Four Hundred Silent Years?

DEFENSE

The lull in prophetic activity is no indicator of whether books from this period are genuine Scripture.

First, the lull that 1 Maccabees refers to was temporary. Even the people living then expected new prophets to appear (1 Macc. 4:46, 14:41). Second, there have been other lulls in prophetic activity; this was not the first. Similar ones are referred to in 1 Samuel 3:1 (during Samuel’s boyhood, “the word of the Lord was rare in those days; there was no frequent vision”), Psalm 74:9 (“there is no longer any prophet”), and

Lamentations 2:9 (Zion’s “prophets obtain no vision from the Lord”). Third, the lulls were not total. Thus during the time of Samuel’s boyhood, visions were rare, not non-existent. In the period before the writ- ing of the New Testament, Anna served as a prophetess, and Simeon, Zechariah, Mary, and Joseph had revelations (Luke 2:36, 2:25–26, 1:11– 20, 26–37; Matt. 1:20–23, 2:13, 19–20). There may not have been major prophets, but there were ongoing visions and revelations, including during the period of the Maccabees (2 Macc. 3:24–28, 5:2–4, 15:12–16). Fourth, these lulls did not prevent the writing of Scripture about or during them. If they prevented the writing of Scripture about them, then 1 Samuel would not be Scripture, and if it prevented the writing of Scripture during them, then Psalm 74 and Lamentations would not be Scripture.

The view that the non-unique lull during the time of the Maccabees prevented Scripture from being written about or during this period is false. It is based on a misunderstanding of the connection between prophets and the writing of Scripture. Although all authors of Scripture are vessels of divine inspiration, they are not all individuals who function professionally as prophets, like Isaiah, Daniel, or Hosea. Thus, a lull in prophetic activity cannot be read as a cessation of Scrip- ture writing. If it did, then parts of the canon that all Christians and Jews accept would have to be struck.