The following stands out as it shows that Hosea speaks ill of those labeled כהן, not simply כמר:
In 4: 10, הזנו appears at the end
of a passage accusing the priests of deliberately leading the people into sin
so that they themselves might profit. To my mind, if the priests are causing
the people to sin in this context, then it makes sense that they are also causing
('encouraging') the people to 'prostitute'. 'The sin of my people they devour;|
And for their guilt they are greedy!| So it will be like people, like priest,|
I will punish him for his ways| And return his deeds upon him;| They will eat
but not be satisfied!| They will encourage prostitution (הזנו), but not
increase!| For they have forsaken YHWH to hold fast to prostitution.' (4:
8–10). The causative reading of the Hiphil allows us to read 'They will
encourage prostitution, but not increase' in parallel with 'They will eat but
not be satisfied', with the priests as the subject of both threats. We could
even read 'increase' (יפרצו) as a word-play between 'increasing in number' (as
a consequence of 'prostitution') and 'increasing in wealth', as the priests are
warned that they will no longer gain as a result of encouraging the people to
sin.
If the priests are condemned for
'encouraging prostitution' in 4: 10, it seems to me that this message is echoed
in 5: 3. Wolff has already argued for a causative reading of the Hiphil, הזנית,
in 5: 3, underscoring the possibilities. However, he understands Ephraim to be
the subject of the verb: 'For you, Ephraim, taught whoredom,| Israel is
defiled.' Given the uncertain thrust of this accusation, however, it seems more
likely that Ephraim should be understood as the object of the Hiphil, so that
we can read Ephraim and Israel in parallel as the objects of defilement by
others: 'I knew Ephraim;| And Israel was not hidden from me.| But now you have
led Ephraim into prostitution (הזנית),| Israel has been defiled!' (5: 3).
Macintosh considers the
possibility of such a reading, yet rejects it, due to the unclear identity of
the masculine singular 'you'. The desire for such clarity, however, would
negate the possibility of reading much of the poetry in the prophetic books. If
we were to ask to whom this indictment might be addressed, then the passage's
introduction in 5: 1 usefully indicates three groups as possibilities (the
priests, the establishment, and the royal house), and it is possible that one
from among these is implied. Given the strikingly similar accusation in 4: 10,
the most likely contender is the priests, and it is therefore of interest to
note that כהן appears in the singular in 4: 4–9 (cf. 4: 4). Whether כהןrefers to a specific priest or is a collective singular ('priesthood') is
debated, although the latter seems more likely. Either way, it appears that
this כהן is the most likely identity of the mysterious 'you' in 5: 3,
revealing a provocative message that powerfully echoes 4: 10 and indeed much of
Hosea 4–14: it is the leadership, particularly the priesthood, of Israel who
are responsible for the people's outrageous behaviour. Once again, we
witness attempts to smooth over the idiosyncrasies of Hosea 4–14, betraying a
significant underestimation of this inimitable prophetic poetry. The
'prostitution' motif of Hosea 4–14 is not as clichéd and formulaic as
traditional translations and commentaries suggest. Indeed, the examples we have
seen so far are trivial compared to this poetry's daring metaphorical language,
which is consistently reflected in other appearances of the 'prostitution'
motif. (Sharon Moughtin-Mumby, Sexual and Marital Metaphors in Hosea,
Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Ezekiel [Oxford Theological Monographs; Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2008], 65-66, emphasis in bold added)