THE ORIGINS OF PROPHETIC FRENZY AND ECSTATIC UTTERANCE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT WORLD
Charles D. Isbell
Introduction: A Working Definition of Ecstasy
Many scholars have written on the subject of ecstasy in the Old Testament world. Two of them have given definitions which establish a base from which we may work in this inquiry. T. H. Robinson defines ecstasy as follows:
It consisted of a fit or attack which affected the whole body. Sometimes the limbs were stimulated to violent action, and wild leaping and contortions resulted. These might be more or less rhythmical, and the phenomenon would present the appearance of a wild and frantic dance. At other times there was more or less complete constriction of the muscles, and the condition became almost cataleptic.... Face and aspect were changed, and to all outward appearance the Ecstatic "became another man." An additional feature was insensibility to pain, and the extravagant activities of the Ecstatic frequently included violent slashing and cutting of his own body and limbs.l
The incomparable work of J. Lindblom on the prophets includes this definition.of ecstasy:
An abnormal state of consciousness in which one is so intensely absorbed by one single idea or one single feeling or by a group of ideas or feelings, that the normal stream of psychical life is more or less arrested. The bodily senses cease to function; one becomes impervious to impressions from without consciousness is exalted above the ordinary level of daily experience; unconscious mental impressions and ideas come to the surface in the form of visions and auditions....
In religious ecstasy, consciousness is entirely filled with the presence of God, with ideas and feelings belonging to the divine sphere. The soul is lifted up into the exalted region of divine revelation, and the lower world with its sensations momentarily disappears.2
These two definitions of the same word are sharply different. For Robinson, ecstasy is understood almost totally in physical, outward terms; while for Lindblom, the key ideas are consciousness, "the presence of God," exaltation above "the lower world with its sensations,'~ and "mental rapture." For this study, ecstasy may be described as related to either of these two basic ideas, i.e, strange outward behavior and/or significant mental stimulation or alteration.
Having stated these issues, the theses of this paper may be admitted. They are three in number. (1) There is far less ecstasy in the world of the Old Testament and in the Old Testament itself than the secondary literature would have one believe, for primary texts which explicitly state or describe ecstasy as defined above are quite rare. (2) There must be a rather sharp line drawn between early ecstasy and classical prophecy. (3) Ecstasy, when it does appear in the Hebrew Bible, is to be understood as strange actions rather than as strange utterances
1. Ecstasy in the Ancient Near East
'-The Report of Wen-Amun" about his journey to Phoenicia ca.1060 B.C. includes a passage relevant to the subject of ecstasy. While Wen-Amun was in Byblos, the prince of Byblos made an offering to his gods, and during the ceremony, "The god seized a page of his pages and he put him [in] ecstasy."4 The following paragraph explains that the page continued his "ecstasy" from morning to night, and then the story continues with no further reference to ecstasy of any kind. However, any attempt to determine the specific nature and extent of the "ecstacy" which gripped the page involves many problems. John A. Wilson pointed out in his translation of this passage that "the determinative of the word ' (prophetically) possessed' shows a human figure in violent motion or epileptic convulsion."6 It is this opinion which most scholars have followed without question in assuming the attestation of something ecstatic in the Wen-Amun text.
But two things are noteworthy in this regard. First, the determinative which Wilson described above is one variation of a common "action determinative" which is normally the figure of a man in a rather upright position. In the Wen-Amun text, the man is pictured seated rather than upright, and his arms are raised Whether this particular position is intended to indicate someone "in violent motion or epileptic convulsion" may be open to question, especially in light of the second point, namely
the uncertain meaning of the noun h3wt. Goedicke believes that the word "appears to denote a seizure in which the person afflicted is no longer himself but is possessed by a spiritual power."8 Erman and Grappow take the determinative to mean simply a dancing man, and they translate h3Wt itself as "the ecstatic."9 It must be noted that the only two occurrences of the word h3Wt are found here in the Wen-Amun text, i.e., in new Egyptian. It is obvious that this one piece of evidence, involving a determinative which may be interpreted in several different was and a noun of difficult etymological origin, is not enough upon which to build a case for ecstasy in eleventh-century Byblos or Egypt. Much more evidence would be required, specifically new texts which employ h3wt often enough to enable one to grasp its full range of meaning.
A similar problem concerns the Zakir Stele ,l° an eighth-century text in Old Aramaic fom Syrian Hamath which speaks of a divine answer coming from BaCal hamayin through ''seers''ll and "foretellers. he translation "foretellers" here is at best uncertain. The Aramaic word s Ccldn, which probably means something like "enumerators" or "expert redictors,''l2 but a jump from "visionaries" and "predictors" to "ecstatics" is not warranted from the text itself.
This paucity of extrabiblical material from Byblos and Hamath only erves to underscore the importance of current studies in the various types of prophetic material known from the Mari letters. Of the hundreds of letters from Mari, about 27 deal with prophetic-type activities. These letters are important not only because they predate all biblical material by several centuries, but also because they come "from an area that is the larger focus of Patriarchal activities.''l3 Herbert B. Huffmon has grouped Mari prophets under four headings: the ''answerer,''l4 the assinnu,''l5 the "ecstatic," and "Private Persons."
The "ecstatic" prophet is Huffmon's designation of the Akkadian noun muhhum (feminine muhhutum), a word which von Sodon felt should be regarded as simply a phonetic variant of mahhum. However, Malamat is probably correct in adopting the suggestion of Landsberger that "the spelling muhhum is not a phonetic variant of mahhum (as assumed by von Sodon, WO I, p. 400), but rather the form quttul, designating a (bodily) defect . . . corresponding to Hebrew qittel.''l6 One is reminded here of common Hebrew words like Ciwwer, pisseah, heres, 'illem, keheh, etc. If Landsberger and Malamat are correct, the muhhum at Mari would exhibit some bodily defect which would make him identifiable in public, whether a defect acquired at birth or inflicted later in life in order to qualify him for the office of muhhum. But this does not inform one about his function.
From the Mari texts themselves, Huffmon is able to cite a text in which "muhhu-ecstatics" used music in their ritual, and there is a reference to "watered-down beer" which Huffmon feels "may possibly reflect a situation in which ecstasy was partly induced by alcohol.''l~ But beyond that, it is difficult to see how ecstasy was involved in the work of the muhhu-prophets. In other texts from Mari one learns of a muhhum who claimed to be sent from the god, one reads of bold messages delivered to the king or to the citizens of the town of Terqa, one isolates subjects like "the cultic interests of the god, the general safety of the king, and a matter of whether or not to build a city gate.''l8 But one searches in vain for descriptions of frenzy, seizure, babbling, or indeed any physical or mental abnormality whatsoever. Thus Malamat is entirely correct in stating that "there is no specific reference to . . . ecstatic stimulation . . . in Mari,''l9 a point also made by Walters with a slightly different em- phasis: "the presence of ecstasy is certainly not as clear at Mari as it is in I Sam 19: 23f."2°
Huffmon also uses the idea of ecstasy in his translation of two texts which deal with prophets other than the muhhum type.2l In the first,2~ an assinnu named Shelibum "became ecstatic."23 In the second,24 a young woman named Ahatum "became ecstatic."26 Now the words which Huffmon is translating "became ecstatic" are both N forms of mahahum> mahum, which as a verb is commonly assumed to mean "to rage" or "to go into a rage."26 Since both Shelibum and Ahatum were in the Temple at the time of their experience, it seems reasonable to conclude that the use of mahum to describe their actions27 constitutes strong evidence to support the translation of Huffmon. Be that as it may, it is noteworthy that immediately following their becoming "ecstatic," both Shelibum and Ahatum delivered oracles in the form of advice to Zimri-lim from the goddess Annunitum.28 This accords well with the regular functions of Mari prophets as attested in other texts which, as noted above, seem to have little connection with ecstasy.29 One can only assert that whatever their state of mind which the verb mahum describes, the sobriety and clarity of the statements made immediately thereafter cannot be gainsaid.
This then is the extent of extrabiblical material relating to "ecstasy." A difficult Egyptian determinative and a twice-attested new Egyptian noun, an Aramaic word of uncertain meaning and origin, a difficult Akkadian root which occurs in the Mari texts in connection with "prophets." To quote Huffmon again, this evidence is "very sparse indeed."30 It would seem that the debate between men like Noth, who insist that the Mari prophets "actually form part of the prehistory to [biblical]
prophecy,"3~ and others who insist that the phenomenon of Israelite prophecy is absolutely unique,32 is getting the cart before the horse. While the connection between Mari prophecy and Israelite prophecy is undeniable, the role of ecstasy in the two cultures cannot be determined without far more evidence.33
II. n-b- and ecstasy in the Hebrew Bible
In the Hebrew Bible, the root n-b-' occurs 11~ times in verbal forms, 8734 times in the NiphCal conjugation and 28 times in the HitpaCel.36 Perhaps the Inost commonly accepted definition of the root is that the oldest verbal forms describe some form of "religious ecstasy with or without song and music,"36 while later uses of the same forms indicate "essentially religious instruction, with occasional predictions."3~ But the lines are not quite so easily drawn as the lexicon would indicate. There is the extreme position of T. H. Robinson, that "the Hebrew word for Ecstatic is Nabi', . . . and the verb used of ecstatic behaviour is a reflexive [Robinson means the HitpaCel] form of the root from which the noun Nabi comes."38 But there is also the textual evidence that warns against the making of a sharp distinction between the NiphCal and the Hitpacel simply because both forms are often found together in the same passage with obviously identical meaning. In addition, there
is the evidence from the translators of the Septuagint who never distinguish between the two Hebrew conjugations, rendering both by propheteuo in every case.40 In this connection, it is at least of passing interest that the Septuagint never once translates nb' ~ith existanai, the nominal form of which is ekstasis,1' or with mainesthai.42
The use of nb' to describe ecstasy is attested in the following biblical passages.
1 Sam. 10:1-13
This passage all~ 1 Sam. 19:18-24 may be called the loci classici of biblical ecstasy. Having been anointed by Samuel (v. 1), Saul was sent forth with promises that three signs ('otot) would occur, the third of which involved "a band of prophets" (hebel neb~'im)i I.eaving Samuel, Saul was given "another heart" (leb 'aher) by God and the three signs predicted by Samuel did come to pass. Thus Saul met a band of prophets who were "prophesying" as they came down from the high place with
harp, tambourine, flute, and Iyre (v. 5). At that moment, the ruah 'elohlm "rushed" (tislah) upon him, and he "prophesied among them" (v. 10). The words "prophesying" and "prophesied" in this passage are either HitpaCel or NiphCal (v. 1]) forms of nb' which obviously mean neither foretelling nor forthtelling. The unusual sight of an aristocrat like Saul "prophesying" was surprising to those who observed it, evoking questions like "What has happened to the son of Qish? Is Saul also among the ecstatics [nebi'~m] ?" "Who is their [the ecstatics'] father?" It is noteworthy here that the people "saw" something unusual in the behavior of Saul. This should be contrasted with the reaction of the crowd described in Acts 2, whose amazement is four times traced to what they heard from the 120 (cf. vv. 6, 8, 11).
1 Sam. 19:18-24
This passage contains an alternate aetiological explanation of the saying, "Is Saul also among the ecstatics?" In his efforts to find and kill David, Saul three times sent messengers to Nayot, a city in the territory of Ephraim to which David had fled and where he had joined Samuel and the hebel nebi'im. Several things indicate the midrashic character of this passage. First, it is unlikely that David would have fled north in a time of trouble instead of south to the region where his family lived. Second, Samuel is nowhere connected with the ecstatics except in this story; and indeed, in both the early and the late Samuel Sources,43 Samuel is specifically distinguished from the ecstatic bands. Third, while the late source has Saul and Samuel never seeing each other following their Gilgal dispute (1 Sam. 15:35), this passage has Saul "prophesying in the presence of Samuel" (v. 24). Four, "the surprise at Saul's frenzy, which is expressed in the proverb, was in place at the beginning of his public career, when his psychological abnormality was unknown, but is quite out of place at this stage, when his character must have been well known."44
In short, the value of this passage lies in the information, which it contains about prophetic ecstasy as a group phenomenon, not as a source of historical information about Samuel, Saul, and David. One fact is clear. The contagion of group ecstasy lures one, two, yea, three envoys from Saul into the frenzy of "prophecy"! Finally, even the king himself, anxious to capture his most hated foe, is caught up by "the Spirit of God" and "prophecies." This "prophesying" was done in a group, all members of which had stripped themselves naked in the process,45 and the entire experience so overwhelms Saul that he lies naked for 24 hours (v. 24). If this passage accurately reflects operating procedure for an ecstatic group,45 nudity and frenzy were an integral part of "prophesying." Here again, one should note the interchange of HitpaCel and NiphCal forms of nb', as well as the fact that neither characteristic of classical prophesy, foretelling or forthtelling, is attested.
1 Sam. 18:10
I Sam. 18:10 reads as follows: "On the following day [i.e., the day after the women had sung about the military prowess of Saul and David in terms of 'thousands' versus 'ten thousands' (v. 7) ] an evil divine spirit47 rushed upon Saul and he went into a rage inside the house." Here the verb "went into a rage" is a HitpaCel form of nb' which the King James Version has slavishly rendered as "prophesied." But the verse speaks neither of foretelling nor of forthtelling, nor even of the "normal" characteristics of ecstasy noted in the passages discussed above. Thus the comment of one interpreter that HitpaCel nb' here "has reference to ecstatic utterance"48 is simply not sustained by the text and borders on eisegesis. There is no indication that Saul made any kind of a sound at this moment, and one would expect that a person preparing to throw a javelin at a hated opponent would keep very quiet about it. Still, there remains an honest question about the behavior of Saul in this incident. It exhibits gross jealousy about the exploits of a younger, more talented man. It certainly reflects social and emotional immaturity. A modern psychiatrist has aptly described it as "severe manic depressive illness, depressed type, with paranoid features."49 But in what way could Saul's behavior qualify as "ecstasy"?
I Kings 18:17-40
The episode of Elijah and the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel has been discussed by many scholars;50 the basic facts of the story are well known. The challenge of Elijah to the prophets of Baal was intended to set the record straight in the thinking of the people of Israel. As deVaux has pointed out, "It was not just a question of deciding whether the holy mountain belonged to Yahweh or to Baal, or which of the two was stronger: the test was to decide once and for all which was God. And if Yahweh was God, then Baal was nothing.''5l
Allowing the Baalites to go first (v. 25), Elijah stood aside to observe whether or not their god could answer "by fire." "From morning until noon" the Baalites called upon Baal to answer, "hopping [or 'hobbling,' yefassehu] around the altar which they had made" (v. 26). Spurred on by the mocking taunts of Elijah,52 "they cried out loudly," and, in accordance with their custom, they slashed themselves (yitgodedu)53 with swords and lances until blood spurted out upon their bodies (v. 28). When noontime passed with no response, they "continued in ecstatic frenzy" (yitnabbe'u) into the afternoon, 54 still with no response (v. 29). Certainly everyone can agree that this passage describes "ecstasy"; precisely the type of description is given here which was absent from the Mari texts and from the Wen-Amun story-frenzy, self-mutilation, loud outcrying, etc. What should also be clear in the passage is the difference between the obviously ecstatic Baalite prophets and the prophets of Yahweh who were their contemporaries. Elijah was not ecstatic. He did not dance, slash himself, or "prophesy."56 On the contrary, "in contrast with the desperate, ecstatic frenzy of the Baal prophets, the dignity and serenity of Elijah"56 stand out sharply.
It is true that with "the hand of Yahweh" upon him (v. 46), Elijah was able to run 17 miles -5 faster than the royal chariot. But it should be noted that this report adds nothing to the major theme of the Carmel- Horeb sequence,58 and thus could be viewed as an editorial addition to the Elijah cycle of tradition. Still, if setting an Olympic record for the 17-mile dash be termed "ecstasy," it is at least vastly less damaging than the frenzied activities of Elijah's opponents,59 and it is at the same time clearly unrelated to unintelligible utterance of any kind.
1 Kings 22:1-286
In much the same way that 1 Kings 18 contrasts the frenzied prophets of Baal to the composed prophet of Yahweh, this passage contrasts one independent prophet to ca. 400 puppets of the crown. The following facts are apparent from the narrative. (1) A person could "prophesy" either good or evil and still be termed a ''prophet.''6l (2) The source of "prophecy" was considered to be Yahweh.62 (3) The difference between a false prophet and a true one was believed to be demonstrable by a reference to the outcome of a prediction given by a prophet concerning an event in the immediate future.63 In this passage, the event at hand was a proposed battle against Syria to take place at Ramoth-Gilead.
What about ecstasy in this passage? Were the 400 royal prophets ecstatic in the moment described by verses 10 and 12? According to the text, they simply predicted an Israelite victory at Ramoth-Gilead. True, Zedekiah showed a flair for the theatrical, but using horns of iron as an audiovisual aid seems a bit different from using a sword to slash oneself, dancing several hours without pause, or calling out vainly for an answer from one's god
What about Micayehu ben Yimlah? Do his visions in verses 17 and 19-23 qualify under the Lindblom half of ecstasy? Or is he too simply delivering a prediction with flair and style? At the very least, one must admit that by the time they reach written form, the messages of both Zedekiah and Micayehu are totally understandable. And there is also clear evidence (vv. 24-28) that both Zedekiah and Micayehu maintained enough composure to exchange quite pointed arguments. Both realized that one of them had to be proven wrong, and both realized that the proof would consist not of their contrasting predictions, but simply upon the results at Ramoth-Gilead. Nothing in the text indicates that either man was dependant upon the unreal (ecstacy) as a tool to aid him in ascertaining the real.
Num. 11:16-35
The final passage to be considered in this section has been variously interpreted. In verses 16-17 and 24-25, there is an explanation of the founding of the institution known in the narrative as the 70 elders. The basis of their authority in administrative affairs derived from their reception of a portion of the ruah which Moses himself possessed, a ruah which verse 29 very clearly identifies as belonging to and stemming from Yaweh. Lindblom's understanding of the passage is instructive.
A symptom of their sharing in the spirit of Moses was a fit of ecstasy was something alien to them.64 Thus the narrative seeks to emphasize the high authority of the
institution of the seventy elders and at the same time distinguish them as a civil and administrative class from the class of the ecstaticnabis (sic!).55
The origin of "ecstatic prophecy" is what Lindblom feels the editor here traces to the activities of Eldad and Medad56 (vv. 26-30), who remained in the camp but "prophesied" nonetheless.67 When Moses was asked to restrain them, he calmly replied that he would be happy if every single israelite would become a nabi' (v. 29) by receiving the Spirit of Yahweh. This reaction of Moses seems strange if in truth the actions of Eldad and Medad were ecstatic. Was Moses wishing that the
entire nation would go into ecstatic frenzy? Was that the purpose for which Moses wished the Spirit of Yahweh to be put upon each individual? One thinks not.
The "Spirit of Yahweh" is crucial in this entire passage. Moses possessed the Spirit of Yahweh. The 70 elders needed to receive the same Spirit as authentication of their appointment to positions of leadership in the community. But also Eldad and Medad received the Spirit of Yahweh (v. 26). Now Lindblom's assertion that these 2 were recipients of the Spirit of Yahweh because later traditions remembered them as the founders of the movement of ecstatic prophecy in Israel seems
strange in light of the fact that neither man is ever mentioned again in all of the Scriptures.68 Is it not simpler to view Eldad and Medad simply as 2 average men upon whom the Spirit of Yahweh chose to rest for no other reason than that "the wind blows where it wants to"? Indeed, the reaction of Moses seems to indicate quite plainly, not that Eldad and Medad were viewed as special founders of a very restricted group of ecstatics who alone had continued to partake of the Spirit of
Yahweh in the subsequent history of Israel, but rather that at this early period in Israel's life everyone in the group should have been encouraged to view himself as good a candidate for the Spirit of Yahweh as were Eldad and Medad.70
But what of ecstasy here? If Eldad and Medad were ecstatic when the Spirit of Yahweh rested upon them, were the 70 elders also ecstatic when they received the Spirit outside the camp? Was Moses an ecstatic because he possessed the Spirit? And again, did Moses hope that everyone in the entire community would become ecstatic in testimony to the coming of the Spirit upon them? The text does not allow one to answer any of these questions affirmatively.
Rather, one is led to the conclusion that above all the possession of the Spirit of Yahweh was understood to mean anything but ecstasy to Moses and the 70 elders. In their function as administrative officials there would have been a premium placed upon sobriety of judgment and clear communication with the populace, which are the exact opposite of ecstatic frenzy. And it is qualities such as these-clarity of expression, sound judgment, etc.-rather than ecstasy which Moses coveted for every individual in the community.
III. The "Crazy" Nabi'
In three places the adjective meshugaC is used to describe a prophet;71 the common opinion is that such a description is one of the "characteristic signs of ecstasy as we know it from paganism."72 The word itself may be defined from a passage in 1 Samuel 21, where David, fearful of Achish, the king of Gath (v. 13, Eng. 12), "changed his behavior73 before them [the Philistines], acted like he was crazy in their hands, wrote74 on the doors of the gate, and let his spittle run down onto his beard" (v. 14, Eng. 13). The response of Achish to his servants upon seeing David in this condition was as follows: "Look! You are seeing an 'ish mishtageaC. Why did you bring him to me? Do I lack meshugaCim, that you have brought this one lehishtageaC before me?" (Vv. 15-16, Eng. 14-15) .
With this description in mind, we turn to Hos. 9: 7, where we are told that "the nabi' is a fool ('e1.~il), the man of the ruah is meshugac." In this connection, the concept of "spirit" once again is important, for here too, as in the earlier passage from Numbers 11, there is an equation made between a nabi' and one who possesses, or is possessed by, the "spirit." Lindblom has written that "the spirit is always Yahweh's spirit, 76 a more or less substantial dynamis, a force emanating from Yahweh; the spirit is always sent by Yahweh and runs Yahweh's errands."76 Thus one is reminded of Obadiah and his fear that he would be unable to find Elijah when he might need him, for the Spirit of Yahweh would have carried him to an unknown location.77 And one remembers also that it was the Spirit of God78 which affected Saul so profoundly, at times moving him to ecstatic frenzy,79 at other times moving him to uncontrolled depression and anger,80 and sometimes, as 1 Sam. 16:14 describes it, simply "tormenting him.''8l This verse clearly illustrates Lindblom's point about the ruah as the agent which "runs Yahweh's errands.'82 The RSV has translated the entire verse as follows: "Now the Spirit of the Lord (YHWH) departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord (YHWH) tormented him." Here it should be noted that there are two agents of Yahweh, both called His ruah, one of which is "evil" (raCah). Once Yah-weh has rejected Saul as king of Israel,83 He sends His ruah to torment him, to take possession of him for the purpose of leading him to destruction. In a similar way, the nabi' of Hos. 9:7 who is termed a "fool" is one who has been possessed by the Spirit of God and by that Spirit has been led to say or do crazy things, things which would be considered
"abnormal." In both cases, the "spirit" is Yahweh's agent, to constitute one man as a divine spokesman, but to lead another to ruin and disgrace.
There are two other places where a nabi' is described as meshugaC. A young prophet is so termed by Jehu for his seemingly crazy prediction about the imminent fall of the dynasty of Ahab.84 Jeremiah is so classified because of apparently contradictory and foolish statements to his exiled compatriots.8~ It is difficult to believe that either of these two men should be termed ecstatic. They seem to be described as meshugaC, not because of crazy behavior comparable to that of David, but because their predictions and advice go against the accepted situation, the majority opinion. Their messages were certainly plain and understandable to everyone who heard (or read) them. It is true that craziness or madness was widely regarded as a sign that one was in contact with the divine world, and A. R. Johnson is certainly correct in his remark that the prophets "probably would not quarrel with this equation."86 But to add ecstasy to the equation would be going beyond the evidence. Madness as signified by abnormal behavior and "ecstasy" which removes one from contact with reality are hardly the same thing.
IV. Ecslasy and the Literary Prophets
So far, this investigation has been limited to the period prior to the appearance of the classical or literary prophets. Because the assigned subject specifies inquiry about "origins," a full discussion of the literary prophets would be out of order here. But it should be noted, if only briefly, that the connection between the early ecstatics and the classical or literary prophets of later periods has never been explained satisfactorily. Perhaps the majority opinion is that the most direct link from
the early period to the classical period is nothing less than the ecstatic experiences shared by both groups. Here one may cite the statement of T. H. Robinson that "the Ecstatic was the direct ancestor of the Prophets whose words have been preserved for us in the Old Testament,"87 or the equally strong statement of Lindblom, that "it would be a serious mistake to dissolve the connection between these [the classical ] prophets and . . . the primitive or early prophets."88
The reasons for affirming such connections are manifold. There are the descriptions of Jeremiah reeling "like a drunken man . . . overcome by wine" (23:9) or "deceived" by Yahweh (20:7-9),89 of Ezekiel90 in a seven-day trance (3:15) or lying on his left side for 390 days and then on his right side for 40 days (4:4-8), of Isaiah, Habakkuk, and others who had ecstatic or at least highly unusual experiences.9l Added to these are the "visions" of the classical prophets, which Lindblom has classified as "pictorial" (Ezekiel's inaugural vision, the vision of the bones in the valley, the majority of the visions in the Book of Amos, etc.) or "dramatic" (Isaiah's inaugural vision, the vision of the downfall of Babylon in Isaiah 21, Jeremiah's inaugural vision, and the unusual vision of Ezekiel recorded in chapters ~11 of the book which bears his name) .92
But these connections between the early ecstatics and the later litterateurs must not obscure the fact that there are certain basic differences between the two groups as well. The late Abraham Heschel has contributed a masterful survey of precisely such differences in his chapter on "An Examination of the Theory of Ecstasy," an essay which is of fundamental importance in this regard.93 Here are two items which Heschel believed differentiated the ecstatic from the literary nabi'.
A. Ecstasy cannot be an essential element of prophetic activity, else "Moses, Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, and Jeremiah would have to be disqualified as prophets, since no trace of ecstasy is found in their experiences."94 Incidentally, to this rather impressive list of Heschel may be added the names of Abraham and Aaron, both of whom received the title nabi',95 but who were not ecstatics by any definition.
B. Drunkenness, which makes available to man things inaccessible in a state of normal consciousness, is roundly denounced by the classical prophet.9fi
C. While the ecstatic thirsts to become one with God, "prophetic consciousness is marked by a shuddering sense of the unapproachable holiness of God."97
D. The ecstatic loses his identity in the search "to become invested with the fullnes of deity . . . tbut] the prophetic personality, far from being dissolved, is intensely present and fervently involved in what he perceives.... The prophet is responsive, not only receptive."98
E. While the ecstatic seeks to induce his state of rapture through "dramatic gestures, dance, music, alcohol, opium, hashish, the drinking of water of a sacred well, or the blood of an animal, . . . moments of ispiration come to the prophet without effort, preparation or inducement. Suddenly and unexpectedly, without initiative, without aspiration, the prophet is called to hear the Voice."99
F. While the ecstatic must cease to be conscious in order to be inspired, the prophet never forgets the world with its scandals, its callousness, its corruption. "The intensity and violence of the prophet's emotions do not cause his intelligence to subside.''l°°
G. "Ecstasy is an experience which is incommunicable.... Prophecy, on the other hand, is meaningless without expression.''l°l
H. "Ecstasy is a state of being, an act of transmuting the self; the experience of the prophet is an act of receiving a word, a gift of knowledge, an act of understanding. The prophetic act leaves an utterance behind; ecstasy leaves behind a memory of a moment that cannot be put into words.''l02
I. "What is important in musical acts is that something happens; what is important in prophetic acts is that something is~aid.''l03
J. "In all forms of prophetic experience the content, the word, proceeds from a personal Inspirer rather than from the mysterious Unknown. Prophetic inspiration differs from both ecstasy and poetic inspiration in that it is an act in which the prophetic person stands over against the divine person. It is characterized by a subject-subject structure: the self-conscious active 'I' of the prophet encounters the active, living Inspirer.''104
Conclusion
To conclude this investigation, it is necessary to return to the three original theses of the paper postulated at the beginning. Here is a brief review of each thesis.
1. There is far less ecstasy in the world of the Old Testament and in the Old Testament itself than the secondary literature would have one believe, for primary texts which explicitly state or describe ecstasy are quite rare. In other words, it is important that the exact nature and extent of the evidence be understood. Outside the Hebrew Scriptures, the evidence is sparse indeed, as the survey of extrabiblical material revealed. Moreover, ecstatic material in the Hebrew Bible itself must be used with great caution. Take away the experiences of Saul, an unbalanced person who was a politician rather than a spokesman for God; take away the description of the Baalites, whose actions stand in sharp contrast to those of "God's man" Elijah; and the hard evidence relating to ecstasy among Israelite prophets has been drastically reduced.
2. There must be a rather sharp line drawn between early ecstasy and classical prophecy. Although the work of Heschel cited above rather handily takes care of this point, H. H. Rowley's words of caution should not be overlooked in this regard. "That there was an abnormal element in even the greater prophets of the Old Testament may be allowed; but this does not mean that all prophecy was 'ecstatic', or that every oracle was born in a special abnormal experience.''l06 Rowley's words serve not only to balance the passionate pleading of Heschel, they also stand as a reminder that there is no reason to conclude from the present evidence that every prophet had frequent ecstatic experiences which forced him "to put aside his own personality and intellectual processes and enter a different state of consciousness.''l06 In the words of Nussbaum, "the literary prophets were endowed with astounding mental health, which allowed them to tolerate emotional stress without sliding into psychosis or aimless ecstasy as Saul did before their time.''107 This is indeed high praise from a psychiatrist, and his point is well taken. But it is doubtful that either Nussbaum or any other modern psychiatrist would describe the great classical prophets as "normal," whatever that is. What really needs to be stressed is that, while no one would deny the abnormality of the classical prophets, the connection between abnormality and ecstasy must be established in each individual case rather than assumed for every prophetic experience. Thus not only do the literary prophets stand out from the early Israelite ecstatics (Saul, the
hebel nebi^'im), the preclassical Israelite prophets also differ in many ways from their pagan contemporaries. This was demonstrated to be particularly apparent in the case of Elijah and the prophets of Baal on Mount Carrnel.
3. Ecstasy, when it does appear in the Hebrew Bible, is to be understood as strange actoins rather than as strange utterances. This fact is equally true both at Mari and in early Israel. To cite Heschel again, "The office of a prophet, which consists of setting forth a message in blunt and clear terms rather than in dark oracles and intimations, must have its source in moments of comprehension and understanding.''108 But the importance of comprehension must also be underscored at the moment of delivery too. While their audiences sometimes ridicule~ what they identified as strange behavior, they seldom had trouble understanding what was being said. Their behavior may have seemed strange, but the messages of the prophets of Yahweh were above all straightforward, unambiguous, and totally understandable.
REFERENCE NOTES
The following abbreviations are- used in the footnotes below:
ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, ed. J. B. Pritchard, third edition ( Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969).
ARM Archives royales de Mari ( publiees sous la direction de A. Parrot et G. Dossin), Paris.
BAR The Biblical Archaeologist Reader (New York: Anchor Books).
BDB F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968).
CAD The Assyrian Dictionory of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature.
JRH Journal of Religion and Health.
KAI H. Donner and W. Rollig Kanaanaische und aramaische Inschriften
KB L Kohler and W. Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1958)
VTS Vetus Testamentum, Supplements.
1. T.H. Robinson, Prophecy and the Prophets in Ancient Israel, second ed., (London: Gerald Duckworth and Co., Ltd., 1953), p. 31. Hereafter, Prophecy.
2. J. Lindblom, Prophesy in Ancient Isreal (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1973), pp.4-5 Hereafter, Prophecy.
3. In addition to the material presented below, cf. Herbert B. Huffmon, "Prophecy in the Mari letters," BAR 3:200-203. Note in particular the refrences in which Huffmon classifies many types of material-delivery of favorable oracles, delivery of a divine message by a ragintu ("forthcrier"), etc. Note also Huffmon's citation of Oppenheim: "Divine communication by means of ecstasy or through persons who could be called prophets was not at all typical of Mesopotamia" (p. 202). Huffmon does not discuss the occurance of a nominal form of nb' on an ostracon from Lachish (Text 194.20 in KAI, 1:35), about which Donner and Rollig have commented, "welche Funktion der heir genannte 'Prophet' hatte und wer, er war, lasst sich nicht mehr feststellen" (KAI, 2:193). The "Plague Prayers of mursilis" (translated by Goetze in ANET, pp. 394-96) should be compared with the intercessory prayers of Moses or David rather than with ecstatic material of any kind.
4. Hans Goedicke, The Report of Wenamun (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975), p. 53. Hereafter Wenamun.
5. On this phrase in Egyptian, cf. Goedicke, Wenamun, p. 56.
6.John A. Wilson, "The Journey of Wen-Amun to Phoenicia," in ANET, p.26, n. 13.
7.Goedicke, Wenamun, p.53.
8. Ibid.
9. Erman and Grappow, Worterbuch der Aegyptischen Sprache (1929), vol. 3, sub h3wt. This reference was furnished to me by my former student, Karen Rehm.
10. Cf. Rosenthal's translation of the text in ANET, pp. 501-2, and Black's comments and translation in Documents from Old Testament Times, ed. D. Winston Thomas (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1961), pp. 242-50. The Aramaic original is printed in KAI, 1:37.
11. Aramaic hzyn. Cf. Hebrew hzy.
12. Cf. KAI, 3:39. Donner and Rollig have "Zahler" and "Zukunftskundigen." See also their comments in Band II, p. 208.
13. Huffmon, "Prophecy," p. 203.
14. In Akkadian, apilum. Cf. Lods, "Le verbe apalu, 'repondre,' d'ou derive ce mot, etait employe specialement comme le terme correspondant hebreu, C&na, pour designer la revelation accordee a un consultant par la divinite." See his "Une Tablette Inedite de Mari, Interessante pour l'Histoire Ancienne du Prophetisme Semitique," in Studies in Old Testament Prophecy, ed. H. H. Rowley (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1946), p. 107.
Note also CAD, vol. 1, part II, p. 170, and Abraham Malamat's "Prophetic Revelations in Mari and Bible," VTS, 15 (1965), pp. 211-14.
15. Generally identified as a "male cult prostitute, possibly a eunuch." Cf. Huffmon, "Prophecy in the Mari Letters," p. 209, although CAD, vol 1, part II, p. 341, refutes this.
16. Malamat, VTS, 15 :210-11, n. 4. Cf. also Huffmon, "Prophecy" p. 211 and the references there, and Delitzsch, Assyrische Lesestucke (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung, 1912), p. 168.
17. Huffmon, "Prophecy," p. 211.
18. Ibid., p. 213.
19. VTS, 15:211.
20. "Prophecy in Mari and Israel," JBL, 89 (1970), p. 79. Dr. Walters kindly furnished several items of bibliography pertaining to Mari which are cited elsewhere without complete acknowledgment of his help.
21. Both texts are published in copy only in ARM, 10, pl. 5.
22. Ibid., 7.
23. Huffmon, "Prophecy," pp. 209-10.
24. ARM, 10:8.
26. Huffmon, "Prophecy," p. 214.
26. Cf. W. von Sodon, Akkadisches Handworterbuch, sub mahum, which von Sodon has translated by "rasen" (G) and "ins Rasen kommen" (N).
27. Mahum normally is used in connection with the pouring out of water. Cf. mahahu ina me, "mit Wasser verruhren," in Carl Bezold, Babylonisch-Assyrisches Glossar (Heidelberg: Carl Winter's Universitatsbuch handlung, 1926), p. 168.
28. For the text of these speeches, cf. Huffmon, "Prophecy," pp. 210 and 214.
29. This point is also made by Malamat in VTS, 16 :211.
30. Huffmon, "Prophecy," p. 200.
31. Martin Noth, The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Studies (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967), p. 186. But cf. also Noth's statement on p. 188, that "the words of the Old Testament 'writing prophets', in particular, can in no way be compared with the statements of the Mari divine messengers."
32. Notably H. M. Orlinsky, quoted by Huffmon, "Prophecy," p. 200.
33. Mention should be made here of the evidence for a ritual, ecstatic dance contained in passages from such classical authors as Heliodorus, Herodian, Apuleius, et al. These passages are grouped together and discussed by Roland de Vaux in "Prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel" in The Bible and the Ancient Near East (New York: Doubleday, 1971), pp. 240-46.
Although de Vaux feels that these authors may be echoing "extremely ancient traditions," he nonetheless admits that they "are all more or less late texts" (p. 246). Accordingly, they are not included here in the discussion of "origins" or prehistory of biblical ecstasy.
34. KB, p. 586, count only 86 NiphCal references.
36. Cf. BDB, 612, and Shlomoh Mandelkern, Veteris Testamenti Concordantiae Hebraicae atque Chaldaicae (Tel Aviv: Sumptibus Schocken Hierosolymis, 1969), pp. 711-12.
36. BDB, p. 612.
37. Ibid.
38. Robinson, Prophecy, pp. 30-31.
39. Cf. 1 Sam. 10:10-11; 1 Kings 6:10-11; 2 Kings 22:8, 10, 18 (Hit), 12 (N); Jer. 33:20; Ezek. 13:17; 2 Chron. 18:7, 9, 17 (Hit), 11 (N). See further below.
40. Edwin Hatch and Henry A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint (Graz: Akademische Druck-U. Verlagsanstalt, 1954), 2:1231-32.
41. Ibid., 1:496-97.
42. Ibid., 2:892.
43. On the two sources of Samuel, cf. George B. Caird, "The First and Second Books of Samuel" in The Interpreters Bible (New York: Abingdon Press, 1953), 2:855-65. For a three-source postulation, cf. Otto Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), pp. 268-81.
44. Caird, Interpreter's Bible, 2: 988.
46. The phrase gam hu' (twice in v. 24) indicates that Saul simply did what the other ecstatics were already doing.
46. And what reason could be given for its fabrication by an editor?
47. Or, "an evil spirit froqn God," ruah 'elohim raCah. Cf. 1 Sam. 16: 14.
48. Cf. W. T. Purkiser, "The Books of Samuel" in Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1965), 2:260. Cf. also R. B. Y. Scott, The Relevance of the Prophets (London: The Macmillan Co., 1944), p. 46.
49. Kurt Nussbaum, "Abnormal Mental Phenomena in the Prophets," JRH, vol. 13, no. 3 (1974), p. 197.
50. See above all de Vaux, "Prophets," pp. 238-51. Also instructive is the article by Szikszai, "Elijah the Prophet" in IDB, 2-88-90 and the bibliography given there.
51. De Vaux, "Prophets," p. 238. See also de Vaux's citation of verses 21, 24, 38-39, which he notes "leave us in no doubt" about the stakes of the contest (p.238, n. 5).
52. See the comments of de Vaux on this verse, "Prophets," pp. 24~-44.
53. This custom was expressly forbidden to Israelites on behalf of dead loved ones by the Deuteronomist (cf. Deut. 14:1). On the Canaanite custom, cf. Robinson, Prophecy, pp. 30-37.
54. On the phrase, "until the time of the offering of the oblation" (RSV), see Norman H. Snaith, "I Kings," in The Interpreter's Bible, 3:154.
55. The verb nb' is not used to describe him in this chapter, although he does refer to himself as a nabi of Yahweh (v. 22).
56. Szikszai, IDB, 2:89.
57. Cf. Snaith, Interpreter's Bible, 3:159: "The distance from the scene of the sacrifice to the entrance to the Pass of Jezreel is about seventeen miles."
58. On which see Snaith, Interpreter's Bible, 3:12-13.
59. On this passage, see Lindblom, Prophecy, p. 58. See his note 22 and the references there.
60. See also 2 Chron. 18: 1-27.
61. See verses 8, 18.
62. See verses 14, 23-24, 28.
63. See verse 28, and cf. Deut. 18 :22.
64. This is his understanding of the phrase, welo' yasafu in verse 25.
65. Lindblom, Prophecy, p. 101.
66. See the very instructive article by Sid Z. Leiman, "The Inverted Nuns at Numbers 10:35-36 and the Book of Eldad and Medad," JBL, vol. 93, no. 3 (1974), pp. 348-55.
67. Verses 24 and 25 show clearly that Eldad and Medad were not numbered among the original 70 who received the Spirit at the tent of meeting. The phrase wehema baeketubim in verse 26 must mean simply that they were full members of the community.
68. On their role in later Jewish tradition, see Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1968), 3 : 251-
69. Cf. John 3 :8: "to pneuma hopou thelei pnei."
70. Note that ruah me'et YHWH in verse 31 obviously means sent especially by Yahweh. Cf. Arabic ra'ha, riyhum.
71. Cf. Hos. 9:7; Jer. 29:26: 2 Kings 9:11
72. Cf. Yehezkel Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel, translated and abridged by Moshe Greenberg (New York: Schocken Paperback Edition, 1972), p. 95.
73. On this word, a Hitpolel from the root hll, see also Jer. 26:16- 46:9- 50:38- 51:7; Nah. 2:5. This root should not be confused with hli hithallel, "to praise."
74. Lit., "made a mark," (a taw), wavetaw.
75. But see Num. 24:2, where it is the Spirit of Elohim that comes upon Balaam- elsewhere we learn that Balaam must speak only what Yahweh orders or puts in his mouth (cf. Num. 22:18; 23:3, 5, 8b, 12, 16, 26; 24:11, 13) or what Elohim commands (cf. Num. 22:20, 38; 23:8a, 19- 20). In many other places the "spirit" may be either that of Yahweh or Elohim. Cf. note 78 below.
76. Lindblom, Prophecy, p. 57.
77. 1 Kings 18:12.
78. That ruah YHWH and ruah 'elohim are often synonymous is attested by 1 Sam. 10:6, 10.
79. 1 Sam. 10:6, 10; 19:23.
80. 1 Sam. 18:10; 19:9.
81. BiCatatu.
82. Lindblom, Prophecy, p. 57.
83. Cf. 1 Sam. 16:1.
84. See 2 Kings 9:1-13, especially verse 11.
85. See Jer. 29: 24-28, especially verse 26.
86. A. R. Johnson, The Cultic Prophet in Ancient Israel (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1962), p. 18. See also his note 4 and the references there.
87. Robinson, Prophecy, p. 35.
88. Lindblom, Prophecy, p. 105.
89. On this passage, see Lindblom, Prophecy, p. 195.
90. On Ezekiel, whom T. H. Robinson says "lets us see more of the character of the ecstasy than any other prophet" (Prophecy, p. 147), see Thiering, "The Biblical Source of Qumran Asceticism," JBL, vol. 93, no. 3 (1974), pp. 442-44, and Lindblom, Prophecy, pp. 198-99. Note also Nussbaum's remarks that Lindblom (followed without comment by Thiering) is incorrect in using the term aphasia to describe Ezekiel's experiences in 3:26; 24:27; 33:21-22, because aphasia "is an organic, not suddenly reversible, affliction of the brain" ("Abnormal Mental Phenomena in the Prophets," JRH, vol. 13, no. 3 [1974], p. 197).
91. For a convenient summary of the references dealing with this idea, see Lindblom, Prophecy, pp. 197-202.
92. Lindblom, Prophecy, pp. 124-31.
93. Abraham J. Heschel The Prophets (New York: Harper and Row, Harper Torchbooks Edition, i962), 2:131-46. Hereafter, Heschel.
94. Ibid., p. 132.
95. See Gen. 20:7 and Exod. 7:1.
96. Heschel, 2:134-35.
97. Ibid., p. 137.
98. Ibid.
99. Ibid., p. 138. On the cultic dance, accompanied by music, used to stimulate ecstatic experiences, see Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (London SCM Press, 1961), 1:310-12.
100. Heschel, 2:139.
101. Ibid., pp. 140-41.
102. Ibid., p. 142.
103. Ibid., p. 144.
104. Ibid., pp. 145-46.
105. H. H. Rowley, "Ritual and the Hebrew Prophets," in From Moses to Qumran (London: Lutterworth Press, 1963), p. 115.
106. JBL, vol. 93, no. 3, (1974), p. 442.
107. JRH, vol. 13, no. 3 (1974), p. 198.
108. Heschel, 2: 143.
