Prophetic Failure

Here's a letter (with minor edits) that I recently sent to Dale Allison.

**********************************

Dear Dr. Allison,

I was reading the section of your new book Constructing Jesus on “Prophetic Failure” (144ff.). I agree with you that millenarian cults resort to stereotypical strategies to save face. However, I think your analysis glosses over a number of issues:

i) You say “millenarian movements sometimes not only survive but also thrive in the face of disconfirmed expectations” (144). That’s true, but is there a general pattern here, or does that range along a continuum?

Some millenarian cults may thrive and prosper, but others peter out after the expectations of the first generation were dashed. You have some diehards who cling to the “prophet” no matter what, but others become disenchanted and leave the movement. There may be a core group based on the “prophet’s” family (immediate or extended) and close friends or associates. That will linger on. Yet it may die out as they die off.

Likewise, don’t dashed expectations sometimes produce rival splinter groups which vie for the “true” interpretation of the “master’s” words?

ii) Don’t you need to distinguish between the original followers and later converts who are unacquainted with the failed oracles?

iii) You note that some disaffected followers leave the group while others reinterpret the failed prophecy (e.g. Millerites). But that’s not a general pattern. It doesn’t really explain anything, for that’s consistent with opposing reactions. So that looks like a disguised description rather than a genuine explanation. It doesn’t point in any particular direction. It’s equally consistent with divergent outcomes. Some stay, some leave.

iv) Apropos (iii), you say “When this revised prophecy also proved mistaken, those who struck with his [Miller’s] cause decided that Jesus had come, but it had been a spiritual coming, and it took place in heaven, not on earth. This hermeneutical maneuver did not, however, annul the expectation that Jesus will come again and that every eye will see him” (150; cf. 149n529).

But isn’t there a sense in which that sort of special pleading applies to your own analysis? You make statements like “Within religious groups, prophecy seldom fails” (149, quoting Melton). That’s a generalization. But you also introduce various caveats which combine a wide range of alternate strategies, as a result of which your analysis becomes so flexible that it can accommodate any line of evidence or counterevidence, viz. failed prophecy is reinterpreted consistent with literal and spiritual fulfillment alike. How can you chart a larger pattern when you immediately qualify the alleged pattern by so many broad exceptions? It’s hard to tell what’s general and what’s exceptional from the material you put at the disposal of the reader. Is there a discernible trend?

To take one example that springs to mind, Gary North used to have quite a following in some Reformed circles before he cried wolf regarding the Y2K bug. I don’t think he ever recovered his reputation or former following.

v) You say, “I am confirmed in this judgment because early Christians responded to prophetic delay in ways typical of other deliverance cults” (148).

a) Isn’t there an evident danger of methodological anachronism when you attempt to explain the psychology of early Christians in reference to later movements which may have been inspired by early Christians? Isn’t your procedure like using the latest iteration of some Hollywood vampire flick to get inside the mind of Bram Stoker?

b) On a related note, don’t you need to distinguish between individuals who fancy themselves to be original prophets in their own right (e.g. Savonarola, Swedenborg, Joseph Smith, Ellen. G. White) and individuals who are dating the Parousia based on their interpretation of Biblical prophecies (e.g. Bengel, Hal Lindsey, Harold Camping)? Surely the psychological dynamics are not interchangeable.

c) On another related note, to the extent that later millenarian groups view themselves as successors to the Biblical prophets, and phrase their oracles in stock, Biblical imagery, don’t we need to differentiate the psychology of a conscious imitator, which is basically a literary adaptation of a preexisting text, from the psychology of the seer or visionary who originated the text? Surely it’s a different process in each case.

vi) You cite some NT passages which you say “betray an awareness of eschatological deferral” (149n528).

However, isn’t eschatological deferral a commonplace of OT literature as well? And since the NT is a self-conscious continuation of the OT, why would we chalk this up to the non-arrival of the Parousia rather than a stock, recycled motif from the OT?

Same thing with point #7 of your analysis, where you say, “the faithful can construct a contingent eschatology, thereby placing responsibility upon insider and/or outsiders for when the end comes” (152). Once again, isn’t that already a standard OT theme? If so, why peg NT parallels to presumed disappointment regarding the non-arrival of the Parousia rather than a generic motif?

vii) On a related note, I’m not sure how you date your sources. Isn’t there a danger of circular methodology, whereby you date some books late because they contain a late eschatology, and you infer the lateness of their eschatology because you think it reflects a rearguard adaptation to eschatological failure? Yet unless you already know, on independent grounds, that the book in question is late (i.e. post-70 AD), isn’t the foundation for your conclusion chimerical?

viii) You say “in early Christian literature, the passion and resurrection of Jesus fulfill prophetic oracles, and Jesus is already enthroned as ruler at the right hand of God” (150), citing Lk 22:69, Acts 2:29-36, and 1 Cor 15:25.

But surely you’re not suggesting, are you, that this represents an alternative to belief in the visible, still future return of Christ for Paul and the author of Luke-Acts? Don’t they still believe this will happen? So that’s not a reaction to prophetic failure, is it? They don’t view the heavenly reign of Christ as a substitute for his early reign, do they?

Or are you suggesting that they are just stalling for time?

But isn’t the notion of a heavenly reign, in distinction to, but not exclusion to, an earthly reign, already entrenched in OT theology?

ix) Likewise, you say “some texts even turn the resurrection of the dead into a present, existential reality” (151), citing Eph 2:5-6, Col 2:12-13, and 2 Tim 2:18).

Again, though, are you suggesting that this was brought forward as an alternative to a future, physical resurrection of the just? And isn’t your citation of 2 Tim 2:18 misleading at best, since the author views that as false doctrine?

x) You say, “In like fashion, the New Testament preserves Jesus’ inerrancy by faulting his hearers, who failed to grasp aright his eschatological teaching” (150).

But as you know, the Gospels represent frequently Christ’s audience, including the disciples, as uncomprehending on a wide variety of issues. It’s hardly confined to eschatology. So why would you construe this subset of passages as having oblique reference to prophetic failure?

xi) You rightly point out that eschatological language can be spiritualized to rationalize failed prophecy. However, I don’t see that the mere use of spiritualized language is itself a clue to retrospective reinterpretation in light of prophetic failure.

a) As you know, the OT spiritualizes certain episodes and events when it develops a new Eden or second Exodus motif. Yet that’s not because it regards the original Eden or the original Exodus as a failed prophecy.

b) Likewise, the Psalms and the Prophets are full of figurative imagery. And they often cast their oracles in figurative imagery.

So distinguishing polemical spiritualization and conventional spiritualization is that cut-and-dried. I don’t think spiritualized language is ipso facto suspect.

c) I’d also add that a person can use good argument to prop up a bad position. For instance, guilt-by-association is frequently invalid. Yet there are instances in which it’s legitimate to judge an individual by his chosen associates (e.g. a Klansman).

The fact that spiritualization can be misused in the wrong hands doesn’t mean we should tar everyone with that odium.

xii) You apparently cite Rev 1:1-3, &c., as an example of prophetic failure. But isn’t that a good deal more complicated?

a) For one thing, not all of the events in Revelation are viewed as future events. Certainly John didn’t think everything in Rev 12 (to take one example) lay in the future. So we can’t apply the language of imminence to every recorded event.

b) As you know, John’s visions are highly symbolic. In that respect his futuristic visions are allegorical rather than photorealistic. As such, it’s not a simple thing to correlate the visionary referent with the future referent. There isn’t necessarily a one-to-one correspondence. Rather, we’re dealing with emblematic, somewhat open-textured imagery.

c) This is reinforced by the rather cyclical motion of the narrative, which often circles back to repeat itself with variations on a common theme. It doesn’t generally single out a discrete, identifiable event in the future.

Put another way, there’s a difference between an unmistakable fulfillment and the apparent absence of fulfillment, which is a good deal vaguer–don’t you think?

So I’m not clear on how, exactly, you’d go about flagging cases of prophetic failure in Revelation.

xiii) Finally, on your view, why did NT authors preserve failed prophecies? Why didn’t they either retrofit the prophecies to fit the circumstances or retrofit the circumstances to fit the prophecies?

Sorry for the long email, but your section opens up many trails.