From this point on, the father suddenly speaks no longer to the children but about them and their mother. However, the exact interpretation of this switch is difficult. Who are these children? The ones that have been mentioned thus far in the text? Or children that Gomer had before she got married to Hosea? Most commentators choose the second option. With this option translators should consider how this shift from addressing the children in the previous verse to talking about them in the third person in verses 4-5a is handled. Only Bible en français courant has marked the shift by inserting a blank line before verse 4. Other translations seem to neglect the issue. We recommend at least making the shift visible in the format, as in Bible en français courant. Some languages have a discourse marker to indicate such changes. If this is the case, it should be used.

In verses 4-5a the children are also charged. This indicates that Yahweh does not only accuse their mother, the nation of Israel. He also includes the children, the people of Israel, in his judgment.

Upon her children also I will have no pity: The same language is used here as in 1.6-7, with a reference to the name of Gomer’s daughter, but applying it to all her children. The phrase rendered Upon her children is at the beginning of the sentence in Hebrew. This is not the usual position for a direct object. It has been put in front to add emphasis. The translator should consider the possibilities offered by the receptor language to match this emphasis. It could be done by shifting this phrase to an unusual position in the sentence, but also by using certain particles, depending on the possibilities of the receptor language.

Because they are children of harlotry: The conjunction because introduces the reason why the children will not be pitied. It may be rendered “for” (New Living Translation, King James Version) or “since” (New Jerusalem Bible). This line and the first two lines of verse 5 have several terms that are parallel and similar in meaning. These are called semantic parallelisms. The phrase children of harlotry can be understood to mean that they are destined to become prostitutes themselves or that they are already involved in prostitution. Bijbel in Gewone Taal follows this interpretation by rendering this line as “because they are unfaithful, just like their mother.” The Hebrew construction for children of harlotry is similar to the one rendered “a wife of harlotry” in 1.2. In the present context children of harlotry more likely means they are children of a harlot, so Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch says “because they are children of a whore.” Bible en français courant (1982) translates “because they are children with no legal rights” (that is, they are illegitimate); this rendering fits the interpretation that they are the children Gomer had before getting married to Hosea. Most translations opt for the interpretation that these children are the fruit of prostitution. The first two lines of verse 5 also point in the direction of this interpretation.

For their mother has played the harlot; she that conceived them has acted shamefully: The conjunction For suggests a causal relationship with the preceding lines. If the causal relationship is understood, this conjunction may be left implied. Their mother has played the harlot and she that conceived them has acted shamefully are clearly semantic parallels. Good News Translation combines these two lines and the previous one into one clause, saying “they are the children of a shameless prostitute,” so verse numbers “4” and “5” appear together in Good News Translation. However, the poetry of these verses conveys intense feelings by using three synonymous ways to express the deep anger and disappointment of the speaker. We suggest that translators use proper poetic devices offered by the receptor language, instead of removing these aesthetic and emotional components as Good News Translation has done.

Played the harlot renders a single verb in Hebrew, for which there is no single word as an equivalent in English other than slang or uncouth expressions. Some receptor languages may have an appropriate equivalent that can be used without being rude or improper. See 1.2, where this same verb is translated “commits … harlotry.”

She that conceived them is a parallel expression to their mother and is a poetic way of referring back to her. Has acted shamefully describes her behavior as a prostitute and is parallel with has played the harlot. Both expressions in the second line of verse 5 are more detailed than the expressions in the first line. In Hebrew poetry this intensifies the second statement; that is, it makes the second statement stronger.

A translation model for verses 4-5a is:

• 4 As for her children, I will have no mercy,
because they are children of prostitution.
5 Their mother has prostituted herself,
the one who conceived them has lived in shame.

For she said introduces a quotation of Gomer (representing Israel) that is not addressed to anyone in particular. It may also be rendered as something which she thought, as if speaking to herself. Her own words or thoughts show the disgrace of her prostitution. The Hebrew word ki translated For in certain contexts expresses emphasis rather than a causal relationship with the previous statement. It is more likely an emphatic marker in this context. A translation of ki that expresses a causal relationship should be avoided here. Bible en français courant renders this clause well with “In fact, she said to herself,” and so does Good News Translation with “She herself said.” Another possible model is “Indeed she said.”

I will go after my lovers: A prostitute normally waits for lovers to come to her, but Gomer’s (Israel’s) shameful behavior is even worse because she seeks them. Some commentators (for example, Wolff) claim that the Hebrew word for lovers occurs in the Bible only in reference to partners in adultery. In this allegory my lovers represents pagan Canaanite worship, and perhaps the Canaanite worshipers in the fertility cult as well, or more likely the Baals who were freely worshiped in the days of Jeroboam II. See also 2.13, where the fourth line matches this statement well.

Who give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, my oil and my drink: The Hebrew expression for who give me is literally “the givers.” It seems that at this point of the allegory the prostitute represents the people of Israel. They apparently thought the pagan gods gave them their agricultural products as a result of their participation in the fertility cult. The gifts are described as things that a husband would normally provide his wife, but that a prostitute now receives as payment from the men who come to her.

Bread and water were the basic necessities of life for the Israelites. Good News Translation says “food and water.” The receptor culture may have other appropriate substitutes, especially for bread.

Wool and flax are the materials from which a woman would spin thread and then weave cloth for clothing. Wool is the hair of sheep. Flax is the plant from which linen thread and cloth are made. Good News Translation substitutes “linen” for flax because linen is better known. However, this substitution depends on the culture for which the translation is provided.

Oil and drink were luxuries in Israelite life. The Hebrew word for oil refers to olive oil, which was used in baking and as a cosmetic. The Hebrew word for drink probably refers to wine or beer, or to similar liquors. It resembles the Ugaritic word for a strong drink.

A translation model for verse 5b is:

• Indeed she said to herself, “I will chase after my lovers,
the providers of my food and drink, wool and linen, oil and wine.”

Quoted with permission from Dorn, Louis & van Steenbergen, Gerrit. A Handbook on Hosea. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2020. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .