OSEA. – Israelite prophet (Os. 7:5), whose book stands first among the Minor Prophets. The preaching of O. was the final appeal of divine mercy (hōtēa' “Jahweh saves”) to the ten northern tribes, before the punishment, just as that of Amos had recalled divine justice a few years earlier.
The happy reign of Ieroboam II (783–743) was drawing to its close; already, with Theglathphalasar III (745–727), the awakening of Assyria from that torpor which, together with the decline of the Twenty-Second Egyptian Dynasty, had permitted Syria and then Samaria a temporary splendor, was being heralded. Meanwhile internal disorder began again (743), with the frantic and turbulent succession of kings and dynasties: Zaccaria, the last of the house of Iehu, was killed (cf. Os. 1:4), after six months of reign, by Sellum, who remained on the throne for only one month. The usurper Manahem (742–737), tributary to Assyria, was king for ca. six years; the others (Phaceia, Phacee, Oace) followed one another almost with the rhythm of the final catastrophe which, begun by Salmanasar V (727–722) with the siege of Samaria (from 724), was completed by Sargon II (722–721). O. refers to these dynastic upheavals (722–721). O. refers to these dynastic upheavals (722–721). O. refers to these dynastic upheavals (722–721). O. refers to these dynastic upheavals (722–721).
according to E. Sellin, to the last ones. He therefore feels great pity for the people, dragged by their leaders first into schism and violation of the covenant with Jahweh, and then into utter ruin. The priests, for the sake of their own interests, are the guardians of this fatal disorder (cf. Am. 7:10–17: A. Neher [V. BIBLICA.], pp. 20–33; Os. 4:4–10; 5).
The central theme of O., as of Am. 3:1 ff., is the covenant, established at Sinai, between Jahweh and Israel. O. develops it in terms of love, drawing out all its consequences, rights and duties, and showing its ultimate purpose, messianic salvation (Os. 3:5).
The covenant is an intimate relationship between Jahweh and Israel, originating in the Lord’s free election and solemnly accepted by the people. O. (1–3) uses the image of marriage, perhaps derived from Ex. 20:5 (qomni' “jealous,” from qn', which in the pi'el expresses the feeling of jealousy proper to the bridegroom), and later taken up by the following prophets (Ier. 2; Ez. 16, etc.; Cantico; but already Am. 3:2 jidha'ti). It is essentially expressed in the Decalogue: monotheism and moral precepts (Os. 4:1 ff., 12–19; 6:6 ff., etc.; cf. Am. 3:1 ff.; 5:21–26; 8:2; Mi. 6:6 ff.; Is. 1; 5:1–7; Ier. 7; 11, etc.). On God’s part, every benefit and the greatest affection; on Israel’s part, the infidelity which began with the first contacts with the Canaanites (Os. 9:10; 10:1; 11:1 f.; 13:5 f.; cf. Ier. 2:1–3; Ez. 20:28), and which has now reached its height in Samaria (Os. 2:4–15; 4:12 and passim). Punishment, therefore, is imminent; salvation lies only in returning to the sworn covenant; and O. repeats Jahweh’s loving invitation (11–14).
Consequences of the central theme: the Kingdom of Israel can only be theocratic. A king who acts against the covenant (as did the various northern dynasties) is not legitimate. Therefore the opposition and condemnation expressed by O. (7:3–7; 8:4; 10:15; 13:10 f.) are not directed against monarchy in favor of a regime of freedom, but against the impious policy of the kings of Samaria. To enter into the game of the political powers, trusting in one’s own weapons and in stronger kingdoms, means no longer having faith in the covenant, in God’s fidelity and omnipotence; it means setting out toward syncretism and idolatry (Os. 5:13; 7:11; 8:9; 10:4 ff.; 12:2; 14:4).
The sociological school (A. Causse, Du groupe ethn. à la commun. relig., Paris 1937, pp. 83–90), in addition to the anti-monarchical movement, attributes to the prophets, and especially to O., a nostalgia for the desert, an invitation to nomadic life, together with a condemnation of culture. But O. calls the fruits of the fields and wealth gifts of God (2:10 f.), which figure among the features of the future restoration (2:17 a. 23 f.). He condemns the popular religion that attributes the goods of the soil to the Baals (2:7, 10) and venerates them (2:10b, 15). The desert period is celebrated because of Israel’s fidelity to the Covenant.
The book of O. preserves the principal ideas of the prophet’s preaching. They are found in complete form in the first three chapters. O., by divine command, takes a prostitute as his wife (D. Buzy [V. BIBLICA.]): Israel, the bride of Jahweh, is now an adulteress; idolatry dominates the northern Kingdom. If the covenant cannot be maintained in love, it will be maintained in justice. This is expressed by the names O. gives his children: Iezrahel (a play on Israel), the plain bloodied by Iehu (II Reg. 9:14–37), a portent of terrible punishments; Lā' ruḥāmāh “no more pity,” Jahweh is resolved to show mercy no longer; Lā' ammī “no longer my people,” because the northern Kingdom has broken the covenant. Yet Jahweh still loves Israel (Os. 3); condemnation and punishments are medicinal, so that Israel, by purifying itself, may be converted and share in the salvation that will come from the dynasty of David (ibid. 1–3).
For the rest of the book, it is not appropriate to speak of systematic development; O. proceeds by sayings without any apparent connection. Three parts are generally distinguished: 4–7; 8–11,
11; 11:12–14:10, each of which resounds with the motifs mentioned above.
The Wellhausenian criticism, excessively theoretical and restricted (K. Marti, F. Nowack, G. Hölscher, P. Volz), which regarded every promise of salvation and every reference to Judah as an interpolation, has been superseded. With untenable postulates (A. Neher [V. BIBLICA.], pp. 36–42), it completely ignored the Sinai covenant and relegated morality to the later prophets. The first three chapters can serve as a touchstone. Now in Os. 3:5 it is explicitly stated that the covenant will find its fulfillment through the Davidic dynasty. In speaking of the covenant’s fate, O. cannot ignore Judah. Chapter 3 itself establishes the close connection between threats and promises of forgiveness and salvation (cf. already chap. 2).
The text is among the most defective in the Bible; it contains ancient alterations, since these are also found in the Septuagint; consequently the versions are of little help, while much is left to simple conjecture. The poetic form is even more difficult to establish. The vocabulary is rich and the language classical, expressing the sentiments of a soul deeply penetrated by love for its God and its people; the outbursts of a profoundly sensitive and religious nature. This combination of qualities makes O. a powerful lyric poet, not inferior to Isaiah.
Francesco Spadafora
OSEA (Hebr. Hōfēa). - The last sovereign of the Kingdom of Israel (732-724 B.C.), who hastened its final collapse. When he ascended the throne, the Kingdom was fatally on the path of decline. Having lost Galilee and Transjordan through the actions of the powerful Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser III (v.), only the mountainous territory around Samaria remained of the ancient Kingdom of Israel (II Kings 15:29; cf. I Chr. 5:26). Amid growing discontent against Assyrian power, Hoshea son of Elah conspired against King Pekah, his predecessor, and, having killed him, usurped the throne (II Kings 15:30).
It is probable that this conspiracy against Pekah, known for his anti-Assyrian sentiments, was instigated by Tiglath-Pileser himself, who boasts of it in his inscription, where the event is narrated as follows: «The house of Omri, all its people together with their possessions I deported to Assyria; when they overthrew their king Pakaha (Pekah), I placed Ausia (Hoshea) on the throne over them.» It was the year 732. As deduced from these words, Hoshea’s position vis-à-vis Assyria was that of a vassal king, so much so that, according to the Assyrian document, he was obliged to pay Tiglath-Pileser a tribute of 10,000 talents of gold and other unspecified amounts of silver.
But when Tiglath-Pileser was succeeded by his son Shalmaneser V (726-722), Hoshea changed his policy and refused to pay the annual tribute to Assyria, while in Phoenicia and Syria rebellion against the Assyrian yoke flared up again. However, he was brought back to obedience at the first appearance of Shalmaneser near Tyre. Subsequently, he again suspended the tribute, and when the Assyrian king discovered his secret relations with Egypt, the age-old antagonist of Assyrian power (in II Kings 17:4, the king of Egypt who entered into relations with Hoshea is called So [Hebr. Sē]: it is difficult to identify him, as this period of Egyptian history, from the XXIII to the XXIV dynasty, is very obscure; it seems he was a general of the Pharaoh called, in Assyrian documents, Sib'e or Sib'u, and titled turtannu, i.e., general of the king of Egypt: cf. A. Vaccari [V. BIBLICA.], p. 449), his treachery was evident.
The vengeance of the king of Assyria was not long in coming: the rebel king of Israel was chained and taken to prison (II Kings 16:4). Thus Hoshea disappears from history, and with him ended the Kingdom of Israel after 320 years from its secession from the Kingdom of Judah (931 B.C.). His deposition was followed SAMALIA (v.) (724-722 B.C.).