I started Joseph Bleckinsopp’s A History of Prophecy in Israel. What stood out to me in yersterday’s reading was his discussion on Henning Graf Reventlow, a biblical scholar who “concluded that prophets like Amos and Jeremiah, who condemned their contemporaries for failure to observe the laws, did so in the official capacity of ‘law speaker’ or covenant mediator in the cult” (23).
A question that may come up as I read about the prophets is this: Were the prophets outside-of-the-mainstream figures butting heads with the religious and political establishment of ancient Israel, or were they actually a part of that establishment? Reventlow’s argument seems to be that they performed an official function in the temple cult, one of criticizing violations of the law and the covenant. So they had a function in the establishment, and their criticisms of their fellow Israelites occurred while they were on its payroll. I’m not sure what Reventlow’s basis is for his view, but Bleckinsopp talks about how prophets were a part of the cult in the ancient world.
The first time I came across the “prophets as part of the establishment” argument was when I read an article by Baruch Halpern (I think). If I read him correctly, Halpern argued that the prophets were promoting a powerful monarchy. When they criticized the king for not executing justice, their implication was that the king should be powerful enough to take on the oppressive private interests in ancient Israel. So the prophets were pro-monarchy, even when they criticized the institution.
I’m not sure to what extent I agree with Reventlow’s position, but I am open to hearing more about it, or positions like it. When I read the prophets, they appear to be challenging the political and religious establishment and suffering as a result, even though they may be a part of it. Ezekiel and Jeremiah were priests, and Isaiah was in the court of the king, after all.