The prophets and prophecy in Israel. An historical and critical enquiry

Front matter

Google to make the world's books discoverable online.

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books

Preface

Apart from my wish to acknowledge publicly the efforts of Dr Muir to further theological intercourse between England and Holland, there was for myself a specific reason why I should dedicate to him this book in particular. It was he who induced me to write it. Having had his attention drawn by E^ville's articles in the " Revue des Deux Mondes" on the second volume of my " Historisch-kritisch Onderzoek," he consulted me regarding a translation into English of the first, the introductory, chapter. Our correspondence on that subject soon led him, as well as myself, to the conviction that such a translation would not answer the purpose intended. The various questions raised by Israelitish prophecy are, in that chapter, rather indicated than conclusively settled. For the complete information of the reader much more is required than is there given, or needed to be given in an introduction to the criticism of the prophetical books of the Old Testament. When we were agreed on this point, I was asked by Dr Muir whether it did not fall within the scope of my studies to work out the chapter in question on a broader scale, or rather to discuss Israelitish prophecy and the diverse theories regarding its origin and character in an independent treatise. We exchanged thoughts on the requirements which such a work would have to meet The idea became more and more attractive to me. Finally, I undertook its realisation.

In writing the book, I have kept in view the needs of the i

VI PREFACE.

English pablia I imagined to myself readers who did not biYouT the modem, organic view of prophecy, but who, at the same time, were not disinclined to become acquainted with it and to weigh its claims. I have, therefore, throughout taken as my point of departure the traditional — ^which at the same time still continue to be the most widely diffused — ^ideas, subjected them to a severe objective criticism, and proceeded to build upon the results which were thus obtained. At die same time, I have endeavoured to proceed methodically, and to justify step by step the course of the investigation.

In order not to limit needlessly the circle of my readers, I have shunned all display of erudition, have left unnoticed many particulars, which invited to further inquiry, but contributed little to the chief object, and have uniformly studied simplicity and perspicuity. Consequently readers of ordinaiy education will, though they have not undergone a theological training, be able to use my book with profit, if they are not destitute of interest in the subject.

2d March 1875.

I have now little to add to the preceding. I must express my thanks to the Bev. A. Milroy for the care which he has bestowed upon my work, and in particular for pointing out some slips in the original which have been corrected in the English edition without being specially mentioned. When I wrote my book. Vol V. of the " Speaker's Commentary " (Isaiah and Jeremiah) had not yet appeared, and when VoL YL (Ezekiel, Daniel, and the minor prophets) was published, the first half of the translation had been already printed. Both volumes would have afforded me ample materials for discussion and refutation ; ^ but I thought myself obliged to refrain

1 Compare " TheoL TijdBchrift *' for 1875, pp. 567—576 ; for 1876, pp. 498-507.

PREFACE. Vll

almost entirely from noticing them. It did not form part of my plan fully to adduce and criticise either all the explanations of the separate prophecies, or the proofs in favour of the tradition r^arding their origin, brought forward by modem apologists. That is evident at once from the size of my book. Its merits, if it has any, consist just in this, '* that it sums up, as it were, in a nutshell the modem view of the subject, and the grounds on which it rests" (Academy, 1876, p. 238). The refutation of all sorts of opinions, ancient and modem, which differ "from that view, might easily have diverted attention from what is and ought to be the chief matter — viz., the maintenance and application of the true method, and the exposition of the historical view as a whole.

It would afford me the greatest satisfaction if, by the reading of this book, the circle of the friends of that historical view should become extended in England. To complete the Old Testament science, contributions are needed from all quarters, for still " the harvest is plenteous, and the labourers are few." And to the religious life it can be only a gain when, dogmatic notions having been set aside, the genuine and actual Israelitish prophecy becomes known and appreciated.

A. KUENEN.

loth July 1876.

Introduction

Professor Kuenen is already known to the English students of theology by the translation of his " Religion of Israel " which has recently been published (1873-1875).^ In that work the rise and development of the Hebrew religion is treated at length, and with great ability, from the point of view of the most advanced modern criticism. The object of the work of which a translation is now offered to the public is more limited, as although it embraces a sketch of the history of the Hebrew ideas regarding the Deity, it is mainly concerned with a survey and examination of the phenomena connected with prophecy. It will be seen from the author's preface under what circumstances he undertook the preparation of the treatise. It had become important in the existing condition of Biblical criticism in this country, that the prophets and their work should be made the subject of a special investigation, and be exhibited in their true light. It is well known to all persons interested in theology that the alleged fulfilment of the predictions contained in the prophetical writings of the Old Testament is one of the principal proofs by which the divine origin and infallible authority of the book of which they form a part, are regarded by modern apologetical writers of the orthodox school as being established. The knowledge of the future which prophets displayed is such, they maintain, as could not be explained on natural principles: it is too precise, detailed, and manifold to have proceeded from human foresight or calculation, and can only be accounted for on the supposition that it has been derived from a supernatural source. The possessors of such miraculous knowledge must therefore, it is concluded, have been the inspired messengers

b

X INTRODUCnON.

of God, and all that they uttered in their prophetical capacity must be considered as bearing the stamp of divine authority. And since among their other prophecies we find numerous and manifest predictions of a future Messiah who was to appear among the Jews, their writings furnish us with a portion of the evidence on which our belief in the divine origin of the Christian dispensation is founded.

As these conclusions have never yet, so far as I am aware,

been subjected to a thorough and systematic examination,

it appeared to be of the utmost importance that the grounds

on which such supematuralistic views are based by those who

maintain them, should be considered in detail, and that their

sufficiency or otherwise to sustain the structure which is

built upon them, should be ascertained. The results of the

investigation instituted with this view by Professor Kuenen

are detailed in this volume. His treatise appears to me to

present a clear, complete, and masterly survey of all the

branches of the subject the discussion of which is necessary

to enable the reader to form a judgment on the great question

raised, to demonstrate satisfactorily the insufficiency of the

grounds on which the supernatural character of prophecy

has been assumed, and to justify the conclusion that the

phenomena can bo accounted for, — without a resort to the

supposition of any miraculous intervention — by the genius

and the peculiar religious character of the Hebrews, as

developed by their history and fortunes, and acted upon

by the circumstances of the times in which the prophets

lived. An outline of the course of the enquiry will be found

in the tables of the contents of the several chapters which

follow the author's preface. But although a good idea of

the line of argument pursued by Dr Kuenen may be obtained

by this means, it may not be superfluous for me to oflFer

another and in some respects more detailed and connected

summary of the course and the substance of the author's

demonstration of the conclusions at which he has arrived.

In the first Chapter the author shows that, in the existing diversity of the views entertained by the diflferent schools of theological enquiry, a fresh examination of the character of prophecy is now required. According to the orthodox or traditional view^ which is still the most common^ the prophets

INTKODUCTION. XI

were the messengers of God, and though they primarily spoke to the Hebrews, their preaching concerned the entire human race, being closely connected with Christianity, and having with gradually increasing clearness and fulness foretold the future advent and character of the Redeemer. According to the historico-critical or organic view, on the other hand, prophecy proceeds, indeed, from God, as being, like other human achievements, the i*esult of powers bestowed by Him, but is not the less the work of man, and is the highest utterance of the Hebrew spirit ; and although it contains no ])rediction of Christian facts, it yet prepares the way for Christianity. Opinions being thus divided, there is a necessity for further investigation ; for the maintainers of the last-mentioned or modem view have not yet thoroughly controverted the arguments of theorthodox school, or fully vindicated the legitimacy of their own theoiy, while, on the other hand, the traditional view is at present in process of dissolution. Its partial and incomplete character is now admitted on all sides ; and the dates and interpretation of various prophecies which were formerly received are now abandoned. It is observed that the habit, hitherto common among the supernaturalists, of looking at the prophecies with reference to their supposed fulfilment, instead of regarding them in the light of their time, and of events contemporaneous with their composition, leads to incorrect judgments ; and a perception of this has led the supernaturalists themselves to a modification of their view of prophecy as prediction, as is shown by a reference to writings of diflFerent orthodox authors.

In his second Chapter the author, without formally controverting the opinions of the school to which he is opposed, describes the method which he intends to pursue in his own investigations as an historical one. The object which he proposes to himself is to ascertain the real and proper sense of the utterances of the prophets according to their grammatical interpretation, and without any regard to the meaning assigned to them in the New Testament ; since to regard the New Testament explanation as binding would involve a dogmatic assumption at variance with the authors method. The sources of information about the prophets and prophecy are then described as threefold : — 1st,

Xll IXTRODUCTIOy.

the writings of the prophets themselves; 2d, the historical accounts of what the prophets did and said ; and 3d, narratives of divine revelations alleged to have been made to different personages. The first of these sources, in which we hear the prophet himself express his ideas, is the roost valuable of all. The age of these documents must be determined, as far as possible, both by external and internal evidence ; of which the internal is the more important, while the evidence of age furnished by the titles, or headings of the prophecies, is not always to be depended upon. As regards the second source of information, — since the authors of the historical books of the Old Testament were not eye- and ear- witnesses of what they record, and since many of the narratives rest on writings or traditions of uncertain age, — ^we can have no assurance that the acts or utterances of the prophets which they record are correctly represented. In refei'ence to the third source of information, or the revelations alleged in the historical books to have been vouchsafed to different historical personages, we have no certainty that such divine communications were ever made ; or, in other words, that they are not the mere expressions of the historian's own religious conceptions. Hebrew prophecy must therefore be studied in its unimpeachable sources — the writings of the prophets themselves. The author then discusses the objections to this course.

The third Chapter contains an introductory view of the prophets and their work. The prophets constituted a separate class, or a social order more or less distinct. Their common Hebrew appellation was "Nabi," a word which does not signify prophet in the sense of a foreteller of the future, though its holder did predict things to come ; but according to the derivation regarded as probable by the author, means a person under the influence of strong emotion, presumed to result from the agency of a higher power. They were also called seer and gazer (Roeh and Chozeh), and designated also by other names or titles. In the days of Samuel, there existed an association of prophets, of which he was recognised as the head, and which probably continued to exist after his time ; and this may have been only one of several such. We find similar fraternities in the time of Ahab, over which Elijah

INTRODUCTION. XlU

and Elisha presided : and their continuance is pre-supposed in the reply of Amos to the high priest Amaziah, from which it also appears that there were prophets unconnected with those associations ; and, in fact, the greater part of the prophets known to us seem to have held an independent position. The prophets, however, it appears, were divided among themselves, and when consulted about any matter, sometimes gave opposite counsels. How is this to be explained ? Not by the supposition that there were ordinaiy and extraordinary prophets, as is maintained by Dr Payne Smith, since they all regarded themselves as inspired by Jahveh. Prophecy was, in fact, a very diversified phenomenon, and the impression which it made corresponded to that diversity. Opposition to the words of the prophets was far from being rare. Though they were reverenced, none of them were implicitly obeyed ; they were freely judged, were sometimes withstood to the face, and even subjected to ill treatment. The contradiction which they experienced was inevitable, for the opposition between diflferent members of their body continued at least from the eighth century B.C. downwards. The people could not simply obey, even if they had so wished. They had to make a choice, to accept the one prophet and reject the other. But could there be any difficulty in making a choice ? could not any sincere man distinguish between the true and the false prophet ? Here we must seek to discover whether the enquirer had any aids to guide him. The book of Deuteronomy prescribes that a prophet who incited his countrymen to idolatry should be stoned, even though the sign or wonder to which he had appealed should come to pass ; and that a ])rophet, whose prediction was not fulfilled, should be put to death. Assuming (what, however, the author does not admit) that these enactments existed before the seventh century B.C., the application of the latter of the two prescriptions was attended with difficulties; and if the prophets' predictions referred to the distant future, what judgment could, in the meantime, be formed of him ? Nor was the indefiniteness of the law remedied by any recognised custom. The result of the enquiry is that all the prophets were, in theory, regarded as divinely commissioned ; but they were, in practice, obeyed only by those who agreed with them in tendency.

XIV INTRODUCnOX.

Having treated of the prophets in general, the author proceeds to speak of the writers of the prophetical books, or canonical prophets, as they may be called. These were often in conflict with the other members of their class. The explanation of this will be given afterwards. The earlier prophets did not record their addresses in writing — the later did. Some of the written prophecies appear never to have been spoken ; but in the case of those which were spoken, the writing down did not precede, but followed, the oral delivery. Reasons are assigned for believing that the spoken word was not literally reproduced in writing, but was more or less modified a<5Cording to circumstances. This is confirmed by the account given in Jer. xxxvi.

Chapter fourth treats of the conviction which the Israelitish prophets had with regard to their divine commission. Their writings differ in language and style, and bear the stamp of their individual characters, which were infiuenced more or less by the age in which they lived. The later among them sometimes imitate and borrow from their predecessors. At the same time, the prophets are conscious of possessing a divine commission, and constantly express this conviction, as is shown in some detail. This remarkable belief is not fully explained in their writings. An account is then given of the methods in which these divine revelations are described as being given, especially visions, some of which are merely the drapery in which the prophets chose to present their ideas. Prophecy is conceived of by them as the work of the Divine Spirit ; and in the more recent books, the Divine will is described as. being communicated through the agency of angels. Are we then to acquiesce in the assurances of the Israelitish prophets in regard to the origin and authority of their preaching ? Although we throw no doubt on their good faith, we cannot admit their divine commission on the simple authority of their assertions. Some reasons are assigned for holding that we are not shut up to the dilemma of either admitting their word as true, or branding them as deceivers. Further enquiry into the prophetical phenomena is therefore necessary. The object of our study must be that which the prophets designate as the "word of Jahveh'' which they claim to have received; and

INTRODUCTION. XV

our first enquiry must be whether the predictions of the prophets have been fulfilled, and if so, within what limits. The author divides the prophecies into unfulfilled and fulfilled, and treats these two classes in the following chapters (v.-viii.).

In the fifth Chapter, he commences his examination of those coming under the former category. After stating the difficulties connected with tlie treatment of his subject, arising from the uncertain or disputed sense and age of the prophecies, he proceeds to state his opinion of the age of the several prophetical books, and of the parts of those books which are not all the work of one and the same author. He next, with a view to his proposed examination, divides the predictions of all the difierent prophets into three groups, of which the first, referring to the heathen nations, is then discussed. He shows in succession that the speedy destruction of the cities of the Philistines, and the occupation of their country by the Israelites, was not fulfilled as foretold by the prophets, whose meaning is misunderstood by those who represent the present condition of the coast of Phil istia as the event contemplated in their predictions. 2. The author maintains that the predictions of Amos, the oldest Zechariah,* Joel, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, regarding the destruction of Tyre, were not fulfilled, as the city was captured neither by Shalmanezer nor by Nebuchadrezzar, the long siege conducted by the latter not having ended, even according to the acknowledgment of Ezekiel himself, in the manner which he expected.^ That a destruction of Tyre at any period in the distant future was not intended, is shown by a passage of

* For the reasons stated in p. 105 f., the author does not here take into account the prophecy of Isaiah xxiii. See on the subject of it the ^ Lea Prophetes" of Prof. Reuss, vol. I, p. 295, note 1, and 298, note 14.

* Compare the remarks of Prof. Heuss on the subject of Ezekiers prophecy in vol. ii. of ^* Les Proph6tes," p. 93, note 2. " Nothing is known of the capturiB of the city. The text (Erek. xxix. 18) seems to insinuate, that the enterprise [of Nebuchadrezzar] failed In order to spare the prophet the reproach of having been deceived in his predictions (ch. xxvi. — xxviii.), it baa been supposed that Tyre fell into the iiands of the Chaldeans, but that the inhabitants had previously placed their treasures in a place of safety, so that the booty obtained was small. Such subterfuges are ridiculous. Tyre resisted Alexander also, and existed still in the time of the crusades ; and Egypt did not become a desert, nor did Nebuchadrezzar conquer it. . . . The prophecies ought, and are able, to legitimate themselves in their ideal sense. It is quite wrong to judge them according to iht concrete facts of history.^

A

XVI INTKODUCnON.

Ezekiel, where he declares that the punishment of Israera neighbours, including the Tyrians and Sidonians, whose destiny had been announced just before, shall precede the return of the Israelites to their native land, where they should dwell in safety, because judgment had been executed on all the neighbouring nations who spoiled them. 3. The prophecy of Jeremiah regarding Damascus was not fulfilled. 4. Further, the predictions regarding the fates of Moab and Ammon, and 5, of Edom, have not been accomplished in the sense in which they were intended by the prophets. (>. As regards the verification of Isaiah's prophecies concerning Egypt, complete certainty cannot be attained: at best, the fulfilment was only partial. The predictions of Jeremiah and Ezekiel regarding the same country are contradicted by the accounts of Herodotus ; and although they are expressly confirmed by Josephus, his testimony appears to deserve no credit, and to be merely an inference from the prophecies themselves. 7. Isaiah and Micah do not predict the fall of Assyria. In the prophecies of the former, in fact, a belief in the continued existence of that kingdom is implied. Nahum and Zephaniah do, indeed, foretell the destruction of Niniveh ; but the result did not fully correspond to their anticipations, as the ruin of the city was, indeed, completed in a comparatively short time, but still not immediately. The author here takes the opportunity of combating the views of those writers who think that such discrepancies between the terms of a prophecy and the circumstances of its fulfilment detract nothing from its truth and accuracy. The prophet, they affirm, looked into the future in such a way, that in his prospect the distances disappeared, and the successive circumstances were blended together so as to cause a foreshortening of the more distant parts of the future. Tliis theory of the perspective character of prediction is variously conceived by different writers. The author denies that the prophets conceived the facts otherwise than they represented them ; and combats the idea that the mode and period of the realisation of prophecy were, in all cases, matters of indiflference, whereas these are often points of importance in the view of the prophets themselves. 8. The predictions regarding the fall of Babylon were not fulfilled at an early period to the extent which the prophets

INTRODUCTION. XVll

expected. 9. The fall of the Persian monarchy is not referred to by the prophets properly so called, while the announcements in the book of Daniel, though represented in the form of prophecy, are in reality, in part, vaticinia post eventum ; in so far as they related to events subsequent to the writer's age, they were not realised.

Chapter sixth refers to the unfulfilled predictions against Israel, which are divided into five groups. 1. Neither Amos nor Hosea expected the ruin of the kingdom of Judah ; but both were convinced that the kingdom of the ten tribes was doomed. But Amos had no clear conception of that destruction, and expected it to occur^much sooner than it did. Hosea is more definite, but his predictions were not fully realised by the result. 2. The prophets of the Assyrian period. The author of Zechariah ix. — xi. does not refer to the overthrow of Judah, and it is more than doubtful if he expected that of the kingdom of the ten tribes. The prediction of Micah regarding the fall of Jerusalem was not fulfilled at the period when he, according to the opinion of Jeremiah's contemporaries, seems to have expected that it would take place. Isaiah, on the contrary, was assured that Jerusalem would be spared. His predictions against Ephraim and Judah were not literally fulfilled. 3. The Chaldean period. Habakkuk and Joel, who probably belong to the reign of Zedekiah, do not anticipate the destruction of Jerusalem ; and the author of Zechariah xii. — ^xiv. expects that, though the city shall be taken and plundered, and half depopulated, the residue of the people shall be spared, and better times begin to dawn. These prophets, therefore, nearly coincide with Hananiah the Gibeonite, the antagonist of the views of Jeremiah. The last-named writer, as is well known, expected the ruin of Jerusalem, the extinction of the kingdom of Judah, and the captivity of its inhabitants ; and his predictions were, generally speaking, realised ; as was also the case with those on the same subject, in the book of Ezekiel, who follows Jeremiah. The vague anticipations of the post-exilic prophets are such that no specific answer can be given to the question whether they were fulfilled or not.

Chapter seventh treats of the unfulfilled predictions regarding the future of Israel. None of those which relate

XVlll IXTRODUCTION.

to the restomtion of that people have been realised. The system of Chiliasm, or the expectation of a millennium, when all such prophecies shall be fulfilled, involves, in fact, a confession that they remain as yet unaccomplished. Their spiritual fulfilment in Christianity is something quite different from what the prophets contemplated. These prophecies are then considered under six heads : — 1. The return of Israel out of captivity. This restoration turned out to be far less glorious and important than had been anticipated ; and a complete realization of the promise was therefore predicted by the post-exilic prophets, and still later by Daniel. 2. The reunion of Ephraim and Judah. This was expected by Hosea and the author of Zechariah ix. — xi., probably by Amos, and partially at least as regards Ephraim, by Isaiah, and is distinctly predicted by Jeremiah and Ezekiel. But during and after the captivity the Ephraimites are generally left out of view ; and that the two parts of the nation were never re-united under one king in their native land does not require to be proved. 3. The continued rule of a king or kings of the house of David over Israel was predicted by Amos and Jeremiah, and Hosea and Ezekiel express themselves in the same sense. It is clear that the prince announced by Ezekiel is merely a king of the ordinary kind. The autlior of Zechariah ix. — xi. also announces the appearance of a king, first victorious in war, but afterwards pacific. Micah too expects that a prince of a similar character shall arise in Bethlehem. And Isaiah anticipates the advent of an eminent monarch who is to be of the family of David, and in whom all the highest characteristics of a perfect ruler shall be combined, but whom we are not to regard as a supernatural personage. These last prophecies evidently announce something moie than a happy period of limited duration. They foretell, for Israel, an endless age of blessedness, either under one prince or a succession of monarchs. Zechariah is the only one of the post-exilic prophets who refers to the restoration of the Davidic dynasty, and it is probable that he understood the man whose name is Branch, to whom he refers, as the first of a series of rulers belonging to that family. The second or Babylonian Isaiah says nothing of the restoration of the rule of David's house, but transfers the task and the glory of

INTBODUCTION. XIX

David's descendant to others, to the flower of Israel, whom lie designates as " the servant of Jahveh." The author then vindicates the sense which he attaches to the last-mentioned phrase, which, as he holds, does not denote the Messiah. And this applies also to the book of Daniel, as the " one like to a son of man " there introduced, represents the Israelitisli nation. 4. The unfulfilled prophecies regarding the spiritual and material welfare of the restored Israel are then taken up. These relate, on the one hand, to the people's knowledge of Jahveh, their fidelity to him, their obedience to his commands, and their spiritual intuition ; and on the other hand, to the peace and security which they should enjoy, to the fruitfulness of their land, the increase of their numbers, their greater longevity, and the improvement of the natural conditions under which they were to live. These prophecies, including those with which the book of Ezekiel concludes, are not to be spiritualised, but to be taken essentially in a literal sense. 5. The predictions regarding the subjection of the heathens to Israel, which are to be found in the books of Amos, Micah, both Isaiahs, and Daniel, and the conversion of the Gentiles to the service of Jahveh, as anticipated by Micah, Isaiah, Zephaniah, and above all, by the second Isaiah, are then recapitulated. G. It is distinctly predicted by all the prophets that the Israelites, when once restored to their native country, should continue there for ever undisturbed. It appears on a review of the prophecies discussed in this chapter, that the expectations which they hold out have been contradicted by the event in every particular. The return of the captives was far from answering to the brilliant expectations formed of it ; Judah and Ephraim were never re-united ; . the restoration of the Davidic monarchy was never attempted ; neither in a spiritual nor in a material point of view did the condition of the Israelites who returned to Judea ever correspond to the glowing pictures of the prophets ; nor was the sovereignty of Israel over the nations, or the conversion of the latter to Jahvism, ever realised. Some, however, may urge that the realisation of these predictions is only postponed, and is therefore still future. But this view is untenable. It is clear that the prophets had no certain