Old Testament Prophesies on Post Exile



Old Testament Prophesies on Post Exile

Introduction

We are well aware of the fact that Biblical prophecy is something special? which needs a particular approach? because of the complexity of the documentation and because of the peculiar dimension of the phenomenon: political? social? ethical and so on. Nevertheless? history of religions and theology of religions do not use the same perspective: the historian of religions must reject every kind of hierarchy between the different beliefs or judgement on them. The aim of the chronicled research is to understand? not to judge or to grade. In this perspective? Biblical prophecy is only one part of the evidence like the others? among the others? illustrated through a rich material? with a considerable development during many centuries? but it should not be seen as "the mother of all prophecies".[1]

Discussion

The so-called "minimalist school" has correctly worried the fact that Biblical history and Israelite history are two different things. Through the Old Testament? we are able to study Biblical prophecy which is certainly not exactely the same thing as Israelite prophecy: As notes M. Nissinen? "the prophetic literature of the Hebrew Bible is the result of centuries of selecting? editing? and interpreting? and can give only a partial and somewhat garbled view of the phenomenon". Biblical prophecy is the outcome of a long tradition and of a deeply ideological elaboration? often realized many centuries afterwards; it is in no way the raw and true image of the various prophetical practices? which belong? besides? to the fleeting world of orality. Whead covering we call "Biblical prophecy" is in fact a great deal of phenomena? with different natures? different forms? through different periods and in distinct geographical and communal backgrounds. Comparing "Biblical prophecy" and "Near to the east prophecy" is no longer valid: we should characterise the terms of the comparison more clearly.[2]

The Biblical one-way viewpoint has produced a kind of terminological disarray: many scholars wonder if the Egyptian or Mesopotamian prophetical texts can be considered as "prophecy"? because they do not perfecdy fit the Biblical model? which is the only quotation and rule. Such an mind-set is wholeheartedly at odds with what history of religions teaches: that prophecy is a broadly attested phenomenon? from antiquity until today? everywhere in the world. The delineation of prophecy should not be modeled on the Biblical evidence.[3]

Comparative method is somewhat awkward even for the historians of beliefs; in these last years? they have reflected a lot on how to use it. This method is essential for history of religions? but it is not always easy to clarify the theoretical bases and the practical applications? the aims and the limits of such a method. Among the recent publications on this topic? we would like to mention the Proceedings of a French Congress "Le comparatisme en histoire des religions"? published in 19971] ? which could help the experts of Biblical studies to better expert comparativism and to use it more correctly.[4]

Afirst significant methodological standard is ...