The “400 silent years” – what does it mean? And understanding the apocrypha.

This post continues the intertestamental theme, and will focus on the “400 silent years.” It rambles around a bit, but I hope you’ll see the connecting points.

First, a preamble…We are living in a time where society has become “dumbed down” and we have forgotten knowledge that used to be common. This hinders reading comprehension and understanding! E.D. Hirsch Jr. addressed this problem a few years ago and tried to tackle it with the reference book: The Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, What Every American Needs to Know. Being able to read words on a page does not mean that you can comprehend what is being communicated by those words, if common knowledge of shared ideas, history, phraseology is lost. This has happened in just about all fields.

I addressed this in posts back in 2014, such as this one: The Bible is essential to our literacy. There I focus on how a lack of knowledge about the Bible will hinder the ability to read and understand a great deal of classic literature, and more recent literature too. In another post I give the example of a Flannery O’Connor story that was completely misunderstood (even made out to mean the opposite!) when people lack basic biblical knowledge. See here: Thoughts about Flannery O’Connor.

I believe this is what I am observing with the phrase “400 silent years.” – What am I observing? Christians getting upset and disturbed by the phrase, seeing it as wrong! In essence “How dare anyone say God was silent?! God was at work and was guiding people!” –These individuals seem to lack a prior familiarity with this phrase, misunderstanding its usage. I saw one person point out Anna the prophetess, mentioned in Luke, to show that there were prophets in the 400 silent years, and thus the phrase is wrong. Sigh. 

This phrase has been used for many years to refer to the intertestamental period, the time between the Old and New Testament. The idea can be traced back about 1800 years, initially by the Jews in regards to the lack of “writing prophets” during this time period of their history. Of course, Christianity utilized this in the formation of the Canon of Scripture, agreeing with the Jews about the Old Testament canonical books, but adding the New Testament books. The word canon is a word that came into use in early Christianity, and was retroactively applied as a term to the Old Testament books.

Note my use of the phrase “writing prophets” above. Not all prophets were writing prophets. For example, Elijah and Elisha did not write, yet we have a record of their prophetic ministry in 1 and 2 Kings. The point I am starting to make is that the phrase “400 silent years” does not mean that…God was literally silent, that no one sensed God’s involvement in their lives in any way, no books were written, and no one talked about God. Lots was happening with God’s people! Plenty of “biblical” books (that is, books on spiritual or biblical topics) were written in the intertestamental period but they were not considered Sacred Scripture or canonical. They were not viewed as inspired (doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture). No matter what terms are used, both the Jews and the early Christians saw distinctions between different types of writing – some from the hand of God, some not.

“The Jews (and Christians) of antiquity believed that the books of the Tanak were authoritative because they were revealed or inspired by God. This belief is attested in the first century C.E. and was adopted by both Christianity and rabbinic Judaism.”  (Page 179, Cohen)

To touch on another issue…Does this mean the apocryphal books are useless or should be avoided? No. There are some evangelical Christians who practically view the apocryphal books as anathema (haha)! We shouldn’t. Yes, the apocryphal books are not Scripture, and some of the apocryphal books vary in their literary or historical quality and accuracy, but can still provide needed insight into what was happening between Malachi and Matthew, and help us better understand the New Testament. History matters. What comes before informs the present!

“But in the Maccabean age and later, there were other books of instructive character, making no claim of inspiration, which the Jews have always valued, and which the early Christians sometimes read in their meetings for the sake of the lessons they contained, though with no thought of putting them on a level with the Hebrew Scripture or the Greek New Testament.” (page 88, Ironside, bold added)

Without getting too detailed, the Jews generally believed that prophecy ceased in the Persian period, but Cohen says a better or more accurate word than ceased might be transformed (more below).

⇒ To summarize or clarify before more elaboration: The phrase 400 silent years does not mean that God wasn’t saying anything at all, but that he wasn’t inspiring new books for the canon of Scripture. God could certainly provide guidance through the wisdom of individuals, through intertestamental literature, not to mention that God’s sovereign hand was guiding history.

Cohen has an entire chapter on the canonization of Jewish Scripture (what we as Christians call the Old Testament). The Jews eventually became known as people of the book, because the synagogues became a place focused on the Tanak, and especially the Torah. The study of inspired Scripture became the primary way the Jews sought to know God (rather than through a living prophet).

“The Jews of the second temple period saw themselves as living in a postclassical age. They collected and treasured the works of the ancients because they knew that God spoke more directly and more clearly. They no longer tried to write a Torah, or a work of classical prophecy, or (with one or two exceptions) a history in the style of Judges or Kings; these were genres that belonged to a bygone age.” (page 192, Cohen, bold added)

I appreciated insight from Cohen about the implications of canonization. “However, in paradoxical fashion, even as Jews declared their loyalty to Scripture they liberated themselves from it.” (page 193).

Does Cohen mean that Jews no longer cared about Scripture? Of course not. He does refer to their loyalty to Scripture in that sentence. But with the clarity that came from certain books being viewed as inspired, it brought a sense of writing freedom! “A free or adventurous interpretation no longer did any harm, since the sacred original was left untouched.” (page 193) Remember, as said above, the apocryphal books vary in their literary or historical quality and accuracy. The apocryphal books do not proclaim “thus says the Lord.”

A type of writing known as apocalyptic developed, and it can be viewed as a shift from, or a transformation of, what was once prophetic writing. A discussion of apocalyptic writing would be a whole other topic (!) but the point to make here is that “Unlike prophets, apocalyptic seers are not direct intermediaries between humanity and God, because they do not receive a direct revelation from God.” (page 196)

As the intertestamental period progressed, the type of writing and focus of writing also changed. Cohen points out that the Jews did not preserve the words of any named prophet who lived after the reign of Artaxerxes…

“The transformation was complete by the middle of the second century B.C.E. This period witnessed a shift in the focus of apocalypse from cosmology to theodicy and eschatology, and the canonization of the prophetic books. The same period also provides the first explicit testimony that many Jews believed that classical prophecy had ceased. In two passages First Maccabees records that the Jews took a certain course of action that would remain valid ‘until a true prophet should appear’ and instruct them otherwise (1 Macc. 4:46; 14:41).” (page 200, bold added)

Note that they took action. Again, during the “400 silent years” people still had godly wisdom, and took various actions, and wrote insightful things, even though there were no “thus says the Lord” prophets among them – no new Scripture was written. 

So, I need to bring this post to a close! What about Anna (and Simeon) in the temple in Luke 2, Anna specifically referred to as a prophet? I don’t see a “problem” here. It is right on the verge of a shift “in time” – in the fullness of time God sent forth his Son (Galatians 4:4). It doesn’t seem surprising at all that those living devoutly might be given special insight through the Holy Spirit into what was happening before them. The voice of inspiration was returning, ultimately fulfilled through the Lord Jesus Christ! As Ironside says, summarizing the intertestamental period:

“The voice of inspiration had ceased, nor was it again heard till the ‘dayspring from on high’ had visited his people (Luke 1:78), and God then spake to us in His Son.” (page 87 Ironside)

See previous post for the books by Ironside and Cohen that I quote.

⇒ THANKS for visiting Enough Light, especially if you got to the end of this wordy post! If you’ve not been here before, feel free to look around, as Enough Light has been around since December 2010.  Grace and Peace, Laura Martin