Timothy D. Howell on Repentance ("metanoia") in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Sirach, and the Gospel of Matthew

  

 

Use of metanoia in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Sirach. For a first century Jew, repentance would include both the idea of moral action and ritualistic behavior. The Semitic term, teshubah, signified a “complete change of practice” in light of eschatological assurance. The Qumran community placed an emphasis on repentance. Throughout their writings, evidence pointed to both ideas being represented.

 

a. 1QS5:1-14; 10:20: In 1QS (Rules for the Community Conduct) the rules for a living in the community were given. The meh of Yahad (“unity”) were addressed as “volunteers of repentance from perverse men, gathering for learning the Law, and placing themselves under the authority of the sons of Zadok (5:2). As repentant ones, they were to practice truth with “humility, charity, justice, lovingkindness, and modesty” (5:3-4). The necessity for repentance was demanded before they entered the purifying waters (5:14). The same idea was expressed in 1QS10:20 with the prayer for righteousness to be established by not being “angry at those repenting of sins.” The incentive to repent was achieved by meditating on God’s deeds and power (10:16). An interesting parallel is found with Jesus’ warning to the unrepentant cities in Matthew 11:20-24.

 

b. CD 4:2; 6:5; 19:16; 20:17: The Damascus Document emphasized repentance as a characteristic of the priests who were the key leaders of the Qumran community (4:2). The metaphor of the well was used of the Law, with the “diggers” being the “repentant of Israel” (6:5). The implication was that in order to understand and teach Torah, one must demonstrate the characteristic of repentance. In CD 19:16, ideas of mourning and lamenting were characteristic of “the poor of the flock.” There were the ones who gave heed to God and turned away from the common people (19:13-16). Finally, in CD 20:17 the ones who kept God’s covenant and repented of their sins were protected from God’s anger.

 

c. Sirach: For Sirach, repentance was a needed condition in forsaking sins and returning to God (17:14, 26; 18:21; 48:15). He also combined the act of reproof with the result of repentance (20:3; 21:6). Sirach was pointing to “conversion in the full sense.” What was significant at the time of Sirach, was the Jewish understanding that repentance involved a turning away from sin, a return to God and his covenant, resulting in a changed life.

 

Summary of metanoia in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Sirach. In the passages examined, two central ideas emerge in the use of metanoia: a point of departure from a perceived, harmful state of affairs, and the return to God and the covenant as a new way of living juxtaposed to the former way of life. In the DSS, the imagery of sinners coming back to God was prominent. For the Qumran community, repentance was the key characteristic of its members, departing from Israel in forming a new, restored community. There was no entrance into the community unless there was evidence of repentance. Repentance was the defining moment, leading to the beginning of righteousness in the community.

 

Use of metanoia the Gospel of Matthew. The idea of repentance used by Matthew was a return to God, not simply a change of mind. This repentance began as an internal change. Through an examination of the texts, a pattern will emerge, reflecting metanoia as a key prerequisite for understanding Jesus’ pronouncements.

 

a. Matthew 3:2, 8, 11; 4:17: The preaching of both the John the Baptist and Jesus was characterized by the motif of repentance. For both, the call to repentance was grounded in kingdom awareness. This involved both a national wake-up call and individual invitation. For Hagner, the understanding of the kingdom’s proximity was more important than the call to repent. Luz disagrees by noting the call to repent was an emphasis at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry to the orientation of life characterized by kingdom presence, and that emphasis continued to have a vital role in Jesus’ ministry.

 

Throughout the prophets, repentance was a return to YHWH resulting in a restoration (cf. Is 44:22; Jer 3:10-23; 18:8; Ezek 14:6; 18:30; Hos 3:5; 6:1; 14:1; Joel 2:12; Zech 1:3-6). Both John and Jesus were adopting the theology of Isaiah (56:1), who saw repentance as a prerequisite of the kingdom of God. The demand by John the Baptist for repentance was evidenced by its “fruit” (Matt 3:11).

 

In the context, John warned the Jewish leaders that ancestral blessing would not produce the “fruit” of the kingdom (Matt 3:8-9). It was simple for John, the “fruit” of repentance was obedience, evidenced in the baptism ritual (cf. 1QS5:1-14). For Jesus to be baptized by John, the importance of repentance was accentuated. Jesus, too, took up the same message. This act was a specific once-for-all turn toward the kingdom seen in the act of baptism. Although Matthew identified Jesus’ preaching with John’s, the Gospel composition will be further developed in light of responding to Jesus himself. Ultimately, repentance was the new way of thinking about “the better righteousness” that was realized in Jesus.

 

b. Matthew 9:13: Some MSS have added eis metanoian (“to repentance”) to this verse (C,L,Q, and Majority Text). It does parallel Luke 5:32 with the note of repentance. The emphasis by Matthew was that Jesus’ message of repentance was understood by those who associated with Jesus. As noted by Hagerland, Jesus did not create an alternative rite of repentance, but, rather, asked for those associating with him to accept his preaching and teaching. Thus, Jesus’ call to discipleship was a call to follow him out of their self-righteousness into the healthy righteousness he provided.

 

c. Matthew 11:20-21: Matthew equated the lack of repentance to unbelief in this pericope. Repentance was seen as the proper response to the ministry of Jesus. By pointing to the practice of “sackcloth and ashes”, Matthew characterized the repentant act was ritualistic sorrow. Recognizing the need for change was the first act of change.

 

d. Matthew 12:41: By comparing the response of those who heard Jonah as compared to those who heard Jesus, Matthew demonstrated that the “one greater” expected an equal or greater response of repentance as well. Ultimately, the resurrection of Jesus would prove to be the greater opportunity for repentance.

 

e. Matthew 21:29, 32: Matthew associated repentance with righteousness and belief. The stress in this passage was placed upon obedience that resulted in repentance. In addition, the juxtaposition of belief with repentance brings clarity to how the early community understood metanoia. It must be noted that in the Gospel of Matthew, the refusal of repentance was placed upon the Jewish leadership, while “sinners” were associated and believing in Jesus; ministry. (Timothy D. Howell, The Matthean Beatitudes in their Jewish Origins: A Literary and Speech Act Analysis [Studies in Biblical Literature 144; New York: Peter Lang, 2011], 94-97)

 

 

Valerie Stein on Stephen's Use of χειροποίητος ("made by hands") in Acts 7:48 as a Reference to Idolatry

Commenting on Stephen’s comment about God not dwelling in temples “made with hands” (χειροποιητος) in Acts 7 as a reference to idolatry, not physical structures per se, Valerie Stein noted:

 

First of all, in describing the golden incident Stephen’s language is similar: “They made (ποιεω) a calf in those days and offered a sacrifice to the idol, and they celebrated over the works of their own hands” (τοις εργοις των χειρων αυτων) (7:41). His use of χειροποιητος is frequently used in reference to what is considered idol worship, translating a variety of Hebrew words. For example, the LXX reads χειροποιητος for Hebrew words for idol (גלל in Lev 26:30 and אליל, which also means worthlessness, in Lev 26:1). In addition, the LXX uses χειροποιητος to translate the Hebrew word for sanctuary in a situation when it is not a sanctuary belonging to Yahweh (מקדשׁ in Isa 16:12 refers to a sanctuary in Moab). Furthermore, it occasionally uses this word to translate the Hebrew word for god/gods (אל, in Isa 46:6, is a god made of gold).

 

Finally, a comparison between Stephen’s speech and Paul’s speech to the Athenians in Acts 17 offers further indication that Luke intends Stephen’s use of χειροποιητος in reference to the temple as an accusation of idolatry. Acts 17 clearly uses χειροποιητος in reference to idolatry: the speech is in response to seeing a city full of idols. In addition to its use of χειροποιητος, Acts 17 echoes Acts 7 in a reference to God as creator that recalls Stephen’s use of Isa 66:1-2a:

 

The God who made the world and all that is in it, he who is Lord of heaven and earth, does not inhabit (κατοικεω) temples made by hands (χειροποιητος) (17:24)

 

The parallel suggests a common Hellenistic criticism of temple worship as idolatrous.

 

An examination of Acts 7:48-49 in the context to the rest of the speech, the book as a whole, and in light of the LXX, suggest that the speech in Acts 7 is equating the temple with idolatry. Following the condemnation of the temple with an attack on his audience as “uncircumcised in heart” (απεριτμητοι καρδιαις) drives this point home. The uncircumcised are Gentiles, the vast majority of whom are idol worshipers . . . An examination of the speech within the larger context of Acts suggests the possibility the speech is not functioning as anti-cultic rhetoric for Luke. First of all, Luke’s introduction to the speech presents it in the context of accusations that Stephen is speaking “against this holy place and the law.” (6:13) Luke tells the reader, however, that these accusations are made by false witnesses. Furthermore, the Jerusalem temple is not criticized in the rest of Acts. Quite the contrary, Luke presents Jesus’ followers as seemingly active participants in the temple (2:46, 3:1). Paul even claims that Jesus appeared to him while praying in the temple (9:17-18). This is in accordance with Luke’s favorable presentation of the temple in his gospel (for example, Luke 2:25-38, 41-52). (Valerie A. Stein, Anti-Cultic Theology in Christian Biblical Interpretation: A Study of Isaiah 66:1-4 and Its Reception [Studies in Biblical Literature 97; New York: Peter Lang, 2007], 26-27, 29)

 

 

Reading 1 Kings 8:27 in light of Isaiah 66:1

 

 

But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded? (1 Kgs 8:27)

 

Thus saith the Lord, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool where is the house that ye build for Me? And where is a place that I may rest? (Isa 66:1)

 

I have discussed 1 Kgs 8:27, a common “proof-text” against Latter-day Saint theology before (see: Answering the Anti-Mormon Abuse of 1 Kings 8:27 against Latter-day Saint Theology of Divine Embodiment). Reading a book based on a ThD dissertation, I read the following:

 

Isaiah 66:1, as generally noted, resonates with 1 Kings 8:27, where Solomon answers his own rhetorical question: “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Even heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you, much less this house that I have built!” Here even heaven proves to be insufficient to contain God and yet temple worship is affirmed. Solomon has built a temple and yet asks whether God will dwell on earth. Of course, God is not confined to the temple; the temple is completely inadequate before God’s majesty if heaven itself is inadequate. Yet even so, the prayer calls heaven God’s dwelling place (vv. 30, 39, 43, 49) and affirms the prominence of the temple in the human relationship with God, asking for God’s response to those who call upon him here. The prayer requests God cast his eyes upon the temple to be the place upon which God has caused his name to dwell (v. 29). The temple is emphasized as the place of prayer for the common person, but the prayer is framed with priestly imagery and duties. 1 Kings 8:12-13 asserts the temple as God’s dwelling place, associating it with the cloud of darkness (cf. Exod 13:21; 19:16). Solomon completes the temple dedication by offering sacrifice (vv. 62ff.). (Valerie A. Stein, Anti-Cultic Theology in Christian Biblical Interpretation: A Study of Isaiah 66:1-4 and Its Reception [Studies in Biblical Literature 97; New York: Peter Lang, 2007], 12)

 

While reading the above, it struck me that 1 Kgs 8:27, especially in light of Isa 66:1 and like-texts, would mean if absolutized as many critics are wont to do, would mean that God does not dwell in heaven, not just temples! In reality, 1 Kgs 8:27, Isa 66:1, and other texts are not stating God can not be localised in a temple or in heaven or anywhere else; instead, it is talking about the inadequacy of any structure or place to localise a being as holy and powerful as God.

 

Further Reading

 

Lynn Wilder vs. Latter-day Saint (and Biblical) Theology on Divine Embodiment

Stephen B. Champman on Malachi 4:4-6 (Heb 3:22-24)

 

Commenting on Mal 4:4-6 (Heb 3:22-24), Stephen Chapman wrote the following on this passage which might be of interest to Latter-day Saints:

 

. . . the enigmatic reference in Mal 3:24 [4:6] to the way in which Elijah will (lit.) ‘turn the heart of fathers to [their] sons and the heart of sons to their fathers’ approximates the recognized Deuteronomic expression ‘to turn the heart’ (Deut 4:39; 30:1; 1 Kg 8:47 = 2 Chr 6:37. Cf. Isa 44:19; 46:18; Lam 3:21). The only difference is that Mal 3:24 [4:6] uses the preposition על in contrast to the more usual preposition אל, which may in this case indicate a transitive sense of the verb, or simply the flexibility of late biblical Hebrew.

 

The presence of the dueteronomistic idiom is sometimes obscured by translation. Thus, in Deut 4:39, the Israelites are commanded by Moses to (lit). ‘know today and turn your heart to [the fact that] the LORD is God in the heaven above and on the earth beneath.’ Most significant perhaps is Deut 30:1-2, in which the expression ‘turn your heart’ is followed by the importance of faithful ‘sons’ (Deut 30:2).

 

The citation in Deut 30:1 reveals the link between the idiom of ‘turning the heart’ and the central deuteronomistic the conception of repentance (‘returning,’ שׁוב). In deuteronomistic understanding, an aspect of internal observance (expressed by לבב) forms the necessary precondition for living an obedient life. According to Deut 30:1, this internal observance arises from the existential comparison between later events (‘when all these things come upon you’) and the word of God as revealed in the book of Deuteronomy itself (‘the blessing and the curse, which I have set before you, and you take them to heart among all the nations where the LORD your God has driven you’ [my emphasis]). Thus, in deuteronomistic understanding repentance ultimately arises from study of scripture.

 

While the Hebrew verb used for renewed obedience (‘returning’) is almost always the same (שׁוב), the verb used to indicate the internal observance varies. In Deut 30:1, it is the Hiph’il form of the same verb (שׁוב, as in Mal 3:24 [4:6]) that is paired with the call to ‘return’ (שׁוב) in Deut 30:2. However, in 1 Sam 7:3 the Hiph’il form of the verb כון is paralleled with שׁוב. In 2 Sam 19:15 [14] the Hiph’il form of the verb נטה is used in combination with לבב and שׁוב. In Deut 29:17 [18] and Deut 30:17, the Qal form of the verb פנה is used to denote internal movement of the heart on which outward obedience is contingent (note the parallel occurrence of שׁוב in Deut 30:10).

 

Moreover, a constellation of further motifs also suggests a deuteronomistic tradition-historical background for Mal 3:23-24 [4:5-6], with shared references to the way in which God will ‘blot out the names’ of the unfaithful, the devastation which the land will suffer on their account and to future generations of the faithful. In sum, Mal 3:23-24 [4:5-6] summons Israel prophetically to repentance. Social decay is but a symptom of a greater illness. The fundamental issue at hand is Israel’s ‘vertical’ reconciliation with God, rather than any specific ‘horizontal’ social situation.

 

‘Horizontal’ interpretations of the situation reflected in Mal 3:24 [4:6] (e.g., a Hellenistic ‘crisis within the family’) are not very convincing. Nor does Blenkinsopp’s proposal of an apocalyptic motif carry conviction, as we have seen. While a third proposal is suggestive, namely, that this language of the ‘heart’ has its origins in wisdom traditions, wisdom motifs do not otherwise appear to be prominent. Thus, the likeliest possibility, based on the linguistic parallels with the book of Deuteronomy which have been noted, is that the language of ‘father’ and ‘sons’ in Mal 3:24 [4:6] is also essentially deuteronomistic and covenantal, turning on the worship of God rather than ‘other gods.’

 

Thus, within the context of the deuteronomistic stream of tradition the references to Elijah in Malachi (esp. Mal 3:23 [4:5]) serve to underscore the worship of God alone rather than to valorize apocalyptic views. This particular theme is also a key feature of the Elijah account in 1 Kg 17-21; for example, in 1 Kg 18:37-38 Elijah asks God to ‘turn the heart’ of the people back; in 1 Kg 18:39 the people make confession to God in opposition to the prophets of Baal. The reference in Mal 3:24 [4:6] to the ‘ban’ or ‘curse’ (חרם) is thus to be expected as also part of the same constellation of covenantal motifs (cf. Deut 7:26).

 

As in the case of Elijah, in deuteronomistic conception of prophets and prophecy the admonition of ‘return’ is central. Among the Latter Prophets, שׁוב appears quite prominently, particularly the books of Jeremiah and Hosea. Variations on the theme provide a major rhetorical structuring device in at least two different passages (Jer 3-4 and Am 4). Deuteronomistic and deuteronomistic-style redactions consistently characterize the pre-exilic prophets as ‘servants of God’ who preached precisely this kind of repentance (e.g., 2 Kg 17:13; Jer 25:4-5; Zech 1:4; Neh 9:26).

 

Moreover, in the Latter Prophets the violation of covenant also results in social disintegration (e.g., Isa 3:3-4; Jer 9:1-5; Mic 7:1-7). This prophetic background is likely to have been widely understood: R.A. Mason notes that the LXX adds ‘and the heart of a man to his neighbor’ after Mal 3;24 [4:6], a phrase quite similar to Isa 3:5 (cf. Jer 19:9). Could the translators of the LXX have been reading Malachi here in light of the book of Isaiah? At the very least, the closeness of this language emphasizes the way in which covenant and prophecy, rather than apocalyptic, provides the tradition-historical context for Mal 3:23-24 [4:5-6], just as covenant and law frame the background of Mal 3:22 [4:4].

 

In sum, the appendices in Mal 3:22-24 [4:4-6] thoroughly partake of deuteronomistic expressions and concepts, ultimately depending on this association for their own comprehensibility. The historical distance between the probable date of these appendices (late 5th-4th B.C.?) and that of the ‘deuteronomistic movement’ (650-500 B.C.) may raise the question of precisely what is meant by ‘deuteronomism,’ but it is nonetheless clear and significant that these appendices depend more heavily on deuteronomistic traditions than any others. This dependence illuminates the way in which these appendices initially functioned as examples of canon-conscious redaction: closing Malachi as a discrete book against the backdrop of an emergent deuteronomistic canon. (Stephen B. Chapman, The Law and the Prophets: A Study in Old Testament Canon Formation [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2020], 140-43)

 

Further Reading

Refuting the Tanners on the LDS Interpretation of Malachi 4:5-6

New Testament and Early Patristic Expectation of a Future Coming of Elijah

Robert Bellarmine on the Future Coming of Elijah

 

Stephen B. Champman on Josephus' Affirmation of the Proto-Canonical Books Exhausting the Books of Old Testament Canon

 

 

With Josephus we come to the first explicit effort to describe a canonical ‘order’ (Against Apion, I:37-43), made at the end of the first century A.D. In his account of the sacred books, we are told of ‘only’ (1) twenty-two books, set within a heilsgeschichtlich frame: the five books of Moses, the prophetic history from Moses to Artaxerxes (in thirteen books), and four books of hymns and precepts. Moreover, Josephus characterizes the collection as an ancient, fixed text accepted by the entire Jewish people: for “long ages . . .  now passed . . . no one has ventured either to add, or to remove, or to alter a syllable . . . it is an instinct with every Jew” (my emphasis).

 

Although some scholars have played up the possibility of Josephus’ having a political agenda in this passage and the differences between his description here and others from later periods, it goes beyond the evidence to imagine that here Josephus speaks only as a spokesman for a ‘pharisaical canon,’ especially as this is to read very much against the grain of what Josephus writes. He portrays the unity, not just of the Pharisees, but all of Judaism . . . regarding Josephs’ general reliability, if his strong characterization of a unified canon was so at variance with the reality of the situation in Palestine, would he (or anyone else) have considered it a convincing apologia? Or, on the other hand, if Josephus had so little regard for truth as to misrepresent his religion, could he not easily have made an even stronger case? Why, for example, did he feel it necessary to mention that the ‘complete history . . . from Artaxerxes to our own time . . . has been written . . . but . . . not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records . . . “? Certainly not only because he wishes to confer supreme status on the twenty-two books (note: not just the Torah!), but also because it was no doubt true. Books outside of the twenty-two book canon were not ‘deemed worthy of equal credit,’ perhaps more explicitly in pharisaic circles, but certainly outside pharisaic circles as well.

 

Here again we encounter the emergent tripartite canonical conception of ‘Law and Prophets’ and ‘others.’ Josephus, however, has taken the further step of merging Israel’s Heilsgeschichte together with the history of its scriptural canon, an understanding perhaps shared by Philo—but only implicitly (i.e., ‘Moses’ and the ‘disciples of Moses’). It should also be noted that Josephus includes the ‘remaining four books’ in his twenty-two book court, even though they seem to exist somewhat independently of the overarching Heilsgeschichte.

 

Josephus explains his tripartite conception of the canon, and perhaps even arranges it, so as to be “comprehensible . . . to Gentile readers,” but it is difficult to imagine that the art of his description is intended to conceal a lack of canonicity. Josephus’ own strong statement of canonicity bases itself upon the syllabic text, not upon his grouping of the books. Whatever the precise nature of his canonical order, he gives a strong statement of canonicity from within the basic tradition of a bipartite scripture. He does not grant an explicitly higher status to the Torah as opposed to other portions of the canon, but to the twenty-two books of the canon as opposed to any other books. (Stephen B. Chapman, The Law and the Prophets: A Study in Old Testament Canon Formation [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2020], 273-74)

 

Pesachim 68a in the Mishnah: Righteous People will Help Resurrect the Dead

While reading the Mishnah, I came across the following where it is predicted that humans will be instrumental agents in resurrecting the dead:

 

“Bashan” is an allusion to the prophet Elisha, who came from the Bashan. How do we know that Elisha came from Bashan? As it is stated: “Joel the chief, and Shafam the next, and Yanai and Shafat in the Bashan” (I Chronicles 5:12), and it is written: “Here is Elisha ben Shafat who poured water on the hands of Elijah” (II Kings 3:11). “Gilad” is an allusion to Elijah, as it is stated: “And Elijah the Tishbite, who was of the inhabitants of Gilad, said” (I Kings 17:1). Based on the similarity of the verses and the verbal analogy between the two instances of the word “feed,” we learn that in the future the righteous will be like Elijah and Elisha, who resurrected the dead.

 

This idea is derived from a different source as well. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: In the future the righteous will resurrect the dead, as it is stated: “Old men and old women shall yet again dwell in the streets of Jerusalem, and every man with his staff in his hand for very age” (Zechariah 8:4). And the staff will then be used as it was used by Gehazi when Elisha sent him to bring the son of the Shunamite woman back to life, as it is written: “And you shall lay my staff on the face of the child” (II Kings 4:29). (Pesachim 68a)

 

This reminded me of the following FairMormon article:

 

Question: Do Mormons believe men have the right to resurrect their spouses by a specific ordinance?

Stephen B. Chapman vs. belief Prophecy Ceased (e.g., during the time of Maccabees)

 

 

. . . prophecy never ceased at all, although it often functioned in the late period as a more scribal form of activity . . . the lack of prophecy referred to in Ps 74:9 appears episodic and does not provide any indication that the absence of prophecy to which it refers occurred on a permanent basis. To the contrary, the absence of prophecy in Ps 74 is tied to the destruction of God’s sanctuary and land by Israel’s enemies, whose eventual defeat promises to restore the institutions only presently endangered (Ps 74:9). The ‘cessation’ of prophecy in the context is thus clearly temporary. Moreover, the exilic ‘cessation’ of prophecy is evenly matched within the canon by a similar cessation of תורה (Lam 2:9), something usually overlooked by those making the case for Torah pre-eminence.

 

In Zech 13:2-6, the cessation of prophecy is characterized as permanent, but not yet accomplished. In this passage, the ‘end’ of prophecy is thoroughly eschatologized (Zech 13:2), reflecting the belief that at the time of Jerusalem’s cataclysmic battle with the nations (Zech 12-14) and Jerusalem’s eschatological purification (Zech 13:1) prophecy will no longer be necessary, perhaps because all Israel will have then received the prophetic gift (cf. Joel 3:1-2 [2:28-29]). In this way prophecy is also no different than the law, which will be internalized and democratized at the eschaton (Jer 31:31-34), no longer requiring official representation or admonition.

 

The passages in Maccabees do relate a more enduring, dogmatic judgment about prophecy. While this viewpoint might reflect a real lack of prophetic activity in the Hasmonean period, it certainly does not reflect a devaluation of prophetic revelation, whether as a ‘living’ tradition or as scripture. The canonical authority of the Prophets is clear (2 Mac 15:9; 4 Mac 18:10-19). In fact, the dogmatic position that prophecy has ‘ceased’ actually serves to consign prophecy to a single, unique era in Israel’s Heilsgeschichte as a means of grounding and protecting its authority. ‘Cessation’ statements probably operate within the general conception of a succession of mosaic prophecy which is intermittent and therefore only currently absent. Right alongside direct statements of cessation within this tradition (e.g., 1 Mac 9:27) exists the view that prophecy not only may but will revive, and that at its reappearance it will resume its precedence over the high priest (1 Mac 4:46; 14:41: note the qualification ‘until’!)

 

Also, even if those responsible for the books of Maccabees believed that prophecy had ceased in the Hasmonean period, other (roughly) coterminous traditions clearly differed. Thus, Wisdom 7:27 insists: “ . . . in every generation [wisdom] passes into holy souls and makes them friends of God, and prophets . . . “ (cf. Sir 36:20-21). Similarly, prophecy continues to play a major role in the works of Josephus.

 

In sum, although there may be indications of a transformation of prophecy in the post-exilic period, there is no persuasive evidence that this transformation resulted from or contributed to a dogmatic elevation of the Torah qua Pentateuch over the Prophets. (Stephen B. Chapman, The Law and the Prophets: A Study in Old Testament Canon Formation [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2020], 264-66)

 

Further Reading

Rebecca Gray, Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine: The Evidence from Josephus (Oxford University Press, 1997)