[back]
27. On 4Q434a see Weinfeld (1992a) and Davila (2000), 172–76. See also White (1990). Not all have found this identification convincing: Kimelman (1993); Falk (1999) 3:865.
[back]
28. See John 6:23; Acts 27:35; cf. 1 Tim 4:3–5; Rom 14:6; 1 Cor 10:30.
[back]
29. M. Berakhot 6–7 and thereafter.
[back]
13. THE END OF PROPHECY?
1. Among recent studies, see Jassen (2007); for a list of scholars, starting with J. Wellhausen, who have maintained that prophecy “declined” in Second Temple times, see pp. 11–12 nn. 25 and 26.
[back]
2. Nissinen (2006).
[back]
3. M. Henze rightly remarks that this passage (and the same may be said of Pr Azar 15) should not be taken as an assertion that prophecy had ceased to exist forever: “This would make little sense, given that Baruch is depicted throughout 2 Bar as the latter-day prophet par excellence . . . Rather, Baruch stresses in his epistle that there are no longer prophets in Israel who are righteous and therefore can serve as intermediaries between the people and God”: Henze (2011), 363n.
[back]
4. Milikowsky (2013), vol. 1, 321–22; vol. 2, 520–21.
[back]
5. On this wording see Lieberman (1973), 736.
[back]
6. Aune (1983), 103–7; Petersen (1988), 65–71 and (2000), 33–44; Sommer (1996).
[back]
7. Josephus mentions the prophetic powers of various Essenes: Judah (B.J. 1:78–80 and A.J. 13:311–13), Menahem (A.J. 15:373–79), and Simon (B.J. 2:112–13, A.J. 17:345–48). About the Essene visionaries he notes in general that “seldom, if ever, do they err in their predictions” (B.J. 2:159). Along with this, however, Josephus’s brief history of Jewish Scriptures in Apion 1:40–41 asserts that “from Artaxerxes to our own time, the complete history has been written, but it has not been deemed worthy of equal credit . . . because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets.” On all these Feldman (1990), 386–422; and Gray (1991), 35–69, 92–110; cf. Schwartz (1990), 6–7. Several scholars have noted that Josephus (almost) consistently refers to biblical prophets as prophētēs while using the term mantis (diviner, soothsayer) to designate prophet-like figures of his own day. This includes Josephus himself: despite his own professed abilities, Josephus never calls himself a prophētēs. See Aune (1983), 139.
[back]
8. See A.J. 13:282–83, 299, 322.
[back]
9. But see above, note 7.
[back]
10.“Flavius” being Vespasian’s ancestral name. On Josephus the prophet: Gray (1991), 35–69.
11. Aune (1983), 147; Levison (2006).
[back]
12. On this there is an extensive literature; inter alia Bowley (1998), 2:354–78; Barton (2007); Jassen (2007); Brooke (2006) and (2009).
[back]
13. Various prophets are mentioned in the New Testament, such as those in the Gospel of Luke: Zechariah (John’s father) and his wife, Elizabeth (in Luke 1:41–2, 67), Simeon (Luke 2:26–32) and Anna (Luke 2:36), as well as the prophets mentioned in Acts: Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius of Cyrene (Acts 13:1–2); Philip’s unmarried daughters (Acts 21:9); Agabus (11:27 and 21:10–12); Judas and Silas (Acts 15:32); as well as the mention of anonymous prophets in Eph 2:20, 3:5, 4:11; Jas 5:10; 1 Pet 1:10; and John of Patmos in Rev. In addition, John the Baptist is frequently presented as a prophetic figure (see Matt 11:10, 14:5, 17:14; Luke 7:26–28), as of course are both Paul and Jesus. Moses’s reference to a “prophet like me” came to be interpreted as the prediction of a specific future prophet; see Kugel (1998), 832–34, 870–71, and (1990c); Rowland (2010), 410–28; as well as Aune (1983).
[back]
14. Prophecy is frequently presented as a common phenomenon, hence the concern with false prophets, e.g., Didache 3–12; See in general Aune (1983), and on the Didache passage 208–9, 225–6.
[back]
15. E.g., Justin Martyr, Dial. 82:1; Origen, Cels. 7:8; Athanasius, Inc. 39–40; Augustine, Civ., 17:24.
[back]
16. See the extensive review of scholarship in Cook (2011), 10–42.
[back]
17. See Urbach (1946), 1–17.
[back]
18. Cross (1973), 219–29; 343–46.
[back]
19. Aune (1983), 104 and 374–75 n. 11.
[back]
20. Among many: Hanson (1979); S. J. D. Cohen (1987), 195–201; Jassen (2007).
[back]
21. “Revelation by an angel equally is typical of the works produced in our period, but again it is important not to draw the wrong conclusions from this. It is widely held that Judaism began to take an interest in angels and other mediating figures as its theology developed in an increasingly ‘transcendent’ direction. Whereas the prophets had felt that God spoke to them directly, ‘apocalyptists’ could not approach so closely to the divine presence, and so thought of angelic guides and interpreters. As a statement about the development of theological assumptions in post-exilic Judaism this is quite possibly correct. But it does not follow that writers in our period were aware that they differed from the predecessors in this regard. Many probably held, as did Philo, that it was through an angel that God had spoken to the patriarchs, and believed, with St Paul, that angels had been involved in the transmission of the Law to Moses; small wonder, if the prophets, too, had received their revelation at the hand of angels”: J. Barton (2007), 122–23.
[back]
22. Readers familiar with Ezekiel will know that his book is full of all manner of strange visions, including the humanlike figure in Ezek 8:1–3. Many scholars have suggested that this passage, along with Ezek 40:3–4, may have served as the inspiration for Zechariah’s angelic intermediary. Note in this connection Tollington (1993), 97–100, and in particular the comparison of Zechariah’s angelus interpres with the angel/God in Jacob’s dream in Gen 31:10–13.
[back]
23. The same year is cited in Hag 1:15, and cf. Ezra ch. 5–6.
[back]
24. Kugel (1998a), 173–79, 191–93.
[back]
25. See on this Najman (2014), 130–36.
[back]
26. It is true that a book often connected with 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch (Syriac Apocalypse), does present its hero in direct conversation with God; in this respect this apocalypse is significantly different from many of its contemporaries.
[back]
27. By a virtually universal scholarly consensus, Zech 1–8 is quite separate from chapters 9–14 (themselves a composite unit); see Meyers and Meyers (1993), 15.
[back]
28. This resembles, but also contrasts with, those earlier prophetic visions in which God asks “What do you see, Amos/Jeremiah?” where it is God who explains the prophet’s vision.
[back]
29. Aune (1983), 113–14.
[back]
30. For this point see Najman (2010) 124–26, and (2003), 60–67.
[back]
31. “Perhaps the most well-known characterization of the prophets in the Dead Sea Scrolls is as foretellers of future events”: A. P. Jassen (2007), 29. He cites examples from 1QpHab Pesher Habakkuk 2:5–10. It may be that Greek oracles had some influence in turning things in this direction: see Aune (1983), 52–57.
[back]
32. On this translation see Kugel (1998a), 818.
[back]
33. “To warn one’s own generation of coming disaster or to assure them of divine aid was, it was felt, an important task, but not one that necessarily required supernatural inspiration, whereas to possess accurate knowledge of events that were far distant (whether past or future) was explicable only as a divine gift. It is very unusual to find the prediction of an imminent event by a contemporary described as ‘prophecy’ in postexilic literature”: J. Barton (2007), 180.
[back]
34. See further Kugel (1990d), 45–55
.
[back]
35. Kugel (1998a), 173–78, 191–3.
[back]
36. See Najman (2010), 39–71; and (2003), 60–63.
[back]
37. Michael Stone has argued convincingly that behind the phenomenon of pseudepigraphy may lurk the latter-day recipient of what he/she experienced as true revelation. See his “Apocalyptic—Vision or Hallucination?” reprinted in Stone (1991).
[back]
38. This may be related to the observation that “Christians seem to have been interested in the prophets as people, in what they did and suffered in the name of God, rather than as the names of books or as rather featureless recipients of oracles—a tendency shared with Josephus and Philo”: J. Barton (2007), 99. On the whole phenomenon of pseudepigraphy, see Stone (1991) and (2006); Najman (2003), 1–40; Bernstein (1997).
[back]
39. Kugel and Greer (1986), 40–51.
[back]
40. Scholars regard our biblical book of Daniel as a composite: the courtier tales found in chaps. 1–6 are succeeded by the apocalyptic visions of chaps. 7–12. The linguistic division (chaps. 1:2:4a and 8–12 are written in Hebrew, while 2:4b–7:28 are in Aramaic) has been variously explained, perhaps most plausibly as an attempt to bridge the two genre divisions. Further: Collins (1994). The theme of four empires (though not necessarily Daniel’s four) is found in later Jewish writings of the period. Rome is the fourth empire in 4 Ezra 12:11–36 and 2 Baruch 39:2–6; see Stone (1990), 361–66. Compare the four periods spoken of in 1 En 89–90; also, 4Q552 and 553 (Four Kingdoms ar). On this theme in general: Flusser (1988), 317–44, and Lucas (1988), 185–202. For the four empires in the Slavonic “Ladder of Jacob,” Kugel (1995a), 209–27.
[back]
41. On the origins and interrelationship of Daniel’s visions, Collins (1994); also, Fröhlich (1996), 11–48.
[back]
42. This overall topic has been treated in connection with various biblical prophets, starting with Ezekiel: E. F. Davis (1989); Schaper (2006).
[back]
43. For a comparative study of the question: Heszer (2001).
[back]
44. Ezekiel’s eating the scroll has been widely discussed; note in particular E. F. Davis (1987).
[back]
45. See this assessment of the incident in Schaper (2006), 76–77: “The prophet’s sole task is to relate the written word of God. There is not even an oral revelation which is then put in writing to serve as the basis for the prophet’s recitation. Rather, the divine word is from the start encountered by the prophet in its written form. Only after its consumption will it be transformed into an oral ‘text’ . . . Ezekiel’s commission thus encapsulates the ‘death’ of (‘classic’) prophecy as Israel/Judah knew it. The overpowering importance of the written text, as opposed to the aural/oral revelation of the divine word, mirrors the situation in late pre-exilic and exilic society and the increasing importance of texts in that society. Whereas many scholars date the ‘death’ or ‘eclipse’ of prophecy (one should rather say of ‘classic’ prophetic literature) in the late Persian period, it was in fact the exilic period that its death knell began to ring.”
[back]
46. For the same nuance of “indictment” see Lev 5:1, 1 Kgs 8:31, Prov 29:24. Note also that in Num 5:11–30, an ’alah is first written down on and then dipped into the “bitter waters of condemnation” that the accused women will subsequently drink. This written indictment is thus put to the test by having the woman drink the “waters of condemnation.” Similarly, Zechariah’s giant scroll goes “across the whole land” searching out anyone to whom the scroll’s indictment applies: those who are found to match the charges of this heaven-sent indictment will be immediately punished.
[back]
47. Indeed, even before the post-exilic period, writing was on its way to overtaking living prophets as the preferred expression of the divine will. Thus, in a passage from 2 Kgs 22 treated above (chap. 10), the Bible reports that when King Josiah was read the laws contained in a newly discovered scroll in the Jerusalem temple, he immediately ordered the high priest to “inquire of the LORD on my behalf, and on behalf of the people, and on behalf of all of Judah, concerning the words of this scroll that has been found. For great indeed must be the wrath of the LORD that has been kindled against us, because our fathers did not obey the words of this scroll to do all that has been prescribed for us” (2 Kgs 22:13). The scroll is described as one of legal instruction (torah), which many scholars have identified as consisting of (roughly) the central legal core of the book of Deuteronomy. Thus Josiah, according to this account, understood at once that his people’s failure to adhere to this legal code may have already spelled disaster for “all of Judah” and its people, even if they knew nothing of its existence.
[back]
48. One recent study concludes that “it is highly unlikely that as much as 10 percent of the Jewish population was literate” in the third century and early second century BCE, and that “certainly no more than a few hundred at a time” could write: S. Schwartz (1990), 10–11. Similarly Schams (1998); Heszer (2001), 34–35; and Horsley (2007): “a tiny elite” was literate, p. 91. Others have pulled in the opposite direction: Demsky (2012) argues for the existence of widespread literacy in pre-exilic times, “granting to the Kingdom of Judah of the eighth to sixth centuries BCE the title of a ‘society of literacy’” (p. 323).
[back]
49. Said in reference to Jubilees in Najman (2003), 62.
[back]
50. Jassen has summarized the point well: “The Second Temple period witnessed a dramatic shift in the conceptualization of the revelatory experience. Evidence throughout the Second Temple period testifies to the emerging understanding of the prophet not merely as one who receives the oral word of God, but rather one whose prophetic character is thoroughly literary. Divine revelation for such a ‘prophet’ is experienced through the reading, writing, and interpretation of Scripture. This development can already be witnessed among various biblical prophets, in particular Ezekiel and Deutero-Isaiah”: Jassen (2007), 203.
[back]
51. This was the assessment of Robert Lowth, who proclaimed Isaiah “the most perfect model” of a poetic prophet, “at once elegant and sublime, forcible and ornamented”: Kugel (1981), 282.
[back]
52. B. Sommer (1998); see also Wiley (1997).
[back]
53. Echoed later in the Book of Jubilees (1:29), which John most likely knew.
[back]
54. Later in the same chapter, John’s prophecy turns to chap. 60 of Isaiah: “And the City has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God is its light, and its lamp is the Lamb. The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it. Its gates will never be shut by day, and there will be no night there. People will bring into it the glory and the honor of nations.” The phrase “no need of sun or moon to shine on it” alludes to Isa 60:19, “The sun will no longer be a light during the day, nor will the moon’s gleam shine for you.” Next, “the glory of God is its light,” refers to the continuation of this same verse in Isaiah, “for the LORD will be your eternal light, and your God will be your adornment.” “The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory” reprises Isa 60:3, “And nations will come to your light, and kings to the gleam of your glory.” “Its gates will never be shut by day, and there will be no night there” cites Isa 60:11, “And your gates will be forever open, day and night they will not be closed” and “Your sun will set no more, and your moon will not wane, but the LORD will be an eternal light, and the days of your mourning will end.” Revelation’s “People will bring into it the glory and the honor of nations” alludes to Isa 60:13, “The glory of Lebanon will come to you.”
[back]
55. As related to me years ago by my late teacher Victor Erlich (I hope I have remembered the details correctly); cf. Hazl
itt (1933), 277.
[back]
56. Among many studies: Dimant (1993), 57–76, and Werman (2006). Note Eshel and Eshel (2008), 13–27.
[back]
57. See Dimant (1993), 57–76. There was some dispute in Second Temple times about the length of a jubilee; because of the apparent disagreement of this verse with the mention of the “fiftieth year” in Lev 25:10, some held that a jubilee lasts fifty years.
[back]
58. Such as 4Q387 Apocryphon of Jeremiah Cb col 2:3–4 or 11Q13 Melchizedek col 2:7.
[back]
59. Particularly important in the biblical realm is the research carried out by Hindy Najman; see Najman (2003), esp. 3–40, as well as the subsequent essays collected in Najman (2010), in particular chaps. 1–3 and 6. Also: Reed (2008), 467–90.
[back]
60. Again, Stone (2011), 90–109.
[back]
14. THE ELUSIVE INDIVIDUAL
1. Among many studies that have wrestled with the intractable: Jacobsen (1976), 147–64, esp. 150; Johnson (2006); Starr (1986); E. Stern (2006); Rüpke (2013); Brakke et al. (2005); Berquist (2007); Lipschits et al. (2011); Yacoub (2007), 19–27; C. Morris (1972); Bynum (1980); Duby and Braunstein (1998); Weiger (1979); Renaut (1997); N. Z. Davis (1986), 53–63; Banani and Vryonis (1977); Shulman and Stroumsa (2002); Olyan (2005).
The Great Shift Page 53