[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Hosea & Pesher

Ian Hutchesson wrote:

Dear All,

I was just wondering if all the text of Hosea has been covered by finds
among the documents. If so, what is the distribution of the finds? If not
what exactly has been found? And I hope some kind soul can tell me if there
has been more of the Hosea pesher than what relates to 2:8-12 been found
and, if so, the extent.


Ian Hutchesson
(This follows a posting on ioudaios relating to the possibility that
chapters 5-14 may concern the Oniad problem of the second century.)
Here is my posting to Ioudaios:

     In Ps. 78, I would actually take a bigger chunk to examine than just
9-12. Take a look at 9-20. I think that it is an Oniad addition to the psalm,
attacking the Pharisees. The psalm actually flows better without lines 9-20.
The Pharisees, as I noted in a previous post, may be seen as the "Wicked of
Ephraim" found in the Nahum Pesher. It was this group, who "turned their
backs" (line 9), did not keep God's covenant (line 10- by not defending his
rightful priesthood), refused to walk according to his law (again line 10 and
for the same reason), and before whose "fathers" he worked marvels in Egypt
(perhaps a reference to Leontopolis). Most connected of all, however, is line
19, which I may need to add to my thesis (thanks for pointing this passage
out), which states a question that Ephraim spoke against God (which I take
here to include God's priesthood). They said, "Can God spread a table in the
wilderness?" While this is an obvious reference to food, might not it also be
a statement questioning the validity of a temple in the wilderness, in Egypt?
This is exactly, in my view, what probably split the Pharisees from the
Oniads, the issue
of the validity of a temple in Egypt and here is such a statement attributed
to the appropriate party, "Ephraim."
     With regard to Psalm 80, I would bring into question lines 1-2 and
These also seem like possible Oniad additions to a text which would work
perfectly well without them. The terms Ephraim, Benjamin, and Manasseh are
easily explained. Ephraim is the elect, the priesthood. Benjamin is
representing the Kingdom, David. Manasseh represents the non-elect. Thus,
these three terms encompass the priesthood, nobility, and the massess. Lines
14-18 make sense in connection with the fall of the Oniads if one assumes
that the "vine" in question is the High Priesthood. Though while the argument
in relation to lines 1-2 is reasonably clear, I myself think that the
argument relating to lines 14-18 is questionable. I only state it as a
     As for Hosea, I think that Ian picked out some of the crucial
statements. Hosea 11 is even clearer. I think that it is possible, not that a
few lines here and there are Oniad additions to Hosea, but that from 5:1 to
the end is an Oniad addition. The use of Ephraim in relation to Egypt and to
Assyria is much more logical in the post Oniad collapse circa 159 BCE than at
any time before. Moreover, the address "Here this O priests...For the
judgement pertains to you," may be seen as commentary and not prophecy.
Furthermore, it is only beginning in chapter 5 that Ephraim is mentioned and
Ephraim remains important through the rest of the text. You will note that
the Hebrew of Hosea 12:1 is suprisingly close in comparison with a number of
references to the "wicked of Ephraim" in the DSS. They tell lies.
     I don't yet know what to make of the lines in Zechariah, concerning

Just a few thoughts,
-David Jay Kaufman