|
PREEXILIC HEBREW PROPHECY
———
A. Vocabulary for Prophets
B. General Ideas and Description of Prophets
C. Prophets in the Biblical Books
1. Narrative Books: Torah
2. Narrative Books: Former Prophets
3. Prophetic Anthologies: Latter Prophets
D. Language of the Prophets
E. Psychological Considerations
F. Themes of the Preexilic Prophets
1. God
2. Israel
3. The Relation between God and Israel
4. The Future
G. The Prophets’ Relation to the Institutions of Israel
1. Monarchy
2. Cultus
3. Wisdom
H. Reception of the Prophets
I. The Study of the Prophets
———
A. Vocabulary for Prophets
The word “prophet” most frequently translates the Heb word nābı̂˒. This word is probably not of Hebrew origin; the Akk nabı̄tu seems the closest cognate, although the title nabû,
“diviner” (?), is now attested at Mari. This probable loanword in
Hebrew suggests that prophecy in Israel was not a phenomenon unrelated
to ideas and practices outside Israel. Israelite prophecy can rather be
understood as a concept and an activity that Israel shared with other
cultures and peoples among whom the Israelites lived and experienced
God.
Other
words are also used by the biblical tradition to describe persons who
acted in the way that Israel saw its prophets behave. One passage
claims that in former times the prophet (nābı̂˒) was known as a seer (rō˒eh) (1 Sam 9:9). Two other terms also are occasionally used for the role: man of God (˒ı̂š [hā]˒ĕlōhı̂m) and visionary (hōzeh).
B. General Ideas and Description of Prophets
There
seems to have been no standard prerequisite for a person to become a
prophet in Israel. Divine inspiration was what made a person a prophet,
and what caused the prophet to speak out, and what made others listen
to the prophet as a legitimate spokesperson for the divine. For the
early period, a favored conception is that “the spirit of the Lord”
speaks through the individual (e.g., 1 Sam 10:10; 1 Kgs 22:24). Later terminology preferred “the word of the Lord came to” the person (e.g., Jer 1:2, 4; Ezek 1:3). The general idea remains: the prophet is the one who can speak in the name of God.
Prophets
came from all walks of life. Indeed, some seem to have had a wide
variety of experience and a deep acquaintance with various aspects of
life and work in Israel. They claim or are given backgrounds as varied
as sheepherder, priest, agriculturalist, scribe. They spoke where and
when they thought they would be effective. They spoke frequently, no
doubt, in places where people most readily gathered—the marketplace,
the temple, the city gates (cf. Jer 7:2). They may have spoken less formally in other places as well.
A
distinction has sometimes been made that, for some interpreters, marks
a dramatic development in the history of Israelite prophecy. Many of
the early prophets speak only to individuals, especially kings or other
officials, while other, later prophets address large groups of
people—rhetorically, the whole nation or an entire city. No doubt this
variation depends on who the prophet thinks is the appropriate
recipient of a particular utterance, whether that message is a threat
or something else.
C. Prophets in the Biblical Books
1. Narrative Books: Torah.
Some biblical personages of the early periods are called prophets long
before prophecy in the usual biblical sense appears in ancient Israel.
Thus, Torah contains no prophets in the technical sense of the term,
even though the term is given to some individuals anachronistically.
The
first four books of the Bible do not offer the reader any figure that
resembles a prophet such as Isaiah. Although Abraham is identified as a
prophet by the source usually called E,
Abraham does not function as the other prophets do. He does not address
people in the name of God. In Exodus, Aaron, the brother of Moses, will
act as a “prophet” in relation to Moses (Exod 7:1).
But he never actually says “Thus says the Lord.” Miriam, the sister of
Moses, gets the title “prophetess,” but she performs actions that
exhibit a character that is more cultic than prophetic (Exod 15:20; Num 12:1–15). A passage deals with competition among those who would claim exclusive right to prophetic activity (Num 11:26–30), and Num 12:6 mentions the possibility of a prophet in Israel whose vision of and insight into the divine would be less than Moses’.
Deuteronomy
(a purported address of Moses within the narrative) presupposes the
existence of prophets in an institutional setting. Grounds are given
for withholding belief in a given prophet, i.e., if the prophet tries
to lead people away from Yahweh (Deut 13:2–6—Eng 13: 1–5) and if what the prophet says does not come true (Deut 18:20–22).
The text must have originated in a time when people wanted to hear the
word of God but were troubled by the existence of numerous prophets,
some of whom were in reality not sent from God. Moreover, it is
Deuteronomy that identifies Moses as the great prophet sent from God,
the model of one who is to come (Deut 18:15–19; 34:10).
[Vol. 5, Page 483] [Vol. 5, Page 483] Torah,
then, gives the terms “prophet” and “prophetess” to individuals in the
first four books by retrojection. The second section of the Hebrew
canon, “Prophets,” is divided into the Former Prophets and the Latter
Prophets. The Former Prophets are the narrative books (Joshua through
Kings) that follow the outlook of Deuteronomy (together called by
modern scholars the Deuteronomistic History). The Latter Prophets
comprise four books: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the book of the
Twelve.
2. Narrative Books: Former Prophets. The first book of the Former Prophets (Joshua) does not use the term nābı̂˒, but the second book (Judges) uses the feminine form, nĕbı̂˒â. Deborah is called “prophetess” once in Judg 4:4.
Just how the writer means the word in that setting is somewhat unclear.
In that scene her work is described as that of a judge or ruler. In chap. 5, however, she is implored to “utter a song” (Judg 5:12).
Some
scholars stress that Samuel is the beginning of the prophetic
development in ancient Israel (Albright). The figure of Samuel
certainly does present a prophetic facet of his being. He speaks in the
name of God to oppose the idea of monarchy (1 Sam 8:7, 10) and then to proclaim Saul the divinely chosen king (1 Sam 10:24).
But that figure also has several other facets as well. He is judge,
priest, and leader of the group called “the sons of the prophets.”
Nathan was a court prophet of David. He appears in the narrative only after David takes the city of Jerusalem (2 Sam 5:9).
He may have been a native of this city, and hence have some
non-Israelite prophetic heritage. Through him David is promised an
eternal dynasty (2 Sam 7:13).
The
prophetic groups, “the sons of the prophets,” led lives of asceticism
and probably partial seclusion. They function somewhat as
intermediaries with the divine, and seem to use physical means, as the
slashing of oneself and the chanting of songs, to produce an ecstatic
trance (1 Kgs 20:35). They were sought out by individuals in special need.
Also
connected with the sons of the prophets are the memorable figures of
Elijah and Elisha. Elijah is called, on the one hand, to challenge the
infidelity of the people and, on the other hand, to foment revolution
both within and outside Israel (1 Kgs 19:15–16). Elisha, his successor, functions as a dramatic miracle worker (2 Kings 4–7).
The
depictions of prophets within the Deuteronomistic History naturally are
constructed according to the designs and purposes of the writers and
for their purposes. Prophets in the narrative function in specific
roles. They give legitimacy to a new dynasty (e.g., Nathan, 2 Sam 7:12; Elijah, 1 Kgs 19:16; and Ahijah, 1 Kgs 11:31).
Moreover, they are sent successively by God to warn the people.
Although for the Deuteronomists the kings are, in a special way,
responsible for the infidelity of the people, nevertheless, the people
themselves should heed the call of the prophets to repent. The disaster
is announced, and the call is made, but there is no heeding. The
prophets preach repentance in vain, and the two kingdoms fall.
This
idea that the prophet’s basic role is to preach repentance is a
conception that often influences the interpretation of prophecy in
general. Just how much this understanding of prophecy as the preaching
of repentance should apply to the classical prophets has been a topic
of debate.
Important
too for the Deuteronomistic History is the efficacy of the predictions
that prophets make in the name of God. Explicit emphasis on prediction
of specific events and the fulfillment of those predictions recurs
frequently in these books. On the general point of the future, the
anthologies of prophetic sayings agree with these narrative books.
3. Prophetic Anthologies: Latter Prophets.
The Hebrew canon places the anthologies of the prophets immediately
after this extended narrative about the monarchy in Israel. The Latter
Prophets are called “latter” simply because they are placed after the
Former Prophets (the Deuteronomistic History). Other terms used for
these books (and the prophets after whom they are named) are the
“classical” or “canonical” prophets, and even, inappropriately, the
“writing” prophets. The term “writing” is inappropriate because the
preexilic prophets themselves did not write down the words they spoke.
Prophets are speakers. (Perhaps Second Isaiah, in the Exile, is the
prophet who began to use the written word as a prophetic medium.)
Because
the preexilic prophets did not commit to writing what they had to say,
the books of these prophets come to the reader today from many hands.
It could have been that the first written collection of a prophet’s
words was made during the prophet’s lifetime, but that is not the
emphasis or the claim of the books themselves. Perhaps the death of the
prophet was the stimulus for the first collections to be made (with the
exception of Jer 36:2, 32).
Then the process of editing, clarification, explanation, and expansion
began. The process of the formation of the prophetic books was a long
and complicated one. Much of that process remains unclear, even after
much analysis.
In
the most frequent terminology, the sequence of classical prophets
begins with Amos, followed soon by Hosea, both of whom spoke in the
northern kingdom in the 8th century. They are succeeded (with some
overlap) by Micah and Isaiah, who both preached in Judah in the same
century. The late 7th century claims Zephaniah, Jeremiah, Nahum,
Habakkuk, and Ezekiel.
D. Language of the Prophets
The
language of the prophets is probably what most strikes a reader today.
They spoke in poetry, and some of the poetry that the prophets created
is virtually unmatched in world literature. On the other hand, some of
the sayings are cryptic, or crabbed, or too tied to a particular
setting for them to offer a clear meaning today. But sometimes even
these passages contain striking images that can haunt the reader.
The
prophets understand themselves to be inspired by God and to speak the
word of God. The most common evidence of this conviction is the ever
recurring “Thus says the Lord.” This kind of messenger formula is found
elsewhere in the ancient Near East on the lips of an emissary from one
monarch to the court of another. This form and formula are examples in
which the language that the prophets use often contained oral forms or
speech patterns from daily or routine life.
There are abundant examples of other borrowings from [Vol. 5, Page 484] [Vol. 5, Page 484] varied
kinds of activities with specific speech patterns. The judge’s court is
one area which offered many such forms that prophets used to convey
their own message: the summons of the judge, the charge of the
prosecutor, the claim of the defendant, or the lament of those who were
denied justice. Songs and parables were also imitated by various
prophets. Even the funeral service seems to have contributed a frequent
form used by the prophets, the “Woe” oracle. It is sometimes claimed
that no area of Israelite life was untouched by this borrowing of forms
that appear in the prophetic books.
The
preexilic prophets who preach a coming catastrophe sometimes can be
found using a form, or parts of it, that has become standard in many
analyses of prophetic speech, the “reproach and threat.” The ideal form
is “Because you have done this evil, therefore, thus says the Lord,
disaster will come upon you.” One finds many other terms to describe
the two parts of the form: “invective,” “reason,” “accusation” for the
“reproach,” and “judgment,” “sentence,” “verdict” for the “threat.” The
analysis of this form shows that, regardless of the way in which the
prophet receives the word of God, the prophet does contribute personal
reflections and reasoning, which the prophet speaks before giving the
divine decision of judgment.
E. Psychological Considerations
The
actual state of a prophet when receiving the divine word has been the
subject of much investigation and debate. Many scholars have found
helpful comparisons with somewhat comparable phenomena from various
other societies. Indeed, the choice of the society and the kind of
comparison one makes will influence the outcome. Comparisons with the
mystics of various traditions (Lindblom 1962), with the visionaries
among the Native Americans (Overholt 1989), with intermediaries,
ecstatic or possessed, of various cultures (Wilson 1980), and with many
others have been made and have also been critiqued. All of these
studies shed some light on the prophetic experience, but the reader is
left to decide which are most appropriate and satisfying.
One
remarkable thing is clear regarding the language and psychology of the
prophets. The prophets share in the long literary tradition of Canaan,
for the poetry that the prophets speak borrows much from the literary
tradition found also in the Ugaritic poetry of half a millennium before
the biblical prophets and only a few hundred miles to the north.
Not
only did the Israelite prophets speak their words in the form of poetic
parallelism, but they also used the same kind of word pairs that their
Ugaritic predecessors had used. It is not clear how much a prophet
would simply have “picked up” this tradition or how much the prophet
actively set out to acquire it. The reality of the participation in the
tradition is clear. A fairly recent proposal suggests that the poetry
in the prophetic books is primary and the religious interpretation of
it secondary (Auld 1980).
F. Themes of the Preexilic Prophets
1. God.
The God whom the preexilic prophets experience is a God who demands
certain actions from human beings. The 8th-century prophets appear with
a disturbing message: Israel has not lived up to its calling. The
prophets see basic moral laws broken or ignored. The prophets proclaim
that the God who stands behind those laws will come to uphold those
demands.
The
first demand of the prophets was that the people worship only Yahweh.
Although the preexilic prophets did not make theoretical statements
about the existence or (non)existence of other gods, they did require
the Israelites to worship only the God of Israel. The reality of God
demands that Israel worship Yahweh. Moreover, the right worship of God
requires of a person the right treatment of one’s fellow human beings.
The prophets do not tolerate worship of God that is not linked to
proper behavior toward one’s neighbor.
Rarely
do the prophets identify the basis of God’s claim of sole worship and
just treatment of one’s neighbor. Whether it was the election and
protection of Israel or, as some say, a universal law within God’s
creation that the prophets relied on for their evaluations, God does
demand proper actions. The universality of the moral claim is almost
surprising. God judges Israel severely, but the prophets also view God
as judging other nations as well (Amos 1–2). The moral sovereignty of God parallels the sovereign majesty of God. All humanity stands judged before God.
God
has, however, revealed a special way of life to Israel. And that
revelation must not be ignored. It is clear that God’s position cannot
be compromised. Although the prophets make no explicit claim that God
was revealed to Israel, a moral revelation is the implicit
presupposition in much of what the prophets said (Amos 3:7).
The prophets do claim that God reveals the divine plans to the
prophets. And the prophets invoke the traditions that were understood
to have been revealed in the past about how humans are to behave.
In
addition to the demands that God puts on human beings, the prophets
also point to the love that God has for humanity and for Israel in
particular. God’s love extends to humans even in the face of
unfaithfulness and of backsliding. The images that the prophets use for
the love of God are themselves revealing. Parent, teacher, healer,
counselor—these are some of the roles that the prophets give to God,
roles that reveal the concern and passion God has for people.
A facile contrast is sometimes made between God’s love and divine justice (often erroneously restricting the former to the NT and the latter to the OT).
One might better say that God’s justice is responsive, that is, that
God’s justice is an act of love rather than of vengeance. When things
begin to get out of hand, when people’s negligence goes so far that
there is no expectation that things will improve, then God must step in
to take action. God’s delay in bringing the results of infidelity on
the people cannot be extended indefinitely. The preexilic prophets are
distinctive in speaking about a coming disaster for Israel, but there
are also statements of God’s regret about this future. For the prophets
God could no longer delay the end.
One
can ask whether the prophets took their own images for God in a literal
sense. When they spoke of God as an unmoved judge, as a raging parent,
as a plotting monarch, did the prophets think that God was completely
and adequately represented by these images? We cannot know. But [Vol. 5, Page 485] [Vol. 5, Page 485] the
Bible reader of today must realize the danger of taking literally these
descriptions of the indescribable. The prophets used whatever images
they thought appropriate for their society. Their statements remain
part of the theology of 8th- and 7th-century Israel.
2. Israel.
The unfaithfulness of the people is what struck and disturbed the
classical prophets. The time of infidelity in which the prophets lived
seems to some readers to be an expected development in Israel’s
history. The rise and history of prophecy in Israel virtually coincide
with the history of the monarchy. It was the monarchy that allowed,
perhaps encouraged, the so-called Canaanization of Israelite culture,
both socially and religiously. The development of social and economic
ranks or classes in Israel led to the oppression of the poor and the
needy. The rich grew more wealthy, profiting from the labors and losses
of the lower classes. The prophets decry this deterioration of Israel’s
soul.
The
prophets feel the urge and conviction to speak out against this
situation. When the prophets charge their audience with this
infidelity, their speech is quite varied. They addressed various people
on different occasions, so one expects variety in their collected
sayings. The classical prophets usually addressed their words to people
at large. It is noteworthy that they sometimes address or speak of the
people in various linguistic forms. Sometimes they speak of the people
in the grammatical form one would most expect, masculine plural. But
Israel is also addressed as masculine singular. (Israel was the
alternate name of the ancestor Jacob; and the name retained its
masculine gender, not just because Jacob was male, but also because the
names of people are masculine in biblical Hebrew.) Recent studies claim
that the addressee or subject in the feminine singular is not Israel as
such, but rather a city. When the people are addressed in the imagery
proper to cities, images occur such as mother, wife, virgin, widow,
sister, and harlot. When Israel as a people is addressed, those
feminine images do not occur.
The
message of the prophets varied also according to the time and the place
of the speech, and the people involved. Preexilic prophecy can
generally be depicted as prophecy of judgment. The prophets are the
conscience of Israel, alerting it to the injustice and infidelity that
each of the prophets sees.
On
both accounts, the rights of God and the rights of their fellow human
beings, Israel has to be judged as having failed in the eyes of God.
Israel is seen by the preexilic prophets as unfaithful to the God who
called them.
3. The Relation between God and Israel.
As already stated, the preexilic prophets for the most part saw a
deterioration in the relation between God and Israel. Israel no longer
keeps the original faith they had in their God. (Alternatively, Ezekiel
believes that Israel was wrongheaded from the start.) The relationship
is coming to an end. The very end was in sight for some of the
prophets. No more can God put up with the careless and faithless
behavior of the people.
There
is variation in the images that the prophets use for the end of this
relationship. Amos speaks quite directly: “the end has come upon my
people Israel” (Amos 8:2). Other images for the relation are used. God is called the parent of Israel (Hos 11:1), the shepherd (Ezek 34:1), the king (Isa 6:5).
When the prophets speak of the relation between God and Jerusalem (and
Samaria), the image is marital, and the act of separation is divorce (Jer 3:2; Ezek 16:8; Hos 2:4—Eng 2:2).
One
image for the relation between God and Israel that has caused continued
controversy regarding its age is the metaphor of covenant. This image,
taken from the political realm, has been claimed by some scholars as
the major and defining image for the God-human relation in ancient
Israel. Other scholars point out that the 8th-century prophets do not
employ it. They claim that it is an image that gained popularity in
later times. One must admit that covenant is sometimes lost in the vast
sweep of images that the prophets use.
Whatever
the image used, the preexilic prophets say that there is something gone
wrong with the relationship. Israel has become a wayward son, a sinful
people, a man who needs to flee, a society that is corrupted. Some
later prophetic writers speak of the broken covenant, the field of dry
bones, the relationship that cannot endure.
Along
with all the images of punishment and finality, there are some
statements of God’s enduring love and of the chance that God might not
carry out the threat. There are even images of hope and restoration.
The son will be taken back, the sins will be forgiven, the man can stop
running, the society will be cleansed. Are these too from the same
prophets? This question, of course, deals with the formation of the
prophetic books.
4. The Future.
Critical scholars ask the question whether to understand the promises
that the books of the preexilic prophets contain as actually coming
from those prophets or from later speakers and writers. The question
that is inevitable for some critical thinkers is whether promises of
restoration actually belong side by side with threats. Can the same
person see total disaster coming and see beyond it a bright future?
Amos
says that the end has come for Israel, the capital is virtually fallen.
Jeremiah is just as definitive about the end of his city and the
hopelessness of the situation. Can these men turn around and predict a
time of fulfillment for their audience?
Often
scholars point out that the prophetic word differs from day to day and
from time to time. Indeed, times do change the message. For example,
Isaiah may have held the idea of Zion’s inviolability; but Jeremiah,
about a century later, flatly contradicts the concept. For some
scholars, the promises and hopes were given in the time of the prophet
for a different generation, and these sayings were preserved for them
and understood only later.
Around
the turn of the 20th century, there was a proposal that the alternation
of woe and weal, of threat and promise, was part of the standard way of
prophetic speech (Gressmann 1905). Certain scholars, especially those
who stressed the oral transmission of the prophetic sayings, repeated
this solution to the phenomenon of seeming contradictions.
For
many scholars, newness is the salient reality of the prophetic vision.
The prophets see that Israel has reached a new stage in its relation to
God. A turning point, a critical one, is near at hand. The way that
Israel had lived to the time of the prophet has led to a particular
crisis. For the [Vol. 5, Page 486] [Vol. 5, Page 486] most
part, the preexilic prophets focus more on the immediate problems and
the immediate future that Israel’s infidelity would bring on. The hope
that lay beyond that crisis has to be argued very carefully and
forcefully to be persuasive.
G. The Prophets’ Relation to the Institutions of Israel
1. Monarchy. Prophecy throughout the ANE was often connected with the kings and rulers. In Israel, the classical period of prophecy coincides with the time of the monarchy. There are court prophets in Israel at the very beginning of the monarchy, that is, with Saul and David. And after the secession of the North, one finds prophets of the kings of the independent kingdoms (1 Kgs 22:8; cf. 2 Kgs 20:1). Although prophecy continues after the demise of the active monarchy, nevertheless, the last large book of one prophet, namely Ezekiel, is named from a prophet who had lived under kings in Jerusalem. The
view of the monarchy that individual prophets took was, no doubt,
influenced by a wide variety of things, many of which we cannot know.
In general, however, Amos, Hosea, and Micah all take a dim view of the
monarchy. Hosea even says that kingship was not something from God (Hos 8:4).
Isaiah, the only 8th-century prophet who was a native of Jerusalem,
does not speak against the kings. Indeed, it may be Isaiah, in his
book, who depicts a bright future under a majestic monarch (Isa 9:5–6—Eng 9:6–7; 11:1–9). The editors of the book of Amos speak of the restored tent of David (Amos 9:11).
In both Isaiah and Jeremiah, there are passages that suggest that these prophets were advisers to the kings in their times (Isa 7:1–17; Jer 21:10; 37:16–21).
To see such passages as actual records of historical facts is, to the
critical reader, not the most obvious way to read these passages.
Actually in both cases these prophets oppose the king or his plans. By
and large the prophets who worked for the kings of Israel and Judah
were not the prophets whose words survive in our prophetic books.
Nevertheless,
the prophetic tradition one finds in the edited books of the Bible
continues to use the imagery of the book of Isaiah. The future king is
part of the developing hope for the future. The Heb word mašiaḥ (Eng
“Messiah”) is never used for the future king. (The word is used for the
reigning king and others who are actually anointed.) Nevertheless, the
monarchy clearly furnishes ideas that messianic expectation in later
times expanded and developed.
2. Cultus.
There are passages in the preexilic prophets which suggest to some
readers that the prophets advocated a religion that did away with the
traditional religious practice, specifically Israel’s festivals,
sacrifices, and offerings. The prophets speak about the seeking of God
in purity of heart. The prophets clearly have God say that none of what
the people offer is pleasing or required (Amos 5:21–23; Isa 1:12–15).
Indeed, 19th-century scholarship understood these statements as a total
rejection of the sacrificial system and of any material things involved
in worship.
The
immediate response to this view would have to be that in the ancient
world and in Israel in particular, no person could conceive of worship
without external expression, that is, without the rituals and actions
that traditionally accompany the worship of a community or that of an
individual. No one, especially before the Exile, could say that God did
not require the worship in the temple as that worship had been offered
from Solomon on.
Many
of the charges that the prophets in their times raise against the
cultus denounce worship that has been influenced by Canaanite practice
and belief. The Canaanite “high places” were things that the reforming
kings found virtually indestructible. The remnants of foreign worship
survive even the Exile. These popular forms of infidelity, both in
worship and in unjust social practices, were the object of the
prophets’ indignation.
The
prophets, when they have a moment of hope, look forward to a purified
cultus, one which truly manifests a commitment and a continued
faithfulness to the God who called Israel. The prophets condemn the
worship offered by certain individuals and groups only because it is
the worship of other gods and the worship of the Lord without relation
to one’s treatment of one’s fellow human beings.
Occasional words of the prophets are directed against the priests (e.g., Hos 4:4–10). They charge the priests with negligence and insincerity (Ezek 22:26). The prophets suggest that the priests are leading the people astray, away from God, rather than toward God (Mic 3:11).
This criticism of the cultic personnel may be a different route to
critiquing the cultus itself. But here again the words of the prophets
are directed toward those priests who did stray from the path of
priestly devotion and purity of life.
Moreover,
these attacks on the priests are often accompanied by critiques of “the
prophets.” The prophets describe a society they see as corrupt, and
they speak out against all forms of injustice and infidelity. The
classical prophets often speak of priests and prophets in the same
breath. The famous passage in Jer 18:18
speaks of the priest, the wise, and the prophet. All had their own
roles to play in the society; all had their burdens to bear if the
society failed.
3. Wisdom.
In the past few decades, a most interesting development in the study of
the prophets has been a focus on the relation of the prophets to the
realm of wisdom. Israel’s search for wisdom and the writing of its
Wisdom Literature may have begun as early as the time of Solomon. If
this is the case, prophecy and wisdom are parallel phenomena for the
monarchic period. It would be unlikely if these parallel phenomena
would not have some interrelation and interaction.
Isa 5:19–24 lashes out against those who have a pretended wisdom. Later, Isa 30:1–5
attacks those who plan things without consulting the wisdom of God.
Isaiah seems to be attacking those whose profession is to treat and
apply the traditional political wisdom.
There
are indeed other passages in the prophets which manifest a more
positive relationship. One finds some sayings that suggest a real
wisdom background or origin (Isa 14:24–27; Jer 19:7–15).
Although the prophets sometimes do seem to speak against the
professional class of the wise, nevertheless, they share in their
excellent use of language, an ability that normally requires training
and practice. Often the same vocabulary is shared by the two groups.
Some scholars have proposed that the basis for the prophets’ judgment against unjust practices was the [Vol. 5, Page 487] [Vol. 5, Page 487] teaching
of the wise men, formulated and passed on from earlier generations. On
the other hand, there is a proposal that there was no class of “the
wise” in Israel. The people referred to by that term were simply the
educated, the intellectually alert individuals. If this claim is true,
the prophet’s training would have been from and with such a group of
educated people.
The
difference between the wise man and the prophet remains, of course: the
prophets speak the word of God, and wise men pass on the word they have
received from their predecessors. The difference between the prophet
and the wise man enriched life in the society of ancient Israel and our
reading of the biblical books.
H. Reception of the Prophets None of the canonical prophets seems comfortable with being called a nābı̂˒ (cf. Amos 7:14). None of the canonical prophets seems to have been a popular success in the sense of having a large following. All the preexilic prophets have rather harsh things to say, and it is not surprising that they did not immediately win the hearts of all. That they do not call themselves nābı̂˒ or
let others apply this term to them suggests that the term had
connotations with which each of the prophets did not want to identify.
Much scholarship claims that the word nābı̂˒ implies
induced ecstacy, manic bizarreness, and irrational activity in general.
Other studies have suggested that the professional aspect of prophecy
is what Amos rejects in Amos 7:14. Yet another proposal is that the difference in terminology is mainly regional, Amos being from the South.
It is in the narratives about the prophets that a prophet is called nābı̂˒ without
any hesitation. A recent scholarly tendency has been to say that the
narratives come from a time after the historical prophet. In this view,
the narratives are better understood as legends about the person for
the purpose of enhancing or clarifying the figure rather than as
manifestations of the personality of the prophet. Many scholars today
are far more reluctant than those of a generation or two ago to write a
biography or even a personality assessment of a given prophet.
There
are indeed passages in which a prophet seems to express poetically the
difficulty he has in speaking to the people and being heard by them.
Isaiah is one example (Isa 8:16–18). But Jeremiah has a whole sequence of “laments” which have been interpreted as his inner soul emerging (Jer 12:1–6; 15:10–21; 17:14–18; 18:18–23; 20:7–13, 14–18).
Yet even here, some scholarship attempts to read these as liturgical
pieces or as evidence of inner-community strife. These interpretations
suppose that the prophet wanted to reveal the divine word rather than
individual feeling, and that the prophet’s tradition continued to grow
after the life of the prophet.
A claim that appears in the NT, which seems perhaps odd to the reader of the OT, is that Jerusalem killed the prophets sent to it (Luke 13:34).
The Deuteronomistic History does emphasize the stream of prophets who
were sent to warn the people of Israel, and in response the people and
their kings would not listen. But there is no biblical scene to which
the author of Luke could be referring.
A report of the killing of prophets appears only once in the OT. In 1 Kgs 18:4, 13,
Queen Jezebel, who had been acquired by King Ahab from outside Israel,
kills the prophets of Yahweh. Although in the next chapter, Elijah
attributes the slaughter to “the people of Israel” (1 Kgs 19:10, 14),
the killing neither occurs in nor is done by Jerusalem. The killing of
the prophets is a postbiblical tradition that develops for different
reasons both within Judaism and within Christianity (Amaru 1983).
I. The Study of the Prophets
Although
over the centuries certain readers of the Bible had noticed that
particular sayings within the books of the prophets did not seem to
come from the people to whom they were ascribed, it was mainly in the
19th century that certain scholars vigorously attempted to sort out the
authentic from the inauthentic sayings within the books of the
prophets. The position, popularized especially by Julius Wellhausen,
regarding the relation of the prophets to the Pentateuch encouraged
this particular kind of study of the prophets. The insight that the law
came after the prophets allowed certain scholars to set out in new
directions in the study of the prophets. This newfound approach
analyzes the prophetic books on their own rather than as precursors of
a new revelation or as the commentaries and expansions on the
Pentateuch.
Since
the study of the Pentateuch had shown that many hands had contributed
to those books, similar methods could be applied to the prophets. The
approach that tries to determine whether all the words attributed to a
prophet actually come from that prophet utilizes the many different
clues within the text itself and raises other considerations from
outside as well. It could be pointed out that the question of
authenticity of the sayings is not asked in order to “challenge” the
Bible or the believer, but simply to determine the real theology, the
real thinking, of a given prophet. To seek to establish that original
prophetic content is not to deny or to reject the Bible as normative.
The
effort to determine what were the authentic words of the prophet has
engaged a great number of scholars. Various methods are used to decide
whether a particular saying can rank as authentic. Whether it be on the
bases of the language and vocabulary used, of the ideas expressed, or
of the historical events alluded to, the critic pares away certain
words, verses, and passages to arrive at the substance of the prophet’s
preaching or writing. German scholarship has excelled in seeking to
identify the authentic words of the prophets. Mainly as a result of
this kind of analysis of the prophetic books, one concludes that the
preexilic prophets were truly prophets of doom. Careful analysis of the
books allows one to see and appreciate the original thoughts and words
of the prophets.
A
reaction to this approach of dissecting the texts to find the original
meaning inevitably arises. Such a critique underlines the difficulty in
deciding objectively what are the words and sections that have to be
judged as additions. One’s own presuppositions can intrude and
influence the judgment. A modern conception of how books come into
being can impede one’s understanding of the development of the biblical
text. Moreover, one might better stress the oral origins of prophecy
and the oral transmission of the prophet’s words to show the
reliability of the text. Certain scholars pointed out that our current
prophetic books differ in their origin and contents. Two kinds of
prophetic [Vol. 5, Page 488] [Vol. 5, Page 488] material exist: the diwan, a collection of diverse sayings of a single prophet, passed on without much variation, and the liturgy,
a unified piece which originated in the cultic performance of a
prophet. The liturgy is the more unified of the two, weaving a pattern
of themes and developing, in its own style, a complex work. This
approach was fostered among Scandinavian scholars (Engnell 1969). It
has stressed the impossibility of really sorting out the authentic
sayings from the additions.
A
different approach to the prophets is to take the prophetic book
basically as the tradition has given it to us. Only those passages
which are obviously not from the prophet need be cut away from the
authentic words. The critic’s task is to see how the words of the
prophet reflect the situation in which the prophet existed.
Archaeological research can be very helpful in understanding the
message and even the style of the prophets in their own time and
setting. This approach to the prophetic books, by and large, is pursued
especially in the United States (King 1988).
More
specific and distinctive approaches to the study of the prophets have
arisen. The question of a prophet’s relation to previous tradition
returns in various ways. Gerhard von Rad’s response is to show that
each of the prophets speaks within one of the three election traditions
of ancient Israel: those of Exodus, Zion, or David. The prophets see
that Israel is entering a new stage of its history. Israel is
encountering God on a new level. Yet that level always relates to the
past. The prophet reinterprets the old election tradition and applies
it (or them) to the new situation. The prophet’s formulation of both
judgment and promise depends on the specific tradition that prophet
knows. Naturally the prophet’s place of origin influences the election
tradition out of which he speaks. Isaiah, e.g., was from Jerusalem and operated with the Zion and David traditions; Hosea, from the North, used the Exodus tradition.
Another
approach which utilizes the places from which the prophet came and the
particular ways of thought proper to that locality is the study of
Wilson (1980). The Ephraimite prophetic tradition of the North differs
from the Judean tradition of the South in matters of the vocabulary
used for the prophet and his pronouncement, the manner of viewing the
prophet, and the process of intermediation. Isaiah and Micah are the
classical preexilic prophets in the Judean tradition (although Isaiah
gets a Deuteronomic/Ephraimite depiction in the Deuteronomistic
History); Hosea, of course, is Ephraimite. This sociological study
underscores the importance of each prophet’s support group, the
specific segment of the society which encourages and sustains the
prophet.
Sociology
also offers David L. Petersen (1981) a particular approach to the
prophets. Prophets come to a society that has certain kinds of
expectations regarding the manner in which prophets should act and
behave. Prophets can vary in the degree of involvement with which they
play these roles. Their acceptance by the various segments of the
society is indeed crucial. Some prophets operate with the support of
the political or religious authorities and thus become central
prophets, while other prophets receive the support only of the less
powerful and outcast in the society, thus becoming peripheral prophets.
The social dimension of Israelite prophecy continues to be one of the
most lively areas of contemporary study on the prophets.
With
regard to the prophetic writings, great emphasis has been given to the
formation of the books of the prophets. Because the prophets themselves
did not write, one must understand the words of the prophet as having
been selected, edited, probably reinterpreted, and then expanded. The
editorial remarks and expansions, once ignored by some scholars as
inauthentic, are now analyzed to order to see the history of the book’s
growth. This growth of the prophetic books offers insights into the
history of biblical religion from a new and different perspective.
Along
with this interest in the formation of the books goes the attempt to
analyze larger sections of the books as units rather than the smaller
passages and individual sayings that had been passed on orally at some
early stage. The editors of the books are increasingly given credit for
intelligence, understanding, and organization in their work. The growth
of the books is generally not seen as haphazard or unthinking.
The
emphasis on the books as canonical sacred writings to be interpreted
with the entire canon of the Bible has received a fresh proposal
(Childs 1979). The only reasons these books have been preserved by the
generations are the meanings that the whole books offer within the
canon of the Bible. Critics of this approach suggest that this kind of
analysis ignores all the advances of the historical-critical study of
the prophetic books. The proponents of this method insist, however,
that the approach does not deny any of those advances but simply puts
them in the proper perspective. The debate on this approach has not yet
concluded.
Bibliography
Albright, W. F. 1961. Samuel and the Beginnings of the Prophetic Movement. Cincinnati. Repr. in Interpreting the Prophetic Tradition, ed. Harry Orlinsky. Cincinnati, 1969.
Blenkinsopp, J. 1983. A History of Prophecy in Israel. Philadelphia.
Carrol, R. P. 1981. From Chaos to Covenant: Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah. New York.
Childs, B. S. 1979. Introduction to the Old Testament As Scripture. Philadelphia.
Coggins, R.; Phillips, A.; and Knibb, M., eds. 1982. Israel’s Prophetic Tradition. Cambridge.
Engnell, I. 1969. A Rigid Scrutiny. Trans. and ed. J. T. Willis. Nashville.
Fohrer, G. 1975–76. Neue Literatur zur alttestamentliche Prophetie (1961–70). TRu N.F. 40: 193–209, 337–77; 41: 1–12.
Gressmann, H. 1905. Der Ursprung der israelitisch-judischen Echatologie. Göttingen.
King, P. J. 1988. Amos, Hosea, Micah: An Archaeological Commentary. Philadelphia.
Koch, K. 1983–84. The Prophets. 2 vols. Philadelphia.
Lindblom, J. 1962. Prophecy in Ancient Israel. Oxford.
[Vol. 5, Page 489] [Vol. 5, Page 489] Overholt, T. W. 1989. Channels of Prophecy: The Social Dynamics of Prophetic Activity. Minneapolis.
Westermann, C. 1967. Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech. Philadelphia.
Wilson, R. R. 1980. Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel. Philadelphia.
Heb Hebrew; Epistle to the Hebrews Akk Akkadian E east(ern); or “Elohist” source Eng English NT New Testament OT Old Testament ANE Ancient Near East(ern) Repr. reprint, reprinted ed. editor(s); edition; edited by vols. volumes RelSRev Religious Studies Review JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series John J. Schmitt Associate Professor of OT, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI |