« The Danger of Safety
Main
A New Blogger on the Net »
August 14, 2006
Is a na‛ar Ever a Scribe? Could One Really Write?
[Note to the two or three of you who are awaiting my next post on how to identify a scribal school: I am entering a phase of this project that is going to take a little time to sort things out. Not only is there a raft of related secondary material to wade through, I am not as familiar with much of the primary material as I would like to be. So I'm taking my time to work my way through as much of this as I can. In addition, I'm waiting for a couple of recently published books and a couple of interlibrary loan items to arrive. In the mean time, you will have to be content with a few shorter, more tightly focused reflections, like this one. I'm also considering dividing my next long post, which I tentatively called "Evidence for the training of scribes elsewhere in the Late Bronze Age Levant and in the Iron Age," into two posts; one dealing with the cuneiform material from Canaan and one dealing with the linear, that is, alphabetic, texts.]
One of the issues that comes to the forefront in some discussions of scribal training in ancient Israel is the possibility that some (many?) young children or youth could read and perhaps write. Were significant numbers of children and youth taught to read or write at home or in local schools? If many were, then the problems of how to identify or even define a scribal school are greatly compounded. Of course, this question is often related to the issue of literacy. Among the evidence sometimes given in support of the literacy of youth in Israel is the supposed use of na‛ar in contexts where literacy is implied. See, for example, de Vaux, 49, among many others.
The most complete study of na‛ar that I have found is MacDonald, 147-170. MacDonald concludes,
Our (grown-up) na‛ar is a squire, and there is probably graduations of rank from na‛ar qaţon to Cammander; his group is a squirearchy and his status that of squiredom. He is to all intents and purposes a member of the aristocracy; he is a young knight. His sister, the na‛arah, heads the household domestics or is a lady-in-waiting. [MacDonald, 170]
MacDonald did acknowledge that the Hebrew Bible uses na‛ar with regard to small children, even the unborn (see, for example Judges 13:5-12). For MacDonald, Hebrew na‛ar was a social distinction rather than strictly an age distinction.
However, two papers by Young (1998a and 1998b) have compelled me to take another look at Hebrew נער (na‛ar). Young suggests that a na‛ar just might be a scribe. Here is what Young, 1998a, 250, says. I have added the emphasis.
We come now to the two much-discussed na‛ar passages. In Judg. viii 14 Gideon "seized a na‛ar, one of the men of Sukkoth . . . and he wrote down for him (the names of) the leaders of Sukkoth and his elders, seventy-seven men." In Isa. x 19, after a destruction mentioned in the previous verses, "the remnant of the trees of his forest will be so few that a na‛ar may write them down." Conclusions on the extent of Israelite literacy were drawn from the translation of na‛ar as "young lad, child." However, this is far from the only translation, since the word's meaning can run through "servant, attendant," to the title of an important official, to "skilled warrior," and even "scribe." Furthermore, the high born status of the na‛ar has been emphasized. Thus these references could fit neatly into the categories tabulated above. [ellipsis in original]
The categories Young is referring to are priests, government officials, scribes, nobility and army officers; the only groups that Young, 1998a, 245-246, sees as possibly being literate in pre-exilic Israel. The Judges passage seems stronger evidence than the Isaiah passage.
My real question is, "What is the evidence for na‛ar meaning 'scribe'?" As far as I can find, there isn't any Biblical Hebrew evidence outside the two passages which Young references. Let's look at the complete Judges 8:14 passage in Hebrew,
וַיִּלְכָּד־נַעַר מֵאַנְשֵׁי סֻכּוֹת וַיִּשְׁאָלֵהוּ וַיִּכְתֹּב אֵלָיו אֶת־שָׂרֵי סֻכּוֹת, וְאֶת־זְקֵנֶיהָ שִׁבְעִים וְשִׁבְעָה אִישׁ
Which I translate,
"And he caught a na‛ar from the men of Sukkoth and interrogated him; and he wrote on account of him the (names of the) officials of Sukkoth and its elders: seventh seven men."
It seems clear to me that, as Young implies, the na‛ar in this passage is a "grown-up" rather than a boy, one of the אנשים. But did this na‛ar really write anything? As Young, 1998a, 248, taught us two pages earlier, כתב can mean "dictate" as well as "write." See in particular Jeremiah 36:1-4. In addition, the relevant pronouns are not clearly defined. Who "wrote" for whom? I believe that it is easiest to see Gideon as the subject of יכתב just as he is the subject of ילכד at the beginning of the verse or of ישׁאל for that matter. So why should we think that the Sukkothian na‛ar might be a scribe? In fact, the context appears to me to favor understanding this na‛ar as a squire or a page just as MacDonald, 158, suggested. MacDonald also suggested that this na‛ar could write. However, I think that the evidence for this na‛ar being able to write is weak at best. In any case, he was not a professional scribe. Of course, the na‛ar in Judges 8 14 might have been a literate squire or page but there is very little reason to think he was. If you think my translation is weighted to favor my interpretation, so be it.
na‛ar in Isaiah 10:19 can easily be read as meaning a child na‛ar and perhaps young one at that.
"The remains of the trees of his forest will be so few that (even) a na‛ar can write them."
A real scribe is not limited in ability when it comes to writing numbers large or small numbers, but a (nearly?) illiterate child could not write (or dictate?) anything but a very small number. MacDonald, 149, claims that this na‛ar could write. But the context makes it clear that he couldn't write much.
We get little help from the cognate material. The root n‛r occurs in the Kilamuwa Phoenician inscription KAI 24:12 where its meaning is clearly "youth" or "childhood" in the expression לםנערי, "from his youth." The word also appears in the Phoenician temple tariff inscription from Cyprus (KAI 37 A:8, 10? 12, B 11) where Donner and Röllig translate it "Jüngling" or "Diener" but Gibson prefers "page." Gibson, 128, suggests that here na‛ar represents a "class of temple functionaries" and cites I Samuel 2:13. There is nothing in the context of either inscription that implies "scribe."
At Ugarit, the root is nģr and it rather consistently means something in the general range of "guard" but "squire" or "page" works in most contexts. Again, there is nothing to suggest that a nāģiru is a scribe.
I see no reason ever to read Hebrew na‛ar as "scribe." The evidence that any na‛ar could write beyond the ability of a small child is very slim or, perhaps, non-existent.
Update:
Jim West raises an interesting question with regard to Jeremiah 1, presumably Jeremiah 1:6 and 7. Here Jeremiah calls himself a na‛ar and YHWY tells him to knock off the excuses. Jim suggests that Jeremiah is saying more (or something different) than that; he is saying that he is "a mere scribe." I'm not so sure that the text supports such an interpretation. I think Jeremiah is trying to say that he is of the na‛ar class rather than a nevi (1:5). And issue is not whether or not Jeremiah knows how write, he protests that he doesn't know how to speak. Another interesting point is that we are told that at least some of the oracles were dictated to a certain Baruch who wrote them down. But the idea is interesting, particularly in the light of some stylistic features of Jeremiah, the acrostic poems for example. Perhaps I've missed something; I haven't taken the opportunity to look at what I am sure is a massive pile of secondary literature on this. Perhaps I should.
References:
Gibson, John C. L., Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. Volume 3, Phoenician Inscriptions including inscriptions of the mixed dialect of Arslan Tash, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982)
MacDonald, John, "The Status and Role of the Na‛ar in Israelite Society," Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 35:3 (July, 1976), 147-170
Young (1998a) , Ian M. "Israelite Literacy: Interpreting the Evidence: Part I," Vetus Testamentum, 48: 2, (April, 1998), 239-243
Young (1998b), Ian M. "Israelite Literacy: Interpreting the Evidence: Part II," Vetus Testamentum, 48: 3, (July, 1998), 408-422
Posted by DuaneSmith at August 14, 2006 03:16 PM | Read more on Scribal Schools |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://WWW.telecomtally.com/cgi-bin/blog/mt-tb.cgi/793
Comments
Duane,
Two articles that I used in my dissertation come to mind here.
1. Simo Parpola, "The Man without A Scribe and the Question of Literacy in the Assyrian Empire," in Ana sadi Labnani lu allik: Beitrage zu altorientalischen und mittelmeerischen Kulturen - Festschrift fur Wolfgang Rollig ed. Beato Pongratz-Leisten, Hartmut Kuhne, and Paolo Xella (Neukirchener Verlag: Neukirehen-Vulyn, 1997), 315-24.
2. Barbara Nevling Porter, "Language, Audience, and Impact in Imperial Assyria," in Israel Oriental Studies XV ed. Shlomo Izre'el and Rina Drory (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995), 51-72.
The Porter article is really good and I think that it will address the broader issues you are dealing with. The Parpola article is more technical in nature and goes more in-depth into Akkadian and Semitic languages. Hope that this helps.
Best
Joe
Posted by: Joe Cathey at August 15, 2006 06:46 AM
Joe,
Thanks,
I knew of the Porter paper and it was on my list of things to get on my next run to UCLA. I'll add the Parpola paper to the growing list.
Posted by: Duane at August 15, 2006 07:52 AM
Post a comment
Please read Abnormal Interest's Comments Policy.