Elisha's Deceptive Prophecy in 2 Kings 3: A Response to Raymond Westbrook

Abstract

(ProQuest-CSA LLC: ... denotes non-USASCII text omitted.) In a recent issue of JBL, Raymond Westbrook contributed a constructive note on notoriously difficult to interpret story of Jehoram's unsuccessful military campaign in 2 Kings 3.1 Westbrook is somewhat inconsistent, however, when he argues that Elisha did not offer a deliberately false and then describes prophet's oracle as the deceptively worded prediction (pp. 531-32). His thesis is that Elisha's prophecy was, strictly speaking, true-not false-even though Elisha was intentionally misleading. In any case, primary shortcoming in Westbrook's analysis is that he focuses on level of historical event and fails to appreciate, on level of literary account, how Dtr is defending a problematic event in career of prophet Elisha. According to Westbrook, Jehoram should have recognized deceptive nature of Elisha's oracle. After Elisha says that Israelites would (...) fortified cities of Moab, he follows with actions (i.e., felling every good tree, stopping up wells, and ruining fields with stones [2 Kgs 3:19]) that would naturally precede destroying well-fortified strongholds. Jehoram does not notice specious, unreasonable sequence of events. The subsequent use of word ... meaning simply (v. 25) reinforces notion that Jehoram should have perceived trickery.2 On more careful analysis, however, order in which events are subsequently chronicled, in narrator's voice (2 Kgs 3:25), suggests that arrangement of actions in Elisha's oracle serves a larger literary strategy.3 Westbrook calls attention to sequence in Elisha's prophecy but fails to comment on order of events as they are reported. In standard prophecy-fulfillment pattern, where storyteller records fulfillment of events with dialogue-bound narration (see, e.g., 1 Kgs 17:14-16), narrator reports fulfillment of Elisha's words, but in reverse order. 2 Kings 3:19 4 You will destroy [...] every [...] fortified and every [...] choice city; B. Every [...] good tree, you will fell; C. All [...] springs of water, you will stop up; D. Every [...] good field, you will ruin with stones. 2 Kings 3:25 A'. They tore down [...] cities; D'. [Upon] every [...] good field, each man threw his stone until it was covered; C'. Every [...] spring of water, they stopped up; B'. Every [...] good tree, they felled; A. Until [only] stones of Qir-Hareseth remained; slingers surrounded it and struck it [...]. The reverse ordering of events sets reader up for a surprise. In v. 24 (the verse immediately preceding chronicling of specific events in Elisha's prophecy), narrator employs word ... (three times with a qere: rose up and attacked [...] Moab... and they struck [..., qere] it, destroying [...] Moab) to describe slaughter that Israel perpetrated on Moabites. With this backdrop, even a careful reader might not notice verb change in v. 25 (from ... to ...)-a change that subtly implies that Jehoram will not be victorious. The inverse sequencing of subsequent events lulls reader into believing that Elisha's prophecy is coming to pass, word for word. With very last word in sequence, however, reader is shocked to learn that only slingers strike [...] QirHareseth. Calling attention to artistry in composition, ... is also first word in v. 19. Ironically, prophet's word is technically true, but Qir-Hareseth's survival and retreat of coalition that follows (v. 27) raise questions about Elisha's intentions. A careful reader who suspects that Elisha is enticing Jehoram may be reassured but must read on to see what comes to pass. Recognizing inverse recounting of events undermines Westbrook's interpretation of Elisha's prophecy. …