THE HEBREW PROPHET CHAPTER I THE POPULAR CONCEPTION OF THE PROPHET NOWLEDGE in its completest form is the K result of observation and interpretation, and therefore the combined product of science and philosophy. Great reputations are justly attained either by the discovery of new facts, or by the new interpretation of facts already known. The man of science is pre-eminently the man of observation, and he is ever on the search for new facts. Some scientists, indeed, scarcely ever get beyond the gathering of data. Others have little interest in a work dealing so much with petty minutiæ; they prefer to give their minds to the penetration of the meaning of the facts discovered by others. But the best scientist works along both lines: he discovers a fact hidden from a gaze less keen than his own, and then places his fact in relation to other facts, so as to grasp its significance. Indeed, his perception of the meaning of B things is a large element in his ability to discover them. The philosopher is the interpreter, and yet he is not merely a reasoner. He must also possess a wide and accurate knowledge of facts. The more comprehensive this knowledge, the more likely he is to be true in his reasoning. But he does not become a philosopher until he begins to interpret. His business is to tell the meaning of phenomena. The wellrounded man must be more or less expert in both observation and interpretation. He may at times use one faculty, at other times the other. The philosopher must occasionally be a scientist, and the moment the scientist begins to draw inferences from his observed facts he becomes in turn a philosopher. The Hebrew prophet was a man of God, but he was also both a scientist and a philosopher; hence he was popularly regarded as pre-eminently a man of knowledge. We look upon the finished product of prophecy at its highest stage of development, that is, in the works of such prophets as Amos or Isaiah, and we call the prophet pre-eminently a teacher of righteousness. But the primitive Hebrew did not set value upon the seer on account of his knowledge of right and wrong, nor of his personally high character, but on account of his knowledge of mysteries which it greatly concerned man to understand, and which yet were hidden from the eyes of all but few. Man could not be an intelligent being without perceiving that his life was strangely surrounded by mysteries. Questions such as these began to be asked with great insistence. Whence came the world and the life which is upon it? What are the sun and moon and stars? Why does it rain or blow? Where is the object that was lost and cannot be found? What will be the outcome of any particular undertaking ? Shall one recover from a sickness, or die? There has ever been a passion on the part of man to try to penetrate the mystery which shuts in his life, and there probably always will be. The answer to these and innumerable similar questions has always been persistently sought. The Hebrew looked to the prophet as the one raised up of God to solve the problems with which his life brought him face to face. A sharp line of distinction has been drawn between the natural and the supernatural. It is a curious fact that this line has been persistently cherished both by scientists on the one side and by theologians on the other. The scientist has been contented to confine himself within the boundaries of the natural, and has become so distrustful of the knowledge of the supernatural claimed by theologians, that he has become sceptical in that sphere, and has been wont to label it unknown and unknowable.1 The fatal mistake of the theologian was the admission of the line of demarcation. But such a mistake was not made by the Hebrew prophet. He was readily credited with power to perceive facts in the supernatural realm as 1 Lately there has been a gratifying change in the attitude of scientists towards religious questions. They have learned that their so-called natural realm does not embrace the whole of life, and they have admitted it with characteristic frankness. |