been so much
appreciated that, while in the Hebrew text they have been separated
from chap. i., in the Greek they have been separated from chap. ii.
That is to say, some have felt they have no connection with what
precedes them, others none with what follows them; while our English
version, by distributing them between the two chapters, only makes
more sensible their superfluity. If they really belong to the prophecy,
their proper place is after the last verse of chap. ii.[400] This is
actually the order in which part of it and part of them are quoted
by St. Paul.[401] At the same time, when so arranged, they repeat
somewhat awkwardly the language of ii. 23, and scarcely form a climax
to the chapter. There is nothing in their language to lead us to doubt
that they are Hosea's own; and ver. 11 shows that they must have been
written at least before the captivity of Northern Israel.[402]
The only other suspected clause in this section is that in iii. 5,
_and David their king_;[403] but if it be struck out the verse is
rendered awkward, if not impossible, by the immediate repetition of
the Divine name, which would not have been required in the absence of
the suspected clause.[404]
The text of the rest of the section is remarkably free from
obscurities. The Greek version offers few variants, and most of these
are due to mistranslation.[405] In iii. 1 for _loved of a husband_ it
reads _loving evil_.
Evidently this section was written before the death of Jeroboam II.
The house of Jehu still reigns; and as Hosea predicts its fall by war
on the classic battleground of Jezreel, the prophecy must have been
written before the actual fall, which took the form of an internal
revolt against Zechariah, the son of Jeroboam. With this agrees the
tone of the section. There are the same evils in Israel which Amos
exposed in the prosperous years of the same reign; but Hosea appears to
realise the threatened exile from a nearer standpoint. It is probable
also that part of the reason of his ability to see his way through the
captivity to the people's restoration is due to a longer familiarity
with the approach of captivity than Amos experienced before he wrote.
But, of course, for Hosea's promise of restoration there were, as we
shall see, other and greater reasons of a religious kind.[406]
SECOND SECTION: CHAPS. iv.-xiv.
When we pass into these chapters we feel that the times are changed.
The dynasty of Jehu has passed: kings are falling rapidly: Israel
devours its rulers:[407] there is no loyalty to the king; he is
suddenly cut off;[408] all the princes are revolters.[409] Round so
despised and so unstable a throne the nation tosses in disorder.
Conspiracies are rife. It is not only, as in Amos, the the sins of
the luxurious, of them that are at ease in Zion, which are exposed;
but also literal bloodshed: highway robbery with murder, abetted by
the priests;[410] the thief breaketh in and the robber-troop maketh a
raid.[411] Amos looked out on foreign nations across a quiet Israel;
his views of the world are wide and clear; but in the Book of Hosea
the dust is up, and into what is happening beyond the frontier we
get only glimpses. There is enough, however, to make visible another
great change since the days of Jeroboam. Israel's self-reliance is
gone. She is as fluttered as a startled bird: _They call unto Egypt,
they go unto Assyria._[412] Their wealth is carried as a gift to King
Jareb,[413] and they evidently engage in intrigues with Egypt. But
everything is hopeless: kings cannot save, for Ephraim is seized by
the pangs of a fatal crisis.[414]
This broken description reflects--and all the more faithfully because
of its brokenness--the ten years which followed on the death of
Jeroboam II. about 743.[415] His son Zechariah, who succeeded him,
was in six months assassinated by Shallum ben Jabesh, who within a
month more was himself cut down by Menahem ben Gadi.[416] Menahem
held the throne for six or seven years, but only by sending to
the King of Assyria an enormous tribute which he exacted from the
wealthy magnates of Israel.[417] Discontent must have followed these
measures, such discontent with their rulers as Hosea describes.
Pekahiah ben Menahem kept the throne for little over a year after his
father's death, and was assassinated by his captain,[418] Pekah ben
Remaliah, with fifty Gileadites, and Pekah took the throne about 736.
This second and bloody usurpation may be one of those on which Hosea
dwells; but if so it is the last historical allusion in his book.
There is no reference to the war of Pekah and Rezin against Ahaz
of Judah which Isaiah describes,[419] and to which Hosea must have
alluded had he been still prophesying.[420] There is no allusion to
its consequence in Tiglath-Pileser's conquest of Gilead and Galilee
in 734-733. On the contrary, these provinces are still regarded as
part of the body politic of Israel.[421] Nor is there any sign that
Israel have broken with Assyria; to the last the book represents them
as fawning on the Northern Power.[422]
In all probability, then, the Book of Hosea was closed before 734
B.C. The Second Section dates from the years behind that and back to
the death of Jeroboam II. about 743, while the First Section, as we
saw, reflects the period immediately before the latter.
We come now to the general style of chaps. iv.-xiv. The period,
as we have seen, was one of the most broken of all the history
of Israel; the political outlook, the temper of the people, were
constantly changing. Hosea, who watched these kaleidoscopes, had
himself an extraordinarily mobile and vibrant mind. There could be
no greater contrast to that fixture of conscience which renders the
Book of Amos so simple in argument, so firm in style.[423] It was a
leaden plummet which Amos saw Jehovah setting to the structure of
Israel's life.[424] But Hosea felt his own heart hanging at the end
of the line; and this was a heart that could never be still. Amos is
the prophet of law; he sees the Divine processes work themselves
out, irrespective of the moods and intrigues of the people, with
which, after all, he was little familiar. So each of his paragraphs
moves steadily forward to a climax, and every climax is Doom--the
captivity of the people to Assyria. You can divide his book by these
things; it has its periods, strophes and refrains. It marches like
the hosts of the Lord of hosts. But Hosea had no such unhampered
vision of great laws. He was too familiar with the rapid changes of
his fickle people; and his affection for them was too anxious. His
style has all the restlessness and irritableness of hunger about
it--the hunger of love. Hosea's eyes are never at rest. He seeks, he
welcomes, for moments of extraordinary fondness he dwells upon every
sign of his people's repentance. But a Divine jealousy succeeds, and
he questions the motives of the change. You feel that his love has
been overtaken and surprised by his knowledge; and in fact his whole
style might be described as a race between the two--a race varying
and uncertain up to almost the end. The transitions are very swift.
You come upon a passage of exquisite tenderness: the prophet puts
the people's penitence in his own words with a sympathy and poetry
that are sublime and seem final. But suddenly he remembers how false
they are, and there is another light in his eyes. The lustre of their
tears dies from his verses, like the dews of a midsummer morning in
Ephraim; and all is dry and hard again beneath the brazen sun of
his amazement. _What shall I do unto thee, Ephraim? What shall I do
unto thee, Judah?_ Indeed, this figure of his own is insufficient
to express the suddenness with which Hosea lights up some intrigue
of the statesmen of the day, or some evil habit of the priests, or
some hidden orgy of the common people. Rather than the sun it is the
lightning--the lightning in pursuit of a serpent.
The elusiveness of the style is the greater that many passages do not
seem to have been prepared for public delivery. They are more the
play of the prophet's mind than his set speech. They are not formally
addressed to an audience, and there is no trace in them of oratorical
art.
Hence the language of this Second Section of the Book of Hosea is
impulsive and abrupt beyond all comparison. There is little rhythm
in it, and almost no argument. Few metaphors are elaborated. Even
the brief parallelism of Hebrew poetry seems too long for the quick
spasms of the writer's heart. "Osee," said Jerome,[425] "commaticus
est, et quasi per sententias loquitur." He speaks in little clauses,
often broken off; he is impatient even of copulas. And withal he uses
a vocabulary full of strange words, which the paucity of parallelism
makes much the more difficult.
To this original brokenness and obscurity of the language are due,
_first_, the great corruption of the text; _second_, the difficulty
of dividing it; _third_, the uncertainty of deciding its genuineness
or authenticity.
1. The TEXT of Hosea is one of the most dilapidated in the Old
Testament, and in parts beyond possibility of repair. It is probable
that glosses were found necessary at an earlier period and to a larger
extent than in most other books: there are evident traces of some; yet
it is not always possible to disentangle them.[426] The value of the
Greek version is curiously mixed. The authors had before them much the
same difficulties as we have, and they made many more for themselves.
Some of their mistranslations are outrageous: they occur not only in
obscure passages, where they may be pardoned;[427] but even where
there are parallel terms with which the translators show themselves
familiar.[428] Sometimes they have translated word by word, without
any attempt to give the general sense; and as a whole their version
is devoid both of beauty and compactness. Yet not infrequently they
supply us with a better reading than the Massoretic text. Occasionally
they divide words properly which the latter misdivides.[429] They often
give more correctly the easily confused pronominal suffixes;[430]
and the copula.[431] And they help us to the true readings of many
other words.[432] Here and there an additional clause in the Greek
is plethoric, perhaps copied by mistake from a similar verse in the
context.[433] All of these will be noticed separately as we reach them.
But, even after these and other aids, we shall find that the text not
infrequently remains impracticable.
2. As great as the difficulty of reaching a true text in this Second
Section of the book is the difficulty of DIVIDING it. Here and there,
it is true, the Greek helps us to improve upon the division into
chapters and verses of the Hebrew text, which is that of our own
English version. Chap. vi. 1-4 ought to follow immediately on to the
end of chap. v., with the connecting word _saying_. The last few
words of chap. vi. go with the first two of chap. vii., but perhaps
both are gloss. The openings of chaps. xi. and xii. are better
arranged in the Hebrew than in the Greek. As regards verses we shall
have to make several rearrangements.[434] But beyond this more or
less conventional division into chapters and verses our confidence
ceases. It is impossible to separate the section, long as it is, into
subsections, or into oracles, strophes or periods. The reason of this
we have already seen, in the turbulence of the period reflected, in
the divided interests and abrupt and emotional style of the author,
and in the probability that part at least of the book was not
prepared for public speaking. The periods and climaxes, the refrains,
the catchwords by which we are helped to divide even the confused
Second Section of the Book of Amos, are not found in Hosea. Only
twice does the exordium of a spoken address occur: at the beginning
of the section (chap. iv. 1), and at what is now the opening of the
next chapter (v. 1). The phrase _'tis the oracle of Jehovah_, which
occurs so periodically in Amos, and thrice in the second chapter
of Hosea, is found only once in chaps. iv.-xiv. Again, the obvious
climaxes or perorations, of which we found so many in Amos, are very
few,[435] and even when they occur the next verses start impulsively
from them, without a pause.
In spite of these difficulties, since the section is so long, attempts
at division have been made. Ewald distinguished three parts in three
different tempers: _First_, iv.-vi. 11 _a_, God's Plaint against His
people; _Second_, vi. 11 _b_-ix. 9, Their Punishment; _Third_, ix.
10-xiv. 10, Retrospect of the earlier history--warning and consolation.
Driver also divides into three subsections, but differently: _First_,
iv.-viii., in which Israel's Guilt predominates; _Second_, ix.-xi.
11, in which the prevailing thought is their Punishment; _Third_, xi.
12-xiv. 10, in which both lines of thought are continued, but followed
by a glance at the brighter future.[436] What is common to both these
arrangements is the recognition of a certain progress from feelings
about Israel's guilt which prevail in the earlier chapters, to a clear
vision of the political destruction awaiting them; and finally more
hope of repentance in the people, with a vision of the blessed future
that must follow upon it. It is, however, more accurate to say that the
emphasis of Hosea's prophesying, instead of changing from the Guilt to
the Punishment of Israel, changes about the middle of chap. vii. from
their Moral Decay to their Political Decay, and that the description of
the latter is modified or interrupted by Two Visions of better things:
one of Jehovah's early guidance of the people, with a great outbreak
of His Love upon them, in chap. xi.; and one of their future Return to
Jehovah and restoration in chap. xiv. It is on these features that the
division of the following Exposition is arranged.
3. It will be obvious that with a text so corrupt, with a style so
broken and incapable of logical division, questions of AUTHENTICITY
are raised to a pitch of the greatest difficulty. Allusion has been
made to the number of glosses which must have been found necessary
from even an early period, and of some of which we can discern the
proofs.[437] We will deal with these as they occur. But we may here
discuss, as a whole, another class of suspected passages--suspected
for the same reason that we saw a number in Amos to be, because of
their reference to Judah. In the Book of Hosea (chaps. iv.-xiv.)
they are twelve in number. Only one of them is favourable (iv. 15):
_Though Israel play the harlot, let not Judah sin._ Kuenen[438]
argues that this is genuine, on the ground that the peculiar verb
_to sin_ or _take guilt to oneself_ is used several other times in
the book,[439] and that the wish expressed is in consonance with
what he understands to be Hosea's favourable feeling towards Judah.
Yet Hosea nowhere else makes any distinction between Ephraim and
Judah in the matter of sin, but condemns both equally; and as iv.
15 f. are to be suspected on other grounds as well, I cannot hold
this reference to Judah to be beyond doubt. Nor is the reference in
viii. 14 genuine: _And Israel forgat her Maker and built temples, and
Judah multiplied fenced cities, but I will send fire on his cities
and it shall devour her palaces_. Kuenen[440] refuses to reject the
reference to Judah, on the ground that without it the rhythm of the
verse is spoiled; but the fact is the whole verse must go. Chap. v.
13 forms a climax, which v. 14 only weakens; the style is not like
Hosea's own, and indeed is but an echo of verses of Amos.[441] Nor
can we be quite sure about v. 5: _Israel and Ephraim shall stumble by
their iniquities, and_ (LXX.) _stumble also shall Judah with them_;
or vi. 10, 11: _In Bethel I have seen horrors: there playest thou the
harlot, Ephraim; there Israel defiles himself; also Judah_ ... (the
rest of the text is impracticable). In both these passages Judah is
the awkward third of a parallelism, and is introduced by an _also_,
as if an afterthought. Yet the afterthought may be the prophet's own;
for in other passages, to which no doubt attaches, he fully includes
Judah in the sinfulness of Israel. Cornill rejects x. 11, _Judah must
plough_, but I cannot see on what grounds; as Kuenen says, it has no
appearance of being an intrusion.[442] In xii. 3 Wellhausen reads
_Israel_ for _Judah_, but the latter is justified if not rendered
necessary by the reference to Judah in ver. 1, which Wellhausen
admits. Against the other references--v. 10, _The princes of Judah
are as removers of boundaries_; v. 12, _I shall be as the moth to
Ephraim, and a worm to the house of Judah_; v. 13, _And Ephraim saw
his disease, and Judah his sore_; v. 14, _For I am as a roaring lion
to Ephraim, and as a young lion to the house of Judah_; vi. 4, _What
shall I do to thee, Ephraim? what shall I do to thee, Judah?_--there
are no apparent objections; and they are generally admitted by
critics. As Kuenen says, it would have been surprising if Hosea had
made no reference to the sister kingdom. His judgment of her is amply
justified by that of her own citizens, Isaiah and Micah.
Other short passages of doubtful authenticity will be treated as we
come to them; but again it may be emphasised that, in a book of such
a style as this, certainty on the subject is impossible.
Finally, there may be given here the only notable addition which the
Septuagint makes to the Book of Hosea. It occurs in xiii. 4, after
_I am Jehovah thy God_: "That made fast the heavens and founded the
earth, whose hands founded all the host of the heaven, and I did not
show them to thee that thou shouldest follow after them, and I led
thee up"--_from the land of Egypt_.
At first this recalls those apostrophes to Jehovah's power which
break forth in the Book of Amos; and the resemblance has been taken
to prove that they also are late intrusions. But this both obtrudes
itself as they do not, and is manifestly of much lower poetical
value. See page 203.
* * * * *
We have now our material clearly before us, and may proceed to the more
welcome task of tracing our prophet's life, and expounding his teaching.
FOOTNOTES:
[394] See below, pp. 213 f.
[395] _Geschichte_, pp. 93 ff., 214 ff., 439 f.
[396] A list of the more obvious is given by Kuenen, p. 324.
[397] The first chapter in the Hebrew closes with ver. 9.
[398] Cf. this with Amos; above, pp. 192 ff.
[399] König's arguments (_Einleitung_, 309) in favour of the
possibility of the genuineness of the verse do not seem to me to be
conclusive. He thinks the verse admissible because Judah had sinned
less than Israel; the threat in vv. 4-6 is limited to Israel; the
phrase _Jehovah their God_ is so peculiar that it is difficult to
assign it to a mere expander of the text; and if it was a later hand
that put in the verse, why did he not alter the judgments against
Judæa, which occur further on in the book?
[400] So Cheyne and others, Kuenen adhering. König agrees that they
have been removed from their proper place and the text corrupted.
[401] Rom. ix. 25, 26, which first give the end of Hosea ii. 23 (Heb.
25), and then the end of i. 10 (Heb. ii. 2). See below, p. 249, _n._ 2.
[402] 721 B.C.
[403] Stade, _Gesch._, I. 577; Cornill, _Einleitung_, who also would
exclude _no king and no prince_ in iii. 4.
[404] This objection, however, does not hold against the removal of
merely _and David_, leaving _their king_.
[405] ii. 7, 11, 14, 17 (Heb.). In i. 4 B-text reads Ἰούδα for יהוא
while Q^{mq} have Ἰηου.
[406] In determining the date of the Book of Hosea the title in chap.
i. is of no use to us: _The Word of Jehovah which was to Hosea ben
Be'eri in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, kings of Judah,
and in the days of Jeroboam ben Joash, king of Israel._ This title
is trebly suspicious. First: the given reigns of Judah and Israel
do not correspond; Jeroboam was dead before Uzziah. Second: there
is no proof either in the First or Second Section of the book that
Hosea prophesied after the reign of Jotham. Third: it is curious that
in the case of a prophet of Northern Israel kings of Judah should
be stated first, and four of them be given while only one king of
his own country is placed beside them. On these grounds critics are
probably correct who take the title as it stands to be the work of
some later Judæan scribe who sought to make it correspond to the
titles of the Books of Isaiah and Micah. He may have been the same
who added chap. i. 7. The original form of the title probably was
_The Word of God which was to Hosea son of Be'eri in the days of
Jeroboam ben Joash, king of Israel_, and designed only for the First
Section of the book, chaps, i.-iii.
[407] vii. 7. There are also other passages which, while they may
be referred, as they stand, to the whole succession of illegitimate
dynasties in Northern Israel from the beginning to the end of that
kingdom, more probably reflect the same ten years of special anarchy
and disorder after the death of Jeroboam II. See vii. 3 ff.; viii. 4,
where the illegitimate kingmaking is coupled with the idolatry of the
Northern Kingdom; xiii. 10, 11.
[408] x. 3, 7, 8, 15.
[409] ix. 15.
[410] vi. 8, 9.
[411] vii. 1.
[412] vii. 11.
[413] x. 6.
[414] xiii. 12 f.
[415] The chronology of these years is exceedingly uncertain.
Jeroboam was dead about 743; in 738 Menahem gave tribute to Assyria;
in 734 Tiglath-Pileser had conquered Aram, Gilead and Galilee in
response to King Ahaz, who had a year or two before been attacked by
Rezin of Aram and Pekah of Israel.
[416] 2 Kings xv. 8-16. It may be to this appearance of three kings
within one month that there was originally an allusion in the now
obscure verse of Hosea, v. 7.
[417] 2 Kings xv. 17-22.
[418] Or prince, שׂר: cf. Hosea's denunciation of the שׂרים as rebels.
[419] Isa. vii.; 2 Kings xv. 37, 38.
[420] Some have found a later allusion in chap. x. 14: _like unto the
destruction_ of (?) _Shalman_ (of ?) _Beth' Arbe'l_. Pusey, p. 5 _b_,
and others take this to allude to a destruction of the Galilean Arbela,
the modern Irbid, by Salmanassar IV., who ascended the Assyrian throne
in 727 and besieged Samaria in 724 ff. But since the construction of
the phrase leaves it doubtful whether the name Shalman is that or the
agent or object of the destruction, and whether, if the agent, he be
one of the Assyrian Salmanassars or a Moabite King Salman _c._ 730
B.C., it is impossible to make use of the verse in fixing the date of
the Book of Hosea. See further, p. 289. Wellhausen omits.
[421] v. 1; vi. 8; xii. 12: cf. W. R. Smith, _Prophets_, 156.
[422] Cf. W. R. Smith, _l.c._
[423] Cf. W. R. Smith, _Prophets_, 157: Hosea's "language and the
movement of his thoughts are far removed from the simplicity and
self-control which characterise the prophecy of Amos. Indignation and
sorrow, tenderness and severity, faith in the sovereignty of Jehovah's
love, and a despairing sense of Israel's infidelity are woven together
in a sequence which has no logical plan, but is determined by the
battle and alternate victory of contending emotions; and the swift
transitions, the fragmentary unbalanced utterance, the half-developed
allusions, that make his prophecy so difficult to the commentator,
express the agony of this inward conflict."
[424] See above, p. 114.
[425] _Præf. in Duod. Prophetas._
[426] Especially in chap. vii.
[427] As in xi. 2 _b_.
[428] This is especially the case in x. 11-13; xi. 4; xiv. 5.
[429] _E.g._ vi. 5 _b_: M.T. יצא אור משפטיך which is nonsense; LXX.
כאור משפטי, _My judgment shall go forth like light._ xi. 2: M.T.
מִפְּנֵיהֶם; LXX. הֵם מִפָּנַי.
[430] iv. 4, עמי for עמך; 8, נפשם for נפ--perhaps; 13, צִלָּה for
צִלָּהּ; v. 2; vi. 2 (possibly); viii. 4, read יכרתוּ; ix. 2; xi. 2,
3; xi. 5, 6, where for לא read לו; 10, read לֵֶךְ; xii. 9; xiv. 9
_a_, לֹו for לִי. On the other hand, they are either improbable or
quite wrong, as in v. 2 _b_; vi. 2 (but the LXX. may be right here);
vii 1 _b_; xi. 1, 4; xii. 5; xiii. 14, 15 (ter.).
[431] v. 5 (so as to change the tense: _and Judah shall stumble_);
xii. 3, etc.
[432] vi. 3; viii. 10, 13; ix. 2; x. 4, 13 _b_, 15 (probably); xii.
2; xiii. 9; xiv. 3. Wrong tense, xii. 11. Cf. also vi. 3.
[433] _E.g._ viii. 13.
[434] Cf. the Hebrew and Greek, of _e.g._, iv. 10, 11, 12; vi. 9, 10;
viii. 5, 6; ix. 8, 9.
[435] viii. 13 (14 must be omitted); ix. 17.
[436] _Introd._ 284.
[437] _E.g._ iv. 15 (?); vi. 11-vii. 1 (?); vii. 4; viii. 2; xii. 6.
[438] _Einl._, 323.
[439] אשם, v. 15; x. 2; xiii. 1; xiv. 1.
[440] P. 313.
[441] viii. 14 is also rejected by Wellhausen and Cornill.
[442] _Loc. cit._