The Prophets
- The Prophets
The 12 papers constituting the core of this volume derive from an international conference held at the Catholic University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt, May 31–June 3, 2018. The papers are preceded by an introduction to the volume by the three editors, and are followed by an address entitled "Welche Exegese braucht die Kirche?" by Rudolf Vorderholzer, Bishop of Regensburg, and a "synthesis" ("Converging and Diverging Lines in the Relationships between Isaiah and the Twelve") of the conference discussions by editor E. The papers—all but one of which are in English and every one of which comes with its own bibliography—are organized under three headings: (1) Analyses concerning the Relationships between the Book of Isaiah and Books Associated with Pre-Exilic Prophets (3 essays); (2) Analyses Concerning the Relationships between Later Layers of Isaiah and Later Layers of the Book of the Twelve (4 essays); and (3) Thematic Threads in the Book of Isaiah and the Book of the Twelve (4 essays). For abstracts of the essays, see ##1443, 1444, 1445, 1446, 1450, 1451, 1454, 1455, 1505, 1521, 1524.—C.T.B.
Google Scholar
In this revision of his 2019 University of Edinburgh dissertation (Anja Klein, supervisor), A. focuses on a feature of the three prophetic books of his title which lacks a counterpart in the other books of the Latter Prophets complex, i.e., their sharp critiques of "the prophets" who are charged with misleading their hearers with deceitful assurances of [End Page 637] "peace." On the basis of the cumulative weight of the redaction-critical and intertextual evidence adduced by him, A. concludes that the above critique originated in the Book of Jeremiah (where it is most prominently present), whence it found its way into the Books of Ezekiel and Micah as well. A. further concludes that originally the critique was directed against all prophets without distinction (note that in the MT, as opposed to the LXX, the expression "false prophets" does not occur). Subsequently, however, as past figures like Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Micah came to be viewed and revered as "true prophets," the critique was re-deployed to cover only the opponents of those figures.
A.'s final conclusion (p. 189, adapted) reads as follows: "Our lengthy discussion of promises of peace, falsehood, prophetic conflicts, and 'true' and 'false' prophets has reached its conclusion. There were no 'false' prophets in the biblical tradition, but simply prophets, and as a religious group, apparently, they did not really gain the favor of the masses. When the term nbyʾ gained prestige and was bestowed on charismatic figures of the tradition (and the 'writing' prophets were created), some sort of internal division within the prophetic class certainly began to be implied.
"Nonetheless, a category such as 'false' prophecy is inaccurate to describe this shift, as it suggests a strict dichotomy in prophecy according to two watertight compartments, each one with its own homogenous features. Even though it has been prominent in scholarship for decades, such a structure needs to be re-thought and modified. Truth and falsehood are nothing but points of view, especially when it comes to prophecy and prediction, and one person's 'true' prophet is simply another person's 'false' prophet." See also #1457.—C.T.B.
Google Scholar
The 47 essays...
