The following was a short exegetical essay for Dr. Eric Tully’s Advanced Hebrew Exegesis of Hosea course at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

Please note: I use the Hebrew Bible’s chapter and verse references below, which can at times be different than what one will find in our English translations.

Already (chs.1-4) we have seen that Hosea is quite accustomed to using the verb זָנָה (to prostitute) and the noun זֹנָה (prostitute). But here in 4:14 Hosea employs the word קדשה. If this word refers to some sort of religious or cultic prostitute, as many commentators think (e.g., Wolff, Garrett, Stuart, Dearman), then 4:14 would contain one of the most explicit references to cultic prostitution in the entire book. As such, the use of קדשה in 4:14 is a rather significant exegetical issue for the interpreter. It may provide him or her with significant information about the religious backdrop into which Hosea presents his accusations throughout the book. Therefore, it is the goal of this paper to present a brief study of קדשה.

Etymologically, קָדֵשׁ is related to קָדַשׁ (“to be holy”) and likely carries the idea of sacredness. Hence many present the gloss, “sacred prostitute,” “temple prostitute,” or “cult prostitute.” Wolff (88) notes parallel words in other ANE languages (e.g. Ugarit—qdsm; the Syrian goddess qades who was involved in sexual activity) that relate to some form of cultic prostitution. In other words, קדשה (feminine) would be a female prostitute that had some sort of relationship with the cult. In terms of Biblical usage, in Gen 38:21 Judah asked, “Where is the קדשה?” to which the men of the city replied, “No קדשה has been here” (v.22) But interestingly, according to Gen 38:15, קדשה appears to be used interchangeably with זֹנָה (Dearman, 166). Both the feminine and the masculine form occur in Deut 23:17. Deut 23:17 forbids any Israelite from being a קדשה(feminine) or a קדש(masculine). In 1 Kings 14:23, the inhabitants of Judah, under the reign of Rehoboam, built for themselves idolatrous places of worship. And also, the narrator notes, קדש were in the land. This collection of קדש along with idolatrous practices is noteworthy. In 1 Kings 15:12, Asa, king of Judah, did what was right by putting away the קדשים and removing the idols. With close proximity to idols, this reference may indicate a religious tone to קדשים. 1 Kings 22:47 mentions how Jehoshaphat eliminated any קדש who remained from his father Asa’s reign. In 2 Kings 23, Josiah executed reforms, purging idolatrous activity from Judah’s worship. This included removing קדשים who were in the house of YHWH. The relationship of קדש to religious reform and the fact that the author describes them as those “who were in the house of YHWH” suggests religious connotations if not denotations. Finally, in Hosea 4:14, קדשה is parallel to הַזֹּנ֣וֹת (participle; “those who prostitute”). This observation taken by itself could suggest the terms are meant to be understood as nearly synonymous. But also significant is v.13’s various references to idolatrous religious practices. Note especially עַל־כֵּ֗ן (“therefore,” v.13), which connects these idolatrous practices to the daughters’ prostituting (זָנָה), the same prostituting parallel to קדשה in v.14.

Therefore, in light of this evidence, it is best to conclude that קדשה refers to a female cult prostitute of some kind. Based on the etymological relationship between קָדֵשׁ and קָדַשׁ, קדשה seems to refer to some sort of priestess (Miller, 503). And based on its Biblical usage, it has clear sexual denotations and rather likely religious connotations if not denotations.

The following was a short exegetical essay for Dr. Eric Tully’s Advanced Hebrew Exegesis of Hosea course at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

Please note: I use the Hebrew Bible’s chapter and verse references below, which can at times be different than what one will find in our English translations.

In the final line of 4:4, Hosea specifies that God’s accusation is specifically directed against כֹּהֵן. However, what is the identity of this כֹּהֵן? Who is the referent? The purpose of this brief paper is to investigate this exegetical issue. Its importance is seen by the fact that the entire section of 4:4-10 is an accusation against כֹּהֵן. Hence, the details of 4:4-10 relate to the identity of this כֹּהֵן, and vice versa.

Three primary positions exist. (1) Many understand כֹּהֵן (singular) to be a “collective singular” referring to the priesthood (e.g., Garrett, Stuart). (2) Others understand Hosea to be addressing a specific priest. For example, Wolff represents this position: “The כהן addressed here is probably a high official of an important sanctuary” (77). And (3), several commentators understand כֹּהֵן (singular) to refer to a specific priest; but, nonetheless, understand this priest to be representative of the priesthood at large. For example, Dearman understands vv.4-6 as a direct address to a specific priest. Yet, since “in the context there will be further critique of priests [plural] and the priesthood…the singular address and the individual here may be representative in nature” (157). Several factors are involved in this exegetical issue. (1) Grammatically. Wolff, argues that “כֹּהֵן never has a collective meaning in the vocative” (77). If this is true, this observation would rule out a collective use in 4:4. (2) The use of both singular and plural references. Throughout 4:4-10, the priest is referred to with both singular and plural references. The variance occurs between both verbs and nominal forms. Garrett interprets the plural verbs in 4:7 as clarifying or assuming a collective singular use in 4:4-6 (118). Explaining how a singular use of כֹּהֵן could refer to the priesthood at large (collective singular) is much easier than explaining a 3^rd person plural as referring to an individual priest. Wolff, however, evades this predicament by seeing a shift in reference from a singular priest in vv.4-6 to priests (plural) in v.7 (80). But, noteworthy is the fact that Hosea uses a 3rd person, singular pronominal suffix on נַפְשֹֽׁו amidst and with 3rd person, plural verbs. This is likely a collective singular with the plural subjects of these verbs as its antecedent. This particular incident may shed light on the broader use of singulars in 4:4-10 referring to כֹּהֵן, i.e., collective use. However, de Regt notes that in Hosea “a brief change in grammatical person…frequently marks the beginning or end of a paragraph” (250). If this is true, determining whether the actual referent is individual or collective may be difficult to determine by merely usingperson alone. However, de Regt’s conclusion would mean that a shift in person does not mean a shift in referent (250), which some (e.g., Dearman, Wolff) propose. (3) Personal details. As Wolff notes, the mention of personal details such as the punishment of mother and sons favors a specific referent for כֹּהֵן (77). However, mother and children were already used metaphorically in chs. 1-3 to refer to Israel institutionally and the Israelites specifically. Further, even Wolff admits that these threats are “obscure” (80). (4) A parallel with נָבִיא in 4:5. Some commentators (e.g., Stuart, 77) understand this as a referent to the prophetic office (collective singular). Therefore, the parallel priest is also seen as collective. But this interpretation could be challenged. (5) A parallel with Amos 7:10-17. Many commentators recognize a parallel with Amos 7:10 in which Amos rebukes a specific priest, Amaziah. Similarly, Amos also threatened both children and wife (Wolff, 78). Depending on how exactly this parallel should is meant to be understood (if it is meant to be understood at all), one could argue that Hosea also has a specific priest in view (e.g., Wolff, 77). (6) The accusation. One might argue that such a devastating consequence, i.e., lack of knowledge among the entire people (4:6), is beyond the scope of one particular priest’s failure. If true, כֹּהֵן would need to be understood as either collective or representative.

In conclusion, I favor understanding the referent as either collective or representative, but more likely collective. The national (widespread) consequences of the failure of the כֹּהֵן seem incompatible with a specific referent. And the 3^rd person plurals along with the seeming collective singular pronominal suffix on נַפְשֹֽׁו lean towards a collective or representative use. I prefer a collective referent over a representative one because Hosea is speaking of a widespread problem; and the details he provides do not seem to require that a specific referent be in view.