* The last words of v.15 are so abrupt as to suggest interpola tion. But there is nothing to support a confers that the prophet was simply mistaken, and the tenor of the narrative u pate the view that he was inspired by J” to tempt the man οἱ ᾿
OLD PROPHET, THE
simple impostor. If the difference be not pressed,
it remains true that the immunity of a false pro- het is not something peculiar to this narrative. he fate of Hananiah was an exceptional one.
In estimating the historical value of this narra- tive the whole chapter must be taken into account. The real theme of the chapter is the message and the death of the man of God from Judah. The message announced the future desecration of the royal altar by a ruler of the house of David, Josiah. It was proclaimed in the king’s presence, and only a miracle saved the man of God from the consequences of his act. J” had commanded him not to linger in the ity, and he refused to be the king’s guest. It was because he yielded to the invitation of the old prophet that a lion met and killed him on the way home.
The whole fabric of this narrative has been challenged on the ground that it implies such hostility to the worship at Bethel as is incon- ceivable in the age of Jeroboam. It is supposed to be a product of Deuteronomic opposition to the local worship of J” (Stade, Benzinger). Such criticism overlooks two further influences cap- able of explaining contemporary hostility to the sanctuary at Bethel. (1) The worship at this sanctuary was image worship. Whatever the attitude of the majority to such worship, there was doubtless a party of purity strenuously op- posed to it (article BETHEL; Kittel, Hist. Heb. ii. 253f.). (2) The sanctuary at Bethel was bein made a royal sancti . It was the enbiem o a new nation, and as such calculated to stir feeling in Judah. It is by no means improbable, in such circumstances, that a prophet, particularly one from Judah, should denounce Jeroboam’s double schism on the day he inaugurated his royal sanc- tuary. The grave of one who did so was shown, it seems, in Bethel (2 Καὶ 237). The cause of his burial there and the manner of his death cannot seriously be pnomced unlikely. The report of his words (1 K 133) contains no description of Jeroboam’s sin, Deuteronomie or otherwise. The purport of his message simply is that a king of the house of David will undo Jeroboam’s work of that day. It admirably fits the situation. The suggestion that the story is pervaded by a confused memory of the appearance of Amos in Bethel ignores too much the fertility of history, and is a treatment of scanty records as if they were complete. The aponymity of the TW ih and of the man of God is not evidence of their unhistorical origin. It points rather to a channel of oral transmission, in which the names were lost. Josephus calls the Judean man of God ᾿Ιάδων (Ant. VII. vili. 5). The name may come from 2 Ch 9”. The writer in the Bk. of Kings avoids confusion by the use of the titles ‘ prophet’ and ‘man of God.’* There is no distinction of office in these titles (v.18).
The miraculous features of the story will be estimated, of course, according miracle in these histories. T Jeroboam’s hand and its restoration (vv.*°), and the lion’s quietly remaining beside the ass and the dead body (νν."" 38), are not essentials in the narrative. A prophet did not require miraculous protection (comp. Am 78), The sign of the altar
as we judge all | he -withering of |
(vv.* δ) gives the impression of being a later addi- |
tion. Judean king Josiah was named in the original
* In ν. 5, AV and RV, the word ‘prophet’ denotes the man of God. But this is due to mistranslation. ‘He saddled for him- self the ass [which belonged] to the prophet who brought him back’ is the correct rendering. Besides, the text is faulty. Read as LXX B: ‘he saddled for himself his ass and departed back again.’ The words omitted, [)2°v7) 7¢'x 8°29, are a gloss
It is not capable of historical proof that the |
OLD TESTAMENT 595
prophecy. 1 K 13? and 2 K 2318 ent of each other.
Regarding the date of the narrative in its present form, see article on Kincs. Ewald con- siders it to have been written down for the first time after the desecration of the altar by Josiah. If it were clear that 13%. * is the original con- tinuation of 12%!-*2, it might be concluded that ch. 13 was not part of the original Bk. of Kings compiled by R?, but an addition by R°*. There seems to be no other argument against its in- clusion by R®. The possible difference of date scarcely affects the question of the general histor- icity of the narrative.
LivgRATURE.— Ewald, History, iv. 30ff.; Wellhausen, Com- position, 277{.=Bleek4, 244; Stade, Geschichte, i. 340 t's Ben- zinger. ad loc. (‘Kénige’ in Marti’s Kurzer Hdcom.). The possible motives of the old prophet receive special consideration in The Speaker's Commentary, and the nature of the guilt of the man of God in The Hxpositor's Bible (Farrar). See also Bahr in Lange's Commentary. Josephus (Ant. viii. and ix.) expands and adds extensively to the history of the prophet, He represents him as ‘a certain wicked old false prophet,’ who sought to undo the effect of the miracles and message of the man of God, and pretended friendship and Divine inspiration in order to ruin and discredit him, The revelation of νν. 31" 22 is addressed to the man of God in this account (ὃ θεὸς ἐπιφαίνεται τῷ ᾿Ιάδωνι). But Josephus may be judged capable of ignoring the present text because of prejudice against the * wicked old prophet.’