Biblical Prophets Changing their Words and the Words of Previous Prophets

It is a well-established and well-discussed fact that Joseph Smith made changes to his revelations; for instance, a comparison of the 1833 A Book of Commandments and the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants reveals a number of changes. Some of the differences are minor, but some are more substantial. To give just one example, in the current reading of D&C 81:1, there is a promise given to Frederick G. Williams calling him to be a high priest; however, in the earliest text, it was addressed to Jesse Gause. However, Gause left the LDS Church due to apostasy, and, as a result, the promise was transferred to Williams, as well as resulting in the editing of the pertinent text.

Of course, many Evangelical critics take a lot of issue with such a practice. In their (false) a priori view of the nature of “Scripture,” it is static, and can never change. However, the more intellectually honest Evangelical will admit that this is not the case. Note the following from Michael S. Heiser in his book, I Dare You Not to Bore Me with the Bible (Lexham Press, 2014):

Believe it or not, there is evidence that the Bible was updated. That may sound strange, but if you read closely, it’s undeniable. Take Genesis 14:14 as an illustration:

When Abram heard that his kinsman had been taken captive, he led forth his trained men . . . and went in pursuit as far as Dan.

Did you notice the problem? This is the time of Abram, a time before Moses and Joshua—before there was a promised land divided among the tribes of Israel. There wasn’t even an Israel ye . . .  If we plotted out the battle described in this verse on a map, with place names appropriate for Abram’s day, we’d see that the writer really meant that the enemy was pursued all the way to a place called Laish, not Dan . . . Evidently, an unnamed editor updated the text of Genesis 14:14 after the name change took place. The editor likely did this to make sure readers of his own day would understand the geography. (11-12).

Commenting on the propriety of such changes of the inspired text, Heiser comments thusly:

Who had the authority to edit the Bible like this? The short answer is whomever God moved to do so under inspiration. The longer answer is that, in the case of the prophetic writings, someone accepted by the believing community of Israel to be a member of the prophetic class or tradition served as editor of the preaching and teachings of the prophets. (ibid., 104).

Heiser is spot-on when he states that if and when a figure is inspired by God to make changes in their revelations or the revelations of previous prophets, such is appropriate and not a cause of concern.

This fits what Melvin J. Petersen wrote in "A Study of the Nature of and Significance of the Changes in the Revelations as Found in a Comparison of the Book of Commandments and Subsequent Editions of the Doctrine and Covenants," Master's thesis, BYU, 1955, pp. 164-65:

Once a man has been recognized and accepted as a prophet and favored with communications from God, his great responsibility is to make sure, inasmuch as he has power to do so, that those to whom the communications are directed, understand what God has revealed for them. The power is his to revise, correct, omit, or change any of his writings in order that he might manifest more clearly what God revealed through him . . . A prophet cannot be justly criticized when he writes the commandments he received from God, for he is only doing that which is part of his role as a prophet.

There are many biblical examples of prophets revising their own writings and/or the writings of previous prophets. One well-known example is recorded in Jer 36:28-32. After the king burnt his original revelation, the Lord instructs the prophet in the following manner:

"Take another scroll and write on it all the words that were on the first scroll, which Jehoiakim king of Judah burned up. Also tell Jehoiakim king of Judah, 'This is what the Lord says: You burned that scroll and said, "Why did you write on it that the king of Babylon would certainly come and destroy this land and wipe from it both man and beast? Therefore this is what the Lord says about Jehoiakim king of Judah: He will have no one to sit on the throne of David; his body will be thrown out and exposed to the heat by day and the frost on the night. I will punish him and his children and his attendants for their wickedness; I will bring on them and those living in Jerusalem and the people of Judah every disaster I pronounced against them, because they have not listened.'" So Jeremiah took another scroll and gave it to the scribe, Baruch son of Neriah, and as Jeremiah dictated, Baruch wrote on it all the words of the scroll that Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire. And many similar words were added to them. (NIV)

In this pericope, we learn that Jeremiah did not simply dictate the same revelation the king destroyed, but an expanded revelation.

Commenting on this chapter, Dewey M. Beegle made the following comment which is rather apropos:

The Autograph of the Book of Jeremiah

The most detailed account of the origin of a biblical book is found in Jeremiah 36:1-32. In the fourth year of Jehoiakim (605 B.C.) the Lord told Jeremiah, “Take a scroll and write on it all the words that I have spoken to you against Israel and Judah and all the nations from the day I spoke to you, from the days of Josiah until today” (v. 2). Jeremiah called his scribe, or secretary (known technically as an “amanuensis”), Baruch, who “wrote up on a scroll at the dictation of Jeremiah all the words of the Lord which he had spoken to him” (v. 4).

Inasmuch as Jeremiah had been debarred from going to the temple, he ordered Baruch to read the scroll to the people on some fast day. This Baruch did (v. 10), whereupon a certain Micaiah, one of the officials, hearing the startling words of Jeremiah, reported what he heard to the princes who were sitting in the king’s house. They sent for Baruch and had him read the scroll to them (vv.14-15). In fear they reported to the king, who in turn asked to have the scroll read to him. Since I was winter, he happened to be warming himself before the fire in the brazier. Then “as Jehudi read three or four columns, the king would cut them off with a penknife and throw them into the fire in the brazier, until the entire scroll was consumed in the fire that was in the brazier” (v. 23).

The scroll must have been much shorter than our present text, because it was read three times, with intervals, apparently all on the same day. At any rate, after Jeremiah learned of the burning of the scroll, the Lord told him, “Take another scroll and write on it all the former words that were in the first scroll” (v. 28). Then “Jeremiah took another scroll and gave it to Baruch the scribe, . . . who wrote on it at the dictation of Jeremiah all the words of the scroll which Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire; and many similar words were added to them” (v. 32)

Some of the additional words were the oracle (included in our present book at 36:29-31) against King Jehoiakim for his shameless deed in burning the first scroll. However, the text says “many similar words were added,” so the second scroll (written in 604) was quite a bit longer than the first. On the other hand, this second scroll was much shorter than our present book of Jeremiah, for it did not contain the material dating from 604 to the all of Jerusalem, 587/6 B.C.; nor did it have the section, 43:8 to 44:30, which reports Jeremiah’s activities in Egypt sometime after 586 B.C. When the latter unit was added, the preface of Jeremiah (1:1-3) was not brought up to date because it only purports to give the “words of Jeremiah . . . until the captivity of Jerusalem.” (Dewey M. Beegle, Scripture, Tradition, and Infallibility [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1973], 150-51)

As Catholic scholar Lawrence Boadt wrote about this:

A small example of the complex nature of the Book of Jeremiah is the question of what constituted the original scroll that Jeremiah dictated to Baruch as reported in chap. 36. Almost all scholars agree that the built of this scroll can still be found today as poetic oracles of type “A” in chaps. 1-25. This would include almost all of chaps. 2-6 and 8-10. It would not include much of chap. 1 or of chap. 7 which are in prose. In chaps. 11-18, the original oracles are now mixed in with a large number of later prose sermons. And it would include very little of chaps. 19-25; these chapters, as we shall see, must be dated later than the time of the first scroll. To make matters worse, chap. 36 also notes that this first scroll contained words against “all the nations.” Should we then think that many of the oracles against foreign nations, found in chaps. 46-51, were also part of that original work? We cannot say for sure. What we do know from the end of chap. 36 is that when Jeremiah had to dictate the scroll a second time, he added still more oracles to it (v. 32).

This example is important for its uniqueness. Very rarely can be follow the process of how biblical documents were edited. This incident from Jeremiah’s life tells us first of all that the prophets themselves often had a hand in compiling and collecting their words into writing, and secondly that the process could be done against and again, always adding to and changing the earlier collection. Not only did Jeremiah expand his body of spoken oracles, but disciples added stories and sermons to it at later times. And they did not just attach the new materials to the end of the book. They inserted them inside the work, placing like topics near like (e.g., gathering the images of the potter in chaps. 18 and 19), or placing images and sermons where they will have the most impact (Jeremiah’s anguished “confessions” beside his most pessimistic oracles in chaps. 11, 15, 18, and 20). This makes the book read like a very disorganized history, but it does create a rhythm of dramatic points. It is no easy task to figure out the structure and outline of all the pieces in the Book of Jeremiah, even though many scholars have tried their hands at it. (Lawrence Boadt, Jeremiah 1-25 [Old Testament Message vol. 9; Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1982], xxii-xxiii)

Another example would be the two records of the Decalogue in Exo 20 and Deut 5. Oftentimes, there are differences, including the justifications for, and the wording of the commandments:

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. (Exo 20:8)

Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee. (Deut 5:12)

But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, though, not thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates. (Exo 20:10)

But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, though, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou. (Deut 5:14)

For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. (Exo 20:11)

And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out of thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day. (Deut 5:15)

Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. (Exo 20:12)

Honour thy father and thy mother, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee, in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. (Deut 5:16)

Other examples of prophets revising the inspired writings of previous prophets include Jer 52 (2 Kgs 24-25) and Isa 36-39 (2 Kgs 18-20) or reinterpreting earlier prophetic oracles in light of historical contingencies that interrupted their initially expected fulfilment (see the use of Micah 3:12 in Jer 26:18-19). This is yet another example of a criticism levelled against the Prophet Joseph Smith where Evangelical critics would never dare apply to the biblical prophets—yet another example of the gross inconsistency and double-standards prevalent in some anti-Mormon circles.

With respect to Isa 36-39 and Isaiah's use of, and reworking of the material in 2 Kgs 18-20, supporting the thesis that the material in 2 Kgs 18:13, 17-20:19 “was antecedent to its subsequent adaptation to the rhetorical aims of the book of Isaiah,” Robert H. O’Connell noted that:

 

There are several considerations that would support the view that the account of 2 Kgs 1:13, 17-20:19 antedated its adaptation in [Isa] chs. 36-39. First, there is a series of omissions of details that may have been considered superfluous to Isaiah’s aim to set up an artificially idealized portrayal of Hezekiah (e.g., ‘his chief officers’ [2 Kgs 18:17], ‘son of Hilkiah’ [18:26], ‘from my hand’ [18:29], ‘a land of olive trees and honey. Choose life and not death!’ [18:32], ‘listen to’ [18:32], “Hena and Ivvah’ [18:34], ‘that night’ [19:35a], ‘the leader of my people’ . . . ‘I will heal you. On the third day from now you will go up to the temple of YHWH’ [20:5], ‘on the third day from now’ [20:8], ‘Isaiah answered’ [20:9a]).

 

Second, the Isaiah account offers a number of idealizing substitutions for material in 2 Kings. Apart from the rather insignificant substation of ‘peoples’ (Isa. 37:18) for ‘nations’ (2 Kgs 19:17), the prophet significantly substitutes for the assuring words, ‘I have heard your prayer’ (2 Kgs 19:20), the more energetic portrayal of Hezekiah in the causal clause, ‘because you have prayed to me’ (Isa. 37:21); for the indicative, ‘they did so and applied it to the boil and he recovered’ (2 Kgs 20:7b), Isaiah substitutes the imperative and result clause, ‘apply it to the boil and he will recover (38:21); for the scant depiction, ‘made the shadow go back the ten steps it had gone down on the stairway/sundial of Ahaz’ (2 Kgs 20:11b), Isaiah dramatizes the portrayal with, ‘”I will make the shadow cast by the sun go back the ten steps it has gone down on the stairway/sundial of Ahaz”. So the sunlight went back the ten steps it had gone down’ (Isa. 38:8). These embellishments lends further idealization to Hezekiah’s portrayal.

 

Third, there are selective omissions from Isaiah of materials that might too soon betray Hezekiah’s inordinate lack of personal fortitude and faith (e.g., 2 Kgs 18:14-16; or ‘they called for the king’ [18:18a], ‘before [Isaiah] had left the middle court’ [20:4a], ‘for my sake and for the sake of my servant David’ [20:6b; cf. 2 Kgs 19:34; Isa. 37:35], ‘that YHWH will heal me and’ [20:8], ‘”Shall the shadow go forward ten steps, or shall it go back ten steps?” “It is a simple matter for the shadow to go forward ten steps”, said Hezekiah. “Rather, have it go back ten steps”. Then the prophet Isaiah called upon YHWH’ [20:9b-11a]). However, the war oracle consolation, 'Do not be afraid' ‎אַל־תִּירָא֙  (2 Kgs 19:6) is retained.

 

Fourth, and more important, the displacement of material in 2 Kgs 20:7-8 to follow that of 20:9-11, with Hezekiah’s self-motivated thanksgiving son (Isa. 38:9-20) newly interposed (cf. isa. 38:7-8, 21-22), retards the disclosure it was Hezekiah himself who had requested a confirming sign of YHWH’s promise.

 

Fifth, and most important, besides Isaiah’s additions in 37:9 (‘when he had heard it’), 37:16 (the epithet, ‘Warrior’ [צְבָא֜וֹת]) and 37:18 (‘all’), there are three additions in ch. 39 that give an inside view into Hezekiah’s lack of discernment as to the Babylonian envoys’ potential threat to the security of Jerusalem: 39:1b (‘and had recovered’ [‎וַֽיֶּחֱזָֽק]), 39:2 (‘gladly’), and 39:3 (‘to me’). To this end, it is perhaps significant to notice the transposition of כָּל from the general ‘everything in his storehouses’ ‎אֶת־כָּל־בֵּ֣ית נְכֹתֹ֡ה (‎2 Kgs 20:13) to emphasize the strategic blunder of showing them ‘his entire armory’ (‎וְאֵת֙ כָּל־בֵּ֣ית כֵּלָ֔יו, Isa. 39:2). It is only just and fitting, therefore, that YHWH should at last respond to his indiscrete hubris with the addition of his divine epithet of warfare, צְבָאֽוֹת [‎יְהוָ֥ה] (Isa. 39:5). What assures the negative characterization of Hezekiah is the shift from his tonne of self-consolation in 2 Kgs 20:19, ‘Will there not be peace and security in my lifetime?’ to his self-assured tone on Isa. 39:8, ‘There will be peace and security in my lifetime’. Above all, this inside view into Hezekiah’s lack of concern for the welfare of the Davidic house shows him to be so self-centered as to fall short of the messianic ideal. In view of the broader literary context, this realization may lessen the reader’s initial impression of Hezekiah’s character from that formed on the basis of his prayers and actions, described in the preceding chapters. Indeed, the contrast between Hezekiah’s idealization in the preceding chapters and the disclosure of his relative dispassion for the welfare of future Jerusalem may leave the reader somewhat disillusioned with Hezekiah’ as a model of Davidic kingship. (Robert H. O’Connell, Concentricity and Continuity: The Literary Structure of Isaiah [Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 188; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994], 138-39 n. 2)

 

Much of Ezra/Nehemiah also shows evidence that it was later redacted/edited. For instance, consider, as one representative example, Neh 12:10-11:

Jeshua begot Joiakim; Joiakim begot Eliashib; Eliashib begot Joiada; Joiada begot Jonathan; Jonathan begot Jaddua.  (1985 JPS Tanakh)

Commenting on this passage, one conservative Evangelical scholar wrote the following:

As pointed out in the exegesis, traces of editing of the memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiah are clearly visible, particularly in the genealogical material; e.g., in Neh 12:10-11 the high-priestly lineage is taken down to Jaddua, who lived in the late fifth and early fourth centuries. The switch from the first person in the memoir of Ezra to the third person also points to later editing . . . [Neh 12] 10-11 Here we have a list of high priests from Jeshua to Jaddua, from 538 B.C. to well after 400 BC. Some want to regard Jaddua as a contemporary of Alexander the Great (c. 330 B.C.). One thing is certain, namely, that this list was compiled after the time of Nehemiah. Jeshua was the contemporary of Zerubbabel. We know nothing about Joiakim save that is said of him in this list and in vv. 12 and 26. Elishib was a contemporary of Nehemiah (cf. Neh. 3:1, 20, 21). We know nothing of Joiada except the notice in 13:28 that one of his sons was a son-in-law of Sanballat. Jonathan is here quite probably a scribal error for Johannan (cf. v. 22). Josephus (Ant. Xi.) tells the story that Johanan murdered his brother Jesus, who was a favorite of the Persian governor Bagoas. Johanan is also mentioned in the Elephantine papyri (c. 410 B.C.). To equate this Johanan with the one mentioned in Ezra 10:6 is highly questionable. This list gives additional material to supplement the one in 1 Chr. 5:27-41. (F. Charles Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah [New International Commentary on the Old Testament; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1982], 2, 251; comment in square bracket added; emphasis in original).

Furthermore, there are other evidence proving that the Torah itself, not just the Decalogue (see above), was redacted by later scribes. Consider the following:

  Gen 12:6; 13:7 were written from the perspective of someone living in a time when the Canaanites were no longer in the land.

·       The list of Edomite kings in Gen 36

·       The phrase "before there reigned any kings over the children of Israel" (Gen 36:31), indicating that the author was living at a time when kings were part of Israel's history (a note which would have been unnecessary during the time of Moses and his contemporaries)

·       The statement "No prophet ever again arose in Israel like Moses" in Deut 34:10

·       Reference to the "book of the wars of the Lord" (Num 21:14) as an account corroborating a geographical description (Moses would not have needed to write this to an audience contemporary with these events and the geography thereof)

·       The parenthetical note in Deut 2:20-23 is from an author later than Moses, explaining the presence of the Ammonites in the and, and why God had instructed Israel (through Moses) not to fight them.

·       Use of the place name "Dan" in Gen 14:14--this place was originally known as Laish, and was not captured by Dan until the time of the Judges.

·       The explanatory note "Kiriath Araba (that is, Hebron)" in Gen 23:2--this change of place name did not happen until the time of Joshua.

·       The use of "Bethlehem" as a place name in Gen 35:19; 48:7.

·       Repeated explanations of where certain places are, showing the reader was not going to be familiar with them (unnecessary for anyone living during Moses' or Joshua's time)--the wilderness of Zin, identified for the reader as being between Elim and Sinai (Exo 16:1; Num 33:36); Ijeabarim, identified as being near Moab (Num 21;11); Arnon, identified as the border of Moab (Num 21;13); a clarification necessary because previously it belonged to the Amorites (Judges 11:22-26); Etham, identified as being on the edge of the wilderness (Num 33:6); Jebus being identified as Jerusalem (Joshua 18:28; Judges 19:10).

·       Reference in Gen 10:12 to "the great city of Calah" which did not exist until the ninth century BC.

LDS scholar, John Tvedntes, wrote the following under the heading of “Old Testament ‘Abridgers’”:

Evidence for abridgement or redaction of earlier documents is found throughout the historical books of the Bible (Judges through 2 Chronicles). The book of Judges covers such a long period of time that it must have been compiled from earlier records or oral traditions. That it was composed by a single historian is suggested by the fact that the book, as a whole, describes what the author saw as a cycle of sin, followed by captivity, then the cry of the people for assistance, and their delivery by a judge called by God. The perspective is clearly ex post facto rather than contemporary.

According to the Talmud, Samuel wrote the book of Judges (TB Baba Bathra 14b). But the notice that “in those days there was no king in Israel” (Judges 17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25) suggests that the book was composed at a time when there was a king in Israel. Moreover, the use of the name “Israel” leads to three possible conclusions. Either the book was written during the time of the united monarchy (Saul, David, Solomon), or it was composed in the kingdom of Israel after its split with Judah following the death of Solomon, or it was composed after both kingdoms had ceased to exist and had become more historical facts. In any event, the author would have had to have access to earlier records (whether written or oral) and may thus be termed an “abridger.” One of the records used by this abridger is the book of Joshua. Thus, for example, the story in Judges 1:11-15 is also found in Joshua 15:15-19, while Judges 2;6-9 draws upon Joshua 24:28-31.

But we can narrow down the time period for the composition of Judges even more In Judges 18:30, we read of the establishment of a shrine at the site of Dan, in northern Israel, where the family of one Jonathan “were priests to the tribe of Da until the day of the captivity of the land.” Since the ten tribes were taken captive by the Assyrians in 722 B.C., it is likely that the book of Judges was written after that time or that, at the very least, an editor added these comments at the later date . . . Similar phenomena are found in the book of Samuel, which was only later divided into 1-2 Samuel. Samuel, of course, did not write the book. His death is recorded in 1 Samuel 25:1. Since this is before the end of the later subdivision of 1 Samuel, it is clear that he did not write that book in its present form either. This does not mean that Samuel wrote nothing, or we have a clear statement in 1 Samuel 10:25 that Samuel had written some things. Some of his material may have been used by the later author who composed the book of Samuel. Indeed, because it covers such a long span of time, Samuel evidently is a combination of various works (see 1 Chronicles 29:29).

The time period in which the book of Samuel was written may be indicated by some of the anachronisms that appear in it. For example, in 1 Samuel 2:10, there is a reference to “his king,” in a period supposedly predating the choosing of Saul (1 Samuel 9) as Israel’s king. In several passages, we find mention of Judah and Israel at a time when they were supposedly a united people under either Saul or David (1 Samuel 11:8; 17:52; 18:16; 2 Samuel 3:10; 5:5; 11:11; 12:8; 19:11, 40-43; 21:2; 24:1, 9; see 1 Chronicles 21:5).

In 1 Samuel 1:9, there is reference to a temple, at a time when, according to other statements in the Bible, there was not yet a temple. This places the writing at least in the time of Solomon, who constructed the temple. But the reference to the kingdom of Judah in 1 Samuel 27:6 provides evidence that the book was written after the death of Solomon., for the kingdom was not split in two until the time of his son Rehoboam. (John A. Tvedtnes, The Most Correct Book: Insights from a Book of Mormon Scholar [Salt Lake City: Cornerstone, 1999], 3-5).

Another nail in the coffin of this argument against Joseph Smith and the Doctrine and Covenants is the reworking of Jeremiah's 70-week prophecy by prophets after Jeremiah!

The book of Jeremiah  records the following prophecy given by the Lord to the prophet Jeremiah (the "70-year prophecy"):

Assuredly, thus said the Lord of Hosts: Because you would not listen to My words, I am going to send for all the peoples of the north -- declares the Lord -- and for My servant, King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon, and bring them against this land and its inhabitants, and against all those nations roundabout. I will exterminate them and make them a desolation, an object of hissing -- ruins for all time . . . This whole land shall be a desolate ruin. And those nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. When the seventy years are over, I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation and the land of the Chaldeans for their sins -- declares the Lord -- and I will make it a desolation for all time. (Jer 25:8-9, 11-12, 1985 JPS Tanakh)

For thus said the Lord: When Babylon's seventy years are over, I will take note of you, and I will fulfill to you My promise of favor -- to bring you back to this place. For I am mindful of the plans I have made concerning you -- declares the Lord -- plans for your welfare, not for disaster, to give you a hopeful future. When you call Me, and come and pray to Me, I will give heed to you. You will search for Me and find Me, if only you seek Me wholeheartedly. I will be at hand for you -- declares the Lord -- and I will restore your fortunes. And I will gather you from all the nations and from all the places to which I have banished you -- declares the Lord -- and I will bring you back to the place from which I have exiled you. (Jer 29:10-14, 1985 JPS Tanakh)

As Christopher M. Hays notes:

So, Jeremiah prophesied that Babylon would conquer Judaea and rule the Israelites and their land for seventy years, after which God promised to restore them. But did things turn out as planned? Not exactly. The Old Testament is littered with texts trying to account for the way in which subsequent history did not line up with Jeremiah’s timeline. Initially, the biblical authors needed to explain why the exile began to wind down too early; then, they had to reverse their tactics and explain why restoration from exile was taking too long; and finally some of them just threw up their hands and denied that the prophesied restoration was ever even inaugurated (however abortively or impartially). In short, the Hebrew Bible seems a veritable cacophony of voices trying to explain why things did not turn out as Jeremiah had prophesied. (Christopher M. Hays, “Prophecy: A History of Failure?” in Christopher M. Hays, ed. When the Son of Man Didn’t Come: A Constructive Proposal on the Delay of the Parousia [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2016], 23-58, here, p. 26, italics in original)

While Hays’ entire essay should be read, as one example of the reinterpretation of Jeremiah’s original prophecy by Ezra-Nehemiah, he writes:

[The editor of Ezra-Nehemiah has to] explain why the restoration from exile had been so sluggish! Even seventy years after the invasion of Judea, things still hadn’t come together as Jeremiah had prophesied. Jeremiah 29:10-14 (cf. 25:11-12) promised that after the seventy years God would return the Israelites from exile and restore their fortunes. But it is not as if all the Israelites had returned to the Promised Land by the time the Temple had been rebuilt. Only a portion of the Israelite population hobbled back to Judaea under Cyrus’s decree (Ezra 2:1-65). When Ezra’s ministry began around 458 BCE, a solid 130 years into the exile, he was still only leading a modest contingent of Israelite exiles to Jerusalem (see Ezra 8:1-20), and even then, their travel required the gracious permission of King Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:11-28). A dozen years after that, Nehemiah undertook his ministry (Neh. 2:1-10), and he too lamented that the exile was far from over (Neh. 1:1-11). Thus, in about 446 BCE, some 141 years after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, Nehemiah was still in Persia; the walls of Jerusalem lay in ruins; and those who had supposedly escaped captivity remained “in great trouble and shame” (Neh. 1:3). To compound matters, Nehemiah the governor of Judah, Nehemiah’s predecessors had been exploiting and oppressing the Israelite residents. To put it mildly, the restoration of Israel after seventy years that Jeremiah promised had proven an overstatement; God’s “plans to prosper them and not to harm them” (Jer. 29:11) were not coming to pass as advertised.

So, the editor of Ezra-Nehemiah had to back-pedal. Although he wanted to read the prophecy of Jeremiah as being fulfilled in more-or-less literal, chronological terms, he was obliged to see 515 BC as the beginning of a fulfillment that remained quite incomplete even seventy additional years later. The editor of the book, summoning a pitiably quixotic optimism, seemed to hope that, with men such as Ezra and Nehemiah at the helm, Israel might steer a course toward complete restoration. (Ibid., 28-29, comment in square brackets added for clarification)

Commenting on another example of a biblical prophet reworking Jeremiah's prophecy, James L. Kugel wrote:

 Daniel the Re-interpreter

Certainly the best biblical example of the tendency of later prophetic figures to reinterpret the existing Scripture is found in the book of Daniel. Daniel relates that on one occasion he “consulted the books concerning the number of years that, according to the word of the LORD that had come to Jeremiah the prophet, were to be the end of Jerusalem’s desolation, seventy years” (Dan 9:2). This introduction in itself is surprising. The book of Jeremiah does indeed report that the prophet had said that in seventy years, the Babylonians would be punished and Israel’s fortunes would be restored (Jer 29:10; cf. 25:12)—and this, give or take a few years, is exactly what happened. So what was Daniel consulting the books for? Seventy years are seventy years. But then the angel Gabriel appears and informs Daniel on the real meaning of Jeremiah’s promise: he didn’t mean seventy years, but seventy groups of seven years apiece, making for a total of 490 years:

While I was still speaking, praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, setting my supplication before the LORD my God on my God’s holy mountain—while I was still in the midst of praying, the “man” Gabriel, whom I had seen in the earlier vision, was sent forth in flight and reached me at the time of the evening offering. He spoke to me enlighteningly and said: “Daniel, I have come to you now to give you insight and knowledge. A the start of your prayer, a word went out, and I have come to tell it . . . Seventy groups of seven years have decreed for your people and your holy city. (Dan 9:20-24)

As we have seen above, the notion of 490 years exactly was not unique in Second Temple Judaism, and the reason is not hard to find. Biblical law stipulates that the jubilee year is to come around once every forty-nine years (Lev 25:8); the number 490 is simply one jubilee multiplied by ten (which comes out to be the same as Daniel’s seventy “weeks of years” that is, the seventy units of sevens in Dan 9:24). So it came about that 490 years also appears here and there as a mega-unit of time in the Dead Sea  . . .In any event, this last-cited passage from Daniel recalls a number of themes already seen above: (1) the prophets of old (in this case, Jeremiah) had prophesied, but them themselves didn’t understand the hidden message of their prophecies; (2) this in turn reflects the fact that most prophets are actually long-range predictors, their predictions having to do with times far distant from their own; (3) an angel (here, Gabriel) is needed to explain the significance of ancient prophet’s (here, Jeremiah’s) words . . .thereby also turning his book into yet another collection of long-range predictions, some of which had already occurred or where coming to pass in his own time. (James L. Kugel, The Great Shift: Encountering God in Biblical Times [New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2017], 252-53)

Commenting on the expansion of biblical books “in the direction of eschatology” by their authors and/or other biblical authors, Joseph Blenkinsopp wrote that:

  

At his trial for sedition in 609 Jeremiah was saved by timely appeal to the eighth-century prophet, Micah of Moresheth (Jer. 26:17-19; Mic. 3:12). This incident, by the way, provides one of the firmest pieces of evidence for the expansion of prophetic books in the direction of eschatology and the millenarian expectation. For if Micah's prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem were to have any force when quoted at the trial it could not have been followed then, as it is now, by the prospect of a glorious future. About half a century later the exilic Isaiah ascribed great importance to the fulfillment of predictions by his prophetic predecessors. Shortly after the return, Haggai berated his contemporaries in language borrowed from Amos. He also made use of Jeremiah's metaphor of the king as Yahweh's signet ring (2:23, cf. Jer. 22:24), while Zechariah used the other Jeremian figure of the Branch (3:8; 6:12, cf. Jer. 23:5; 33:15). The prediction of seventy years' exile in Jeremiah (25:11; 29:10) is also taken up by Zechariah (1:12; 7:5) and perhaps also in Haggai's reference to the right time ('et) for rebuilding the temple (1:2). With this process of appropriation and reinterpretation a decisive step has been taken to- wards the "recycling" of prophetic texts in apocalyptic writings of the Greco-Syrian and Greco-Roman periods. (Joseph Blenkinsopp, Prophecy and Canon: A Contribution to the Study of Jewish Origins [University of Notre Dame Center for the Study of Judaism and Christianity in Antiquity 3; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2006], 102)

 

The book of Obadiah, notwithstanding being the shortest book in the Old Testament, provides us with many instances of (1) Obadiah reworking the words of prior prophets and (2) prophets reworking the works of Obadiah.

 

On pp. 30-31 of his commentary on the book of Obadiah, Thomas E. Gaston provided the following examples of Obadiah’s use of Jer 49:

 

Obadiah	Jeremiah 49
1 The vision of Obadiah.
Thus says the Lord God concerning Edom:	7a Concerning Edom. Thus says the Lord of hosts.
We have heard a report from the Lord.	14 I have heard a message from the Lord
and a messenger has been sent among the nations	An envoy was sent to the nations to say,
“Rise up! Let us rise against her for battle!”	“Assemble yourselves to attack it. Rise up for battle!”
2 Behold, I will make you small among the nations:	15 “Now I will make you small among the nations,
you shall be utter despised	despised among men
	16a The terror you inspire
3 The pride of your heart has deceived you	and the pride of your heart have deceived you,
you who live in the clefts of the rock,	you who live in the clefts of the rocks,
in your lofty dwelling,	who occupy the heights of the hill
who say in your heart, “Who will bring me down to the ground?”
4 Though you soar aloft like the eagle,
though your nest is set among the stars,	16b Though you build your nest as high at the eagle’s
from there I will bring you down, declares the Lord	from there I will bring you down,” declares the Lord.
5 If thieves came to you, if plunderers came by night--	9b If thieves came during the night,
how you have been destroyed!--
would they not steal only enough for themselves?	would they not steal only as much as they wanted?
If grape gatherers came to you, would they not leave gleanings?	9a If grape pickers came to you, would they not leave a few grapes?
6 How Esau has been pillaged, his treasures sought out!	10 But I have stripped Esau bare; I have uncovered his hiding places, and he is not able to conceal himself. His children are destroyed, and his brothers, and his neighbors; and he is no more.
7a-c All your allies have driven you to your border; those at peace with you have deceived you’ they have prevailed against you’ those who eat your bread have set a trap beneath you.
7d you have no understanding 8 Will I not on that day, declares, the Lord, destroy the wise men out of Edom, and understanding of Mount Esau?	7b “Is wisdom no more in Teman? Has counsel perished from the prudent? Has their wisdom vanished?
9 And your mighty men shall be dismayed, O Teman, so that every man from Mount Esau will be cut off by slaughter.	10b His descendants are plundered, his brethren and his neighbors, and he is more. 11 Leave your fatherless children; I will keep them alive; and let your widows trust in me.
10-14 description of Edom’s sin	**no parallel**
15 Day of the Lord	**no parallel**
16 For as you have drunk on my holy mountain, so all the nations shall drink continually; they shall drink and swallow, and shall be as though they had never been	12 For thus says the Lord: “If those who did not deserve to drink the cup must drink it, will you go unpunished? You shall not go unpunished, but you must drink.
17a But in Mount Zion there shall be those escape.	11 Leave your fatherless children; I will keep them alive; and let your widows trust in me.
18 description of Israel’s victory	**no parallel**
19-20 description of distribution of land	**no parallel**
21 Saviors shall go up to Mount Zion to rule Mount Esau, and the kingdom shall be the Lord’s.	19b And I will appoint over her whomever I choose. For who is like me? Who will summon me? What shepherd can stand before me?

 

Gaston provides the following commentary:

 

There are clear parallels between the two passages. Not only does Obadiah borrow phraseology from Jer 49 but builds his prophecy around key themes of the passage. Yet Obadiah does not simply regurgitate Jeremiah’s prophecy, he is creative and turns his old words to a new purpose. Several sections in Obadiah’s prophecy find no parallel in Jer 49, specifically: the description of Edom’s sin (vv10-14), the introduction of the Day of the Lord (v15) and the description of Israel’s victory and distribution of the land (vv18-20). These additions add depth, making the judgment of Edom retributive on the one hand and on the other providing an eschatological hope to his listeners.

 

The intention behind re-using Jeremiah’s prophecy is, presumably to compliment the previous prophetic-tradition. J. Barton states that this is a “general tendency of postexilic prophecy” to revise and reshape earlier material “to its own end” (Barton, Joel and Obadiah: A Commentary [Louisville: John Knox Press, 2001], 126). This is probably accurate as far as it goes, but the idea of actualizing an older prophecy for contemporary circumstances misrepresents Obadiah’s intention. Obadiah is not an apologist for Jeremiah but believed that Jeremiah uttered a true prophecy. Obadiah’s own prophecy is an extension of the original, adding new aspects for greatest relevance to his audience. (Thomas E. Gaston, Obadiah: A Christadelphian Academic Commentary [Lulu: 2009], 31-32)

 

Gaston then discusses Obadiah’s relationship to Joel (Ibid., 34-35):

 

Obadiah and Joel

 

One of the strongest relationships is between the books of Obadiah and Joel. Several commentators assert that Joel 2:32 quotes Obad 1:17, and thus date Obadiah prior to Joel (e.g. J.R. Lillie, ‘Obadiah—A Celebration of God’s Kingdom’, Currents in Theology and Mission 6 [1979] 19). There is clearly a dependence as the phrase ‘in Mount Zion there shall be those who escape’ (or ‘shall be deliverance’) occurs in both. Primacy is given to Joel 2:32 due to the phrase ‘as the LORD has said’, which Joel includes (R.J. Coggins ‘Judgment Between Brothers: A Commentary on the Book of Obadiah’, in Israel Among the Nations: A Commentary on the Book of Nahum and Obadiah and Esther [ed. R.J. Coggins & S.P. Re’emi; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985], p.  73). This may imply aa quotation from an earlier prophecy (i.e., ‘as the LORD has previously said’) and, if this is the case, then Obadiah is probably the source. The concept that Zion is/will be the epicenter of God’s deliverance did not begin with either Obadiah or Joel but runs throughout the OT (cf. Ps 14:7, 54:6; 69:35; Is 46:13; 62:1, 11).

 

Obadiah also demonstrates a number of other intertextual links with Joel (see table below). As Joel’s theme is not Edom-centric (as Obadiah’s), these links are not so close as those with Jer 49 but the choice of phraseology does indicate some familiarity with Joel’s prophecy. Though the invader and occasion is different, God’s indignation is the same:

 

Obadiah	Joel
10 Because of the violence done to your brother Jacob, shame shall cover you, and you shall be cu off forever.	3:19b Edom a desolate wilderness, for the violence done to the people of Judah, because they have shed innocent blood in their land.
11b on the day that strangers carried off his wealth	3:5b For you have taken my silver and my gold
11b on the day that strangers carried off his wealth and foreigners entered his gates.	3:17b and Jerusalem shall be holy, and strangers shall never again pass through it.
11c and cast lots for Jerusalem,	3:3a and have cast lots for my people
15a For the day of the LORD is near upon all the nations	3:14 Multitudes, multitudes, in the valley of decision! For the day of the LORD is near in the valley of decision.
15b As you have done, it shall be done to you; your deeds shall return on your own head.	3:4b I will return your payment on your own head swiftly and speedily
15b As you have done, it shall be done to you; your deeds shall return on your own head.	3:7b I will return your payment on your own head
16a For as you have drunk on my holy mountain	17a So you shall know that I am the LORD your God, who dwells in Zion, my holy mountain
17a But in Mount Zion there shall be those who escape, and it shall be holy,	2:32b For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as the LORD has said
18a The house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame	2:3a Fire devours before them, and behind them a flame burns.
18a-b The house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau stubble;	2:5b like the crackling of a flame of fire devouring the stubble,

 

One final example, again of Obadiah reworking a prior prophet, is that of Amos (Ibid., 36):

 

There also appears to be a dependence on the book of Amos, in terms of both themes and phraseology . . . Amos also refers to the brotherhood between Israel and Edom. Other paralleled themes include the Edomites taking Israelites captive (Obad 1:14/Amos 1:6, 9) and the restoration of Israel to include Edomite territory (Obad 1:19-21/Amos 9:12-14). A few possible textual connections are noted below:

 

Obadiah	Amos
4 Though you soar like the eagle, though your nest is set among the stars, from there I will bring you down, declares the Lord.	9:2 If they dig into Sheol, from there shall my hand take them; if they climb up to heaven, from there I will bring them down.
10 Because of the violence done to your brother Jacob, shame shall cover you, and you shall be cut off forever.	1:11 Thus says the Lord: “For three transgressions of Edom, and for four, I will not revoke the punishment, because he pursued his brother with the sword and cast off all pity, and his anger tore perpetually, and he kept his wrath forever.
18a The house of Jacob shall be a fire	1:12 So I will send a fire upon Teman, and it shall devour the strongholds of Bozrah.”