I don't understand how additional material makes my point invalid. Or are you saying it's contradicted? But don't most Christians hold the Bible higher than the Talmud? Shouldn't my point override yours even if there is a conflict?
Ok, let's take a look.
Criteria.
The criteria by which a prophet is distinguished as false are, in the view of rabbinical jurisprudence, partly expressed and partly implied in the Deuteronamic dicta:
- (1) One who has "spoken to turn you away from the Lord" (xiii. 6 [A. V. 5])...
We can ignore this first one. Recall I said,
How did the Jews of the OT days know whether or not a prophet who claimed to be speaking on behalf of Jehovah actually was doing so and was not a false prophet?
This brings us to the next criteria:
- (2) When the things predicted "follow not, nor come to pass" (Deut. xviii. 22). This test is applicable only when the alleged revelation has reference to the near future, as in the case of Zedekiah, who in God's name prophesied success to Ahab's arms, and in that of Micaiah, who predicted disaster from the impending war (I Kings xxii. 11 et seq.). Where his prediction concerns a distant period the skeptic will say (Ezek. xii. 27): "The vision that he seeth is for many days to come, and he prophesieth of the times that are far off." But even where the prophecy concerns the immediate future this test is not always applicable. It is conclusive only when a prediction of prosperity fails, because then it is seen that the alleged revelation did not emanatefrom the All-Merciful (comp. Jer. xxviii. 9); but the failure of a prediction of disaster is not conclusive, the fulfilment of such predictions being always conditioned by the conduct of the people (Jer. xviii. 7, 8; xxvi. 19; Ezek. xviii. 21, xxxiii. 11; comp. Yer. Sanh. xi. 30b).
So first of all they're taking directly from Deuteronomy 18. Shocking!
With regards to prophecy of the far future, this proves my point exactly. Look where they quote Ezekiel 12:27. The skeptics scoff at far-future prophecies (indicating they wouldn't be bothered to write it down, especially in an era where writing something down is not cheap or easy). Further, look at it in context. Ezekiel 12:26-28 says,
26 Again the word of Jehovah came to me, saying, 27 Son of man, behold, they of the house of Israel say, The vision that he seeth is for many day to come, and he prophesieth of times that are far off.
28 Therefore say unto them, Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: There shall none of my words be deferred any more, but the word which I shall speak shall be performed, saith the Lord Jehovah.
So we see that Jehovah sees little value in far-future prophecies and he's expediting it. This is my point EXACTLY.
Well if you're talking about how Deuteronomy was actually written then we have to get into Josiah and his wartime propaganda. But who knows, maybe you think Moses actually existed.
We were never talking about whether he would be able to write it down. We are talking about whether scribes would preserve it for centuries if they thought he was a false prophet. And if his prophecies hadn't come true, wouldn't they think he's a false prophet? Or... if they were of the understanding that the prophecies were for the far future, why, then, did they reject Jesus? Your position makes no sense at all.