Grace Theological
Journal 1 (1980) 77-96.
[Copyright © 1980
Grace Theological Seminary; cited with permission;
digitally prepared for use at
Gordon and
A THEOLOGY OF
PSEUDOPROPHETS:
A STUDY IN JEREMIAH
RONALD E. MANAHAN
A large
corpus of material on false prophets is contained in the
book of Jeremiah. This material furnishes opportunity for under-
standing the theological perspective from which these pseudoprophets
spoke and acted. The question is: What theological conceptions
did
they hold? A survey of recent prophetic and pseudoprophetic
research
indicates that analysis of historical contexts and audience response
helps to answer the question. The present proposal is that a
tentative
reconstruction of pseudoprophet theology can be
developed if atten-
tion is given to: (1) audience response, (2) origin of pseudo
prophets'
revelations, (3) characterization of pseudo prophets, and (4) pseudo-
prophet quotations. Accordingly this analysis indicates that
pseudo-
if prophets held to a “Para-Covenantal" theology built on
hopes attached
to the temple and the dynasty.
condition and Mosaic Covenant infractions were of no consequence.
They spoke only in part
of Yahweh's covenant with his people. Thus,
due warning is given those who speak or hear only a part of God’s
revelation to man, an error too prevalent in contemporary speaking
and hearing of God’s Word.
* * *
WHILE the term pseudoprophet
has its origin in the LXX, so
numerous are the mentions of these prophets who
oppose
Yahweh's
work and will that the term yeudoprofh<thj
serves as a
meaningful title for such persons.1 From
a survey of the OT record
there is clear indication that false prophets
persisted throughout
false prophets by canonical prophets, the complex
problem of dis-
tinguishing between true and false
prophets, and the belief that
l Concerning the LXX
translators' usage of yeudoprofh<thj
on ten occasions, J. L.
Crenshaw,
Prophetic Conflict (BZAW 124; Berlin:
de Gruyter, 1971) 1, says: "In ten
places the attack by one prophet upon another was so
severe that the Septuagint
translators used the word pseudoprophetes to translate nabi."
78
GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
understanding the theological
conceptions of false prophets enhances
understanding of canonical prophets,
raises the question: What theo-
logical conceptions did pseudoprophets
hold?
Though the length of this paper prohibits a
complete treatment
of all OT references to false prophets, the book
of Jeremiah furnishes
the necessary data to begin answering the above
question. Several
reasons may be cited for this selection. This
book contains a volume
of material on false prophets, enough data to make
a judicious, if
cautious, analysis. Further, an especially sharp
contrast between true
and false prophets is presented, cursorily
indicated by the fact that of
the ten times the LXX translators used yeudoprofh<thj,
nine are in
Jeremiah.2
Still another reason for selecting this book is that the
rapidly changing international political climate
of Jeremiah's time
seemed to demand religious explanations for
situation; one would expect to find such
explanations, and one is not
disappointed. Both true and false
prophets offered explanations, and
these provide further material for answering the
questions regarding
the theological conceptions of false prophets.
If the book of Jeremiah is to be utilized as
suggested above, the
text of the book must be taken seriously. Gerstenberger's pessimistic
judgment that the "facts and figures"
are not necessarily identifiable
with "historical events" must be
abandoned.3 Admittedly, a number
of textual questions arise in this book, but they
certainly do not
warrant the judgment of Gerstenberger.4
As already indicated, the international climate
of Jeremiah's day
was stormy. While a detailed history of Jeremiah's
day would serve
no particular function here, Klein's summary seems
to be consistent
with the international political picture:
Jeremiah lived at a time when the principal
roles in the monotonous
drama of Middle Eastern
politics were changing hands in quite unex-
pected ways. Old powers were
too exhausted to bear the weight of
2 The ten references (MT) where the LXX
uses yeudoprofh<thj
are Jer
8,
11, 16; 27:9; 28:1; 29:1, 8 and Zech 13:2.
3 So
JBL 82 (1963) 393, gloomily
observes: "Jeremiah is looked upon as a religious genius,
the champion of personal, inner, and spiritual
religion. The basic fallacy of this
viewpoint is the presupposition that the 'facts
and figures' in Jer. are identical with
'historical events,' or, that they, at least, permit easy
access to that which 'really
happened' during Jeremiah's lifetime."
4 For a discussion of textual matters
relating to Jeremiah see the following: C. von
Orelli, The Prophecies of
Jeremiah, trans. J. S. Banks (
1889);
J. Bright, Jeremiah (AB 21; Garden
City: Doubleday, 1965); E. C. Rust,
Covenant and Hope (Waco: Word, 1972); J.
G. Janzen, Studies
in the Text of
Jeremiah (HSM 6; Cambridge:
Harvard University, 1973). As an example of a recent
treatment of this subject see E. Tov, "Exegetical Notes on the Hebrew Vorlage of the
LXX
of Jeremiah 27 (34)," ZAW 91
(1979) 73-93.
MANAHAN: PSEUDOPROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 79
events, and new powers were
eagerly responding to the invitation of
chance. The effect of these
conditions was sharply felt in
Palestine.5
For
acy was gone (612 B.C.), it
had been replaced by the menacing threat
of Babylonian-Egyptian tensions.
A better perspective of pseudoprophet
theology will be gained
through an understanding of recent false prophet
interpretation. This
brief survey will be the concern of the first
section. Thereupon will
follow an appraisal of the pertinent data from
Jeremiah. In the final
section, the conclusions of this study will be
presented.
RECENT INTERPRETATIONS OF PSEUDOPROPHETS
General Obersvations
Several observations help to illumine recent
commentary on
pseudoprophets. Prophetic research in
general has moved about three
centers of concern: the man, the message, and
audience response
reflecting popular religion.6 While all
three of these areas are related,
the chronology of their popularity as centers of
research is in the
order given above.
Holscher emphasized that all
prophecy was ecstatic, and Lind-
blom posited the notion that
ecstacy was the central factor in
understanding prophecy.7
Emphasis of this sort necessitated that
the prophet as man be the focus of research in
order to articulate
prophetic phenomena. Mowinckel
concluded that, whereas earlier
prophets had emphasized their prophetic movement as
being prompted
by the Spirit of Yahweh, later prophets stressed
the importance of
receiving the Word of Yahweh. By this assessment Mowinckel
suggested that in the later prophets the true
could be distinguished
5 W. C. Klein,
"Commentary on Jeremiah," ATR
45 (1963) 122.
6 Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict, 5ff. Note also the discussion of Rust, Covenant
and Hope, 104.
7 Note ibid., 7;
C. Westermann, Basic
Forms of Prophetic Speech (
Fortress, 1965). In connection with
focusing attention on the ecstatic experience of
prophecy, E. J. Young, My Servants. the Prophets (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952)
164-65,
concludes: "That the prophets were ecstatics was
not first suggested by
Holscher. Before him, men like Giesebrecht, Knobel, and Stade had advanced the same
idea. The view, however, is really much older. We
shall probably find the first
presentation of it in the writings
of Philo. In his discussion of Genesis 15 Philo
identifies sleep which fell upon Abraham as an ecstacy. This ecstacy, he says,
may take
different forms. It may be a madness which
produces mental delusion (paranoian). It
may be extreme amazement at sudden and unexpected
events. On the other hand it
may be mere passivity of the mind, but in its best
form it is a divine possession or
frenzy. . . such as came upon the prophetic class."
80
GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
from the false because the former, recipients of
Yahweh's Word, were
rational guides leading the nation to right
actions (those consistent
with Yahweh's nature and demands). The false were
possessed of the
frenzied (i.e., irrational) Spirit of Yahweh and
therefore were inade-
quate for presenting Yahweh's
demands rationally.8
A number of scholars concentrated their efforts
on the message.
The
awareness of prophetic speech forms became the chief product of
this investigation. The lineage of this development
of speech form
research can be traced through W. W. Baudissin, C. Steuernagel,
G.
Holscher, H. Gunkel, H. Gressmann, J. Lindblom, L.
Koehler,
E.
Balla, R. B. Y. Scott, H. Wildberger,
J. Hempel, H. W. Wolff, and
E.
Wurthwein.9 In recent years, this area of research has proven
fertile. Men such as D. R. Hiliers10
and K. Baitzeril have concentrated
their efforts on the treaty orientation of prophetic
literature. So
prevalent has been this concerted attention to the
covenantal nature
of the literature that R. E. Clements has sounded
a warning against
overemphasis: because the traditions
lack unity, the covenant theme
cannot be traced throughout the prophets.12
On the other hand,
N.
Habel has concentrated on the form of the call
narratives.13 In all,
considerable attention has been
given to the prophetic message.
A
relatively new concept in the arena of prophetic research has
been the idea that audience response was conditioned
by the tenets of
popular religion. Crenshaw believes that
research in this area will
yield a great deal of new information for better
understanding of the
prophets,14 and indicates approval
of A. S. van der Woude's
call to
attention to the important nature of prophetic
quotations and quota-
tions of false prophets.15
These quotations provide an avenue of
8 See S. Mowinckel,
"'The Spirit' and the 'Word' in the Pre-Exilic Reforming
Prophets,"
JBL 53 (1934) 199-227.
9 At least this is the reasoned judgment
of Westermann, Basic
Forms of Prophetic
Speech, 13-89.
10 D. R. Hillers, Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets (BibOr
16;
Pontifical
Biblical Institute, 1964) 1-89. See also F. C. Fensham,
"Common Trends in
Curses
of the Near Eastern Treaties and Kudurru-Inscriptions
Compared With the
Maledictions of Amos and Isaiah," ZAW 75 (1963) 155-75.
11 K. Baltzer, The Covenant Formulary (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1971) 1-180.
12 R. E. Clements, Prophecy and Tradition (Atlanta: John
Knox, 1975).
13 N. Habel,
"The Form and Significance of the Call Narratives," ZAW 77 (1965)
297-323.
14 Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict, 13. Note, however, the opinion of A. Johnson,
The Cultic Prophet in
Ancient
ISSee A. S. van der Woude, "Micah In Dispute With
the Pseudoprophets," VT 19
(1969)
245, where he reasons: "Is it at all possible to give a somewhat exact
description
of the theologoumena
through which pseudo-prophetism exercised its
influence on the
religious life in
say, if we could trace these theologoumena,
we would be in a position to fathom the
MANAHAN: PSEUDOPROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 81
insight into the religious views held by the
general populace. Cren-
shaw's research led him to
conclude that
It is only as one becomes familiar with the
voice of the people that he
can understand false
prophecy. . . . The following will seek to show
that the vox populi is characterized by: (1)
confidence in God's
faithfulness, (2) satisfaction with
traditional religion, (3) defiance in the
face of prophets who hold a
different view, (4) despair when hope
seems dead, (5) doubt as to
the justice of God, and (6) historical
pragmatism.16
Specific tendencies
These three areas of concern (man, message, and
audience
response) in prophetic research have produced
corollary responses in
treatment of the pseudoprophets.17
These have come in the form of
three specific tendencies: (1) a denial of valid
objective criteria for
distinguishing false from true
prophets, (2) an attempt to understand
false prophets on the basis of the historical moment
of the prophetic
word, and (3) a belief that distinguishing false
from true prophets
requires an analysis of the nature of audience
response conditioned
by the leading tenets of popular religion.
The first of these tendencies is seen in the
work of J. Hempel
who "denied the validity of the criterion of
fulfillment in distinguish-
ing true from false
prophecy.”18 Non-fulfillment of prophetic utter-
ance was not necessarily an
indication of false prophecy; it was only a
new occasion for the prophet to apply the
traditional message in a
new way. The issue is not so much, then, the nature
of prophetic
utterance as it is the prophet's ability to adapt.19
In this way Hempel
concentrated on the man, not so much
the message. Von Rad agrees
in principle with Hempel's
position, for in discussing Jeremiah's
encounters with pseudoprophets
he concludes:
Deuteronomy too tries--not very successfully--to
draw up objective
criteria by means of which the
false prophet might be recognized
(Deut. XVIII.21). The contradiction between
prophet and prophet,
spiritual climate against which the pre-Exilic
canonical prophets made their stand. In
general it can be said that the pseudo prophets
subscribed and conformed to the
established order not only politically but also in
matters of religion."
16 Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict, 24.
17 Ibid., 13.
18 Ibid., 14.
19 Cf. ibid., 15,
where Hempel's position is analyzed accordingly.
"It was this
'aliveness' of the spoken word and readiness of the prophet
to adapt a previous word to
a new situation that prompted him to deny that
the lack of fulfillment of a prediction
was in itself proof of false prophecy."
82
GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
each speaking in the name of
Yahweh (cf. Jer. XXVII. 4, XXVIII. 2),
must have been particularly
confusing in the final period of the
Monarchy. . . . The falsity [i.e., of the
prophets] cannot be seen either
in the office itself, or
in their words themselves, or in the fallibility of
the man who spoke them. It
could only be seen by the person who had
true insight into Yahweh's
intentions for the time, and who on the basis
of this, was obliged to
deny that the other had illumination.20
Von Rad's judgment
also characterizes a second tendency, an
attempt to understand false prophets on the
basis of the historical
moment of the prophetic word. The prophetic word is
either weal or
woe, depending upon any given cultic adaptation of
traditional
oracular material for a specific historical
context (moment of his-
tory).21 Thus Overholt contends "that to be true the message of a
prophet must proclaim Yahweh's will in terms
appropriate to the
concrete historical situation in which the
prophet finds himself. . . .”22
How
were prophets to be evaluated (in light of truth or falsity) if not
"in the dual light of an affirmation about their religious
heritage and
a knowledge of the historical situation in which
they lived?”23 A
religious heritage must, therefore, always be
interpreted in light of a
changing historical context.
Overholt's understanding, while
certainly agreeing in many
respects with von Rad's,
also brings to the foreground a third
tendency in recent treatment of false prophets--a
belief that distin-
guishing false from true
necessitates an analysis of the nature of
audience response conditioned by the leading
tenets of popular
religion. "We find," contends Overholt, "that when two apparently
equally compelling prophets of Yahweh were in
conflict, the key to
the resolution of the problem lay in an
interpretation of the people's
religious heritage.”24 Crenshaw has
attempted this type of interpre-
tation and suggests that there
were six leading tenets which character-
ized popular religion.25
Surely if no valid objective criteria exist for
differentiating false and true
prophets, and if a true prophet is such
because his message matches Yahweh's will to a
contemporary con-
text, then of necessity the historical context in
which the message was
spoken must be understood. The voice of the people as
reflected in
20 G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology (2 vols.;
1965), 2. 210, n. 27 (words in brackets are
added). Others who agree in principle with
Hempel and von Rad are
Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict; 110-11,
and T. W. Overholt,
"Jeremiah 27-29: The Question of False
Prophecy," JAAR 35 (1967)
241-49.
21 This is the judgment of Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict, 15, based on von Rad's
article, "Die Falschen
Propheten," ZAW
53 (1933) 109-20.
22 Overholt,
"Jeremiah 27-29," 248.
23 Ibid.
24 Ibid., 241.
25 See, above, 81.
MANAHAN: PSEUDOPROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 83
prophetic literature should then help explain the
given historical
context and should supply the principle by which
a pseudoprophet
could be detected.
Summary observations
The foregoing survey indicates that scholarship
has made a
number of contributions to understanding pseudoprophets, namely,
recognizing the importance of analyzing the various
historical con-
texts in which both false and true prophets spoke and
underscoring
the notion that audience response will help greatly
in understanding
the false prophet.
However, this survey also brings to light
several deficiencies.
Much
of recent scholarship has labored under a less than adequate
view of the biblical text.26 While many
aspects of contemporary
understanding of pseudoprophets
have been covered, one issue that
has received little attention is an analysis of the
actual components of
pseudoprophet theology.27
This is true especially in the case of the
book of Jeremiah, a book very interested in pseudoprophets.
In
order to discover the theological tenets of these prophets, an
adequate method is necessary. The statement and
finds of this
method are the concerns of the following.
TENETS OF PSEUDOPROPHET
THEOLOGY
A suggested methodology
A tentative reconstruction of pseudoprophet theology28 can be
developed if the following methodology is
employed: analysis of (1)
the audience response, (2) the origin of the pseudoprophets' supposed
revelations, (3) the characterization of pseudoprophets in the text,
and (4) pseudoprophet
quotations.
Before moving directly to the audience response,
a word must be
said about the fact that Jeremiah's book ranges over
many years, with
a number of historical and political changes.
Perhaps a variety of
changes in the theological systems employed by
false prophets are to
26 Cf. the observation on the importance of
taking the text of the Bible seriously (p.
78)
with the views of the Bible held by those such as von Rad, Old Testament
Theology, vol. 2; Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict; and Overholt, "Jeremiah 27-29"; to
name a few.
27 Two who have made
notable attempts,
though from different perspectives, are
van der Woude, "Micah In Dispute With the
Pseudo-prophets," and J. T. E. Renner,
"False
and True Prophecy," Reformed
Theological Review 25 (1966) 96-104. To be
sure, numerous others have made at least a partial
attempt to deal with actual
theological tenets of pseudoprophetism.
28 Theology is here understood as that
corpus of religious ideas which together
express a distinctive religious perspective.
84
GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
be found. However, as one moves through the
history recorded in
the book, he discovers a remarkable similarity
among the pseudo-
prophets' theological views.29
Therefore, it is possible to talk in terms
of this book yielding a picture of the components
of a unified
theology of pseudoprophets.
Furthermore, a definition of a true
prophet is needed. True prophets may be regarded
collectively as those
. . . persons whose
entire life-style (words and actions) was submitted
to God's purposes and
empowered by the Spirit and who served
variously as (1) God's channel of
revelatory information to the subjects
of the mediatorial
kingdom, (2) exhorters of obedience to mediatorial
kingdom regulations, and (3)
pointers to the coming Messiah whose
work would merge the rulership of the mediatorial
kingdom and the
office of God's spokesman in
that kingdom into one person.30
Audience response
The nation of
utterance (of whatever type) and to the changing
historical situation.
For
present purposes the concern with audience response is at points
where it may help in illuminating the religious state
of the nation and
thereby cast light on the theological
formulations of false prophets.31
Audience
response may be categorized in two ways: by actions and by
words.
29 Certainly, however, there were several
types of false prophets throughout
history; see Young, My Servants the Prophets, 125ff., and J. B. Payne, The Theology
of the Older Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1962) 56, who says: "In actuality,
three major categories. There were Jezebel's outrightly pagan prophets, who served
Baal
and Asherah (I Kings
court (22:6, 7), prophets for pay, a disgrace to the
name of the Lord (Micah
Amos
tionless, and hence mistaken (I
Kings
30 R. Manahan,
"Prophetic Office in Historical Perspective" (unpublished Th.M.
thesis, Grace Theological Seminary, 1977) 135-36.
31 For a recent discussion of audience
response to Jeremiah's utterances see W. J.
Horwitz, "Audience Reaction to
Jeremiah," CBQ 32 (1970) 555-64,
where he describes
his methodology: "In this paper we have tried
to discover what can be learned about
Jeremiah
by examining the source most contemporary with him, the responses of his
audience." An article by D. R. Hillers,
"A Convention in Hebrew Literature: The
Reaction
to Bad News," ZAW 77 (1965) 86-90,
also helps detail audience response by
drawing attention to Ugaritic
parallels to bad-news reactions in the OT prophets, Jer
and the Problem of 'Audience Reaction,'" CBQ 41 (1979) 262-73 cautions that
"the
consistency between the quotations and the prophet's
message might well be explained
by his own conscious construction of his speeches:
on the basis of his experience
Jeremiah
may have selected from, altered, even created 'audience reactions' to serve as
foils for his indictment of the people."
MANAHAN: PSEUDOPROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 85
A survey of the book of Jeremiah indicates
several features of
the actions of the nation. On at least two
occasions the book
illustrates the religiously deviate ways of the
nation by picturing them
as "well-fed lusty horses, each one neighing
after his neighbor's wife"
(Jer 5:8) and ''as a well keeps its waters fresh, so she
keeps fresh her
wickedness" (6:7). The actual situation which
gave rise to these
illustrations is that the people
refused correction from Yahweh (5:3),
refused to repent (8:6), closed their ears
against Yahweh's word (both
king--36:23; 37:2-3--and subjects--
complex with contemptible things (
(
them (
characteristics do not necessarily
distinguish the people of Jeremiah's
day from those of a prior era. The nation's
spiritual history had been
marred by numerous spiritual degradations.
But there are several features of the people's
actions that seem to
characterize Jeremiah's day in
particular. While the people had served
other deities, as noted above, they were nonetheless
engaged in
offering sacrifices to Yahweh (
people seem to have made is that physical sacrifice
(to whomever it
may be made) has a direct relationship to welfare
and misfortune, in
Jer 44:16-18 is recorded an audience response (both
by action and
word) to Jeremiah's statement to the Jews living in
word through Jeremiah was that sacrifice to other
gods had brought
the outpouring of God's wrath (44:2-14). But the claim
of the people
is that sacrifice to other gods brought prosperity
and lack of sacrifice
to these same deities brought misfortune
(44:16-18). Therefore, they
concluded, a continuation of pagan sacrifice was
required. On an
earlier occasion (
were not enough to avoid a coming judgment.
Sacrifice alone would
not keep
were some deserters to Babylonian forces--38:19;
39:9) from the
king down had held that
was maintained in spite of obvious breaking of
Yahweh's covenant
with this people (
his people was that covenant breakage was the
reason for judgment
(11:1-8).
From the above description two patterns emerge.
The popular
conclusion