 |
 |
|---|
|
|
|---|
WARNING: This section deals with Nostradamus from a purely religious point of view. If you want the purely secular point of view, please check the section On Precognition.
One of the first questions everyone asks is simple. Is what Nostradamus wrote considered to be prophecy?
Certainly the accuracy of Nostradamus, for there is a considerable accuracy, indicates that there is definite foresight involved. That Nostradamus had to have seen the events happen, however imperfectly, is strong indication that he enjoyed what modern science calls the powers of precognition. But precognition is a scientific term and prophecy is necessarily a religious term, involving as it does dictates by God as to what the future portends. These, by definition, seem to ensure that what is said must come to pass. So the question about whether what Nostradamus wrote is prophecy ceases to be a strictly scientific or philosophic question and becomes rather a religious question, with religious overtones and religious implications.
It is certain that many of the religions indicate that prophecy does exist, is genuine and that deity does cause it to happen. Witness the Oracles of Delphi from the ancient Greek world, or the prophetic claims that are Hindu, Buddhist or Islamic. The Zoroastrian faith talked about various prophecies, mostly concerning a "World Renovator." Even minor religions like the druidic and various native religions have their own prophecies. It seems as that prophecy is nothing new in the spheres of the religious.
Most religions assert that a prophecy is true when it is shown to be true, that a prophet is deemed to be genuine when at least some of his or her prophecies have occurred. Of course this is only logical, the people of a religion do want to have proof that the prophet is, well, accurate in his predictions, which means that according to their belief the prophet is talking from the mouth of the god. Naturally the people have a peculiar attitude towards prophets, especially those whose predictions do not come about. Woe be to the so-called prophet whose prophecies do not come true, death may be the end of their misery.
But we are here not talking about most religions. We are talking about prophecy in the Judeo-Christian tradition. This is true because not only are most of the readers of Nostradamus from the so-called Christian world, Nostradamus himself was a Christian and was certainly bound by the dictates of the Christian faith. But everything that is said about Prophecy in Christianity is also said in the various books of the Jewish holy book, the Tanakh. That means that, ultimately, Christian dogma about prophecy is in complete accord with Hebraic dogma about prophecy. The two go together because the Christian dogma on prophecy comes from the Old Testament which is the Hebrew Tanakh, or Hebrew Bible. No test concerning Prophecy is given in the New Testament that is not already given in the Old Testament, the Tanakh. Therefore, we need to understand just what the Tanakh claims concerning Prophecy are.
Much as I dislike asserting factual claims from the Tanakh, I am here compelled to because of the nature of the question. Fortunately, it is relatively easy. Or is it? The truth is that in the end it is not so easy to answer this question. Why? Because the Tanakh seems to contradict itself.
The first so-called rule agrees with all of the other religions in what it asserts is the test of the prophet. Deuteronomy, chapter 18, verse 22 writes: "If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed."
It would seem that by this definition that Nostradamus is not a prophet. Several events he wrote about did not come about. It is therefore a good thing that he disclaimed the title of prophet for even though many of the things he wrote about did come true, not all did.
Except, that the Tanakh contains a contradiction found later on. The book of Jonah is a book about a genuine prophecy that does not happen, about a prophet who preaches a genuine prophecy yet watches the prophecy never occur. Jonah spends days in the city of Nineveh preaching that the city is doomed to be destroyed. Yet when the day comes, the city is spared. Why? Because everyone in Nineveh repented, even the king put on sackcloth and sat in ashes. So, why is this considered a genuine prophecy even though it never happened? For the same reason Jonah was reluctant to preach against Nineveh in the first place. As Jonah said, "I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity."
This puts us into a quandary where the Tanakh contradicts itself. After all, in Deuteronomy you have the assertion that if it does not come true it is not a prophecy. But on the other hand you have this assertion that it could still be true even if it does not happen, because God is merciful. How to explain this? You cannot.
But the 28th chapter of the book of Jeremiah does provide a rule by which one can test a so-called prophet on his prophecy, one that resolves the contradiction quite nicely. And it does so by differentiating between prophecies that can be absolved in the style of Jonah and prophecies that are strictly subject to the rule of Deuteronomy: "From early times the prophets who preceded you and me have prophesied war, disaster and plague against many countries and great kingdoms. But the prophet who prophesies peace will be recognized as one truly sent by Jehovah only if his prediction comes true." In other words, it is not the prophecies of war, disaster and plague that matter, it is the prophecies of peace alone that matter. Prophecies of peace are the only ones that are absolutely bound by the rule of Deuteronomy. Prophecies of war and pestilence, of disaster and death, can be countered per the Jonah exception.
So, looking only at the predictions of peace, of which there are very few, what is the accuracy of Nostradamus? It is hard to say. There is a talk about 40 years of peace in one quatrain, there is also the end of the Epistle to Henri. And that is about it. Now the quatrain could be fulfilled by the post Second World War Europe. But it could also be in the future! And the peace of the Epistle is definitely in the future. Consequently, we have no way to currently test, Biblically or Tanahkcally, whether or not Nostradamus would be, as Judeo-Christianity would assert, a prophet.
From this we cannot say, one way or the other, whether he fits the criteria of prophet. Per Deuteronomy he certainly isn't. But per Jonah he certainly could be. And the test of Jeremiah is untestable.
Still, it must be pointed out that Nostradamus denied being a prophet. In his own written words from the Epistle to Cesar: "though I have inserted the name of Prophet here, I will not attach so high and sublime a title to myself." This, of course, is curious, for the title of the book comes to us from the Bonhomme edition, "The Prophecies of Nostradamus." It is, of course, certainly possible that Mace Bonhomme, the publisher of the first edition, gave the book the title it has and that Nostradamus himself had no say in what the title of the book became. But then, the publisher may have named it exactly as Nostradamus wanted it, so the wording in the Epistle to Cesar may be nothing more than a bit of hypocrisy. But whether the wording in the Epistle is hypocrisy, arrogance, hubris or reality on the part of Nostradamus we cannot tell. To his credit, he denies the claim of prophet so the Deuteronomical test would not condemn him. His errors could be, to some part, due to a God that changed his mind, as the 1609 prediction could indicate so the Jonah exception could be applied. And since most of what Nostradamus wrote concerns horrors and destruction, the Jeremiah test cannot be applied.
So, was Nostradamus a prohet? Or was he not? The truth is, by the tests of the Tanakh, the Bible, we cannot tell. So it is really a judgment call. You be the judge.