THE CHANGING IMAGE of T H E P R 0 PH E T in JEWISH JHOUGHT

The GOLDENSON LECTURE of 1966 THE CHANGING IMAGE of T H E PR 0 PH ET IN JEWISH JHOUGHT '11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 BERNARD J· BAMBERGER THE CHANGING IMAGE of THE PROPHET IN JEWISH THOUGHT DR. BERNARD }.. , BAMBERGER Rabbi, Temple Shaaray Tefila New York, New York THE HEBREW UNION CoLLEGE PREss- Cincinnati, Ohlo The Samuel H. Goldcnson Lectures arc published and distributed under the terms of the Samuel H. Goldcnson Lectureship established in 1955 at the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in Cincinnati by Temple Emanu-El of New York City. Lecture delivered April 20, 1966 \ I SHALL TRY TO PRESENT SOME VIEWS REGARDING prophets and prophecy held by Jewish thinkers through the centuries, to project-if I may use the current lingo-a series of varied images of the prophet. Such a survey, though it cannot be inclusive or thorough, may be instructive, or at least suggestive. The earliest post-prophetic image of the prophet is that of something precious that has been lost. One of the few Psalm-passages bearing on our subject laments the disappear ance of prophecy. In a time of national calamity, the singer yearns for an authoritative voice, to tell how long the disaster will last and when the day of redemption will come.1 Per haps, too, it was an awareness that the prophetic movement was in decline which led to the promise at the end of the Book of Malachi-the promise, namely, that at some future date Elijah will reappear on earth. In true prophetic fashion he will bring about a spiritual revival, uniting parents and children in God's service, in advance of the final judgment.2 Later tradition modified this understanding of the mission of the returning Elijah. He was indeed to herald the ·advent of the Messiah, but in addition he would settle all moot questions of Jewish law .3 This is no mere fancy of scholars playing idly with texts. When the Temple was rededicated by Judah Maccabee, the priests did not know what disposal to make of the desecrated stones of the old altar. So they put them aside until a prophet should com.e to give them sure guidance. Similarly, the people and priests designated Simon to be leader and high priest "until a faithful prophet should arise."4 3 And these incidents remind us of an earlier case involving certain men who claimed to be priests, but had no documen tary proof of their status; they were therefore told not to eat of the most holy sacrifices until a priest should arise with Urim and Thummim.5 From the days of Ezra onward, men felt the need, not merely for visions, predictions, admoni tions or even words of comfort, but especially for clear an .swers to specific problems of law and observance. And when the usual methods of study did not supply such answers, they yearned for guidance from on high. One reason why the living prophetic word was not sour gently needed was, no doubt, that the written word of the ·classical prophets was becoming more generally available. During the Second Commonwealth, the prophetic writings were assembled, edited, and accepted as sacred scripture. Moreover, the custom of reading publicly from the prophetic books must be quite old.6 It is probably that, long before regular haphtaroth were appointed, there was a general pre ference for passages containing words of hope and redemp .tion. But though prophecy may have been officially ended, the impulse to prophetic activity did not entirely vanish. I do not refer only to the apocalyptic writings, composed in the last pre-Christian centuries and thereafter. For while these works imitate the literary style of Biblical prophecy (often with in ·different success), it can be argued that in essence apocalyp tic and prophecy had little in common. However this may be, there were other manifestations of the prophetic impulse in the same period. The Talmud tells us that men some times heard the bath qol, the echo of a divine voice, inter vening in human affairs. Of certain rabbis it was declared that they were qualified to receive the hoi y spirit, but their contemporaries did not merit the privilege of having proph- 4 ets among them. We read further of saints who spoke up boldly to God on behalf of their people, a kind of interces~ sion characteristic of the Biblical prophets.7 These rabbinic memories are confirmed in a general way by Josephus. He mentions several men who, during the Second Commonwealth, were hailed as· prophets or claimed to be such. Most prominent among them was King John H yrcan; he was a prophet, Josephus reports, and could fore tell the future.8 Several others are characterized as charla tans and false prophets for stirring up insurrections against Rome.9 We are told also about a peasant named Joshua son of Hanania, who went about Jerusalem uttering cries of doom for seven years prior to the fall of the city. Josephus seems to believe that the unfortunate man was driven by a divine compulsion, though the Roman governor adjudged him deranged and harmless.10 This episode reminds one of the rabbinic saying, "Since the fall of the Temple, prophecy has been taken away from the prophets and given to children and madmen."11 Josephus also claimed that he himself pos sessed the power to interpret dreams and to predict the fu ture ;12 but it is hard to tell how much of this was said to impress others and how much of it he really believed. Inci dentally, he never speaks of himself as a prophetes. In the course of his writings, Josephus, often mentions Moses and other Biblical prophets. Since the time of Ar taxerxes, he notes, there has not been an exact succession of prophets; hence the histories of more recent centuries do not have the same authority as the old inspired writings.13 He is dealing here with the reliabiliy and canonicity of the Biblical books up to and including Esther, rather than with the phenomenon of prophecy as such. Yet as regards date, he is in agreement with rabbinic sources. According to the Tal mud, the last prophets. were Haggai, Zechariah, and Mal- 5 achi;14 and frequently Malachi is identified with Ezra.15 I do not know of any parallel to the statement in Seder Olam that prophecy continued till the time of Alexander the Great.16 But despite minor disagreements over chronology, the rab binic sources all agree that the age of prophecy is long since past. The Biblical words "It is not in heaven" (Deut. 30.12) were understood to mean: The entire Torah has already been given to men; no new revelation is needed, nor should it be expected. In this sense the verse was quoted by Rabbi Joshua when a bath qol intervened in a dispute over a point of law; and we are told that God admitted with a chuckle that the protest was a proper one.17 The scholar had replaced the prophet; as R. Abdimi of Haifa put it, "prophecy has been taken from the prophets and given to the sages." A Babylonian comment on this remark declares that the schol ar is more important eadif) than the prophet.18 These statements, and many others that could be adduced, are so extreme and vehement that modern students have seen in them a marked polemical intent. The rising Chris tian community claimed that it had been newly inspired by God, and it promulgated a revelation that was said to supple ment, or even to supplant, "the old covenant." In reaction, the rabbis insisted that the process of revelation was complete at Sinai. The existing documents, as interpreted by the guar dians· of tradition, are fully adequate to guide the life of the individual and of the community. There is no room for new prophecies.19 This interpretation of the facts seems to be entirely correct if we understand it as follows: Anti-Christian polemic ac counts for the emphatic, almost violent expression of a view point which in essence was not new. The tendency to con fine the role of prophecy to the past was implicit in the clos- 6 ing of the prophetic canon; the fact that so popular a book as Daniel was not included in the collection of prophetic writings indicates the finality with which that collection had been fixed. All this follows logically from the acceptance of the Pen tateuch, together with its official interpretations, as the rule of Jewish life. On the closing words of Leviticus, the Sifra remarks: "No prophet may add anything new." But this probably post-Christian statement is little more than a re'" affirmation of Deuteronomy 13, which sets up a norm of orthodoxy for the prophet to follow. And that passage was composed when prophecy was still a living reality ..zo In consonance with this approach, one of the rabbis de clared: "If Israel had not sinned, they would have received only the Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua"-the latter being necessary to round out the story with the settlement in the land of promise.21 A sinless Israel would have been one of those happy nations that have no history. The prophets were sent to warn the people against disobedience and to threaten them with disastrous consequences if they did not amend their ways, and then to comfort them after the di saster had struck. But they did no more than apply eloquent ly to the conditions of their own time the truths and injunc tions already revealed through Moses.

Load more