*ORIGINS OF PROPHECY*

*THEORIES*

Main line of arguements

a) *Prophecy as borrowed*

*legend of Wen Amon*, *Zimri lim, Stelle of Zark.*

b)* Prophecy as unique feature of Israel.*

*PROBLEMS CONCERNING THE ORIGINS*

1. We do not seem to have enough sources to allow us to reconstruct

the history of

the phenomenon, and in particular we do not have extra biblical

material with

which to compare and contrast the biblical material that we have. So

the bible

remains our primary source.

2. The material that is present is not homogenous enough to allow us
to make a

smooth reconstruction of the origins of Israelite prophecy.

3. We do notknow whether the information we have about prophecy

is not a

reflection of a changing situation in the life of Israel.

4. We are not sure whether the labels we have are not of self-
understanding of other

groups. Sometimes we are given labels that do not tally with what we
think about

ourselves. We carry labels given to us by the community and not the

original ones.

*EXTRA BIBLICAL MATERIAL*

In Egyptian texts there is a reference to priestly prophets but this title
refers to a

Servant of God. So these priestly prophets may not be prophets in the

real sense of

the word. Cananite text from Mesopotamia, in particular the Ugarit

text, there is

reference to prophet type figures who are diviners. In the bible for
example 1Kings

18:19 there is reference to Baal and Asherah, but their exact character
is not known. An overally Canaanite source either refers to divination
or they are so vague that no

proper conclusion concerning the origins of prophecy can be drawn.

*BIBLICAL SOURCES*

Biblical sources are not homogenous in their presentation of

prophecy. So it is still

difficult to arrive at a smooth origin of the phenomenon, for example

two books of

Samuel the term prophet is used differently in different texts and

often used
interchangeably with the term seer. There are certain prophets who
are referred to

as prophets e.g. Nathan is always referred to as a prophet, and some

who are referred

to as both prophet and seer, for example Gad. According to 1 Samuel

9:9 the two

terms do not mean one and the same thing. It appears the term
prophet evolved from

the term seer (Amos 7:14). However in 2 Samuel 24:11 Gad is referred
as both seer

and prophet. In the two books of Kings Elijah was regarded as a

prophet but

sometimes he is regarded as the ‘man of God’. Elisha is also given the

title man of God

in 2 Kings 4:7,9,16,21,27, but the disciples who gather around him are
referred to as

the sons of the prophet, as if to suggest that the man of God and the
prophet are one

and the same thing. Amaziah referred to Amos as a seer but Amos
rejects it and saidhe was not a prophet as if to suggest a prophet and
seer are one and the same thing.
With these fluctuations in meaning then who was a prophet, let alone
how the name

originated?

The origins of prophecy is controversial. Various views and theories

have been brought

forward of a sociological function, historical and philosophical nature.

Such theories

are equally porus.

*Basically there are two broad theories on the origins of prophecy:*

*1. Prophecy as a borrowed phenomenon*

*2. Prophecy as unique feature of Israel.*

*PROPHECY AS A COMMON AND BORROWED* *PHENOMENON/

ASSOCIATIONIST*

*THEORY*

Scholars who subscribe to this view, for example *J. Lindblom*, use
extra biblical

material from the Ancient Near East to show that there are certain
similarities which
can be established between prophecy in Israel and Prophecy in the
Ancient Near East.

According to *J. Bright* the patriarchs borrowed the culture of the

Mesopotamians. If

they could borrow the culture of the Mesopotamians what could stop
them from

borrowing their religion? In support of this view *J.Pederson* argues

that the whole

institution belong to Canaan and is closely related to Canaanite

culture. There is some

substance in this theory because of the similarities between Israelite

and Ancient Near East prophecy.

*Evidence in support of this:*

1. The word prophet itself came from a foreign word nabi which is a
Hebrew word

and hence is not of Israelite origin.

2. The covenant arrayed by Yahweh and the people through the
prophets are like the

suzerain treaties of the Hitites.

3. Ecstacy which is regarded as one of the earliest form of prophecy in

Israel; was not

for them only, for example Baal prophets at the contest at Mount
Carmel were

ecstatic too. (Refer to the legend of Wen Amon)

4. Israelite prophets had clear court connections and some

Ancientnear East

prophets had connections with courts, for example Mantic and

Mahhumm

prophets of the god Dagan in the time of Hammurabi, although they

seem not to

have used the oracles as such.

5. Prophets as mouth- pieces of deities. In the Mari text there was a
Syrian god Adad

who used a prophet as his mouth- piece and the prophet claimed
authority over

the king.

6. Prophetic guilds.*THE LEGEND OF WEN AMON*

According to this legend, there was a certain man by the name Wen
Amon from Egypt

who went to a certain centre in Phoenicia called Biblis looking for

timber to build a

temple for his god, AmonRe. On arrival Wen Amon forwarded his
request to the prince

but the prince ignored him because he was busy offering sacrifices to
his God. It was

during this sacrificial ceremony when a youth got into trance or

ecstacy. The youth in
this state summoned the priest’s mission, and without making any
decision the prince

granted Wen Amon’s request.

According to this school there is a sense in which the possessed youth

can be

considered as a prophet. In other words the youth possessed three

prophetic traits:

1. Ecstacy

2. Ability to foretell (prediction)

3. Prophetic authority

So if we consider this youth as a prophet there is no way we can say

this phenomenon

is unique to Israel.
*THE LEGEND OD ZIMRI LIM FROM MARI TEXT*

Mari was a cultic centre and Zimri lim was a legendary king of
Mesopotamia. The

legend talks about a certain seer who went to Zimri lim with a
message from god Adad

and the message was ‘Iam the god who made you king over
Mesopotamia if you obey

me I will bless you, if you disobey I will punish you’. This seer is said to
have released

this message in ecstacy.

*SIMILARITIES*

1. The title seer is also used to refer to Israelite prophet.

2. Being ecstatic

3. Prophetic oracle is similar to Israelite prophetic oracles and

contents.

*THE STELLE OF ZAKR*

Zakr was a Syrian king. Stelle is an inscription on the rock. On the
tablet there seems

to be an oracle or statement which was released when the Syrians

were about to be

capturered. The king released the following words, ‘I lifted my hands

to Baal Shamayn

and he answered me and spoke to me by means of visionaries…’.

Although it was not

clear from the inscription on the rock, it appears these words are a
prophecy in

response to the king’s prayer and the people who are referred as
visionaries could be

regarded as prophets.

*WEAKNESSES*

1. It ignores the theological origins of prophecy that is the link

between prophecy

and religion.
2. It ignores political factors behind the emergency of prophecy.

3. It assumes that we have clearly identified characteristics of

prophecy which we

can use to define the phenomenon, in particular ecstacy is taken to be

a majorprophetic feature, the problem is we do not have a clearly
developed definition of

prophecy and in particular ecstacy was not a major feature of

prophecy in Israel. Rarely do we find Israelite prophets releasing their
oracles in a state of ecstacy. If

at all ecstacy was a major feature of prophecy then it was a feature of

earliest

prophets and tends to die out as we move to the classical period.

Moreover

according to J. Linblom ecstacy can not be borrowed as it is from a

deity.
4. Prophecy in the Ancient Near East was divinatory in nature, while
Israelite

prophets were not allowed means of gaining information used by

other nations,

e.g. necromancy, sooth saying, e.t.c. Israelite prophets were

commissioned by

God. They only prophesy in the name of Yahweh and their objective
was to

acertain the will of Yahweh regardless of personal wishes. Being

independent of

the hearers was the badge of a true prophet, for example the story of
Micaiah

when he was consulted by Ahab and Jehoshaphat.

These differences between prophecy in Ancient Near East and

prophecy in Israel led

some scholars to argue that prophecy in Israel must have been unique
to Israel. Basically these scholars pick certain unique features of
Israelite prophecy and use this
to argue for their positions. However they do not agree on what is
unique about

Israelite prophecy. Hence this broad theory can be split into sub-
theories.

*TRADITIONAL THEORY*

This theory argues that prophecy in Israel originated as a basic

mechanism through which

YAHWEH communicated the meaning and demands of his covenant

with Israel. Scholars who

subscribe to this theory submits that prophets were messengers of

YAHWEH who were

basically intermediaries or covenant mediators. This submission is in

the line with the

meanings of some of the terms that are used to refer to prophets.

According to

*W.B.ANDERSON* “the English word prophet is derived from the

Greek word prophetes which

can be translated to mean one who speaks for another party,

especially for the deity.” As
observed above the Hebrew equivalent term “nabi” can be translated
literally to mean the

one who communicates the divine will, so the idea remains the same
that prophet were

messengers of god.

From critics like H.GRUNKEL, and C.WESTERMAN support this

understanding. They analyzed

the form of oracles and discovered that the oracles almost always
began with what they called

the “messenger style”, thus says YAHWEH .The implication is that, the
prophets understood

themselves as messengers of the lord who communicated the

meaning and demands of gods

covenant with Israel. This therefore means that prophecy was

covenant specific, it could not

be understood outside the context of YAHWEH covenant with Israel.

This theory suggests that prophecy originated with Moses,

particularly with the Sinai
Covenant. The critics of this theory does not recognize the existence
of other covenants in

the OLD Testament like Genesis 15,Abraham.Those who subscribe to

this theory submit that

it is with the Sinai Covenant that we begin to see God entering into a
Covenant with Israel asa nation. Earlier than Moses, God had entered
into covenants with individuals and not with

Israel as a nation. In this context, scholars who argue for this theory
maintain that the

covenant was a unique feature of Israelite religion and it is in this light

that prophecy in Israel

could be regarded as unique.

An analysis of this theory can lead to the conclusion that prophecy in

Israel had cultic origins; it originated within the religious institutions
of Israel. The first scholar to suggest this view

was H.E Wald and it was later developed by G Holscher who explicitly
stated that, “prophets

were inspired as cultic figures, who were responsible for explaining

the meaning and demands of the covenant.” However, S Mowingel
and A.R Johnston have most convincingly argued the
theory of cultic prophets in the ancient Israel. According to them, “in
early Israel, the

difference between a priest and a prophet was not very great since
both responded to

inquiries, offered instruction, and performed sacramental functions.

Secondly, prophets are

frequently closely related to the priests and the temple, especially in

Jerusalem for instance,

Elijah, like the prophets of Baal, offers sacrifices, [1Kings 18:20-40]. In

this context, Mowingel

observes that, “prophets associated with the sanctuary served under

the supervision and

jurisdiction of the priests or with a status at least as high as, if not

actually higher than that of

the priests. Furthermore, Mowingelpointed to the divine speeches

and oracles in the Psalms

as further as evidence of prophetic functions within the cult.

According to him, “the oracles

were spoken to worshippers during rituals of national or personal

lament [Psalm 126; 60:8-

10, 91:14-16] and the coronation of Davidic rulers and other royal
occasions [Ps 2; 20; 21; 45; 89; 110; 132]”
*Critique*

The first problem with this sub-theory is that there were different
types of covenants within

Israel. The question, which arises, is that, which one of these

covenants was associated with

the origins of prophecy? This theory suggests that different prophets

may have arisen in

connection with different covenant traditions within Israel. For

instance, prophets from the

North probably originated in connection with and were probably

influenced by the Ephramite

traditions while prophets from the south were probably influenced by

Judean prophetic

traditions.

The second problem has to do with the assumption that the concept
of covenant was unique
feature of Israelite religion. This assumption has no strong base
because there are striking

similarities between the mosaic covenant and similar Hittite treaties,

like the suzerainty

treaty. Furthermore, this theory is based upon some assumption,

which may not be historical. For example, the historicity of the figure
of Moses and thee exodus itself is not

archaeologically confirmed. Finally, it is not explicitly clear that when

prophets prophesied

they always communicated the meaning and demands of God’s

covenant with Israel.

Prophets were messengers of Yahweh. Prophetes or nabi. The oracles

begin with a

messenger style. “Thus says the Lord…..” Prophecy was covenant with
Israel.

*THEOLOGICAL THEORY*

According to B.W Anderson, prophecy originated in Israel as a basic

mechanism through

which Yahweh communicated the meaning and his demands of the

covenant with Israel. This
is in line with the meaning of the two terms that were used to refer to
prophecy. The Greek

word prophetess can be translated to mean one who communicated

the divine will. Israelite

prophets regarded themselves messengers of Yahweh. H. Gunkel and

C. Westermann looked

at the phenomenon of prophecy from a form critical perspective and

they analyse the form

of prophetic utterances and discover that these began with the

‘messenger style’, ‘Thus says

the Lord…’ implying that their message was not from themselves but
from an external force.

These oracles specifically dealt with the covenant relationship

between Israel and Yahweh. So prophecy in Israel was covenant
specific. Such a covenant relationship was a unique

feature of Israelite religion. This supports that Moses is the first

prophet. He is the

representative of all prophets. (Deut 18:18).

*PROBLEMS*

1. There are some situations and there are some prophets without
necessarily talking

about the covenant and similarly there are some circumstances where
certain

Israelite figures talked about the covenant without prophesying, for

example Noah.

2. Some scholars like M. Noth challenged the view that Moses was the
first prophet

on the grounds that all the verses which support Moses as a prophet
are

anachronistic. In fact for M.Noth later editors made Moses into a

prophet yet he

was really a very good leader. However Von Rad observed that
prophecy I Israel is

associated with the cult, leadership or both. This observation remains

valid and
from then onwards we proceed in three directions, that prophecy has
either cultic

or political origins or both.

*CULTIC ORIGINS*

The priestly theory is in support of Samuel as the first prophet as is

proven in 1Samuel3. It

states that prophecy is just an advancement of priesthood. Partly in

support of the above

theory is the seership theory which states that prophecy originated

from seership and this is

also regarded as the evolutionary theory by M. Noth.This theory is

mainly based on 1 Samuel 9:9. The implication of this verse is that the
office of

a prophet evolved from that of a seer. There was a historical

development from the office of

a seer to that of a prophet. The assumption is that there should be a

distinction between a
prophet and a seer.This theory is supported by semantics. A semantic
analysis of the Hebrew terms which are

used to refer to a seer are roeh and hozer meaning one who is gifted
with the ability toforetell, whereas the Hebrew term for a prophet is
nabi which refer to a person who can do both foretelling and forth
telling. Seers were primarily divinatory in that their emphasis is in

the future but prophets were concerned with the present. If at all
they refer to the future

there was specific reason to relate the future to the present.

*WEAKNESSES*

1. This theory is based on 1 Samuel 9:9 and the assumption is that

Samuel was the

last judge and the first prophet, yet Genesis 20:7 refer to Abraham as
a prophet

and Deut 18:18, Hosea 12:13 refer to Moses as the first and architect
of prophecy.
Therefore we cannot assume that prophecy began with Samuel.

2. This theory assumes that there is a clear distinction between a seer

and a prophet,

yet the two terms are used interchangeably, e.g. 2Samuel 24:11, Gad
is regarded

as both a seer and a prophet. Amos in Amos 7:14 when he was

addressed as a

seer he responded denying that he was a prophet nor a prophet’s son,

as if to

suggest the two terms mean one and the same thing. However some
scholars try

to distinguish a prophet and a seer.

The difference is that:

1. A seer was more or less associated with specific shrine while
prophets were

itinerant.

2. A seer was more or less a priest in that he dealt with issues of the
cult, especially

those elements that involve sacrifices.

3. A seer receives remuneration for a service, while a prophet receive

gifts.

4. More often than not prophets clashed with kings and its rare to find
seers clashing

with kings.

POLITICAL OR SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY

It is based on sociological school of Mark Weber and Norman
Gottwald. They believe that

prophecy has its origins in sociological tension, as a result of

commercialization which led to

the creation of a social pyramid in Israel. When Israel settled in

Canaan there developed three

social groups, the aristocracy, the merchant and the commons (poor).
The commons were

being exploited by the elite and as a result there was class struggle in
Israel. From this class

struggle emerged some charismatic figures especially among the

exploited class. Such figures

were prophets who became the champions of the poor. They were
the spokespersons of the
deprived, the voice of the voiceless and were supported by Yahweh.
This theory is supported

by the incident of Naboth and Ahab in 1 Kings 21. Amos also defended
the poor. Such a theory

is important as it considered elements of economic and social factors

which influence the rise

of prophecy.

The process of the Exodus and the settlement in Canaan can be

explained in terms of a

political movement.in the light of this one can explain the origin of
prophecy in terms of the

clash between two ideologies, Yahwism as the ideology of the Hapiru

and Baalism as the

ideology of the ruling Canaanite class. The prophets would be

considered as the political
commissars of the time who helped to coin, shape and reshape the
ideology of Yahwism andarticulate it to the people boosting morale
and motivation to the Hapirus during the liberation

movement. The prophets acted as the custodians of the ideals of the

liberation movement.

One can also look at the link between the origins prophecy and
politics in Israel in terms of

transition from a tribal confederacy to a monarchy and from

priesthood to prophecy. The

priests were part of the state as the office was sponsored by the state.
With the establishment

of the monarchy, kings probably abused their political power and

perhaps got away with it

because of the office of a priest would not criticize the king (the hand
that was feeding them)
as he was in charge of the state treasury. There was thus need to
evolve an independent office

that would speak for the poor and provide checks and balances on the
office of the king.

Prophets arose to fulfil thistask

Weaknesses

This theory assumed that there was no prophecy before settlement in

Canaan yet we have

Abraham and Moses who are regarded as prophets.

PROPHECY HAS BOTH CULTIC AND POLITICAL ORIGINS

According to F.M Cross prophecy started with kingship and died

together in exile. This is also
supported by M. Noth’s evolutionary theory which argued that
prophecy evolved from

seership. Prophecy originated as a class struggle or conflict of

institutions that is cultic versus

political institution. When the monarchy emerged there was

proliferation of prophetic guilds

who were situated near the Philistine garrison to champion holy wars.
In this regard prophecy

emerged as a religio- political stance to inspire nationalism and

revolutionalism in Israelites

as they were faced with a war torn political event. Such political crisis
needed religious

interpreters to give the divine will and inspire holly wars. According to
Harrelson the
emergence of prophecy could be associated with institutional conflict.
He argued that Israel

was a covenant community with covenant representatives who

mediated the divine will, for

example Moses and Joshua. The rise of the monarchy seems to have
given the kings the role

of the covenant mediators and yet the community wanted the

presence of the freedom of

Yahweh to declaire his will. As a result certain figures arose in a bid to

check kingship

usurpation of this religious duty. This explains why Samuel charged

Saul in 1 Samuel 13:13-

14. The king was not the official spokesperson of the deity. Nathan
refused David permission
to build the temple and promised him a dynastic rule that was to last
forever (2 Samuel 7:1ff).

so prophecy emerged as a conflict between two ideologies, that of

divine leadership

represented by charismatic office of the judges and that of prophetic

office. The fact that

prophecy thrived during the monarchy and later died with it showed
interdependence of the

two.

*WEAKNESSES*

The divine nature of prophecy was not well manifested. 1 Samuel 9:9
is ambiguous, word seer

and prophet are used interchangeably.*ORIGINS OF PROPHECY*

*THEORIES*
Main line of arguements

a) *Prophecy as borrowed*

*legend of Wen Amon*, *Zimri lim, Stelle of Zark.*

b)* Prophecy as unique feature of Israel.*

*PROBLEMS CONCERNING THE ORIGINS*

1. We do not seem to have enough sources to allow us to reconstruct

the history of

the phenomenon, and in particular we do not have extra biblical

material with

which to compare and contrast the biblical material that we have. So

the bible

remains our primary source.

2. The material that is present is not homogenous enough to allow us

to make a
smooth reconstruction of the origins of Israelite prophecy.

3. We do notknow whether the information we have about prophecy

is not a

reflection of a changing situation in the life of Israel.

4. We are not sure whether the labels we have are not of self-
understanding of other

groups. Sometimes we are given labels that do not tally with what we
think about

ourselves. We carry labels given to us by the community and not the

original ones.

*EXTRA BIBLICAL MATERIAL*

In Egyptian texts there is a reference to priestly prophets but this title

refers to a

Servant of God. So these priestly prophets may not be prophets in the

real sense of
the word. Cananite text from Mesopotamia, in particular the Ugarit
text, there is

reference to prophet type figures who are diviners. In the bible for
example 1Kings

18:19 there is reference to Baal and Asherah, but their exact character
is not known. An overally Canaanite source either refers to divination
or they are so vague that no

proper conclusion concerning the origins of prophecy can be drawn.

*BIBLICAL SOURCES*

Biblical sources are not homogenous in their presentation of

prophecy. So it is still

difficult to arrive at a smooth origin of the phenomenon, for example

two books of

Samuel the term prophet is used differently in different texts and

often used

interchangeably with the term seer. There are certain prophets who
are referred to

as prophets e.g. Nathan is always referred to as a prophet, and some

who are referred
to as both prophet and seer, for example Gad. According to 1 Samuel
9:9 the two

terms do not mean one and the same thing. It appears the term
prophet evolved from

the term seer (Amos 7:14). However in 2 Samuel 24:11 Gad is referred
as both seer

and prophet. In the two books of Kings Elijah was regarded as a

prophet but

sometimes he is regarded as the ‘man of God’. Elisha is also given the

title man of God

in 2 Kings 4:7,9,16,21,27, but the disciples who gather around him are
referred to as

the sons of the prophet, as if to suggest that the man of God and the
prophet are one

and the same thing. Amaziah referred to Amos as a seer but Amos
rejects it and saidhe was not a prophet as if to suggest a prophet and
seer are one and the same thing.

With these fluctuations in meaning then who was a prophet, let alone
how the name

originated?
The origins of prophecy is controversial. Various views and theories
have been brought

forward of a sociological function, historical and philosophical nature.

Such theories

are equally porus.

*Basically there are two broad theories on the origins of prophecy:*

*1. Prophecy as a borrowed phenomenon*

*2. Prophecy as unique feature of Israel.*

*PROPHECY AS A COMMON AND BORROWED* *PHENOMENON/

ASSOCIATIONIST*

*THEORY*

Scholars who subscribe to this view, for example *J. Lindblom*, use
extra biblical

material from the Ancient Near East to show that there are certain
similarities which

can be established between prophecy in Israel and Prophecy in the

Ancient Near East.
According to *J. Bright* the patriarchs borrowed the culture of the
Mesopotamians. If

they could borrow the culture of the Mesopotamians what could stop
them from

borrowing their religion? In support of this view *J.Pederson* argues

that the whole

institution belong to Canaan and is closely related to Canaanite

culture. There is some

substance in this theory because of the similarities between Israelite

and Ancient Near East prophecy.

*Evidence in support of this:*

1. The word prophet itself came from a foreign word nabi which is a
Hebrew word

and hence is not of Israelite origin.

2. The covenant arrayed by Yahweh and the people through the

prophets are like the
suzerain treaties of the Hitites.

3. Ecstacy which is regarded as one of the earliest form of prophecy in

Israel; was not

for them only, for example Baal prophets at the contest at Mount
Carmel were

ecstatic too. (Refer to the legend of Wen Amon)

4. Israelite prophets had clear court connections and some

Ancientnear East

prophets had connections with courts, for example Mantic and

Mahhumm

prophets of the god Dagan in the time of Hammurabi, although they

seem not to

have used the oracles as such.

5. Prophets as mouth- pieces of deities. In the Mari text there was a

Syrian god Adad
who used a prophet as his mouth- piece and the prophet claimed
authority over

the king.

6. Prophetic guilds.*THE LEGEND OF WEN AMON*

According to this legend, there was a certain man by the name Wen
Amon from Egypt

who went to a certain centre in Phoenicia called Biblis looking for

timber to build a

temple for his god, AmonRe. On arrival Wen Amon forwarded his
request to the prince

but the prince ignored him because he was busy offering sacrifices to
his God. It was

during this sacrificial ceremony when a youth got into trance or

ecstacy. The youth in

this state summoned the priest’s mission, and without making any
decision the prince

granted Wen Amon’s request.

According to this school there is a sense in which the possessed youth
can be

considered as a prophet. In other words the youth possessed three

prophetic traits:

1. Ecstacy

2. Ability to foretell (prediction)

3. Prophetic authority

So if we consider this youth as a prophet there is no way we can say

this phenomenon

is unique to Israel.

*THE LEGEND OD ZIMRI LIM FROM MARI TEXT*

Mari was a cultic centre and Zimri lim was a legendary king of
Mesopotamia. The
legend talks about a certain seer who went to Zimri lim with a
message from god Adad

and the message was ‘Iam the god who made you king over
Mesopotamia if you obey

me I will bless you, if you disobey I will punish you’. This seer is said to
have released

this message in ecstacy.

*SIMILARITIES*

1. The title seer is also used to refer to Israelite prophet.

2. Being ecstatic

3. Prophetic oracle is similar to Israelite prophetic oracles and

contents.

*THE STELLE OF ZAKR*

Zakr was a Syrian king. Stelle is an inscription on the rock. On the

tablet there seems
to be an oracle or statement which was released when the Syrians
were about to be

capturered. The king released the following words, ‘I lifted my hands

to Baal Shamayn

and he answered me and spoke to me by means of visionaries…’.

Although it was not

clear from the inscription on the rock, it appears these words are a
prophecy in

response to the king’s prayer and the people who are referred as
visionaries could be

regarded as prophets.

*WEAKNESSES*

1. It ignores the theological origins of prophecy that is the link

between prophecy

and religion.

2. It ignores political factors behind the emergency of prophecy.

3. It assumes that we have clearly identified characteristics of
prophecy which we

can use to define the phenomenon, in particular ecstacy is taken to be

a majorprophetic feature, the problem is we do not have a clearly
developed definition of

prophecy and in particular ecstacy was not a major feature of

prophecy in Israel. Rarely do we find Israelite prophets releasing their
oracles in a state of ecstacy. If

at all ecstacy was a major feature of prophecy then it was a feature of

earliest

prophets and tends to die out as we move to the classical period.

Moreover

according to J. Linblom ecstacy can not be borrowed as it is from a

deity.

4. Prophecy in the Ancient Near East was divinatory in nature, while

Israelite

prophets were not allowed means of gaining information used by

other nations,
e.g. necromancy, sooth saying, e.t.c. Israelite prophets were
commissioned by

God. They only prophesy in the name of Yahweh and their objective
was to

acertain the will of Yahweh regardless of personal wishes. Being

independent of

the hearers was the badge of a true prophet, for example the story of
Micaiah

when he was consulted by Ahab and Jehoshaphat.

These differences between prophecy in Ancient Near East and

prophecy in Israel led

some scholars to argue that prophecy in Israel must have been unique
to Israel. Basically these scholars pick certain unique features of
Israelite prophecy and use this

to argue for their positions. However they do not agree on what is

unique about

Israelite prophecy. Hence this broad theory can be split into sub-
theories.
*TRADITIONAL THEORY*

This theory argues that prophecy in Israel originated as a basic

mechanism through which

YAHWEH communicated the meaning and demands of his covenant

with Israel. Scholars who

subscribe to this theory submits that prophets were messengers of

YAHWEH who were

basically intermediaries or covenant mediators. This submission is in

the line with the

meanings of some of the terms that are used to refer to prophets.

According to

*W.B.ANDERSON* “the English word prophet is derived from the

Greek word prophetes which

can be translated to mean one who speaks for another party,

especially for the deity.” As

observed above the Hebrew equivalent term “nabi” can be translated

literally to mean the

one who communicates the divine will, so the idea remains the same
that prophet were
messengers of god.

From critics like H.GRUNKEL, and C.WESTERMAN support this

understanding. They analyzed

the form of oracles and discovered that the oracles almost always
began with what they called

the “messenger style”, thus says YAHWEH .The implication is that, the
prophets understood

themselves as messengers of the lord who communicated the

meaning and demands of gods

covenant with Israel. This therefore means that prophecy was

covenant specific, it could not

be understood outside the context of YAHWEH covenant with Israel.

This theory suggests that prophecy originated with Moses,

particularly with the Sinai

Covenant. The critics of this theory does not recognize the existence
of other covenants in

the OLD Testament like Genesis 15,Abraham.Those who subscribe to

this theory submit that
it is with the Sinai Covenant that we begin to see God entering into a
Covenant with Israel asa nation. Earlier than Moses, God had entered
into covenants with individuals and not with

Israel as a nation. In this context, scholars who argue for this theory
maintain that the

covenant was a unique feature of Israelite religion and it is in this light

that prophecy in Israel

could be regarded as unique.

An analysis of this theory can lead to the conclusion that prophecy in

Israel had cultic origins; it originated within the religious institutions
of Israel. The first scholar to suggest this view

was H.E Wald and it was later developed by G Holscher who explicitly
stated that, “prophets

were inspired as cultic figures, who were responsible for explaining

the meaning and demands of the covenant.” However, S Mowingel
and A.R Johnston have most convincingly argued the

theory of cultic prophets in the ancient Israel. According to them, “in

early Israel, the

difference between a priest and a prophet was not very great since
both responded to

inquiries, offered instruction, and performed sacramental functions.

Secondly, prophets are
frequently closely related to the priests and the temple, especially in
Jerusalem for instance,

Elijah, like the prophets of Baal, offers sacrifices, [1Kings 18:20-40]. In

this context, Mowingel

observes that, “prophets associated with the sanctuary served under

the supervision and

jurisdiction of the priests or with a status at least as high as, if not

actually higher than that of

the priests. Furthermore, Mowingelpointed to the divine speeches

and oracles in the Psalms

as further as evidence of prophetic functions within the cult.

According to him, “the oracles

were spoken to worshippers during rituals of national or personal

lament [Psalm 126; 60:8-

10, 91:14-16] and the coronation of Davidic rulers and other royal
occasions [Ps 2; 20; 21; 45; 89; 110; 132]”

*Critique*

The first problem with this sub-theory is that there were different
types of covenants within
Israel. The question, which arises, is that, which one of these
covenants was associated with

the origins of prophecy? This theory suggests that different prophets

may have arisen in

connection with different covenant traditions within Israel. For

instance, prophets from the

North probably originated in connection with and were probably

influenced by the Ephramite

traditions while prophets from the south were probably influenced by

Judean prophetic

traditions.

The second problem has to do with the assumption that the concept
of covenant was unique

feature of Israelite religion. This assumption has no strong base

because there are striking

similarities between the mosaic covenant and similar Hittite treaties,

like the suzerainty
treaty. Furthermore, this theory is based upon some assumption,
which may not be historical. For example, the historicity of the figure
of Moses and thee exodus itself is not

archaeologically confirmed. Finally, it is not explicitly clear that when

prophets prophesied

they always communicated the meaning and demands of God’s

covenant with Israel.

Prophets were messengers of Yahweh. Prophetes or nabi. The oracles

begin with a

messenger style. “Thus says the Lord…..” Prophecy was covenant with
Israel.

*THEOLOGICAL THEORY*

According to B.W Anderson, prophecy originated in Israel as a basic

mechanism through

which Yahweh communicated the meaning and his demands of the

covenant with Israel. This

is in line with the meaning of the two terms that were used to refer to
prophecy. The Greek

word prophetess can be translated to mean one who communicated

the divine will. Israelite
prophets regarded themselves messengers of Yahweh. H. Gunkel and
C. Westermann looked

at the phenomenon of prophecy from a form critical perspective and

they analyse the form

of prophetic utterances and discover that these began with the

‘messenger style’, ‘Thus says

the Lord…’ implying that their message was not from themselves but
from an external force.

These oracles specifically dealt with the covenant relationship

between Israel and Yahweh. So prophecy in Israel was covenant
specific. Such a covenant relationship was a unique

feature of Israelite religion. This supports that Moses is the first

prophet. He is the

representative of all prophets. (Deut 18:18).

*PROBLEMS*
1. There are some situations and there are some prophets without
necessarily talking

about the covenant and similarly there are some circumstances where
certain

Israelite figures talked about the covenant without prophesying, for

example Noah.

2. Some scholars like M. Noth challenged the view that Moses was the
first prophet

on the grounds that all the verses which support Moses as a prophet
are

anachronistic. In fact for M.Noth later editors made Moses into a

prophet yet he

was really a very good leader. However Von Rad observed that
prophecy I Israel is

associated with the cult, leadership or both. This observation remains

valid and

from then onwards we proceed in three directions, that prophecy has

either cultic

or political origins or both.

*CULTIC ORIGINS*

The priestly theory is in support of Samuel as the first prophet as is

proven in 1Samuel3. It

states that prophecy is just an advancement of priesthood. Partly in

support of the above

theory is the seership theory which states that prophecy originated

from seership and this is

also regarded as the evolutionary theory by M. Noth.This theory is

mainly based on 1 Samuel 9:9. The implication of this verse is that the
office of

a prophet evolved from that of a seer. There was a historical

development from the office of

a seer to that of a prophet. The assumption is that there should be a

distinction between a

prophet and a seer.This theory is supported by semantics. A semantic

analysis of the Hebrew terms which are

used to refer to a seer are roeh and hozer meaning one who is gifted
with the ability toforetell, whereas the Hebrew term for a prophet is
nabi which refer to a person who can do both foretelling and forth
telling. Seers were primarily divinatory in that their emphasis is in

the future but prophets were concerned with the present. If at all
they refer to the future

there was specific reason to relate the future to the present.

*WEAKNESSES*

1. This theory is based on 1 Samuel 9:9 and the assumption is that

Samuel was the

last judge and the first prophet, yet Genesis 20:7 refer to Abraham as
a prophet

and Deut 18:18, Hosea 12:13 refer to Moses as the first and architect
of prophecy.

Therefore we cannot assume that prophecy began with Samuel.

2. This theory assumes that there is a clear distinction between a seer

and a prophet,
yet the two terms are used interchangeably, e.g. 2Samuel 24:11, Gad
is regarded

as both a seer and a prophet. Amos in Amos 7:14 when he was

addressed as a

seer he responded denying that he was a prophet nor a prophet’s son,

as if to

suggest the two terms mean one and the same thing. However some
scholars try

to distinguish a prophet and a seer.

The difference is that:

1. A seer was more or less associated with specific shrine while

prophets were

itinerant.
2. A seer was more or less a priest in that he dealt with issues of the
cult, especially

those elements that involve sacrifices.

3. A seer receives remuneration for a service, while a prophet receive

gifts.

4. More often than not prophets clashed with kings and its rare to find
seers clashing

with kings.

POLITICAL OR SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY

It is based on sociological school of Mark Weber and Norman

Gottwald. They believe that

prophecy has its origins in sociological tension, as a result of

commercialization which led to
the creation of a social pyramid in Israel. When Israel settled in
Canaan there developed three

social groups, the aristocracy, the merchant and the commons (poor).
The commons were

being exploited by the elite and as a result there was class struggle in
Israel. From this class

struggle emerged some charismatic figures especially among the

exploited class. Such figures

were prophets who became the champions of the poor. They were
the spokespersons of the

deprived, the voice of the voiceless and were supported by Yahweh.

This theory is supported

by the incident of Naboth and Ahab in 1 Kings 21. Amos also defended
the poor. Such a theory
is important as it considered elements of economic and social factors
which influence the rise

of prophecy.

The process of the Exodus and the settlement in Canaan can be

explained in terms of a

political movement.in the light of this one can explain the origin of
prophecy in terms of the

clash between two ideologies, Yahwism as the ideology of the Hapiru

and Baalism as the

ideology of the ruling Canaanite class. The prophets would be

considered as the political

commissars of the time who helped to coin, shape and reshape the
ideology of Yahwism andarticulate it to the people boosting morale
and motivation to the Hapirus during the liberation
movement. The prophets acted as the custodians of the ideals of the
liberation movement.

One can also look at the link between the origins prophecy and
politics in Israel in terms of

transition from a tribal confederacy to a monarchy and from

priesthood to prophecy. The

priests were part of the state as the office was sponsored by the state.
With the establishment

of the monarchy, kings probably abused their political power and

perhaps got away with it

because of the office of a priest would not criticize the king (the hand
that was feeding them)

as he was in charge of the state treasury. There was thus need to

evolve an independent office
that would speak for the poor and provide checks and balances on the
office of the king.

Prophets arose to fulfil thistask

Weaknesses

This theory assumed that there was no prophecy before settlement in

Canaan yet we have

Abraham and Moses who are regarded as prophets.

PROPHECY HAS BOTH CULTIC AND POLITICAL ORIGINS

According to F.M Cross prophecy started with kingship and died

together in exile. This is also

supported by M. Noth’s evolutionary theory which argued that

prophecy evolved from
seership. Prophecy originated as a class struggle or conflict of
institutions that is cultic versus

political institution. When the monarchy emerged there was

proliferation of prophetic guilds

who were situated near the Philistine garrison to champion holy wars.
In this regard prophecy

emerged as a religio- political stance to inspire nationalism and

revolutionalism in Israelites

as they were faced with a war torn political event. Such political crisis
needed religious

interpreters to give the divine will and inspire holly wars. According to
Harrelson the

emergence of prophecy could be associated with institutional conflict.

He argued that Israel
was a covenant community with covenant representatives who
mediated the divine will, for

example Moses and Joshua. The rise of the monarchy seems to have
given the kings the role

of the covenant mediators and yet the community wanted the

presence of the freedom of

Yahweh to declaire his will. As a result certain figures arose in a bid to

check kingship

usurpation of this religious duty. This explains why Samuel charged

Saul in 1 Samuel 13:13-

14. The king was not the official spokesperson of the deity. Nathan
refused David permission

to build the temple and promised him a dynastic rule that was to last
forever (2 Samuel 7:1ff).
so prophecy emerged as a conflict between two ideologies, that of
divine leadership

represented by charismatic office of the judges and that of prophetic

office. The fact that

prophecy thrived during the monarchy and later died with it showed
interdependence of the

two.

*WEAKNESSES*

The divine nature of prophecy was not well manifested. 1 Samuel 9:9
is ambiguous, word seer

and prophet are used interchangeably.*ORIGINS OF PROPHECY*

*THEORIES*

Main line of arguements

a) *Prophecy as borrowed*
*legend of Wen Amon*, *Zimri lim, Stelle of Zark.*

b)* Prophecy as unique feature of Israel.*

*PROBLEMS CONCERNING THE ORIGINS*

1. We do not seem to have enough sources to allow us to reconstruct

the history of

the phenomenon, and in particular we do not have extra biblical

material with

which to compare and contrast the biblical material that we have. So

the bible

remains our primary source.

2. The material that is present is not homogenous enough to allow us

to make a

smooth reconstruction of the origins of Israelite prophecy.

3. We do notknow whether the information we have about prophecy
is not a

reflection of a changing situation in the life of Israel.

4. We are not sure whether the labels we have are not of self-
understanding of other

groups. Sometimes we are given labels that do not tally with what we
think about

ourselves. We carry labels given to us by the community and not the

original ones.

*EXTRA BIBLICAL MATERIAL*

In Egyptian texts there is a reference to priestly prophets but this title

refers to a

Servant of God. So these priestly prophets may not be prophets in the

real sense of

the word. Cananite text from Mesopotamia, in particular the Ugarit

text, there is
reference to prophet type figures who are diviners. In the bible for
example 1Kings

18:19 there is reference to Baal and Asherah, but their exact character
is not known. An overally Canaanite source either refers to divination
or they are so vague that no

proper conclusion concerning the origins of prophecy can be drawn.

*BIBLICAL SOURCES*

Biblical sources are not homogenous in their presentation of

prophecy. So it is still

difficult to arrive at a smooth origin of the phenomenon, for example

two books of

Samuel the term prophet is used differently in different texts and

often used

interchangeably with the term seer. There are certain prophets who
are referred to

as prophets e.g. Nathan is always referred to as a prophet, and some

who are referred

to as both prophet and seer, for example Gad. According to 1 Samuel

9:9 the two
terms do not mean one and the same thing. It appears the term
prophet evolved from

the term seer (Amos 7:14). However in 2 Samuel 24:11 Gad is referred
as both seer

and prophet. In the two books of Kings Elijah was regarded as a

prophet but

sometimes he is regarded as the ‘man of God’. Elisha is also given the

title man of God

in 2 Kings 4:7,9,16,21,27, but the disciples who gather around him are
referred to as

the sons of the prophet, as if to suggest that the man of God and the
prophet are one

and the same thing. Amaziah referred to Amos as a seer but Amos
rejects it and saidhe was not a prophet as if to suggest a prophet and
seer are one and the same thing.

With these fluctuations in meaning then who was a prophet, let alone
how the name

originated?

The origins of prophecy is controversial. Various views and theories

have been brought
forward of a sociological function, historical and philosophical nature.
Such theories

are equally porus.

*Basically there are two broad theories on the origins of prophecy:*

*1. Prophecy as a borrowed phenomenon*

*2. Prophecy as unique feature of Israel.*

*PROPHECY AS A COMMON AND BORROWED* *PHENOMENON/

ASSOCIATIONIST*

*THEORY*

Scholars who subscribe to this view, for example *J. Lindblom*, use
extra biblical

material from the Ancient Near East to show that there are certain
similarities which

can be established between prophecy in Israel and Prophecy in the

Ancient Near East.
According to *J. Bright* the patriarchs borrowed the culture of the
Mesopotamians. If

they could borrow the culture of the Mesopotamians what could stop
them from

borrowing their religion? In support of this view *J.Pederson* argues

that the whole

institution belong to Canaan and is closely related to Canaanite

culture. There is some

substance in this theory because of the similarities between Israelite

and Ancient Near East prophecy.

*Evidence in support of this:*

1. The word prophet itself came from a foreign word nabi which is a
Hebrew word

and hence is not of Israelite origin.

2. The covenant arrayed by Yahweh and the people through the

prophets are like the

suzerain treaties of the Hitites.

3. Ecstacy which is regarded as one of the earliest form of prophecy in
Israel; was not

for them only, for example Baal prophets at the contest at Mount
Carmel were

ecstatic too. (Refer to the legend of Wen Amon)

4. Israelite prophets had clear court connections and some

Ancientnear East

prophets had connections with courts, for example Mantic and

Mahhumm

prophets of the god Dagan in the time of Hammurabi, although they

seem not to

have used the oracles as such.

5. Prophets as mouth- pieces of deities. In the Mari text there was a

Syrian god Adad
who used a prophet as his mouth- piece and the prophet claimed
authority over

the king.

6. Prophetic guilds.*THE LEGEND OF WEN AMON*

According to this legend, there was a certain man by the name Wen
Amon from Egypt

who went to a certain centre in Phoenicia called Biblis looking for

timber to build a

temple for his god, AmonRe. On arrival Wen Amon forwarded his
request to the prince

but the prince ignored him because he was busy offering sacrifices to
his God. It was

during this sacrificial ceremony when a youth got into trance or

ecstacy. The youth in

this state summoned the priest’s mission, and without making any
decision the prince

granted Wen Amon’s request.

According to this school there is a sense in which the possessed youth
can be

considered as a prophet. In other words the youth possessed three

prophetic traits:

1. Ecstacy

2. Ability to foretell (prediction)

3. Prophetic authority

So if we consider this youth as a prophet there is no way we can say

this phenomenon

is unique to Israel.

*THE LEGEND OD ZIMRI LIM FROM MARI TEXT*

Mari was a cultic centre and Zimri lim was a legendary king of
Mesopotamia. The
legend talks about a certain seer who went to Zimri lim with a
message from god Adad

and the message was ‘Iam the god who made you king over
Mesopotamia if you obey

me I will bless you, if you disobey I will punish you’. This seer is said to
have released

this message in ecstacy.

*SIMILARITIES*

1. The title seer is also used to refer to Israelite prophet.

2. Being ecstatic

3. Prophetic oracle is similar to Israelite prophetic oracles and

contents.

*THE STELLE OF ZAKR*

Zakr was a Syrian king. Stelle is an inscription on the rock. On the

tablet there seems
to be an oracle or statement which was released when the Syrians
were about to be

capturered. The king released the following words, ‘I lifted my hands

to Baal Shamayn

and he answered me and spoke to me by means of visionaries…’.

Although it was not

clear from the inscription on the rock, it appears these words are a
prophecy in

response to the king’s prayer and the people who are referred as
visionaries could be

regarded as prophets.

*WEAKNESSES*

1. It ignores the theological origins of prophecy that is the link

between prophecy

and religion.

2. It ignores political factors behind the emergency of prophecy.

3. It assumes that we have clearly identified characteristics of
prophecy which we

can use to define the phenomenon, in particular ecstacy is taken to be

a majorprophetic feature, the problem is we do not have a clearly
developed definition of

prophecy and in particular ecstacy was not a major feature of

prophecy in Israel. Rarely do we find Israelite prophets releasing their
oracles in a state of ecstacy. If

at all ecstacy was a major feature of prophecy then it was a feature of

earliest

prophets and tends to die out as we move to the classical period.

Moreover

according to J. Linblom ecstacy can not be borrowed as it is from a

deity.

4. Prophecy in the Ancient Near East was divinatory in nature, while

Israelite

prophets were not allowed means of gaining information used by

other nations,
e.g. necromancy, sooth saying, e.t.c. Israelite prophets were
commissioned by

God. They only prophesy in the name of Yahweh and their objective
was to

acertain the will of Yahweh regardless of personal wishes. Being

independent of

the hearers was the badge of a true prophet, for example the story of
Micaiah

when he was consulted by Ahab and Jehoshaphat.

These differences between prophecy in Ancient Near East and

prophecy in Israel led

some scholars to argue that prophecy in Israel must have been unique
to Israel. Basically these scholars pick certain unique features of
Israelite prophecy and use this

to argue for their positions. However they do not agree on what is

unique about

Israelite prophecy. Hence this broad theory can be split into sub-
theories.
*TRADITIONAL THEORY*

This theory argues that prophecy in Israel originated as a basic

mechanism through which

YAHWEH communicated the meaning and demands of his covenant

with Israel. Scholars who

subscribe to this theory submits that prophets were messengers of

YAHWEH who were

basically intermediaries or covenant mediators. This submission is in

the line with the

meanings of some of the terms that are used to refer to prophets.

According to

*W.B.ANDERSON* “the English word prophet is derived from the

Greek word prophetes which

can be translated to mean one who speaks for another party,

especially for the deity.” As

observed above the Hebrew equivalent term “nabi” can be translated

literally to mean the

one who communicates the divine will, so the idea remains the same
that prophet were
messengers of god.

From critics like H.GRUNKEL, and C.WESTERMAN support this

understanding. They analyzed

the form of oracles and discovered that the oracles almost always
began with what they called

the “messenger style”, thus says YAHWEH .The implication is that, the
prophets understood

themselves as messengers of the lord who communicated the

meaning and demands of gods

covenant with Israel. This therefore means that prophecy was

covenant specific, it could not

be understood outside the context of YAHWEH covenant with Israel.

This theory suggests that prophecy originated with Moses,

particularly with the Sinai

Covenant. The critics of this theory does not recognize the existence
of other covenants in

the OLD Testament like Genesis 15,Abraham.Those who subscribe to

this theory submit that
it is with the Sinai Covenant that we begin to see God entering into a
Covenant with Israel asa nation. Earlier than Moses, God had entered
into covenants with individuals and not with

Israel as a nation. In this context, scholars who argue for this theory
maintain that the

covenant was a unique feature of Israelite religion and it is in this light

that prophecy in Israel

could be regarded as unique.

An analysis of this theory can lead to the conclusion that prophecy in

Israel had cultic origins; it originated within the religious institutions
of Israel. The first scholar to suggest this view

was H.E Wald and it was later developed by G Holscher who explicitly
stated that, “prophets

were inspired as cultic figures, who were responsible for explaining

the meaning and demands of the covenant.” However, S Mowingel
and A.R Johnston have most convincingly argued the

theory of cultic prophets in the ancient Israel. According to them, “in

early Israel, the

difference between a priest and a prophet was not very great since
both responded to

inquiries, offered instruction, and performed sacramental functions.

Secondly, prophets are
frequently closely related to the priests and the temple, especially in
Jerusalem for instance,

Elijah, like the prophets of Baal, offers sacrifices, [1Kings 18:20-40]. In

this context, Mowingel

observes that, “prophets associated with the sanctuary served under

the supervision and

jurisdiction of the priests or with a status at least as high as, if not

actually higher than that of

the priests. Furthermore, Mowingelpointed to the divine speeches

and oracles in the Psalms

as further as evidence of prophetic functions within the cult.

According to him, “the oracles

were spoken to worshippers during rituals of national or personal

lament [Psalm 126; 60:8-

10, 91:14-16] and the coronation of Davidic rulers and other royal
occasions [Ps 2; 20; 21; 45; 89; 110; 132]”

*Critique*

The first problem with this sub-theory is that there were different
types of covenants within
Israel. The question, which arises, is that, which one of these
covenants was associated with

the origins of prophecy? This theory suggests that different prophets

may have arisen in

connection with different covenant traditions within Israel. For

instance, prophets from the

North probably originated in connection with and were probably

influenced by the Ephramite

traditions while prophets from the south were probably influenced by

Judean prophetic

traditions.

The second problem has to do with the assumption that the concept
of covenant was unique

feature of Israelite religion. This assumption has no strong base

because there are striking

similarities between the mosaic covenant and similar Hittite treaties,

like the suzerainty
treaty. Furthermore, this theory is based upon some assumption,
which may not be historical. For example, the historicity of the figure
of Moses and thee exodus itself is not

archaeologically confirmed. Finally, it is not explicitly clear that when

prophets prophesied

they always communicated the meaning and demands of God’s

covenant with Israel.

Prophets were messengers of Yahweh. Prophetes or nabi. The oracles

begin with a

messenger style. “Thus says the Lord…..” Prophecy was covenant with
Israel.

*THEOLOGICAL THEORY*

According to B.W Anderson, prophecy originated in Israel as a basic

mechanism through

which Yahweh communicated the meaning and his demands of the

covenant with Israel. This

is in line with the meaning of the two terms that were used to refer to
prophecy. The Greek

word prophetess can be translated to mean one who communicated

the divine will. Israelite
prophets regarded themselves messengers of Yahweh. H. Gunkel and
C. Westermann looked

at the phenomenon of prophecy from a form critical perspective and

they analyse the form

of prophetic utterances and discover that these began with the

‘messenger style’, ‘Thus says

the Lord…’ implying that their message was not from themselves but
from an external force.

These oracles specifically dealt with the covenant relationship

between Israel and Yahweh. So prophecy in Israel was covenant
specific. Such a covenant relationship was a unique

feature of Israelite religion. This supports that Moses is the first

prophet. He is the

representative of all prophets. (Deut 18:18).

*PROBLEMS*
1. There are some situations and there are some prophets without
necessarily talking

about the covenant and similarly there are some circumstances where
certain

Israelite figures talked about the covenant without prophesying, for

example Noah.

2. Some scholars like M. Noth challenged the view that Moses was the
first prophet

on the grounds that all the verses which support Moses as a prophet
are

anachronistic. In fact for M.Noth later editors made Moses into a

prophet yet he

was really a very good leader. However Von Rad observed that
prophecy I Israel is

associated with the cult, leadership or both. This observation remains

valid and

from then onwards we proceed in three directions, that prophecy has

either cultic

or political origins or both.

*CULTIC ORIGINS*

The priestly theory is in support of Samuel as the first prophet as is

proven in 1Samuel3. It

states that prophecy is just an advancement of priesthood. Partly in

support of the above

theory is the seership theory which states that prophecy originated

from seership and this is

also regarded as the evolutionary theory by M. Noth.This theory is

mainly based on 1 Samuel 9:9. The implication of this verse is that the
office of

a prophet evolved from that of a seer. There was a historical

development from the office of

a seer to that of a prophet. The assumption is that there should be a

distinction between a

prophet and a seer.This theory is supported by semantics. A semantic

analysis of the Hebrew terms which are

used to refer to a seer are roeh and hozer meaning one who is gifted
with the ability toforetell, whereas the Hebrew term for a prophet is
nabi which refer to a person who can do both foretelling and forth
telling. Seers were primarily divinatory in that their emphasis is in

the future but prophets were concerned with the present. If at all
they refer to the future

there was specific reason to relate the future to the present.

*WEAKNESSES*

1. This theory is based on 1 Samuel 9:9 and the assumption is that

Samuel was the

last judge and the first prophet, yet Genesis 20:7 refer to Abraham as
a prophet

and Deut 18:18, Hosea 12:13 refer to Moses as the first and architect
of prophecy.

Therefore we cannot assume that prophecy began with Samuel.

2. This theory assumes that there is a clear distinction between a seer

and a prophet,
yet the two terms are used interchangeably, e.g. 2Samuel 24:11, Gad
is regarded

as both a seer and a prophet. Amos in Amos 7:14 when he was

addressed as a

seer he responded denying that he was a prophet nor a prophet’s son,

as if to

suggest the two terms mean one and the same thing. However some
scholars try

to distinguish a prophet and a seer.

The difference is that:

1. A seer was more or less associated with specific shrine while

prophets were

itinerant.
2. A seer was more or less a priest in that he dealt with issues of the
cult, especially

those elements that involve sacrifices.

3. A seer receives remuneration for a service, while a prophet receive

gifts.

4. More often than not prophets clashed with kings and its rare to find
seers clashing

with kings.

POLITICAL OR SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY

It is based on sociological school of Mark Weber and Norman

Gottwald. They believe that

prophecy has its origins in sociological tension, as a result of

commercialization which led to
the creation of a social pyramid in Israel. When Israel settled in
Canaan there developed three

social groups, the aristocracy, the merchant and the commons (poor).
The commons were

being exploited by the elite and as a result there was class struggle in
Israel. From this class

struggle emerged some charismatic figures especially among the

exploited class. Such figures

were prophets who became the champions of the poor. They were
the spokespersons of the

deprived, the voice of the voiceless and were supported by Yahweh.

This theory is supported

by the incident of Naboth and Ahab in 1 Kings 21. Amos also defended
the poor. Such a theory
is important as it considered elements of economic and social factors
which influence the rise

of prophecy.

The process of the Exodus and the settlement in Canaan can be

explained in terms of a

political movement.in the light of this one can explain the origin of
prophecy in terms of the

clash between two ideologies, Yahwism as the ideology of the Hapiru

and Baalism as the

ideology of the ruling Canaanite class. The prophets would be

considered as the political

commissars of the time who helped to coin, shape and reshape the
ideology of Yahwism andarticulate it to the people boosting morale
and motivation to the Hapirus during the liberation
movement. The prophets acted as the custodians of the ideals of the
liberation movement.

One can also look at the link between the origins prophecy and
politics in Israel in terms of

transition from a tribal confederacy to a monarchy and from

priesthood to prophecy. The

priests were part of the state as the office was sponsored by the state.
With the establishment

of the monarchy, kings probably abused their political power and

perhaps got away with it

because of the office of a priest would not criticize the king (the hand
that was feeding them)

as he was in charge of the state treasury. There was thus need to

evolve an independent office
that would speak for the poor and provide checks and balances on the
office of the king.

Prophets arose to fulfil thistask

Weaknesses

This theory assumed that there was no prophecy before settlement in

Canaan yet we have

Abraham and Moses who are regarded as prophets.

PROPHECY HAS BOTH CULTIC AND POLITICAL ORIGINS

According to F.M Cross prophecy started with kingship and died

together in exile. This is also

supported by M. Noth’s evolutionary theory whic