1 (1) marriage and harlotry (chaps. 1-3; passim); (2) Israel like a stubborn heifer/trained heifer (4:16 and 10:11); (3) YHWH like a moth and dry rot (5:12); (4) YHWH as lion (5:14); (5) Israel's love like morning dew (6:4) and the reversal where YHWH becomes dew to Israel (14:5); (6) Israel like a silly dove and YHWH a waiting net (7:11-12); (7) YHWH as a vulture (8:7); (8) Israel like sin-filled altars (8:11); (9) Israel like grapes in the wilderness (9:10); (10) Israel like a flourishing vine (10:1; 14:7);(11) Israel as YHWH's son (11:1-12); (12) YHWH like a tearing lion (13:7); (13) Israel like a reed in the face of the wind (13:15); (14) YHWH like an evergreen cypress (14:8).

2 See, e.g., L.M. Muntingh.

3 Herbert G. May's article is the most classic example of this line of inquiry.

4 For a fine summary of the various, and in some instances eccentric reconstructions of the prophet's marriage that have been adduced from chaps. 1-3, see H.H. Rowley.

5 In addition to being a much needed improvement over the predominantly diachronic interests of older commentaries by Wolff, J. Mays, and Rudolph, the Anchor Bible commentary on Hosea by Francis Andersen and David N. Freedman provides a fine example of scholarship that exhibits unusual sensitivity to the overall literary integrity of the book while holding in tandem the historical issues that form its background. For examples of studies which are decidedly synchronic in approach, see W. Vogels and Henry Krszyna.

6 Literary analysis and historical analysis as discrete methodological categories are not as mutually exclusive as some scholarly quarters seem to imply. In the best studies, like that of Andersen/ Freedman, they mutually inform each other. For there are many instances, even in Hosea, in which historical findings can help to adjudicate literary issues and conversely a sensitivity to a text's literary persona can help shed light on historical questions.

7 Although the marital-harlotry motif appears elsewhere in the Old Testament most notably Jeremiah and Ezekiel, Hosea appears to be the first of the canonical prophets to employ such an image. Of course, as Moshe Weinfeld has pointed out, such a concept was probably already latent, though not explicit, in the ancient Pentateuchal concept of covenant (81, 6).

8 As a notable exception to this, Robert Carroll deserves to be highly commended for, among other things, what certainly has to be one of the most forthright and sensitive examinations of the ribald sexual language and imagery of the prophet Jeremiah, the latter who was in many ways influenced by Hosea's language and theology.

9 For a helpful discussion of those places throughout the Hebrew Bible where such imagery occurs and the emotive impact of such imagery, see David J. Clark.

10 In short, as a feminist biblical scholar, this writer is concerned about motifs and texts which rely upon the physical and sexual abuse of a woman to develop its larger, presumably congenial, theological point about divine love and retribution. As a black and womanist biblical scholar the writer is concerned about motifs and texts which rely upon the physical and sexual exploitation of anyone to develop its larger, presumably congenial theological point.

11 There has been a considerable amount of debate around the correct translation of 'isht znwnym in Hosea 1:2. Translators who are concerned, and rightly so, to capture the historical ramifications behind the word have translated the word "cult prostitute wife of harlotry" (Fensham), "wife of whoredom" (Wolff), "wife of promiscuity"
(Andersen /Freedman) and the like. Clearly as one commentator has pointed out, this is a case where the practice and the metaphor overlap. Although the expression 'eshet zenunim certainly carries strong sexual connotations, the intentionally neutral translation "unfaithful woman" is preferred here and is consistent, this writer believes, with the overall interest of the text. For a helpful discussion of the issues involved, see Andersen/Freedman (157-167).

12 This is the writer's own translation.

13 For example, on the grounds that it is consistently a first person address with overall thematic consistency Anderson /Freedman (116-131) and Martin Buss (34) speak of 2:4-25 as a discrete poem. This is the case even though a thematic shift takes place in 2:20 where particular allusions to the marriage, strife, and romance between husband and wife are abandoned and are replaced with language envisioning a broader eschatology. Such a vision of universal peace is reminiscent of 2:1-3. For this reason others like Hans Wolff (31-33) and Edwin Good (27-30), therefore, separate 2:4-17 from 2:18-25.

14 For the use of quotations as a clue to perceiving the integrity of prophetic material, see John T. Willis.

15 See Mordechai Friedman and A. Guillame.

16 A further support to the suggestion that quotations serve as a key to understanding the structure of this poem is the fact that of the comparatively few instances in this book where the oracular formula n'm yhwh occurs (2:15,18,23; 11:11), three of those four occurrences are within this poem.

17 Examples of the growing body of literature on this topic can be seen in works by Gracia Fay Ellwood, T. Drorah Setel, Judith Ochshorn (especially chap. 3, "Biblical Attitudes Toward Gender''), and Phyllis Trible. The latter does an excellent job in describing what appears to be a common convention among biblical authors and that is the literary expediency of physically victimized women for the sake of the androcentric interests of the biblical narrative.

18 This is the only occurrence of this form of nbl in the Hebrew Bible. Ander-
sen/Freedman correctly point out that the root does not necessarily carry any sexual connotations (Josh. 7:15; I Sam. 25:25 Isa. 9:16; 32:6), although there are clear cases where it does (Judg. 19:23; II Sam. 13:12) especially with the implication of sexual deviation (Andersen/Freedman, 248). This is most likely an example where the prophet/poet is being deliberately ambiguous, where both the wife's genitals and her base, foolish ways are referred to.  On the basis of parallelism with 2:11d, there is ground to interpret neblutah as a direct reference to the woman's sexual parts (contra Andersen/ Freedman, 248).

19 Echoing this point Hans W. Wolff writes, "At first, people are summoned against people reason is called out against folly, integrity against unfaithfulness . . . Thus we have the announcement of at least three different ways in which Yahweh proceeds: (1) he admonishes Israel to turn voluntarily from her pagan gods; (2) he threatens destruction of all possibilities for pagan worship in Palestine; and (3) after leading Israel away from the land he courts Israel with loving words and acts that represent the eschatological, new beginning of Israel's history (44).

20 Some scholars (e.g., Wolff, 33) have interpreted 2:4 as a divorce formula. But it is not likely that we should view this statement as a formal divorce decree, especially in light of the fact that the presumption behind the husband's ensuing demands, threats, pleas, and seduction is that he continued to have legal claims upon his wife.

21 See Deut 22:22. The reference in 2:5 to killing the woman with thirst, according to Andersen /Freedman, is not juridical but historical (222).

22 It is interesting to note that specific mention of love does not appear in this poem, nor in the entire chapter. Not until we come to the next chapter (3:1) and following, do we find specific mention of the word. Its absence prior to chap. 3 is odd given the extremely emotional nature of and the sensual language found within chap. 2. What is clear, however, is that it is not simply his wife/Israel's love for which the husband/YHWH contends; rather it is his love for her that he seeks to demonstrate, albeit in a strange fashion. William Moran contrasts Hosea's preaching on YHWH's love for Israel with that of the Deuteronomist's teaching on Israel's love for YHWH.

23 Andersen/Freedman (589). There is no evidence that the abrupt mood change from anguish and threats (2:4-15) to seduction in 2:15f. is because of a change in Gomer/Israel's behavior.

24 Patrick Miller provides a helpful discussion on the literary motif of correspondence between sin and judgment in prophetic speech.

25 " . . a model is [a] dominant metaphor, a metaphor with staying power . . . some metaphors gain wide appeal and become major ways of structuring and ordering experience," writes Sallie McFague (23).

26 The kind of intimacy spoken of here is reflected in the word yade'ah "know" in 2:10. It means more than simply intellectual knowledge but the kind of knowledge that comes only from personal intimate interaction. Precisely this kind of knowledge is what YHWH in 2:15 longs for and finds missing in Israel. Such use of yada' carries strong sexual overtones such as found throughout the Hebrew Bible, beginning with Gen. 4:1. Herbert Huffmon has shown that the word is also commonly associated with ancient treaty formulations.

27 It is interesting to note that although commentators assume it to be the case, there is nothing in the language to suggest that the prophet had in mind the deity as father in Hosea 11. In fact, a strong case can be made that the description in 11:1-3 of the deity carrying the young son (Israel) in its arms and teaching young Israel to walk evokes easily the image of YHWH the mother rather than the father.

28 Along with the article by Gary Hall, Dennis McCarthy's discussion of the close relationship between the marriage motif and the ancient Hebrew concept of covenant is insightful (32).

29 The same holds true for questions of power and powerlessness, and sovereignty and dependency.