On biblical prophets prophesying events that did not happen:
. . .
a prophet who accounted a future event was, quite frequently, incorrect. For
example, a prophet at the Mesopotamian city of Mari announced, in the name of
the god Dagan, that the king of Babylon had done evil and would be punished. He
would be delivered into the power of the king of Mari, said the prophet. This
prophecy proved incorrect. Mari’s king was defeated by the Babylonian king.
Likewise, biblical prophets were wrong from time to time. After Babylon’s
victory at Carchemish in 605 BCE, Jeremiah had the temerity to predict that his
lord, Nebuchadnezzar II, would invade Egypt successfully (Jer. 46.13-24), but
the invasion of 601 BCE was turned back at Migdol. Jeremiah was incorrect. (K.L.
Noll, Canaan and Israel in Antiquity: An Introduction [The Biblical
Seminar 83; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001], 275)
On Deut 18:21-22:
Here
the reader is advised that the way to discern whether a prophet is truly sent
by Yahweh is to wait until the prophecy has been fulfilled. At a casual
reading, these two verses give the impression that prophecy was mechanical
prediction of future events. Those who cannot predict are not prophets. Not
only is this a false impression of ancient Near Eastern prophecy, but it is,
from a pragmatic viewpoint, horrible advice. What good is it to make a decision
about a prophetic utterance after it is too late to respond to the prophetic
sermon? Would the advice of Deut. 18.21-22 have served the royal officials who
were compelled to make a decision about Jeremiah’s prophecy in Jer. 26.1-19?
One presumes that, had they employed the ‘wait and see’ approach, they would
have ensured the destruction of their city and themselves! Likewise, would the
people of Nineveh have been better off to use this ‘wait and see’ method in the
book of Jonah? The advice of 18.21-22 seems designed to ensure that no one who
reads and accepts Deuteronomy will trust the words of any prophet. That is the
key to understanding this strange passage.
As a
historian of ancient religion, I am convinced that the reader was not supposed
to read Deut. 18.21-22 out of literary context. As a matter of fact, this
passage is a purely literary device, not meant to have any function in a real,
social world. Allow me to explain: Deuteronomy is a highly complex and artistic
religious tract. Its primary purpose is to convince its reader that (1) there
is no god worthy of worship except Yahweh (e.g. 6.4-9), and (2) there has been
no prophet of primary importance except Moses (e.g. 34.1-12). Yet, Deuteronomy
promises the coming of a great Prophet-like-Moses (18.15-20). Superficially,
this seems to mean that, one day, there will be an equal to Moses and the book
of Deuteronomy will become irrelevant, since a book is not as important as a
prophet of Moses’s stature. In reality, the book of Deuteronomy has no
intention of every relinquishing its religious authority to a man (or woman);
rather, it is designed to be the Prophet-like-Moses for all times. The scroll
purports to be the words of Moses in the past, but the final passage is written
from a much later perspective, since it knows that there has never been an
equal to Moses. Indeed, it is not the final passage alone that is composed from
the later perspective, but the whole scroll. As a scroll, Deuteronomy is designed
to transcend time. Moses speaks to every generation through this scroll
(e.g. 5.1-5). Thus, the Prophet-like-Moses promised in 18.15-20 is perpetually
fulfilled each time the scroll is read (31.10-13). No wonder 18.21-22 follows
immediately, for if the Prophet-like-Moses lives perpetually in a text, he
cannot appear in the flesh—ever. Verses 21-22 are designed to ensure that the
reader will never follow a living prophet. Deuteronomy 13.1-6 is a passage that
reinforces this anti-prophetic stance. (Ibid., 277-78)
