Elisha and the End of Prophetism (JSOTS 286)

Written by Wesley J. Bergen Reviewed By Karl Möller

This is a revised version of the author’s dissertation. Its purpose, as set out in chapter one, is to read the Elisha stories as part of the larger narrative Genesis—2 Kings, and to investigate how they portray Elisha in his prophetic role. According to Bergen, the stories shed a negative light on prophetism in general, granting the prophets only a limited role in the narrative world. Chapter two deals with narratology and the question of author and/or reader centricity. In his search for methodological guidance, Bergen considers the works of Alter, Sternberg, Miscall, Fewell/Gunn, Culley, Josipovici, Exum and Jobling before settling on Bal, claiming that ‘no one else has combined theory and criticism in such a helpful way’ (34). The third chapter, consisting of only five pages, considers ‘the text’ (the reading of which must have priority over assumptions about its production), ‘the reader’ (Bergen likes his readers ‘naively credulous’, 39) and ‘the reading’ (which is understood as the creation of a narrative world).

Chapter four, which looks at the Elisha stories proper, comprises roughly three-quarters of the book. Here Bergen seeks to substantiate his claim that the stories portray Elisha (and prophetism in general) in a bad light. Thus, Elisha is presented as a ‘wonder worker’ whose power is never in doubt but whose miracles are often pointless, since they lack an ethical or teleological framework. The prophet also does not use his power to accomplish what he had been commissioned to do, i.e. to eradicate Baal worship and to oppose the ‘evil kings’. While Yhwh is depicted as the source of Elisha’s power, their relationship is fraught with ambiguities. The ‘sons of the prophets’ are cast in an even worse light as a helpless and hopeless bunch, unable to provide for themselves. Bergen concludes by stressing that Elisha does not lead Israel (as did Moses and Samuel), challenge the people to return to Yhwh (as did Elijah), or act as conscience to the king (as did Nathan). Instead, Elisha wanders the countryside doing miracles.

While there is some merit in Bergen’s negative evaluation of the roles of Elisha and the sons of the prophets, his case is weakened by serious flaws. To start with, numerous grammatical errors and an extremely cumbersome style of writing make this a rather tedious read. More importantly, Bergen’s discussion of the hermeneutical and methodological issues is too laconic and largely inadequate, confused and confusing. For instance, in discussing the writers mentioned above, he doesn’t really do justice to any one of them.

Although Bergen’s reading of the Elisha stories does contain some valuable observations, it too is marred by his resolve to present a consistently negative interpretation of Elisha’s role that does not always convince the less suspicious. One example must suffice. Commenting on 2 Kings 2:19–22, Bergen faults Elisha for not dealing adequately with the problem he encounters. While the inhabitants of Jericho complain about bad water and an unproductive land, Elisha only heals the water. Not accepting Elisha’s comment that, by dealing with the water, he has taken care of the whole problem (cf. 2 Kgs. 2:21), Bergen compares Elisha’s ‘inadequate’ response with Agatha Christie’s detective Poirot claiming to have solved a murder when he has only caught a thief. Well, try as I might, I cannot see what’s wrong with the action Elisha takes.

While there are some things of value in this study, on the whole the Elisha stories deserve a better treatment.


Karl Möller

Cheltenham and Gloucester College of Higher Education