Friday, April 30, 2021

K.L. Noll on Unfulfilled Prophecies from Biblical Prophets and the test for a Prophet in Deuteronomy 18:21-22

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)