How Do We Know a True Prophet? Jeremiah vs. Hananiah

Editor’s note: For more on the first deportation, see David Glatt-Gilad, “Jehoiachin’s Exile and the Division of Judah,” TheTorah (2017).

Jeremiah’s message recalls another general divine prescription which poses various options from which to choose: אֶת־הַחַיִּים וְאֶת־הַטּוֹב וְאֶת־הַמָּוֶת וְאֶת־הָרָע “life and good or death and bad” (Deut 30:15) and adjures the choice of life in the here and now, specifically of וְאֹרֶךְ יָמֶיךָ לָשֶׁבֶת עַל־הָאֲדָמָה “lengthy days on the land” (30:20). See e.g. Abraham Ibn Ezra’s comment, who understands initial choice of “life,” in Deuteronomy 30:15, as “lengthy days.” Likewise, the goal of the second appearance of “choosing life,” in verse 19, so that you and your children shall live, connotes physical life or the memory of a physical life.

The date of these events seems to be 593 B.C.E., based on the date in the opening verse וַיְהִי בַּשָּׁנָה הַהִיא בְּרֵאשִׁית מַמְלֶכֶת צִדְקִיָּה מֶלֶךְ־יְהוּדָה בִּשָּׁנָת הָרְבִעִית בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַחֲמִישִׁי, “That year, early in the reign of King Zedekiah of Judah, in the fifth month of the fourth year.” That this prophecy was delivered “that year,” implies the same year as Jeremiah’s prophecy in chapter 27, such that the two were delivered in the same year.

While this chapter follows chapter 27, Jeremiah’s barb there about Temple and palace vessels seems to be aimed at Hananiah’s prophecy:

^{ירמיה כז:יח} וְאִם־נְבִאִים הֵם וְאִם־יֵשׁ דְּבַר־יְ־הוָה אִתָּם יִפְגְּעוּ־נָא בַּי־הוָה צְבָאוֹת לְבִלְתִּי־בֹאוּ הַכֵּלִים הַנּוֹתָרִים בְּבֵית־יְ־הוָה וּבֵית מֶלֶךְ יְהוּדָה וּבִירוּשָׁלִַם בָּבֶלָה.

^{Jer 27:18} “If they are really prophets and the word of YHWH is with them, let them intercede with YHWH of Hosts not to let the vessels remaining in the House of YHWH, in the royal palace of Judah, and in Jerusalem, go to Babylon!”

Alternatively, perhaps this claim was being bandied about by these other prophets consistently.

Typical of biblical scholarship on this issue is the assertion by Robert P. Carroll that “Jeremiah is represented as the spokesman for the pro-Babylonian viewpoint and all opponents of that political party are condemned out of hand,” in Jeremiah: A Commentary (New York: T & T Clark, 2004), 102–103.

As Walter Bruggemann counters, “The canonizing process however claims more than prudence or bias. It claims that this affirmation of Babylon in light of Yahweh’s will is a theological datum.” (Walter Bruggemann, A Commentary on Jeremiah: Exile and Homecoming [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998], 243). For a good overview of the various positions on identifying the falsity of Hananiah’s prophecy from the classical rabbis through Maimonides, Nahmanides, and other seminal medieval rabbinic scholars, see R. Yaakov Epstein, “חנניה בן עזור המתנבא מה שלא נאמר לו” [Hananiah ben Azur Who Prophesized What was not Said to Him], Shemaʿatin 127 (1995): 54–70 (Hebrew).

^{רמיה כח:ה} וַיֹּאמֶר יִרְמְיָה הַנָּבִיא אֶל־חֲנַנְיָה הַנָּבִיא לְעֵינֵי הַכֹּהֲנִים וּלְעֵינֵי כָל־הָעָם הָעֹמְדִים בְּבֵית יְ־הוָה. ^כח:ו וַיֹּאמֶר יִרְמְיָה הַנָּבִיא אָמֵן כֵּן יַעֲשֶׂה יְ־הוָה יָקֵם יְ־הוָה אֶת־דְּבָרֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר נִבֵּאתָ לְהָשִׁיב כְּלֵי בֵית־יְ־הוָה וְכָל־הַגּוֹלָה מִבָּבֶל אֶל־הַמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה.

^{Jer 28:5} Then the prophet Jeremiah answered the prophet Hananiah in the presence of the priests and of all the people who were standing in the House of YHWH. ^28:6 The prophet Jeremiah said: “Amen! May YHWH do so! May YHWH fulfill what you have prophesied and bring back from Babylon to this place the vessels of the House of YHWH and all the exiles!”

A similar approach is taken in the (revised) Gordon Tanakh (this volume was revised by Benjamin Uffenheimer [1920–1996] of Hebrew University). Here the commentator makes a sharper distinction between the negative and positive prophecies:

כל נביאי האמת שהיו לפנינו הראו את פעלתם הנבואית בתוכחות ובנבואות זעם... ולא יראו מפני המלכים והשרים. כחומות נחשת עמדו בפני כל תקיפי עולם והודיעו אם את האמת האלהית אשר חזה רוחם. הנביאים הללו לא היו צריכים להוכיח את אמתותם; נבואתם עצמה היא אות על אמיתותה...

All the true prophets that were before us displayed their prophetic work through rebukes and prophecies of anger… and they had no fear of kings and ministers. Like a bronze wall (Jer 15:20), they stood before the powerful ones of the world, and informed them of the divine truth they saw with their spirits. These prophets did not need to demonstrate their truth; their prophecy on its own was a sign of its truth…

אבל הנביא המבשר טוב ומשמיע ישועה, נבואות המתאימות לרצון העם ולצפיתו, זקוק לאשור לאות על אמתותו... כאשר תתקים נבואתו, אך אז יודע, כי נביא אמת הוא, ולפיכך יש להתיחס אל נבואתו הטובה בזהירות יתרה.

But a prophet who predicts good tidings and salvation, the types of prophecies that are attractive to the people’s will and hopes, needs some kind of sign to demonstrate authenticity… when the prophecy comes true, then it will be clear that he was a true prophet. Therefore, it is necessary to treat his positive forecast with great caution.

See, Samuel Leib Gordon, ירמיה [Jeremiah] in, תנ"ך—תורה, נביאים, כתובים: מהדורה מחודשת ומתוקנת [Bible—Torah, Prophets, Writings: Updated and Revised Edition] (Israel: Galil B.D. Nagar, 1992 [orig. 1911–1935]), 192–194. The Jeremiah commentary was revised by Benjamin Uffenheimer (1920–1996) of Hebrew University.

Yair Hoffman (1937–2019) of Tel-Aviv University also interprets along these lines in his Miqra LeYisrael commentary (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 2001; 2.544–545). If this is the meaning, then Jeremiah’s criticism is similar to what we see in the story of Micaiah and Ahab’s prophets, since they all predicted he would win the war, and only Micaiah said he would lose. For my discussion of this story, see James Diamond, “Discerning False Prophecy: The Story of Ahab and the Lying Spirit,” TheTorah (2020).

Shadal notes that his interpretation is similar to that of Abravanel.

Genesis, Vayera 13, Warsaw printing.

See also b. Berakhot 7a.

Introduction to Commentary on the Mishnah, in Haqdamot HaRambam LeMishnah, ed. Y. Shailat, (Jerusalem: Ma’aliyot, 1992), 34.

“Book of Mada,” Laws of Yesodei HaTorah, 10.

Indeed, according to this test, Hananiah does prove to be a false prophet. He predicted that the Babylonians would fall in two years, and not only did this not happen, but they destroyed the Jerusalem a few years later. Elsewhere, in his Letter to Yemen, Maimonides describes Hananiah as emblematic of a prophet for whom the substantive content of his prophecy itself exposes its falsehood:

“…although Hananiah, the son of Azur was a Jew, he was deemed an accursed and false prophet. But we give credence to a prophet or disbelieve him because of what he preaches, not because of his descent…”

See Maimonides, Epistle to Yemen in Epistles of Maimonides: Crisis and Leadership, trans. Abraham Halkin (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society, 1993), 93–149 [p. 111].

See Mishneh Torah, Sefer Mada, Laws of Yesodei HaTorah, 10:5.

Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed, trans. Shlomo Pines (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1963), II:40, p. 383. See also Mishneh Torah, Sefer Mada, Laws of Idolatry 5:8, which halakhically condemns a person who appropriates the words of a prophet and claims them as his own prophecy as a false prophet. Numerous biblical scholars subscribe to the idea, long ago acknowledged by the ancient classical rabbis and by Maimonides in the Middle Ages, that Hananiah’s deception lies in his re/misappropriation of older prophecies. For a good overview of the scholarly literature on this see R. W. L. Moberly, Prophecy and Discernment (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 101–109.

See Of a Truth the Lord Hath Sent Me: An Inquiry into the Source of the Prophet's Authority, Goldenson Lecture 1955 (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1955), 9.

Salomo Werbluner ed. (Frankfurt, 1848), p. 116.

Notably, this phrase does not appear in the LXX Greek text. Given that the phrase is straight out of Deuteronomy’s false prophet law, this implies the possibility that the line is a Deuteronomistic redaction.

Volume 4, pp. 166–167.

In fact, the very distinction between Zedekiah and Hananiah comes from the Sages. Mishnah Sanhedrin 11:5 states:

נביא השקר המתנבא על מה שלא שמע ומה שלא נאמר לו מיתתו בידי אדם

A false prophet, who prophecies about that which he has not heard and what was not said to him—is to be executed by a human court.

Upon this, the Babylonian Talmud comments:

המתנבא מה שלא שמע. כגון צדקיה בן כנענה... המתנבא מה שלא נאמר לו - כגון חנניה בן עזור,

“One who prophecies about that which he has not heard”—like Zedekiah son of Chenaanah… “One who prophecies about what was not said to him”—like Hananiah son of Azur.

See also Sifrei Deuteronomy 177. The Jerusalem Talmud picks up on the two-year claim to offer a different interpretation of what it means that Hananiah was reworking used prophecies, based on his attempt to calculate the end of the 70 years Jeremiah prophesied (Jer 29:10) as ending two years from when he was speaking (j. Sanhedrin 11:5).

^{ירמיה כז:ב} כֹּה־אָמַר יְ־הוָה אֵלַי עֲשֵׂה לְךָ מוֹסֵרוֹת וּמֹטוֹת וּנְתַתָּם עַל־צַוָּארֶךָ. ^כז:ג וְשִׁלַּחְתָּם אֶל־מֶלֶךְ אֱדוֹם וְאֶל־מֶלֶךְ מוֹאָב וְאֶל־מֶלֶךְ בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן וְאֶל־מֶלֶךְ צֹר וְאֶל־מֶלֶךְ צִידוֹן בְּיַד מַלְאָכִים הַבָּאִים יְרוּשָׁלִַם אֶל־צִדְקִיָּהוּ מֶלֶךְ יְהוּדָה. ^כז:ד וְצִוִּיתָ אֹתָם אֶל־אֲדֹנֵיהֶם לֵאמֹר כֹּה־אָמַר יְ־הוָה צְבָאוֹת אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל כֹּה תֹאמְרוּ אֶל־אֲדֹנֵיכֶם…. ^כז:יא וְהַגּוֹי אֲשֶׁר יָבִיא אֶת־צַוָּארוֹ בְּעֹל מֶלֶךְ־בָּבֶל וַעֲבָדוֹ וְהִנַּחְתִּיו עַל־אַדְמָתוֹ נְאֻם־יְ־הוָה וַעֲבָדָהּ וְיָשַׁב בָּהּ.

^{Jer 27:2} Thus YHWH said to me; make for yourself thongs and bars of a yoke and put them on your neck. ^27:3 And send them to the king of Edom, the king of Moab, the king of the Ammonites, the king of Tyre, and the king of Sidon, by envoys who have come to King Zedekiah of Judah in Jerusalem; ^27:4 and give them this charge to their masters: Thus said YHWH of Hosts, the God of Israel: Say this to your masters: ^27:11 …“[T]he nation that puts its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, and serves him, will be left by Me on its soil, declares YHWH, to till it and dwell on it.”

The yoke (ʿol) was a prominent metaphor for subjugation or control of a person or nation. Similarly, breaking the yoke or its bars (motot) represented resistance and liberation. Compare, for example, Genesis 27:40 or Isaiah 9:3 with Deuteronomy 28:48 or 1 Kings 12:1–17.

Regardless of how biblical scholars date this text, Maimonides saw it as Mosaic and thus earlier than Jeremiah and something both he and Hananiah would have been familiar with.

The latter part of the book of Isaiah (many scholars refer to this as Trito-Isaiah), Isaiah already transformed the symbol of the yoke into Israel’s societal stratification that had evolved into oppression of the weak and impoverished. He urged the people

^{ישעיה נח:ו} פַּתֵּ֙חַ֙ חַרְצֻבּ֣וֹת רֶ֔שַׁע הַתֵּ֖ר אֲגֻדּ֣וֹת מוֹטָ֑ה וְשַׁלַּ֤ח רְצוּצִים֙ חׇפְשִׁ֔ים וְכׇל־מוֹטָ֖ה תְּנַתֵּֽקוּ.

^{Isa 58:6} To unlock fetters of wickedness, to undo the bands of the yoke, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke.

While biblical scholars date this to the exilic or post-exilic period, and therefore after Jeremiah, it is very possible that Maimonides may have seen this passage as predating Jeremiah and perhaps even as a kind of precedent.

Editor’s note: See discussion in Marvin Sweeney, “The Bible’s Evolving Effort to Humanize Debt Slavery,” TheTorah (2017).

Something else that may have bothered Maimonides about Hananiah’s prophecy is his emphasis on the return of the Temple vessels. For Maimonides, such strong focus on physical objects would have implied that Hananiah was on too low of a spiritual/intellectual level to be a real prophet. See, for instance, Maimonides’ critique “for most of the thoughts of those who are outstanding among the men of knowledge, are preoccupied with the pleasures of this sense [touch], and desirous of them. And then they wonder how it is they do not become prophets, if prophecy is something natural” (GP, 2.36, p.371). The prophet must demonstrate a “renunciation of and contempt for the bodily pleasures, for this is the first degree of the people of science, and, all the more, of the prophets.” (GP 2.40, p.384)

Thomas Overholt’s observation is apropos: “Hananiah belonged to that group of Judeans which had come to view old forms of the people’s relationship to YHVH as being permanently valid,” while “Jeremiah’s freedom to transcend the old tradition...is based ultimately in his recognition of YHVH’s freedom to change the forms through which he will relate himself to his people.” See Thomas W. Overholt, The Threat of Falsehood: A Study in the Theology of the Book of Jeremiah, Studies in Biblical Theology, 2^nd series, 16 (London: SCM, 1970), 44.