Old Testament prophetic schools

Biblical-historical study Brief historical information about prophetic schools The internal structure of prophetic schools Biblical-historical study Prophetic schools are found in the historical books of the Old Testament mainly under two names: “the hosts of the prophets” and “the sons of the prophets.” We are unlikely to be mistaken in saying that when reading the Bible with these names, no definite ideas arise; If, however, any ideas arise, they are completely arbitrary, and when tested scientifically, they sometimes change completely, almost to the opposite. But at the same time, one feels instinctively that by “the hosts of the prophets” and “the sons of the prophets” we mean not insignificant and not random biblical-historical facts, but facts that are very characteristic of the entire history of biblical Jewry, which left their mark on its religious and moral physiognomy, especially in some moments of Old Testament history, facts that are especially characteristic of the greatest and highest phenomenon of the Old Testament Testament - for Old Testament prophecy. For the history and characteristics of Old Testament prophecy, the prophetic schools seem especially important because they appear during the periods of the most intense activity of the greatest prophets, “in the heroic era of Old Testament prophetism,” as one German researcher puts it. But all this historical significance, as well as the external form of the institution, is presented to the reader of the Bible in the most vague and indistinct outlines. This, in any case, undesirable phenomenon is due to the fact that the only source from which one can obtain any information about the prophetic schools, the Bible, provides too little material for judging the named institute and for its scientific research. Historical books, sometimes outlining in some detail the external history of Israel and the deeds of its kings, touch too briefly on the religious and moral state of the people in one or another period of its history, sometimes limiting themselves to the remark that such and such a king did something objectionable in the eyes of the Lord. Historical books speak about prophetic schools only when they enter the arena of the external political life of the people, and they speak about them insofar as their life and activities relate to the general political life. There is no special speech about prophetic schools themselves in the Bible. About the internal character of the prophetic schools, their external organization, the activities of the “sons of the prophets”, about the goals and objectives they set for themselves, about the ways and means adopted to achieve these goals and objectives - about all this the Bible, as if involuntarily letting it slip, drops - and then very rarely - completely insignificant remarks in two or three words. With this position of the primary source, it is clear that vast scope opens up for endless assumptions and fortune-telling, most of which can neither be accepted due to a lack of positive authorities, nor rejected due to the same lack of negative authorities. If scientific research should not consist only of assumptions and fortune-telling, then, obviously, the question of prophetic schools cannot have a strictly scientific formulation and cannot receive an indisputably scientific solution. Is this why this question does not attract the attention of scientific researchers of the Bible and biblical history? There is not a single major monograph on prophetic schools even in German scientific literature - an unusual phenomenon for German science. 1 The absence of monographs, of course, cannot be compensated for by what is available in other studies on related issues. Various remarks about the prophetic schools are scattered throughout countless “histories of the people of Israel,” “biblical commentaries,” and “theological encyclopedias.” 2 More attention is paid to the prophetic schools in monographs devoted to biblical prophetism in general. 3 But the comments of learned researchers are often arbitrary and very contradictory. The first should especially be said about the works of those Western scientists who take as their point of departure all the results of rationalistic biblical hypercriticism and read the Bible, printed not on plain white paper, but a multi-colored, rainbow Bible (Regenbogen-Bibel). In this article we do not at all pretend to have any scientific solution to the issue. No, our task is much more modest. We would like, without forgetting scientific works, to present in a concise outline what can be known about the history and organization of the prophetic schools from the Bible and how, in accordance with biblical data, one can imagine these wonderful institutions of Old Testament Jewry. In our opinion, even a brief reminder of the prophetic schools at the present time can have not only scientific, but also vital and practical significance, about which we will say a few words at the conclusion of the article. Brief historical information about the prophetic schools We find the first news of prophetic schools in the narrative of the 1st book of Samuel about Samuel and Saul. Samuel, having anointed Saul as king, gives him a sign that the Lord has anointed him king over His inheritance. By the way, one sign was next. “After this,” said Samuel, “you will come to the hill of God (hibat elohim), where the Philistine guards are... and when you enter the city there, you will meet a host of prophets (hebel nebiim) descending from on high, and before them is a psalter and a tympanum, and a pipe and a harp, and they prophesy (mitnabin); and the Spirit of the Lord will come upon you, and you will prophesy (hitnabita) with them and you will become a different person” (1 Samuel 10:1:5-6). Samuel's prediction came true. When Saul came to the hill, he met “a company of prophets, and the Spirit of God came upon him, and he prophesied among them. All those who knew him yesterday and the day before, seeing that he was prophesying with the prophets, said among the people to each other: what has become of the son of Kisov? is Saul also among the prophets? And one of those who were there answered and said: Who is the father of these? Therefore, it became a proverb: “Is Saul also among the prophets” (1 Sam. 10, 10-12). Another time we encounter a prophetic host in the story of the persecutions of Saul and David. “They told Saul, saying, “Behold David is in Nabath in Ramah.” And Saul sent servants to take David, and when they saw a host of prophets prophesying and Samuel ruling over them, the Spirit of God came upon Saul’s servants, and they began to prophesy. They reported this to Saul, and he sent other servants, but these also began to prophesy. Then Saul sent third servants, and these began to prophesy. ...Saul himself went to Ramah, and came to the great spring that is in Sepha, and asked, saying: Where are Samuel and David? And they said: here in Nawaf, in Ramah. And he went there to Nawath in Ramah, and the Spirit of God came upon him, and he went and prophesied until he came to Nawath in Ramah. And he also took off his clothes, and prophesied before Samuel, and all that day and all that night he lay naked; Therefore they say: “Is Saul also among the prophets” (banebiim) (1 Samuel 19:19–24)? In the above words we have the first biblical evidence of two hosts of prophets: one met Saul near the “hill of God.” By this hill we mean the hill on which the city of Gibeah was located, mentioned a little lower (see: 1 Samuel 10:26) 5 In the Russian translation of the Bible, the proper name Gibeah is translated as “hill of God.” Another case dates back to the last days of Samuel’s life, and in this case we see a more organized host of prophets, headed by Samuel and who had a permanent residence in Ramah, north of Jerusalem, in the tribe of Benjamin 6 . But does the first mention of prophetic schools in the Bible coincide with their actual historical beginning? Did prophetic schools appear only under Samuel, or did they exist before him? Most learned researchers accept that the establishment and foundation of these schools is due to the initiative of Samuel. Before the time of Samuel, there were no prophetic schools, and therefore they are not mentioned anywhere; in addition, in the 1st book of Kings (3:1) it is noted: “The word of the Lord was rare in those days, and visions... were not frequent” (1 Samuel 3:1). This remark allegedly indicates that during the period of the judges there were no prophetic schools. But, in any case, there are no sufficient grounds to decisively reject the existence of prophetic schools in one form or another before the life and work of the prophet Samuel. If the Bible does not say anywhere about the existence of prophetic hosts in pre-Samuel times, then it should be noted that the Bible does not say a word about the fact that Samuel founded these prophetic institutions. In the Bible, the prophetic hosts appear without any prefaces; nothing is said about their emergence, but it is said about their activities as already existing institutions. True, the Bible says that “the word of God was rare during the period of the judges... and visions were not frequent” (see: 1 Samuel 3:1), but still the word of the Lord and visions were, although not often. The providence of God has always been vigilant over the destinies of the chosen people; The activity of God’s Providence did not cease even during the times of the judges, which are considered to be particularly dark times. “The Lord raised up judges who saved the Jews from the hands of their robbers” (see: Judges 2, 16, 18), on whom, according to the Bible, was the “Spirit of the Lord” (see: Judges 3, 9–10), who sometimes had the gift of prophecy (see: Judges 4, 4). Sometimes the Lord sent His prophets, who preached the word of God (see: Judges 6, 8–10). During that period, the Bible sometimes calls these prophets “people of God” (see: 1 Samuel 2:27–36; cf.: 2 Chronicles 25:7, 9) and the Angels of the Lord (see: Judges 2:1–4). Jehovah spoke through Moses: “I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brothers, and I will put My words in His mouth, and He will tell them everything that I command Him” (Deut. 18:18). If here one can see in the prophet the collective concept of prophecy, and the previous verses give every right to do so (see: Deut. 18, 10, 14–15), then it should be assumed that the word of Jehovah was fulfilled during the time of the judges. In addition, the words of 1 Sam. 3:1 speak of the rarity of prophets, and prophets and prophetic hosts are, as we will see below, not the same thing. Some, placing the emergence of prophetic schools in close connection with the needs of the time, object to their early existence, as if there was no special need for their existence before the time of Samuel. Only under Samuel, at the request of the special and exceptional circumstances of the time, were whole hosts of prophets raised by God. 7 But it is in vain to look at the hosts or schools of the prophets as special messengers of God, as the prophets were, and to see their entire essence in external activity, without thinking about their internal life. As “hosts” of pious people, zealots not only of public piety, but also of personal one above all, prophetic hosts are natural and necessary at all times and under all kinds of historical circumstances. Historical circumstances that had changed for the worse could only encourage self-imprisoned prophetic “hosts” to enter the arena of public activity; this statement is deposited in the Bible without any notes about their early existence. Circumstances have indeed changed. The Jewish people entered a new phase of state life. “All the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel in Ramah, and said to him: ... set a king over us, so that he will judge us like other nations” (1 Samuel 8:4-5). The Law of Moses did not exclude this form of state life (see: Deut. 17, 15–20). But the people did not comprehend the theocratic ideas of the law, which are also clearly expressed in the law (see: Deut. 32:9; cf.: 1 Samuel 12:12). The elders added meaningful words to their request: like other nations. That is why “Samuel did not like this word” ... and God Himself said to Samuel: “They did not reject you, but they rejected Me” (1 Samuel 8:6-7) 8 But it cannot be accepted that the prophetic hosts were organized by Samuel specifically for the purpose of “protecting the cause of Jehovah and returning to the law the people who had deviated from it” 9 We see the prophetic host existing at the very establishment of the royal form of government (see: 1 Samuel 10, 5, 10). Institutions such as the prophetic hosts cannot be created in a few years or months. It is necessary to assume the early existence of the prophetic hosts, regardless of the purpose of existence put forward for them by later circumstances. You can also pay attention to the fact that with the second mention of the host of prophets who prophesied under the command of Samuel in Rama (see: 1 Samuel 19, 19–20), the host seems to have a definitely established organization, and this makes us look for its beginnings in earlier times. And even at the first mention of the host of prophets, its existence seems to have entered the popular consciousness as an ordinary fact that does not cause any amazement. “Is Saul also a prophet?” - those who knew him yesterday and the third day asked about Saul’s prophecy” (1 Sam. 10, 11). “And one of those who were there answered... and who is the father of these” (1 Samuel 10:12)? In this conversation, it is striking that for the speakers the host of prophets, its character, the origin of its members - all this is something very definite and ordinary for the speakers. Everything gives us the right to assume that there were prophetic schools or hosts before Samuel. One can refer to Maibaum 10 who most decisively asserts the existence of prophetic schools before Samuel and devotes an entire chapter of his research to a description of prophetic schools in pre-Samuel times. 11 But Maibaum, admitting the existence of prophetic schools before the time of Samuel, identifies them completely with the schools of pagan fortune-tellers. The study of pagan mantics, according to Maibaum, took first place in these schools. Samuel radically reformed these pagan schools, completely destroying the crude nature of the former prophecy - mantika, fortune telling. 12 Under Samuel, mantika gave way to prophecy based on internal revelation. In the reformed schools they stopped studying mantics; in its place are higher pursuits: music, poetry, the study of history, and the like. 13 Maibaum does not say how he himself learned about the common root of the origin of prophecy and pagan mantik 14 and on what grounds he proclaims his opinion to the learned world. For those who deny the early origin of Deuteronomy, of course, the strict distinction that is drawn there between Jewish prophecy and pagan mantle does not make sense, but for us this distinction is important. And in Deuteronomy, Moses says to the people: “The nations... whom you drive out listen to fortunetellers and soothsayers (kosemim) 15 but the Lord your God has not given you this. The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet from among you, from your brothers, like me” (Deut. 18:14-15). There is no basis in the Bible to claim that Samuel's earlier prophecy was in the nature of superstitious pagan fortune-telling. If there were any prophetic schools or hosts of prophets before Samuel, then they are best represented as unions or societies of especially religiously minded people who reduced even their everyday needs in order to spend more time in religious exercises in community with the same religious people. The constant concentration of their religious feeling made them more susceptible to the influences of the Divine, and there were times when they "prophesied." There is information about such mass prophecies in early biblical data. So, while still wandering through the desert, the Spirit descended on the 70 elders chosen to help Moses, and they began to prophesy. Two of them, Eldad and Modad, prophesied in the camp. When Joshua said to Moses, “Rebuke them,” Moses replied, “Aren’t you jealous for me? Oh that all the Lord’s people were prophets” (Num. 11:25–29). Even if not all of the Lord’s people were highly religious, there were always zealots of the faith who were sometimes rewarded with the influence of the Spirit of God 16 The biblical information about the prophetic schools of ancient times ends with the life story of Samuel. In the 2nd book of Kings there is absolutely no mention of prophetic schools, nor in the 3rd book, except for a fleeting single remark in 20:35 (1 Kings 20:35). Only in the 4th book of Kings, when narrating the time of the prophetic activity of Elijah and Elisha 17, information about prophetic schools is found again. Here the prophetic schools act under the name “sons of the prophets” (bene nebiim). The question arises: were there prophetic schools in the period from Samuel to Elijah, or did the “sons of the prophets” of the times of Elijah represent a completely new phenomenon, perhaps only similar to the “prophetic hosts” of the times of Samuel? Let us note that in the Bible there is no information about the disintegration of the prophetic hosts during the time of Samuel, and there is also no information about the emergence of societies of “sons of the prophets” during the time of the prophet Elijah. During the time of Elijah, the “sons of the prophets” appeared immediately and in large numbers. Therefore, we can already assume that there were societies of prophets after Samuel and before Elijah. The fact that the 4th book of Kings exclusively uses the term “sons of the prophets” (bene nebiim), which is not found in the 1st book of Kings, can hardly be a sufficient basis for the assertion that the 4th book speaks of a completely new institution. 18 The name could change depending on the time, as well as on the different writers of the 1st and 4th books of Kings. External activities could also be molded into new forms, but in essence it is hardly possible to note any contradictory features of the “hosts of the prophets” and the “sons of the prophets.” There are no sufficient grounds to deny the existence of prophetic schools in the period from Samuel to Elijah, that is, their continuous existence 19 True, there is absolutely no mention of prophetic schools in the history of David and Solomon, but some very vague hints can be found. Thus, one cannot help but pay attention to the fact that the prophet Nathan was of great importance under David and Solomon (see: 1 Kings 1:32, 34, 45). He even gives Solomon the name Jedidiah (see: 2 Kings 12:25). It is believed that Nathan was Solomon’s educator, just as Elisha was Joash’s educator. 20 Consequently, the religious and pedagogical mission was not alien to the prophets of this time. Nathan could raise not just Solomon, but a whole prophetic host. The Bible says many times that the prophets wrote chronicles at this time. “The deeds... of David... are described in the records of Samuel the seer... and in the records of Gad the seer” (1 Chron. 29:29). “The acts of Rehoboam... are described in the records of Samei the prophet and Adda the seer” (2 Chronicles 12:15); "the deeds of Asa 21 ... in the story of the prophet Adda" (2 Chronicles 13:22). This fact indicates that school activities were not alien to the prophets, as was the writing of national history. Vitringa sees some reflection of the fact of the existence of prophetic schools in Proverbs, which says that "Wisdom built herself a house ... and sent her servants to proclaim from the heights of the city" (Proverbs 9, 1, 3) 22 History books are busy depicting the intense political life under David and Solomon, and then the division of the kingdoms and the establishment of a new cult. But with all these high-profile external affairs, one must think, the internal work of religious consciousness was also carried out in the person of people who were especially disposed to this, who formed close alliances with each other under the control and guidance of the prophets. The 4th book of Kings lets us know about the societies of the “sons of the prophets” as societies that are very large in the number of members included in them and have a certain organization. This very convincingly speaks for the existence of prophetic schools earlier than the prophet Elijah. The last mention of prophetic schools is found in the prophet Amos. Amos said to Amaziah: “I am not a prophet, nor the son of a prophet; I was a shepherd and gathered sycamores” (Am. 7:14). True, nowhere is a member of prophetic societies called “the son of a prophet,” as Amos calls himself here. In the 1st book of Kings (1 Kings 20:35) we find the expression: one man is one of the sons of the prophets, therefore “son of a prophet” can be understood literally, in the sense of a son by birth, but another understanding is also permissible in connection with the previous words of Amaziah to Amos (Amos 7:12). Amos proves his right to prophecy by referring to the command of God and denies his connection with the prophets who prophesied and ate bread for it, according to Amaziah. He did not need to mention that he was not the son of a prophet, since being born from a prophet did not make him a prophet, and therefore one can see in the words “not the son of a prophet” an allusion to prophetic schools 23 Thus, one can determine the period of prosperity of prophetic schools as the time from Elijah to Amos 24 Of course, the prophetic schools could not disappear at any particular point in time, but it must be admitted that in the last years before the destruction of the kingdom of Israel, in connection with the general religious and moral decay of the people's life, the prophetic schools, which we allow ourselves to call the flowers of religious and moral life, also withered away. It is impossible to pass over in silence the fact that the books of Kings say absolutely nothing about the existence of prophetic schools in the kingdom of Judah. All the “sons of the prophets” mentioned in the 2nd book of Kings live and act only in the kingdom of Israel. But it seems to us hasty to conclude from this that there were no prophetic schools in the kingdom of Judah. Did the seeds sown by Samuel and already brought back by him remain completely fruitless? And is it really possible that in the Kingdom of Judah, with a higher level of religious life compared to the Kingdom of Israel, there were no special zealots of Jehovah who would unite with each other for religious and pedagogical purposes? Prophetic ministry was not limited to the kingdom of Israel; the prophecy was, one might even say, a supranational revelation of God on earth. 25 If the prophets had disciples in the kingdom of Israel, then why couldn’t there be the same disciples in the kingdom of Judah? But it is clear that there is absolutely nothing to be said to factually confirm the existence of prophetic schools in the kingdom of Judah. We have outlined the most important points in the historical existence of the Old Testament prophetic schools. The Bible, with its information, seems to throw two rays of light onto the completely obscure history of the prophetic schools. In the light of the first ray we see the prophetic hosts of the times of Samuel, and in the light of the second - the sons of the prophetic times of Elijah and Elisha. The prophetic hosts and the societies of the sons of the prophets are described with divergent and unequal features, but also non-contradictory ones. One can assume the continuous existence of prophetic schools 26 only by the time of the prophets Elijah and Elisha, these schools had a different external form. What stages did the prophetic schools go through in their historical development can only be guessed at, since there is no historical evidence. Writing in detail the history of the prophetic schools is a thankless task and of little use. Internal structure of prophetic schools The Bible gives many reasons to judge the internal structure of prophetic schools, although this information is far from sufficient for a clear and detailed presentation of both the essence and external forms of prophetic schools. In the messages of the 1st book of Samuel it is very difficult to see the essence of the “hosts of the prophets.” Some idea of ​​what these hosts are can be obtained from an analysis of the term used. Of course, one can judge the essence of an institution by its name only in the absence of other data. To designate the hosts of the prophets, the writer of the 1st book of Kings uses two terms: hebel nebiim (1 Samuel 10:5, 10) and lahaka hanebiim (1 Samuel 19:20). The first term does not only mean an assembly, a crowd of people, in this case prophets; this term indicates a closer unity of the persons composing the host than a simple random meeting in one place. The verb habal means “to bind inseparably,” and the noun hebel means “a closely united union of people.” The cognate word hoblim means “bonds” and is used in the Bible as a symbol of brotherhood, a close union. After all, we also use expressions - ties of kinship, ties of brotherhood. Thus, in the book of the prophet Zechariah we read: “And I broke My other rod, the bonds, to break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel” (Zech. 11:14). Here the “bonds” symbolize brotherhood. And therefore hebel can mean “fraternal union of persons.” On the other hand, the word hebel itself means “landing rope” (Mic. 2:5; Zech. 2:5; Am. 7:17; 2 Kings 8:2), “measured plot, area of the earth” (Joshua 17:14, 19:9; Deut. 3:4; Zeph. 2:5), “share, inheritance” as property (Deut. 32:9), and only then means “union of people.” If we take into account this meaning of the word hebel, then we can introduce into the concept of the host its distinctiveness, its isolation from the outside. In Deuteronomy it is said: “The portion of the Lord is His people, Jacob is His inheritance (hebel)” (Deut. 32:9). The same portion of the Lord were the prophetic hosts. Just as the entire Jewish people were separated from the midst of other nations, so the prophetic hosts were separated from the midst of the people themselves. Thus, an analysis of the term hebel gives the following two signs of a host of prophets: 1) fraternal unity of members - on the internal side and 2) isolation and isolation on the external side. The second term, lahaka, is less characteristic from the philological side. “Apax legТmenon lahaka – formed from kahal (kahal) by rearranging the letters. Kahal means society, assembly; The verb kahal means, by the way, “convenes.” Therefore, the term denoting a prophetic host characterizes it as convened, gathered not by chance, but for a specific purpose. In addition, attention is paid to the very name of the prophetic settlement near Rama - Nawaf, which, if translated as a common noun, corresponds to what we call a “dormitory” 27. All this data suggests that the prophetic hosts were not random societies of ecstatics; all terms define the prophetic hosts as societies that had their own modus vivendi. A particularly characteristic feature is reported in the 1st book of Samuel (1 Samuel 19:20): Saul’s ambassadors saw a host of prophets prophesying and Samuel commanding them. Samuel is called here the leader (nitsab) of the prophetic host. Nitsab is from the verb "natzab", which with the preposition al, as here, means "to be placed over something, assigned to something" (Ruth 2:5-6), and the noun itself with the same preposition means "a person standing at the head of some institution"; This, by the way, is the name given to the chief of Solomon’s officers and “the ruler of the king’s house” (1 Kings 4:5–6). Such an attitude of Samuel is possible only towards the organized society that he led. The fact that Samuel occupied a central place in the host is evidenced by the 1st book of Samuel (1 Samuel 19, 23–24): Saul, on whom “the Spirit of God descended... prophesied before Samuel.” All the above reasoning gives us the right not to consider the prophetic hosts as formless crowds of ecstatics, but to consider them organized institutions, their internal structure and character to be considered in connection with the societies of the sons of the prophets mentioned in the 4th book of Kings. We can unite the prophetic hosts and the societies of the sons of the prophets under one name: prophetic schools. 28 Most scholars do not distinguish between prophetic hosts and prophetic schools. Metropolitan Philaret calls both “prophetic schools.” Keil, Ehler, Maibaum, Keel, Hengstenberg and others call them indifferently prophetic schools. 29 Based on the philological analysis of the term hebel, we said that the prophetic host lived together and separately from other people. Biblical data confirms our assumption. Thus, already at the first mention of prophetic schools, we see “a host of prophets coming down from on high” (1 Samuel 10:5, 10). If the assumption of some is true that at the height of the hill there was a residence of the host, then we have here the first evidence of the life of the sons of the prophets in special places. In the same way, Nawaf can be considered the place of a prophetic settlement near Rama. But the story of the construction of a common dwelling, conveyed in the 4th book of Kings, speaks especially clearly about the common and separate life of the sons of the prophets. The sons of the prophets said to Elisha: “Behold, the place where we live with you is cramped for us; Let us go to the Jordan and take from there each one one log and make ourselves a place to live there. He said: go. And one said: Do me a favor, go you and your servants. And he said: I will go. And he went with them, and they came to the Jordan and began to cut down trees” (2 Kings 6:1-4). From this news, which was accidentally preserved, since the writer had the intention of reporting on the miracle performed by the prophet Elisha on the Jordan, - from this news it is absolutely clear that the unity of the sons of the prophets extended even to the place of residence, and it is absolutely impossible to deny the common life of the sons of the prophets, as Krapichfeld does. It should be noted, however, that the sons of the prophets in verse 1 speak of the crampedness of the place where they sat before the face of Samuel - this is how the Hebrew jasehabim scbam lephaneha should be literally translated. Therefore, it can be assumed that in [this] narrative we are talking about the construction of a new building for meetings near the prophet. But there is reason [to assume] that the sons of the prophets lived together near Jordan. Even if we are talking about the construction of only a prefabricated building, this still not only does not exclude, but even, on the contrary, proves that the sons of the prophets lived together. Otherwise, why did they build a building for their meetings near the Jordan, and not where they lived permanently? 30 But in addition, the text itself indicates that the sons of the prophets do not separate their dwellings from the place of meeting. “Let us make,” they say, “a place for ourselves to live there” (2 Kings 6:2). The place where they sat before the prophet is here called a place to live. Consequently, where the sons of the prophets gathered, they lived there together, perhaps under one roof. There is also an earlier indication of the same cohabitation of the sons of the prophets. In the Bible we read: “When Jezebel was destroying the prophets of the Lord, Obadiah took one hundred prophets and hid them, fifty at a time, in caves and fed them with bread and water” (1 Kings 18:4, 13). It can hardly be affirmatively asserted that this speaks only of individual prophets who, during times of persecution by Jezebel, gathered together. The very number of prophets about whose activities nothing is said speaks against such an understanding. It is strange to admit that so many prophets lived and acted in the kingdom of Israel at one time: Jezebel, one must think, has already destroyed part of them (1 Kings 19:14), and yet there are a hundred of them left. But Obadiah’s attitude towards these prophets speaks especially against the stated position. Obadiah himself said about himself: “I hid a hundred prophets of the Lord in groups of fifty in caves” (1 Kings 18:13). If these were individual prophets, then they themselves would be hiding from persecution, but here Obadiah appears, who seems to be in charge of all of them. It can therefore be assumed that the prophets of Jehovah, mentioned in the 3rd book of Kings (chap. 18) (1 Kings 18), constituted a prophetic school, headed by Obadiah. When difficult times of persecution from Jezebel came, Obadiah took care to hide his “prophets” in a safe place. The name "prophets" does not contradict the fact that they were members of the prophetic school; after all, the members of the assembly of the times of Samuel are called prophets (1 Sam. 10, 5, 10, 19:20, 24). But the passage cited also testifies to the fact that these prophets lived together. If these prophets lived in their own homes, they would not have hidden together; from being scattered, to gather together during persecution is completely unreasonable; Obviously, the prophets did not have their own homes. In addition, Obadiah emphasizes that, while hiding the prophets in caves, he divided them into two parts of fifty people each. In our opinion, this circumstance conceals a subtle hint that previously all the prophets lived together; their division into two parts therefore deserved to be noted. The cases noted above were when the prophets lived together in dwellings located in solitude. Sometimes prophetic schools were in cities, as we see schools in Bethel (2 Kings 2:3), in Jericho (2 Kings 2:5), but even in cities, members of prophetic schools act together. Perhaps they lived together in cities. These prophetic dwellings are called by some cenovia. 31 The community of life was not limited only to the community of housing. The Bible gives some basis for speculation in the prophetic schools and the common table. When there was a famine, Elisha said to his servant: “Put a large pot and cook stew for the sons of the prophets” (2 Kings 4:38). Another time, someone from Betharis came and brought the man of God the firstfruits of bread - twenty barley loaves and raw grains in the husk. “And Elisha said: Give it to the people, let them eat” (2 Kings 4:42). But in these two places the common table is spoken of each time on a special occasion, and therefore it would be too hasty on the basis of only these two places [to draw a conclusion about] a permanent common table in the prophetic schools. On the contrary, is it not because these cases are mentioned that they were somewhat outstanding from the ordinary? But if not constantly, then sometimes in the common dwellings of the sons of the prophets there was a common table. Common life, life in common dwellings was not, one must think, obligatory. The Bible reports that some of the sons of the prophets had their own houses and, above all, those who were in charge of schools. Samuel had a house in Ramah, where he returned after each tour of the cities of Israel (1 Samuel 7:17). So, Elisha lives either on Mount Carmel (2 Kings 2:25, 4:25), or in Samaria, where he had his own home (2 Kings 5:9, 6:32). Other members of the prophetic schools also had their own houses. When one of the wives of the sons of the prophets told Elisha that her husband had died and asked him to help, Elisha asked her: “What do you have in your house” (2 Kings 4:1-2)? Consequently, the deceased son of the prophet had his own house. Taking into account these separate private houses of some of the sons of the prophets, almost all researchers assume that only unmarried and unfamily sons of the prophets lived together. The married and family sons of the prophets lived in their own houses and only at certain periods of time for one period or another joined the sons of the prophets who lived together in one separate place. Samuel, as it is said, had his home in Ramah, and not far from Ramah was Nawath, where the prophetic host had their residence (1 Sam. 19, 19, 22-23). Perhaps other sons of the prophets had their own houses close to the common meeting place, so that they could often and without difficulty attend the prophetic school. It can be assumed that all the other sons of the prophets did not break ties with their native homes and with their relatives, and sometimes lived at home [for some] time. The hosts of the sons of the prophets were quite significant in the number of members they included. This number is already indicated by the earliest name of the “host” - “Kahal”, a name that is applied to the entire Jewish people (Lev. 4, 13; Num. 16, 3, 20:4; Deut. 31, 30, etc.). Then we see that Obadiah hides a hundred prophets (1 Kings 18, 4, 13); The servant objects to Elisha, who ordered the firstfruits of bread to be given to the sons of the prophets: “What will I give to a hundred men” (2 Kings 4:42–43)? Elisha orders stew to be cooked for the sons of the prophets in a large cauldron (2 Kings 4:38). The history of Elijah’s taking to heaven and the history of the construction of a new dwelling especially indicate the number of prophetic schools. When the sons of the prophets who lived in Jericho came out to meet Elisha, they said to him: “Behold, we have thy servants about fifty men, strong men; Let them go and look for your master (Elijah)... And they sent fifty men” (2 Kings 2, 15–16, 17). It is obvious that fifty people constituted only part of the Jericho prophetic school; the number of its members was much larger. In another story we see that the sons of the prophets found their former quarters cramped (2 Kings 6:1); therefore, there were a significant number of them, and this number was growing: before the room was not crowded. The following reasoning of the same sons of the prophets is also characteristic: “Let us go to the Jordan and take from there each one one log and make ourselves a place to live there” (2 Kings 6:2). If the sons of the prophets say that they only need to take one log at a time and it will be possible to build a new building, then, clearly, the increased number of members of the mentioned prophetic school was significant. Thus, the prophetic school should be represented as a fairly populous society, and not as a narrow circle of selected individuals. Several such prophetic schools appeared simultaneously and at different times in the history of the Israeli people. In the Bible you can find indications of the existence of the following prophetic schools: 1) in Gibeah (1 Kings 10, 5, 10), 2) Nawath, near Rama (1 Kings 19, 18, 23), 3) Bethel (2 Kings 2, 3), 4) Jericho (2 Kings 2, 5), 5) Gilgal (2 Kings 2, 3). 4, 38), 6) on the banks of the Jordan (2 Kings 6, 1-4) - where, perhaps, the school from Gilgal was moved, 7) in Mount Ephraim (2 Kings 5, 22), 8) near Samaria (1 Kings 18, 4, 13), perhaps in Aphek (1 Kings 20, 30). Perhaps there were prophetic schools elsewhere, but no trace of their existence was preserved in the Bible. And all of the listed schools are known either from one incident from their life, which is listed on the pages of the folk chronicle, or only from a vague or controversial mention of them. Meanwhile, each of these schools lived its own life, had its own history, into which sometimes dark pages of persecution and persecution were woven, and sometimes pages of intense activity; Each school had its golden years and years of decline and impoverishment. But we know nothing about all this and will never be able to find out. Who were the members of the prophetic schools? Who were these sons of the prophets? There is no reason to consider them as children of the prophets, who would become members of the prophetic school by virtue of their natural birth. No, the Old Testament prophecy itself was not associated with either class or social position. God chose priests as His servants (Jer. 1:1), and children of the high priest (2 Chronicles 24:20), and farmers and shepherds who used to gather sycamore trees (Am. 1:1, 7:14). Likewise, the “sons of the prophets” became such regardless of their origin. Biblical evidence can be found for this. When Saul prophesied along with the host, “the people said to one another: What has become of the son of Kish?.. And one of those who were there answered and said: Who is the father of these” (1 Samuel 10:11-12)? This answer can be understood in the sense that it indicates the ignorant origin of the sons of the prophets in general. The family of Kish and Saul, perhaps, was no different from others; the people asked: how does the son of Kish prophesy? Nothing like this was expected from him. To this someone answered: and who is their father? After all, they are all from the most ordinary families. It is not surprising that the son of Kish also prophesies. Other biblical data describes to us the sons of the prophets as poor people. “Tell me what you have in your house,” the prophet Elisha asked one wife of the prophet’s son, whose husband had died. She said: “Your servant has nothing in her house except a vessel of oil” (2 Kings 4:1-2). The deceased son of the prophets, of course, lived in such poverty even before joining the ranks of the sons of the prophets, and after his death he left nothing but debts, so that after his death “a lender came to take both his children as slaves for himself” (2 Kings 4:1). And in general, in Jewish society only the tribe of Levi was privileged, but after the division of the kingdoms there were no Levites left in the kingdom of Israel, where we find prophetic schools (2 Chron. 11, 13). Regarding the origin of the sons of the prophets, one can only notice one thing, that, in all likelihood, they were all Jews. At least, God promises to raise up prophets from among the people, from their brothers (Deut. 18, 15, 18). From the previously cited passages one can also see that the sons of the prophets were both married and unmarried. There was no celibacy in the prophetic schools. Blessed Jerome does not affirm the virginity of all sons of the prophets; in a letter to Eustochius de custodia virginitatis he writes: virgines multi filii prophetarum. Regarding the age of the sons of the prophets, it can also be said that there was no one specific age. The title “son of the prophets” does not indicate the age of the sons of the prophets; it, as we will see below, has a different meaning. Among the sons of the prophets there were mature people. The sons of the prophets, who were in Jericho, said to Elisha: “We have... about fifty men, strong men” (2 Kings 2:16). It is in vain to look upon these mighty men as ministers in a prophetic school; Such a staff of servants, of course, could not exist. These mighty men were the sons of the prophets, and in the Jericho prophetic school there were consequently up to fifty members at maturity. Another place even more decisively points to the young age of the sons of the prophets. Gehazi said to Naaman: “My lord sent me to say: “Behold, now two young men from the sons of the prophets have come to me from Mount Ephraim” (2 Kings 5:22). Here the sons of the prophets are called néarim in Hebrew. The noun náar often means “young” in the Bible. Náar is called seventeen-year-old Joseph (Gen. 37, 2); the young Solomon is also called (1 Kings 3:7; 1 Chronicles 29:1). 32 Thus, in the prophetic schools there were young adults, although, one should think, they did not live up to those years about which one can say: “I have no pleasure in them!” (Eccl. 12, 1ff.) Some researchers admit that all the sons of the prophets even wore special clothes; there was something similar to the prophetic school uniform. Such clothing was mentioned in the 1st book of Kings (1 Samuel 15, 27) meil. 33 Indeed, there is biblical evidence that prophets wore special clothing (1 Kings 19:13; 2 Kings 1:8; Zechariah 13:4). 34 Elijah, for example, when choosing Elisha as his successor, “threw his mantle on him” (1 Kings 19:19), obviously as a characteristic attribute of a prophet. Ehler (in Herzog) calls this a kind of investiture. But there is no indication in the Bible whether the sons of the prophets had special clothing. The most zealous defenders of the special form among the Jewish rabbis cite 1 Sam. 19, 24: “And ... (Saul) took off his clothes, and prophesied before Samuel, and all that day and all that night he lay naked.” Some rabbis interpret this passage to mean that Saul, having taken off his royal robes, put on the robes of the sons of the prophets. Rabbi Isaiah interprets: Saul, taking off his royal robes, dressed himself in the manner of one of these students - nudatus vestibus suis regiis, et vestitutus fuit instar unius ex illis litterarum studiosis. Rabbi Solomon interprets in a similar way: he took off the royal robes in order to put on the robes of those disciples of Divine wisdom - vestes exuit regias, utindueret vestes illorum Divinae Sapientiae Studiosorum. But the text only says that Saul took off his outer clothes, and whether he put on prophetic clothes - only the rabbis can guess about this. Together with Vitringa, we can say: whether the text indicates special clothing, I doubt it, and I leave it to the reader to judge. 35 It seems to us possible to point out one verse that speaks against the special clothing of the sons of the prophets. Gehazi, having informed Naaman that two young sons of the prophets had come to Elisha from Mount Ephraim, says: “Give them a talent of silver and two changes of clothing” (2 Kings 5:22). Naaman, of course, could not provide uniforms for the sons of the prophets, and Gehazi asks for them, obviously, the most ordinary clothes. Is there a hint here that the sons of the prophets did not differ from other people in their clothing? The Bible also gives us some information about the sources of the sons of the prophets. “Someone from Betharis brought the firstfruits of bread to the man of God - twenty barley loaves and raw grains in husks (2 Kings 4:42). Here we encounter a remarkable phenomenon: Elisha, the prophet, was brought the firstfruits, that is, what, according to the law of Moses, belonged to the Levitical priesthood. During the division of the kingdoms, “the priests and Levites, who were throughout the whole land of Israel, gathered to Rehoboam from all the borders... to Judah and to Jerusalem; since Jeroboam and his sons left them from the priesthood of the Lord and appointed priests for him on the high places, and on the goats, and on the bulls which he had made” (2 Chronicles 11:13-15). 42) we see how a pious Jew devoted to the law brings firstfruits to the prophet Elisha. In general, offerings were customary in relation to the prophets. Jeroboam says to his wife, sending her to the prophet Anya: “Take with you for the man of God ten loaves of bread, and cakes, and a jar of honey” (1 Kings 14:3). Some of the people, who respected the prophets, took upon themselves the care of their material support. “One day Elisha came to Shunam. There, one rich woman begged him to eat bread with her; and whenever he passed, he always went there to eat bread. And she said to her husband: Behold, I know that the man of God who passes by us constantly is holy; Let's make a small upper room over the wall and put him there a bed, and a table, and a seat, and a lamp; and when he comes to us, let him come there” (2 Kings 4:8-10). Such offerings and donations, one should think, were appointed not only for the prophets personally, but also for the sons of the prophets. But, of course, all these and similar offerings were not something permanent and definite, like everything voluntary. Therefore, one cannot think that the sons of the prophets were supported only by such offerings. The Bible says very little about offerings, but there were many sons of the prophets, as we said above. One should think that the sons of the prophets themselves obtained their means of subsistence; they, perhaps, did not abandon those affairs and activities that provided them with the means of support before. But it should also be noted that external needs and the comforts of life were left behind in the prophetic schools. The material side of the life of the sons of the prophets occupied very little, and their whole life was harsh, amid constant hardships; the life of the prophetic schools was ascetic. We see all the sons of the prophets at work in the construction of a new building on the banks of the Jordan. And the great prophet Elisha himself, who “in his days did not tremble before the prince... and whom nothing prevailed” (Sir. 48, 13-14), together with his “sons” went to work: “they came to the Jordan and began to cut down trees” (2 Kings 6, 1-4). “And when one felled a log, his ax fell into the water. And he shouted and said: Ah, my lord! and he was taken into custody” (2 Kings 6:5). The sons of the prophets lived in such poverty that even an ax had to be borrowed. We have already drawn attention to the poverty of another son of the prophet, who after death had nothing left in his house except a vessel of oil and debts, so that even empty vessels his wife had to ask outside (2 Kings 4:1-3). Elsewhere we see how and what kind of food is prepared for the sons of the prophets. "Elisha said to his servant: Set up a large pot and cook some stew for the sons of the prophets. And one of them went out into the field to gather vegetables (glory: “potions of wonder”), and found a wild climbing plant, and gathered his clothes full of wild fruits from it; and he came and crumbled them into the pot with the stew, since they did not know them. And they poured it out for them to eat. But as soon as they began to eat the stew, then they raised a cry and said: death is in the cauldron, man of God! And they could not eat” (2 Kings 4, 38-40). Here we see that for cooking they collect what they find in the field, they collect it themselves in their clothes, and the stew turned out good if they almost got poisoned by it! In another case, Elisha gives twenty barley loaves and raw grains in husks for one hundred sons of the prophets, so that the servant asks in bewilderment: “What will I give to a hundred men” (2 Kings 4, 42–43). This ascetic lifestyle of the sons of the prophets sometimes corresponded to the place of their settlement: sometimes societies of the sons of the prophets settled far from human habitation, in the desert or in the mountains. 36 In this case, the structure of life became even more definitely ascetic. The ascetic lifestyle generally corresponded to the entire spirit of Old Testament prophecy. The Old Testament prophet can be represented as a stern ascetic. “That man is covered in hair and has a leather belt around his waist,” they said about the prophet Elijah (2 Kings 1:8). We see the prophets fasting (the story of Daniel and his comrades, esp. Dan. 10, 2–3). In the spirit of the Old Testament there was John the Baptist, “do not poison, do not drink” (Matthew 11:18), a stern ascetic who had “clothing made of camel’s hair and a leather belt around his loins”, who ate locusts and wild honey (Matthew 3:4; Mark 1:6). Therefore, it is quite natural that the prophetic schools, having prophets at their head, themselves received an ascetic way of life. So far we have indicated only the relatively mild features of prophetic schools, but these features can characterize prophetic schools from their outer side. Now we should indicate more significant features that, together with those presented, can give some kind of holistic idea of ​​what, in fact, until now we have called the prophetic school. We should answer the question: what did the sons of the prophets do in their schools, as we called them, and what was their activity? Without a doubt, this is the most important part in the question of prophetic schools, but it is precisely in solving this part of the question that we are left with the most meager biblical data and with complete scope for any assumptions. But what does the Bible tell us about the activities of the sons of the prophets? In the 1st book of Kings it is said about the sons of the prophets that they prophesied, and both Saul’s servants and Saul himself prophesied (1 Samuel 19:20–24). In the 4th book of Kings it is said about the sons of the prophets that they sat before Elisha (2 Kings 6:1). Here are general definitions of what the sons of the prophets did. What does this mean? The meaning of the word “prophesied” can be understood in different ways. To resolve the question of the essence of prophetism, there is the theory of passivism (Gentenberg, partly Tolyuk, etc.), which understands prophecy in a narrowly passive sense. If we accept this theory, then the societies of the sons of the prophets will at least appear before us in the form of exalted ecstatics, something like our mystical and ecstatic sectarians. 37 The very verb naba (to prophesy) is given the meaning “to be frantic,” overestimating the meaning of the form hithph – itnabbe used in the 1st book of Kings. This form sometimes, indeed, means a state of frenzy, for example, in the appendix to Saul in the 1st book of Samuel 18, 10 (Russian translation - “became enraged”) (1 Samuel 18, 10). But the meaning of this form is disputed, and this very form, when applied to true prophets, is used only three times: Jeremiah 29, 26–27; 26, 20 (Jer. 29, 26–27, 26:20); Ezekiel 27:10 (Ezekiel 27:10), and in the first place this word was used about the prophet Jeremiah by his enemy - the priest Shemaiah in an abusive sense. 38 The very verb naba also has an active meaning - “to proclaim, to utter an inspired speech, to teach.” Prophet - and the members of the host in the 1st book of Samuel are precisely called prophets - can mean “taught”; prophets are sometimes called disciples and students (Isa. 8, 16, 54:13; Jer. 32, 33). 39 Therefore, if in the 1st book of Samuel it is said about the members of the host that they prophesied, then this can be understood in the sense that they were edified by the inspired speeches of each other, and especially of the prophet Samuel. The interpretation according to which the sons of the prophets artificially prepared themselves for prophecy is based on an unacceptable understanding of prophecy. Thus, Jewish commentators, for example Abarbanel, say about the sons of the prophets: se ipsos disponunt ad vaticandum. But can prophecy be taught? Is prophecy an art, an ability that can, if desired, be developed in oneself through personal effort? The only answer is: no. The Prophet needs neither a school nor a teacher; the Lord Himself calls him from his mother’s womb (Isa. 49:1; Jer. 1:5), draws him as if against his will; fire burns in the bones of the prophet, and he cannot contain it (Jer. 20, 7–9). You cannot prepare yourself for prophecy ad vaticandum. This requires special overshadowing by God. According to the Old Testament, one must be spiritually born to be a prophet. 40 More definite information about the activities of the sons of the prophets is in the 4th book of Kings, where it is said about the sons of the prophets that they “sat before” their leader, the prophet. The expression “to sit before someone,” as it is used in other places in the Bible, means the relationship of the one being taught to the one teaching. The book of the prophet Ezekiel says several times that the elders of the people sat before him (Ezek. 8, 1, 20:1); the elders came to ask the Lord (Ezek. 20:1), and the prophet, while they sat before him, told them revelations and visions, the word of God (Ezek. 8:1, 20:2), that is, he taught them. Elsewhere, the Lord spoke to the prophet Ezekiel: “They come to you as to a crowd of people, and My people sit before you, and they listen to your words, but do not fulfill them” (Ezek. 33:31). Based on this use of the expression “to sit before someone,” it should be argued that the prophets taught a more or less close circle of sons of the prophets that gathered around them. The elders and other persons from the people came to the prophets and sat before them on some special and rare occasions; the sons of the prophets were more or less constant listeners of the prophets. “Sitting before the prophet” consisted of listening to his advice, instructions, explanations and generally his speeches as a man of God and an influential prophet. 41 Most scientific researchers, based on this very expression, represent the relationship of the sons of the prophets to the prophet as the relationship of students to teachers. 42 The name sons of the prophets clearly speaks of the same relationship. Of course, “sons of the prophets” cannot be taken literally; in a figurative sense, the name “son” in the Old Testament always means a student, a student. “Come, children, listen to me: I will teach you the fear of the Lord,” says David (Ps. 33:12). In the book of Proverbs, the teacher always addresses the one being taught as a son: “Listen, my son, to the instruction of your father” (Prov. 1, 8, 1:10, 15, 2:1, 3, 1, 21, 4:1, 10, 20, 5:1, 7, 6:1, 7:1, 24, etc.). Thus, the sons of the prophets can be called prophetic students, and the very societies of the sons of the prophets can be called prophetic schools. However, if we call prophetic societies schools, then it is absolutely necessary to abandon modern ideas about school; Prophetic schools did not and could not have a school character in the modern sense. There is no reason to suppose that theoretical scientific systems were taught in prophetic schools or that theoretical theology was developed there (Maibaum). Meanwhile, the view of prophetic schools as schools in the modern sense is shared by many. Jewish rabbis also called the sons of the prophets talmidim, and the prophetic schools bathe hamidrasch. Many of the later scientists see in the prophetic schools educational institutions where various sciences were taught, and compare them with the philosophical schools of the Pythagoreans. 43 But teaching in the Bible is never presented as teaching and learning theoretical knowledge. The Bible, like antiquity in general, makes no distinction between knowledge and virtue. Wisdom was connected with teaching or instruction, Heb. – musar. This instruction meant the entire system of educational measures (slav. - “punishment”). 44 A teacher should not be a funny singer with a pleasant voice and a good player, whom you can only listen to and not fulfill his words (Jer. 32, 33). The prophetic schools were not schools in the modern sense; they were not just educational institutions, but more religious and educational institutions. We said above that in the prophetic schools there was even a special way of life. This system must be considered an essential feature of the Old Testament prophetic school. Blessed Jerome, drawing attention to this way of life, calls prophetic schools monasteries and the sons of the prophets - monks. 45 In their external way of life, the prophetic schools were indeed similar to monasteries, but, of course, they were not entirely monasteries. 46 Prophetic schools were religious, educational institutions with a monastic routine. What was the educational aspect of the prophetic schools? The Bible answers this very interesting question with complete silence. Various scholars at their own discretion determine the plans and programs of study in the prophetic schools. 47 Without writing any detailed programs, we can call the subject of study only the sacred books, not only the law, but also the historical books. We can even, on the basis of some biblical data, include literary and historical activity among educational subjects. The books of Chronicles make many references to the historical writings of the prophets (1 Chron. 29, 29; 2 Chron. 12, 15, 13:22, see above). But the chronicles were kept by the prophets, and what was the participation of the sons of the prophets in this matter - nothing is known about this. The life of the prophetic schools did not consist of teaching alone; no, this life was a religious education. When first mentioned in the Bible, the prophetic host appears to be descending from on high (1 Samuel 10:5, 10). Perhaps this host was performing some kind of religious procession; That’s why there was such enthusiasm that it involuntarily captured those who joined this chorus of prophets. The same kind of religious and liturgical education is evidenced by the music lessons that existed in the prophetic schools. Even under Samuel, the host of prophets, descending from on high, had a psalter, and a tympanum, and a pipe, and a harp (1 Samuel 10:5, 10). The sons of the prophets are said to have “prophesied,” but this may mean that they sang inspired hymns in honor of Jehovah and accompanied them with music. After all, the very verb “naba” sometimes means religious music. It is said about the sons of Asaph, Heman and Jeduthun that they prophesied (hanebiim - prophesied) on cynnors, psalms and cymbals (1 Chron. 25:1); Asaph himself played (haniba) according to the king’s instructions (1 Chron. 25:2). Everywhere here, of course, the music is religious, which is noted in Art. 3, which says: Idithun played “the harp for the glory and praise of the Lord” (haniba alhodot vehallel lajhovah) (1 Chron. 25:3). Finally, it should also be noted that some sons of the prophets served the prophets and sometimes carried out their instructions. Starting with Moses, in almost every prophet we see a special servant who follows his master everywhere, takes care of him, and carries out his orders. The Bible has preserved for us one case when a prophet entrusts his disciple with a very important task. “Elisha the prophet called one of the sons of the prophets and said to him: Gird up your loins, and take this vessel of oil in your hand, and go to Ramoth-gilead... and anoint Jehu the son of Jehoshaphat, the son of Nashesh... to be king over Israel” (2 Kings 9:1-3). We have noted everything that can be considered a subject of study in prophetic schools. But how do you imagine all these activities? What was the nature of these activities? You can talk about all this as much and as you like, but all of this will and can only be subjective. Here we will give the floor to another person who imagines the nature of the activities of the sons of the prophets. “The Prophet, who was himself the first and direct organ of perception of Divine revelation, could, better than any later interpreter, explain with his living word those untrue testimonies contained in writing, on which millions of people later based their hope. The prophets simply and clearly revealed to their listeners a wondrous picture of the world creation, drawing attention in it to the [ubiquitous] traces of the creative actions of the Great Provider of the universe. The living prophetic spirit extracted living thoughts from under the cover of a dead letter, clothed them in flesh and blood, warming them with its breath and illuminating with new light this or that truth according to the needs of its listeners and co-questioners” 48! The same author describes the teaching of history in the following terms: “The spiritual gaze of the interlocutors was presented not with dumb skeletons of randomly woven facts and tables of chronology, but with vitally fresh pictures, everywhere woven with the miraculous facts of God’s guidance, marked by the presence of Jehovah and imprinted by His feet, deeply connected with the present and the future. The prophets described with living features to their spiritual sons the history of their ancestors, imprinted by Jehovah’s boundless love for his people. History in the words of the prophet and with his life-giving breath turned into a series of living pictures with living figures. In conversations about the law, the life-giving spirit in the dead letter was revealed; in the laws on sacrifices, from under various types of bloody sacrifices, the martyr’s image of the promised Lamb, who had to bear the sins of the world, rose before the eyes of the listeners, and from under the sacrificial cover the most holy essence and mystery of the New Testament was revealed.” “The native language did not seem unworthy of discussion, since it was the language of Jehovah in His communications with His people and the language of the Divine Scriptures, and at the same time it was not the letter of the language that was examined, but the spirit revealed in it, its beauty, vitality, strength and charm.” 49 Such descriptions of the nature of the activities in the prophetic schools are, no doubt, beautiful and eloquent, but they are no less arbitrary. What is true in all these descriptions is that the general spirit of the prophetic schools was very far from the dry, forced and official spirit of many modern schools. There was no jurisprudence in the prophetic schools. The prophetic school can only be imagined as a closely united brotherhood, a family, where there is neither external authority nor ostentatious order, where submission necessarily follows from reverent respect and gratitude; a family where everyone is family, and not randomly gathered, disgusted with each other, where everyone knows each other and loves, and does not just tolerate each other. One has only to read one verse of the Bible, and read from the Slavic Bible: “And the meek man said one word: come, you and your servants. And he said: I’ll go. And go with them” (2 Kings 6:3–4). Isn’t it already visible in these words that priceless spirit of brotherly love, which is the adornment of any society? Nobody forced the Prophet to start schools; he was prompted to do this only by zeal for the glory of God. The prophetic school was the feat of the prophet, his walk with God. The sons of the prophets did not receive any “rights,” and therefore for them, being in “school” was a matter of their love for God and their moral aspirations. For teachers and students, “learning” was an animated, selfless feat. With such inspiration, an ascetic lifestyle was natural, which in itself, of course, had great educational significance. They were not trained in prophetic schools, but educated. The teaching turned into worship, and all life in the prophetic schools was one religious feat, inspired and free, capturing all the sons of the prophets and uniting them into a common family dear to everyone. The freedom of the sons of the prophets was not freedom of confusion, reminiscent of the well-known fable, where the cart was driven in different directions. The prophetic son was free because he found what he was looking for, because he was among people who strived for the same high and wonderful goals as he, with whom he could therefore get along and merge into one brotherhood, where everyone felt happy and free, although others could not understand either his happiness or his freedom. It is this system of prophetic schools, a system alien to “officialdom” and full of spirit and unanimity, that we would like to especially emphasize. In conclusion, we would like to say a few words about what thoughts arouse the memory of the Old Testament prophetic schools. Everything that concerns Old Testament prophecy also concerns the Christian church hierarchy. The Old Testament prophecy, as it were, passed into the New Testament; in the life of the Church of the first centuries we find a New Testament parallel to Old Testament prophecy, these are charismatics - evangelists, prophets, teachers. In the first times of Christianity, these charismatics were higher than hierarchical persons - bishops. Hierarchical persons performed only administrative and liturgical functions. Inspirational teaching belonged to the charismatics. The “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” says about hierarchical persons: do not despise them; for they are the most honorable among you, along with the prophets and teachers. 50 But soon the work of the charismatics begins to move towards hierarchy, and finally the charismatics, compromised by the Montanist prophets, completely gave way to hierarchy. The hierarchy took on the responsibilities of charismatics as well. Consequently, the church hierarchy, through the charismatics, is partly the ideological heir of the prophets, and if this is so, then everything related to the prophetic schools also applies to the theological school. And the spiritual school can learn a lot from the prophetic schools. The theological school contains within its walls persons who are completely alien to each other, striving in diametrically opposite directions. Religious education in them is kept to a minimum; it is presented to those interested. Whoever, by some miracle, remains faithful to God and the Church, let him alone remain to serve them. The legal, soulless system has corrupted and killed the theological school, and it should learn a lot from the prophetic schools. The school should accommodate only those who have a clearly defined vocation in life, that is, it should be specifically pastoral. According to one highly “authoritative” project, the life of a school can be determined by its possible approximation to a monastery (§ 6), and the school should educate good shepherds of the Orthodox Church not only through teaching them the necessary knowledge, but also through undergoing feats of Christian life and activity (§ 1). 52 In the same project, the formal and official system is completely crossed out. The boss and the teachers-educators do not form an educational corporation in the usual sense of the word, but a spiritual brotherhood, united by strict obedience to the boss and common mutual love (§ 12). School teachers see themselves not only as teachers of science, but also as spiritual leaders of their students in the Christian life and in preparing themselves for pastoral work (§ 14). If you imagine a pastoral school with such a spirit and structure, then it involuntarily resembles the prophetic schools that we spoke about. And doesn’t such a school educate shepherds at least somewhat similar to the prophets about whom the ancient sage speaks: “Elijah the prophet arose like fire, and his word burned like a lamp... in his days Elisha did not tremble before the prince... nothing prevailed against him... And the twelve prophets - may their bones flourish from their place! - they consoled Jacob and saved... with true hope” (Sir. 48, 1, 13–14, 49:12). There were monographs dedicated specifically to prophetic schools, but they were just that; they belong to the past and the centuries before last. These are: J. Alting. Historia Academiarum Hebraeorum. 1687; Werenfel. Dissertatio de scolis prophetarum. Basel, 1701; Zinck. Dissertatio de prophet. scolis. Göttingen, 1737; Hering. Abhandlung von der Propheteuschulen. Breslau, 1777; Schweyler-Mieg. De prophet. scholis, quas ferunt commentationes theolog. part. Strassburg, 1833. It is clear that these ancient books are known only by their names, from more preserved similar ancient books, for example: Vitringa. De synagoga vetere. Weissenfels, 1726, and mainly from the only somewhat new monograph: Guil. Rud. Kranichfeld. De iis, quae in Testamento vetere commemorantur, prophetarum societatibus. Berolin, 1861, which gives a list of all the early monographs devoted to the question of prophetic schools. But Kranichfeld’s work itself can hardly be called a monograph; it's more of a brochure of about 60 pages. In addition, Kranichfeld's brochure is a bibliographic rarity. It must be said, however, that all these comments are mostly fragmentary and do not give a definite idea of ​​the institution of prophetic schools as a whole. Biblical commentaries only at best devote several pages in a row to prophetic schools, as we see, for example: Carl Friedrich Keil. Die Becher Samuels. Biblischer Commentar uber das Alte Testament Herausgeg. von C. Fr. Keil und Franz Delitzsch, Th. 2. Bd. 2. Leipzig, 1864. S. 146–151. Other commentaries are limited to exegesis of the relevant verses only. Encyclopedias sometimes do not devote special articles to prophetic schools, but talk about them in articles devoted to Old Testament prophecy in general. See, for example, Real-Encycklopädie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche Herausgeg. von Herzog. 2-te Aufl. Bd. 12 (hereinafter – Herzog. RE2). These are: J. Alting. Historia Academiarum Hebraeorum. 1687; Werenfel. Dissertatio de scolis prophetarum. Basel, 1701; Zinck. Dissertatio de prophet. scolis. Göttingen, 1737; Hering. Abhandlung von der Propheteuschulen. Breslau, 1777; Schweyler-Mieg. De prophet. scholis, quas ferunt commentationes theolog. part. Strassburg, 1833. It is clear that these ancient books are known only by their names, from more preserved similar ancient books, for example: Vitringa. De synagoga vetere. Weissenfels, 1726, and mainly from the only somewhat new monograph: Guil. Rud. Kranichfeld. De iis, quae in Testamento vetere commemorantur, prophetarum societatibus. Berolin, 1861, which gives a list of all the early monographs devoted to the question of prophetic schools. But Kranichfeld’s work itself can hardly be called a monograph; it's more of a brochure of about 60 pages. In addition, Kranichfeld's brochure is a bibliographic rarity. A particularly typical study of this type is: Dr. Siegmund Maybaum. Die Entwickelung des israelitischen Prophetenthums. Berlin, 1883. Regenbogen-Bibel (German) – so-called. "Rainbow Bible", a critical edition of the Bible, published at the end. XIX century, in which, according to the theory of the “four sources” of the Pentateuch, the text was printed in four different colors. – Approx. ed. See: Keil. Op. cit. S. 74; M. Verzhbolovich. Quote op. pp. 230–231. The prophetic host mentioned in 1 Samuel. 10, 5, 10, may not have had a permanent residence in Gibeah. Perhaps the host of prophets performed only a religious procession, which is apparently hinted at by the fact that the host of prophets descended from the hill and had with them musical instruments, non-whites, kipnors, etc. This assumption is also accepted by Keil (Op. cit. S. 74), contrary to the statement of Verzhbolovich that Keil is inclined to the opposite opinion (Cit. cit. P. 230. Note. 1). Vitringa in “De synagoga vetere,” where there is a meaningful “Dissertatio de publicis scholis Prophetarum” (C. VII. P. 349–361), however, notes that, without a doubt, on the hill from which the first mentioned host of prophets descended, there was a prophetic school (“haud dubie, quod Prophetarum ibi schola fuerit.” P. 356). M. Verzhbolovich. Quote op. pp. 232–233. “Also nicht die Forderung des Königs, sondern die Art und Begründung dieser Forderung war es, die Samuels und lehovas Missfallen erregte, und womit das Volk sich versündigte,” notes F. M. Zahn in the miniature brochure “Samuel der Prophet und Reformator. Ein Beitrag zum Schriftverständniss” (Brämen, 1873. S. 33). M. Verzhbolovich. Quote op. P. 235. S. Maybaum. Op. cit. S. 38–39. Ibid. S. 7–29 (“Die vorsamuelische Zeit”). At least for the time that the prophetic schools were under the personal leadership of Samuel. Ibid. S. 49. M. Verzhbolovich. Quote op. P. 11. Kosem from the verb kasam, which means “to conjure.” In the Old Testament, kosem means one who tests the will of the gods through spell formulas, generally means a superstitious fortuneteller. In this sense kosem is used of false prophets in Deut. 18, 10, 14; 2 Kings 17, 17; Mich. 3, 6, 7, 11; Is. 3, 2; about Balaam - in Nav. 24, 9–10 (Slavic “magician”), about the Philistine prophets in 1 Samuel. 6, 2; also about the sorceress of Endor in 1 Samuel. 28, 7. Kosem is not used about Jewish true prophets. There were such people at the beginning of the work of the prophet Samuel. Samuel did not create a host of prophets out of nothing, but he called on former societies to help him in the religious and moral revival of the people, and he himself relied on the hosts of prophets. Of course, the formation of the prophetic hosts called to activity by Samuel has moved far forward. Compare: F. M. Zahn. Op. cit. S. 26–27. This is the time of “die Heldenzeit des Prophetenthums,” as Maybaum puts it. Op. cit. S. 60. This circumstance is particularly striking for Keil. Op. cit. S. 147–148. For the same see: M. Verzhbolovich. Quote op. P. 248. This continuous existence of prophetic schools is decisively demonstrated by Maibaum. Op. cit. S. 46–47. One can think so based on 2 Kings. 6, 21 and 2 Kings. 13, 14. Wed: 2 Kings 2, 12. In the Bible - “the deeds of Abijah.” – Editorial staff of “ABC of Faith” "Similitude, inquam, mihi in hac locutione videtur desumpta abeo, quod ilia aetate cultores literarum edita urbium aut agrorum loca elegerint, iu quibus scholos suas aperuerunt." Vitringa. Op. cit. P. 352. For more details on this, see: M. Verzhbolovich. Quote op. pp. 284–286. Oehler writes: “In dem später nicht vorkommenden ‘ben nabí dieser Stelle liegt die letzte Spur der Prophetenschulen.” Herzog. RE2. Bd. 12. S. 278. According to Ewald's chronological table, this period covers 111 years. See: Prof. S. S. Glagolev. Supernatural revelation and natural knowledge of God are outside the true Church. Kharkov, 1900. P. 105. See: Prof. S. S. Glagolev. Supernatural revelation and natural knowledge of God are outside the true Church. Kharkov, 1900. P. 105. You can buy this book in the Sretenie store Contra haer. I, 9, 4. PG. T. 7. Col. 544A-B. Essays. P. 48. Ibid. Col. 521, 524. Ibid. P. 41. Ibid. Col. 521A-B. Right there. P. 41. “One did this, describing in Homer’s verses Hercules, sent by Eurystheus for the hellish dog, for nothing prevents them from being cited as an example, because the techniques (dpice...rhseij) are the same for both. He said this and sent the lamenting one out of the house (Od. X, 76). The husband of Hercules, the performer of wonderful feats (Od. XXI, 26), the husband of Eurystheus, the descendant of Perseid Sthenel (Il. XIX, 123), the Dog to be taken away from Erebus from the terrible god Hades (Il. IV, 368). He set out on the road, like a mountain dweller - a lion, proud of his strength (Od. VI, 130), quickly through the city; he was accompanied by all those close to his heart (Il. XXIV, 327), young virgins, and young men, long-suffering elders (Od. XI, 38), Weeping for him inconsolably, as if departing to death (Il. XXIV, 328). Both Ermius and the bright-eyed Athena gave help (Od. XI, 625), Knowing the kind brother, and how concerned he was in his soul (Il. II, 409). Who among the simple-minded would not be carried away by these verses and think that Homer composed them this way on the same topic? But he who knows Homer's songs recognizes these verses, but does not recognize the content; for he knows that one of them is said about Odysseus, another about Hercules himself, another about Priam, and another about Menelaus and Agamemnon.” - Contra haer. I, 9, 4. PG. T. 7. Col. 544B-548A. Essays. P. 48. All these examples and reasoning are literally borrowed from Irenaeus and Epiphanius. Haer. 31, 26, 31. Creations. Part 1. pp. 325–326, 336–338. Centons (from Latin centones, i.e. a cloak made of rags) were very common in the Middle Ages during the era of the decline of poetic creativity. – Approx. ed. De praescr. 39: “One can still see how a completely different story is compiled from Virgil, and the content is applied to the verses, and the verses to the content. Thus, for example, Osidius Geta sucked (exsuxit, another reading expressit) from Virgil his entire tragedy “Medea.” One of my relatives borrowed from the same poet, among other works of his pen, “The Picture of Cebes” (Pinacem Cebetis). Homerocentons are usually called those people who, from the verses of Homer, compose their works, like centonaries (more centonario), from many located here and there, collecting one body (ex multis hinc inde compositis in unum sarciunt corpus). P.L. T. 2. Col. 64–65. Thomasius. Op. cit. S. 81; Friedrich Böhringer. Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen oder die Kirchengeschichte in Biographien. 2-te Aufl. Bd. 2: Die alte Kirche. 2-er Teil; Ireneus, der Bischof von Bugdunum, oder die Bildung der altkatholischen Kirche und Kirchen-lehre im Kampfe mit dem Gnostizismus. Stuttgart, 1873. S. 371; Th. Zahn. Op. cit. 1, 2. S. 586 flgg.; R. Liechtenhan. Op. cit. S. 34; F. Loofs. Op. cit. § 17, 1. S. 111–112; V.V. Bolotov. Quote op. Vol. 2. pp. 226–227; A. Harnack. Op. cit. I, S. 292. Cfr.: Ibid. I, pp. 303–307; F. Loofs. Op. cit. § 17, 3. S. 113; Th. Zahn. Op. cit. 1, 2. S. 596; Batiffol Pierre L'eglise naissante et le catholicisme. 3-me e€d. Paris, 1909. P. 277, 281, 282. Epiphanius says about Marcion that he, the son of a bishop, was excommunicated from the Church by his father, came to Rome, and when he was not accepted here, he said: “I will split your Church and introduce a schism into it forever.” And, in fact, he caused a considerable split, but he did not split the Church, but he himself broke away from those who believed him. Haer. 42, 1–2. Creations. T. 2. pp. 127–130. Marcion openly separated from the Church and founded his own church (Tertull. Adv. Marc. IV, 4–5. De carne Chr. 2. PL. T. 2. Col. 394C-D, 396A, 801A), which existed for a long time. Epiphanius writes: “Marcion, having deceived a great multitude, formed a school that continues to this day in many forms. This heresy is still found today in Rome and Italy, in Egypt and Palestine, in Arabia and Syria, in Cyprus and the Thebaid, and even in Persia and other places. For this evil one has acquired great power in these countries through his deception.” Haer. 42, 1. Creations. Part 2. pp. 127–128. Strom. III, 4. PG. T. 8. Col. 1129A. Cfr.: R. Liechtenhan. Op. cit. S. 81–83. Tertull. De praescr. 30: "Marcion Novum Testamentum a Vetere separavit." P.L. T. 2. Col. 50A. Adv. Mars. I, 19: “Separatio Legis et Evangelii proprium et principale opus est Marcionis.” Ibid. Col. 293A. "Ea sola derelinquunt, quae adversa sibi esse non intellexerunt." Disputatio Origenis cum Megethio Manichaeo. II, 18. – S. P. Caspari. Kirchenhistorische Anecdota. l. P. 57. Dillmann explains the hitnabbe form in the sense of “showing oneself as a prophet”, being inspired. Handbuch der Alttestamentliche Theologie. S. 475. F. Vladimirsky. Quote op. pp. 39–40. Note Dr. Joseph Stier. Op. cit. S. 17–19. Vitringa. Op. cit. S. 77–357–358. A. P. Lopukhin. Biblical history in the light of the latest research and discoveries. T. 2. St. Petersburg, 1890. P. 680 et seq. M. Verzhbolovich. Quote op. P. 255. So, Ehler, Keil, Maibaum, Knobel, Bogorodsky and others. M. Verzhbolovich. Quote op. P. 254. Approx. 1. In addition to scientific goals, according to deist scientists, prophetic schools also pursued the goals of political opposition. Others consider the prophetic schools to be breeding grounds for Yahwehism; they developed a system of Yahweism, and they also introduced it into the Old Testament canon. Herzog. RE2. Bd. 12. S. 271. Anm. The view of prophetic schools as educational and philosophical institutions is decisively expressed by Vitringä “Certe hi prophetarum filli fuerunt philosophi, vel, si, vis, theologi et theologiae candidati ac alumni, scientiae rerum divinarum sedulo incumbentes sub duetu unius alicujus exercitati doctoris.” Op. cit. P. 350. Also Tenneman, Meiners, Winer, etc. Prof. priest A. A. Glagolev. Book of proverbs. - Explanatory Bible. T. 4. St. Petersburg, 1907. P. 423. Epist. ad Rusticum: “...quos monachos in Vetere Testamento legimus.” Epist. ad Paulinum: “Noster (monachorum) princeps Heliaz, noster Heliseus, nostri duces filii prophetarum.” "Sieht man auf Zweck und Ziel des Mönchthums, so steht dasselbe in directem Widerspruche mit dem Berufe des Prophetenthums." Keil. Op. cit. S. 148. Maibaum counts among the subjects studied: music, poetry, history and genealogy, and laws. M. Verzhbolovich. Quote op. P. 264. Details Prof. A. P. Lebedev. Charismatic teachers of the primal Church of the 1st and 2nd centuries. Collection of church historical works. T. 10. M., 1905. P. 3–26. See review by prof. N. N. Glubokovsky: Church Gazette. 1908. No. 12. pp. 573–574. Note The famous Fathers of the Church not only studied in pagan schools, but received church education in the bishop's clergy and ascetic education in desert and monastic solitude. It was to this upbringing that they owed their subsequent glorious activities for the benefit of the Church during its heyday. See in detail about this: Prof. V. F. Pevnitsky. Education of the preaching fathers of the 4th century. – Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy. 1892. T.Z.S. 272–304. You might be interested in: