(a) Internal criterion. A messianic
interpretation of this prophetic utterance is implausible if one takes its
immediate context into account: the son who has been called out of Egypt, is
the people of Israel, as is evident from the preceding clause (“when Israel was
a youth, I loved him”) in combination with the plurals used in what follows.
Hosea 11 as a whole concerns God’s love for Israel in spite of their
unfaithfulness, a love that starts with the exodus from Egypt. A messianic interpretation
of the clause just quoted is possible only by isolating it completely from its
context.
In this case, there are relevant
differences between the versions. Matthew’s revised LXX agrees with the Hebrew
text (וממצרים קראתי לבני) and also with Aquila’s translation (there is only the
minor difference that Aquila has απο where Matthew has εξ), but the unrevised LXX differs in giving a Greek translation
with a plural object (και εξ Αιγυπτου μετεκαλεσα τα τεκνα αυτου), either because the translator reads
a Hebrew text with לבניו, or because he himself interpreted the clause on the
basis of its context. In any case: this translation excludes a messianic interpretation.
There is another tradition of translation in which “my son” is taken as a
predicate. We find it in, for instance, Theodotion’s translation: εξ Αιγυπτου εκαλεσα αυτον υιον μου, “since Egypt I have called him my son” (see also Symmachus, Tg.,
Syr.) (in this translation, the preposition has to be taken in the temporal
sense. The Tg. Has a plural object, as the LXX). As long as the clause is
isolated from its context and has a singular object, this type of translation
also allows a messianic interpretation but Matthew, who considers Jesus as the
Son of God from his conception (see 1,18.20), could not possibly use it.
(b) External criterion. Apart from
Matthew’s quotation and Christian texts influenced by it (e.g., Gos. Naz.
Frg. 1), there is no evidence for a messianic interpretation of Hos 11,1b.
Early Jewish references to the righteous one as a son of God (e.g., Wis
2,13.16.18), or to the Jews as sons of God (Sib. Or. 3,702) may well
have been influenced by OT passages such as Hos 11,1b, but they do not constitute
messianic interpretations of the clause.
(c) Conclusion. As far as I can
detect, Matthew was the first one to interpret Hos 11,1b in a messianic sense.
He could do so only by isolating the clause from its context and by using a
text of the clause with a singular object. (M.J.J. Menken “Messianic
Interpretation of Greek Old Testament Passages in Matthew’s Fulfilment
Quotations,” in M.A. Knibb, ed., The Septuagint and Messianism [Bibliotheca
Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 195; Leuven: Leuven University Press,
2006], 467)
