How Much Did Hosea Pay for His Wife?

The story of Hosea’s marriage to Gomer has been a source of debate among students of the Bible. God called Hosea to take “a wife of whoredom and have children of whoredom” as a sign that the land had committed “great whoredom” by forsaking the Lord. In obedience to God, Hosea went and took Gomer to be his wife and she bore him three children: two sons and one daughter. Hosea’s children were given symbolic names to reflect God’s judgment upon the sins of the people of Israel.

After Gomer left Hosea, whether by divorce, by becoming the legal wife of another man, or by becoming a temple prostitute is a matter for another study. In this post, I am assuming that the second woman in chapter 3 is Gomer and that God asked the prophet to return to his wife and redeem her.

After Gomer left Hosea, God came a second time to Hosea and told the prophet to take his wife back: “The Lord said to me, ‘Go again, love a woman who is loved by another man and is an adulteress’” (Hosea 3:1). In obedience to God’s command, Hosea went and bought her for “fifteen shekels of silver, a homer of barley, and a lethech of barley” (Hosea 3:2).

The purpose of this study is to ascertain how much Hosea paid for his wife. The problem with verse 2 is the repetition of the word “barley” and the use of the word “lethech.” The word “lethech” (לתך) is a hapax legomenon, that is, it is a word which occurs only once in the Old Testament, here in Hosea 3:2.

Because of this unique use of the word “lethech” in Hosea, the versions differ on the translation of verse 2:

“So I bought her to me for fifteen pieces of silver and a homer of barley, and a half-homer of barley” (JPS).

“So I bought her for fifteen pieces of silver and a homer and a lethech of barley” (NAB).

“Then I hired her for fifteen shekels of silver, a homer of barley, and a lethech of barley” (TNK).

The three translations above are variations of the same idea contained in verse 2. The JPS translation assumes that the lethech is a half of a homer. The NAB and the TNK assume that the homer and the lethech are different terms for dry measures but do not assume their value.

The translation of the Septuagint assumes a different reading for the text. The Septuagint reads: “So I hired her to myself for fifteen pieces of silver, and a homer of barley, and a flagon of wine.” Instead of “a lethech of barley,” the Septuagint has “a flagon of wine.”

Several English versions have chosen to follow the Septuagint:

“So I bought her for fifteen shekels of silver, a homer of barley and a skin of wine” (NJB).

“So I bought her back for fifteen pieces of silver and about five bushels of barley and a measure of wine” (NLT).

“So I bought her for fifteen shekels of silver and a homer of barley and a measure of wine” (NRS).

The problem with the translation proposed by the Septuagint is that it has no manuscript evidence for the inclusion of “a flagon of wine” to the text. The Greek translation may reflect the inability of Jewish scholars in Alexandria to recognize the meaning of the word “lethech” in the second century B.C.

In his Friday Culture Word Study, Duane Smith at Abnormal Interest said that in the West Semitic usage, all uses of the word “lethech” “seem to apply to grain.” In his translation of the verse, Duane proposes another meaning for “lethech.” He translated the verse as follows:

“So I bought her for myself with fifteen shekels of silver and a homer of barley (that is) and a measure of barley.”

Duane proposes that “a lethech of barley” is a gloss on “a homer of barley,” that is, that “either at the time of composition or later someone felt the need to explain that a ‘homer’ of barley was a ‘measure’ of barley.”

In his article on “Weights and Measures,” published in The Anchor Dictionary of the Bible, Marvin A. Powell discusses (p. 6:904) the decimal structure of the homer. He also said that according to the Mishnah, the lethech was half a homer.

The price Hosea paid for his wife was significant. The reason for the payment was because she probably had become the legal property of another man or because she was being redeemed from service as a cult prostitute.

As for the price Hosea paid for his wife, the amount seems to correspond to the price paid for a slave according to the law of the goring ox: “If the ox gores a slave, male or female, the owner shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver” (Exodus 21:32). According to Leviticus 27:4, thirty shekels of silver was also the value of a woman when calculating the fulfillment of a vow.

Since Hosea paid half of the price in silver and half in grain, it is possible that he did not have enough silver to pay the price asked for his wife, thus he paid half of the price in silver and half of the price in kind. According to Powell, the price paid by Hosea “suggests that the underlying homer had 10 parts and the letech (sic) 5, i.e., 15 ephah, and that 1 ephah = 1 shekel.” Thus, 1 homer was equal to 10 shekels. Since Hosea only had 15 shekels of silver, he also gave a homer and a lethech of barley, which was the equivalent to the 15 shekels of silver which he lacked.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Gomer,Homer, Hosea, Lethech

Hosea 6:6 and the NIV

Peter Kirk wrote an excellent post in Better Bibles Blog titled “Hosea 6:6: harmonising with NT destroys OT.” His post continues my argument here and here that the NIV is inconsistent in translating some Hebrew words in the book of Hosea.

In his post, Peter shows that the translation of Hosea 6:6 in the NIV was influenced by the translator’s attempt at harmonizing the text in Hosea with the text in Matthew.

Peter wrote:

I suspect that the real reason is because 6:6 is quoted in the New Testament, in Matthew 9:13 and 12:7. But the quotation is taken from the LXX rendering of this verse which is itself apparently a mistranslation. That is, the Greek word eleos used to render Hebrew hesed, here and in most other places in LXX and by Matthew, does not normally have the same meaning as hesed. Rather, it means "mercy", and so in Matthew is correctly translated "mercy". The problem apparently came when the translators decided that the text in Hosea must be adjusted to fit Matthew's use of the verse, as they understood it. Unfortunately by doing so they managed to completely mess up their translation of Hosea, removing the clear markers of cohesion in this prophecy and destroying its sense.

Read Peter’s article in its entirety by clicking here.

I agree with Peter’s view. And I also agree with his conclusion: “The NIV Old Testament is sadly marred in a number of places by misplaced attempts to harmonise with the New Testament.”

I encourage you to read Peter’s article.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary.

Tags: Exegesis, Hesed, Hosea, NIV, Translation

The Inconsistencies of the NIV - Part 2

In my post yesterday, I pointed out the inconsistency of the NIV in translating the word da‘at elohim in the book of the prophet Hosea. In that post I mentioned the problems preachers have when using the NIV in trying to arrive at a proper understanding of the biblical text.

Today I want to study another inconsistency found in the NIV that, to me at least, obfuscates the original meaning of the biblical text and sends a confusing message to a reader who cannot read the biblical text in its original language.

Again, in my comparison, I will use three other translations. I will compare the NIV with the NRSV, the ESV, and the TNIV. I could have used other translations, but my focus is on the NIV.

I use the NIV as the model for comparison since many people in my congregation have chosen to use the NIV because of the simplified language it uses to convey the biblical message. To readers whose first language is not English, the NIV is easy to understand. However, because of the inconsistency of the NIV, at times, the message the NIV presents is not as clear as it should be.

Another example of inconsistency in the NIV’s translation of Hosea is found in the use of the word hesed. The following is a translation of hesed in Hosea 4:1:

Hosea 4:1 (NIV): “Hear the word of the LORD, you Israelites, because the LORD has a charge to bring against you who live in the land: ‘There is no faithfulness, no love, no acknowledgment of God in the land.’”

In this verse, the NIV translates the word hesed as love. The word hesed is difficult to translate in English because the word has a wealth of meanings in Hebrew. The correct understanding of hesed is attained only in a study of the context of where the word is used. However, as H. J. Zobel has shown in the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, 5:47, “the one who receives an act of hesed responds with a similar act of hesed, or at least that the one who demonstrates hesed is justified in expecting an equivalent act in return.”

In a study of the word hesed in Isaiah, “Rereading Isaiah 40:6,” I wrote:

The word hesed is related to the covenant God established with Israel at Sinai. The word hesed refers to the commitment that binds two parties to a relationship.

In his book, The Word Hesed in the Hebrew Bible (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), Gordon Clark says that hesed is an "action performed, in the context of a deep and enduring commitment between two persons or parties" (p. 267). Since faithfulness to a relationship is a character of God, God also expects his people to be as committed to the relationship as he is.

When the word is applied to God, it refers to his faithfulness to the relationship. Thus, the word is best translated "faithfulness," "unfailing love," "loyalty." When the word is applied to human beings, it refers to the loyalty and commitment that people should bring to that relationship. In this case, a good translation of hesed should be "commitment," "loyalty." A strong relationship is built on commitment. Israel should be as loyal and committed to the covenant as God was.

In Hosea 4:1, the NRSV translates hesed as “loyalty;” the ESV as “steadfast love,” and the TNIV as “love.” Love or steadfast love is a good translation, but “loyalty” is a better translation.

On the other hand, the NIV translates the same word, hesed, as “mercy” in Hosea 6:6:

Hosea 6:6 (NIV): “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.”

In this verse the translations differ:

NRSV: “For I desire steadfast love.”
ESV: “For I desire steadfast love.”
TNIV: “For I desire mercy.”

In my opinion, the HCSB has a better translation: “For I desire loyalty.”

The word “mercy” does not convey in English what the biblical author was trying to communicate to his audience. In English, the word “mercy” means a compassionate treatment of a person, to be kind or forgiving to someone.

This is not what the biblical writer was trying to convey to his readers. If the NIV had been consistent and used “love” here as it used it in 4:1, the message would be the same. However, the inconsistency of the NIV leaves the reader at a loss because they will believe that what the Lord requires from his people is that they be compassionate to fellow Israelites when in reality God was requiring the people’s loyalty to the relationship established by the covenant.

In Hosea 12:6 the NIV translates hesed as “love” and in Hosea 10:12, the NIV translates hesed as “unfailing love.” At least “unfailing love” in the NIV is better than “kindness” in the ASV, “piety” in the NAB, and “goodness” in the TNK.

There are several lessons to be learned here for pastors who do not know Hebrew. The first lesson is: consult more than one translation when studying the biblical text. Check several translations and compare how the biblical text is translated. Second, consult good exegetical commentaries. Since translations differ, commentaries will also differ. A good exegetical commentary will provide a brief study to the meaning of important theological words in the text.

The third and final lesson is that it is never too late to study biblical languages. No one needs to be a scholar in Hebrew or Greek, but a basic knowledge of the language will help pastors know how to consult an interlinear translation of the biblical text or check the meaning of specific words in a Hebrew or Greek lexicon.

When it comes to biblical translations, the saying remains true: “trust, but verify.”

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Hesed, Hosea, NIV, Preaching, Translation

The Inconsistencies of the NIV - Part 1

Preaching is not easy. Preaching from the Old Testament is very difficult. The reason many pastors do not preach often from the Old Testament is because they are not familiar with the society and culture of the people who populate the pages of the Bible. Many pastors also are not familiar with the original languages of the biblical text. The art of preaching requires from the preacher a meticulous study of the biblical text.

Since many pastors do not know Hebrew, they depend on an English translation to provide in their language what the original writers were trying to communicate in theirs. And here is where the problems begin. At times, an idea in the biblical text cannot be easily transferred into English. Thus, the reader may not understand all the nuances of a text as the original writer intended.

The worse case scenario is when translators of the biblical text mistranslate the text or fail to convey the correct meaning of the biblical text in their translations. In this case, the pastor who depends on one English translation may fail to understand the real message the original writer was trying to convey to his audience.

I was confronted with this problem again when I was preparing a sermon on Hosea to preach to my congregation a few Sundays ago. Most people in my congregation use the NIV. Since we have many people whose first language is not English, the NIV was chosen to be used in church because the language used in the translation is easy to understand.

The problem with the NIV is that it is not consistent in translating words from Hebrew to English. Most people in the pew will never notice the problems in the NIV because they use only one translation. Most pastors will not notice the problem either unless they read the biblical text in several different translations and compare them or if they use an interlinear Hebrew-English to look at how Hebrew words are used in the translation of the text.

The following is one example taken from the book of Hosea. I will use the NIV first, and then compare the NIV translation with three other translations.

Hosea 4:1 (NIV): “Hear the word of the LORD, you Israelites, because the LORD has a charge to bring against you who live in the land: ‘There is no faithfulness, no love, no acknowledgment of God in the land.’”

Here the NIV translates the Hebrew words da‘at elohim as “acknowledgment of God.” The Hebrew word da‘at means “knowledge.” The expression da‘at elohim is an expression used to describe the special relationship between God and Israel that comes out of the covenant relationship. When Hosea said that Israel did not have knowledge of God, the prophet was declaring that Israel had failed to abide by the demands of their covenantal relationship with God.

In English, the word use by the NIV, “acknowledgment,” means “to admit the truth or fact of,” and “a formal declaration of an act.” The NIV translation seems to imply that Israel was declaring that there was no God in the land. The NIV translation is confusing because it does not clearly convey the intent of the original writer.

Both the NRSV and the ESV have “knowledge of God.” Only the NIV and TNIV have “acknowledgment.”

In Hosea 4:6, the NIV reads: “My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge. "Because you have rejected knowledge, I also reject you as my priests.” Here the NIV translates the same word, da‘at, as “knowledge.” This translation is correct, because what the people lacked and what the people rejected was “knowledge,” not “acknowledgment.”

The NRSV and the ESV translate the word da‘at here as “knowledge” and so does the TNIV. However, both the NIV and the TNIV translated da‘at as “acknowledge” in Hosea 6:6 and as “approval” in Hosea 8:4.

This inconsistency of the NIV is troublesome because the average reader may not understand the usage of the same Hebrew words with different meanings in English. The average reader is certain to miss the emphasis the prophet was trying to convey by his use of da‘at and thus, they fail to grasp the magnitude of the sins of Israel.

Tomorrow I will show another example from Hosea of the inconsistency of the NIV in translating the biblical text.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Hosea, NIV, Preaching, Translation