Thus, the question is proposed: were there any prophets between Malachi and John the Baptist? This intertestamental period was when these apocryphal books were written. Therefore, did the Jews believe that prophecy had ceased during that time? If so, they did not consider the Apocryphal books to be canonical. We will consider a number of texts from the Old Testament itself and other important Jewish literature to determine the answer to this question. The view that will be defended here is that there was indeed a temporary cessation of prophecy between Malachi and John the Baptist, but not a permanent one, since Christ (our great Prophet) came, and before John the Baptist appeared as His forerunner.
[1]. Psalm 74:9 says “We see not our signs: there is no more any prophet: neither is there among us any that knoweth how long.” However, this was most likely in reference to the Babylonian exile, rather than the Maccabean period. Therefore, we should not cite this as evidence against the Romanist view of prophets during the Second Temple period. It is inconclusive and not relevant to that particular question.
[2]. Zechariah 13:2-6 says “And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord of hosts, that I will cut off the names of the idols out of the land, and they shall no more be remembered: and also I will cause the prophets and the unclean spirit to pass out of the land. And it shall come to pass, that when any shall yet prophesy, then his father and his mother that begat him shall say unto him, Thou shalt not live; for thou speakest lies in the name of the Lord: and his father and his mother that begat him shall thrust him through when he prophesieth. And it shall come to pass in that day, that the prophets shall be ashamed every one of his vision, when he hath prophesied; neither shall they wear a rough garment to deceive: But he shall say, I am no prophet, I am an husbandman; for man taught me to keep cattle from my youth. And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.”
In my opinion, the key to understanding the background for this passage is this phrase “in that day”, which is used in this passage to designate the time periods in which there will not be prophets in the land of Israel. This phrase “in that day” is used more than a dozen times in Zechariah chapters 12-14. These chapters are unified in discussing the same time period in Israel’s history, using the phrase “in that day” to refer to the aforementioned time period. The time period in Zechariah 13:2-6 (designated by “in that day”) is described in Zech. 12:2-10 - “2 Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem. And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it. 4 In that day, saith the Lord, I will smite every horse with astonishment, and his rider with madness: and I will open mine eyes upon the house of Judah, and will smite every horse of the people with blindness. 5 And the governors of Judah shall say in their heart, The inhabitants of Jerusalem shall be my strength in the Lord of hosts their God. 6 In that day will I make the governors of Judah like an hearth of fire among the wood, and like a torch of fire in a sheaf; and they shall devour all the people round about, on the right hand and on the left: and Jerusalem shall be inhabited again in her own place, even in Jerusalem. 7 The Lord also shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem do not magnify themselves against Judah. 8 In that day shall the Lord defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the Lord before them. 9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. 10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.”
Is this time period a description of the wickedness of Antiochus IV Epiphanes when he oppressed the Jewish people? Some Protestants have viewed it that way, but it is likely not a reference to that time period. This is especially because verse 10 contains a well-known prophecy of Christ’s crucifixion (cf. John 19:37), which, as everyone knows, took place a century or two after the time of the Maccabees and Hasmoneans. Therefore, one would have to reject this as not being a real prophecy of the Messiah in order to interpret Zechariah 12-13 as speaking of the Maccabean period. In his biblical commentary, John Gill says “Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about,.... The Targum renders it, "a vessel full of inebriating liquor;'' which intoxicates and makes giddy, and causes to tremble, stagger, and fall like a drunken man. The phrase denotes the punishment inflicted by the Lord upon the enemies of his church and people; (Isaiah 51:22), when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem; not by Antiochus Epiphanes; nor by Titus Vespasian; nor by Gog and Magog, as Kimchi; but by the antichristian powers, especially the Mahometan nations, the Turks, which shall come against Jerusalem, when the Jews are returned thither, and resettled in their own land; (Ezekiel 38:5). The words should be rendered, "and upon Judah shall it be" , i.e. the cup of trembling, "in the siege against Jerusalem"; according to the Targum, and the Jewish commentators, the nations of the earth shall bring the men of Judah by force to join with them in the siege of Jerusalem; as, in the times of Antiochus, many of the Jews were drawn in to fight against their brethren; but the meaning is, that not only the wrath of God will come upon the Mahometan nations that shall besiege Jerusalem; but also on those who bear the Christian name, who are Jews outwardly, but not inwardly; and shall join with the Turks in distressing the people of the Jews upon their return to their own land: to besiege Judah, or a country, is not proper and pertinent: Jerusalem, when again in the hands of the Jews, according to this prophecy, only is to be besieged, as it will, by the Turks; and it should be observed, that it never was besieged by Antiochus, and therefore the prophecy can not be applied to his times, as it is by many.”
Therefore, Protestants should not bring forth this argument to prove that prophecy ceased in Judaism.
[3]. 1 Maccabees 4:46 says “So they tore down the altar, and stored the stones in a convenient place on the temple hill until there should come a prophet to tell what to do with them.” This text is quite clear in saying that prophets did not exist during this time period.
Gary G. Michuta responds to this passage by the following reasoning: “Consider if some official were to decree that a certain pile of bricks could not be removed until after a policeman should arrive, would those who heard the decree immediately assume that policemen no longer exist?—or only that no policeman is currently available? Would not the hearers assume, rather, that policemen do still exist and that one will eventually make his appearance? Likewise, the writer of 1 Maccabees should not be construed to make any sweeping generalization about the continued existence of the prophetic office—any more than the several Protocanonical writers who make similar statements intended such a generalization.” (Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger, online ebook edition)
I respond by noting that because I do not know of any learned divines in the Reformed church who have ever claimed that there was a permanent cessation of prophecy after Malachi, so Michuta is attacking a strawman argument of our positions. Rather, we would believe what the writer of 1 Maccabees taught, namely that there was a temporary cessation of prophecy after Malachi. As Benjamin D. Sommer said, “The notion of the end of prophecy was known and widespread in antiquity. The sense of a decline had appeared already in 1 Maccabees, whose author (writing in the late second century BCE) presumes that prophecy is a thing of the past and perhaps of the future but not of the present.” (Sommer, “Did Prophecy Cease? Evaluating a Reevaluation.” Journal of Biblical Literature 115 [1996], pg. 32)
[4]. 1 Maccabees 9:27 says “There was great tribulation in Israel, the like of which had not been since the time prophets ceased to appear among them.”
John R. Levison (“Did the Spirit Withdraw from Israel? An Evaluation of the Earliest Jewish Data.” NTS 43 [1997], pgs. 35-57) has contended that the Greek expression here which is translated as “since the time” (ἀφ' οὗ), expresses the idea (from the writer of 1 Maccabees’ perspective) to refer to particular past events, in distinction from the present, thereby opening up the possibility that prophets existed during the Maccabean period.
However, as Cook notes, Levison makes too big a deal out of this particular Greek construction. He is also not consistent in his interpretation of it. He does not list its usage in 1 Macc. 1:11, which reads “In those days lawless men came forth from Israel, and misled many, saying, ‘Let us go and make a covenant with the Gentiles round about us, for since [ἀφ' ἧς] we separated from them many evils have come upon us’”. Nobody would argue that, during the time of the Maccabees, the separation from the Gentiles was only a past event which did not continue to their times.
Cook further states that it is debated whether or not the term hemeras in 9:27 refers to a 24-hour day or a period of time in general. This also would impact Levinson’s interpretation of the text. Furthermore, it is not likely that a time of national distress would last only one day. Since the distress in 9:27 concerning the death of Judas Maccabeus lasted longer than a single day, it would make more sense that the parallel distress (and hence the time of the cessation of prophecy) also lasted longer.
Cook concludes: “The few references which do appear in the book (including the one in 9:54) all indicate that prophets were not thought to be present in Jerusalem in the late second century BCE. In all probability, then, the reference in 9:27 is also intended to suggest a continuity between the author’s own day and the prophet-less period in the past.” (On the Question of the “Cessation of Prophecy” in Ancient Judaism, pg. 70)
[5]. 1 Maccabees 14:41 says “And the Jews and their priests decided that Simon should be their leader and high priest for ever, until a trustworthy prophet should arise”.
Cook rightly notes the clarity of this passage text: “Scholars generally agree that the author of 1 Maccabees implies here that no trustworthy or credible prophets existed in Jerusalem in Simon’s time….Taken together, the above three passages seem to present a picture of a second century B.C.E. Israel in which it was believed that a period of prophetic absence had persisted for a considerable period of time.” (On the Question, pgs. 70, 73)
The one last objection I will address here is from Charles Grondin, who says the following: “The problem with this argument is that the Book of Maccabees is talking about events that occurred in the past The author is saying that at the time the events took place there were no prophets, the author does not state that at the time of his writing that there are no prophets. The fact that the passages in question seem to indicate that the people were actually expecting a prophet to arise would not rule out that at the time of writing there were prophets in Israel.” (https://www.catholic.com/qa/does-first-maccabees-deny-being-inspired)
In response, I would note that First Maccabees was written in the second century BC, a few decades after the events that are recorded. This is also the conclusion of the New Catholic Encyclopedia, though without giving an exact dating (it approximates the date of 1 Maccabees writing to some time during the reign of John Hyrcanus. Therefore, if Grondin wishes to assert that while there were no prophets during the Maccabean revolt itself, that this doesn’t rule out the possibility of there being prophets at the time of 1 Maccabees being written (which, as noted above, is only shortly after the events it records), then Grondin must show evidence for the arrival of new prophets and/or prophecy between the Maccabean revolt and the writing of 1 Maccabees.
[6]. Prayer of Azariah 15 (‘Dan. 3:38’) says “In our day we have no ruler, or prophet, or leader, no burnt offering, or sacrifice, or oblation, or incense, no place to make an offering before you and to find mercy.” Though this prayer is written from the perspective of Azariah (Abednego) in the time of the exile, some have thought that this was added during the Maccabean period to describe the state of the Israelites under the rule of Antiochus Epiphanes. This is the opinion of scholars such as John J. Collins (who is known for being quite liberal in many of his views, so I take him with a grain of salt), George J. Brooke, and J.C. Dancey, to name a few examples. Some have viewed the description here of Israel as “without prophet, leader, burnt offerings, sacrifice, temples [‘no place to make an offering before you’] as a clear-cut description of the Maccabean period of the 2nd century BC.
All of these claims presuppose, of course, that this was added during the Maccabean period. Whether or not that can be proven is up for considerable debate. Therefore, I see this as an uncertain testimony and thus not conclusive for determining what the Second Temple Jews believed about the status of prophets and prophecy in their day.
[7]. The book of Sirach (considered separately from the Greek preface, which was addressed earlier in this chapter) does not give us any very explicit information as to whether or not prophets existed during the time of its writing, but there are hints that Ben Sira believed that the spirit of prophecy was past, due to the tone he uses when speaking of the prophets of the protocanonical books:
“May the bones of the twelve prophets revive from where they lie, for they comforted the people of Jacob and delivered them with confident hope.” (Sirach 49:10)
Other translations render this verse as “May the bones of the twelve prophets sprout new life from where they lie.” As Cook says, “Ben Sira mentions the Twelve [prophets] here as though they are a distinct, closed group from the past….This conclusion [that Ben Sira did not believe prophecy existed in his day] is supported by his plea that the bones of the Twelve bring forth ‘new life’, a petition which he would not likely make if he viewed the prophetic spirit as alive and well in his time.” (Cook, On the Question of the “Cessation of Prophecy” in Ancient Judaism, pg. 76).
It is also strange to note that if prophets did exist in Ben Sira’s day, why did he never mention them? He mentions figures from the Old Testament period such as Joshua the High Priest, Nehemiah, and Zerubbabel. The only figure from the Hellenistic period that is mentioned is Simon II (219-196 BC).
However, some scholars have objected that Ben Sira did view himself as giving divine revelation in the form of wisdom based on Sirach 24:30-34:
“I also came out as a brook from a river, and as a conduit into a garden. I said, I will water my best garden, and will water abundantly my garden bed: and, lo, my brook became a river, and my river became a sea. I will yet make doctrine to shine as the morning, and will send forth her light afar off. I will yet pour out doctrine as prophecy, and leave it to all ages for ever. Behold that I have not labored for myself only, but for all them that seek wisdom.”
Many point to verse 33 in particular, which says “I will yet pour doctrine as prophecy.” However, it is clear from the context that Ben Sira viewed the Torah of Moses as the primary source of wisdom. He views himself as a means of giving forth the Law, rather than giving new teachings. Matthias Henze argues forcefully for this conclusion in his paper on this subject (“Invoking the Prophets in Zechariah and Ben Sira”. Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism, edited by Michael H. Floyd and Robert D. Haak, pgs. 120-34).
Cook notes that this interpretation is supported by the juxtaposition between verses 32 and 33, so that the emphasis is more on Ben Sira as a conduit of the Mosaic teachings:
Lastly, some have also pointed to Sirach 39:1-5 in which Ben Sira describes the ideal scribe of Torah as one who “seeks out the wisdom of the ancients, and are concerned with prophecies…” However, nothing here describes these scribes as being prophets themselves, but rather as passing on the teachings of the “ancients”.
No comments:
Post a Comment