First Maccabees 9:27 ought not to be interpreted as a
reference to the ceasing of prophecy in the distant past, notwithstanding
modern translations such as the NRSV [and] NEB (“since the day when prophets
ceased to appear among them”). The basis for rejecting this interpretation is
simple. In 1 Maccabees, the temporal prepositional phrase αφ’ ου
(from which time) consistently is followed immediately by clarification that
permits the reader to identify this point in time. According to the sentence
that follows 1 Macc 9:27, the friends of Judas gathered and said to Jonathan (9:29):
‘Αφ ου ο αδελφος σου
Ιουδας τετελευτηκεν
Since the time your brother Judas died
The particular point in time left indefinite by the words
αφ’ ου
is
specified immediately as the day Judas died, from which point no one has arisen
to oppose the enemies. A similar formulation characterizes 1 Macc 12:10:
αφ’ ου απεστελατε προς
ημας
From the time you wrote to us
Here the particular moment in time left indefinite by the
words αφ’ ου is
specified immediately as the day on which a letter was written, from which point
the passing of time is counted. In 1 Macc 12:22, King Arius writes a letter to
Onias in which he says,
και νυν αφ’ εγνωμεν
ταυτα
And now from the time we have known these things
Once again, the particular moment in time left indefinite
by the words αφ’ ου is specified immediately as the day on which
Arius and the Spartans realized these things, namely, that they and the Jews are
brothers of the family of Abraham (12:21), from which point they are to write
to one another and to hold livestock and property in common. The final formulation
analogous to 1 Macc 9:27 occurs in the concluding sentence of the book of 1
Maccabees (16:24):
αφ’ ου εγενηθη αρχιερευς
μετα τον πατερα αυτου
From the time he became high priest after his father
Once more, the particular moment in time left indefinite
by the words αφ’ ου is
specified as the day of John Hyrcanus’s accession to the high priesthood, from
which point his acts and achievements as recorded in his annals are said to
begin. In 1 Macc 9:27, we encounter a clause that should be translated consistently
with these related formulations:
αφ’ ης ημερας ουκ ωφθη
προφητης αυτοις
From the day a prophet did not appear to them
Here the particular moment in time left indefinite by the
words αφ’ ου is specified as the day on which a prophet
did not appear (ουκ ωφθη προφητης), from which point the absence of comparable
distress is dated. From that day until now, no such distress afflicted Israel.
(This interpretation is borne out by the simplicity of the language of 1 Macc
9:27. The verb ωφθη,
which refers elsewhere in 1 Maccabees to the appearance of Judas [4:6] and a
military detachment [4:19], is employed similarly here of the nonappearance of
a prophet at a particular point in time rather than to the ceasing of
prophecy for all time)
In each of these instances, what immediately follows αφ’ ου/ης ημερας specifies
a particular moment in time, such as the failure of a prophet to appear on a
day of distress, the death of Judas, the recognition of a relationship between Spartans
and Jews, or the accession of John Hyrcanus. What begins at that moment is
something else, such as the relative absence of distress, the absence of a
military leader, the beginning of camaraderie, or achievements. The translation
of 1 Macc 9:27, therefore, to indicate “the disappearance of prophecy among
them” (NJB) is due to a confusion of the events of a particular moment in time
and the events that took place thereafter. In 1 Macc 9:27, the detail that a
prophet did not appear enables the readers to identify the particular day of
distress to which the author refers, from which point relative tranquility can
be dated.
Once we have dispensed with 1 Macc 9:27 as one leg of the
alleged ceasing of prophecy, it is not difficult to dispense with the other leg—the
expectation of an eschatological prophet—which is based upon 1 Macc 4:46 and
14:41. The first of these texts refers to an as yet unidentified prophet in the
near future who will instruct the priests about where to place the defiled
stones. The decision the priests make is practical, “a realistic interim
decision taken on the understanding that a prophetic word might well occur in
the not-too-distant future.” (Barton, Oracles of God, 107)
The last reference, 1 Macc 14:41, refers to a prophet who
is expected to legitimate the Hasmonean dynasty. The task of this prophet is,
as is a prophet’s task in 4:46, concrete, integrally tied to theocracy and
temple. Although this reference to a prophet with final authority represents “a
way of stopping short of completely idealizing the Hasmonean program of
restoration and reconstruction,” it also suits the pro-Hasmonean perspective
for it contains what the Jews wrote on bronze tablets, placed on pillars on Mount
Zion, to “thank Simon and his sons” (14:25). It suits the Hasmonean cause to
stress that, at least at the present moment, there is no prophet—or Hasmonean authority.
Moreover, the implication of this statement, that this future prophet would
support the Hasmonean cause, comprises further propaganda for the Hasmonean
program.
The expectation of a prophet to instruct and legitimate
in 4:46 and 14:41 reflects, therefore, the expectation that a prophet would in
fact appear in order to fulfill concrete functions. The need to wait for this prophet
is analogous to the situation in Ezra 2:63, where the governor tells those
excluded from the priesthood “not to partake of the most holy food, until there
should be a priest to consult Urim and Thummim.”
These references to future prophets can support the dogma
of the permanent ceasing of prophecy only if the awaited prophets are one and
the same eschatological figure who would bring about the restoration of
prophecy which had ceased in the distant past. This identification is unlikely.
First, we have seen already that the tasks of these prophets are concrete,
implying continuity with the present world order. Second, these statements are
presented as historical observations. They contain no allusion to figures such
as the prophet of Deut 18:15-18, to prophetic texts that predict the outpouring
of the Spirit (e.g., Joel 2:28-29), or even to the canonical prophets, as Josephus
does in Ag. Ap. 1.37-41. Third, the overall perspective of 1 Maccabees
is theocratic, centered upon the Hasmonean dynasty, rather than eschatological.
If these prophets are to be identified with one eschatological prophet, the
references must indicate this, since 1 Maccabees does not itself contain a significant
eschatological component that allows us to infer an eschatological dimension in
these statements. First Maccabees 4:46 and 14:41 contain no such indications.
These three references to prophets in 1 Maccabees do not,
then, comprise a link in the alleged chain of the early Jewish conviction that
prophecy had ceased. First Maccabees 9:27 refers to a particular day of
distress on which a prophet failed to appear. First Maccabees 4:46 refers to a
prophet who would clarify a question about the stones of the altar. First
Maccabees 14:41 refers to a prophet who would clarify the status of the priest-ruler
in a context rife with pro-Hasmonean sentiment. (John R. Levison, In Search
of the Spirit, 2 vols. [Eugene, Oreg.: Cascade Books, 2024], 2:5-8)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
