Circumstances have really 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, that he may judge us as among the other nations (1 Samuel 8:45). The Law of Moses did not exclude this form of state life (Deuteronomy 17:1520). But the people did not grasp the theocratic ideas of the law, which are also clearly expressed in the law (Deuteronomy 32:9; cf. 1 Samuel 12:12). The elders added meaningful words to their request: like other nations. For this reason Samuel did not like this word, and God Himself said to Samuel, "They have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me" (1 Samuel 8:67) [8]. But it cannot be accepted that the prophetic hosts were organized by Samuel specifically for the purpose of "guarding the cause of Jehovah and returning to the law the people who had deviated from it" [9]. We see the prophetic assembly existing at the very establishment of the royal form of government (see 1 Samuel 10:5,10). Institutions such as prophetic hosts cannot be established in a few years or months. It is necessary to admit the early existence of prophetic hosts, regardless of the purpose of existence put forward for them by later circumstances. It may also be noted that at the second mention of the host of prophets who prophesied under the leadership of Samuel in Ramah (see 1 Samuel 19:1920), the assembly seems to have a definite organization, and this makes it necessary to 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 everyday fact that does not cause any amazement. Is Saul also among the prophets? - those who knew him yesterday and the third day asked about Saul's prophecy (1 Samuel 10:11). And one of those who were there answered... but those who are fathers (1 Samuel 10:12)? In this conversation, it is so striking that for the speaker of the host of prophets, his character, the origin of his members - all this is something very definite and usual for the speakers. Everything gives the right to assume that there were prophetic schools or hosts before Samuel.

Reference may be made to Maibaum,10 who most emphatically asserts the existence of prophetic schools before Samuel, and devotes a whole chapter of his study to the description of the prophetic schools in the pre-Samuel period. But Maybaum, admitting the existence of prophetic schools before the time of Samuel, identifies them completely with the schools of pagan diviners. The study of pagan mantics, according to Maybaum, occupied the first place in these schools. Samuel radically reformed these pagan schools, completely destroyed the coarse character of the former prophecy - mantik, divination [12]. Under Samuel, the mantic gave way to prophecy on the basis of inner revelation. In the reformed schools, they stopped studying mantik; Instead, there are higher occupations: music, poetry, the study of history, and the like [13]. Maybaum 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 scientific world. For Deuteronomy, which denies the early origin, it certainly does not make sense to make the strict distinction between Hebrew prophecy and pagan mantle, but for us this distinction is significant. And in Deuteronomy, Moses says to the people: The nations... whom thou hast cast out, they listen to diviners and soothsayers (kosemim),[15] but the Lord thy God hath not given thee. A prophet from among you, from among your brethren, like me, the Lord your God will raise up for you (Deuteronomy 18:1415). There is no reason in the Bible to assert that before Samuel prophecy had the character of superstitious pagan divination. If there were any prophetic schools or hosts of prophets before Samuel, it is best to think of them as unions or societies of especially religiously minded people who reduced even their worldly needs in order to spend more time in religious exercises in community with similar religious people. The constant concentration of their religious feeling made them more receptive to the influences of the Deity, and there were times when they "prophesied." There is information about such mass prophecies in the earliest biblical data. Thus, while wandering in the wilderness, 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 answered, "Are you not jealous for me? oh, that all in the people of the Lord were prophets (Num. 11:2529). Even if not all of the Lord's people were highly religious, there were always zealots for the faith, who were sometimes vouchsafed the influence of the Spirit of God.

The story of Samuel's life concludes with the biblical information about the prophetic schools of ancient times. In 2 Samuel there is absolutely no mention of prophetic schools, nor is there any mention in 3 Samuel, except for a fleeting single remark in 20:35. Only in the 2nd Book of Kings, when narrating about the time of the prophetic activity of Elijah and Elisha [17], is there again information about the prophetic schools. Here the prophetic schools appear under the name of "sons of the prophets" (bene nebiim). The question arises: were there prophetic schools in the period from Samuel to Elijah, or are the "prophetic sons" of Elijah's time a completely new phenomenon, perhaps only analogous to the "prophetic hosts" of Samuel's time? It should be noted that there is no information in the Bible about the disintegration of the prophetic hosts in the time of Samuel, nor about the emergence of societies of "sons of the prophets" in the time of the prophet Elijah. In the time of Elijah, the "sons of the prophets" appear immediately and in large numbers. Therefore, it can already be assumed that the societies of the prophets existed after Samuel and before Elijah. The fact that in 2 Kings the term "sons of the prophets" (bene nebiim) is used exclusively, which does not occur in 1 Kings, can hardly be a sufficient basis for the assertion that 2 Kings speaks of an entirely new institution. The name may have changed according to the time, as well as from the various writers of 1 and 2 Kings. External activity could also be cast into new forms, but in reality it is hardly possible to note any contradictory features of the "prophetic hosts" 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, the prophetic schools are not mentioned at all in the history of David and Solomon, but some, very vague, hints can be found. Thus, it is impossible not to pay attention to the fact that the prophet Nathan was of great importance in the time of David and Solomon (see 1 Kings 1, especially verses 32, 34, 45). He even calls Solomon the name Jedidiah (see 2 Samuel 12:25). It is assumed that Nathan was Solomon's tutor, just as Elisha raised Joaca [20]. Consequently, the prophets of this time were not alien to the religious-pedagogical mission. Nathan could bring up not only Solomon, but a whole prophetic host. The Bible says many times that the prophets wrote chronicles at this time as well. Case... David... are described in the writings of Samuel the seer... and in the records of Gad the seer (1 Chronicles 29:29). The deeds of Rehoboam... described in the records of Shemei the prophet and Addah the seer (2 Chronicles 12:15); the deeds of Asa are in the story of the prophet Adda (2 Chronicles 13:22). This fact testifies to the fact that the prophets were no strangers to school classes, as the writing of national history. Vitringa sees some reflection of the fact of the existence of prophetic schools in Proverbs, where it is said that Wisdom built herself a house... and she sent her servants to proclaim from the high places of the city (Proverbs 9:1,3) [21]. The history books are occupied with the depiction of the tense political life under David and Solomon, and then with the division of the kingdoms and the establishment of a new cult. But in spite of all these high-profile external affairs, it must be assumed, the inner work of the religious consciousness was also carried out in the person of people who were especially disposed to it, who formed close alliances among themselves under the guidance and guidance of the prophets. The 2nd Book of Kings tells us about the societies of the "sons of the prophets" as societies very large in terms of the number of members included in them and having a certain organization. This speaks very convincingly for the existence of prophetic schools earlier than the Prophet Elijah.

The last mention of prophetic schools can be 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 (Amos 7:14). It is true that nowhere is a member of the prophetic societies called "the son of the prophet," as Amos calls himself here. In the 1st Book of Kings (20:35) we find the expression: one of the sons of the prophets, therefore "the son of the prophet" can be understood literally, in the sense of a son by birth, but it is also permissible in connection with the preceding words of Amaziah to Amos (Amos 7:12) and another understanding. Amos proves his right to prophecy by referring to the command of God and denies his connection with the prophets, who prophesied and therefore ate bread, as Amaziah put it. He did not need to mention that he was not the son of a prophet, since descent from a prophet did not make him a prophet, and therefore it is possible to see in the words "not the son of a prophet" an allusion to the prophetic schools [22]. Thus, it is possible to define the period of prosperity of the prophetic schools as the time from Elijah to Amos [23].

Of course, the prophetic schools could not disappear at any particular moment in time, but it must be assumed 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 will allow ourselves to call the flowers of religious and moral life, also withered.

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 "prophetic sons" mentioned in 2 Kings live and work only in the kingdom of Israel. But it seems hasty to conclude from this that there were no prophetic schools in the kingdom of Judah.

If the prophets had disciples in the kingdom of Israel, then why could there not be such disciples in the kingdom of Judah? But it is clear that there is absolutely nothing to say to factually confirm the existence of prophetic schools in the Kingdom of Judah as well.

We have outlined the most important points in the historical existence of the Old Testament prophetic schools. The Bible, with its information, seems to cast two rays of light on the history of the prophetic schools, completely covered with the darkness of obscurity. In the light of the first ray, we see the prophetic hosts of Samuel's time, and in the light of the second, the sons of the prophetic times of Elijah and Elisha. The hosts of the prophets and the societies of the sons of the prophets are described by different and different features, but also by non-contradictory ones. It is possible to admit the uninterrupted existence of prophetic schools [25], only by the time of the prophets Elijah and Elisha these schools had a different external form. What stages in their historical development the prophetic schools passed through can only be guessed, since there is no historical evidence. To write in detail the history of the prophetic schools is a thankless task and a useless task.

Internal structure of prophetic schools

The Bible gives many grounds for judging the internal structure of the prophetic schools, although this information is far from sufficient for a clear and detailed representation of both the essence and the external forms of the prophetic schools. In the reports of 1 Samuel it is very difficult to see the essence of the "hosts of the prophets." Some idea of what these hosts are can be gleaned from an analysis of the term used. Of course, it is possible to judge the essence of an institution by its name only in the absence of other data.

To designate the hosts of prophets, the writer of the 1st Book of Samuel uses two terms: hebel nebiim (see 1 Samuel 10:5, 10) and lahaka hanebiim (see 1 Samuel 19:20). The first term means not only an assembly, a crowd of people, in this case, prophets; This term indicates a closer union of persons who make up a host than a simple random gathering 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, close union. After all, we also use expressions - ties of kinship, bonds of brotherhood. Thus, in the book of the prophet Zechariah we read: "And I broke My other rod - "bonds" - to break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel (Zech. 11:14). Here, the "bonds" symbolize brotherhood. And therefore hebel can also mean "fraternal union of persons". On the other hand, the word hebel itself means "a measuring rope" (Micah 2:5; cf. Zech. 2:5; Amos 7:17; 2 Kings 8:2), "a measured piece of land" (Joshua 17:14; 19:9; Deuteronomy 3:4; Zeph. 2:5), "inheritance" as property (Deuteronomy 32:9), and then means "a union of men." If we take into account this meaning of the word hebel, then we can introduce into the concept of the host its singularity, its isolation. In Deuteronomy it is said: "A portion of the Lord is His people, Jacob is His inheritance (hebel)" (32:9). The same lot of the Lord was the prophetic hosts. Just as the entire Jewish people was set apart from among other nations, so the prophetic hosts were separated from among the people themselves.

Thus, an analysis of the term hebel gives the following two signs of the prophetic hosts: 1) fraternal unity of the members - on the internal side, and 2) separation and isolation on the external side.

The second term, lahaka, is less characteristic from the philological point of view. Apax legТmenon lahaka - by rearranging the letters, it was formed from kahal (kahal). Kahal means society, assembly; the verb kahal means, by the way, "summons." Therefore, the term denoting the prophetic assembly characterizes it as convened, gathered not by chance, but with a specific purpose. In addition, attention is drawn to the very name of the prophetic settlement near Rama - Nawaf, which, if translated as a common noun, corresponds to what we call a "common life" [26]. All these data indicate that the prophetic hosts were not accidental societies of ecstatics; All terms define the prophetic hosts as societies that had their own modus vivendi. A particularly characteristic feature reported in 1 Samuel 19:20 is that Saul's ambassadors saw a host of prophets prophesying and Samuel ruling over them. Samuel is here called the chief (nicab) of the prophetic host. Nice from the verb "natsab", which with the preposition al, as here, means "to be placed over something, assigned to something" (see Ruth 2:56), and the noun itself with the same preposition means "a person standing at the head of an institution"; This, by the way, is the name of the ruler of Solomon's stewards and the ruler of the king's house (see 1 Kings 4:56). Such an attitude of Samuel is possible only with regard to the organized society which he led. The fact that Samuel occupied a central place in the assembly is evidenced by the 1st book of Samuel (19:2324): Saul, upon whom the Spirit of God descended... prophesied before Samuel.

All the above considerations give us the right not to consider the prophetic hosts as shapeless crowds of ecstatics, but to consider them as organized institutions, to consider their internal structure and character in connection with the societies of the sons of the prophets mentioned in the 2nd Book of Kings. We can unite the hosts of prophets and the societies of the sons of the prophets under one name of prophetic schools [27]. Most scholars do not even suppose a difference between prophetic hosts and prophetic schools. Metropolitan Philaret calls both of them "prophetic schools." Keil, Ehler, Maybaum, Keel, Hengstenberg, and others call them indifferently prophetic schools.