Clements, Ronald E. Old Testament Prophecy: From Oracles to Canon.
Introduction
Old Testament Prophecy: From Oracles to Canon is authored by Ronald E. Clements. Clements is a well known Old Testament scholar who has written commentaries over Exodus, Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. He received his Ph.D. from the
Summary
The primary function of this book is to discuss how historical oral prophetic messages were later taken and turned into literary works understood to be authoritative Scripture for both the Jewish and Christian tradition. Clement sets out with the understanding that the ascribed authors of these prophetic books were not the authors, or if they were, later editors came along and worked with the prophetic speeches. Therefore his aim is to show how oral messages went through a number of events before they were understood as canonical books.
The book’s structure is difficult because Clements did not write the chapters with any attempt at unity. In fact, this book is not a typical book were the author writes one chapter after the next, but rather this is a collection of essays written by Clements about this topic. However, the aim is to study the evolution of these written documents, trying to discern what was actually written by the prophet, and then to find what was later added to the original prophets by editors who sought to explain the circumstances, to bring about current cultural implications. In chapters one and two, he shows the method by which he is able to discover these things.
In Chapter three Clements discusses the issue of messianic hope in the Old Testament. Clements holds that the idea of a messianic savior is foreign to the Old Testament itself and that prophesies many consider messianic are actually not. He considers the modern approach to biblical exegesis, where the Old Testament is viewed through the lenses of the New Testament or Christ, to be a flawed method because it does not take into consideration how that text came to be. He argues that the way the New Testament uses the Old Testament is without direct regard to what the Old Testament author might have intended. He does however state that this was not a new approach to biblical interpretation, assuming that even Old Testament authors used the same method for their own purposes. To discuss how all of this plays out, he looks at the Immanuel prophecy of Isaiah in chapter four.
The following six chapters deal with Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. In these chapters, he focuses in on his main thesis of canonical development. Clement, from the very beginning, denies any possibility that these are the work of a single prophet. He even argues that when style, structure, and theology are the same, there is no reason to assume single authorship. He does argue against two theories of development: one being that many prophetic materials from many prophets were taken and made one or that there was some sort of disciples who took the prophet’s work and then added to it. Rather, he argues that the works were taken, and as time went along, redactors saw the authority of the prophetic messages for their time and edited and added to it to make it acceptable for their day.
The next five chapters deal with the rise of apocalyptic prophecy. He argues that any prophetic word in dealing with future events were always broad enough to fit any situation in the future, and where the picture is to limited, it is due to later editors adding to the original message to make it work.
The last three essays deal with the canonical form of the prophets. Critical scholarship has attacked the unity of the prophets, though many have argued for it, so Clements ask the question to why the New Testament sees the prophets as unified. He argues that the New Testament views the prophets as unified in the fact that they speak about a future salvation (192). How this happened is by the editorial work that came after the historical prophets. Clements states that there was an odd group of editors who came later adding to the prophetic messages, putting in their own theological implications, however never sought to damage the original message. As these later editors did their work, unity was formed within the prophets.
Critical Evaluation
Though Clements’s work is a fine addition and an aid in the continued study of canonical research, he is too quick to assert things that have little backing. Though many modern Bible critics agree with much of what Clements states about multiple Isaiahs, individuals collecting and arraigning a prophet’s messages, and later editorial work being done with a prophet’s works, the court is not in. He bases many of his findings on the assumption that the prophets were not the source of their own book. Because of this, he leaves the reader asking why we should assume this and what are the possible flaws that might be present if he is wrong.
Though Clements’s work is good for the academic community, it has little to no value for the typical church member or pastor. His writing is overly assumptive with no real value to the reader. He makes many arguments for his theory of canonization, but has little evidence to support his findings. Even when things seem to support a single prophetic author, style, structure, and theology, he still assumes that there had to be multiple authors. When dealing with future events prophesized that come about, he argues without cause that they must have been later editions (26-32). His only argument is that later editors are present and therefore it must have been something they did. Which again, is an assumption without foundation.
Interestingly, Clements finds that the ones making assumptions are those who hold the historical position of single authorship. He states, “The assumption concerning unity of authorship appeared to be a major factor in defending their inspiration and authenticity as prophetic writings” (217). He argues that those who hold to the historical position do so because of other theological reasons, not because of the information.
He states, “Admittedly there is no doubt that any attempt to analyze and locate the historical setting of a particular prophetic sayings must be fraught with some measure of uncertainty” (218). Though this statement is given to show support for his cause, it fails to do so. Though it is true that it is impossible to know scientifically what happened with each prophetic message, because uncertainty is present does not mean we should assume that the historical position is false. Therefore Clements’s position is that the person who holds to the single authorship is only because of external theological issues.
He does defend his argument from appearing completely liberal by saying, “This is not to deny that such prophet as Isaiah wrote down certain sayings, but to note that, as in the case of Jeremiah, these were messaged that had first been given orally” (218). He makes this statement so as to support some historical authorship, but at the same time leaves room for changes to come afterward. This is because “prophecy had originally been an oral literature which assumed a written form only after some interval of time had elapsed since its initial delivery” (220). Therefore, though the prophets were in some way apart of these prophesies, he argues that we should assume that they had changed over time before they were written down.
However critical Clements’s position is, his aim is not to destroy the authority of the text. Even though he argues for editorial work to have taken place, he states that it was done with the great care to keep the prophets’ words intact. He states,
Clearly there is a need for recognizing that the relationship which existed between the prophet and his editors, and which led to determine efforts to record a prophet’s actual words… At the same time there was evidently a need, as the complex literary structure of all the biblical prophetic collections reveals, to edit, record, and interpret those words with the help of some additional material and supplementation (224-25).
However, if such an assumption is taken, we have no reason to assume that the editors had the greatest purpose of keeping the messages intact. If there great aim was to interpret them and add to them to make them applicable for their current situation, why would we assume that they are at all equal to the original messages. Clement says the reason for such careful work of protecting the prophet’s work was “their profound respect for him made them eager and anxious interpreters of his words, spelling out in detail how they would be applied to the situation which his warnings and reproof had forewarned them of” (229). However, Clements’s arguments continue to be nothing more than loose assumptions without historical evidence.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Old Testament Prophesies has it benefits and downfalls. These essays are a necessary discussion in the world of academia. Clement, though removed from the more conservative band, should not be seen as a liberal or heretic for his views. However, his works are not the best material for those not involved in canon development. His writing style is clear, but his material is uncommon to the most general church member. Thus, because of what appears to be a study based mostly on assumption, this book offers little value to the general church.
No comments:
Post a Comment