Hubbard, D. A. Hosea. TOTC. InterVarsity, 1989 (234 pp.).  One of the discussions when it comes to the book of Hosea is whether Gomer’s promiscuity developed only after Hosea married her, or whether it was already under way. The parallel with Israel is intriguing to consider in either case (Israel’s adultery is perhaps more obvious after God “married” her; on the other hand, Israel’s origins lie in Ur of the Chaldeans [Gen 11:27ff], a region not known for its faithfulness in any respect). H takes the former “proleptic” view as he works through the book. Slightly longer and more technical than Kidner’s (below), though perhaps not quite as nicely laid out (either in terms of format or writing style). Some will appreciate the more in-depth discussions packaged in a smaller volume than Garrett’s (above), though a number of the historical answers H provides seem to assume a great deal (cf. Steiner’s comments on the paucity of available historical detail elsewhere in this issue).

Kidner, D. The Message of Hosea. BST. InterVarsity, 1981 (142 pp.).  K’s short commentary is simply a delight to read. The “To the reader . . .” section opening his contribution is especially helpful in putting the reader in the right frame of mind to receive the book of Hosea on the right wavelength. K provides regular such perspective-shaping introductions to the various sections of Hosea. This is not by any means a technical commentary (e.g., though he does discuss vocabulary here and there, no knowledge of Hebrew is required; footnotes are brief; and very few sources are cited). What it does offer is an excellent presentation of the heart of the matter in Hosea: a problem family from the perspective of God, who is both husband and father. The “bird’s-eye view of the book” (137-142) is a nice feature. Very useful to the pastor or Bible study leader. Perhaps less so for academic writing, but certainly to be read nonetheless. Maybe the pick of the litter here for an introduction to Hosea.

McComiskey, T. “Hosea, Joel, Amos.” The Minor Prophets, Vol. 1. Baker, 2009 (509 pp.).  M’s is perhaps the “driest” commentary here, though in its dogged commitment to the efficient transfer of information, it may be the most valuable as a resource (Garrett’s, above, would be a contender, not to mention a nicer read). For paper writing, M should certainly be consulted, and the format makes it easy. On average, pages are split roughly in half by a horizontal line, with the more technical textual discussion above and the commentary/interpretation portion below. The unique layout is actually quite nice (certainly this reviewer’s pick of the lot). And at two verses per page for 238 pages, you’re getting your money’s worth of research (and it comes with Joel and Amos in the same format!).

Smith, G. V. Hosea, Amos, Micah. NIVAC. Zondervan, 2001 (596 pp.).  The simplest commentary reviewed here (even more so than Kidner’s, above, though it may suffer for this reason). Quite uncomplicated and easy to read (a strength), though the trade-off is that one will need to be careful placing much weight on S’s conclusions before cross-examining them with other more thorough treatments. Little attention to hermeneutical issues, which can also be a strength (leaving more space for straight commentary). However, the “original meaning” and “contemporary significance” sections seem to imply a divide between the two the biblical text may not appreciate. (Did it mean something different “then,” and if so, how satisfying is it for us to suppose that we are “now” left to apply an extrapolation?) At 180 pages, it’s deceptively short (the second shortest here). It might have been well to split up the volume and reallocate the space, but hermeneutical refinement may not be a priority for the NIV series. And what’s the story with the Hosea-Amos-Micah ordering?