47. Baltzer, K. "Considerations Regarding the Office and Calling of the Prophet." Harvard Theological Review 61, 1968: 567-81.

An attempt to examine the supposedly unique social position of the Israelite prophet by comparison of narratives of prophetic calling and "installation" with similar narratives of the appointment of Egyptian viziers. [This work is seriously flawed by Baltzer's failure to take certain important sociological elements into account. First, the installation of viziers was, as described, a public ceremony, while that of the prophet, occurring in visions, was inherently private, thus leaving the prophet open to the need for constant legitimization of his calling. The vizier, once installed, held his office unquestionably at Pharaoh's pleasure. It is by virtue of the private nature of the calling that prophets were in constant competition with priests and kings of Israel and that their calling was constantly open to question. Prophets, after all, could be repudiated, despite the claims they made to be messengers to the whole world (indeed, they might claim authority even over the messiah, who was to be a prince (nasi) while the title of Great King (melech) is reserved to Jahveh). The important point here is that the appointment of the vizier was an indisputable (i.e., witnessed) fact, while the prophet could do no more than claim authority.]

Baltzer denies that the prophetic autobiography is derived in any way from the Egyptian model, despite the clear similarities in office and calling he points out; indeed, the two formulas make a nearly identical "proverbial" reference to walls of bronze. [The reason for this claim is obscure, since Jews must certainly have witnessed these installations during the captivity, and indeed the Bible describes the installation of Joseph, one of their own.]

[The general fact remains that the two offices compared are essentially different in their relationships to authority, but that does not alter the fact that the Israelite prophet is by no means unique in his position. Prophets everywhere (with the possible exception of the "central prophet": see item 760) share the characteristic of being inherently outside the institutional structure of their societies by virtue of the source of their calling. The divine is immutably asocial (at least from the perspective of the believer), while viziers and the like are thoroughly embedded in the establishment.]

Return to Indexes