Hosea’s depiction of the marital relations with a promiscuous woman, as a metaphor for YHWH’s relationship with Israel, is problematic in ancient and modern terms. The structure of Hosea 2, however, suggests that we have been overlooking the prophet’s message: YHWH rejects and repudiates violence in favor of gentle persuasion and courtship.

Pre-exilic biblical texts describe Levites as landless priests who can serve in any holy site. The origin of this status can be found in ancient times, when the tribe of Levi lost control of their territory in the Transjordan, but remained in the vicinity serving in the Nebo temple, where their ancestor Moses was buried.

The Priestly Torah discusses the Tabernacle at extraordinary length, emphasizing its portability. Nothing in P ever says this structure was meant to be temporary. P’s Tabernacle was not foreshadowing the Temple, but was a polemic against Haggai and Zechariah’s agitation to build the Second Temple.

A biblical metaphor for God’s relationship with Israel.

Hittite texts show us that in the ancient Near East, women, including the queen, served as priestesses. The biblical authors, in their fervor for YHWH, monotheism, and centralization of worship through one Temple and one priesthood, strongly objected.

The Torah describes the Levites as a landless Israelite tribe who inherited their position by responding to Moses’ call to take vengeance against sinning Israelites. This account masks a more complicated historical process.

Biblical, geographical, and archaeological data coalesce to clarify the military importance of this city to Iron Age Israel and the possible meaning of the term “Ahab’s hêḵal.”

Is the focal point of the book the Camp or the Tabernacle?

The Priestly Torah has two different conceptions of why/how the firstborn Israelites are exempt from serving as priests. Is a questionable firstborn census an effort to weigh in on this dispute?

What light can archaeology shed on the significance and location of the vineyard?