(«) Those called 'prophets' in this age formed communities ; they were cenobites, though not celibates (2 K 4'). They are first mentioned in connexion with Saul at Gibeah of God, Saul's home (1 S 10'). When dismissing him Samuel pre- dicted that lie would meet a band of prophets coming down from the high ])lace with music, and engaged in ' prophesying' (1 S 10°- '"). Anotlier ( ompany had its home at Kamah, where Samuel himself dwelt (1 S 19"). It has usually been sup- ]>o.sed that the term nuif/th means ' dwellings,' and describes such a prophetic settlement (2 K t5''', see Naiotii). In the times of Elijah and Elisha other localities are mentioned as residences, e.o. Bethel (2 K 2^), Jericho (2 K 2^), and tiilgal (2 K 4^, cf. 2 K 6'). The re.sidenters are called ' prophets' and 'sons of the prophets,' i.e. members of the pro- phetic societies (a single member is hcn-ndbi'. Am 7"). Between Samuel and Elijah (1 K 202') „g ,„,,„, tion is made of the ' sons of the prophets,' though it is probable that the succession was still main- tained. Amos, a hundred years after Elijah, aiipears to be acquainted with prophetic societies ;i''), and at all times prophets continued to be numerous (I K 22* IS''). As at the places named as residences there was a ' high place ' or sanctuary, it was probably around these sanctuaries where J" was worshipped that the prophets settled. In early times tlie distinction between priest nnd projihet does not seem to have been sharp. Tlie Arab. Icithin was both seer and priest. Samuel was both priest and prophet. Jeremiah and Ezekiel lioth came out of priestly families. The con- nexion, indeed, of priests and projihets was always close (Is 8'). Those proiiliets whom Jer. denounces as false act in concert with the temple priesthood. I'ashliur, who jmt Jer. in the stocks, was prophet as well as priest (Jer 20'"") ; and it was the ' priests and prophets' who arraigned Jer. before the princes for blasphemy against the temple (Jer '2()).
(i) The inulliiilication of 'prophets' at this epoch indicates a rising spirit of devotion to J ", and fervour in His service. Some have supposed that this new fervour and religious elevation were due to the influence of Samuel, and that tiie origin of the juoiihetic societies must be traced to him. But all that we have history for is that Samuel was in close relation with the prophetic communities. We see him on some occasions at their head (1 S I9=") ; but that he did not usually reside among the ' prophets' appears from the state- ment that when David lied to hira at IJaniah the two together then went and dwelt at Naioth (1!)'*). It is evident that the prophets looked up to him and learned from him ; but it is also evident that lie felt that the impulses which moved them were common also to himself, and he wius not a.shanied to direct tliciii, and sh.'ire in their prophesyings (cf. Elisha, 2 K 4**). It is probable, therefore, that ihe rise of the ' prophets was due to something whi^h swept both Samuel and the people into the •aiiie stream of national-relijjious enthusiasm. (') This can hardly have been anything else
than the crisis that had arisen in the nation's fortunes. The people had been subdued by the Philistines, and were threatened with national extinction. And in Israel of this age national and religious were virtuallj- the same thing. The idea of later prophets, that national autonomy might be lost, while the religion of J" remained, had not yet been reached. It was J" that created Israel, and made it a nation ; faith in Him was the bond of its national existence, and the hour of the nation's peril awoke a new religious-national fervour. The nation's fortunes and history was from the beginning the great lesson-book in which men read the nature of J" their God, and His disposition towards them (2 S 21"f- 24'"-). The national disasters were evidence of J"'s anger, and they awoke the national conscience. The 'pro- phets' were not indi\idual enthusiasts ; they were inspired by common sentiments, and animated each other, and, as a society, reacted on the sur- rounding population. Their ' prophesying ' was a kind of public worship at the Iiigli place or sanc- tuary, to which they went up with pipe and song, as continued to be done in after -days (Is 30-''). And the songs were not songs without words. They had religious contents, as much as tho.se of the singers who afterwards '])roj)hesicd with harps' in the temple ( 1 Ch 25=- ', cf. 2 S 23'). However rude, thev would be celebrations of * the righteous acts of J", tlie righteous acts of his rule in Israel ' (Jg 5"). They would be such songs as were after- wards collected in 'the Book of the AVars of J"' and in ' the Book of the Upright' (I'k. of Jashar). Some of the poetical fragments still to be found in the historical books may well belong to this age. Whether writing was practised by the 'prophets' may be uncertain (though cf. 1 Ch 29-'') ; but if they did not write, they prepared by their ' prophesy- ing ' a language for the literary jiropliets who came after them. In Amos, the oldest literary prophet, we find a religious nomenclature already complete ; we find also in him, almost more than in his successors, the prophetic mannerism and technique, such as the phrases 'oracle of J"' ('• ctti), 'thus saith J",' and much else. It is not too much to siippo.se that it was in these 'schools of the projjhets' all down the history that this uonieii- clature anil techni(nie were formed.