PROFETA

PROPHET. —

I. IN HOLY SCRIPTURE

This is the certain sense of the Heb. nāḇî', which the Gk. προφήτης renders faithfully (πρός in place of φάναι “to speak”: Aeschylus, *Eumen.*, 19; Pseudo-Euripides, *Rhesus*, 972; Plato, *Rep.*, 366; *Tim.*, 62; *Phaedr.*, 262; though its etymology remains uncertain). Some have thought of the Arabic *naba'a* “to announce” or the Akkadian *nabû* “to call, speak.” W. F. Albright (*V. op. cit.* in bibliography, p. 301 sq.) rightly holds that the etymology is Akkadian; the sense of *nabû*, however, is “to call,” in the passive participle “called,” one who has received a mission (cf. Code of Hammurabi, *Prol.*, 1:52; 1:40; *Epilogue*, 24 R 40 sq., and the proper name Nābî-ilītu “the one called by his god”). This etymology confirms the passive sense of *nāḇî'*, already upheld by W. Gesenius (cf. the related *nāzīr*, *mafṭāl*), and supported by the fact that the verbal forms derived from *nāḇî'* are only passive: *niphʿal* and *hithpaʿēl* “to act as a *nāḇî'*,” to prophesy. The prophet also announces the future, but the vulgar sense of “foretelling the future” is only secondary; the etymology based on πρὸ “before” and φαίνειν “to appear” (St. Isidore of Seville; St. Thomas, *Sum. Theol.*, 2a–2ae, q. 171, a. 1) is erroneous (P. Synave–P. Benoit [*V. op. cit.* in bibliography], pp. 16 sg., 226).

The other two principal terms: *rō'ēh* “seer” (used only of Samuel [1 Sam. 9:9,11,18 sq.; 1 Chr. 9:22; 26:28; 29:20], of Hanani [2 Chr. 16:7,10], and in Isa. 30:10, though the verb *rā'âh* frequently denotes the “visions” that the prophet receives from God) and the synonym *ḥōzeh* “contemplator,” mostly in poetry, express the means or manner of divine communication. The ancient term *nāḇî'*, from the time of Samuel, prevailed almost exclusively over *rō'ēh*, as the editorial note in 1 Sam. 9:9 states regarding Samuel called *nāḇî'* and *rō'ēh* (ibid. 3:20 and 9:11). In Amos 7:1–15 these three expressions appear synonymous. Other appellations express the prophet’s intimate union with God (*mal'akh Yahweh* “messenger of Yahweh,” *ʿebhedh Yahweh* “servant of Yahweh,” *ʾîš ʾĕlōhîm* “man of God”) or the various aspects of his mission to the people (*rō'ēh* “shepherd,” *sōmēr* “keeper,” *ʾōpēh* “chosen watchman,” etc.).

Against the idolatrous institutions and practices of divination and magic, Yahweh, from the very beginning of the chosen nation, established the prophets as the sole spokesmen and interpreters of His thought and will (Deut. 18:9–22; Num. 23:23; cf. Amos 2:10 sq.; Ezek. 7:25; Zech. 7:12; Neh. 9:30), giving them as an unmistakable sign of recognition, besides moral worth, fidelity to Yahweh, to His precepts, and the charism of foretelling the future (Deut. 18:22; Isa. 41:22 sq.; 44:7 sq.; 46:10 sq.) and sometimes of performing other miracles. The beginning of the prophetic mission is the divine call, sudden, which gives a new aspect to the existence of the one called (Ex. 3:7–4:18; Amos 7:10–15; Isa. 6; Jer. 1:4–9; 20:7–18; Ezek. 2–3; etc.). For this reason even Abraham is called a prophet (Gen. 20:7) along with the other Patriarchs (cf. Ps. 105:15).

Biblical sources recall, after Moses, the great prophet (Hos. 12:14 [Vulg. 13]; Num. 11:25; 12:6; Deut. 18:15; 34:10), Miriam his sister (Ex. 15:20; Num. 12:2; cf. Mic. 6:4); Joshua (Sir. 46:1); during the period of the Judges: Deborah and an anonymous *nāḇî'* (Judg. 4:4; 6:8), an anonymous “man of God” who announces to Eli the decline of his house (1 Sam. 2:27); Samuel (*v.*), after whom, given the grave dangers to Yahwism and the related vicissitudes of the nation, the prophetic message follows uninterruptedly as a constant ministry (1 Sam. 3:1; Acts 3:24; Heb. 11:32). In David’s time: Gad (1 Sam. 22:5; etc.) and Nathan (2 Sam. 7:2; etc.); under Solomon: Ahijah (1 Kgs. 11:29; etc.); Shemaiah under Rehoboam; an “man of God” under Jeroboam; Jehu under Baasha (ibid. 12:22; 13:16); Hanani under Asa; Jehaziel, Eliezer under Jehoshaphat (2 Chr. 16:7–10; 19:2; 20:14–37); Elijah (*v.*); Micaiah, son of Imlah (1 Kgs. 22:8–28); Elisha (*v.*); Jonah, under Jeroboam (2 Kgs. 14:25). Then follow the prophets whose writings are preserved (“writing prophets”): Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Micah, Nahum, Zephaniah, Habakkuk, Jeremiah, Baruch; during the exile: Ezekiel, Daniel; after the exile: Haggai, Zechariah, Obadiah, Joel, Malachi. No further prophets are recorded (cf. 1 Macc. 14:41) until John the Baptist (Matt. 11:9 sq.; Luke 7:26 sq.), the precursor of the prophet par excellence, Jesus (Acts 3:20 sq.; Deut. 18:15–19; John 1:21,45; 6:14; 7:40; Acts 7:37; Heb. 1:1 sq.; A. Clamer, *Ste Bible*, II, Paris 1940, p. 634 sq.).

In the list of charisms in the early Church, prophets hold a place of honor after the Apostles: 1 Cor. 12:28 sq.; 1:1–5, 24–29, 31 sq.; Eph. 2:20; 3:5; 4:11; in the New Testament, these interpreters of God appear several times, giving predictions, reading the secrets of hearts, and bringing the divine word (Acts 11:27; 19:6; 21:9 sq.), building up, exhorting, and encouraging. Valuable indications are found in the *Didache* (11:7–12), the *Shepherd of Hermas* (*Mandate*, 11), and St. Justin (*Dial.*, 39:2). The name “prophet” is increasingly reserved for the inspired figures of the Old Testament; later, however (4th–5th centuries), in monastic literature it assumes a very broad sense and usage. The charism of prophecy has never ceased in the Church, with particular missions fulfilled by various saints (e.g., St. Vincent Ferrer, St. Catherine of Siena), but the term “prophet” is now reserved for the men of the Old Testament, transmitters of the formal or public revelation.

The Bible still uses the term *nāḇî'* and its derivatives, both for certain particular religious manifestations and for false prophets (either of false gods or falsely claiming to speak in the name of Yahweh).

Upon the elders, assistants to Moses, the spirit of Yahweh descended and they “began to prophesy,” a phenomenon that never recurred: two were in the camp and “they also prophesied,” that is, they were stirred in a characteristic manner. Moses regarded this manifestation as a divine gift: “Would that all the Lord’s people were prophets!” (Num. 11:25–29). In the 11th century, at the time of Samuel, this phenomenon of collective prophecy reappears (1 Sam. 10:5 sq., 9–12; 19:18–24), which seems to have reached its climax under Elijah and Elisha (9th century), only to decline almost immediately afterward. At Samuel’s time, bands of Israelites participated in worship, proceeding together, using song and music to prepare for and accompany the collective ecstatic manifestations of their exaltation. Possibly, carried away by religious enthusiasm, dominated by an uncontrollable overexcitement, in their faces flushed, in more or less rhythmic movements of the whole body, perhaps even in frenzied expressions, they manifested their vivid Yahwist sentiment. Perhaps the phenomenon was similar to glossolalia as in Acts 2:1–21; 10:44 sq.; 19:6; 1 Cor. 14. The exaltation sometimes communicated itself to bystanders, through some predisposition or a particular divine intervention (cf. 1 Sam. 19:20–24): from these manifestations, attributed to the action of Yahweh, one cannot exclude every supernatural character. At the time of

Elisha (1 Kings 17 ff.; 2 Kings 1 ff.) these p. (members of the prophetic guilds: 1 Kings 20:35; 2 Kings 2:31 etc.), in various localities (Gilgal, Bethel, Jericho), form colonies where, to a certain extent, they lead a common life (2 Kings 2:4, 38 ff.; 6:1-5). The followers of this professional prophetism have no supernatural vocation. In the most critical moments for the very existence of Yahwism, against the pernicious influence of Canaan, the official encroachment of Phoenician Baalism, and the open imposition of Jezebel, these pious associations, under the guidance and direction of the great inspired figures Samuel (who was probably their founder), Elijah, and Elisha, were among the living forces of the religious word that stirred the people to fidelity toward Yahweh. Many of them were killed by Jezebel (1 Kings 18:13). The great prophets also used them for missions received from God (cf. 1 Kings 20:35-43; 2 Kings 9:1-4, 11); sometimes they displayed ecstatic manifestations, but never took part in them by prophesying themselves (cf. 1 Sam 19:20).

The false prophets of Baal (prophetism properly Syrian-Phoenician) are described in Elijah’s challenge on Carmel (1 Kings 18:26-29); this agrees with the Egyptian account of Wenamun (c. 1100 B.C.; Golenischeff papyrus) and the Syrian writer Heliodorus. Among the manifestations of Canaanite liturgy, in religious exaltation, a strange frenzy seized some professional nābī’îm and soon spread to others. To the clamorous sound of cymbals, they danced, now with light leaps and now repeatedly bending the knee to the ground and then whirling about like those possessed (by a spirit: Heliodorus, Aethiopica, IV, 17). With swords or knives they wounded themselves, uttering barely articulated sounds which the suggestible faithful took to be the words of the god. As excitement mounted, it became frenzied; some finally lost control of themselves. There were mutilations in honor of Baal, god of fertility, and temporary dedication of young women to sacred prostitution (L. Desnoyers [V. op. cit. in bibl., I, p. 246 ff.]; A. Pohl [V. op. cit. in bibl., p. 24 ff.]). In the late 7th century, Jeremiah (Jer 27:3-9) attests that there were nābī’îm in Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre, and Sidon, consulted by the kings of these states. And at the dawn of the New Testament, such ecstatic displays were widespread in the Greco-Roman world (Virgil, Aen., VI, 45-51, 77-80; Lucan, Phars., V, 161 ff., etc.).

Finally, nābī’îm were those who spoke in the name of Yahweh without having received any mission. In conflict with the authentic prophets, they catered to the king’s whims, flattering him, pandering to the crowd’s illusions, seeking money and popularity (1 Kings 22:6-28; Mic 2:7-11; 3:5 ff.; Jer 23:9-40; 28:2, 9, 21-32; Ezek 13). Ezekiel (ch. 13) gives the most accurate description of them. In Israel they pose as nābī’îm (claiming to be called by God), prophets of their own minds, drawing everything from their own intellect. They give lying divinations; they keep saying, “Thus says the Lord,” though the Lord has not sent them or spoken to them. They do nothing to heal the people’s wounds or prepare them for the terrible events threatening them. They lull the people with assurances that “all is well,” when all is ill, ready to validate every fantastic hope. Of these prophets of their own minds, Yahweh laments: “You have profaned me (by using my name) among my people for handfuls of barley and scraps of bread, lying...” Soon events would give a resounding refutation to their words; the people would see them punished by Yahweh in exemplary fashion (cf. 1 Kings 22; Jer 28).

Rationalist criticism, lumping together the various and disparate elements thus far described, has attempted in different ways to give a unitary explanation of Israelite prophecy that eliminates any special action of God. Overemphasizing the redactional note in 1 Sam 9:9, it has advanced the hypothesis (from A. Kuenen to H. Gressmann, R. Kittel, G. Hölscher, A. Causse, etc.) that prophecy arose in Israel more or less in Samuel’s time (in this connection Acts 3:24; Heb 11:32 speak only of the continued succession of prophets from Samuel onward, while Amos 2:10 ff.; Jer 7:25 trace the institution of prophecy back to Moses [Hos 12:14]). From ecstatic prophecy, evolving through Elijah and Elisha, one would arrive at Amos, who introduced an absolutely new type of prophecy. The earlier prophets would be heads or members of confraternities, while after Amos they are isolated; the former are visionaries and wonder-workers, the latter are writers and thinkers; the former are inspired figures driven by ecstasy, the latter are intellectuals and realists. They claim that originally the prophets were possessed; by artificial means (music, dance, etc.) they reached such a pitch of exaltation that they felt transformed and transported by a superior power; then the spirit of the god spoke through them, having taken possession of them—a religious phenomenon found in other religions. In its highest manifestations, from Amos onward, prophecy would be explained by the sudden irruption, into the prophet’s consciousness, of subconscious ideas slowly elaborated in the subliminal mind (psychological hypothesis: W. James, A. Réville, etc.), or by the intuition and profound knowledge of the human heart possessed by brilliant minds (A. Causse, etc.).

The sources, however, unerringly establish the sharpest and most decisive distinction between the manifestations of ecstatic, collective, and professional prophecy and the divine institution of those called by God, from Moses to Malachi. None of these emerged from the aforementioned associations of collective prophecy. While there is undeniable contact with similar phenomena among other peoples, the differences are notable. For example, the characteristic Syrian-Phoenician practice of self-mutilation is absent; the passage adduced to the contrary (1 Kings 20:35-43) is not probative, for the member of the prophetic association who goes to meet Ahab has his face struck to present himself as a soldier who has taken part in the battle just ended. Moreover, there is a clear distinction in their zeal for Yahwism and their rejection of every cultic abomination.

Ecstatic and professional or voluntary prophecy is a phenomenon strictly circumscribed in time. Only those who deny all sources prior to Samuel can doubt the existence of prophets from the very origins of Yahwism. Soon ecstatic and professional prophecy took on unhealthy tendencies. Many pupil-prophets degenerated: after waiting in vain for the Lord’s call, they invested themselves with the prophetic mission. Their conduct (1 Kings 22, etc.) is a valuable argument for understanding the nature of true supernatural inspiration. It is therefore a glaring contradiction to derive from the same source the true prophets who energetically combat them (Amos 7:14; Ezek 13) and these false prophets who are their counterfeit.

Amasia, the priest of Bethel, enslaved to the dynasty of Jehu, says to Amos: “Seer, go away to Judah, and there earn your living by your prophecies.” Amos replies: “I am no nābīh, nor son of a nābīh. Yahweh took me from behind the flock and commanded me: Go, be a nābīh to my people Israel” (Am. 7:14). There is no natural disposition or preparation, no professional nābīh nor membership in prophetic associations; but a sudden action of God upon the soul of this shepherd and herdsman who is “taken” by Yahweh, removed from his ordinary occupations and from his Judah, and sent as the spokesman of divine justice into the kingdom of Israel, then prosperous and at peace, even into the very “royal” sanctuary of Bethel, officiated by a courtly priesthood enslaved to the dynasty.

Amos, like all prophets, remains ever conscious of himself even under the action of Yahweh (Jer. 20:9). Only the identity of the term remains; so Amos can assert that he is not a nābīh and immediately thereafter affirm categorically that he is. It is easy to understand the extension of the ancient term (cf. Gen. 20:7; Deut. 13:2; 18:15; 34:10; Judg. 4:4, etc.) to cases that at least apparently presupposed a call and mission from Yahweh (Num. 11:25 ff.; Deut. 18:15; etc.). “You have enticed me, and I was enticed; you were stronger than I, and you have prevailed” (Jer. 20:7). “I have become a laughingstock all the day; every one mocks me. For whenever I speak, I cry out, I shout, ‘Violence and destruction!’ For the word of Yahweh has become for me a reproach and derision all day long. If I say, ‘I will not mention him, or speak any more in his name,’ there is in my heart as it were a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I am weary with holding it in, and I cannot” (Jer. 20:8–9). It is the supernatural, mighty action of God that seizes the prophet; cf. Amos 3:8: “The lion has roared; who will not fear? Yahweh God has spoken; who will not prophesy?” Ezekiel repeatedly expresses this: “The hand of the Lord was upon me, and he brought me out in the Spirit of the Lord and set me down in the midst of the valley” (Ezek. 3:22; cf. 1:3; 3:14, etc.).

St. Thomas (Sum. Theol., 2a–2ae, qq. 171–74) systematically ordered the biblical and patristic elements, illustrating the nature of this divine action, which is essentially a supernatural illumination of the prophet’s intellect, strengthening it and becoming in him an active principle of knowledge. Whether it be a purely intellectual vision, or infused images illumined by supernatural light, or the divine light alone given to judge natural knowledge, the prophet vitally corresponds with the judgment he formulates and sometimes even with the prior elaboration of intelligible species. The prophetic charism is given him transiently; his vision is fragmentary and intermittent, and ceases when the light from above ceases to illumine him (cf. the example of Nathan, Isaiah; Jeremiah waits ten days for Yahweh’s answer [Jer. 42:7]; Elisha: 2 Kings 4:27). While Amos 3:8 and 2 Pet. 1:21 might suggest a lack of freedom in the prophet, Jer. 20:9 with 1:6; Ezek. 1:3; 3:22; 8:1 with 3:17–21 attest the full consciousness and autonomy of the prophet’s mind and will under divine action (v. INSPIRATION; cf. A. Bea, in Studia Anselmiana, 27–28 [1951], pp. 47–65).

Authentic prophecy is a unique phenomenon in the history of religions; it is characteristic of Yahwism (from its origins and without deviation) and of the Christian religion. No true affinities can be found in Egypt (the alleged prophecies of Ipuwer are descriptions of the past: A. H. Gardiner, A. Wiedemann), in Babylon (the Babylonian bāru is a diviner, but has nothing in common with the Israelite prophet), or in Arabia, with the activity and mission of Moses, Elijah, Elisha, Amos down to Malachi. Prophecy, exact foreknowledge of future events, interpretation of God’s thought in history, is the inimitable and unmistakable effect of the divine action upon its spokesman (E. König, V. op. cit. in bibliography, pp. 55–62).

Every naturalistic explanation therefore clashes with the documents. The slow elaboration posited by immanentist theories is contradicted by this sudden action or communication of Yahweh, which recurs and is the efficient cause of every intervention of the prophet in his mission. Besides the example of Amos, the vocation of the boy Samuel is instructive (1 Sam. 3); Nathan encourages David in the project of building the Temple and is enthusiastic about it, but the next morning he communicates Yahweh’s contrary order (2 Sam. 7); Isaiah announces to Hezekiah his imminent death, but immediately returns to communicate from Yahweh the promise of healing (2 Kings 20:1–5). Genius, intuition, profound knowledge of the human heart are gifts found here and there in human history. But prophecy is a unique phenomenon (E. König, op. cit. in bibliography, pp. 70–78). Prophecy is the loftiest element of the religion of the Old Testament and one of the greatest spiritual movements of all humanity. All the philosophers, all the legislators, all the founders of religions in antiquity, taken together, have not enunciated so many lofty and sublime ideas as have the few prophets of Israel (L. Dennefeld, V. op. cit. in bibliography).

Nor were all the prophets geniuses or scholars. Elisha was a wealthy countryman, Amos a shepherd, Jeremiah and Ezekiel timid priests. They foretold unforeseeable events in sharp contrast with all historical and political perspectives. Amos announced the ruin of Israel while the kingdom was at the height of its power. Ezekiel foretold in detail the siege and destruction of Jerusalem (Ezek. 4:5–21); and when all seemed lost, he predicted the return of the exiles, the constitution of the new Israel (ibid. 37:40–48) and the victory it would win over the assault of the Gentiles (Antiochus Epiphanes: ibid. 38–39). These are not meditations or intuitions.

V. op. cit. in bibliography, p. 13 ff.; Zechariah): these are true enacted parables, adapted to the Oriental genius. In part the discourses of the prophets were immediately committed to writing, either by themselves or by their disciples, sometimes (cf. Jer. 36; Isa. 30:8) by formal order of Yahweh.

Some prophecies, not communicated orally to contemporaries, were written down only, since they directly concerned future situations; thus especially the second part of Isaiah (40–66) and Daniel (chs. 2–7, 12), according to the explicit indication of the latter (Dan. 8:26; cf. 12:9). The distinction between prophets of action, or orators, and writing prophets is therefore merely external. According to the extent of their books, writing prophets are classified as “major” (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel) and “minor.” The prophetic books, mostly written in poetry, are rich in imagery, sometimes bold, in metaphors and symbols.

The announcement of salvation from enemies and oppression, and of messianic salvation, often seem to merge or at least to follow one another immediately or after a short interval. There seems to be a lack of perspective: the prophet has everything before his mind and so, without chronological determinations, communicates it to his hearers. In many cases, however, the prophet wishes to express the connection of cause and effect between messianic salvation and temporal, material salvation granted precisely in view of, and because of, the former. Thus in Isa. 7:12; thus in the description of the restoration after the exile: the reborn Israel is regarded as an immediate preparation for the kingdom of the Messiah by whom it will be elevated and absorbed; and therefore they are closely joined in prophecy (Jer. 30–31, 33; Ezek. 34:36–38). It must always be kept in mind that prophecy does not aim to satisfy curiosity, nor is it meant to be a chronicle.

The culminating period of the activity of the prophets, from the 8th to the 6th century, is a transitional period at the heart of the Old Testament; it prepares the transition from ancient Yahwism to the renewed post-exilic theocracy. Israel’s unfaithfulness reaches its peak, and Yahweh enacts against it the gravest sanction of the covenant: the destruction of the nation and the exile of the survivors. The prophetic writings allow us to follow the unfolding of these events and the scope of the prophets’ message.

Popular religion, with its syncretistic idolatry and superstitious practices, dissolves into licentiousness and moral disorder, reaching its climax first in the Kingdom of Samaria (8th century) and then in Judah. It places all its trust in cult and the presence of the Temple; it suffices to offer sacrifices, and Yahweh is bound to protect His faithful for His own sake. The prophets had to recall the true nature of the covenant between Yahweh and Israel, grounded in Yahweh’s free election, for Yahweh does not need the Jewish nation; if He chose the descendants of Abraham and Jacob, it was solely out of His infinite mercy. Yet the covenant is eternal and indissoluble. Israel has violated it; it will suffer the sanction: Yahweh will annihilate II. Yahweh had been long-suffering, awaiting Israel’s repentance; to this end He inflicted partial and limited punishments, but conversion did not occur; the final punishment is therefore at hand. Yet this penalty is not an end in itself; it is both vindictive and medicinal. Here the prophets reveal Yahweh’s designs for the continuation of the covenant, which must realize the salvific plan already announced in Gen 3:15. Divine mercy will preserve a “remnant” of His people; He will bring them back to their homeland after purging them of every trace of idolatry; with this “remnant” He will renew the covenant, which this time will finally receive the faithful correspondence from Israel that was lacking before the exile. The new theocracy thus restored will endure eternally, as it is elevated and absorbed into the Kingdom of the Messiah (v.). Already Hos 2 contains clear hints of this grand design, which Ezekiel systematically reworked, clarifying and developing every detail (Ez 11:14, 16, 20, 34, 36, 37, 40–48; for Hosea cf. A. Clamer, in DThC, XI, cols. 1643–51; for Jeremiah, ibid., VII, cols. 871–82). The post-exilic prophets especially illustrate the connection: reborn theocracy—Messianic Kingdom.

The prophets emphasize the attributes of Yahweh as supreme and sole God and His moral demands, which shape His relationship with the nation. They combat the superstitious trust placed by their contemporaries in external ritual, which had replaced and assumed the importance assigned in the covenant statute (the Decalogue) to

**Prophecy – The Prophet Ezekiel.** Painting by Michelangelo in the vault of the Sistine Chapel (1508–12).

the true relationship between Yahweh and Israel. They condemn the baleful influence of Canaanite idolatry. They do not condemn worship in itself; they absolutely condemn syncretistic worship, the essence of popular religion (Hos 2:10, 15; Jer 7:16–19, etc.); they restore, within Yahwism itself, worship to its proper place as a mere complement. The essential element is true piety, obedience to the voice of God, and moral precepts (Hos 6:6; 1 Sam 15:22; Mic 6:6 ff.). They therefore deny any efficacy to external worship when it is not accompanied by corresponding internal dispositions (Isa 1:10–17).

The prophets are the continuators of Levitism in their zeal for purity and the preservation of pure Yahwism (A. Neher, V. op. cit. in bibliography). Prophecy, with its precise announcement of national punishment and its vision of future rebirth, by revealing the divine plan for Israel, prevented the disappearance of the chosen people, prepared their return to God, and ensured their rebirth and continuity after the exile. The prophets were par excellence the organs of divine Revelation, the theologians, and the diligent shepherds of Israel; defenders of Yahweh’s sovereign rights in the political sphere; advocates of the poor and oppressed in the social sphere. Theirs is the mighty voice of vigilant election, which, in the face of disaster, recalls the purity of origins and the continuation of the work of the great prophet Moses; they innovate nothing, but illuminate all things and restore everything to its proper value. It is the very voice of God; hence their accents still shake and subdue, inculcating the holy fear of supreme justice and the boundless, trusting gratitude toward the infinite mercy of the Eternal.

II. Iconography.

The prophets were soon represented in early Christian art, both individually and in groups. In the catacomb of Priscilla, for instance, Balaam (v.), Isaiah (v.), Daniel, Jonah, and in other cemeteries, Daniel is often depicted; in the catacomb of Domitilla, Michael (v.) also appears, and the same figures are found on Christian sarcophagi, where Habakkuk sometimes accompanies Daniel. The most notable group representation is the mosaic series in the church of S. Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna, where the 16 prophets appear above the martyrs between the windows on the walls of the nave, beneath images of dignified elders of marked and majestic moral firmness. They hold scrolls with inscriptions, an attribute repeated in later iconography. It is worth noting that in these mosaics the heads of the prophets are adorned with halos; this custom, established in Byzantine-influenced art, would disappear in Western European art, where the nimbus would be reserved only for saints. Later, the 16 prophets appear in the mosaics of the Greek monastery of Daphni (v.). A complete series of prophets according to Byzantine concepts was frescoed in the second half of the 11th century in the church of S. Angelo in Formis, above the columns on the side walls of the nave, and in the contemporary church of S. Pietro ad Montes near Caserta Vecchia. The 12th century saw the depiction of prophets in the mosaics of the church of the Martorana, in the frescoes of the Palatine Chapel in Palermo, in the attic of S. Paolo in Spoleto (late 12th century), and in the transept of S. Maria Maggiore in Rome; in the mosaics of the dome above the high altar in the basilica of S. Marco in Venice. From the first half of the 13th century, we have the ceiling mosaics in the sacristy of the Florentine Baptistery, where among eight Old Testament figures, the four major prophets (Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Isaiah) are also depicted; the twelve minor prophets are instead portrayed, also in mosaic, on the arch between the sacristy and the octagon of the Baptistery. In Lombard art of the 12th–13th centuries, sculptures depicting the prophets adorn church portals, such as, for example, in the incrustations around the main door of the cathedral of Modena and in the Baptistery of Parma, a work by Benedetto Antelami (1196).

In France, the prophets were painted in the 11th century in the chapel of the "Grottes de Jonas" near St-Pierre-Colamine (Puy-de-Dôme; M. Thibout, *Les Grottes de Jonas et les peintures murales de leur chapelle*, in *Cahiers archéologiques*, 2 (1947), pp. 115–28 and plates 15–19), in St-Martin-du-Vic near Nohant-Vicq at the beginning of the 12th century (J. Hubert, in *Congrès archéologique de France*, Bourges 1931, pp. 556–576), in St-Aignan-de-Brinay (Cher) in the 12th century (P. Deschamps–M. Thibaut, *La peinture murale en France. Le Haut moyen âge à l'époque romane*, Paris 1951, pp. 117–118); in Notre-Dame-la-Grande in Poitiers in the 12th century (ibid., pp. 64–65, 69–71, 94; P. Deschamps, *Les peintures du chœur de Notre-Dame-la-Grande de Poitiers*, in *Comptes rendus de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres*, 1949, pp. 288–293); and in St-Savin-sur-Gartempe (Vienne) at the end of the 11th century (P. Deschamps–M. Thibout–A. Grabar, *Observations sur les fresques de St-Savin-sur-Gartempe*, in *Cahiers archéologiques*, 4 (1949), pp. 135–47; P. Deschamps, *La date des peintures de St-Savin-sur-Gartempe*, in *Comptes rendus de l'Académie des Inscriptions*, 1949, pp. 73–80; id.–M. Thibout, *La peinture murale en France*, pp. 71–86).

Several Gothic cathedrals in France, near their portals, feature full-round sculptures of the entire series of prophets, as at Bourges, Chartres, and Reims; a magnificent example of this type, perhaps dating to the late 14th century, adorns the main portal of the Strasbourg cathedral; in Germany, at Bamberg.

The prophets are often represented in illuminated manuscripts, from the *Codex Sinopensis* to those of Catalonia; from the Bible of the Certosa of Calci, now in Pisa, to that of the Palatine Library in Parma, originating from the Monastery of S. Valentino near Amelia, from the Bible of Todi to that of S. Maria *ad Martyres* and another from S. Cecilia in Trastevere, all three now in the Vatican Library (Vat. lat. 1045, Vat. lat. 12958, and Barb. lat. 587).

In Pisa, on the pulpit of Nicola Pisano; in Rimini, in the Tempio Malatestiano, Agostino di Duccio represents them alongside the sibyls; Pinturicchio in the Borgia Rooms in the Vatican, and Perugino in the Sala del Cambio. In late medieval Italian painting, it is common to find some prophets depicted in miniature form in the pinnacles of Gothic polyptychs, as in the polyptych by Duccio (Siena Gallery). In the *Maestà*, however, six prophets were painted in the predella (four of which are still preserved in the Opera del Duomo in Siena and two in the Museum of Emperor Frederick in Berlin).

Highly characteristic are the prophets frescoed by Pietro Cavallini in S. Maria Donna Regina in Naples and by an anonymous Emilian master in the mid-14th century on the walls of the chapter house in the abbey of Pomposa. In one section of the ceiling of the chapel of S. Brizio in the cathedral of Orvieto, the Blessed Angelico, assisted by Benozzo Gozzoli, frescoed in 1447 the group of all sixteen prophets, labeling them with the inscription: *"Prophetaum laudabilis numerus."* Additionally, we have from the hand of the Angelico the depiction of nine prophets adorning the frame of the remarkable *Crucifixion* frescoed in the chapter house of the convent of S. Marco in Florence. Twelve statues of prophets, sculpted by various late medieval and Renaissance masters, stand on the façade of the same cathedral of Orvieto, paired and flanking the rose window. Similarly, on the façade of the Siena cathedral, around the rose window, are the figures of all the prophets, along with those of various other Old Testament figures.

Jacopo della Quercia placed five prophets in the sections of the tabernacle of the baptismal font in S. Giovanni in Siena. Likewise, Lorenzo Ghiberti depicted some prophets in the vertical friezes of his second door of the Florentine Baptistery. However, the most famous depiction of the prophets is undoubtedly that of Michelangelo, who placed seven of them (Jonah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Joel, Zechariah, Isaiah, Daniel) on the vault of the Sistine Chapel, interspersed with five sibyls. Among the prophets painted on the pillars of the church of S. Agostino in Rome, only Isaiah is by the hand of Raphael (1512); the others were added in the mid-19th century by Pietro Gagliardi. Similarly, the prophets in the church of S. Maria della Pace in Rome, frescoed above Raphael’s four sibyls, are not by his hand but perhaps by his first master, Timoteo Viti. Marble statues of the four prophets—Isaiah, Ezekiel, Moses, and David—decorate the pedestal of the column of the Immaculate Conception in Piazza di Spagna in Rome, erected (1856) according to the design of L. Politi.

III. The Prophets According to Ethnology.

Religious ethnology speaks of prophets and prophetesses, that is, persons who predict future events, claiming to know them through a personal and direct revelation from God or spirits, or from a particular spirit. This very complex phenomenon has been interpreted by evolutionary ethnologists as a morbid and pathological phenomenon.

For example, Tylor, the classical author of ethnological evolutionism, considers prophecy, as well as ecstasy, visions and other similar religious manifestations—whether pagan or Christian—as an effect of the state of depression or overexcitement produced in a person by prolonged and exhausting fasting, the use of narcotics, or practices that produce the same effects, such as hallucination. As proof of this theory, Tylor adduces examples more or less arbitrarily drawn from certain peoples of North America (Ogbwa, Pellirose, Abiponi), from Haiti, the Zulus, the Malays, the Indian Yogis, the Greeks, the Romans and even Christians. Regarding Christianity, he refers particularly to medical descriptions of the scenes provoked by fanatics during the religious revival period in England, Ireland and America within Protestantism. Frazer then went so far as to say of primitives that «the savage, unable to distinguish between the visions of dreams and the realities of the waking state, confuses the appearance of a dead person during sleep with the real presence of a spirit».

These evolutionist theories, which conceive the development of human civilization in a uniform, unilinear manner—from the lowest, semi-savage state to the highest, from the inferior to the superior—have been refuted by modern ethnology (v.). Frazer’s assertion in particular has already been refuted by Lévy-Brühl in a subtle and irrefutable manner; and Durkheim, basing himself on Codrington and Howitt, had already noted of Australian primitives: «The Dieri distinguish between what they consider a vision and a mere dream. This is called apiccia, a pure imagining».

One must then distinguish prophecy from divination. The latter presents the revelation of future and hidden things in various ways, including dreams (v. DIVINATION). Now a dream may also fall within prophecy if the revelation of future things is not derived from the object dreamed, but rather if, during the dream, there is a direct personal revelation—something that properly distinguishes prophecy. Tylor did not grasp the great and intricate complexity of prophecy because he sought to reduce it to a morbid manifestation and failed to distinguish morbid phenomena from those that are not morbid at all. As regards Christianity, Tylor should have known that the Catholic Church has the means to judge true from false mystical phenomena, and that Catholic theology provides sound rules in this regard (v. BIBLICA).

Among primitive peoples, despite their great cultural diversity, there are observed instances of prophecy that are not connected with fasting but with prayer. It suffices to cite the example recounted by K. Rasmussen, who was both participant and witness when the Eskimos of the Barren Grounds (Boven Ground) of North America wished to hold a farewell feast for him. During the feast, it was announced that the prophecy Kinalik wished to invoke Sila, the Supreme Being, to secure a safe journey and protection from dangers for the departing man. When she returned to herself after concentrating all her strength to devise and implore something good on behalf of the traveler and had regained her normal expression, with a cheerful and radiant appearance, she recounted—Rasmussen says—that the Great Spirit had heard her and that all dangers would be far from his life, and that whenever they needed meat, they would find successful hunts.

From the important information given to Schoolcraft by Chingwauk, an Algonquin chief versed in mystical traditions and an admirable reader of the hieroglyphs of his people, Tylor—who nonetheless reports them—could have deduced that even primitives demand guarantees and impose certain conditions before believing in a prophet and his prophecies. Chingwauk reports, among other things, that the prophet begins to exercise his powers in secret, ensuring that he has only one confidant, whose testimony is necessary in case of success. Then he draws and symbolizes on bark or other material the figures of his dreams or revelations and often spends an entire winter compiling a catalogue of his principal revelations. If what he has predicted comes true, the confidant hastens to announce it, and reference is made to the said catalogue as proof of his talent and prophetic faculty. Finally, he communicates his Kee-Kee-Wins, or the tracings of his dreams, to the elders of the tribe, who gather to examine them, for the entire nation believes in his revelations. The elders ordinarily end by giving their approval and declaring that the man in question is endowed with the gift of prophecy, that he is full of wisdom and that he can influence the opinions of the people.

The figure of the prophet is moreover very complex: ordinarily he is also a diviner, exorcist, physician, magician and invocator. In ancient feudal China, for example, there were shamans and shamanesses everywhere, who may also be called magicians (wu and wu-nü). They held an important place in the religious life of the people; they were considered intermediaries with the world of gods and spirits. Of a state magician of Cheng it is said not only that he could predict even the day of death of those who consulted him, but also that he could heal diseases and know what was auspicious and what was

nefarious. In the different seasons of the year, the shamanesses (twin-nii) had to drive away pestilential emanations and evil influences and make libations. When a great calamity befell the country, they would sing, weep and ask for the cessation of the scourge. The shamans would gather with their chief, and in the case of great drought, they would perform dances to obtain rain.

It is interesting to note that the power which magicians possess, or believe they possess, is attributed to a pact they have made with a spirit that assists them, which is also found in the formula of spirit invocation, as Leroy has revealed—an astonishing analogy with civilizations scattered across the globe. The plea of the magician of the Fan of West Africa always begins with the renewal of the pact: «Spirit, you who are my Lord and to whom I have given myself, strong and powerful spirit, it is I who call you». Here is the formula used in the presence of the prophet Huc by a Tibetan magician: «I know you, you know me. Come now, old friend, do what I ask of you. Bring water and fill the vessel that I present to you. Fill a vessel with water—what is this to your great power? I know you exact a high price for a vessel of water, but it does not matter; do what I ask of you and fill this vessel that I present to you. Later we shall sing together. On the appointed day you will take what is yours». The same belief is found among European magicians.

The revelation of the future made by the spirit to which the magician is bound occurs in various ways, of which copious accounts are found both in the travel books of explorers and in the reports of missionaries; generally the revelations occur after a period of shouts, clamour, striking of instruments, etc.

Among the ancient Chinese, under the Chou dynasty (1122–256 B.C.), sorcerers and sorceresses, as Maspero has noted, entered into relation with spirits through a veritable possession, so that they were often called "possessed" (ling-pao); the spirit descended into them, so that the body was (that) of the sorceress, but the heart was (that) of the god. It was he who spoke through their mouth, as the soul of a prince declared at the end of a first apparition to his old charioteer: "In seven days beside the new enclosure (of k'ii-t'ui) there will be a sorceress, and you will have an interview with me." At times the spirit was not content merely to speak, but acted through his medium, as did that hungry spirit (li) who, enraged by the little care the prior, charged with offering sacrifices to the souls without posterity of Ku of Kuan, took possession of a medium and made him kill the prior on the altar with blows from a staff.

Before the evocation of the spirit, the ancient Chinese sorceress purified herself, washing her face and body with water infused with special herbs, and clothed herself in magnificent garments. When the offerings were ready, she sent her soul to seek out the deity and led it back with her to attend the sacrifice, mimicking this journey with a dance accompanied by music and song.

From what has been said, it is easy to form an idea of the complexity of the prophetic phenomenon. Each case must be judged individually to discern what is natural, preternatural, or supernatural, and what is morbid or cunning. Ethnology lists such a variety of prophetic facts that they cannot simply be judged as morbid phenomena, in the manner of Tylor. Among the Hebrews, moreover, the nābhī' recall in certain respects the dervishes and certain manifestations of some Muslim confraternities. The nābhī' have been described as voluntary prophets and rightly distinguished from prophets of vocation; these latter are figures so distinctive that they cannot be reduced to any known type of prophet among other peoples.