OSEE. - Israelite prophet (Hos. 7:5), whose book stands first among the Minor Prophets. O.'s preaching was the last appeal of divine mercy (hōshēa' "Yahweh saves") to the ten tribes of the north, before the punishment, just as that of Amos had recalled divine justice a few years earlier.
The happy reign of Jeroboam II (783-743) was drawing to a close; already with Tiglath-Pileser III (745-727) the reawakening of Assyria was heralded from that torpor which, together with the decline of the XXII Egyptian dynasty, had allowed Syria and then Samaria a temporary splendor. Meanwhile internal disorder begins again (743), with the frenetic and tumultuous succession of kings and dynasties: Zechariah, last of the line of Jehu, is killed (cf. Hos. 1:4), after six months of reign, by Shallum, who remains on the throne a single month. The usurper Menahem (742-737), a tributary of Assyria, is king for about 6 years; the others (Pekahiah, Pekah, Hoshea) follow one another almost with the rhythm of the final catastrophe which, begun by Shalmaneser V (727-722) with the siege of Samaria (from 724), was completed by Sargon II (722-721). O. refers to these dynastic turmoils (722-721). O. refers to these dynastic turmoils (722-721). O. refers to these dynastic turmoils (722-721). O. refers to these dynastic turmoils (722-721).
according to E. Sellin to the last ones. He feels therefore a great pity for the people, dragged by their leaders first into schism and the violation of the covenant with Yahweh, then into utter ruin. The priests, for their own interests, are the guardians of this fatal disorder (cf. Am. 7:10-17: A. Neher [v. bibl.], pp. 20-33; Hos. 4:4-10; 5).
The central theme of O., as of Am. 3:1 ff., is the covenant, ratified at Sinai, between Yahweh and Israel. O. develops it in the mode of love, drawing from it all its consequences, rights and duties, and showing its ultimate purpose, messianic salvation (Hos. 3:5).
The covenant is an intimate relationship between Yahweh 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 (qannō' "jealous," from qn', which in the pi'el expresses the feeling of jealousy proper to a husband), and which will be taken up by the following prophets (Jer. 2; Ezek. 16, etc.; Song of Songs; but already Am. 3:2 yedha'ti). It is essentially expressed in the Decalogue: monotheism and moral precepts (Hos. 4:1 ff. 12-19; 6:6 ff., etc.; cf. Am. 3:1 ff.; 5:21-26; 8:2; Mic. 6:6 ff.; Isa. 1; 5:1-7; Jer. 7; 11, etc.). On God's part, every benefit and the greatest affection; on Israel's part, the infidelity that began with the first contacts with the Canaanites (Hos. 9:10; 10:1; 11:1 ff.; 13:5 ff.; cf. Jer. 2:1-3; Ezek. 20:28), and now in Samaria is at its height (Hos. 2:4-15; 4:12 and passim). The punishment is therefore imminent; salvation lies only in returning to the sworn covenant; and O. repeats Yahweh'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 (like the various dynasties of the north) is not legitimate. Therefore the opposition and condemnation expressed by O. (7:3-7; 8:4; 10:15; 13:10 ff.) is not against the monarchy in favor of a regime of liberty, but against the impious policy of the kings of Samaria. To enter into the game of political powers, trusting in one's own arms and in the stronger kingdoms, means no longer having faith in the covenant, in God's faithfulness and omnipotence; it is to set out toward syncretism and idolatry (Hos. 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), besides the anti-monarchical movement, attributes to the prophets, and especially to O., a nostalgia for the desert, the invitation to nomadic life, with the condemnation of culture. But O. calls the fruits of the fields, wealth, a gift of God (2:10 ff.), which figure among the marks of the future restoration (2:17a, 23 ff.). 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 for Israel's faithfulness to the Pact.
The book of O. preserves the principal ideas of the prophet's preaching. They are found complete in the first three chapters. O., by divine command, takes a harlot as his wife (D. Buzy [v. bibl.]): Israel, spouse of Yahweh, is by now an adulteress; idolatry dominates in the Kingdom of the north. If the covenant cannot be maintained in love, it will be in justice. This is expressed by the names that O. gives to his children: Jezreel (assonance with Israel), the plain bloodied by Jehu (2 Kings 9:14-37), a presage of terrible punishments; Lō' ruḥāmāh "no more pity," Yahweh is resolved no longer to show mercy; Lō' ammī "no more my people," for the Kingdom of the north has broken the covenant. And yet Yahweh still loves Israel (Hos. 3); condemnation and punishments are medicinal, so that Israel, purifying itself, may be converted and participate in the salvation that will come from the dynasty of David (ibid. 1-3).
For the rest of the book there is no occasion to speak of systematic development; O. proceeds by sentences without apparent connection. Generally three parts are distinguished: 4-7; 8-11, 11; 11:12-14:10, each of which resounds with the motifs mentioned above.
The Wellhausenian criticism, too theoretical and narrow (K. Marti, F. Nowack, G. Hölscher, P. Volz), which considered every promise of salvation, every reference to Judah, an interpolation, is superseded. With untenable postulates (A. Neher [v. bibl.], pp. 36-42), it completely ignored the covenant of Sinai and relegated morality to the later prophets. The first three chapters can serve as a touchstone. Now in Hos. 3:5 it is stated explicitly that the covenant will have its realization from the Davidic dynasty. Speaking of the fortunes of the covenant, O. cannot ignore Judah. Chapter 3 itself establishes the close connection between threats and promises of forgiveness and salvation (cf. already chapter 2).
The text is among the most defective in the Bible; it has ancient alterations, since they are found in the Septuagint; therefore the versions help little and much is asked of simple conjecture. The poetic form is even more difficult to establish. The vocabulary is rich and the language classical, and in it are expressed the feelings of a soul strongly penetrated with love for its God and its people; the impulses of a profoundly sensitive and religious nature. Such a combination of qualities makes O. a powerful lyric poet not inferior to Isaiah.