Minor Prophets

Abstract

Minor Prophets Christopher T. Begg 1934. [Hosea] Maria de Lourdes Correa Lima, “O livro de Oseias e sua leitura das tradições do êxodo-deserto [The Book of Hosea and Its Reading of the Exodus-Desert Traditions],” RevCT 24 (2016) 295–327. This article focuses on the use made of the traditions concerning the exodus and Israel’s time in the desert in the Book of Hosea. The article takes as its starting point the segment Hos 11:1–11, tracing, on the basis of the vocabulary used, the phases of Israel’s history to which this alludes, i.e., the exodus, the desert wanderings, life in the land, return to Egypt, and new exodus. On this basis, the article further studies the handling of the traditions in question in Hos 12:10, 13–14; 13:4–5; and 2:16–17. [Adapted from published abstract—C.T.B.] 1935. [Hos 6:1–3] Dennis Olson, “Emotion, Repentances, and the Question of the ‘Inner Life’ of Biblical Israelites: A Case Study in Hosea 6:1–3,” Mixed Feelings and Vexed Passions, 161–76 [see #2034]. O.’s essay provides a close reading of Hos 6:1–3 as a case study of the topic emotion and repentance in the HB. I will use this “return (šûb) of the Lord” text to interact with D. A. Lambert’s treatment of the passage is his 2016 work How Repentance Became Biblical (see OTA 39 [2016] #1529). I will then draw out some conclusions about larger issues involving emotion, repentance, the inner life of human beings, and future research on these topics (p. 161, adapted). A close reading of Hos 6:1–3 within the larger context of the Book of Hosea has suggested that at least some streams of tradition within the Hebrew Bible (HB) do indeed include some role for emotions and some notion of an inner self in texts [End Page 673] dealing with repentance. Lambert is correct to note a scholarly overuse of the “penitential lens” in interpreting some alleged “repentance” texts in the HB. He is also correct to underscore the multiple ways in which the HB typically portrays individuals and communities as always operating within a network of public and material “others,” including other human bodies, the divine “other,” and the larger culture and world of a given time and space in history. Here, however, I have suggested that at least one HB text, i.e., Hos 6:1–3, might be more adequately understood within a more integrative model that includes attention to the inner life of emotion and attitude of individuals and communities within a dynamic web of self, other selves (both human and divine), and the cultural world in which these texts are embedded (adapted from author’s conclusion, p. 175)—C.T.B. 1936. [Zeph 1:2–6] C. J. (Neels) Redelinghuys, “Creation Utterly Consumed? Towards an Eco-critical Rereading of Zephaniah 1:2–6,” OTE 30 (2017) 805–20. Few texts of the prophetic books evidence so disconcerting an ecological perspective as does Zeph 1:2–6. While the text itself has received only limited attention in publications dealing with the ecological interpretation of the Bible, it is clear that in the passage nature plays a multifaceted role that needs to be attended to. Consequently, in this article, R. presents a eco-critical rereading of the text on the basis of the ecojustice principles of the Earth Bible and Norman Habel’s tools for analysis—suspicion, identification, and retrieval. Such a rereading identifies various questions, problems, and challenges concerning the kinship between humans and nature. Due to its sustained attempt to avoid anthropocentrism and engage in dialogue with science, the approach of J. M. Gustafson offers a viable way of elucidating this complicated and often misrepresented relationship. Finally, R. argues that, comparatively speaking, a theocentric approach like that of Gustafson is to be preferred to the traditional stewardship approach when it comes to understanding and/or appropriating Zeph 1:2–6 in the contemporary context. [Adapted from published abstract—C.T.B.] 1937. [Mal 3:13–21] Vincenzo Lopasso, “Il principio della...