True and False Prophecy: Jeremiah’s Revision of Deuteronomy

* This is a revised and expanded version of a paper read at the Israelite Prophetic Literature Section at the SBL Annual Meeting in New Orleans, November 21, 2009. My thanks to the participants for their helpful comments on the presentation. 1. James L. Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict (BZAW, 124; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1971).

1. Introduction As James Crenshaw demonstrated many years ago, conflict between prophets in ancient Israel undoubtedly existed and had several sources.1 * This is a revised and expanded version of a paper read at the Israelite Prophetic Literature Section at the SBL Annual Meeting in New Orleans, November 21, 2009. My thanks to the participants for their helpful comments on the presentation. 1. James L. Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict (BZAW, 124; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1971).

2. To mention one difference: there is no term for ‘false prophet’ in Hebrew. It is the LXX which introduces the term ψευδοπροφητης into the discussion. Of the ten occurrences of this term in the LXX, nine are found in Jeremiah (see below).

3. For a full bibliography of studies through the end of the 1960s, see Crenshaw’s bibliography of works on false prophecy (Prophetic Conflict, p. 124). Subsequent to that, see Frank Lother Hossfeld, Prophet gegen Prophet: eine Analyse der alttestamentliche Texte zum Thema, Wahre und falsche Propheten (Fribourg: Schweizerisches Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1973); Ivo Meyer, Jeremia und der falsche Propheten (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977); James A. Sanders, ‘Hermeneutics in True and False Prophecy’, in George W. Coats and Burke O. Long (eds.), Canon and Authority: Essays in Old Testament Religion and Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1977), pp. 21-41.

4. On Deuteronomy’s conception of prophecy, in addition to the standard critical commentaries, see Hans Barstad, ‘The Understanding of the Prophets in Deuteronomy’, SJOT 8 (1994), pp. 236-51; and Knud Jeppesen, ‘Is Deuteronomy Hostile Towards Prophets?’, SJOT 8 (1994), pp. 252-56.

5. The Hebrew Bible does report female prophets on several occasions, but the linguistic formulations here are all masculine.

6. This is similar to Deut. 13, but not exactly the same. J. Tigay argues that this text does not imply that these are non-YHWH prophets, but it seems hard to conclude otherwise. See J. Tigay, Deuteronomy (The JPS Torah Commentary, 5; Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1997), p. 177.

7. Note the way in which the question is framed: the question does not ask how to recognize a legitimate message, but rather how to recognize an illegitimate message. Does this suggest that the ‘default’ position for responding to prophecies was to assume all were valid unless there were reasons to think otherwise?

8. Deut. 13 also utilizes a criterion of fulfillment, but the differences from Deut. 18 are more apparent than the similarities. In the former, the prophet or intermediary in question speaks on behalf of a deity other than YHWH, so even if the prophet’s words or dreamer’s dreams take place, it is immaterial with respect to his evaluation as a legitimate prophet.

9. In his commentary on Deut. 18, S.R. Driver wrote that examples of false prophets ‘may be readily illustrated from the book of Jeremiah’, citing Jer. 14.14-15; 23.16, 21-27, 30-33; 27.9-10, 14-16; 28.15-17; 29.8-9, 21-32; and 37.19. See S.R. Driver, Deuteronomy (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 3rd edn, 1965), p. 229. Apparently the LXX translators concluded similarly, given their introduction of the term ψυευδοπροφητης into their rendering of passages from Jeremiah; see n. 2 above.

10. They garner 37 references in the Book of the Twelve. The LXX version of Jeremiah uses προφητης or ψευδοπροφητης only 57 times.

11. This is not to say that the narratives are historical. Indeed, it may indicate the opposite.

12. The literature on this subject is vast, and there is no need to rehearse all of it here. See Sigmund Mowinckel, Zur Komposition des Buches Jeremia (Kristiania: Jacob Dybwad, 1914); R. Davidson, ‘Orthodoxy and the Prophetic Word: A Study in the Relationship between Jeremiah and Deuteronomy’, VT 14 (1964), pp. 407-16; W. Thiel, Die deuteronomistiche Redaktion von Jeremia 1—25 (WMANT, 41; Neukirchen—Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1973); idem, Die deuteronomische Redaktion von Jeremia 26—45 (WMANT, 52; Neukirchen—Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981); E. Kragelund Holt, ‘The Chicken and the Egg—Or: Was Jeremiah a Member of the Deuteronomist Party?’, JSOT 44 (1989), pp. 109-22; C.R. Seitz, ‘The Prophet Moses and the Canonical Shape of Jeremiah’, ZAW 101 (1989), pp. 3-27; idem, ‘Mose als Prophet. Redaktionsthemen and Gesamtstruktur des Jeremiasbuches’, BZ 34 (1990), pp. 234-45; Thomas C. Römer, ‘How Did Jeremiah become a Convert to Deuteronomistic Ideology?’, in Linda S. Schearing and Steven L. McKenzie (eds.), Those Elusive Deuteronomists (JSOTSup, 268; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), pp. 189-99; Rainer Albertz, Israel in Exile (trans. David Green; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), pp. 302-45.

13. On these chapters as a unit organized around the theme of prophets and their message about Babylon, see Robert P. Carroll, Jeremiah (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986), pp. 510, 529. Carroll argues that ch. 26 is a preface to chs. 27—29. See also Thomas W. Overholt, ‘Jeremiah 27—29: The Question of False Prophecy’, JAAR 35 (1967), pp. 241-49; and William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 2 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989), pp. 114-15.

14. See, e.g., Albertz, Israel in Exile, pp. 332-39. The issue is complicated further by the significant differences between the MT and LXX in these chapters (as elsewhere in Jeremiah).

15. In what follows, the issues in Jer. 29 are left to the side for reasons of space.

16. Gottfried Quell called this passage ‘das grellste und eindrücklichste Beispiel innerprophetischen Konflikts’; cf. G. Quell, Wahre und falsche Propheten (Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1952), p. 43. James Sanders refers to this text as the ‘ locus classicus’ of the problem of true and false prophecy; see Sanders, ‘Hermeneutics in True and False Prophecy’, p. 22.

17. Cf. Overholt, ‘Jeremiah 27—29’, pp. 241-42.

18. There are considerable historical problems related to the confusion over the dates of these episodes at the beginning of the two chapters. Carroll argues that such confusion renders unlikely the possibility that these events are historical (Jeremiah, pp. 529-30), while Holladay argues that the historicity of the scene in ch. 27 ‘cannot be questioned’ (Jeremiah 2, p. 118). He dates it to 594 BCE. Additionally, Carroll argues that these chapters are essentially doublets describing the same scene, which also negates their value as historical sources.

19. Only in Jer. 27—29 is the Babylonian king’s name spelled this way; elsewhere in the book it is ‘Nebuchadrezzar’, which matches the Akkadian more closely.

20. The perspective in these verses is not entirely consistent. On the one hand, prophets are admonished to intercede with YHWH to allow the vessels that have not been taken to Babylon to remain in Jerusalem (vv. 18-20). On the other hand, the section closes with a prophetic oracle announcing that the vessels in question will be carried off to Babylon (vv. 21-22). On this theme in general in the sixth-century literature, see Peter R. Ackroyd, Studies in the Religious Tradition of the Old Testament (London: SCM Press, 1987), pp. 46-60.

21. For example, Carroll (Jeremiah, pp. 534-35) argues that the concern over the fate of the temple vessels and other furnishings, ‘belongs to the world of Ezra and the Chronicler’ (p. 535).

22. Indeed, Jer. 27 never reports that Jeremiah made the yoke as instructed, but Jer. 28.10 assumes so.

23. Holladay, Jeremiah 2, p. 127.

24. Many MSS read ?, ‘famine’. Cf. Jer. 42.22; 44.13.

25. The last two items in the list, ? and ?, are absent in the LXX.

26. Carroll, From Chaos to Covenant, pp. 186-87.

27. Jeremiah’s message about the exiles is more fully recorded in the letter found in Jer. 29.4-23.

28. Holladay refers to it as a ‘word of prudent caution, an appeal to precedent and an attitude of wait-and-see for optimistic oracles probably based on Deut. 18.22’ (Jeremiah 2, p. 127).

29. Most have traditionally interpreted Deut. 18.20 to mean that the prophet in question is to be executed. In my view, however, the text only indicates that the prophet must die, while the means of that prophet’s death are left unspecified: ? ? ?. Deut. 13.6 also contains a provision for the death of the false prophet (or dreamer), but the grammatical construction there (hophal) indicates much more clearly that execution is in view: ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?; cf. Deut. 17.6; 21.22; 24.16.

30. Does this suggest that Jeremiah registers some dissatisfaction with the wait-and-see provision of Deut. 18? Somewhat ironically, however, Jeremiah’s own ‘70 years’ prophecy (25.11; 29.10) requires this same perspective.

31. E.g. 5.2, 31; 14.14; 20.6; 23.25, 32; 27.10, 14, 16; 29.9, 21, 23, 31; 43.2; cf. 1 Kgs 22.22-23.

32. This charge allows Jeremiah to make a wordplay about Hananiah’s death: YHWH is going to send Hananiah off the face of the earth (? ? ? ? ?).

33. These are the only two uses of ? in the book of Jeremiah. Does this indicate that the redactors of Jeremiah conflated Deut. 13 and 18 in their understanding of prophecy? In both Jer. 28.16 and 29.32 the portion of the text alluding Deut. 13 is absent in the LXX. Cf. Davidson, ‘Orthodoxy and Prophetic Word’, pp. 414-15.

34. James L. Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict, p. 53.

35. This passage and its distinctions were crucial to G. von Rad’s treatment of the question of true and false prophecy in ‘Die falschen Propheten’, ZAW 51 (1933), pp. 109-20. In von Rad’s view, false prophets were those who delivered words of weal.

36. Apart from the differences with Deut. 18, this text is surprising because it ignores the role the prophetic messages of hope played in earlier eighth- and seventh-century texts, or even elsewhere in the book of Jeremiah (cf. chs. 30—33). Indeed, Hananiah’s message is consistent with the message of hope found in the early parts of Isaiah, making all due allowance for later redactional activity (e.g. Isa. 7—8; 36—39); cf. Jack C. Lundbom, Jeremiah 21—36 (AB, 21B; New York: Doubleday, 2004), p. 332; Holladay, Jeremiah 2, p. 126. Lundbom cites specific texts from Isaiah the echo Hananiah’s preaching (Isa. 9.3; 10.27; 14.25).

37. In addition to the standard critical commentaries, see Henning Graf Reventlow, ‘Gattung und Überlieferung in der »Tempelrede Jeremias«, Jer 7 under 26’, ZAW 81 (1969), pp. 315-52; F.-L. Hossfeld and I. Meyer, ‘Der Prophet vor dem Tribunal. Neuer Auslegungsversuch von Jer 26’, ZAW 86 (1974), pp. 30-50; Carroll, From Chaos to Covenant, pp. 91-95; Kathleen M. O’Connor, ‘ “Do Not Trim a Word”: The Contribution of Chapter 26 to the Book of Jeremiah’, CBQ 51 (1989), pp. 617-30; M. Leuchter, The Polemics of Exile in Jeremiah 26—45 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), pp. 25-38.

38. See Leuchter’s insightful argument about the purpose of the differences between Jer. 26 and 7 in his Polemics of Exile, pp. 27-30.

39. O’Connor, ‘ “Do Not Trim a Word” ’, pp. 625-27; see also Carroll, Jeremiah, pp. 513-14. Cf. also the contrast between Josiah and Jehoiakim in 2 Kgs 22—23 and Jer. 36.

40. Cf. the emphasis on YHWH’s ?, the use of the term, and the appellation, ‘my servants the prophets’. On this latter phrase, see C. Sharp’s argument that its use in Jeremiah differs from its occurrences in the Deuteronomistic History; see Carolyn J. Sharp, Prophecy and Ideology in Jeremiah (OTS; New York: T. & T. Clark, 2003), p. 142. Holladay, however, disputes the idea that this chapter is any way the work of a Deuteronomistic editor (Jeremiah 2, p. 103).

41. Though not all would agree, the view that this type of political theology developed in the wake of the failed attempt by Sennacherib to conquer Jerusalem in 701 BCE seems plausible (although Jerusalem’s avoidance of disaster in the decades before this also undoubtedly played a role). It is best represented in various texts of Isa. 1—39, especially chs. 36—39 (//2 Kgs 18.13-20.19). Insofar as Jeremiah opposes this collection of ideas, he stands in opposition to a theological tradition that had powerful political support, theological precedence, and historical verisimilitude. This is more than a little ironic, however, given Jeremiah’s criticism of Hananiah for offering a positive prophetic message in 28.8-9.

42. Holladay notes that this ‘is the most detailed description of a trial in the Old Testament’ (Jeremiah 2, p. 102).

43. There is some disagreement about whether 26.10 can be interpreted as the beginning of a trial proceeding, but at any rate some official determination of guilt or innocence is sought in the matter. Cf. W.L. Holladay, Jeremiah 2 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1989), p. 102; P.D. Miller, Jeremiah (NIBC, 6; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001), p. 773.

44. Miller puts it succinctly: Jeremiah’s message ‘is theologically and politically unacceptable’ (Jeremiah, p. 773).

45. Jer. 26 and 28 use the same terminology in the dispute about prophetic legitimacy ( ), creating an ironic wordplay in the debate over Jeremiah’s and Hananiah’s authenticity: YHWH has sent Jeremiah, that is, he is a legitimate prophet; YHWH will send Hananiah off the face of the earth, that is, he will die.

46. The language about the decree of death is nearly identical to 26.11. There is debate about whether the phrase ? ? refers to the carrying out of the death penalty or simply being brought up on a capital charge. Both are permissible, but in the context the first reading seems more likely in my view. See W. McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah. II. Commentary on Jeremiah XXVI—LII (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996), p. 678.

47. R.W.L. Moberly, Prophecy and Discernment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), p. 105.

48. McKane, Jeremiah, II, p. 667; cf. O’Connor, ‘ “Do Not Trim a Word” ’, p. 622.

49. The unity of Jer. 26, and in particular the inclusion of vv. 17-19 and vv. 20-23, has prompted much discussion. O’Connor (‘ “Do Not Trim a Word” ’, pp. 623-24) argues that vv. 17-24 are expansions of the narrative, but Holladay (Jeremiah 2, p. 102) argues for the narrative unity of the chapter.

50. One wonders whether this passage is chosen based not just on v. 12, but the wider context including vv. 9-11 which offers a sharp rebuke of the leadership of Jerusalem. The passage includes a condemnation of rulers, priests, and prophets, all of whom are exempt from harm because YHWH is with them (3.11). The similarity to portions of the book of Jeremiah is hard to miss.

51. The history contains no reference to the event in question, but given the paucity of references to the canonical prophets, this is not altogether surprising. See 2 Kgs 18.3-7.

52. Cf. 3.12, 14, 22; 4.1; 5.3; 8.5, 6; 15.7, 19; 18.8, 11; 23.22; 24.7; 25.5; 26.3; 35.15; 36.3, 7; 44.5. In view of this, it is somewhat surprising that the authors/editors of Jeremiah chose to invoke Micah rather than Hosea or Amos, since both of these prophets use the language of turning/returning (?) to YHWH more than Micah (cf. Hos. 2.7; 3.5; 5.4; 6.1; 7.10, 16; 12.6; 14.1; Amos 4.6, 8-10).

53. A somewhat parallel scenario occurs in Exod. 32, where Moses intercedes on behalf of the Israelites in the wake of the golden calf episode and thereby prompts YHWH to reconsider his plan to destroy them.

54. On the question of a possible Deuteronomistic redaction of this chapter, see Albertz, Israel in Exile, pp. 316, 337-38, who argues in favor of such. On the other hand, H. Weippert argues that the passage is not Deuteronomistic at all; see H. Weippert, Die Prosareden des Jeremiabuches (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1973), pp. 48-62, 191-209.

55. Cf. 13.1-11, 12-14; 19.1-15.

56. Carroll, Jeremiah, pp. 372-73; Holladay, Jeremiah 1, pp. 512-18.

57. See Deut. 4.30; 30.1-3, 8-10; cf. Carroll, Jeremiah, pp. 373-74. Additionally, many years ago S.R. Driver raised the difficulty presented by this passage for Deut. 18 in his commentary on Deuteronomy; see Driver, Deuteronomy, p. 230.

58. Albertz has argued that Jer. 18 evinces connections with the narratives of Jer. 26—45, especially, chs. 26, 29, 36, and 42 (Israel in Exile, p. 316).

59. Carroll, From Chaos to Covenant, pp. 77-83.

60. See Jack M. Sasson, Jonah (AB, 24B; New York: Doubleday, 1990), pp. 357-64.

61. In Jon. 3.10, somewhat ironically, YHWH also ‘turns’ (?), not just the Ninevites; cf. Mal. 3.7.

62. Cf. James L. Crenshaw, ‘Who Knows What YHWH Will Do? The Character of God in the Book of Joel’, in Astrid B. Beck et al. (eds.), Fortunate the Eyes that See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of his Seventieth Birthday (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), pp. 185-96.

63. The idea is present in Amos 7.3 and 6, but in a far less developed and more provisional way than it appears in Jeremiah. In Amos YHWH relents in response to prophetic intercession, but ultimately this proves unsuccessful in influencing YHWH against the decision to lay waste Israel. Jeremiah also engages in prophetic intercession, but its irrelevance in forestalling divine judgment is made clear at the outset (cf., e.g., Jer. 14.11; 15.1).

64. As it turned out, though, the term ? was polyvalent enough that it could continue to be used outside Jeremiah, e.g., in the latter part of Isaiah, but in a different way: YHWH comforts his people (Isa. 40.1; 49.13; 51.3, 12; 52.9; 66.13).