Many interpreters have zealously attempted to determine the [Pg 174] particular portions of this lengthened period to which the particular portions of this book belong. But such an undertaking is wholly vain in the case before us, as well as in that of Micah, and most of the minor prophets generally. The supposition upon which it rests is false--viz., that the collection consists of a number of single, detached portions. We do not possess the whole of Hosea's prophecies, but only the substance of their essential contents,--a survey which he himself gave towards the end of his ministry. This appears (1) from the דבר יהוה in the inscription. In itself, this would not be a decisive argument, as the prophet might also have comprehended in an _ideal_ unity, discourses outwardly distinct; but, nevertheless, as long as no reason appears for the contrary, it is more naturally referred to a continuous discourse with an external unity also. (2.) It appears from the entire omission of all chronological data. The only exception is in ver. 2; but this exception serves only to strengthen the argument drawn from the omission everywhere else. (3.) It is proved by the absence of all certain indications about the beginning and ending of the particular portions. There occur, just as in the second part of Isaiah, new starting points only; but, with these exceptions, the discourse always moves on in the same manner. (4.) It is seen from the indefiniteness and generality of the historical references, which must necessarily arise if the prophet referred, in like manner, to the whole of this lengthened period. That the facts, upon which the last two arguments rest, really exist, is made sufficiently apparent from the immense diversity of opinions as to the number and extent of the particular portions, and as to the time of their composition. There are not even two of the more important interpreters who agree in the main points alone. Such a diversity does not exist in reference to any of the prophetical books which actually consist of detached prophecies. (5.) The style and language are too much the same throughout the whole, to admit of the idea that any long period could have elapsed between the particular prophecies. This, indeed, is only a subordinate argument; but it acquires its full importance, when connected with the foundation of the third and fourth proofs. It now only remains to give a survey of the historical circumstances at the time of the prophet. This is the more necessary, as a knowledge of these is required for the exposition of [Pg 175] the Messianic prophecies, not only of Hosea, but also of Amos, his contemporary.