Сетевая библиотекаСетевая библиотека

CARR, David M. (2005). Writing on the Tablet of the Heart. Origins of Scripture and Literature. New York, Oxford University P..

Дата публикации: 03.03.2019
Тип: Текстовые документы PDF
Размер: 1.93 Мбайт
Идентификатор документа: -162865304_495268718
Файлы этого типа можно открыть с помощью программы:
1. Adobe Acrobat Reader DC - это «стандартная» программа для открытия PDF файлов загрузить с https://get.adobe.com/reader/
2. PDFMaster - Хорошая программа для PDF и других форматов:FB2, EPUB, CHM, DJVU загрузить с https://pdfmaster.ru
Для скачивания файла Вам необходимо подтвердить, что Вы не робот

Предпросмотр документа

Не то что нужно?


Вернуться к поиску
Содержание документа
WritingontheTabletoftheHeart
This page intentionally left blank
WritingontheTabletoftheHeartOriginsofScriptureandLiteraturedavidm.carr
OxfordUniversityPress,Inc.,publishesworksthatfurtherOxfordUniversitysobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship,andeducation.OxfordNewYorkAucklandCapeTownDaresSalaamHongKongKarachiKualaLumpurMadridMelbourneMexicoCityNairobiNewDelhiShanghaiTaipeiTorontoWithof“cesinArgentinaAustriaBrazilChileCzechRepublicFranceGreeceGuatemalaHungaryItalyJapanPolandPortugalSingaporeSouthKoreaSwitzerlandThailandTurkeyUkraineVietnam2005byOxfordUniversityPress,Inc.PublishedbyOxfordUniversityPress,Inc.198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NewYork10016OxfordisaregisteredtrademarkofOxfordUniversityPressAllrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedinaretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,electronic,mechanical,photocopying,recording,orotherwise,withoutthepriorpermissionofOxfordUniversityPress.LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationDataCarr,DavidMcLain,1961…Writingonthetabletoftheheart:originsofScriptureandliterature/DavidM.Carr.p.cm.Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindexes.ISBN-13978-0-19-517297-3ISBN0-19-517297-31.Bible.O.T.„Socialscienti“ccriticism.2.Literatureandsociety„MediterraneanRegion.3.Literature,Ancient„Historyandcriticism.4.Socialization„MediterraneanRegion„History„To1500.I.Title.BS1182.6.C372004221.6'6„dc222004005441PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmericaonacid-freepaper
Tomyparents,JohnandAdrienneCarr,educators,parexcellence,my“rstandmostin”uentialteachers.
This page intentionally left blank
ThisbookstartedoutasintroductorymaterialforanewstudyoftheformationofthePentateuch,buildingonsomeearlierworkIhadwrittenonGenesisandtheMosesstory.Impressedbysomeover-viewsofcomparativematerialbyscholarslikeJosephBlenkinsoppandproddedbysomepersonalcorrespondencefromandsubse-quentworkbySusanNiditch,IfeltitimportanttolookafreshatthemodelsIwasusingfortextualdevelopmentinancientIsrael.wishedtounderstandmoreconcretelyhowagivenscribemighthavemodi“edorcombinedearliermaterials.SoonIfoundmyselfledfara“eldintomodesoftextualtransmissionthatIhadnotantic-ipated.Aswillbeevidentbytheendofthisbook,themodelatwhichIarrivedhasledmetoreassessmyownassumptionsaboutthedevelopmentoftheliteratureofIsrael,wherethistookplace,andthefeasibilityofdetailedreconstructionofthetransmissionhis-toryofatextlikethePentateuch.1.DavidM.Carr,ThePoliticsofTextualSubversion:ADiachronicPerspectiveontheGar-denofEdenStory,Ž112(1993):577…95;ReadingtheFracturesofGenesis:HistoricalandLiterary(Louisville,KY:WestminsterJohnKnox,1996);ControversyandConvergenceinRe-centStudiesoftheFormationofthePentateuch,ŽReligiousStudiesReview23(1997):22…31;Revisited:ASynchronicAnalysisofPatternsinGenesisasPartoftheTorah(parts1andZAW110(1998):159…72,327…47;MethodinDeterminationofDirectionofDependence:AnEmpiricalTestofCriteriaAppliedtoExodus34,11…26andItsParallels,ŽinGottesVolkamSinai:UntersuchungenzuEx32…34undDtn9…10,vol.18,ed.MatthiasKo¨ckertandErhardBlum,Vero¨f-fentlichungenderWissenschaftlichenGesellschaftfu¨rTheologie(Gu¨tersloh:Kaiser,Gu¨tersloherVerlagshaus,2001),107…40;GenesisinRelationtotheMosesStory:DiachronicandSynchronicPerspectives,ŽinStudiesintheBookofGenesis,ed.A.We´nin(Leuven,Belgium:LeuvenUniversityPress,2001),273…95.2.JosephBlenkinsopp,ThePentateuch:AnIntroductiontotheFirstFiveBooksoftheBible,ABReferenceLibrary(NewYork:Doubleday,1992);SusanNiditch,OralWorldandWrittenWord:An-cientIsraeliteLiterature,LibraryofAncientIsrael(Louisville,KY:WestminsterJohnKnox,1996).
Astheprojectexpanded,thelimitsofwhatisdoablehavebecomeevermoreclear.Thisbookdoesnotpretendtobea“nalstatementonthetopicbutaproposalattemptingtoillustratetheproductivityofminingaparticularveinofmaterial,alineofapproach.Thetimeisnowpastinstudyoftheancientworldwhereonepersoncouldwriteaseeminglyde“nitiveworkcoveringtherangeofareasdiscussedhere.Theincreasinglydevelopedstateofscholarshipineachoftheareassimplydoesnotallowit.Butthisbookiswrittenwiththeunderstandingthattheremaybesomevirtueinanattemptbyonepersontopointoutthepotentialproductivityofanideaacrossmultipleareas,anattemptthatcanthenbeextendedandcorrectedbyotherswithothercompetenciesintherelevantareas.Knowingthebookmightwellhavereadersfromoutsidethevariousareascovered,Ihavetriedtoincludesomeexplanationsalongthewaythatwouldbesuper”uoustospecialists.SomemayargueIshouldhavebeenmorethor-oughgoinginthis,othersless.Butthisaimexplainscertaincommentsthatwouldbecommonplacestothoseinthe“eldbutmightnotbeknownbyallIngeneral,IhavefollowedtheconventionsoftheSBLHandbookofStyleforcitationsoftheprimaryandsecondaryresourcesusedhere.Ihaveusedtransliterationforforeignwords,includingasimpli“edtranslit-erationofGreekandHebrewwords,fortworeasons:bothtokeepthecostofthisbookfrombeinghigherthanitisandbecauseIhopeforreaderswithvariousbackgroundstobene“tfromthiswork.Whereversi“cationoftheEn-glishtranslationoftheOldTestamentdivergesfromtheversesoftheHebrew,IhavegiventhecitationoftheoriginalastheprimarycitationbutincludedtheEnglishversesinparentheseswiththedesignationET.ŽUnlessotherwiseindicated,thetranslationsofprimarytextsaremyown.Followingbroaderscholarlyconventions,IuseanasterisktoindicatewhereIhavecitedabroaderstretchofmaterial,butonlyusedpartofthatmaterial(e.g.Gen2:4b…24*).Inaddition,Iindicatecitationofparalleltextsthroughtheuseofthedoubleslashmarker(e.g.2Kgs22:3…13//2Chr34:8…21).IhaveusedfootnotestopointthereadertoworkIhavebene“tedfromandrecommendfordirectconsultation.Thismeansthatthenotesfocusonmaterialspreviouslyunfamiliartome,whilesomeworkscentraltomyowndisciplinehavenotbeenmentionedormentionedasmuchastheyshouldhavebeen.Thisisparticularlytrueofthewritingsofthoseteachersandmentorswhosescholarshiphasbeenwrittenonmyheart.ŽIhavetriedtocorrectforthisproblem,butIamawarethatmydependenceonothersextendsbeyondthecitationsincludedinthiswork.ThereismuchliteraturethatIconsultedbutdidnothaveoccasiontociteinthisbook.Ingeneral,Ihavetriedtocitearangeofclassicandrecentdiscussions;thelattercanprovidecitationsofabroaderrangeofliteratureinagivenarea.3.PatrickAlexanderetal.,eds.,TheSBLHandbookofStyle:ForAncientNearEastern,Biblical,andEarlyChristianStudies(Peabody,MA:Hendrickson,1999).
IhavedrawnliberallyonthehelpofmanynearandfartomakethisworkbetterthanIcouldhavemadeitonmyown.First,thisworkhasbeensupportedbythestimulatingintellectualenvironmentofexcellentcolleaguesandstu-dentsatUnionTheologicalSeminaryandatneighboringinstitutionsintheNewYorkarea.Inaddition,IhavebeengreatlyaidedinthisprojectbytheimmenselibraryresourcesinManhattan,especiallytheBurkeLibraryatUnionTheologicalSeminary,alongwiththelibrariesatColumbiaUniversity,BarnardCollege,JewishTheologicalSeminary,andGeneralTheologicalSeminary.Iamgratefultothestaffsofallthoselibrariesfortheirgenerousaidduringthisproject.IwashelpedinthelastsixmonthsofthisprojectbyaTheologicalScholarsGrantfromtheLillyFoundation,forwhichIamverygrateful.ThatgrantmadepossiblethehiringofNathanLarsen,nowaPh.D.studentatCo-lumbiaUniversity,tohelpincompilingmassivelistsofitemstotrackdown,gatheringthem,andprocessingthosematerials.SteedDavidson,aPh.D.stu-denthereatUnion,alsoprovidedinformalaidinlocatingsomematerialsontheconceptofhybridityinpostcolonialtheory,andJenniferHeckart(anotherPh.D.student)helpedwithexpert“nalproo“ng.Mywife,ColleenConway,aNewTestamentprofessoratSetonHallUniversity,hasbeenmyconstantcon-versationpartnerthroughthiswork,asalways.Sheremainsoneofmybestcritics,editors,andnearbyexpertsonissuespertainingtotheNewTestament.SeveralwidercirclesofpeoplehavecontributedtothisworkasIhavetriedoutideasfromitonvirtuallyanyonewillingtolisten.Thisstartedwithpres-entationsofpartsofthisworkattheSocial-ScienceSectionatthe2001SocietyofBiblicalLiteratureannualmeeting,aresearchreportatthe2002CatholicBiblicalAssociationmeeting,multiplepresentationstocolleaguesandstudentsattheJewishTheologicalSeminaryofAmericaBiblelunch,akeynoteaddressatthe2003Mid-AtlanticRegionalMeetingoftheSBL,partsoftwopresenta-tionsatthe2003AAR/SBLannualmeeting,andapresentationatacombinedmeetingoftheColumbiaUniversityHebrewBibleSeminarandAncientNearEasternSeminar.Manyatthoseoccasionsandafterwardprovidedinvaluablecritiquesandsuggestions.Alongthewayseveralcolleagueshavebeengraciousinsharingprepublicationversionsoftheirworksinprogress,includingJohnBaines,MichaelFox,EmanuelTov,ArminLange,TorleifElgvin,StevenFraade,WernerKelber,andWilliamSchniedewind.Inaddition,IamindebtedtoNiekVeldhuis,LynnMeskell,andDavidTrobisch(amongothers)forsuggestionsofbibliographyandotherresourcesforthisstudy.OnewayIhaveattemptedtobalancemyshortcomingsinwritingaworkofthisscopeistoaskotherstoreaddraftsofmywork,especiallyofpartsthatlayoutsidemyareasofexpertise.SohereIhavealistofpeople,manyofwhomgavegenerouslyoftheirtimedespitethelackofapriorconnectiontome,andprovidedextraordinarilyhelpfulfeedback,corrections,bibliography,andsoon.ForreasonsofspaceImerelylisttheminalphabeticalorder,buteachonedeservesaparagraphofthankstohimselforherself:JanAssmann,JohnBaines,JohnCollins,ColleenConway,JamesCrenshaw,RaffaellaCribiore,DanielFleming,MichaelV.Fox,WilliamHallo,SharonKeller,Andre´Lemaire,DavidMarcus,TeresaMorgan,MarttiNissinen,SimoParpola,JamesA.San-
ders,WilliamSchniedewind,SethSchwartz,AlanSegal,MarvinSweeney,Eu-geneUlrich,MarcvandeMieroop,WynWright,andtheanonymousreviewersforOxfordUniversityPress.Iaskedthesecolleaguestoreadpartsofthisstudybecauseofmyrespectfortheirwork.Thosewhoknowthatworkwillknowtheydonotalwaysagreewitheachother,andIcertainlydonotpretendtheyagreewithallthatishere.Icansaythatthisbookisfarstrongerthankstotheircritiquesandsuggestions.Whatevererrorsremaininthis“nalversionaremine.Itwouldbetemptingtoprolongthisprefacewithvariousquali“cationsrecognizingthisworkslimitations.Iwouldjustproposethatitisalltooeasyto“ndgaps,imbalances,andmisstepsinaworkofthisrange.Analternativewouldbetominethisbookforpotentiallyproductiveideas,texts,andbibli-ography.Myprayerisforalotofthelattersortofreaders.
ListofAbbreviations,xiii1.Textuality,Orality,andtheShapingoftheAncientMind,3PARTIEarlyExamplesofTextualityandEducationintheNearEastandMediterranean2.AncientMesopotamia:TheEarliestandBest-DocumentedTextual/EducationalSystem,173.TheIn”uenceofMesopotamia,474.EgyptianEducationandTextuality,635.AlphabeticallyBasedTextualityandEducationinAncientGreece,916.TextualityandEducationinAncientIsrael,111PARTIITextualityandEducationintheEasternHellenisticWorld7.EducationandTextualityintheHellenisticWorld:EgyptandOtherExamplesofHellenisticHybridity,1778.Temple-andPriest-CenteredTextualityandEducationinHellenisticJudaism,201
9.QumranasaWindowintoEarlyJewishEducationandTextuality,21510.Synagogue,Sabbath,andScripture:NewFormsofHellenisticJewishTextualityandEducationBeyondtheTemple,24111.TheOriginsofScriptureasaHellenistic-StyleAnti-HellenisticCurriculum,25312.ConcludingRe”ectionsontheHellenisticShapingofJewishScripture:FromTempletoSynagogueandChurch,27313.Conclusion,287Appendix:TheRelationofThisStudytoEarlierResearch,299SelectBibliography,307IndexofCitationsofPrimaryText,319IndexofSelectSubjects,329
ListofAbbreviationsABAnchorBibleAnchorBibleDictionary.EditedbyD.N.Freedman.6vols.NewYork:Doubleday,1992.AOATAlterOrientundAltesTestamentBABiblicalArchaeologistBASORBulletinoftheAmericanSchoolsofOrientalResearchBETLBibliothecaephemeridumtheologicarumlovaniensiumBRevBibleReviewBZAWBeiheftezurZeitschriftfu¨rdiealttestamentlicheCANECivilizationsoftheAncientNearEast.EditedbyVictorSassonetal.,NewYork:CharlesScribner,1995.CBQCatholicBiblicalQuarterlyCIJCorpusinscriptionumjudaicarumDSDDeadSeaDiscoveriesHUCAHebrewUnionCollegeAnnualIEJIsraelExplorationJournalJAOSJournaloftheAmericanOrientalSocietyJBLJournalofBiblicalLiteratureJCSJournalofCuniformStudiesJJSJournalofJewishStudiesJQRJewishQuarterlyReviewJSJJournalfortheStudyofJudaisminthePersian,HellenisticandRomanPeriodsJSOTJournalfortheStudyoftheOldTestamentJournalfortheStudyofOldTestament:SupplementSeriesJournalfortheStudyofthePseudepigrapha:
listofabbreviationsLexikonderA.EditedbyWolfgangHelckandEberhardOtto.Wiesbaden:O.Harrassowitz,1973….LCLLoebClassicalLibraryMDPMe´moiresdelaMissionarche´ologiquedePerseOBOOrbisbiblicusetorientalisOTLOldTestamentLibraryRARevuedassyriologieetdarche´ologieorientaleRBRevueBibliqueRevQRevuedeQumranSAOCStudiesinAncientOrientalCivilizationsSBLDSSocietyofBiblicalLiteratureDissertationSeriesSBLMSSocietyofBiblicalLiteratureMonographSeries´mentaudictionnairedelabible.EditedbyLouisPirotandF.Vigouroux.Paris:LetouzayetAne´,1928….TRETheologischeRealenzyklopadie.EditedbyG.KrauseandG.¨ller.Berlin:deGruyter,1977….VTVetusTestamentumVetusTetsamentumWMANTWissenschaftlicheMonographienzumAltenundNeuenTestamentWUNTWissenschaftlicheUntersuchungenzumNeuenTestamentZAZeitschriftfu¨rAssyriologieSZeitschriftfu¨ra¨gyptischeSpracheundAltertumskundeZAWZeitschriftfu¨rdiealttestamentlicheWissenschaft
WritingontheTabletoftheHeart
This page intentionally left blank
Textuality,Orality,andtheShapingoftheAncientMindInherbookOralWorldandWrittenWord,SusanNiditchvividlyil-lustratestheproblemswithcontemporaryassumptionsaboutan-cienttextuality,assheoutlinesthepicturemanybiblicalscholarsof-tenassumeintheirdiscussionsofbiblicalformation.Critiquingthetraditionaldocumentaryhypothesis(J,E,D,P),shesays:Attheheartofdocumentaryhypothesis[]...isthepasteimageofanindividualpicturedlikeEmperorClaudiusofthePBSseries,havinghisvariouswrittensourceslaidoutbe-forehimashechoosesthisverseorthat,includesthistalenotthat,edits,elaborates,allinalibrarysetting....Ifthetextsareleather,theymaybeheavyandneedtobeunrolled....Ifarepapyrus,theyarereadheldinthearm,onehandclaspingorsupportingŽthebulkŽofthescroll,whiletheotherunrolls.DidtheredactorneedthreecolleaguestoholdJ,E,andPforhim?Dideachreadthetextoutloud,anddidheaskthemtopauseuntilhejotteddownhisselections,workinglikeasecre-tarywiththreetapesdictatedbytheboss?Niditchposesthequestioninastrikingway,butsheisnotthe“rsttowonderaboutthesematters.Forexample,inaprogrammatices-saypublishedoverfortyyearsago,WilliamHalloaskedthesortsofquestionsthatdrivethisbook:Whatwastheappearanceofabiblicalbook?Howwasitcon-ceived,edited,published?Howwasittransmittedfromageto1.SusanNiditch,OralWorldandWrittenWord:AncientIsraeliteLiterature.LibraryofAn-cientIsrael(Louisville,KY:WestminsterJohnKnox,1996),113.
writingonthetabletoftheheartage,andbywhatmannerofmeanswasitchangedinthecourseofthattransmission?Thesearequestionswhichoughttooccupythepresentationofbiblicalexegesis,foranythinglessthancertaintyonthesepointsrendersanytheoryastothehistoryofaspeci“cbiblicaltextdoublytenuous.Infact,however,theyarequestionsthat,atleastoutsideIsrael,arelargelydisregarded.InhisessayHallowasprimarilyconcernedabouttheformationofMesopo-tamianliterature,buthisworkandthatofotherswillbekeyinreconstructingtheformationandfunctionofancientliteratureingeneral,withaspecialfocusonsuchliteratureinancientIsrael.Thisbookdevelopsanalternativepictureofhowpeopleintheancientworldproducedandworkedwithtexts.Iask:whatcanweplausiblysupposeabouthowtexts„particularlytextsusedoverlongperiodsoftime„werepro-duced,collected,revised,andused?Howmightweavoidimposinganachro-nisticmodelsoftextualproductionandreceptiononancienttexts?Thealter-nativepicturedevelopedherenotonlyilluminatestheformationoftheBiblebutalsoprovidesinsightintothenatureofeducationingeneralandtheuseofwritingasamajorcultural-religiousmedium.TheOral-WrittenInterfaceandtheShapingoftheMindOnestartingpointforthisalternativepictureisthefactthatmanyancienttextswerenotwritteninsuchawaythattheycouldbereadeasilybysomeonewhodidnotalreadyknowthemwell.Indeed,classicistslongagonotedthattheoldestGreekmanuscripts,writtenastheyareallincapitalsandwithoutwordsepa-rationorothermarks,wereconstructedforreadingbypeoplewhohadalreadymasteredtherelevanttext.ItwasonlyintheHellenisticperiod,atimeofbroadereducationandincreaseinsilentreading,thatwe“rstseetheinitialcreationofsomemorereader-friendlyteachingtextswithword-separationandotherhelps,allinthecontextofearlyeducation.Aswewillsee,mostmanuscriptsintheGreekcontextwerenotdesignedtoprovidea“rst-timeintroductiontoagiventextualtraditionbutinsteadstoodasapermanentreferencepointforanongoingprocessoflargelyoralrecitation.Thoughsomeonemighthavesuchatextbeforehimorherinordertodictatetoothersorevenperformthetext,itwouldfunctionmorethewayamusicalscoredoesforamusicianwhoalreadyknowsthepiecethanlikeabookthereaderhasneverencounteredbefore.Certainlysomemas-tersofthetraditioncouldsight-readsuchtexts,butmost„likemanymusi-cians„wouldhavehadtoalreadyknowthetraditioninordertobeableto”uidlyreadŽitfromthehighlyreader-unfriendlymanuscript.2.WilliamW.Hallo,NewViewpointsonCuneiformLiterature,Ž12(1962):13.3.RosalindThomas,LiteracyandOralityinAncientGreece(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1992),91…92;JocelynPennySmall,WaxTabletsoftheMind:CognitiveStudiesofMemoryandLiteracyinClassicalAntiquity(London:Routledge,1997),11…25.4.AnexampleofearlieruseofthisexampleofmusicalperformanceisJohnBarton,TheSpiritandthe
textuality,orality,andshapingoftheancientmindThiskindoftextualpreknowledgeispresupposedinothertraditionsaswell.Mostreaders,notatthetopofmasteryoftheSumero-Akkadiancunei-formsystem,couldnotrapidlyreadatextwithouthavingapriorfamiliaritywithit(orcloseparallelstoit).Onlythenwouldthereaderquicklyknowthevalueofagivensignincontext.ThehieraticwritingsystemofancientEgyptiantextslikewiserequiressomeonealreadyhighlyknowledgeableaboutthegiventextinordertodecipherrapidlythecontentsofagivenpassage.Evenalpha-beticsystemslikethosefoundatUgarit,Phoenicia,Syria,andIsraellackedvocalicmarksthatcouldaidrapidreading.OneearlymanuscriptfortheHe-brewprophetsdoesnotevenrecordthecompletewordsofeachverse.Instead,onlythe“rstwordisgiven,alongwiththe“rstletterofeachsucceedingword.Indeed,thealphabeticsystemofIsraelandothersocietiesismoresimilartoitscuneiformandhieratic/hieroglyphicprecursorsthanmanyrealize.Thoughearlyreadersmaysoundoutindividualwords,anyreaderwhohasprogressedtothepointof”uentlyreadingabooklikethis(orabiblicalman-uscript)alreadycaninstantlyrecognizeastoreofthousandsofwords(andphrases)aswholes.ThismasteryofwordimagesŽbyapersonliterateinanalphabeticsystemwouldencompasseasilyasmanyunitsastheseparatewordandsyllabicimagescontrolledbytheaveragemasterofcuneiformorhieratic.Andthedif“cultyofreadingalphabetictextsonlyescalatesmorewhentheyaretransmitted„astheyoftenwereintheancientworld„inmanuscriptswithoutworddividers.Iwilllookatbothsimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweenthesedifferentcul-tureareaslater.Themainpointhereisthatthiselementofvisualpresentationoftextsisbutoneindicatorofthedistinctivefunctionofwrittencopiesoflong-durationtextsliketheBible,Gilgamesh,orHomersworks.Thevisualpre-sentationofsuchtextspresupposedthatthereaderalreadyknewthegiventextandhadprobablymemorizedittosomeextent.InthisbookIwillarguefurtherthatsuchwrittencopieswereasubsidiarypartofamuchbroaderliteratematrix,wherethefocuswasasmuchormoreonthetransmissionoftextsfrommindtomindasontransmissionoftextsinwrittenform.Bothwritingandoralperformancefedintotheprocessofindoctrination/education/encul-Letter:StudiesinBiblicalCanon(London:SPCK,1997),129.BeatePomgratz-Leisten,OffnedenTafelbeha¨lterundlies...NeueAnsa¨tzezumVersta¨ndnisdesLiteraturKonzeptesinMesopotamie,ŽWeltdesOrients(1996):85…86,arguesthatoralperformanceactuallyaidsthedecodingofmanuscriptsotherwisedif“culttodecipher.
5.BendtAlster,InteractionofOralandWrittenPoetryinEarlyMesopotamianLiterature,ŽinmianEpicLiterature:OralorAural?ed.M.VogelzangandH.L.J.Vanstiphout(Lewiston,NY:Mellon,1991),24…6.ChristopherEyreandJohnBaines,InteractionsBetweenOralityandLiteracyinAncientEgypt,ŽinLiteracyandSociety,ed.KarenSchousboeandMogensTrolleLarsen(Copenhagen:AkademiskForlag,1989),7.ErnstWu¨rthwein,TheTextoftheOldTestament:AnIntroductiontotheBibliaHebraica,rev.ed.,trans.E.Rhodes(GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans,1996[orig.1988]),170…71(OxfordMsHebe30).IamindebtedtoAlanCooperforthisreference.8.EyreandBaines,Interactions,Ž101…2.
writingonthetabletoftheheartthemindstoodatthecenteroftheoftendiscussedoral-writtenin-terface.Thefocuswasoninscribingaculturesmostprecioustraditionsontheinsidesofpeople.Withinthiscontext,copiesoftextsservedassolidi“edreferencepointsforrecitationandmemorizationofthetradition,demonstra-tionsofmasteryofthetradition,andgiftsfromthegods.Buttheywerenotfortheuninitiated.Fewoftheliteratewouldhaveprogressedtothepointwheretheywouldhavebeenableormotivatedtousesuchtextstoaccesstraditionstheydidnotalreadyknow.Paststudiesoftheoralandthewrittenhavebeenplaguedbyafrequenttendencytojuxtaposeoralityandmemorywithwrittentextuality.PerhapsthepreeminentexampleincontemporarystudiesofancienttextsistheParry-Lordschooloforal-traditionalcomposition.Inhisclassicformulationofthehy-pothesis,AlbertLordbuiltonethnographicparallelsfromearlytwentieth-centurySerbiainarguingthattheHomericepicwascomposedinanexclusivelyoralcontext,andtheproductwasanepicthatdisplayedmultiplesignsofitsoralbackground.Inthiscontextheassertedtheabsoluteincom-patibilityoforalandwrittenmodesofcomposition:Thewrittentechnique,ontheotherhand,isnotcompatiblewiththeoraltechnique,andthetwocouldnotpossiblycombine,toforman-other,athird,atransitionalŽtechnique.Itisconceivablethatamanmightbeanoralpoetinhisyoungeryearsandawrittenpoetlaterinlife,butitisnotpossiblethathebeanoralandawrittenpoetatanygiventimeinhiscareer.Thetwobytheirverynaturearemutuallyexclusive.Lordgoesontoarguethatthearrivalofwritinginasocietyhasaninevitablycorrosiveeffectonoraltradition.ThoughhelatergrantedthepossibilityoftheexistenceofsometransitionaltextsŽinsocietiesonthewayfromoralitytotextuality,hetriedtolocatesuchtextseitherprimarilyintheoralorinthewrittenrealm,andhedeniedthepossibilitythatHomersepicscouldbesuchtransitionaltexts.Forhim,andformanyothers,therewasadecisiveshiftwhenasocietymovedfromoralitytoliteracy.Fromthenon,ithasbeenargued,9.ForusefulsummaryoftheseaspectsofthereferencecharacteroftextsseeWilliamA.Graham,theWrittenWord:OralAspectsofScriptureintheHistoryofReligion(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1987),60.10.Thiskindofinsightintotheoral-writteninterfaceiscommonplaceinworkbymedievalistsonearlyvernacularliteraturesinGerman,French,andEnglish.ForreferencesseeAlgerN.Doane,TheEthnographyofScribalWritingandAnglo-SaxonPoetry:ScribeasPerformer,ŽOralTradition9(1994):420…39.11.AsEgbertBakkernotes(HowOralisOralComposition?ŽinSignsofOrality:TheOralTraditionandItsIn”uenceintheGreekandRomanWorld,ed.E.AnneMacKay[Leiden:Brill,1999],31…32),eventheterminologyoforalityŽandoralŽoftenleadstofalsedichotomies.Forusefulculturalhistoryontheuseoforal-writtendichotomies,especiallyinbiblicalscholarshipseeMichaelH.Floyd,WritetheRevelation!(Hab2:2):Re-imaginingtheCulturalHistoryofProphecy,ŽinWritingsandSpeechinIsraeliteandAncientNearEasternProphecyed.EhudBenZviandMichaelFloyd(Atlanta,GA:ScholarsPress,2000),103…43.Attheoutsetofchapter4IpresentadiscussionofmemoryandliteracybyPlatothatmayliebehindmuchofthisoftenassumedjuxtapo-12.AlbertLord,TheSingerofTales(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1960),129.13.AlbertLord,TheSingerResumestheTale(Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress,1995),212…37.
textuality,orality,andshapingoftheancientmindwrittentextsdisplaydecisivelydifferentdynamicsfromtheiroralcounterparts.Thereisanoral-writtencontinuum,Žbutorality(andmemory)isononeendandtextualityisontheother.Thisstudy,however,buildsonastreamofscholarshipthatemphasizeswayssocietieswithwritingoftenhaveanintricateinterplayoforalityandtex-tuality,wherewrittentextsareintenselyoral,whileevenexclusivelyoraltextsaredeeplyaffectedbywrittenculture.LaterIwillreturntotheformerprop-osition.ButIwillnoteherethatmanyofthesupposedlyoraltechniquesŽcitedbyLordandothersfororalcompositionmaybeasmuchormorechar-acteristicofsocietieswithwritingastheyareofpurelynonliteratesocieties.For,asJanAssmann(buildingonEricHavelock)haspointedout,theonsetofwritingactuallyallowspeopletorecognizewhendifferentperformancesoftheirculturaltraditionvaryfromoneanother.Moreover,JackGoodyhasdoc-umentedhowfullyoralculturesoftenhaveintensevariationintheiroralre-productionoforaltradition,despitefrequentclaimsofverbatim“delitytoancienttraditions.Thismatcheswith“ndingsbycognitivepsychologiststhatthehumanmindgenerallycannotremembermorethan“ftylineswithoutwrittenaidsforaccuraterecall.Butoncewriting(orrecordingequipment)becomespartofthepicture,audiencesandreciterscanrecognizevariationbetweendifferentversionsofthetradition.Inresponse,culturesinterestedinpreservingtheintegrityofthetraditioncanuseavarietyofmeanstopreserveit,includingbothdifferentusesofwritingandintenseimplementationofoldermeansofaidingrecall„formulae,rhyming,linkoftexttomusicandmove-ment,useofoverarchingthemes,memorytechniques,andsoon.Oralityandwritingtechnologyarejointmeansforaccomplishingacommongoal:accuraterecallofthetreasuredtradition.14.Cf.KatherineOBrienOKeeffe,VisibleSong:TransitionalLiteracyinOldEnglishVerseCambridgeUniversityPress,1990),13.Niditch,quotedattheoutsetofthischapter(OralWorldandWrittenWord),usesthisconceptthroughout.FordiscussionofthetransitionperiodbetweenoralityandliteracyseeWalterJ.Ong,OralityandLiteracy:TheTechnologizingoftheWord(London:Routledge,1982),111…16.15.Suchinsightsintowhatisoftentermedtheoral-writteninterfaceŽareincreasinglycommonacrossawiderangeofstudies.ForareviewofthemajordebatesseePeterProbst,DieMachtderSchrift:Zumethnol-ogischenDiskursu¨bereinepopula¨reDenk“gur,Ž87(1992):167…82;JohnHalverson,GoodyandtheImplosionoftheLiteracyThesis,Ž(n.s.)27(1992):301…17;andJ.Collins,LiteracyandLiteracies,ŽReviewofAnthropology24(1995):75…93.FormorestudyoftheinterfaceoforalandwrittendimensionsoftextualityseealsoRuthFinnegan,OralPoetry:ItsNature,Signi“cance,andSocialContext(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1977),esp.16…24,160…68;WhatIsOrality„IfAnything?ŽByzantineandModernGreekStudies14(1990):esp.86…163;JackGoody,TheInterfaceBetweentheWrittenandtheOral(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1987);M.T.Clanchy,FromMemorytoWrittenRecord,2nded.(Oxford:Blackwell,1979);Doane,ScribeasPerformer,ŽandastatementbyoneoftheforemostexponentsoftheParry-Lordapproach,JohnMilesFoley,WhatsinaSign?ŽinMacKay,SignsofOrality,16.JanAssmann,KulturelleundliterarischeTexte,ŽinAncientEgyptianLiterature:HistoryandForms,ed.A.Loprieno(Leiden:Brill,1996),76…77.17.Goody,,86…105.18.I.M.L.Hunter,LengthyVerbatimRecall(LVR)andtheMythandGiftofTape-RecorderMemory,ŽPsychologyinthe1990s,ed.P.Niemi(Amsterdam:NorthHolland,1984),425…40;LengthyVerbatimRecall:TheRoleofText,ŽinPsychologyofLanguage,ed.A.Ellis(Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum,1985),vol.1,207…35;DavidMemoryinOralTraditions:TheCognitivePsychologyofEpic,Ballads,andCounting-OutRhymes(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1995),6…7.
writingonthetabletoftheheartThus,writingdoesnotnecessarilyeliminateoralityincultureswhereitisintroduced.Butitdoesbringanewdynamictoculturaltransmission„aheightenedlevelofanxietyaboutchange.Inresponse,variousmeansoftenareemployedtopreservethetradition,tohardenit,overagainstthenow-visibleprocessofculturalvariationacrosstime.Asaresult,formulaeandotherfea-turesoforalŽcommunicationmayactuallybeusedmoreintensivelywiththeonsetofwritingthanwithnonliteratecomposition,transmission,andperfor-mance.EvenincaseslikethatofParryandLordsSerbianbards,whereagivenepictraditionmightbecomposedandtransmitted/performedinanexclusivelyoralway,theconceptualitysurroundingtheprocessandthevariousmeansforcompositionandtransmissionoftenareshapedbythepresenceofwritingelsewhereintheculture.CertainlythisistrueofeveryoneoftheancientexamplescitedbyParry,Lord,andothersintheoral-traditionalschool:Ho-mericepic,,andsoon.Theywererecordedincultureswithwriting,andweonlyhaveaccesstosuchtraditionsbywayofwrittenmanuscripts.AncientEducationandtheProductionofScripturesBuildingontheseandotherinsights,thisbooklooksathowancientwrittentraditionsliketheBibleareactuallypartofamuchbroaderprocess,aprocessbywhichsuchtraditionswerelearnedinthe“rstplaceandtransmittedtosucceedinggenerations.Thefundamentalideaisthefollowing:aswelookathowkeytextsliketheBibleandotherclassicliteraturefunctionedinancientcultures,whatwasprimarywasnothowsuchtextswereinscribedonclay,parchment,orpapyri.Rather,whatwastrulycrucialwashowthosewrittenmediawerepartofaculturalprojectofincisingkeycultural-religioustraditions„wordforword„onpeoplesminds.CultureslikethoseinMesopo-tamia,Egypt,Greece,andIsraelputahighvalueonpreservationofancienttraditions,andtheyinvestedheavilyinensuringcontinuityacrossgenerations.Onewayofdoingthiswastousewrittentextsaspartofalargereducationalprojectofensuringstabletransmissionofkeytraditionsacrosstime.ThisisexpressedinanEgyptiansatiricaldescriptionofaneducatedscribe,towhichIwillreturnlater:Youare,ofcourse,askilledscribeattheheadofhisfellows,andtheteachingofeverybookisincisedonyourheart.ŽThisscribecontainedinhishead/heartnotonlytheknowledgeofwriting,butthememoryofkeytextsintheEgyptiantradition.EspeciallyinEgypt,manyofthesetextswouldhavebeenwhatmanynowwouldcallwisdomŽtexts.Nevertheless,thisscribesstoreoftextsmightalsohaveincluded„dependingonhisspecialty„religiousritualtexts,prayers,narratives,andmodeladministrativedocuments.Andwithinothercultures,suchasthoseinMesopotamia,Israel,orevenan-cientGreece,therewouldbeanevenbroadergroupoftexts„narrative,19.TheSatiricalLetterŽor(withFischer-Elfert)SatiricalPolemic,Ž11.2…3.ThisisanEnglishrenderingofthetranslationinHans-WernerFischer-Elfert,DiesatirischeStreitschriftdesPapyrusAnastasiI,vol.1,zungundKommentargyptischeAbhandlungen(Wiesbaden:Harrasowitz,1986),94.
textuality,orality,andshapingoftheancientmindhistorical,poetic,divinatory„thatwouldbeincisedonthemindsofanewScribalrecollectionofearlytraditionswasensuredpartlythroughteachingstudentstoreadandreproducewrittencopiesofthekeytraditions.Neverthe-less,theaimoftheeducationalprocesswasultimatelythescribesmemori-zationoftheculturaltraditionandcultivationofhis(oroccasionallyher)abilitytoperformit.Touseametaphorfromcomputers,themainpointinancientcultureswasnotthewrittentexts.Theywerethe”oppydisks.Thepointwasusingsuchtexts,suchdisks,Žtotransferthesoftware„keyculturaltraditions„fromonegenerationofscribaladministratorsandeliteleaderstoanother.Iwillshowhowthiseducationalsystemofmemorizationandrecitationofstandardtextsshapedthemindsofstudents.Tosomeextent,thisshapingofstudentsmindswasintertwinedwithmovementtowardpoliticalconsoli-dationandcentralization.TheearliestsystemofelementarywritinglistswellprecededtheemergenceofearlyempiresinMesopotamia,butthehigherlevelcurriculumofhymnsandepicsisintricatelyconnectedtothe“rstseriesofempiresthatdominatedandunitedMesopotamia:theearlykingdomofAkkad,alongwiththeUr-IIIandOldBabylonianempires.Thougheducationalpro-cessesareattestedinearlyEgyptaswell,thecentralcurriculumandwidespreadattestationoftheclassiceducationalsystemlikewiseemergesinthetransitiontowardcentralizationintheFirstIntermediatetoMiddleKingdomperiods.AndIwillarguethatevensmallerkingdomslikeIsraelcametouseasimilareducationalsystemtoshapefuturescribaladministratorsbyhavingthemmemorizeandreciteacurriculumofstandardtexts„dayafterday,yearafteryear.Thismodeoftextualeducationcouldbeawayofmaintainingandex-tendingpoweroversubjects„whetherinasmallcountrylikeIsraelorvastempireslikethoseofMesopotamiaandEgypt.YetIwillalsoarguethatsucheducationalsystemswereneverlimitedtosuchpoliticalendsandoftenmovedfarbeyondwhatevertheiroriginalpoliticalconnectionsmighthavebeen.Forexample,IwillsuggestthatthepeopleofIsraelcametouseasimilareducationalsystemasameansofresistance.Intheearlycenturiesofthecommonera(),therewasastruggleovertheincreasingprominenceofGreekeducation,whereaselectfewweregroomedforleadershipbymemorizingtheGreekclassics„Homer,Euripides,20.Assmann,Texte,Ž79.21.Thedetailsofthiscurriculumandreferencestorelevantstudiesaregiveninchapter2.22.InadditiontotheclassicstudybyH.Brunner(¨gyptischeErziehung[Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz,1957])seeinparticularthecommentsinJanAssmann,KulturellesGeda¨chtnisalsnormativeErinnerung:DasPrinzipKanoninderErinnerungskulturAgyptensundIsraels,ŽinMemoriaalsKultur,ed.OttoGerhardOexle¨ttingen:VandenhoeckandRuprecht,1995),99,andthestudyofthiscrucialtransitiontimebyL.Morenz,¨gezurSchriftlichkeitskulturimMittlerenReichundinder2.ZwischenzeitgyptenundAltesTestament(Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz,1996).23.Forbroaderre”ectionsonhowthedecontextualizationinvolvedinwritingcanbelinkedtothefor-mationofbroaderpoliticalentitiesseePeterDenny,RationalThoughtinOralCultureandLiterateDecontex-tualization,ŽinLiteracyandOrality,ed.DavidR.OlsenandNancyTorrance(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1990),66…89,esp.72.
writingonthetabletoftheheartIsocrates,andsoon.Assuch,theOldTestamentisacountercurriculumtothatofHellenisticeducation.TextsthatoriginallyhadbeenformedforascribalcurriculumcametoserveabroaderpurposeinshapingthemindsandheartsofIsraelitemalesingeneral.Infocusingoneducation,wemustnotignorethefactthattextswereusedforawidevarietyofotherpurposesintheancientworld:recordingoftrans-actions,displayandintimidation,administration,magic,Žcontinualofferingtoadeity.Withinalargelyoralworldandeveninoral-literatecontexts,textshadanuminouspowerthatweinthetwenty-“rstcenturyalltoooftenforget.Writingmademutetombstonestalk,statuespraytoadeityaroundtheclock,andsoon.Inthissense,theearlieranalogyofcomputerdisksisinaccuratebecauseitminimizesthealmostmagicalimportanceofthematerialityoftextsinanoralculture.Moreover,itfailstolookathowsuchmaterialtextualobjectsmightfunctioninnuancedwaysinspeci“cinstitutionalsettings,oftenwhollyunconnectedtotheabilityofparticipantstoreadsuchtexts.Indeed,writtentextsoftenproveduniquelysuitedtoinstitutionalizingunintelligibilityŽ(asRichardGordonputsit),servingincertainlociorcertainstagesofeducationtopreserveexpressionsthatwerenotunderstood,half-understood,orhighlycounterintuitive.Wefailtograspacrucialaspectoftheancientfunctionoftextsifwefocusexclusivelyontheircontents.Thereisanotherimportantcharacteristicofthewritingoftransgenera-tional,long-durationtextsliketheBible:unlikepeople,writingisimmortal.Writingmakeslanguagepermanent,depersonalizeslanguage,decontextual-izesexpression,andaddsnormativity.Writingformalizes,generalizes,andperpetuatesfeaturesandintentionsoflanguage„cuttingitloosefrommo-mentaryandcontext-boundutterance.Thischaracteristic„thepotentialim-mortalityandpermanenceofwriting„willbeakeyfocusinthisbook.Inabroaderstudy,onemightinvestigatetheproductionoflimited-durationad-ministrativedocumentsacrossthesecultures.Nevertheless,theemphasishereisonhownondocumentary,long-durationtextsofthesortfoundintheBiblewerecreatedaspartofabroaderuseoftextstoachieveculturalcontinuityineliteclassesacrossspaceandtime.Inthissense,thisstudylinkswithpastonesthathavefocusedonthebroaderusesofculturalmemoryŽtoformgroupsandsubgroupsinsocieties.24.TheimportanceofcontextandmaterialityoftextsasimagesisemphasizedbyMarcVandeMieroop,CuneiformTextsandtheWritingofHistory(London:Routledge,1999),58…59.TheexpressionfromGordonappearsinRichardGordon,FromRepublictoPrincipate:Priesthood,ReligionandIdeology,ŽinPaganPriestsed.MaryBeardandJohnNorth(London:Duckworth,1990),189.Theforegoingcommentsarebasedonthefollowingsurveysofolderscholarshiponthenuminousperceptionoftextsinvariousculturalcontexts(includingliterateandoral-literatecontexts)andthesocialusestowhichsuchperceptionsareput:Graham,BeyondtheWritten,61…62;MichaelHarbsmeier,InventionsofWriting,ŽinStateandSociety:TheEmergenceandDevelopmentofSocialHierarchyandPoliticalCentralization,ed.JohnGledhillandBarbaraBender(London:UnwinHyman,1988),253…59;BengtHolbek,WhattheIlliterateThinkofWriting,ŽinLiteracyandSociety,ed.KarenSchousboeandMogensTrolleLarsen(Copenhagen:AkademiskForlag,1989),183…96;Gordon,FromRepublictoPrinci-pate,Ž188…91;IlkkaPyysia¨inen,HolyBook:ATreasuryoftheIncomprehensible,Ž46(1999):278…82.25.ThewordpotentialŽisaddedherebecausewritingintheseancientcultureswasdonesometimesonmedia,likewaxedboards,thatdidnotpermanentlypreservewriting.
textuality,orality,andshapingoftheancientmindSuchculturalmemoryŽconsistsofabodyofrecollectionstransmittedinor-ganizedwaystoparticipantsinagivengroup,recollectionsofvaluesandviewsthatshapeeachindividualintoamemberofthegroup.Thoughsuchculturalmemoryoftenconsistsinlargepartofrecollectionofvariousnarrativesinthegroupspast,itcanalsoincludebehavioralnormsandvisionsofthefuture.Withintheancientworld,however,suchbehavioralnormsandvisionsusuallyareembeddedinmemoriesofthedistantpast,withthispasthavingpowerfulassociationsofgoodnessandnormativity.Indeed,thatpastisneverpastŽinthewaywemightconceiveitbutstandsintheancientworldasapotentiallyrealizablepresentŽtowhicheachgenerationseekstoreturn.Writingintheancientworld,givenitsabilitytopreservelanguage,evenunintelligibleorstrangelanguage,comestoserveanimportantroleasalinktothispastŽ/potentialpresent.Educationinsuchwritingandmasteryofcorewritingsmarksoneasaninsideramonginsidersinculturesthattreasuresuchin-scribedculturalmemory.Suchancientinsidersweretheoneswhowrotethetextsthatareoursolewrittenaccesstopicturesoftheancientworld.Thisbookwillworkcriticallywiththesepictures,recognizingthattheirimagesofliteratiwithlibrariesintheirheadsmaystandasidealconstructsamidsocietieswheresuchmasteryofthecoretextualtraditionwasachievedbyonlyafew,whilethemajoritymasteredonlyfragmentsofthetradition,wereexposedtothetraditionthroughpublicreadingsbyothers,ordidnotknowitatall.Atthispoint,severalde“nitionsandquali“cationsshouldsetthisstudyincontext.First,itmustbeclearfromtheoutsetthattheeducationalsystemsunderdiscussionhereappeartohavebeenprimarilyorientedtowardtheshap-ingofforperformanceofleadershiproles.Thatisnottosaythatwomenplayednoroleineducation,textualproduction,orperformance.Onthecon-trary,incertainperiodsandcontexts,certainwomenappeartohaveplayedveryimportantroles.Signi“cantstudieshavebeendonebyA.Lemaire,BetsyBryan,S.A.Meier,S.Cole,andRaffaellaCribiore(amongothers)ofvariouswayswomendidplayaroleineducationintheancientNearEastandGreece.26.TheforegoingformulationisdependentparticularlyonJanAssmann,DaskulturelleGeda¨chtnis:Schrift,Erinnerung,undpolitischeIdentita¨tinfru¨henHochkulturen(Munich:Beck,1992),whocitesearlierliterature.ForilluminatingearlierdiscussionsofancientconstrualsofthepastseealsoF.R.Kraus,VommesopotamischenMenschenundseinerWelt:EineReiheVorlesungen(Amsterdam:NorthHolland,1973),133…34;NadavNaEssaysinHistory:Historiography,theFashioningoftheCollectiveMemory,andtheEstablishmentofHistoricalConsciousnessinIsraelintheLateMonarchalPeriod[Heb.],Ž60(1995):449…72,andMaryCarruthers,TheBookofMemory:AStudyofMemoryinMedievalCulture(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1991),193.Thisgeneralconstrualofthedistantpastasgoodinancientsocietiescontrastswithmoreambivalentattitudesinthecontemporaryworld.See,particularly,DavidLowenthal,ThePastIsaForeignCountry(Cambridge:Cam-bridgeUniversityPress,1985).OnthecreationofcontemporaryconceptsofthepastseeAnthonyKemp,EstrangementofthePast:AStudyintheOriginsofModernHistoricalConsciousness(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1991).27.Andre´Lemaire,LesEcolesetlaformationdelaBibledanslancienIsrae,OBO(Fribourg:EUniversitaires,1981),58…59;S.Cole,CouldGreekWomenReadandWrite?ŽinRe”ectionsofWomeninAntiquityed.H.Foley(NewYork:GordonandBreachScience,1981),219…45;BetsyBryan,EvidenceforFemaleLiteracyfromThebanTombsoftheNewKingdom,ŽBulletinoftheEgyptologicalSeminar6(1984),17…32;S.A.Meier,WomenandCommunicationintheAncientNearEast,Ž111(1991):540…47;RaffaellaCribiore,oftheMind(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,2001),31,74…101.
writingonthetabletoftheheartGenerally,however,womenaretheexceptionratherthantheruleinancienteducationandtextualproduction.Therefore,thoughIusegender-neutrallan-guagewherepossible,Ioccasionallyreverttomalepronounsincharacterizingbroadlyandrocentriceducationalsystems,andIhavenot,inthiscontext,beenabletoexecutemyowngender-criticalstudyofthesesystems.Throughoutmydiscussion,Ioftenspeakofeducation-enculturationŽasapair,oreducationandongoingenculturation.ŽThisadditionofthewordenculturationŽdoestwothingshere.First,thewordhelpsexpandthenotionofpersonformationbeyondthecontentofwhatistaughtinagiveneducationalsystem.Second,especiallywhencombinedwithongoing,Žthetermencul-turationŽaf“rmsavarietyofotherinstitutionsthatreinforce,unfold,andfur-therinscribeagivensetoftextualtraditionsontheheartsandmindsofagivengroup.Forexample,IwillshowhoweducationalpracticesinancientGreeceledintoandwerereinforcedbytextualperformanceincertainmealsettingsandlargerscaleperformancesoftextsincommunitygatherings.Elsewhereweseesuchreinforcementininteractionsoftenlabeledasliturgy.ŽThepaireducation-enculturationŽencompassestheseandotherculturalpracticesthatinscribeandreinscribetextsonthehearts/mindsofmembersofculturesorsubgroupsinthem.SomeothertermsthatplayamajorroleinthefollowingdiscussionaretextualityŽandcurriculum.ŽManygoodargumentshavebeenmadeforex-tendingthewordstextŽandtextualityŽtoencompasstextsŽthatareneverwrittenbutjustremembered,transmitted,andperformedovertime.Inthisstudy,however,IusethetermtextualityŽasshorthandforwrittentextuality.ŽIwillusethetermcurriculumŽinasimilarquali“edsense.InthecitywhereIlive,NewYork,thepublicschoolhasacurriculumŽthatstrictlyspeci“eseachstepoftheteachingprocessandallformsofmaterialstobeused.ThereisnosuchminutelystructuredcurriculumŽintheeducational/encultura-tionalexamplesIwilldiscusshere,howeverstructuredeachoneis.Therefore,whenIusethewordcurriculumŽinthisstudy,itismeantasageneraldes-ignationforeducationalmaterialsinagivenculture,moreorlessde“nedandsequenced,dependingonthecultureandtime.Inturn,forreasonsIelaborateinthe“nalchapter,IhaveavoidedtheuseofthetermcanonŽforthecur-riculaŽdiscussedinthisstudy,havingdecidedthatthetermcanonŽobscuresmorethanitilluminates.Anotherquali“cationpertainstothedebateaboutschoolsŽintheancientworld.ThoughIwilloccasionallyusethetermschoolŽwhereitappearsap-propriateforancientMesopotamiaandEgypt,thisworkisnotprimarilyaboutschools.ŽIdonotthinkthatancientIsraelhadmanyschoolsŽofthesortwewouldrecognizeassuch.Instead,Imaintainthatmostschools,Žwhentheydidexist,wereprobablyconductedinanapprenticeshipmodelatthehomeof28.KonradEhlich,TextundsprachlichesHandeln:DieEntstehungvonTextenausdemBedu¨rfnisnachberlieferung,ŽinSchriftundGeda¨chtnis:Beitra¨gezurArcha¨ologiederliterarischenKommunikation,ed.JanAss-mann,AleidaAssmann,andChristophHardmeier(Munich:WilhelmFink,1983),24…43.
textuality,orality,andshapingoftheancientmindthemaster/teacher,amaster/teacherwhomightormightnotbethebiologicalfatherofthestudent.Furtherdiscussionofthecharacterofsucheducationanditsdistributionisaseparatematterandwillbetreatedlaterinrelationtospeci“ctimesandculturalcontexts.Nevertheless,thisinitialquali“cationisimportantbecausesomepastproposalssimilartothisonehavebeencriticizedforassumingananachronisticpictureofeducation.Finally,awordshouldbesaidabouttheloadedconceptofliteracy.ŽThehistoryofbothhistoricalandanthropologicalscholarshiphasdemonstratedhowpronescholarsaretoassumethattheconceptofliteracyŽreferstoabasicabilitytoreadandwritedocuments.Yetthisconceptofbasicliteracy,soself-evidenttomanytoday,hasitsownhistoricalcontextintherecentpast„apastwhereageneralpublichasbeeneducatedintolow-levelliteracyaspartofabroadersetofsocialandculturaldevelopments.Certainlytherewereanalo-gousconceptsofbasicliteracyintheancientworldaswell.Nevertheless,Iwillshowthat„howevermuchsuchbasicliteracyroseorfellatvarioustimesandplaces„theliteracythatmostcountedintheseancientsocietiesoftenwasnotabasicabilitytoreadandwrite.Ratheritwasanoral-writtenmasteryofabodyoftexts.Moreover,thisliteracyŽwassomethingthatthemembersofanelitefromtheircontemporaries.Suchmasteryofwrittentexts,then,wasnotwidespread.Forittoperformitssocialfunction,ithadtobealimitedcompetencyusedtomarkoffaculturaland(often)socialelite.Inthissense,theoftenvoiceddistinctionsbetweenesotericscribalŽcultures(forexample,Mesopotamia,Egypt)andsupposedlybroadlyliterateŽcultures(forexample,GreeceorIsrael)provelesshelpfulthantheyseem.Notonlyarepastassump-tionsaboutuniversalliteracyinalphabeticŽculturesprobablywrong,buttheyoftenmissthefactthathigherformsofliteracyplayedamoreimportantroleinsocialorganizationandinteraction.Eveninalphabeticcultures,suchhigherformsofliteracywerelimitedtothosefewwhohadtheleisureforintensestudy,despitetheoccasionallyvoicedidealthatallbecomeeducated.29.Iwillnotreviewthoseandotherstudiessimilartothisbookinthiscontext.Scholarswithanimmediateinterestintheantecedentstothisworkareurgedtoconsulttheappendix.30.ForasurveyandcritiqueofsuchapproachesseeCollins,LiteracyandLiteracies.Ž31.ForsurveyanddiscussionofthisprocessseeM.T.Clanchy,LookingBackfromtheInventionofPrinting,ŽinLiteracyinHistoricalPerspective,ed.DanielP.Resnick(Washington,DC:LibraryofCongress,1983),7…22;HarveyJ.Graff,Literacy,JobsandIndustrialization:TheNineteenthCentury,ŽinLiteracyandSocialDevelopmentintheWest:AReader,ed.HarveyJ.Graff(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1981),232…60;TheLegaciesofLiteracy:ContinuitiesandContradictionsinWesternCultureandSociety(Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress,1987);andthemorepopulardiscussioninRobertPattison,OnLiteracy:ThePoliticsoftheWordfromHomertotheAgeofRock(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1982).32.OnthisIamin”uencedparticularlybyPierreBourdieu,Distinction:ASocialCritiqueoftheJudgementofTaste(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1984[orig.1979]),butseealsothebroadersurveyofrelationsbetweeneducationandclassformationinDavidHogan,EducationandClassFormation:ThePeculiaritiesoftheAmericas,ŽinCulturalandEconomicReproductionthroughEducation:EssaysonClass,IdeologyandtheStateed.MichaelApple(London:Routledge,1982),32…78.Tobesure,oursourcesareoftenproducedbythoseliteratiwhoaremostinterestedindepictingtheirknowledgeasconstitutingaclaimtoelitestatus(hencetheadditionofoftenŽinparentheses).Thisobservationneedstobenuancedasweinvestigateeachcontextfurther.33.HigherformofliteracyŽhereisshorthandforformsofliteracythatinvolvedextensivemasteryoftextualcorpora.Idiscusslevelsofliteracylaterinthisbookinthechaptersrelatedtoeachculture.
writingonthetabletoftheheartWecanonlydevelopbetterpicturesofliteracy,education,andtextualitythroughareviewofmultipleculturesintheancientNearEast,includingIsrael.Tobesure,Israelisdifferentfromitsneighborsinsigni“cantways.Theyaredifferentfromeachother!But,followingtheleadofHalloandothers,theaimherewillbeacontextuallysensitivecomparativeapproachthatfocusesonbothdifferencesandsimilaritiesamongmultipleculturesconsideredovertime.Afterall,Israelisnotcompletelydifferentfromitsculturalsurroundings.Closestudyofnearbyculturesmayuncoversomespeci“cwaysthetextual/educa-tionalmatrixofthoseculturesin”uencedthatmatrixinancientIsrael.Inad-dition,evenwheresuchin”uencecannotbeestablished,modelsoftextualityandeducationdevelopedthroughacarefulcomparativeapproacharemuchmorelikelytobehelpfulthantheanachronisticmodelsoftextualityandread-ingweoftenunconsciouslypresupposeonthebasisofcontemporaryexperi-ences.Iwillnowexplorehowseveralancientculturesinscribedtextsbothonwrittenmediaandonthemindsandheartsoftheirfuturegenerations.
partiEarlyExamplesofTextualityandEducationintheNearEastandMediterranean
This page intentionally left blank
AncientMesopotamiaTheEarliestandBest-DocumentedTextual/EducationalSystemMastergodwho(shapes)humanity,youaremygod!YouhaveopenedmyeyesasthoughIwereapuppy;youhaveformedhumanitywithinme.„AddressbyaSumerianstudenttohisteacherTheScribalText/EducationMatrixThestartingpointforstudyoftextualityintheNearEastnecessarilymustbeMesopotamia.MesopotamiaislikelytheearliestoriginpointforwritingintheNearEast.Moreover,Mesopotamiadevel-opedoneoftheearliestandmostin”uentialeducationalsystems.ItisinMesopotamiathatweseethe“rstpossibleattempttosystemat-icallycollecttextsintoalibrary.And,mostimportantofall,theliter-aryremainsofMesopotamiaarebetterpreservedthanthoseofanyother„thankstothecustomofwritingsomanytypesofdocumentsonclaytabletsthathavewithstoodthetestoftime.AsKlaasVeen-hofinhishelpfulsurveyofrelativepreservationofarchivesintheNearEastpointsout,siteselsewhereintheNearEast(andinlaterMesopotamia)oftenfeaturelarge“ndsofclaybullaeandotherwrappersofnowdestroyedpapyrusandparchment„signsofahugerangeoftextsnowlosttoscholarlyinquiry.YettheoldersitesofMesopotamiapreservearemarkablenumberoflibrary/archivesanddumpsofdiscardededucationaltexts,cachesoftextsthatallowEpigraph:CyrilJohnGadd,TeachersandStudentsintheOldestSchools(Oxford:OxfordUni-versityPress,1956),15.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationusanunparalleledglimpseintoanancientprocessoftextualproductionandscribaleducation.Thekeypointthatemerges,forthepurposesofthisstudy,frominvesti-gationsbyAssyriologistsisthefollowing:especiallyfromtheOldBabylonianperiodforward,weshouldnottalkofalibraryŽorliterarycanonŽ(ifthetermcanonŽcanevenbeused)inisolation.Instead,wemustconceptualizetextualproductionaspartofabroaderscribalmatrix,amatrixwhere„inadditiontowritingadministrativedocuments„scribe/teachers(ummia)collectedandup-datedalimitedcorpusofstandardtexts,inscribedthosetextsonstablemedia,inscribedthosetextsonthemindsofstudentsforrecitationandsociali-zation.Bothsortsofinscription„inscriptiononhumansandtablets„werekeypartsofthescribaltask.ThereisnoseparatewordinSumerianforteacher.ŽInthecaseofMesopotamia,wehaveanunusuallyrichvarietyofdataonwhichtodrawinresearchingthisscribalmatrix.Firstandforemost,tensofthousandsofstudentexerciseshavebeenpreserved,mostlyfromtheOldBab-ylonianperiod.Theserangefromveryrough,oblongcopiesoflexicallistsandsmallliteraryexcerptstolargercopiesofpartsorallofmajorMesopotamianTheirclayformallowedthemtobepreserved,eventhoughmanysuchtabletswerediscardedbytheiroriginalusers.Fromthesameperiodwehavevarioussatiricaleducationaldialogues,bothdisputesbetweenplantsoranimalsandrecreationsofschooldebates.Thoughtheoftensatiricalformofthesecompositionsandtheireducationalfunctionmakethemimperfectwindowstoancienteducation,theyprovidesomeinsightintowhattheirwritersconsideredacrediblepictureofsucheducation.Finally,wehavecataloguesofliteraryworksthatmayhavebeenusedtogiveanoverviewofthecurriculaofsomeeducationalcontextsandahandfulofreferencestoeducationinhymns1.KlaasR.Veenhof,CuneiformArchives:AnIntroduction,ŽinCuneiformArchivesandLibraries:PapersReadatthe30eRencontreAssyriologiqueInternationale,Leiden,4…8,July1983,ed.KlaasR.Veenhof(Leiden:Ned-erlandsInstituutvoorhetNabijeOosten,1986),1…3.2.ForarecentoverviewofpastdebatesovertheuseofthewordforSumero-AkkadianworksseeVictorHurowitz,CanonandCanonizationinMesopotamia,ŽinProceedingsoftheTwelfthWorldCongressofJewishStudies:DivisionA„TheBibleandItsWorld,ed.RonMargolin(Jerusalem:WorldUnionofJewishStudies,1997),1…12;cf.WilliamW.Hallo,TheConceptofCanonicityinCuneiformandBiblicalLiterature:AComparativeAppraisal,ŽinTheBiblicalCanoninComparativePerspective,ed.K.L.Younger,W.W.Hallo,andB.F.Batto(Lewiston,NY:Mellon,1991),1…19.3.ThereisreferenceinSumeriantextstoanupper-levelapprenticewhoaidsinteaching,thees-galbrotherŽ;thankstoProfessorHalloforthisobservation)andsomelatereferencesinAkkadiantextstoa(teacherŽ;thankstoDanielFlemingforthispoint),thoughtheselatterareprobablynotteachersofwriting.4.A.W.Sjo¨berg,TheOldBabylonianEdubba,ŽinSumerologicalStudiesinHonorofThorkildJacobsen,ed.S.Liebermann(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1975),176…78;PetraD.Gesche,SchulunterrichtinBaby-lonienimerstenJahrtausendv.Chr.,AOAT(Mu¨nster:Ugarit-Verlag,2001),9…24.5.Hallo,NewViewpointsonCuneiformLiterature,Ž23…24;P.Michalowski,ANewSumerianCata-loguefromNippur,ŽOriensAntiquus19(1980):265;WilliamW.Hallo,NotesfromtheBabylonianCollectionII:OldBabylonianHAR-ra,Ž34(1982):81…93;P.Michalowski,ObservationsonaSumerianLiteraryCata-loguefromUr,Ž36(1984):91;D.Charpin,Leclerge´dUrausie`cledHammurabi(XIXe…XVIIIesie`clesav.,Hautese´tudesorientales(Geneva:Droz,1986),438…85;H.L.J.Vanstiphout,OntheOldEdubbaEduca-tion,ŽinCentresofLearning:LearningandLocationinPre-ModernEuropeandtheNearEast,ed.J.W.DrijversandA.A.MacDonald(Leiden:Brill,1995),9…10.
ancientmesopotamiaandotherliterature.ThoughthisdataismostplentifulfortheOldBabylonianperiod(particularlytheeighteenthcentury.),educationalexercisesandreferencestoeducationallowustoextendourpicturetootherperiodsofMe-sopotamianhistoryaswell.WiththepossibleexceptionofaroyalcollectionlikeAshurbanipals,mostcollectionsoftextsmixwhatwemightseparatelyclassifyasarchivalŽandlibraryŽtexts.Ontheonehand,weseeapreponderanceofdocumentarytextsinvirtuallyalldepositsoftexts:letters,contracts,receipts,usuallyrecentonesprobablycreatedduringthetenureofthescribewhohadthearchive.Ontheotherhand,manysuchscribalarchivesalsoincludeasizablegroupofthenondocumentary,nonadministrativetextsthatarethefocushere.Oftenthemajorityarestudentcopiesoftexts.Somearesofullofmistakesthatmuchexpertiseisrequiredtoidentifythetextbeingcopied.Othersappeartobehighlyadvancedschoolcopiesorreferencecopiesofagiventext.Ineithercase,thesetextsappearacrossanumberoflocationsandacrossnumerousperiods.Unlikethedocumentarytexts,theirsigni“cancewasnotlimitedtothegenerationwhoproducedthem.Instead,thesewerecopiesofwhatcouldbetermedlong-durationtexts,Žthatis,textsthatwereconsciouslytransmittedfromgenerationtogeneration.Thesenondocumentary,long-durationtextswerereferencepointsforabroaderprocessofeducationbywhichnascentscribesweretaughtbothcul-turalvaluesandliteracyatthesametime.Theyplayedakeyroleinanoverallprojectofensuringculturalcontinuityfromagetoageandplacetoplace.Sometextsmayhaveoriginatedinsomedocumentaryform„letter,inscription,andsoon„onlytobeappropriatedandadaptedtoserveaspartoftheeducationandsocializationoftheyoung.Butoncesuchtextsweresoadapted,theyweremultipliedinaradicallynewwaywithinthecontextofeducation.Indeed,ifitwerenotforthepresenceofschoolcopiesofSumerianandAkkadianliterature,wewouldhaveamuchmorerestrictedsenseofitsscopeandcharacter.Becausetheprojectofeducationwassocentraltothecreationandtrans-missionofsuchlong-durationtexts(andviceversa),IfocusinthischapteronsummarizingwhatisknownaboutancientMesopotamianeducationbeforediscussingtextproduction.Inchapter3Iwilllookathowthissystemwasdispersedwidely.6.Hallo,NewViewpointsonCuneiformLiterature,Ž23…24;Hallo,NotesIIŽ;Michalowski,Observa-tions,Ž91;Andre´Lemaire,EcrituresetlanguesduMoyen-Orientancien,ŽinEcritsdelOrientancienetsources,ed.A.Barucq(Paris:Decle´e,1986),36;Charpin,Leclerge´dUr,438…85.7.ForausefuloverviewoftheconcentrationsofevidenceseeVanDeMieroop,CuneiformTexts,11,table8.ThiscontraM.Haran,Archives,Libraries,andtheOrderoftheBiblicalBooks,ŽJournaloftheAncientNearEasternSocietyofColumbiaUniversity22(1993):51…61.ThoughthereissomedistinctionoflibraryŽinthetimeofAshurbanipal(SimoParpola,TheRoyalArchivesofNiniveh,ŽinVeenhof,CuneiformArchivesand231…34;notingtheboundaryevenhereas”uidŽ),themorewidespreadevidencesuggeststhattextualcollectionsdidnotclearlydividewhatwouldconsiderarchivalŽfromliteraryŽandothertexts.ForanoverviewoftheevidenceseeOlofPederse´n,ArchivesandLibrariesintheAncientNearEast,1500…300B.C.(Bethesda,MD:CDLPress,1998).9.Charpin,Leclerge´dUr,422…23.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationAncientMesopotamianEducationTheMesopotamianeducationalsystemisbestdocumentedintheOldBaby-lonianperiod,butithadearlierrootsandcontinuedinalteredandvariousformsintolaterperiods.Thesystemfocusedoneliteliteracy„thetrainingofyouthstofunctioninspeci“cadministrativeandritualcapacities.Thoughthereisongoingdebate„towhichIwillturnlater„abouttheextentofliteracyinancientGreeceandIsrael,fewwouldarguethatliteracywaswidespreadinancientMesopotamia.Atsomepointstheremayhavebeenawidergroupofof“cialsandotherswhomasteredenoughcuneiformtointerpretbasicdocu-mentsandwritethem.Nevertheless,theeducationalsystemfocusedonthecreationofaneliteclassofliterate,enculturatedpeoplewhothenservedasthekeyplayersinmanyculturalinteractions:political,religious,andsoon.Whetherornotthecuneiformsystemitselfwasanimpedimenttowidespreadliteracy,thesocialfunctionofwritinginsocietydictatedthateducationbecon“guredinsuchawaythatlimitedittoaselectgroup,anintellectualelite.Indeed,asIwillshow,itwascon“guredinsuchawaythatthelearningofthecomplexcuneiformsystemwasbutonepartofamuchmorecomprehensiveIntheOldBabylonianperiod,muchofthiseducationwasquitesmallinscaleandtookplaceintheedubba,ŽaSumerianwordforschoolŽthatwaslaterrenderedbytheAkkadian¯t-ttablethouse.ŽThisedubbawaspresidedoverbytheummia,Žmasterscribe.ItmaywellbethatthetablethouseŽwasoftentheummiasownhome.Sincescribalof“cewasoften10.SimoParpola,TheManWithoutaScribeandtheQuestionofLiteracyintheAssyrianEmpire,Žin¨gezualtorientalischenundmittelmeerischenKulturen:Festschriftfu¨rWolfgangRo¨llig,ed.B.Pongratz-Leisten,H.Ku¨hne,andP.Xella(Neukirchen-Vluyn:NeukirchenerVerlag,1997),315…24.11.A.LeoOppenheim,ANoteontheScribesinMesopotamia,ŽinStudiesinHonorofBennoLandsbergeronHisSeventy-“fthBirthday,April21,1965,ed.T.H.Gu¨teborkandT.Jacobsen(Chicago:OrientalInstitutePress,1965),253…56;P.Michalowski,CharismaandControl:OnContinuityandChangeinEarlyMesopotamianBureaucraticSystems,ŽinTheOrganizationofPower:AspectsofBureaucracyintheAncientNearEast,ed.M.GibsonandR.D.Biggs(Chicago:OrientalInstitute,1987),47…57;GiuseppeVisicato,ThePowerandtheWriting:TheEarlyScribesofMesopotamia(Bethesda,MD:CDL,2000).12.Thereissigni“cantdebateaboutthis.Mosthaveassumedinthepastthatonlyafewcouldhavelearnedthecomplexsignsystemincuneiform,butothershavecalledattentiontothewayculturessuchasJapanandChina,withsimilarlycomplexsignsystems,haveachievedlevelsofliteracythatsurpassthoseofmanycultureswithalphabeticsystems.SeeMogensTrolleLarsen,WhatTheyWroteonClay,ŽinLiteracyandSociety,ed.KarenSchousboeandMogensTrolleLarsen(Copenhagen:AkademiskForlag,1989),121…48.13.ForadiscussionoftranslationissuesattendingtheSumeriantermseeKonradVolk,Edubbaaunda-Literatur:Ra¨tselundLo¨sungen,Ž90(2000):2…3.ForanotherproposalseeWilliamW.Hallo,NippurOriginals,ŽinDumu-e2-dub-ba-a:StudiesinHonorofAkeW.Sjoberg,ed.H.Behrens,D.Loding,andM.T.Roth(Philadelphia:BabylonianSection,UniversityMuseum,1989),237.14.H.Waetzoldt,KeilschriftundSchuleninMesoptoamienundEbla,ŽinErziehungsundUnterrichtsmeth-odenimhistorischenWandel,ed.LenzKriss-RettenbeckandMaxLiedtke(BadHeilbrunn:Linkhardt,1986),30;Leclerge´dUr,432…34;Volk,Edubbaa,Ž5…8.ForlaterperiodsseeWaetzoldt,KeilschriftundSchulen,Ž39.Foranilluminatingstudyofonearchaeological“nd,HouseFinNippur,thatisaparticularlylikelycandidateforsuchasmall-scaleschool,seeEleanorRobson,TheTabletHouse:AScribalSchoolinOldBabylonianNippur,Ž95(2001):39…66.AsRobsonpointsout(p.62),this“ndsuggeststhateducationoccurredonasmallerscalethanisusuallypresupposed.
ancientmesopotamiahereditary,thescribesstudentsoftenmayhavebeenhisownsons.Yet,intheanalogouscaseofEgypt,ithasbeenpointedoutthataboutonehalfofthosestudentseducatedasscribeswouldhavediedbeforebeingabletoactasWithinthisancientworldoflimitedlifeexpectancy„especiallywhencombinedwithoccasionalexpansionsintheneedfortrainedscribes„itoftenwasnotenoughmerelytotrainonesownsonsasscribes.Otherstudentsneededtobeacceptedintotheeducationalprocess.Thatsaid,thiswasfamily-stylededucation.Whetherornotstudentswerethebiologicalchildrenofagivenscribe,theeducationalrolesinthissettingwereframedasfamilyroles,andthenumberofstudentsprobablywasquitesmall.Theteacherwaseitherthestudentsrealfatherortookonthatrole.Thestudentwastheson.ŽOlderbrothersŽ(sing.es-gal)alsoseemtohaveplayedanimportantrole.TogetherthisscribalfamilyŽsocializedyoungpeople„usuallymenintothescribalvocation,teachingthemnotonlythemethodsofwritingbutalsoanentiresystemofvaluesandperspectives,includingvaluefortheirownprofession,cherishingoftradition,andloyaltytotheking.Mostindicatorssuggestaprocessofinstructionmuchresemblingthatofanapprenticeship,butnotanapprenticeshipthatfocusedexclusivelyonproducingpracticaldoc-Rather,studentswhoprogressedwereinductedintothescribalfam-ilysŽprojectofmemorizingandperforming„whetherorallyorthroughpro-ductionofwrittencopies„theirheritageofancientstandardtexts.Indeed,asNickVeldhuisinparticularhasstressed,studentslearnedfarmoreSumerianthantheyneededfortheperformanceofbureaucraticorcommercialduties,andtoolittleAkkadian.Evensubjectslikemathematicsoftenfocusedonhighlytheoreticalproblems,suchashowtolaysiegetoacitywithanun“n-ishedramp.Ultimately,thiseducationbyfamilyŽapprenticeshipencompassedboth15.JohnBainesandChristopherEyre,FourNotesonLiteracy,ŽGo¨ttingerMiszellen61(1983):72…73.16.H.Waetzoldt,DerSchreiberalsLehrerinMesopotamien,ŽinSchreiber,Magister,Lehrer:ZurGeschichteundFunktioneinesBerufsstandes,ed.JohannGeorgPrinzvonHohenzollernandMaxLiedtke(BadHeilbrunn:JuliusKlinkhardt,1989),39.AsVandeMierooppointsout,thesefamilytermsshouldnotbetakentooliterallyTheAncientMesopotamianCity[Oxford:ClarendonPress,1997],220…21.17.Gesche,,4,214…16.18.OftenthesonofthetablethouseŽbutalso,asinExamtextA,justtheson.Ž19.Oldertreatmentsoftenhadalongerlistofpersonnel,oftendependingonmisinterpretationofdatafromthelexicallists.OnthedataandproblemseeNiekVeldhuis,ElementaryEducationatNippur:TheListsofTreesandWoodenObjects(Groningen:Styx,1997),24…26.20.ForanexcellentsurveyoftheevidenceforeducationofgirlsandwomenseeMeier,Women.Ž21.Gesche,,147…52,locatestheloyaltytothekingfor“rstmillenniumeducation,partic-ularlyinthe“rstlevelofeducation.22.Seeesp.AageWestenholz,OldAkkadianSchoolTexts:SomeGoalsofSargonicScribalEducation,ŽArchivfu¨rOrientforschung25(1974):106…7;Michalowski,CharismaandControl,Ž63;Veldhuis,Elementary,82,142…46;H.L.J.Vanstiphout,ICanPutAnythinginItsRightPlace:GenericandTypologicalStudiesasStrategiesfortheAnalysisandEvaluationofMankindsOldestLiterature,ŽinAspectsofGenreandTypeinPre-ModernLiteraryCultures,vol.1,ed.BertRoestandHermanVanstiphout(Groningen:Styx,1999),90…91;Gesche,,212(seealso19onpracticalexercises).Cf.Waetzoldt,KeilschriftundSchulen,Ž41.23.Michalowski,CharismaandControl,Ž63;Veldhuis,ElementaryEducation,80…82,140…46;cf.Waet-zoldt,KeilschriftundSchulen,Ž41.24.J.Høyrup,InMeasure,Number,andWeight:StudiesinMathematicsandCulture(Albany,NY:SUNYPress,1994),65…66.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationnarrowertechnicalcompetencies(particularlyinmasteryoftheSumero-Akkadianwritingsystem)andbroaderenculturation.Ontheonehand,stu-dentsgraduallylearnedhowtopreparedocuments,includingsomevaguelypracticalmodellettersandcontractstowardtheendoftheirelementaryedu-Someevenprogressedtothepointwheretheirownadvancedworkasapprenticeswas,atthesametime,referencematerialforfuturestudents.Ontheotherhand,muchofthecurriculumfocusedondocumentsandcom-petenciesthatwerenotdirectlypertinenttotheirworkasscribes,butstillfoundationalenoughtotheiridentitytobeincludedinthescribalcurriculumforcenturies.TheearlyoutlinesofthisscribalcurriculumemergeintheOldBabylonianperiod,where“ndsofeducationaltextsaremostplentifulandwherewe“rstseetheschooldialoguesthatareamongourprimarydataforeducationinancientMesopotamia.Thisiswhenwe“ndasetofremarkablysimilarhigherleveleducationaltexts„textsbeyondthelexicalandsign-liststage„acrosssouthernMesopotamiaatsitessuchasNippur,Uruk,Ur,Kish,Sippar,andAndthisiswhenthemonarchiesofUr-IIIkingslikeShulgiandOldBabyloniankingslikeHammurabibegintoachieveakindofcentralizationofdisparatecitystatesthathadnotbeenachievedbefore.Eventually,towardtheendoftheelementarystageofOldBabylonianed-ucation,thestudentlearnedsomebasicmodeldocuments„modelletters,hymns,treaties,andcertainclassicaldocuments.Apparentlycertainprover-bialcollectionswereamongthe“rsttextstobelearned,bothfortheircontentandforinstructioninelementarySumeriangrammar.Nevertheless,thisgno-micmaterialwasonlyasmallproportionofteachingmaterialanddidnotmakeupaclearlyde“nedgroupofspecialwisdomŽtexts.Atleastone25.F.R.Kraus,Briefschreibu¨bungenimaltbabylonischenSchulunterricht,ŽJaarberichtvanhetvooraziatisch-egyptischgezelschap16(1964):16…39;WilliamW.Hallo,IndividualPrayerinSumerian:TheCon-tinuityofaTradition,Ž88(1968):76;P.Michalowski,ReviewofLuigiCagni,BriefeausdemIraqMuseum.AltbabylonischeBriefe8[Leiden1980],Ž35(1983):227;Veldhuis,ElementaryEducation,41…63.Gesche,,169…71,notesthat„inthe“rstmillennium„theissueofpracticalityappearstohavebeenmoreprominentinnonstandardizedmaterials.26.OnthisseeespeciallyVeldhuis,ElementaryEducation,80…82,140…46,andGesche,3…8,72,121.27.A.W.Sjo¨berg,TheOldBabylonianEduba,ŽinSumerologicalStudiesinHonorofThorkildJacobsenonHisSeventiethBirthday,June71974,ed.S.J.Lieberman,etal.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1975)176…78;Waetzoldt,KeilschriftundSchulen,Ž39;Michalowski,CharismaandControl,Ž57…67;cf.VanDeMieroop,CuneiformTexts,58,ontheproblemoftooexclusiveafocusonissuesofpower.Veldhuis,ElementaryEducation27…28,notesthatthelexicaltraditionwasactuallymorestableintheperiodpriortotheOldBabylonianera,whenmostwouldlocatethestandardizationofthecurriculum.Inthissense,Sjo¨bergsandothersanalyzesneedtobenuanced.Atthesametime,thehigherlevelstandardepicandhymnictexts“rstemergetoprominenceduringthetimeofempiresunderdiscussion.Forstudiesofpre-Ur-IIIeducationseeWestenholz,OldAkkadianSchoolTextsŽ;BenjaminR.Foster,EducationofaBureaucratinSargonicSumer,ŽArchiveOrienta´lnš50(1982):238…41(bothofwhomdiscusssomeexamplesofuseofroyalnarrativesineducation).28.ForanilluminatingbriefdiscussionoftheshiftfromUr-IIItotheOldBabylonianperiodseeNiekVeldhuis,MesopotamianCanons,ŽinHomer,theBibleandBeyond:LiteraryandReligiousCanonsintheAncientWorld,ed.MargaritFinkelbergandGuyG.Strousma(Leiden:Brill,2003),13…14.29.Veldhuis,ElementaryEducation,60…62.30.NiekVeldhuis,SumerianProverbsinTheirCurricularContext,Ž120(2000):385…87.Onthe
ancientmesopotamiahymnictext,Lipit-IshtarhymnB,appearstohavebeenwidelyusedbecauseitcombinedinstructioninbasicvaluesconcerningroyaltywithprogressivein-troductionofbasicSumeriangrammar.Inaddition,arecentstudyhassug-gestedthatthreeotherhymns„Iddin-DaganB,Enlil-baniA,andNisabahymnA„likewiseformedpartoftheconclusionoftheelementarycurriculumdur-ingtheOldBabylonianperiod,expandingonformsandgrammarlearnedinLipit-IshtarB.Studentsappeartohavemovedthroughtwomainstagesinthisearlycurriculum.The“rststagefocusedonteachingthestudentstherudimentsofancientSumerianlanguageandSumerianvaluesthroughmemorizingandcopyingshortexcerptsofafairlycircumscribedgroupoflexicalandothertexts.Thestudentstartedbylearninghowtoproducethebasicsignsofthecunei-formsystem.Wehaveafewexamplesofsmallclaytabletsfromtheveryoutsetofeducationwheretheyoungstudentpracticedbasiccuneiformwedgesre-peatedly.SoonthestudentstartedmemorizingSumeriansignlists:learningbasicandmoreadvancedsigns,namesandthenlonglistsofwords,signsthatrenderedmultipleSumerianwords,andsoon.BytheOldBabylonianperiod,somelistsofthissortincludedpronunciationsinAkkadian,oneamongseveralindicationsthatthesestudentswerelearningSumerianasasecondlanguage.Mostexercisesinthemostelementarystageswereshort,oftenwiththebigbrotherŽ(-gal)orfatherŽ(/master)copyingacoupleoflinesonaroundedtablet,andthestudentcopyingthembelow.Sometimestheselineswouldbeabriefproverborexcerptfromaprayer.Farmoreoftenitwouldbeasectionfromastandardlexicalorsignlist.Ineithercase,mostexercisesatthisstageincludedafairlynarrowrangeoftexts.Afterlearningtoworkwithclaytabletsandwritingimplements,studentswouldstartwiththe100-to200-lineSyllableAlphabetBŽthatwalkedthestudentthroughelementarycunei-formsignsandcombinationsofsigns.Manywouldthenmoveontothe116-itemTU-TA-TIoverviewofsyllablecombinations,thenalistofnames,andpartsofthefamousurlistof3,000to3,500Sumeriannouns,organizedbysubject.AdvancedstudentswouldlearnlistslikeProto-Ea,whichgaveanoverviewofallpossible(andafewimpossible)valuesforcuneiformsignsandsigncombinations.problemsofapplyingthewisdomŽcategorytoMesopotamiangnomicandothermaterialseeW.G.Lambert,BabylonianWisdomLiterature(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1960),1…2.
31.H.L.J.Vanstiphout,Lipit-EstharsPraiseintheEdubba,Ž30(1978):33…39;H.L.J.Vanstiphout,HowDidTheyLearnSumerian?Ž31(1979):118…26.32.SteveTinney,OntheCurricularSettingofSumerianLiterature,Ž61(1999):159…68.Foracom-parisonofTinneysresultswiththe“ndsinHouseFinNippur(aprobableschool)seeRobson,TabletHouse,Ž51,53.33.ThestandardtreatmentofthisisnowVeldhuis,ElementaryEducation,esp.40…63.AnotherrecentoverviewisVanstiphout,RightPlace,Ž83.SeeRobson,TabletHouse,Ž47…50,forcomparisonofVeldhuissresultswiththedistributionoftextsinHouseFofNippur.34.ThedecisiveworkonthiswasdoneinVeldhuis,ElementaryEducation,esp.41…58.Forabrieferover-viewseeNiekVeldhuis,ContinuityandChangeintheMesopotamianLexicalTradition,ŽinRoestandVansti-AspectsofGenreandTypeinPre-ModernLiteraryCultures,vol.1,103…8.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationThemasteryoftheseandotherlistsrequiredfeatsofmemorizationnottypicalofmuchpresentdayeducation,andthisisre”ectedinsomeofthedataforMesopotamianeducation.Astudentinonedialogueboastshecangivethe600LUentriesintheircorrectorderŽandMyteacherhadtoshowmeasignonlyonce,andIcouldaddseveralfrommemory.ŽThisincludesatleastabitofexaggeration,sincetheLUlistdoesnotincludesixhundredNevertheless,itsuggestsatleasttheidealofmemorizinglargenum-bersofsignsintheircorrectorder.Waetzoldtmentions“ndingapairofstudentcopiesofashorter,123-linesectionofalist.Oneoftheselistswascompletedfully,ostensiblyfrommemory.Intheothercase,thelistdissolvesaroundline72intoconfusedlines,withthestudentapparentlyrequiredtocopy8linesperfectlyontheothersideaspunishment.Anotherindicationofthedif“cultyofthememorizationtaskisalettertranslatedbyMiguelCivilemphasizingtheimpossibilityoflearningthescribalartsanywherebutNippur:Theycannotlearnthescribalart.Onecannotrecitetwentyorthirtytimesthelexicalentries,onecannotinterpretthesongstenortwentytimes.ŽAtsomepointthestudentappearstohavemovedintoasecondstage,oneinvolvingincreasingautonomyandmasteryofabroadeningrangeofcontin-uoustexts.He(oroccasionallyshe)branchedoutintoothersubjectsandlongerextractsfromamorediversegroupofstandardtexts.Suchstudentscontinuedtomasterthelexicallistsandstudiedmath,surveying,music,andvariousadministrativeprocedures.Theydrewupmodeladministrativeandlegaldocumentsandcopiedclassicalroyalinscriptionsbyfamouskings.Stu-dentsalsocopiedanumberoflongermythicandproverbialtexts.Asinthecaseofthelexicallists,theresultwasaremarkablelevelofrecallofthegiventexts.Forexample,HartmutWaetzoldtmentionsapostcard-sizedtablethold-ing“vecompositionsminutelywrittenonit,atotalof639lines.Becauseofspacelimitations,thescribeoftenincludedonlythe“rstpartofagivenline,presumablybeingabletocompletetherestthroughoralrecall.AlthoughtheSumeriankingdomsthatarethefocusofmanyofthesetextshaddiedout,theOldBabyloniancurriculumfocusedonSumerianhymnsandepics,particularlyaseriesoftentextsthatarefeaturedinvaryingordersacross35.H.L.J.Vanstiphout,TheDialogueBetweenanExaminerandaStudent,ŽinTheContextofScripture1:CanonicalCompositionsfromtheBiblicalWorld,ed.WilliamW.HalloandK.L.Younger(Leiden:Brill,1997),592(lines19…20and34…35).36.Vanstiphout,Dialogue,Ž592,n.5.37.Waetzoldt,SchreiberalsLehrer,Ž35.38.MiguelCivil,FromtheEpistolaryoftheEdubba,ŽinWisdom,GodsandLiterature:StudiesinAssyriologyinHonourofW.G.Lambert,ed.A.R.GeorgeandIrvingFinkel(WinonaLake,IN:Eisenbrauns,2000),106…7.39.Veldhuis,ElementaryEducation,40;ALateOldBabylonianProto-Kagal/NiggaTextandtheNatureoftheAcrographicLexicalSeries,ŽActaSumerologica20(1998):208…10.40.KarenR.Nemet-Nejat,SystemsforLearningMathematicsinMesopotamianScribalSchools,ŽJournalforNearEasternStudies54(1995):241…60;DailyLifeinAncientMesopotamia(Westport,CT:Greenwood,1998),41.Waetzoldt,SchreiberalsLehrer,Ž36.ForotherargumentsregardingtheprobableimportanceoforalityandmemoryseeVeldhuis,ContinuityandChange,Ž109;Gesche,,70…72(thelatterwithafocusonlatereducation).
ancientmesopotamiaarangeofcatalogues:forexample,Lipit-IstarA,songoftheHoe,Enkisjour-neytoNippur,Gilgamesh,andHuwawa.Yetthecurriculumnowalsoin-cludedAkkadiantranslation-adaptationsofolderSumerianworks,suchastheGilgameshepic(aradicaladaptationofearlierSumeriantales)andtheAtra-hasisepic.Overall,thecurriculumincludedmythsaboutthebeginningoftime,storiessurroundingAgade(oneofthe“rstuni“edkingdomsofMeso-potamia),royalprayersandsongsofpraisetotheking,standardhymns,la-mentsoverthedestructionofancientSumeriancities,lovepoetryrevolvingaroundthecultofInannaandDumuzi,educationaldialoguesandfablesaboutdisputationsbetweenpartsofthenaturalworld,andproverbialandre”ectivewisdom.Thisbodyofliteraturewassometimessurveyedinancientcataloguesofstandardworks,butitalsoemergesclearlythroughtheselectivityoftheeducationaltextsthatwerepreservedacrossdiversesitesinancientMesopo-tamia.Thoughtherangeofliteratureincludedwasquitebroad,italsoexcludedalargenumberoftexts,suchastextsofaspeci“callyritualcharacteranddetailedallusionstothecourt.Thus,thesecataloguesdoappeartobelistsofthecontentsofanyactuallibrary/archivebutoverviewsofliteraturethatyoungscribesweresupposedtomaster.ThisOldBabyloniancurriculum,particularlythesignandlexicallists,continuedintolaterperiods,thoughtherewerealsosigni“cantvariationsacrossspaceandtime.ItscorewassystematizedduringtheKassiteperiodimmediatelyfollowingtheOldBabylonianone,andthiswasasigni“cantmovetowardthewrittenstandardizationofthesetraditionsachievedinthe“rstmil-lennium.AsVeldhuisinparticularhasstressed,weseeasigni“cantshiftinthecharacterandtreatmentofclassiceducationaltextsinthe“rstmillennium.OldSumero-Akkadianmaterialsweresigni“cantlyadaptedastheytraveledeverfurtherfromtheSumerianperiod.Severallists„likeur42.Tinney,CurricularSetting,Ž168…70,andseethecomparisonofhisconclusionswiththe“ndsinHouseFandotherlociinNippurinRobson,TabletHouse,Ž51…59(who“ndsanadditionalgroupingoffourteencompositionsprominentlyfeaturedthere).Forre”ectionsonhowtheseSumerianworksmayhavebeensiftedandadaptedaccordingtohowmuchtheycouldbeappliedtodiversecircumstancesseeWilliamW.Hallo,TowardaHistoryofSumerianLiterature,ŽinSumerologicalStudiesinHonorofThorkildJacobsen,ed.S.Lieberman(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1975),183…201.43.Asidefromsomemodelletters,the(OldBabylonian)GilgameshepicistheonlypieceofAkkadianliteratureintheHouseFschooltext“nd(Robson,TabletHouse,Ž60).ThisisatestimonytoaprominencethatIwillshowintheunusuallywidespreaduseoftheGilgameshtraditioninperipheralversionsofthiseducationalsystem.44.J.J.A.vanDijk,Lasagessesume´ro-accadienne,Recherchessurlesgenreslitterairesdestextessapientiaux(Leiden:Brill,1953),23;AdamFalkenstein,DiebabylonischeSchule,Ž4(1953):131…32;Sjo¨berg,Edubba,Ž162…72;Charpin,Leclerge´dUr,422…23;SamuelNoahKramer,TheSageinSumerianLiterature:ACompositePortrait,ŽinTheSageinIsraelandtheAncientNearEast,ed.JohnG.GammieandLeoG.Perdue(WinonaLake,IN:Eisenbrauns,1990),36…37;P.Michalowski,TheTorchandtheCenser,ŽinTheTabletandtheScroll:NearEasternStudiesinHonorofWilliamW.Hallo,ed.M.E.Cohen,D.C.Snell,andD.B.Weisberg(Bethesda,MD:CDL,1993),159…60;Vanstiphout,EdubbaEducation,Ž3…16.Vanstiphout,Lipit-EstharsPraise,Ž126,positsyetathirdlevelofeducationwherestudentscopiedtextsfortheirownsakebutacknowledgesthatthislevelonecanonlyspeculate.ŽBythatpointstudentmasterywassuchthatschoolcopiescannotbedistinguishedfromreferencecopies.45.LaurieE.Pearce,TheScribesandScholarsofAncientMesopotamia,Žin,2271…72.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationandProto-Ea„expandedtocovertensoftablets.Moreover,thekeymodeoftransmissionceasedtobethemasterscribesmindandbecameawrittenreferencecopy.Memorizationstillplayedaprominentroleasthetextwasstandardizedinwrittenform,butwealsoseethegrowingprominenceofschol-arlycommentaryliteraturetoclarifyandexplicateanincreasingly“xedandarchaicbodyoftradition.Theresultingcorpus,especiallythelisttraditions,formedthebasisforscribaleducationinMesopotamiaandbeyond.Despitesubstantialchangesinbothsocietyandthescribalof“ce,prospectivescribesstillprogressedthrougharemarkablycontinuousbilingualcurriculum,includingmanyofthesameshortexercisesincuneiformandlanguage,alongwithasimilarlistofstan-dardizedworksfromanevermoredistantpast.Tobesure,Sumerian,asidefromthestandardlists,radicallydiminishedinimportance.Still,itdidnotfadeawayimmediately,despitethefactthatithaddiedoutasalivinglanguagecenturiesbefore.Overall,thereislessevidenceregardingadvancedstudyinlaterMesopotamianhistorybecauseadvancedexercisesappeartohavebeendoneonperishablematerials(wax-coveredboards,papyrus,andparchment)ratherthanthedurableclayofearliertimes.Nevertheless,thedatasuggeststhatstudentsstilllearnedthestandardsignandlexicallists,alongwithavary-ingarrayofkeystandardworks:theGilgameshepic,Atrahasisepic,codeofHammurabi,andsoon.WithinMesopotamia,educationunderwentsomesigni“cantshiftsinthe“rstmillennium.Someolderlistsdroppedoutofusage,andthe“rst-millenniumversionsoftheliststhatsurvivedfunctionedalongsideanarrayofnonstandardlists.Somepiecesofliterature,particularlythoseconnectedwithBabylon,becamemoreprominent,suchastheEnumaElish,Shamashhymn,andletterstoMarduk.Inaddition,becauseofincreasedfocusinthe“rstmillenniumonmagicanddivination,variousscholarlyspecialistswouldmem-orizeandcopyvariousspeci“cbodiesofliterature,suchasomenandspellThus,accordingtoPetraGesche,twotrackscharacterized“rst-46.Onvariousadaptationsofthelistsinthe“rstmillenniumseeGesche,,66…80.FortheshiftsintreatmentofthesetextsseeVeldhuis,ElementaryEducation,132…36;MesopotamianCanons.Ž47.Onmemorizationinthe“rstmillenniumseeGesche,,70…72.Oncommentariesandothersignsofanewformof(written)text-basedintertextualityseeVeldhuis,MesopotamianCanons,Ž18…27.48.Foracritiqueofpastargumentsthateducationradicallychangedordeclinedinthe“rstmilleniumseeVanDeMieroop,CuneiformTexts,220…21.49.VeldhuistracesthegradualdiminishmentoftheuseofSumerianinKassiteexercises(KassiteEx-ercises:LiteraryandLexicalExtracts,Ž52[2000]:67…94;seealsoVeldhuis,MesopotamianCanons,Ž19).GeschenotesthatthoughSumerianproverbswereremovedfromthe“rststageofstudentstudy,theywerestillfeaturedinmoreadvancedlevels(,150…52).50.MiguelCivil,Education,Žin,vol.2,305.51.OntheuseofHammurapi(anewitemintheforegoinglist)seeVictorHurowitz,SpanningtheGenerations:AspectsofOralandWrittenTransmissionintheBibleandAncientMesopotamia,ŽinFreedomand,ed.R.M.GeffenandM.B.Edelman(NewYork:KTAV,1999),16;Gesche,,217…52.Gesche,,81…152.53.Gesche,,174…83.54.Veldhuis,ElementaryEducation,134…36;KassiteExercises,Ž71…82;Gesche,,212…20.
ancientmesopotamiamillenniumeducation.Allstudentsunderwentasimilareducationinthesci-enceofcuneiformwritingandideologicaltextspromotingkingandtemple,whileonlythosescribesdestinedforascholarlyortemplecareerprogressedtospellsandthemasteryofayethigherandmoreesotericscienceofwriting:thegodscelestialwritingŽofsignsofthefutureondreams,stars,omens,livers,andsoon.Yeteventhesewrittenworksusedineducationwerebutthetipofalargelyoraliceberg.Thepointofeducationwasnotmasteryofwrittentextsperse.Rather,thesewrittentextsservedascrucialmediatofacilitatetheorallearningofSumerianandthememorizationandperformanceofstandardSumerianandAkkadianworks.Numerousaspectsofthelexicallistsandeducationalexercisespointtoalargelyoralprocessofinstruction.Earlysignandlexicallistslackapronunciationcolumn,andmanykeylinguisticrulesareomittedfromallteachingmaterials.Nevertheless,thisinformationwasapparentlycommunicatedorally,oftento“nditswayintolaterstandardteachingworks.Forexample,someearlyeducationaltextshaveonesigncopiedseveraltimesinonecolumn,withtheothercolumnstillblankforthestudentto“llinthevariousvalueshehadlearnedforthegivensign.Inaddition,manyofthecopiesofstandardlistsexhibitthekindsoferrorsthatwouldbetypicaloforaldicta-tion,includingplaceswherestudentsinadvertentlysubstitutedtheBabyloniantranslationofagiventermwheretheyweresupposedtowritetheSumerian.OneOldBabylonianlistiscitedbyabilingualopeningline,eventhoughourextantcopiesareallunilingualinSumerian.AsCivilputsit,theselexicallistsareonlyaskeleton,the”eshoftheoralteachingisgoneforever.ŽInaddition,theschooldialoguesdescribeaneducationalprocesswhereoraldictationandaccurateoralperformancewerecentral.Thoughstudentsoftenlearnedearlywritingskillsthroughcopyingshortliteraryexcerptswrittenbyateacher,moreadvancedstudentsappeartohavelearnedthroughaprocessofdictationandrecitation.Theteachertellsthestudentinonedialogue,repeatittome,sayeverythingtomeexactly.ŽAnotherdialoguehasastudentsay,55.ForsummaryofthisapproachtoMesopotamiandivinationandrelevantliterartureseeVeldhuis,Me-sopotamianCanons,Ž113…14.56.MiguelCivil,Lexicography,ŽinSumerologicalStudiesinHonorofThorkildJacobsen,ed.S.Liebermann(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1975),130…31.SeveraloftheforegoingargumentscomefromVeldhuis,ContinuityandChange,Ž109.Onthispointcf.theearlierexpressionoftheoppositeopinioninBennoLands-berger,ScribalConceptsofEducation,ŽinTheCityInvincible,ed.CarlH.KraelingandRobertM.Adams(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1960),116.SeealsoCivil,Education,Ž305;Gesche,,70…71,57.ForasummaryofthedataseeGesche,,169.SeealsoWaetzoldt,KeilschriftundSchulen,Ž41…42,andVeldhuis,ElementaryEducation,55.OtherimportantdiscussionsincludeBendtAlster,DumuzisDream:AspectsofOralPoetryinaSumerianMyth,Mesopotamia(Copenhagen:AkademiskForlag,1972),esp.26,126…32;LugalbandaandtheEarlyEpicTraditioninMesopotamia,ŽinLingeringoverWords:StudiesinAncientNearEasternLiteratureinHonorofWilliamL.Moran,ed.TzviAbuschetal.(Atlanta,GA:ScholarsPress,1990),63…64;OralandWrittenPoetry,Žesp.24;JerroldCooper,BabblingonAboutRecoveringMesopotamianOrality,ŽinMesopotamianEpicLiterature:OralorAural?,ed.H.L.J.VanstiphoutandM.Vogelzang(Lewiston,NY:Mellon,1991),esp.119…21.58.A.W.Sjo¨berg,DerVaterundseinmissratenerSohn,Ž25(1973):115.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationIexplainedmyexercise-tabletstomyfather,recitedmytablettohim,andhewasdelighted.ŽEventually,studentsnotonlyhadtomemorizeindividualelementsofstan-dardworksbutalsobeabletoplacethetextsthattheyhadmemorizedintothecorrectorder.ImentionedearlieradepictionofastudentclaimingtohavememorizedsixhundredLUentriesintheircorrectsequence.Weseeanotherreferencetothisprocessinthefollowingdescriptionofthegoalofeducation.Ifyouhavelearnedthescribalart,youhaverecitedallofit,thedifferentlines,chosenfromthescribalart,(thenamesof)theanimalslivinginthesteppeto(thenamesof)artisansyouhavewritten(but)afterthatyouhate(writing).Anotherdialoguesaysyoumayrecitefromthescribalart,butyoucannotplaceitinitsrightplaceŽ;yetanother:thewholevocabularyofthescribalartIwillreciteforyou,Iknowitmuchbetterthanyou.ŽMuchoftheinstructioninoralperformancewasprobablyitselforal,butwe“ndscatteredwrittenindicationsoftheoral-musicaldimensionsinthetextsthemselves.Forexample,AnneKilmershowshowtheAtrahasisepicissaturatedwithindicationsofdesignfororal-musicalperformance:structuresofrepetition,musicaldirections,andsoon.Suchmusicalstructure,alongwithrhythmicparallelismandotherstructuresoftenconnectedwithorality,Žwouldhaveaidedastudentinmemorizingthewrittentextsattheheartofthescribalcurriculum.Andthisoral-musicaldimensionisnotonlyattestedinsuchearlytexts.WilfredG.Lambertdiscussesa“rst-millenniumtext,alateBabylonianSumero-AkkadianliturgytoNabu,thatincludesavarietyofaddi-tionalnotesindicatinghowitshouldbepronouncedandsung.Weseesimilarindicationsofperformanceinoldercopiesoflamentations,andtheseindica-tionsoforalperformanceandliturgicalcontextarealsofoundinthededica-tionsof“rst-millenniumeducationaltextsandlibrarydepositcopiestoNabuandothergods.Tobesure,competenceinoralperformancewasnotenough.Ithadtobe59.Nemet-Nejat,DailyLife,58…59.ForadditionaldiscussionoftheoraldimensionofearlyeducationandtextualityseeespeciallyAlster,OralandWrittenPoetry,ŽandCooper,MesopotamianOrality.Ž60.Sjo¨berg,Edubba,Ž163…64.SeeGesche,,169,foradditionalindicatorsoforalpeda-gogy.61.ForgeneraldiscussionsseeCooper,MesopotamianOrality,Ž114…17,andAlster,OralandWrittenPoetry,Ž45…46.62.A.Kilmer,FugalFeaturesofAtrahasis:TheBirthTheme,ŽinMesopotamianPoeticLanguage:SumerianandAkkadian,ed.M.VogelzangandH.L.J.Vanstiphout(Groningen:Styx,1996),127…36.63.ForaveryhelpfulsurveyofempiricalstudyoftextualstructuresandmemorizationseeRubin,MemoryinOldTraditions,15…193.64.W.G.Lambert,TheConverseTablet:ALitanywithMusicalInstructions,ŽinNearEasternStudiesinHonorofWilliamFoxwellAlbright,ed.HansGoedicke(Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1971),337…39.Thisliturgyalsoisinterestinginrelationtotheforegoingdiscussionofmemorization,becauseitshowsthetransferalofmotifsfromolderNinurtaliturgiestotheNabucultthatwassoimportantinthe“rstmillennium.65.Vanstiphout,RightPlace,Ž91…92;Gesche,,157…58.
ancientmesopotamiacombinedwithpro“ciencyintheSumero-Akkadianwritingsystem.Asaresult,onemeasureofastudentssuccesswaswhetherhiswritinghandŽmatchedthepro“ciencyofhismouth.ŽForexample,onedialogueproclaimsascribe(whose)handrivals(his)mouth,heisindeedascribe,Žwhileanotherhasonescribecriticizeanother,sayingyourhandmaybefair,buyourhanddoesnotrival(your)mouth.ŽWiththe“rstmillennium,weseeincreasingattes-tation„alongsidecontinuedmentionoforaltransmission„ofafocusonac-curatevisualcopyingoftexts,matchinghandnowtoeye.Asalways,thisneednotbeawrittentextualitythatisopposedtoorality.Forexample,theInstructionofShuruppakcombinesanintroductorysceneofShuruppakorallyinstructinghisson(lines1…8)withaconcludingsectionthatdepictsthetextasthewrittendepositofthisoralteachingforfuturegenerations(lines280…281).ItwasateachingthatinturnwasusedinthelatestagesofSumerianoral-writtenelementaryeducation.AndVictorHurowitzhassurveyedarangeofexamplesofMesopotamiancompositionsthatcallfortheir(written)teachingtobemem-orizedandputinthemouthŽofsubsequentgenerations:ShulgihymnsBandE,thePrologueandEpilogueofHammurapi,twohymnsattributedtoAssurbanipal,theEnumaElishandErraepics,andeventheBel-etirsatireonsuchelevatedliterature.Ultimately,thegoalwasforthesuccessfulscribetobeabletobothwritedownandaccuratelyrecite„probablymusicallyinsomecases„thelistsandstandardliteraryworksthatwerethefoundationofhisscribaleducation.includedsignlistsandlexicalworks,namelists,modeltreaties,hymnsandepics,royalhymns,educationaldialogues,andsoon.Itevenincludedhistoricaltraditions,ofteninproseform,thoughperhapspoeticizedthroughcanting.Thetotalmaywellhaverunintotensofthousandsoflines(ortheequivalent)forsomestudents.Thiseducationalcorpuswasmarkedoffinseveralwaysfromordinaryspeech.IntheKassiteperiodandlater,colophonsonsomemythictextsiden-ti“edthemasdivinewordsand/orattributedthemtotheApkallu,agroupofsemidivinesageswholivedbeforethe”ood.Theummias,Žmasterscribes,66.Sjo¨berg,Edubba,Ž170…71.67.Vanstiphout,RightPlace,Ž112.68.IamindebtedforthisreferencetoMichaelFox,whoincludesitinWisdomandtheSelf-PresentationofWisdomLiterature,ŽinReadingfromRighttoLeft:EssaysontheHebrewBibleinHonourofDavidJ.A.Clinesed.J.CherylExumandH.G.M.Williamson(Shef“eld:Shef“eldAcademicPress,2003),162.ForthefunctionofinstructionslikeShuruppakinthebroadereducationalsystemseeparticularlyVeldhuis,SumerianProverbs,Ž69.Hurowitz,Aspects,Ž14…20.70.OnthemusicaldimensionseeparticularlyA.KilmerandMiguelCivil,OldBabylonianMusicalInstructionsRelatingtoHymnody,Ž38(1986):94…97;A.Kilmer,MusicalPracticeinNippur,ŽinattheCentennial,ed.MariadeJongEllis(Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,1992),101…12;FugalFeaturesofAtrahasis:TheBirthTheme.Ž71.FordiscussionofvariantsinhistoricaltraditionsandevidencethatsuchtraditionswereusedinOldBabylonianeducationseeCharpin,Leclerge´dUr,425…26.Thisusageapparentlycontinuedintothe“rstmillen-ium.SeeGesche,,210…11.72.SeetheestimatesforSumerianandotherliteraturesinWilliamW.Hallo,SumerianLiterature:BackgroundtotheBible,Ž4,3(1988):30,38.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationaredepictedasthedescendantsofthesemythicalApkallus.Inthisway,thestandardcurriculumthatthesescribestaughtwasidenti“edasfromalong-distantpastand(later)assemidivine.Inaddition,thewrittencharacterofthesetextswasimportant.Writinghasanuminouscharacterinpredominantlyoralsocieties.InthecaseoftheMesopotamianstandardcurriculum,writinggaveanaddedcredibilitytotheclaimthatthesetextswereaccuratelytrans-mittedfromalongbygoneage.Finally,thelanguageofthesetextsmarkedthemasspecial.ManywerewritteninthedeadlanguageofSumerian,alan-guagethathaddroppedoutofordinaryusagebytheOldBabylonianperiodandwasexclusivelypreservedintheschoolandtemple.EventhoseinAkkadianwerewritteninadialectthatwouldhavebeensomewhatforeigntostudentsaftertheOldBabylonianperiod.Moreover,insofarasthesetextsfeaturedspe-cialpoeticforms„parallelism,rhythm,andsoon„and/orwereperformedinaspecial(e.g.musical)way,theseelementsoflanguagelikewisemarkedthewordsofthesetextsasspecialspeech.Occasionally,thetextsthemselvescontainclaims,usuallytowardtheircon-clusion,abouttheirdivineoriginandtheblessingsthatwillcometotheonewhomemorizesandperformsthem.FromtheOldBabylonianperiodtheAtra-hasisepicconcludeswithaclaimthatitwascommissionedandapprovedbythegods(IIIviii9…16),andanIshtarhymnidenti“esitselfasEasownwordsŽandthenwishesablessingontheking(xiv).FromtheKassiteperiod,theEnumaElishenjoinsthefather/teachertorepeatandmaketheson/studentunderstandŽtherevelationofMardukrepresentedbyhissong(VII145).early“rst-milleniumErraepiclikewiseclaimsdivineauthorshipandapproval,andproclaimsthatthescribewhomemorizesitshallbesparedintheenemycountryandhonoredinhisownlandŽ(V54…55).ŽAndlaterAshurbanipalasksablessingfromShamashonanyonewhomemorizeshishymntoSha-mashandperformsit(21…25).InthesetextsspanningabroadrangeofAk-kadiantradition,weseeaf“rmationoftheworthofmemorizingandperform-ingancient,divinelyauthoredorauthorizedwrittentraditions.73.Gadd,TeachersandStudents,13…14;E.Reiner,TheEtiologicalMythoftheSevenSages,Ž(1961):1…11;W.G.Lambert,ACatalogueofTextsandAuthors,Ž16(1962):esp.73…77;Kramer,TheSageinSumerianLiterature,Ž31;WilliamW.Hallo,InformationfromBeforetheFlood:AntediluvianNotesfromBabylonandIsrael,Ž7(1991):173…76;BenjaminR.Foster,Archaic,Classical,Mature,vol.1ofBeforetheMuses:AnAnthologyofAkkadianLiterature,2nded.(Bethesda,MD:CDLPress,1996),20…21.NotealsothecataloguepublishedinIrvingL.Finkel,OnLateBabylonianMedicalTraining,ŽinWisdom,GodsandLiterature:StudiesinAssyriologyinHonourofW.G.Lambert,ed.A.R.GeorgeandI.L.Finkel(WinonaLake,IN:Eisenbrauns,2000),148…49.74.TranslationfromFoster,BeforetheMuses,75.Foster,BeforetheMuses,76.TranslationisslightlyadaptedfromBenjaminR.Foster,Mature,Late,vol.2ofBeforetheMuses,followingCagnisrenderingofih¯zu)asmandaamemoriaŽ/imparareamemoriaŽ„learnbyheartŽ(followingCADA/1177…178);LuigiCagni,Lepopeadierra,Studisemitici(Rome:Institutodistudidelvincinooriente,1969),128…29,257.77.TranslatedinFoster,BeforetheMuses,vol.2,711.78.Giventhesecitations,alongwithsomebroaderclaimsforMesopotamianliteratureinsomecolophons,I“ndimplausibletheargumentsofsomethattheOldBabyloniancorpuswasarelativelynontheologicalliteraryŽcanon.Cf.Hurowitz,Canon,Ž8;Veldhuis,MesopotamianCanons,Ž17…18.
ancientmesopotamiaTheGoalofScribalEducation:AHigher(Sumerian)HumanityOverall,theeducationalprocessworkedonmultiplelevelstocreateacertainkindofpersonhoodintheprospectivescribe,toopen[his]eyes.ŽForex-ample,ariddleusedinsomeeducationaltextsdescribestheasfollows.Ahousebasedonafoundationliketheskies,Ahouseonehascoveredwithaveillikea(secret)tabletbox,Ahousesetonabaselikeagoose,ŽWitheyesclosedoneentersit,Withopenedeyesonecomesout,Riddleanswer:theEdubba.TheseopenedeyesŽmarkedtheachievementofwhatthesetraditionsdescribeashumanity.ŽAstheepigramattheoutsetofthechaptersuggests,prospectivestudentsweretounderstandtheirprocessofeducationasgaininghumanityŽatthehandsoftheirgods,Žtheirmasterteachers.Mastergodwho(shapes)humanity,youaremygod!YouhaveopenedmyeyesasthoughIwereapuppy;youhaveformedhumanitywithinme.Inyetanothertext,ascribeboastsofbeingmorehumanŽthanhismaster.InothertextseducationalcompetenceisequatedwithbeingSumerian.ŽAstudentinonetextclaimshisintellectualsuperioritytoanotherinthefollowingway:youcantbelikeme,IamaSumerian.ŽThus,theprojectofMesopo-tamianeducationwasnotjusttheformationofaparticularscribalclass.Ratheritwasfocusedontheperpetuationofhumanityingeneral,humanityasde“nedbySumero-Akkadianculture.Itensuredthathumanity,ŽasshapedinitiallybytheSumerians,wouldnotdieout.ThishumanityŽwasintegrallyconnectedwiththemonarchy,particularlythepersonoftheking.Manykeytextsinthestandardcurriculumwerecreatedinthecontextofscribaleducationunderroyalsponsorship,andtheycelebratedthekingasthepreeminentsage.AccordingtotextsproducedduringtheUr-IIIandOldBabylonianperiods,itwastheking,notthescribe,whoembodiedthefullestidealofhumanityintheSumero-Akkadianworld.Hewastheonewhoexhibitedandpreserved(SumerianorderŽ)andsustainedthecos-Onecentralgoalofsuchscribaleducationwastoinculcateinprospec-tivescribesaportionofthewisdomoftheking,towhomtheyinturnwereto79.Volk,Edubbaa,Ž1,11.80.ThistranslationmainlyfollowsMiguelCivil,SumerianRiddles:ACorpus,ŽAulaOrientalis5(1987):20,withthemainshiftbeingamoreliteraltranslationofthe“nallinesthatfollowsVolk,Edubbaa,Ž1.81.VanDijk,Sagessesume´ro-accadienne,26.82.Gadd,TeachersandStudents,18.83.FormoreexamplesofthisideaofhumanityŽasthegoalofeducationseenowVolk,Edubbaa,Ž25…26.84.Kramer,SageinSumerianLiterature.Ž
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationbedevoted.Yetthisfocuswasnotcon“nedtotheoriginsofMesopotamianeducation.Insofarasthe“rststageof“rst-millenniumBabylonianeducationfeaturedtextsoutsideofthestandardlists,ittendedtofocusontextsthatcelebratedthekingandhiskingdom,whilecriticizingpastattemptsatrebel-Thus,thehumanityŽformedinthescribalsystemoftenwasahumanitythatorbitedaroundthesunoftheking.Thisshouldnotbeverysurprising,giventheoriginsofthestandardcurriculuminthetimeoftheemergenceofthenationalmonarchiesoftheUr-IIIandOldBabylonianperiods.Never-theless,thislinkofeducationalprocesswithnationalandsubcultureformationisakeythemethatwillemergeagainatseveralotherpointsofthisdiscus-Ononelevel,suchformationhappenedthroughstudentslearningboththemeansofwritingandappropriatingthevaluesandperspectivesofthetextstheymemorized.Onanotherlevel,therewastheimplicitcurriculumofcor-porealpunishmentandenforcedlearningofarchaicmaterial.Thisimplicitcurriculumtaughtstudentstoattend“rstandforemosttotheneedsandvaluesoftheirsuperiors„theirmasterteachers(“rstofall)andtheking.Educationaltextsfrequentlydescribehowstudentswerephysicallypunishedforfailuretofollowtheirassignmentsorexcelinthem.Yetthisonlyservedaspartofabroaderprojectofsubjectingstudentsmindstoacurriculumofoftenim-practicallanguageandverbalknowledge.AsTeresaMorganpointsoutinherstudyofasimilarprocessofmemorizationintheHellenisticworld,suched-ucationturnsthestudentintoareciterofnonsenses.ŽThereislittleinitialfocusinthissystemonthestudentactuallylearningtheforeignlanguage(Sumerianinthiscase).Inaddition,despitethecurriculumsinclusionofsomemodeltexts,itcontainedhugeamountsofimpracticalinformation:termsthatnolongeroccurredinanytransactions,ancienttextswhosereferentshadlongsincepassedaway,andsoon.EventuallyastudentmightlearntospeakSumerian,Žasonetexthasit.Butinthemeantime,healsolearnedtobeanobedientpartofabroadercommunity.Thiswasnotjustamatterofappropri-atingthevaluesofthetextsinthestandardcurriculum.Itwasalsoamatteroflearning,daybydayandyearbyyear,tobeintellectuallysubservienttoatraditionthatwasinitiallysenselesstohim.Onlyatanadvancedandlargelyuntraceablestagewerethemostsuccessfulscribescalledontocreatenewtexts,textsthatdrewheavilyonthetraditionwhilealsotransformingitinimportant85.RonaldF.G.Sweet,TheSageinMesopotamianPalacesandRoyalCourts,ŽinGammieandPerdue,SageinIsraelandtheAncientNearEast,99…107.86.Gesche,,148…49.87.TeresaMorgan,LiterateEducationintheHellenisticandRomanWorlds,CambridgeClassicalStudies(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1998),103.88.Gesche,,212.89.WilliamW.HalloandK.L.Younger,eds.,TheContextofScripture,vol.1,CanonicalCompositionsfromtheBiblicalWorld(Leiden:Brill,1997),593(Vanstiphouttrans.ofdialogue).90.Waetzoldt,KeilschriftundSchulen,Ž42;Vanstiphout,EdubbaEducation,Ž7…8.
ancientmesopotamiaThisisquiteacontrasttosomeofourcontemporarymodelsforeducationthataimtohelpachildpursuehisorherowninterests,questions,andbestcompetencies.Instead,oneofthekeycompetenciesnurturedinMesopota-mianeducation„particularlyinitsearlyandmiddlestages„wasanabilitytoleaveonesowncultureandpassionsbehindintheprocessofmemorizingavastamountofstandardtextualmaterial.AsMichalowskiputsit:Theschoolwasanideologicalmolderofminds,theplacewherefu-turemembersofthebureaucracyweresocialized,wheretheyre-ceivedacommonstockofideasandattitudeswhichboundthemto-getherasaclassandinmanywaysseparatedthemfromtheiroriginalbackgrounds.Dayafterday,yearafteryearspentmasteringprofoundlyforeigntextsshapedthesuccessfulstudentinbothobviousandmoresubtleways.Preciselyinfocusingonthatwhichwasesotericandoftenimpractical,scribes„particu-larlytheeliteones„weremarkedofffromtherestofsocietypreoccupiedwithmoremundaneconcerns.TheirvirtuosityinmasteryofanarcanewritingsystemandancientliteraturewaspreciselywhatmarkedthemoffasmorehumanŽthantheircompatriots.Indeed,historiansandtheoreticiansofed-ucationhavelongsupposedthatthehighestlevelsofeducationareoftenmarkedbytheirdistancefromthepractical,isolatingasmallgroupofthosewhocanaffordspecializationandirrelevancefromthemassofthoserelegatedtovocationalŽorotherformsofpurelyprofessionaltraining.Ifultimatelysuccessful,thestudenthimselfwouldbecomeamasterscribe,anummia(orAkkadianarru)„mergedwiththetraditionandsub-sumedinit.Thishadsigni“cantculturalimplications,sincescribesplayedakeyroleinvirtuallyeverylevelofancientMesopotamiansociety.Theywere,inmanyways,thegluethatheldtheempiretogether.Moreover,asmastersoftheancientsacredtradition,theyintegratedothersintheeliteclassintoabroadercommunalbody.AsKramerputsit:Allofthese[thestandardtexts]thestudentsweretoinculcate,inonewayoranother,inthemindsandheartsofkingsandcourtiers,ofpriestsandtempleadministrators,oncetheyhadgraduatedfromandrisentohighof“ceintempleorpalace.91.Michalowski,CharismaandControl,Ž63.92.SeeespeciallyVeldhuis,ElementaryEducation,142…46.93.Høyrup,StudiesinMathematicsandCulture,65…66.SeealsoCooperscommentsonhowrestrictedtheaudienceforsuchliteraturewouldhavebeen,Cooper,MesopotamianOrality,Ž117…19.94.SeeespeciallyM.F.D.Young,AnApproachtotheStudyofCurriculaasSocialOrganizedKnowledge,ŽKnowledgeandControl:NewDirectionsfortheSociologyofEducation,ed.M.F.D.Young(London:Collier-MacMillan,1971),19…46.95.Michalowski,CharismaandControl.Ž;W.H.vanSoldt,BabylonianLexical,ReligiousandLiteraryTexts,ŽinUgarit:EinostmediterraneasKulturzentumimaltenOrient:ErgebnisseundPerspektivenderForschung,ed.M.DietrichandO.Loretz(Mu¨nster:UgaritVerlag,1995),233;Visicato,ThePowerandtheWriting96.Kramer,SageinSumerianLiterature,Ž37.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationThus,theeducationaltextsportraythisscribewithopeneyes,Žthishumanbeing,Žasshapedforanimportantsocietalrole.Trainedbytheeducationalsystemtosubjecthismindtoanancientandlargelyforeigntradition,taughtbasicvaluesofloyaltytokingandtemple,thisscribestoodapartfromthegeneralpopulace.Thescribesowntraditionsdepictedthemasconnectedinaspecialwaytotheconnectivetissueofthecosmosandsocialorder.Iwillnowtakeabrieflookathowtheythemselvesworkedwiththosetraditions.TextualProductionandCollectioninAncientMesopotamiaEvolvingFormsofTextualCreativityTheeducationalfocusoncopyingandrecitaloftextsdidnotnecessarilymeanthatscribesreproducedtraditionsexactlyastheyfoundthem.Tobesure,attheintroductorylevels,everythingdependedonaccuraterecitationoftheoldertradition.Nevertheless,wehavenumerousdocumentedcasesoftextualrevi-sion,growth,andappropriation.Generally,suchliterarycreativitywasprobablyexercisedmostbythosehigherupinthescribal/educationalhierarchy.Forexample,“rst-millenniumcolophonsattributekeycompositionstoupper-levelscribeswithancientpedigrees.WeseeliterarycreativityateverystageofMesopotamianhistory.Theques-tion,however,ishowthiscreativityisexpressed.Intheearlieststages,scribestendedtoadaptandcreatetraditionsfreely,whileinthelaterstagesscribestendedtorecombineandtranslateoldertraditions,sometimescreatingnewmaterialbutretrojectingitbackward.Oftenwecannotreconstructdetails.Theprocessestookplacetoolongagotoaccess,thedataissketchy.Nevertheless,asinthecaseofeducation,westillhavemoredataaboutMesopotamiathanwedoaboutothercultureswhousedmoreperishablewrittenmedia.ThankstotheMesopotamianswritingonclay,wecantraceanumberofspeci“cin-stancesoftextualgrowthacrosscenturiesandextrapolatefromthem.AccordingtoHallo,duringtheUr-IIIperiodmuchtextualproductionfo-cusedonthecreationofclassicSumerianworksoutofmoreparticularizedhistoricaltexts.Forexample,thekingGudeacommissionedanepicthatwasbasedonhisownhistoricalinscriptions,anepicprobablyoriginallyrevolvingaroundtheLagashitegodNingirsu.Thisepic,withtheNippurianNinurtasubstitutedfortheLagashiteNingirsu,laterbecameapartofthestandardOldBabyloniancurriculum,anditisstillfoundintheroyallibrariesofthe“rstmillennium.KingslikeGudeacommissionedawidevarietyofhymns,oftenincludingaspeci“corobliquereferencetotheking.Andthesehymns,espe-ciallytheonesthatcouldbeseparatedfromtheirmorespeci“chistoricalcir-cumstances,thenfoundtheirwayintotheroyal-focusedscribaltraditionoflatercenturies.Forexample,theaforementionedhymnBtoLipit-Ishtar,kingofIsin(c.1934…1924.),appearsextremelyfrequentlyintheOldBabylo-97.W.G.Lambert,Ancestors,AuthorsandCanonicity,Ž11(1957):1…14;Lambert,Catalogue.Ž
ancientmesopotamianianperiodasaneducationaltext,notjustbecauseofitsroyalfocusbutper-hapsalsobecauseofitsusefulnessinteachingSumeriangrammaticalforms.OthertextswereadaptedintheNeo-Sumerianperiod,onlytofadeawayinlatercenturies.Forexample,itappearsthatacycleofhymnstoInannapossiblycomposedintheSargonidperiod(bythepriestessEnheduanna)mayhavebeenexpandedtoincludeNeo-SumeriansitesduringtheUr-IIIperiod,onlytodis-appearfromthescribalsceneaftertheOldBabylonianperiod.TheOldBabylonianperiodwasaskeyfortextproductionasitwasforeducation.Scribaleducationappearstohavefocused,inlargepart,onlearningandtransmissionofSumerianworks,manyofwhichhadbeencreatedintheUr-IIIorOldBabylonianperiods.AfewnewSumerianworkswerewrittenaswell.Nevertheless,scribesalsocreatednewAkkadiantexts,oftenadaptingearlierSumerianarchetypes.Sometimesthisissubtle,asinthecaseoftheOldBabyloniantransmissionofahistoricalŽinscriptionbyNaram-Sin(c.2254…2218).Inactuality,acomparisonofthecopiestransmittedintheOldBabylonianscribalmatrixwithearlierversionsoftheinscriptionrevealsthatthestandardOldBabylonianversionsdeviatesigni“cantlyfromtheearlierones.Forexample,inaccordancewithOldBabylonianroyalideology,thelaterversionsoftheinscriptionseparateKingNaram-Sinfromthegodsandoth-erwisemodifytheearlierinscriptionsothatitmakesmoregeneralpointsaboutAtotherpointstheOldBabylonianscribescreatedaradicalnewwholeoutofearliermaterials.Ourbest-attestedexampleisthecreationoftheAk-kadianGilgameshepic.HerescribesappeartohavebuilttheclassicAkkadianepicthroughappropriationandtransformationofSumeriantalesaboutGil-gameshthatwerecurrentintheearlierscribaltradition.ItappearsthatsuchOldBabylonianscribesfeltparticularlyfreetocreatesomethingnewoutofoldertraditionswhentheyweremakingaswitchfromaSumeriantraditiontoanewAkkadianpresentationofthetradition.Forexample,theAkkadianEnumaElishepicdrawsfreelyonchunksofSumeriancompositionsaboutEnlil,Enki,andNinurta.TheAkkadianSargonepicdrawsonSumeriantalesaboutGilgamesh,alongwithassortedinscriptionsfromthetimeofSargonandhisgrandsonNaram-Sin.AndthereareavarietyofwaysinwhichSu-meriantextsintheadvancedcurriculumbuildonandreinforcelexicalliststhatoccurredearlier.AsHermanVanstiphout,PiotrMichalowski,andothershavepointedout,98.Vanstiphout,Lipit-EstharsPraiseŽ;Vanstiphout,Sumerian.Ž99.Hallo,SumerianLiterature,Ž186…87.100.SteveTinney,ANewLookatNaram-SinandtheGreatRebellion,Ž47(1995):1…14.Seealsotheilluminatingre”ectionsbyMichaelowski(Commemoration,Writing,andGenreinAncientMesopotamia,ŽTheLimitsofHistoriography:GenreandNarrativeinAncientHistoricalTexts,ed.ChristinaShuttleworthKraus[Leiden:Brill,1999],69…90)onthecomplexintertextualrelationsbetweenNaram-Sinandotherliteraturebeforeandafterit,alongwithhelpfulquestioningoftraditionalhistoriographiccategoriesusedtoanalyzethisliterature.101.SeeespeciallyJeffreyTigay,TheEvolutionoftheGilgameshEpic(Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsyl-vaniaPress,1982).102.SeeVeldhuis,ElementaryEducation,126…28,foranoverviewanddiscussionoftheissueofdirectionofdependency.Cf.H.L.J.Vanstiphout,MemoryandLiteracyinAncientWesternAsia,Žin,2193…94.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationtheeducationalmatrixencouragedarichformofintertextualityinwhichearliercompositionswerecreatedpartlyoutofatissueofmemorizedquotationsofearlierworks.Totakejustoneexample,inHallosintroductiontoTheContextofScripture,hediscusseshowanearlySumerianformoftheSargonlegendparodieskeylinesfromtheeducationallycentralEnmerkarandtheLordofSuchintertextuallinkshelpedestablishacontinuityofonenewcom-positionwithitsprecursors,evenasthenewcompositionmightinnovateincrucialrespects.Theimpactofmemoryisindicatedbythefactthatthema-terialsincorporatedoftenarenotincorporatedprecisely.Thoughthescribemaywellhavehadvirtuallytotalrecallofthetradition,he(orshe)wasnotconsultingonetabletafteranotherinordertocopyvariouspartsintothenewcomposition.Ratherhewascomposinganewworkoutofastoreofolderworksthatcon-stitutetheauthorizedbuildingblocksofthenew.HewasnotexegetingŽorcitingŽolderworksinthewayalaterbiblicalinterpretermightdo.Rather,thescribewastrainedfromtheoutsettothinkbymeansofblocksoftraditionandexpresshimselfthroughthosetools.Putanotherway,theshapeoftheedu-cationalsystemdidnotjustteachthemasterscribe-authorasetofcuneiformsignsandrulesofgrammar.Italsogavehim(oroccasionallyher)asetofbroadertextualchunks,templates,andmotifs.Whenascribereachedahighlevelofmasteryofthetradition,hecouldthenusethismemorizedcomposi-tionallexicontocreatenewworks.Suchuseofprevioustraditionmeantthatthesenewworkswerenotjustnewbutwerecontinuousenoughwiththescribaltraditiontobecomeapartofit.Insum,amasterscribewasnotjusttaughtanactualsecondlanguage,Sumerian,butalsoanoverlaysecondlanguageŽofstandardtexts,words,andmotifs/themesfromthem.Inthisandotherculturestobestudiedlaterinthisbook,thestudentoftenabsorbedsuchmotifsandthemesatomistically.Hewouldlearnenoughinordertokeepitemsincorrectsequence,butoftenelementsoftheculturaltraditioncouldberadicallyrecombinedwhensuchascholarstartedwritinginthislanguageŽmadeupofphrasesandmotifsfromworkshehadmastered.Literarycontextandevenmeaningwereoftencom-pletelylost.Commentaryandhigherlevelexegesiswasreservedhere„asinotherinstances„foraminorityofhigh-levelstudentsandscribalmasters.MemorizationofatomizedbitsofthisliterarylanguageŽwasthe“rstandprimaryfocusformoststudents.Inaddition,thistypeoftraininginmemorizationandwritingmayhave103.H.L.J.Vanstiphout,SomeRemarksonCuneiform´critures,ŽinScriptaSignaVocis:StudiesAboutScripts,Scriptures,Scribes,andLanguagesintheNearEast,PresentedtoJ.H.Hosper,ed.H.L.J.Vanstiphoutetal.(Groningen:Forsten,1986),221;MemoryandLiteracy,Ž2193…95;Michalowski,Commemoration,Writingand104.HalloandYounger,TheContextofScripture,vol.1,xxvi…xxvii.Inanothercontext,Hallosurveysexamplesoftheincorporationofproverbialmaterial„oftenusedinearlyeducation„intolaterwritings(WilliamW.Hallo,ProverbsQuotedinEpic,ŽinAbuschetal.,LingeringoverWords,203…17).Thephenomenonofsuchappropriationissowidespreadthatafullsurveyofexampleshereisimpossible.105.Thelanguage-likecharacteroftherulesformemorizedliteratureisstressedbyRubin,MemoryinOldTraditions,136…37.106.Gesche,,197.
ancientmesopotamiain”uencedtheshapeoftheworksonyetanotherlevel:thewaymanyworksinawidevarietyofways.Vanstiphoutandothershavechron-icledhowancientSumeriancompositionsoftenfeaturepassageslaterinacompositionthatanswerearlieronesandwheretheformatofasectionisgiven,orreversed,inlatercontexts.Inthepast,suchelementsofrepetitionŽhavesometimesbeenusedasanindicatoroftheoralcharacterofagivencompo-Thatistruetosomeextent,insofarastheMesopotamianeducationalprocesstrainedprospectivescribestomemorizekeyelementsofthetraditionfororalrecitation.Nevertheless,theadditionofawrittenelementtothismem-orizingprocessaddedacertainreliableprecisiontoitthatisnottypicaloforalprocessesoftransmission.Scribeswhohadbeentrained„partlybyusingwriting„torecallverbatimarangeofstandardworksandincorporatethemintotheircompositionswerealsowellpreparedtorecallearliersectionsoftheirowncompositionsandecho,reverse,andotherwiseappropriateelementsoftheirownwritingintheprocessofproducingdocumentsthathadarichnetworkoflinksbothwithinthemselvesandoutsidethemselvestoothertextsinthestandardcurriculum.Textsthatstayedinthescribalmatrixtendedtobecomerelatively“xed.Tobesure,thiscannotberepresentedasapurelylinearprocess,sincesometraditions„likethelexicallists„werestandardizedearlyonbeforebecomingdiverseagainduringtheearlysecondmillennium.Nevertheless,fromtheOldBabylonianperiodonward,theeducationalcurriculumappearstohavebeenincreasinglystandardized.OldBabylonianscribesexpandedmuchofapostulatedUr-IIIcorpusofSumerianliteratureintheprocessofformingsev-erallocalvariantsofthescribalcurriculum.AndKassitescribesofthelatterpartofthesecondmillenniumappeartohaveplayedakeyroleincategorizingandstandardizingworksintheOldBabyloniancorpus.NotonlydidtheyproduceeditionsŽthatappeartohaveservedasprototypesforsubsequentcopies,buttheyalsoplayedakeyroleinframingthestandardworksoftheSumero-Akkadiancorpusasaspecialbodyofworks,semidivinewordsderivingfromtheApkallusandpasseddownthroughahallowedgroupofscribalmas-ThewordeditionsŽhereisputinquotationmarkstohighlightthefactthatsuchawordcanbeappliedtotheseandmanyotherancienttextsonlyinahighlyquali“edsense.Incontrasttomoderneditorsattemptingtoproduceanauthoritativeredactionofancienttraditionsforprintdistribution,thean-107.See,forexample,thein”uentialdiscussioninLord,SingerofTales.Someattemptstocriticallyap-propriatetheParry-LordapproachforMesopotamianliteratureincludeAlster,DumuzisDream;V.Afanasjeva,¨ndlichu¨berlieferteDichtung(OralPoetry)undschriftlicheLiteratureinMesopotamien,ŽActaAntiquaAcademiaeScientiarumHungaricae22(1974):121…35;G.Komoro´czy,Folklore,Literatur,FolkloristikindersumerischenUActaAntiquaAcademiaeScientiarumHungaricae22(1974):113…20;T.Jacobsen,OraltoWritten,ŽinSocietiesandLanguagesoftheAncientNearEast,ed.M.A.Dandamayev(Warminster,England:AriesandPhillips,1982),129…37.108.JackGoody,TheMythoftheBagre(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1972);UneRe´citationduBagre(Paris:A.Colin,1981);CanonizationinOralandLiterateCultures,ŽinCanonizationandDecanonization,ed.A.VanderKooijandK.VanderToorn(Leiden:Brill,1998),9…11.109.Veldhuis,ElementaryEducation,18…19.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationcientscribesoftenchoseanearlierwrittenversionmadebyothersastheau-thoritativeversiontobeusedasareferencepointforsubsequenttransmission.Thus,mosteditionsŽinMesopotamiaandotherculturesdiscussedinthisbookwereasmuchaproductofthecommunitiesthatendorsedthemasoftradentsresponsibleforproducingagivenversion.AtsomepointbetweentheOldBabylonianperiodandthe“rstmillen-nium,theroleofthewrittentextchanged.Alreadycentraleducationaltexts,suchastheShulgiBhymn,representthewritingoftextsasawayofpreservingandtransmittinganevanescentoralperformance.Yetintheearlystages,writingappearstohaveplayedasupportingrolealongsideothermodesoftextualperformanceandtransmission,servingasasupportforacquisitionofunfamiliartraditionsandaconcretemarkerofastudentssuccessfullearning.Nevertheless,bythe“rstmillennium,textsincreasinglyserveanotherroleaswell:asauthoritativereferencepointsforthecheckingofscribalmemory.Moreover,weseeevermorecolophonsthatassertthatagiventexthadbeencopiedaccuratelyfromanearlierVorlage.Thoughsometextscontinuetobetransmittedaspartofanoral-writtenprocessofeducation,thereisanincreas-ing,almostantiquarianinterestintheaccuratecopyingandstorageofancienttexts.Wealreadyseere”ectionsofthisinOldBabyloniancolophons,wherethescribeoftennotesthenumberoflinesinthecomposition„anancientmethodofmakingsurethatcopiesdidnothaveaddedordivergentmaterial.Aswemoveintothelatterhalfofthesecondmillennium,colophonsregularlyrefertotheproofreaderofthetablet(IGI.KAR)andtothefactthatitwascarefullychecked(;sometimesalso¯qi),oftenagainsttheoldcopieslabiruSuchvocabularyatteststoincreasinguseofvisualandothertechnicalmethods(e.g.,linecounting)tosolidifythetradition.Bythetimeofthe“rstmillenniumroyallibraries,weseethatsuchvisualcheckingandcol-latingisstandard.Nevertheless,suchtechniquesdidnotmeantheendoforalperformanceofthetradition.Take,forexample,thefollowingcolophonforaSum[ofthelines]is1200,reachingtoAntherewasmuchroomtherefore,Iwrotetogether.Alaterpersonshouldnot110.HereIaminformedbyJohnVanSeterssrecentworkontheintellectualgenealogyoftheword“eldsurroundingedition,Žeditor,Žandrecension.ŽForapreliminary,article-lengthdiscussion(abookisinprocess)seehisTheRedactorinBiblicalStudies:ANineteenth-CenturyAnachronism,ŽJournalofNorthwestSemitic29(2003):1…19.Ashepointsout,therearesomeancientanalogiestothemodernprojectofediting,ŽparticularlyintheHellenisticworldandlaterJewishscribalpracticesbasedonHellenisticantecedents.IncontrasttoVanSeters,however,Istillfollowthescholarlyconventionofspeakingofeditions,ŽwhileattemptingclarityonthedifferencebetweenmostancienteditionsŽandmodernones.Thecommunitieswhoendorsedparticularwrittenversionsofagiventraditionoftenmarkedsuchtraditionsofffromothersbytransmittingthemoncertainmediaandusingvariousscripts,scribalnotations,andgraphicpractices.Inthishighlyquali“edsense,eventheyconsciouslyproducededitionsŽoftheoldertextualtraditiontheyendorsed.Nevertheless,asVanSetersshows,thisisadifferentsenseofeditionŽthanthatdevelopedinthenineteenthcentury.111.Jacobsen,OraltoWritten.Ž112.Veldhuis,ElementaryEducation,129…36.113.ForaselectionofsuchcolophonsseeHermannHunger,BabylonischeundassyrischeKolophone,AOAT(Neukirchen-Vluyn:NeukirchenerVerlag,1968),125…45.114.CT24,46a1…11accordingtotherenderinginHunger,,32.
ancientmesopotamiatreatitbadly.Heshouldreciteitaccordingtoitsseries.Accordingtothewordsofanoldcopy,Kidin-Sin,thescribe,thesonofSutu,theroyalscribe,wroteitandcheckedit.Themoresuchstandardizationtookplace,themorethecharacterofcre-ativityshifted.Ratherthansubtlymodifyingearliertraditionsorcreatingrad-icalnewwholesinanewlanguage,scribesmightinnovatebycommentingontraditionsorbyrecombiningsuchtraditionsandreframingthem.Forexample,afterthecreationofthe“rsteditionoftheGilgameshepicinthe“rstmillen-nium,someoneinsertedtheAtrahasis”oodstoryintoit.Thiskindofrecom-binationbothhonorsthetraditionsbeingcombinedandmodi“esthemthroughtheirjuxtaposition.Atanotherpoint,thecreatorsofthestandardBab-ylonianversionoftheGilgameshepicappeartohavecon”atedtwodreamepisodesfoundintheolderversions,thistimerecombiningelementsoftheGilgameshtraditionitself.Yetscribesdidnotalwayslimittheirworktosuchmanipulationofearliertraditions.Forexample,laterBabylonianandAssyrianversionsoftheGilgameshepicalsoincludedanew,wisdom-orientedprologue,perhapsaddedwithaneyetowarditsfunctionasakeytextfromtheearlieststagesofthescribalcurriculum.Thiskindofmodi“cationofatextarounditsedges„throughtheadditionofaprologueorepilogue„isalsocharacter-isticofthelaterstagesoftextualmodi“cation.Thatsaid,westillseecreativityaftertheOldBabylonianperiod,thoughwithsigni“cantshiftsinbothtechniqueandfocus.Thoughscribeshadto”eethefamousscribalcentersofNippurandBabylonia,somestillproducednewliterature,oftentextsthatconsciouslyimitatedtheold.ThisismostclearlyseeninthephenomenonofthelatecreationofSumeriantextsthousandsofyearsafterSumerianhaddiedoutasalivinglanguage.ThelanguageoftheselateSumeriantextsisquitedifferent,oftenre”ectingthenativeAkkadianspeechofthescribes.Thereisanevermorepronouncedreligiousandculticfocus.Inaddition,manytextsappeartodeliberatelyimitateoldertexts,longaftertheoriginaloccasionsforsuchtextswerelost.OneprobableexampleisaNeo-Babylonian,SumerianlamentforTammuzdatingfromtheHellenisticperiodthatmournsthedestructionofcitiesinSumertwothousandyearspreviously.SuchtextsrepresentamajorshiftfromtheSumeriancurriculumprominentupthroughtheOldBabylonianperiod.Nevertheless,theyappeartohavebeenthecoreoftheSumeriancurriculumthatsurvivedinthetemplescribalworkshopsoftheHellenisticperiods.115.JerroldCooper,GilgameshDreamsofEnkidu:theEvolutionandDilutionofNarrative,ŽinEssaysontheAncientNearEastinMemoryofJacobJoelFinkelstein,ed.MariaEllis(Hamden,CT:ArchonBooks,1977),39…44.116.Gesche,,148…49,210…11.SeealsoMichalowski,Commemoration,WritingandGenre,Ž77…80.117.HalloandYounger,TheContextofScripture,1:419.118.SeeforthiswholephenomenonHallo,SumerianLiterature,Ž199…201.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationModesofTextualProductionLookingbackonthesevariousformsofscribalcreativity,wemust“rstbeclearthatmostscribalauthorsoftheSumero-Akkadiancorpuscertainlydidnotcutandpastetextsinfrontofthem„togobacktoNiditchsexamplefromIClau-mentionedinthelastchapter.TheseauthorsdidnoteditŽasonemightconceivelaterEuropeanbookproducersdoing,andtheycertainlydidnotaddlayeronlayerofmaterialasonemightwithcontemporarywordprocessors.Instead,giventhepicturethathasemergedoftheSumero-Akkadianeduca-tionalsystem,itisfarmorelikelythattheseancientMesopotamianscribeshadmemorizedtheseearlierhymnsorepicsandthuscouldusethoseearliertextsasmentalprototypes,reusingthem,recombiningthem,andadaptingthemintheprocessofcreatingnewtexts.Thoughtheywerecapableofreadingandcopyinganancienttablet,theydidnotneedto.Rather„atleastduringtheearlierperiodsofcompositionofthesetexts„theprimarymodeofexis-tenceofsuchtextswasnotwrittentabletsbutthemindsofwell-trainedSuchscribeshadappropriatedthestandardtraditionandwerethusabletomoreorlessfreelyincorporatesuchtraditionsintonewcompositions,dependingonthestatusoftheoldertraditionsandthefunctionofthenew.Theydidnotneedtojuggletabletsintheprocessofcombiningtraditions.Perhapsthisphenomenonwouldhelpexplainwhywedonothave(asfarasIcandetermine)asingleartisticimageofaMesopotamianscribeworkingwithmorethanonetext.ThisgapmaybeduetothestandardizationofartisticimagesofscribesinMesopotamianart,butitmayalsobeduetothefactthatamasterscribecouldhavecombinedtwotexts„wordforword„withouthavingcopiesofeitherinfrontofhim.Withthiskindofmemorizedcorpusinmind,ascribeintheUr-IIIperiodcould”uidlyaddnamesoftemplesofhisownperiodtoacycleoftemple-focusedolderhymnstoInanna.OldBabylonianscribescouldrepresentanUr-IIINingirsuŽepicasaNinurtaŽepic,recastanauthoritativeNaram-Sinin-scriptionintermsofcontemporaryroyalimperatives,createanewGilgameshepicoutofmemorizedstrandsofolderSumerianGilgameshtalesandanewEnumaElishpartlyoutofolderSumerianmyths,inserttheAssyriangodAs-shurinplaceoftheBabylonianMardukintolaterversionsoftheEnumaandinsertasectionfromastandardlexicallistintotheepicofEn-merkar.Stilllaterscribescouldcreatealongerformoftheritualcentraltoupper-levelBabylonianeducationoutofashorterritual,whichinturnmayhavebeencreatedoutoftwoearliersetsofincantations.Asmentionedearlier,somescribes„particularlyinlaterperiods„stayedclosetothetradition.Insomecases,traditionsappeartobepreservedalmost119.ThisisanexpansionofVeldhuisspointregardingOldBabylonianversionsofthelexicaltradition.Veldhuis,ElementaryEducation,132.120.W.G.Lambert,ZumForschungsstanddersumerisch-babylonischenLiteraturgeschichte,ŽindeutscherOrientalistentag(Wiesbaden:FranzSteiner,1977),69…72.121.TzviAbusch,AnEarlyFormoftheWitchcraftRitualandtheOriginofaBabylonianMagicalCeremony,ŽinAbuschetal.,LingeringoverWords,
ancientmesopotamiaunchangedacrosscenturies,andcolophonsattesttoscribeseffortstoaccu-ratelyreproduceandprooforiginals.Atotherpoints,scribeswouldpreservethewordingofatradition,butinsertnewmaterialaswell.Forexample,latermodi“cationsoftheGilgameshepicpreserveitsbasicmaterial,butcon”atesomepartsandincludenewelementsliketheprologueandpreexisting”oodstory.Atothertimes,particularlyinmakingatransitionfromSumeriantoAkkadian,theyusedthetraditionmorefreely.Nevertheless,especiallyinthecaseoftraditionsthatweremodi“ed,itislikelythatthemodi“edtraditionsoftenhadbeenmemorizedalreadybythescribes.Suchscribeshadlittlein-vestmentinmodifyingtextsthatplayednoroleintheongoingeducationalprocess.RatheritwastextslikeGilgameshthatplayedakeyeducationalrole(andwerememorized)thatmeritedongoingscribalrevisionandsupplemen-tation.Asmentionedearlier,suchtextsoftenreachedapointwhereonlycertaintypesofmodi“cationwerepermitted,ifany.Nevertheless,insofarasscribesdidmodifytexts,itappearsthattheyconcentratedtheireffortsonthosetextsthatwereplayingaroleintheprojectofscribaleducationandso-Themoreweconsiderthisprocess,themoreclearitbecomesthatwemustconsciouslymoveawayfrommodelsoftextproductionthatarebasedontheimplicitassumptionsofaprintculture.AsWidmanpointedoutalmostfortyyearsagoinasurveyofGreco-Romanbookproduction,thedynamicsofancienttextualcopyingmeantthateverymanuscriptneedstobeconsidered,inatleastsomesense,eineEinheitfu¨rsich(aunityinitself).Theidiosyn-crasiesandscribalpracticesofagivenscribealwaysmeantthatagivenman-uscriptwasdistinctinsomerespectsfromanyother.Tobesure,sometextualtraditionsaremorestablethanothers,andthereisageneralmovementtowarduseofvisualcheckingandothertechniquestostandardizethetradition.WehaveseenthisalreadyinthecaseofMesopotamia.Nevertheless,everytextcopyisatleastmicroscopicallydifferent.Indeed,thesedifferencesareoftenfarmorethanmicroscopic.Wehaveseenhowscribesreproducingthetraditionoftenliberallyrevisedearliertraditionsintheprocessofpassingthemontothenextgeneration.Especiallywhenthetextualtraditionwasrelatively”uid,thescribemightnothaveun-derstoodhimselftoberevisinganearliertradition.Instead,hewasmerelyperformingitinanewwayforhisparticularaudienceandcontext.Sometimes,likeanaccomplishedmusicianplayingMozart,hemightproduceafairlyexactreproduction.Atotherpoints,ascribemightperformagiventextmorelikeajazzmusician,usingtheframeworkofanolderpieceintheprocessofpro-ducingsomethingradicallynew.ScholarsofAnglo-Saxonpoetryhavenoticedsimilardynamicsintheir122.H.Widman,HerstellungundVertriebdesBuchesindergriechisch-ro¨mischenWelt,ŽArchivfu¨rdieGeschichtedesBuchwesens8(1967):580.123.Foranevocativediscussionofhowdifferentstylesofcontemporarymusicmodeldifferentmodesofinteractionofcomposer,performer,text,audience,andrehearsalseeRuthFinnegan,LiteracyandOrality:StudiesintheTechnologyofCommunication(Oxford:Blackwell,1988),123…38.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationstudyofthemanuscripttraditionsofearlyEnglishpoems.Forexample,AlgerDoaneshowsthatanumberofearlymanuscriptsinAnglo-Saxonshowanum-berofnonsigni“cantvariants,Žthatis,variantsthatrepresentvirtuallysyn-onymouswordsorphrases.Inonemanuscript,ascribewilluseonewordforagivenfeature,whileinanother,ascribe„likelyworkingfrommemory„givesawordwiththesamesemanticcontentinthesamecontext.Doanesuggeststhatratherthanconceivingofsuchscribesascopyingearliertraditions,weshouldreconceivetheirworkinapredominantlyoralcontextasaperformance.TheoldEnglishtraditionswithwhichtheyareworkingarealreadylargelyoralinorigin,andthesescribescontinuethatelementinfreelyreproducingoldermanuscripttraditionsintheirnewcopies.Notably,thisfreermodeoftransmissionofAnglo-SaxontextscontrastswiththemoreaccuratetransmissionofkeyLatintexts,textsthatDoanesuggestsweremore“xedbecausetheywererecitedinthecontextofregularliturgies.Weseesimilaroccurrenceofnonsigni“cantvariantsintransmissionofsomeearlyMesopotamianliterature.Iwilldivergeforamomenttoaspeci“cexample:thevariantversionsoftheAkkadianepicofthedescentofIshtar.ThisepicisparticularlyinterestingbecauseitisapoetictextthathasbeentransmittedinamixofdivergentrecensionsandverbatimquotesfoundintheGilgameshepicandtherelatedstoryofNergalandErishkigal.Moreover,keypartsofthestoryrepeatthemselves,thusdisplayingthekindofverbatimrep-aworkthatwasdiscussedearlierasacommoncharacteristicofliteraturetransmittedbymemoryaswellaswrittenmedia.Thus,thisepicdisplaysmultiplelevelsofrepetitionanddivergence:withinitself,indivergentversionsofthesamemanuscript,andinverbatimcitationsoftheworkbyscribesauthoringandreproducingotherworks.Aswelookatthevariantsamidtherecensions,weseetheveryphenom-enonofnonsigni“cantvariantsdiscussedbeforebyDoaneandothersasasignofaworkthatistransmittedatleastinpartbymemory.Mostofthevar-iantsarenotthesortthatwouldbecausedbyvisualerrors,suchasconfusionofsimilarsignsorskippingorduplicatinglines.Forexample,therecensions(andquotations)ofthedescentofIshtaroftendivergeinhowagivenwordiswritten,withthedifferentversionsusingdifferentcuneiformsignstorep-resentthesameword:forexample,intheNinivehrecension(line16)whereoccursintheAsshurrecension(line14).Justasfre-quent,ifnotmoreso,areoccasionswhereoneversionwillwriteawordwithalogogram,whileanotherwillwritethesamewordsyllabically.Forexample,124.Doane,ScribeasPerformer.ŽTheclassicearlierstatementonthisphenomenoninmedievalliteratureisPaulZumthor,Essaidepoe´tiqueme´die´vale(Paris:EditionsduSeuil,1972),65…72.SeealsoOKeefe,and(forapplicationtobiblicalliterature)RaymondF.Person,TheAncientIsraeliteScribeasPerformer,Ž117(1998):601…9;TheDeuteronomicSchool:History,SocialSetting,andLiterature,StudiesinBiblicalLiter-ature(Atlanta,GA:SocietyofBiblicalLiterature,2002),83…101.125.ThroughoutthisdiscussionthetextualdataisdrawnfromRykleBorger,Babylonisch-AssyrischeLeses-¨cke,vol.1,DieTexteimUmschrift,2ndrev.ed.,AnalectaOrientalia(Rome:Ponti“calInstitute,1979).Casesof
ancientmesopotamiatheAsshurversionofIshtarline7usestheSumerianlogogramSAHtorender(dustŽ)wheretheNinivehversionspellsitout(line11).Therearesomewritingerrors,butmostarenotattributabletovisualmis-Theshiftscouldbecausedbydictationorbymemorybutwouldnotbecausedbyvisualconfusionofthesigns.Buttherearesomeothershiftsthatwouldnotresultfromdictation.Forexample,atonepointtheNinivehrecensionusesoneformulatointroduceaspeech(a-ma-tumiz-zak-kar,line13),wheretheAsshurrecensionusesanother(aip-pu-u´-sui-qab-bš).Forthetradentsoftheepic,thesetwoformulaewereessentiallythesameŽword.Noonewouldconfusethetwoformulaeiftheywereseenorheard.Rather,atsomepointinthetransmissionoftheepic,onescriberecalledoneformulaforspeechatthislocation,whileanotherrecalledanother.WeseeasimilarphenomenoninthedifferentrenderingsofIshtarsthreattothegatekeeper(includingNiniveh20andcitationofitinGilgameshandEreshkigal),useofdifferentwordsforspeaking(inNiniveh25andparallels),useofdifferentprepositions(ana/inamuhinNiniveh35andparallels),andreorderingofwords(e.g.,Niniveh15,41,andparallels).Noteverytextispre-servedinsuchanarrayofversions,sothatthecharacterofitstransmissioncanbechecked.Nevertheless,weseesimilarphenomenainothertexts,suchasearlyversionsoftheurlexicallist,tablet11ofthelaterre-censionsoftheGilgameshepic,andvariantversionsofMesopotamianhis-toricaltraditions.suchdifferentspellingsaretoonumeroustolistcomprehensively.ExamplescanbefoundinthefollowinglinesoftheNinivehrecension(andparallels):5(),9(),23(),27((/mu-ki-il-tu),29(),30(´-patsa-ba-at),31().Notealsootherminordivergences,asinthepresenceorabsenceoftheencliticasseeninparallelstothefollowinglinesoftheNinivehrecension:18(),21(),25(),31().Also(Niniveh16)versus(Asshur14),andtheinclusionofthepoeticparticleme(me-e)inline26oftheNinivehrecension(cf.Asshur,line25).Becauseofthetextualfocusofthisdiscussion,allformsaregivenintransliterated,notnormalized,forms.
126.ThesamephenomenonisfoundinquotesofthedescentofIshtarintheGilgameshepic,e.g.inNiniveh8//8//inGilgameshVIII,iv,37.Especiallywhensuchquotationsareincluded,theexamplesarequitenumerous.SomecanbefoundinthefollowinglinesoftheNinivehrecensionandparallels:10(GIM/ki-maand),11(SAG.KUL/),14(;seealsolines37and39);19(-maandGUGU),20(UGU/el),21(u),22(GAL-ti/),23(/NIN),24(MU-ki/),29((giss/[g]isSINIG;also/GIM;onthelatterseesimilarlyline30);33(IM/),36(`r-ri),38(GARZA.MES´r-s),40(GU),42(1-(1-]-te-).Notealsothepresence/absenceofdeterminatives,e.g.inNiniveh25/Asshur24andNiniveh39/Asshur41.127.E.g.,inline26(AsshurerrorisfoundintheNinivehversion)or29(NinivehmistakeofisfoundinAsshur).128.ThoughnotasmanyrecensionsaregiveninBorgerscollation,similarphenomenatothosedescribedearlierfortheDescentofIshtarobtainfortheGilgameshepic(Borger,¨cke,105…11).See,forexample,lines63((am-[h6]as“[B]),88(KA-ka[B]/[E]),116((ki-maa-lit-ti[A],119((ma-h6ar[B];alsoin120),147((i-pi-ra-am-[ma][A,G]),andsoon.ReadingsandsiglaarefromBorger,¨cke.ForstudyofdifferentformsoftransmissionoftheurlexicallistseeVeldhuis,Elementary,68…80.Anexcellentoverviewofvariantsinthehistoricaltraditions(includingmanynonsigni“cantvariants)canbefoundinJ.A.Brinkman,TheBabylonianChronicleRevisited,ŽinAbuschetal.,LingeringoverWords(Atlanta,GA:ScholarsPress,1990),78…99;seealsoCharpin,Leclerge´dUr,425…26.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationIncaseslikethese,theMesopotamianscribeswerenotalwayspouringoverearliermanuscriptstomakesuretheyhadwritteneachwordandphraseexactlycorrectly(thoughtheydidoccasionallyclaimtohavedoneso).Rather,thetextualdatasuggeststhatincrucialcasestheyreproducedtextsfrommemory,withstartling,thoughnotexact,verbalaccuracy.And,asinthecaseofmu-sicalperformance,eachscribalreproductionofthetextisunique,whilebeingrecognizedbynativespeakersandaudiencesasthesame.ŽDependingonthelevelofstandardization,thereproductionoftextsmayvarymoreorlessfromasinglenorm.Nevertheless,thiscomplexoral-writtenmatrix,wherescribesweretaughtnotjusttocopybuttomemorizeandproducetexts,meantthateverymanuscriptwastrulyanEinheitfu¨rsich,Žanewscribalperfor-manceofanauthoritative,sacredtradition.Sometimestheidiosyncrasiesofamanuscriptwouldderivejustfromfaultycopying,butoftentheyderivedfromthefactthatagivenscribe„atsomepoint„hadreproducedthetextfromamemorizedprototype.Thishasimportantimplicationsforcontemporaryproductionofcriticaleditionsofancienttexts,whereoneattemptstoestablish,throughthetext-criticaluseofmultiplemanuscripttraditions,asingleauthoritativetextforagivenscribaltradition.AsDoanepointsout,aslongasthisphenomenonofvariablescribalperformanceŽoftextscontinues,itisvirtuallyimpossibletogetatext-critical“xonanur-traditionthatprecededallothers.ThiscanonlycomewhenagiventextreachesalevelofstandardizationtypicaloflaterperiodsintheSumero-Akkadiantradition.Uptothatpoint,thetextualtraditionbeingtransmittedthroughthemindsofthescribesistoomuchofamovingtarget.Asaresult,themodernattempttoproduceascholarlyeditionofthoseancienttextsthatweretransmittedprimarilyinthemindendsupproducinga“gmentofthescholarlyimagination:astandardtextŽwithvariants.ŽSucharecon-structionignoresanimportantaspectofthetransmissionoforal-writtentraditions:scribalperformancesoftraditionswouldhavebeencorrectedasoftenfromparallelperformanceswithinanetworkofscribalmastersasfromconsultationofawrittenversionofatradition.129.Onekeyexamplewouldbethevisualcopyingofaletter.Foranexampleofsuchcopying,withexactsigncorrespondence;seeJackM.Sasson,TheBurdenofScribes,ŽinRichesHiddeninSecretPlaces:AncientNearEasternStudiesinMemoryofThorkildJacobsen,ed.TzviAbuschetal.,(WinonaLake,IN:Eisenbrauns,2002),130.AdditionalexamplesarediscussedinworkssuchasAlster,DumuzisDream,esp.26,126…32;C.Wilcke,DieEmarVersionvonDattelpalmundTamarisk:EinRekonstruktionsversuch,Ž79(1989):169;P.Michalowski,TheLamentationovertheDestructionofSumerandUr(WinonaLake,IN:Eisenbrauns,1989).131.Veldhuis,ElementaryEducation,27.132.ZumthorsandothersworkhasalreadybeenbroughtintorelationwithtextcriticismofMesopota-miantraditionsinworkssuchasMichalowski,,21…24.133.VeldhuismakesthispointwithregardtoOldBabylonianversionsofthelexicaltraditions:Elementary,136,141.SimilarpointshavebeenmadeaswellbyscholarsintheParry-Lordoral-traditionalschoolaboutattemptingtoestablishanauthoritativetextoftheearliestHomer,Beowulf,andsoon.(Lord,SingerofTales;JohnMilesFoley,EditingOralEpicTexts:TheoryandPractice,ŽText1[1981]:77…78;TraditionalOralEpic:TheOdyssey,Beowulf,andtheSerbo-CroatianReturnSong[Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1990]).134.SeeRubin(MemoryinOldTraditions,132…36)fordiscussionofhownetworksŽofconduitsŽ„groupsofscribesinthiscase„reinforceandstandardizethetransmissionoftraditions.
ancientmesopotamiaFinally,onecanonlyspeculateonhowagivenrevisionoftraditionsup-plantedearlierones.Therearenoexplicitdatatohelpushere,andsometimesthelatertraditiondidnotsupplanttheearlierone.Sometimestheearlierandlaterversionweretransmittedsidebyside.ThiswasparticularlytrueinthecaseofAkkadiantranslationsandadaptationsofSumeriantraditions.Wealsoseesomeinstancesofdivergenteditionsofagiventextindifferentcontexts,forexample,recensionsoftheGilgameshepicindifferentlocales.AswemovebeyondtheOldBabylonianperiod,however,weseeastan-dardizationofthecurriculum,particularlyitselementary,list-focusedstages.Thesequenceandtextofstandardworkssolidi“es,andthereisremarkablylittledevelopmentthatcanbetracedfromMiddleBabylonianfragmentstothecopiescollectedintheAssyrianroyallibrariesofthe“rstmillennium.bert,inhisclassicstudiesofcolophonsandotherdiscussionsofthesetexts,arguedcompellinglythatthisstandardizationcouldbetracedtoalineofKas-sitescribesinthelatterhalfofthesecondmillennium.Thesescribesarenamedincolophonsasthearchitectsofthestandardcurriculum,passingonfromtheApkallustheworksthatwerethemainstayofthescribaleducationalCertainly,theKassitescribesdidnotstandardizeacompletely”uidtradi-tion.WealreadyseeintheOldBabylonianperiodasolidi“cationofthecur-riculumofstandardworks,basedlargelyinthecentralschoolsofNippurand(later)Babylon.Nevertheless,aftertheOldBabylonianperiodthenumberofscribesdiminishedsomewhat,particularlyontheleveloftheelitewhomas-teredtheSumero-Akkadiancorpus.Itmaybethatsinglescribalmastersinkeyschoolsmayhavehadconsiderablepowertomodify,arrange,andstan-dardizethosetraditionsthatwouldbepassedontothenextgeneration.Aswehaveseen,thisoftentooktheformofauthorizingacertainstandardtext,establishinganauthoritativesequence,andattachingtothesetextsstandardattributionstoancienttimesandscriballines.Butwehavealsoseenhowcertainworks,suchastheGilgameshepic,wereissuedinrevisedversionsthatsupplantedearlierones.Apparentlyinthesecases,thescribalmaster„perhapstheheadscribeoftheroyalscribalmatrix„authorizedsuchversionsofstan-dardtexts,whichinturnbecametheonesusedineducationthroughouttherealm.Thismeantnotonlythatsomereferencecopiesneededtobediscardedandnewonescreatedbut,evenmoreimportant,thatanewversionalsoneededtoberecitedandtaughtintherelevantscribalworkshops.Thisproducesacharacteristicparadoxintransmissionthatwewillseecontinuingthroughtotherabbinicperiod.Ontheonehand,thescribalmatrixinthesetraditionalculturesstronglyemphasizesitsfaithfulcontinuitywithearlierages.Accordingtotherhetoricofthetradition-bearers,masterscribesofanauthoritativescriballineweretrainingstudentapprenticestoreproducestandardworksaccurately.Ontheotherhand,changestillhappened.These135.Hallo,ConceptofCanonicity.Ž136.Lambert,Ancestors.Ž
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationmasterscribes„workingoutoftheheartofatraditiontheyhadmemorizedbetterthantheircontemporaries„sometimesinnovatedvis-a`-visthetraditiontheyrepresented.Standingastheprimarymastersofthetraditionintheirage,thesescribeshadpoweratsometimestoproducenewtraditionsandnewversionsofoldtraditions.Recognizedassuccessorsofauthoritativescribes,themasterscribesofagivenperiodhadmemorizedenoughofthetraditiontobecredibleembodimentsofit.Theirnewproductionofagivenstandardwork„whetherintheformofanewscribalcopyor(morelikely)newrecita-tion„tookprecedenceoverwhateverwrittencopieswerealreadyincirculation.Later,whenbothSumerianand(later)Akkadianworkshadbeensostandard-izedthateventhemasterscribescouldnotrevisethemsigni“cantly,weseetheminnovateinyetanotherway.TheyproducedarchaizingnewworksupthroughtheHellenisticperiod,someofwhichinturnwereaddedtothetemplecurriculumthatpredominatedatthatpoint.BeyondtheScribalMatrixUltimately,boththetextsandthescribalmatrixthattransmittedthemwereonlyastrategyfortheenforcementofastandardizedconsciousnessacrossbroaderstretchesofsociety.Withinthescribalmatrix,materialtextswerebothanuminoustokenofancienttraditionandameansofadherencetoit.Studentswhohadmasteredthem„whetherbycopying,receivingbydictation,ormem-orizingandreproducing(orallyandinwrittenform)„wereequippedtobeaforceofculturalcontinuityinthesocietyatlarge.Thesizeandcharacterofthescribalclassapparentlyevolved,becomingsmaller,withdifferentgroupsevermorespecializedinfocus.Nevertheless,thesystemwasremarkablyresilient,continuinginsomeformacrossthreemil-lenniaofhistoryinMesopotamia.Indeed,asIwillshowinthenextchapter,thesystemwasin”uentialnotjustinMesopotamiabutalsobeyonditsborders.ThispowerfulculturalinnovationdidnotjusthelpunifyancientMesopota-miankingdomsandformscribaladministratorsthere.Boththespeci“ctextsandthegeneralmethodsoftheMesopotamianscribalmatrixdecisivelyin”u-encedculturesfardistantfromthecitiesofSumerandBabylonwherethecurriculumoriginated.
TheIn”uenceofThepictureofscribaleducationandtextualproductioninthepreviouschapterbecomesparticularlysigni“cantwhenweconsiderhowin-”uentialthesepracticeswereacrosstheNearEasternareasurround-ingMesopotamia.Fortyyearsago,WilliamF.Albrightobserved:IdonotthinkwecanoverestimatetheimportanceoftheSumero-AkkadianeducationalsystemforthedevelopmentnotonlyofAkkadianhigherculture,butalsoofhighercultureinthesur-roundingcountries,especiallyinSyriaandPalestine,wherelin-guisticdifferenceswerecomparativelyminor.Subsequentyearsof“ndsandpublicationshavestrengthenedandnuancedthisthesis.TherewereothermajorculturalcentersintheNearEast,tobesure.None,however,hadtheextensiveanddocu-mentablein”uenceonotherculturesthattheSumero-Akkadianed-ucationalsystemdid.Inwhatfollows,IsurveythedistributionofthissysteminareassurroundingIsrael,beforenarrowingtotakealookathowthissystemisre”ectedinUgarit,Canaan,andlaterIs-raelaswell.OveralltheinitialsurveymovesinroughchronologicalorderwhilealsofollowingmovementfromEasttoWest.TheSumero-AkkadianSystemOutsideMesopotamia,Ugarit,andIsraelOurjourneystartstotheeastofMesopotamiainancientPersia,par-ticularlyElam.Thisancientregion,locatedinwhatisnowIran,pre-1.ThiscommentbyAlbrightisrecordedaspartofthediscussionsectioninLandsberger,ScribalConcepts,Ž105…6.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationservessomeoftheearliesteducationaltextsavailabletous.TheyaredatedtotheearlypartoftheOldBabylonianperiod.Scheil,oneoftheearliestpublish-ersofsuchElamiteeducationaltexts,suggeststhatthescribeswhocreatedthemhadapprenticedinUrorSippar.Onetextisalargethree-columnlistofobjectsthatappearstobeareferencecopyofalistsomewhatresemblingthosethatarelaterstandardizedintheOldBabylonianschools.Othertextsarethesmallerroundschoolcopiesofshortpericopes.BothtypesoftextsshowclearrelationstotheMesopotamianeducationalcurriculumofthethirdmillen-nium.CivillocatesbothsetsoftextsinhisperiodII,ŽatimejustprecedingtheformationoftheOldBabylonianeducationaltradition.Morerecently,acacheofBronzeAgeeducationaltextswasfoundinKabnak(HaftTepe)inthesouthwesternportionofIran.Together,these“ndsshowhowtheMesopota-mianeducationaltraditionhadalreadyin”uencedamajorculturetotheeastofitsoriginationpoint.Indeed,thisin”uencewaspersistent.ElamwasoneofthefewareasoutsideMesopotamiatostillbeusingthecuneiformsystemtowriteitsownlanguageinthe“rstmillennium.TheancientSyriancityofEbla(TelMardikh)providesanotherearlyex-ampleofMesopotamianin”uence.Existinginthelatterhalfofthethirdmil-lennium,thiscityappearstohavecreativelyadaptedtheSumeriancuneiformsystemtoitsownadministrativeneeds.OnepartofthisprocessofadaptationwastheuseofsignandlexicallistslikethoseinMesopotamia.DozensoflistsfollowingMesopotamianprototypeshavebeenfound,alongwithanum-berofotherdistinctivelyEblaitesignlistsontheMesopotamianmodelandapparentlyderivedprimarilyfromthenorthern(Sumerian)scribalcenteratKish.Theyaregenerallylarge,carefullybakedtablets,notthesmallerschoolcopiestypicaloftheOldBabylonianschoolsofNippur.Inaddition,anumberofothertextscentraltotheMesopotamianeducationaltraditionhavebeenfoundatEbla,includingtreaties,hymns,prayers,andincantations.documents,alongwiththecuneiformdocumentsfoundatTellBeydarnearHassake,testifytotheexistenceofvitaleducational/scribalcentersinearlySyria,centersthatinteractedwith,in”uenced,andwerein”uencedbytheSumero-Akkadiansystem.Alreadyinthelatethirdmillennium,somescribesinSyriawerelearningboththeirownlanguageandaformofSumerianusingamixofMesopotamiananddistinctivelyEblaitesignlists.Moreover,atleastsomescribesintheseancientSyriancitiesweremasteringclassicMeso-2.V.Scheil,Vocabulairepractique,Ž18(1921):49…78.3.V.Scheil,Quelquesparticularite´sduSume´rienenElam,Ž22(1925):45…53.ForothereducationaltextsseeWilliamW.Hallo,TheExpansionofCuneiformLiterature,ŽProceedingsoftheAmericanAcademyofJewishResearch46…47(1980):310.4.Civil,Lexicography,Ž127…28.5.ForinitialdiscussionandsomedrawingsseeP.HerreroandJ.J.Glassner,Haft-Tepe:ChoixdetextesIV,ŽIranicaAntiqua31(1996):51…82.Pederse´ndiscussesthe“nditself(ArchivesandLibraries,120…23).6.JerroldCooper,Cuneiform,Žin,vol.1,1216.7.AlphonsoArchi,TransmissionoftheMesopotamianLexicalandLiteraryTextsfromEbla,ŽinandLiteraryLanguageatEbla,ed.PelioFronzaroli(Florence:Universita`diFirenze,1992).
theinfluenceofmesopotamiapotamianworkslikeGilgameshthatwerecentraltotheMesopotamianWelikewise“ndevidenceforMesopotamianin”uenceintheSyriancityofMari(TelHariri).Thearchivesfoundthere,mostofwhichdatefromtheeighteenth-centuryreignofKingZimri-Lim,arewritteninAkkadianorSu-merian(withAkkadiantranslation)usingtheMesopotamiancuneiformsys-tem.AmongthemareschooltextsintheMesopotamiantradition,thoughthebulkofthemhavenotyetbeenpublished.Atonepoint,excavatorsthoughttheyhadfoundtheactualsiteofaschoolthere,butmuchrecentdiscussionhasquestionedthatidea.ThemostthatcanbesaidrightnowisthatMariisyetanotherbitofevidenceoftheearlyin”uenceoftheSumero-Akkadiantra-ditiononurbancentersofSyria.AbitlaterwedoseeMesopotamianeducationaltextsinthelargelyHur-riantownsNuzi(YorghunTepe)andAlalakh(TelAtchana).Nuzi,which”ourishedinthe1400s.,liesnorthandeastoftheAssyriancenterandappearstohavebeendominatedthroughmostofitsperiodbytheHurrianstateofMittani.ThoughthenativelanguageoftherulersandmostofthenativepopulationwasaformofHurrian,weagainseeMesopotamianedu-cationaltextsatNuzi:oblong-rectangularcopiesofearlyformsofMesopota-mianeducationallists,severalcopiesofthepredominanturlist,alistofprofessions,andsomeothersimilartexts.SimilareducationalcopieshavebeenfoundatAlalakh,acityfartothewestbutlikewisepartoftheMittaniEmpire(ascapitaloftheHurriankingdomofMukish).Thereweagain“ndcopiesofthewordlisturthatshowthein”uenceoftheMesopotamianeducationalsystem,aswellasothercuneiformtexts.Herethedemonstrablein”uenceislargelylimitedtoliststhatwerethefo-cusofelementaryeducation.These“ndsatAlalakhandNuziareourprimarydirectdatafortextualityinthefar-”ungHurrianempireofMittanithatdominatednorthernSyriaandMesopotamiatowardthemiddleofthesecondmillennium.Indeed,Hurriandominanceofthisareaissosigni“cantthatEgyptiantextsapplythenameHurriŽtoPalestineandSyriaduringtheeighteenthdynasty(1539…1292).Giventhis,itisstrikingthatthesetwokeywitnessestoancientHurriancultureshowthatthisculturalrealm,likeEblabeforeit,wassigni“cantlyin”uenced8.Veldhuissurveysthefewpublications(ElementaryEducation,26).See,inparticular,thediscussionsinJ.Oelsner,ZueinerSchu¨lertafelausMari,ŽNouvellesAssyriologiquesBre`vesetUtilitaires33(1989):22…23;H.Waetzoldt,ZueinerSchu¨lertafelausMari,ŽNouvellesAssyriologiquesBre´vesetUtilitaires97(1990).WilliamW.HallonotesthepromiseofafewmoretextsinTheSyrianContributiontoCuneiformLiteratureandLearning,ŽNewHorizonsintheStudyofAncientSyria,ed.MarkW.ChavalasandJohnL.Hayes(Malibu,CA:Undena,1998),77.9.Waetzoldt,KeilschriftundSchulen,Ž39;Volk,Edubbaa,Ž5.10.Falkenstein,BabylonischeSchule,Ž137;D.J.Wiseman,IsraelsLiteraryNeighborsintheThirteenth-CenturyBC,ŽJournalofNorthwestSemiticLanguages5(1977):77…78;Charpin,Leclerge´dUr,485…86.11.E.-R.Lacheman,NuzianaI:Tablettesscolaires,Ž36(1939):81…95.12.GernotWilhelm,TheKingdomofMittani,Žin,1233…54.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationbythestandardtextsandeducationalprocessesoftheMesopotamianscribalsystem.BothNuzitotheeastandAlalakhtothewestshowthepervasivenessofboththeMesopotamianwritingsystemandatleastpartsoftheeducationalcurriculum„particularlylists„thatwereusedtoteachit.Sumero-Akkadianin”uenceismoreextensivelydocumentedintheliter-aryremainsoftheancientHittiteempirebasedinthecityofHattusha(Bo-¨y).ThisempirebasedinAnatolia(modernTurkey)”ourishedinthelatterhalfofthesecondmillennium,eventuallytakingoverwhatwereoncethewesternpartsoftheHurrianempirewhileappropriatingmanyofitstraditions.Theextensivearchivesdiscoveredtherehaverevealedanelaboratescribalsys-temdrawingdeeplyontheSumero-Akkadiantradition,boththroughdirectin”uenceandthroughthemediationoftheHurrianculturethattheHittitesTensofcopiesofstandardBabylonianlistshavebeenfoundthere,alongwithmanytextsfeaturedasstandardpartsoftheSumero-Akkadiancur-riculum:forexample,numeroustraditionssurroundingKingSargon(usuallyinHittitetranslation),theAtrahasiscreationto”oodepic,theGilgameshepicinbothAkkadianoriginalandHittitetranslations,anAkkadianprecursortotheAdadhymn,wisdomliterature,andmanyotherSumero-Akkadianhymns,incantations,anddivinatorytexts.SpecialistshaveestimatedthatHittitescribesgainedconsiderableexpertiseinbothAkkadianandHurrian,whileachievingmuchmorelimitedcompetenceinSumerian.Moreover,aHittiteletterprovidestheonlyreferencesofaroutsideMesopotamiatotheEdubbaŽthatwassoprominentinOldBabylonianMesopotamia.Meanwhile,theHit-titesdevelopedtheirownextensiveeducational-enculturationalmaterial(somein”uencedbySumero-Akkadianmaterials),includingasigni“cantamountofnuancedhistoricalwriting„completewithaddressestotheaudienceandteachingepisodes„thatwasapparentlyusedtoeducateandenculturatefutureHittiteleaders.TheSyriancityofEmar(TellMeskene)providesyetadditionalevidenceofthespreadoftheSumero-Akkadianculture,thistimelateintothethirteenthandtwelfthcenturies.Thereanarchive,apparentlypartofatemple,alargenumberofHittiteandHurriantexts,indicatingasimilarculturalmixtothatfoundelsewhereintheHittiteempire.Nevertheless,farmoreinterest-ingforourpurposes,aretherangeofSumero-AkkadianeducationaltextsfoundatEmar,includingrepresentativesofmostofthecentralsignandlexical13.G.Beckman,MesopotamiansandMesopotamianLearningatHattusa,Ž35(1983):97…114.14.H.Gu¨terbock,TextesScolaires,ŽinCataloguedesTextesHittites,vol.75,ed.E.Laroche,Etudesetcommentaires(Paris:EditionsKlincksieck,1971),47…54;W.VonSodenandH.Otten,Dasakkadische-hethitischeVokabularKBoI44KboXIII1,StudienzudenBogazko¨yTexten(Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz,1968);Beckman,LearningatHattusa,Ž97…101.15.L.Rost,DieaußerhalbvonBogazko¨ygefundenenhethitischenBriefe,ŽMitteilungendesInstitutsfu4(1956):349.16.Hallo,Expansion,Ž311.17.OnthisseeespeciallyHubertCancik,¨gederhethitischenundalttestamentlichenGeschichtsschrei-,AbhandlungendesDeutschenPala¨stinavereins(Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz,1976),53…64.18.SeePederse´n,ArchivesandLibraries,61…64,fordiscussionofthecontextofthemain“nd.
theinfluenceofmesopotamialistsusedintheSumero-Akkadiantradition,alongwithsomeisolatedhigherleveltextssuchastheGilgameshepicandthePalmandtheTamarisk.samescribalfamilyatEmarappearstohavecopiedbothexternalSumero-Akkadiantextsandlocallegaldocuments.Indeed,inkeyinstances,theyap-peartohaveadaptedtheSumero-Akkadianmaterials,addingelementsoflocalcolor.Otherwise,thesetextsshowmanyresemblancestoeducationaltextsfoundatUgaritthatIwilldiscusslater.Together,theybearwitnesstothedevelopmentoflatesecond-millenniumversionsoftheSumero-Akkadiancur-riculuminlandstothewestofMesopotamia.Theseversionssharedapar-ticularlyconsistentfocusonthesignandlexicalliststhatplayedaprominentroleintheelementarystagesoftheSumero-Akkadiancurriculum,buttheyalsofeaturedavaryingandmoreisolatedarrayofhigherleveltextsfromthatcurriculum,suchasGilgamesh.TheMesopotamiansystemwasin”uentialevenfurtherwest.Apparentlytherearesomeas-yet-unpublishedearlyMesopotamian-stylelexicalliststhathavebeenfoundinCappadocia,incentralAnatolia.MuchmoreimportantforourpurposesisextensiveevidencethattherewerescribesinEgyptwhohadundergonetraininginatleasttheAkkadiansideoftheSumero-Akkadiansystem.Egypt,ofcourse,hadadevelopedscribalmatrixfocusingonspeci“callyEgyptianliterature.Nevertheless,AkkadianwasthelinguafrancaacrosstheNearEastinthelateBronzeage,includingandparticularlythosepartsdom-inatedbytheHurrianandthenHittiteempiresorpeoplesconnectedtothem.TheAmarnaarchiveshowsthatEgyptianbureaucratsusedAkkadiantocor-respondwithvassalsandotherrulersthroughouttheSyro-PalestinianareaintheLateBronzeage.Furthermore,afewcopiesofstandardMesopotamiansignandwordlistshavebeenfoundthere,aswellashigherleveltexts,suchastheAdapaepic,andahighlyabbreviatedformoftheAkkadianNergalandEreshkigalepic,bothapparentlypartofatriadofMesopotamiantextsderivingfromMesopotamiaandusedforeducatingEgyptianscribesinasubpartofMesopotamianlore.Mostsigni“cant,thislattersubcorpushasadditionalredpointsthatwereusedintheEgyptiansystemtoguideoralperformanceof19.ForinitialpublicationofthetextsseeD.Arnaud,RecherchesaupaysdAstata:Textesdelabibliothe`que:Transcriptionsettraductions(Paris:EditionsRecherchesurlesCivilisations,1987),1…194,383…97.FordiscussionofthelexicallistsseeMiguelCivil,TheTextsfromMeskene-Emar,ŽAulaOrientalis7(1989):5…25.20.DanielE.Fleming,TimeatEmar:TheCulticCalendarandtheRitualsfromtheDivinersHouseLake,IN:Eisenbrauns,2000),34…35.21.Hallo,SyrianContribution,Ž83…86.22.W.H.vanSoldt,TheUgaritVersionofHarra-hubbulu20…21a:ANewSource,ŽinMesopotamica„Ugaritica„Biblica:Festschriftfu¨rKurtBergerhofzurVollendungseines70.Lebensjahresam7.Mai1992,ed.M.DietrichandO.Loretz(Neukirchen-Vluyn:NeukirchenerVerlag,1993),440…41;NiekVeldhuis,TheUgaritLexicalTextRS13.53(PRUIII,PlanceX),ŽWeltdesOrients27(1996):29.23.Civil,Lexicography,Ž128.24.D.O.Edzard,Amarna:DieliterarischenTexte,ŽinProceedingsoftheNinthWorldCongressofJewish(1988),27…33;P.Artzi,StudiesintheLibraryoftheAmarnaArchive,ŽinBar-IlanStudiesinAssyriologydedicatedtoPinhasArtzi(1990),139…56;ShlomoIzreel,TheAmarnaLettersfromCanaan,Žin,2418;TheAmarnaScholarlyTablets,CuneiformMonographs(Groningen:Styx,1997).25.P.Artzi,ObservationsontheLibraryoftheAmarnaArchives,ŽinVeenhof,CuneiformArchivesand212;IzreAmarnaTablets,12.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationtexts,suggestingthatsuchtextswerereadaloudintheEgyptianversionoftheSumero-Akkadianscribalsystem.SomehavespeculatedthattheEgyptiansreceivedthisscribalsystemfromtheHittites,withwhomtheyhadintensivecontactduringthisperiod.Bethatasitmay,thisevidencefromAmarnashowstheextenttowhichNearEasternculturesofthesecondmillenniumcouldadoptMesopotamianmodelsevenalongsidehighlydevelopedindigenousprocessesofeducationandtextualpro-duction.Thiswouldhavebeennosmallmeansofculturalin”uence.AsBeck-manpointsoutinanoverviewandanalysisoftheSumero-AkkadiantraditioninHatti:Itmustbestressedthattheadoptionofcuneiformimpliedthebor-rowingofanentireculturaltradition,andthatconversely,scribaled-ucationwasthemeansbywhichthattraditionwastransmitted,bothtothenativeMesopotamianandtotheforeigner.IturnnowtolookatanotherlocuswheretheSumero-Akkadianeduca-tionalsystemcoexistedwithandpotentiallyin”uencedanindigenoussystem:ThePhoeniciancityofUgarit(RasShamra)providesanotherexampleofed-ucationinbothanindigenoustongueandSumero-Akkadianliterature,oneevenmoreimportantforourpurposesthanthelimitedevidenceofAkkadianeducationfromEgypt.Thiscitysharesmuchincommonwithexamplesdis-cussedearlier.ThearchivesofthecityderivefromthelateBronzeAgelevelsofthecityandthusareveryroughlysimilarinagetothe“ndsatEmar.LikethoseofAlalakhandNuzi,muchofthepopulationofUgaritwasHurrian(oratleastboreHurriannames),andtheimportanceofHurriancultureisindi-catedbytheprominenceoftheHurrianlanguageinavarietyoftextsfoundatUgarit.And,asmentionedearlier,theeducationaltextsfoundatUgarithaveparticularresemblancestothosefoundatEmar.ParticularlyimportantforourpurposesisthefactthatUgarit,likethesitesdiscussedearlier,haspreservedextensiveevidenceoftheMesopotamiantextual-educationalsystemanindigenouseducationalsystemrevolvingarounditsowncuneiformsignsystemandliterature.Moreover,becauseUga-ritwasexcavatedusingscienti“carchaeologicalmethods,wehavemoredataregardingthecontextoftheseeducationaltexts.Thedatacon“rmthepicturegiveninthepreviouschapterofeducationinancientMesopotamia:virtually26.IzreAmarnaTablets,11.Thissystemofredpointsisdiscussedfurtherinchapter4.27.H.W.L.Saggs,CivilizationBeforeGreeceandRome(London:Batsford,1989),104;Beckman,LearningatHattusa,Ž112…13.28.Beckman,LearningatHattusa,Ž97…98.29.ThisimportanceisstressedinHallo,Expansion,Ž312.
theinfluenceofmesopotamiaalleducationaltextswerefoundinprivatedwellings,mostlythoseofpriestsandotherculticprofessions.Onlyahandfulofsucheducationaltextswerefoundinthepalaceorinatemplecontext.TheseeducationaltextsincludedhundredsofUgariticcopiesofSumero-Akkadiansignandwordlists,about21percentofthetotalnumberofSumero-Akkadiantextsoverall.Inaddition,UgaritpreservedanumberoftextsthatwerestandardpartsoftheMesopotamiancurriculum,includingtheAtrahasisstory(creationand”ood),aletterofLudingiratohismother,acompositionresemblingthewisdomtextLudlulbelnemeqi,theancientwisdominstructionofShuruppak,varioushymns,andatextassociatedwithGilgameshsyouth.AsinthecaseofEmar,theUgariticversionsofSumero-Akkadiantextsre”ectsomesigni“cantadaptations:omissionoflinesthatmightbeconsideredim-pious,additionofepithetsforMarduk,andsoon.AselsewhereintheancientNearEast,scribaleducationwentbeyondwhatascribeneededtofunctionandincludedimmersioninaworldofstandardlong-durationtextsthatsocializedhimintoanewandseparateadministrativeStill,weshouldbeclearthatlongdurationŽheredoesnotmeanthatthetextcopiesthemselveswerepreservedforalongtime.Rather,asinMesopotamia,theprimarylocusoftransmissionwasthemind-heartofthemasterscribe.Educationaltexts,ofwhateverlevel,donotappeartohavebeenputinlong-termstorage.ApparentlybythispointatUgarittheSumero-Akkadiantraditionwasme-diatedthroughtheHurrianculturerealmsurveyedearlier.Thisissuggestednotonlybytheuniquequadrilinguallexicallistsbutalsobythestrongin”u-enceoftheHurrianlanguageonthelistsingeneral.Thismaybepartofabroaderphenomenon,bythispoint,oftransmissionoftheMesopotamianscribalmatrixbymorelocalsourcesinthelateBronzeAge.WeseesimilardynamicsevidentinAmarnaEgypt,wherethescribaltraditionresembledHit-titeprecursors,andthelettersexchangedwithCanaaniterulersre”ectedmixed30.Seethedetailedreconstructionofarchaelogicalcontextsofthe“ndsinW.H.vanSoldt,StudiesintheAkkadianofUgarit:DatingandGrammar,AOAT(Neukirchen-Vluyn:NeukirchenerVerlag,1991),47…231and31.ForarecentoverviewseevanSoldt,AkkadianofUgarit,particularly747…48.Hegivesasketchofthecurricularorderon750…51.32.A.F.Rainey,TwoCuneiformFragmentsfromTelAphek,ŽTelAviv2(1976):130…31;LorenR.Mack-Fisher,ASurveyandReadingGuidetotheDidacticLiteratureofUgarit:ProlegomenontoaStudyontheSage,ŽinGammieandPerdue,SageinIsraelandtheAncientNearEast,69…70;vanSoldt,ReligiousandLiteraryTexts,Ž33.M.Dietrich,AspectsoftheBabylonianImpactonUgariticLiteratureandReligion,ŽinUgarit,ReligionandCulture:ProceedingsoftheInternationalColloquiumonUgarit,ReligionandCulture,Edinburgh,July1994,ed.N.Wyattetal.(Mu¨nster:UgaritVerlag,1996),41…44.Itisnotpossibleintheseinstancestodetermineatwhatstagesuchmodi“cationsoccurred,whetherbeforeorafterthetraditionsreachedUgarit.34.J.Krecher,SchreiberschulunginUgarit:DieTraditionvonListenundsumerischenTexten,ŽForschung1(1969):132.35.OnthisseevanSoldt,AkkadianofUgarit,521,whoobservesthatonlycopiesofjuridicaltextswerepreservedoverlongperiods.36.Krecher,SchreiberschulunginUgarit,Ž132.SeealsoGesche,,26,n.121,citingalecturebyVanSoldtthatmakesthesameaf“rmation.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationformsofAkkadianproducedbylocalvariantsoftheMesopotamianeducationalMoreover,asmentionedearlier,theUgariticandEmareducationaltexts,thoughdifferentincrucialrespects,showspecialresemblancestoeachother.Bythispoint,theSumero-AkkadiansystemisnottransmittedviadirectcontactwithlateBronzeAgeMesopotamiancultures(thoughthereappeartobeafewspeci“callyMesopotamiantextsatUgarit),butithasdevelopedalifeofitsowninareastothenorthandwestofMesopotamia.KeyMesopota-mianstandardtextsarestillprominent,buttheyarebeingtaughtandadaptedbyscribesinlocalenvironmentsthatareevermoredistantfromtheheartlandwheresuchtextswereoriginallycreated.Moreover,thereisnostandardSumero-Akkadiancurriculumthatisattestedinthesevariedsites.Rather,weseerelativeconsistencyinattestationoftheelementarylistsfromtheSumero-AkkadiantraditioncombinedwithmuchmoreirregularandvariedattestationofhigherlevelworkslikeGilgameshorAtrahasis.UgaritisdistinguishedfromtheculturesdiscussedearlierinsofarasitdevelopedaparallelscribalsystembasedonacuneiformalphabetresemblingtheMesopotamiansysteminbeingmadeoutofwedgesinclaybutconsistingofradicallyfewersigns„thirtyinall.ThoughUgariticarchivestendedtobeseparatefromSumero-Akkadianones,theeducationalsystemattestedinthemfollowedmanyelementsoftheMesopotamianmodel.Apparently,pro-spectivescribesworkedtheirwaythroughUgariticalphabeticandnamelists,muchasothersmasteredSumero-Akkadian(-Hurrian)lists.Generally,theystartedwithshortexcerptsandelementaryalphabeticlistsbeforeprogressingtoelementarygrammarexercisesandnamelists.TheyalsolearnedcertainstandardUgaritictexts,suchasgodlists,magicaltexts,anUgariticwisdominstruction,anditemslikethepoemtoAqhat.LorenMack-FisherhasarguedthatmuchofthisstandardliteraturerevolvesaroundavenerationofancientsageslikethatseenintheSumero-Akkadiantradition,venerationofbothpre-37.Izreel,AmarnaLetters,Ž2418.38.VanSoldt,AkkadianofUgarit,522…23.DietricharguesthatalloftheSumero-Akkadiantextsareofforeignorigin(ImpactŽ).39.ForasummaryoftypesofadaptationseeHallo,SyrianContribution,Ž87…88.40.ApparentlythiswasameldingofasomewhatolderCanaanitealphabeticconceptwiththecuneiformformoflettering.FordiscussionofthelongandshortNorthwestSemiticalphabetsandtheirrelationwithnoncuneiformalphabeticprecursorsseeJ.D.Hawkins,TheOriginandDisseminationofWritinginWesternAsia,ŽinTheOriginsofCivilization,ed.R.S.Moorey(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1977),159…62;A.Millard,TheUgariticandCanaaniteAlphabets:SomeNotes,ŽUgaritForschungen11(1979):613…16;andDietrich,Impact,Ž41.VanSoldt,AkkadianofUgarit,749.42.A.F.Rainey,TheScribeatUgarit:HisPositionandIn”uence,ŽProceedingsoftheIsraelAcademyofScienceandHumanities3(1969):131…32;Mack-Fisher,ASurveyandReadingGuidetotheDidacticLiteratureofUgarit:ProlegomenontoaStudyontheSage,ŽinTheSageinIsraelandtheAncientNearEast,ed.JohnG.GammieandLeoG.Perdue(WinonaLake,IN:Eisenbrauns,1990),Ž71;I.Marquez-Rowe,SyllabicandAlphabetTexts,ŽUgaritForschung28(1996):457…6243.VanSoldt,AkkadianofUgarit,749.44.Mack-Fisher,SurveyandReadingGuide,Ž71…72.
theinfluenceofmesopotamia”oodsagesofthesortfocusedoninthattradition(e.g.,Shuruppak)andpost-”oodsageslikeDaniel.Moreover,theremaybesomewaysinwhichscribalmasteryoftheSumero-Akkadiantraditionwasre”ectedinelementsoftheUgaritictexts.Forexample,OttoEissfeldtpointsouthowthewordingoftheconclusionofthe”oodintheGilgameshepic(11,142…145)maybere”ectedinsimilarwordingintheUgariticKirtuepic(1,106…109),andGregoriodelOlmoLetearguesthatthelunarcultofUgaritisin”uencedbySumero-Akkadiantraditions.Inaddition,muchofthisUgariticcurriculumresemblesitsMesopotamiancounterpartinorientationtowardsocializationofthescribeforloyaltytotra-ditionandthethrone.JustastheSumero-Akkadianstandardcurriculumso-cializedprospectivescribesbyhavingthemmastertextsfocusedonoftenby-gonedeities,soalsothestandardUgaritictextsfocusonasetofdeitiesthatdivergesfromthosepresentinotherwitnessestoritualatUgarit.Moreover,justastheSumero-Akkadiancurriculumfeaturedstandardtextsthatcelebratedtheancientfoundersofthe“rstMesopotamianempires,soalsostandardUga-ritictextslikeKirtufocusonancientkings,theissueofheirship,anddivineblessingontheirlines.Partofthepointofaneducationfocusingonsuchtextswaspreciselytheirantiquatedcharacter.InsofarasUgariticscribesthor-oughlylearnedsuchtexts,theywerebeingformedintofutureadministratorsbyaneducationalprocessthatwentfarbeyondtherequirementsofmeretech-nicalcompetencetoreadandwritedocuments.AsAnsonRaineypointsout,botheducationalandstandardtextswerefoundinthesamelibraryofthehighpriest,Žthussuggestingthatthisarea„asinthecaseofthescribaldwell-ingsinNippur„wastheplacewhereamasterofthetraditionpreservedtextsbothinwrittenformandinthemindsandheartsofhisstudents,his(UgariticforstudentsŽ),hissons.ŽTheUgariticcaseisparticularlyimportanthereforseveralreasons.NotonlyisitoneofthelatestexamplesoftheSumero-AkkadianscribalmatrixoutsideMesopotamia,butitisalsothemainexampleoftheoccurrenceoftheSumero-Akkadianscribalmatrixalongsideaparallelandanalogoussystemofalphabeticeducation.SomewhohaveconsideredtheissueofeducationwithinancientIsraelhavearguedthatIsraelwouldnothavehadaneducationalsystemlikethatofancientMesopotamiabecauseitssimpleralphabetdidnotrequire45.Mack-Fisher,SurveyandReadingGuide,Ž79…80.46.OttoEissfeldt,MesopotamischeElementeindenalphabetischenTextenausUgarit,Ž39(1962):39;G.delOlmoLete,YarhuyNikkalu.LaMitologialunarsumeriaenUgarit,ŽAulaOrientalis9(1991):67…75;cf.Dietrich,ImpactŽ(thoughhealsonoteswaysMardukplaysacircumscribedyetdocumentedroleintheUgariticpantheon;MardukinUgarit,ŽStudiepigra“cielinguisticisulVicinoOrienteantico5[1988]:79…101).47.Mack-Fisher,SurveyandReadingGuide,Ž76…80.48.AsKarelVanderToornpointsout,studentsintheUgariticsystemappeartohaveendedupinroyaladministration(CuneiformDocumentsfromSyria-Palestine:Texts,ScribesandSchools,ŽZeitschriftderdeutschen¨stina-Vereins116[2000]:105).49.Rainey,ScribeatUgarit,Ž127…28.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationsuchanextensiveeducationalprocess.ButUgaritandothersitesshowthattheprojectofeducationintheMesopotamiansystemwasaboutfarmorethanmereeducationinliteracy.Moreover,itfeaturedmasteryofastandardcurric-ulumofancienttextsthatwentwellbeyondwordlists,grammarexercises,oreventextsthatmightbemorenarrowlyde“nedaswisdom.ŽUgaritisuniqueinprovidinganexampleofaculture,relativelyclosetoIsraelgeographicallyandchronologically,thatdevelopedanalphabeticeducationalsystemalonglinessimilartotheSumero-Akkadiancuneiformsystemthathaddominatededucationintheareauptothatpoint.AtUgarit,educationinSumero-AkkadiancuneiformandtheUgariticcuneiformalphabetoccurredsidebyside,althoughasmallernumberofscribesprobablyengagedintheformerthanthelatter.ScribesatUgaritlearnedstandardUgaritictextsliketheKirtuepic,whilesomelearnedstandardAkkadiantextsliketheAtrahasiscreationand”oodepicaswell.AlphabeticeducationdidnotcompletelyreplacetheSumero-AkkadiantraditionatUgarit.AlphabeticeducationatUgaritwasnotdoneonasubstantiallydifferentmodel.RatheritusedsimilarmeanstoitsMesopotamiancounterpartandwasdirectedatsimilarbroadends:bothtrain-inginthetechniquesandtextualtemplatesofthescribaltraditionandsocial-izationintothe„nowspeci“callyUgaritic„scribalof“ce.Ugaritisdistinctiveinoneotherwayfromotherexamplestobediscussedintherestofthisbook:itisanexampleofaculturethatdevelopedanalphabeticcuneiformthatwasrecordedondurableclaytablets.OthersocietieslikeIsrael,Moab,andPhoeniciarecordedmostoftheiralphabeticwritingsonmoreper-ishablematerials,generallypapyrusandleather,perhapswoodenorwaxboardsinsomecases.Asaresult,virtuallynoeducationalexerciseshavesurvivedfromthesecultures,exceptforthemostelementaryalphabeticexercisesthattendedtoberecordedonostraca,which,liketheirbaked-tabletcounterparts,areatypeofceramicmaterialthatpreserveswell.Asidefromthese,ouronlywrittentextsfromsuchculturesarethosewrittenbymoreaccomplishedscribesintheprocessoftheirwork:letters,administrativereceiptsandcon-tracts,monumentalinscriptions,andthoseliteraryremains,principallytheBible,thatwerepasseddownbysubsequentgenerations.Wecannotrecon-structtheinterveningalphabeticeducationalprocesswithoutrecoursetotheanalogyofbetterdocumentedexampleslikethoseofUgaritorMesopotamia.Iturnnowtothe“rstpartofthattask,consideringinapreliminarywayhowtheMesopotamianandUgariticexamplesmightbeinstructiveinexplorationofancientIsraeliteeducationandtextuality.CuneiformScribalSystemsandAncientIsraelThe“rstthingtonoteishowtheMesopotamianscribal-textualsystemisat-testedinBronzeAgeCanaanandPhoenicia,muchasitwasinEbla,Elam,Haft-Tepe,Alalakh,Nuzi,Hatti,Emar,Amarna,Ugarit,andsoon.Ihaveal-readyconsideredthediscoveryatAmarnaofAkkadianletterswrittentoEgypt
theinfluenceofmesopotamiabyrulersinSyro-Palestine.TheseevenincludesomelettersfromAbdikheba,therulerofJerusalem,apparentlywrittenbyascribewithaf“nitiestotheSyrianAkkadiantradition.LetterslikethesewerecomposedbylocalscribeswhohadreceivedatleastarudimentaryeducationusingancientMesopota-mianmethodsandmaterials,evenifthisscribalsystemwas(1)mediatedbywayoftheHurriansand/orHittites;(2)involvedaformofhybridCanaanizedAkkadianthatre”ectsisolationfromSumero-Akkadiantraditionstreamsandheavyin”uencebylocallanguages;and(3)showsmanylocalvariationsinscribalpracticesamongthemselves.Still,theselettersshowthatUgaritwasnottheonlylocationinSyro-PhoeniciawheresuchlocalformsoftheMeso-potamianscribaleducationalsystemwerecontinuing.ThisissupportedbyinstanceswherecuneiformeducationaltabletshavebeenfoundinBronzeAgesitesinancientCanaan,partofabroaderphenom-enonofwidespreaduseofAkkadianforvariouspurposesatsiteslikeHazor,Keisan,Jericho,Hesi,andMegiddo.EarlyBronzeAgeSumero-Akkadianed-ucationalmaterialshavebeenfoundatHazor,Gezer,Taanak,and(possibly)Inaddition,severallateBronzeAgelexicographiccuneiformtab-letswerefoundinthePhoeniciancityofAphek.NoneoftheApheklistshaveMesopotamiananalogues,butallfeatureSumeriansignswithAkkadiantrans-lations,followingthebroaderanalogyoftheMesopotamianeducationallist.WehavealreadyseenlocalvariantsandexpansionsoftheMesopotamianlisttradition,fromtheearly,distinctivelyEblaitesignliststotheuniquedevelop-mentsatUgaritofquadrilingualformsofthestandardSumero-Akkadianlistsandbrand-newalphabeticsignandwordlistsintheUgaritictradition.TheseSumero-AkkadianlistsfoundinancientCanaanarepartofasimilarphenom-AnotherfragmentarybitofevidenceisthediscoveryatMegiddoofa50.W.Moran,SyrianScribeoftheJerusalemLetters,ŽinUnityandDiversity:EssaysontheHistory,LiteratureandReligionoftheAncientNearEast,ed.H.GoedickeandJ.J.M.Roberts(Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1975),146…66.51.P.Artzi,Response,ŽinBiblicalArchaeologyToday,ed.J.Amitai(Jerusalem:IsraelExplorationSociety,1985),270…71;Izreel,AmarnaLetters,Ž2412…18;ShlomoIzreel,TheAmarnaGlosses:WhoWroteWhatforWhom?SomeSociolinguisticConsiderations,ŽinLanguageandCultureintheNearEast,ed.ShlomoIzreelandRinaDrory(Leiden:Brill,1995),101…3.52.D.O.Edzard,AmarnaunddieArchive:SeinerKorrespondentenzwischenUgaritundGaza,ŽinBiblicalArchaeologyToday,ed.J.Amitai(Jerusalem:IsraelExplorationSociety,1985),253…54.53.AsHallopointsout,withtheexceptionofHebron,virtuallyallsitesfromthisperiodfeatureeducationaltexts(Origins:TheAncientNearEasternBackgroundofSomeModernWesternInstitutions,StudiesintheHistoryandCultureoftheAncientNearEast[Leiden:Brill,1996],161).54.FordiscussionsoftheeducationalmaterialsseeA.E.Glock,TextsandArchaeologyatTellTaBerytus31(1983):57…66;A.Demsky,TheEducationofCanaaniteScribesintheMesopotamianCuneiformTradition,ŽinBar-IlanStudiesinAssyriologyDedicatedtoPinhasArtzi,ed.JacobKleinandAaronSkaist(RamatGan:Bar-IlanUniversityPress,1990),158…62;Cooper,Cuneiform,Ž1217,andvanderToorn,CuneiformDocuments,Ž98…99.Foranoverviewofeighty-ninecuneiforminscriptionsfromthebroaderareaseenowWayneHorowitz,TakayoshiOshima,andSethSanders,ABibliographicalListofCuneiformInscriptionsfromCanaan,Palestine/Philistia,andtheLandofIsrael,Ž122(2002):753…66.55.A.F.Rainey,ATri-LingualCuneiformFragmentfromTelAphek,ŽTelAviv3(1976):137…40;Rainey,AFragmentfromTelAphek.Ž
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationfourteenth-centuryfragmentoftheepicofGilgamesh,onethatanticipatessomeaspectsoflaterCanaaniteAkkadiandocumentsfoundatAmarna.wehaveseen,GilgameshwasoneofthefewnonlisttextsfromtheSumero-AkkadiantraditiontobefoundatmultiplelocioutsideofMesopotamia.WithinMesopotamiaproper,itwaspartoftheearlystagesofscribaleducation,withshortexcerptscopiedbysome“rst-stagestudentsjustmasteringtheinitialsignandwordlists.PerhapsitslinktoearlyeducationexplainswhyGilga-meshisfoundsofrequentlyoutsideMesopotamia,atHatti,Emar,Ugarit,andMegiddo„alllociwherethemainothereducationalmaterialattestedisthelisttraditioncharacteristicoftheearlystagesoftheSumero-Akkadiancurric-Thus,thediscoveryofacopyofaportionofthisstandardeducationaltextatMegiddoisadditionalevidencethatsomestudentsinBronzeAgeCa-naanunderwentalocalformoftheMesopotamiancurriculum.Indeed,thisevidencesuggestsinparticularthattheynotonlylearnedcuneiformAkkadianthroughuseofstandardornonstandardsignandwordlistsbutalsolearnedsomeofthestandardAkkadiantexts,likeGilgamesh,thatwerecentraltothatcurriculum,particularlyitsearlierstages.Alloftheevidenceconsideredsofar,however,showstheexistenceandin”uenceoftheMesopotamiancurriculumintheBronzeAge,nottheIronAge,whichissocentralfortheformationoftheBible.Indeed,partoftheproblemisthat„thoughabouteighteen“rst-millenniumcuneiformtextshavebeenfoundinPhilistia/Canaan/Phoenicia(approximately25percentofthetotal)„therearenowherenearasmany“ndsofspeci“callyeducationaltextsfortheIronAgeastherearefortheprecedingBronzeAge.Thislackofpreservationof“rst-millenniumeducationaltextsisaproblemeveninMeso-potamia,whereitappearsthatmanyofthemoreadvancededucationalexer-ciseswerewrittenonwaxtablets,papyrus,andleatherstrips„allofwhicharefarmoreperishablethantheolderclaytablets.Someindividualexemplarsoftheseexerciseshavebeenpreserved,buttheexistenceofotherscanonlybeMostscholarsinsistthatMesopotamiastillhadaneducationalsys-temduringtheselaterperiods,evenastheyrecognizethatitislesswelldoc-umented,waslessextensive,andprobablytookplaceexclusivelywithinamaster-apprenticemodel,ratherthanaschoolmodelŽmoreeasilyrecognizedaseducationaltomoderneyes.Inaddition,Akkadianwasusedasalinguafrancathroughthe“rsthalfofthe“rstmillennium.AstheAssyriansconqueredArameankingdoms,theybegantouseAramaicalongsideAkkadianforof“cialbusiness.Neverthe-less,westillseeAkkadiantreatiesandotherdocumentsusedininternational56.Wiseman,IsraelsLiteraryNeighbors,Ž81.OntheCanaaniteelementsoftheAkkadianseeArtzi,Response,Ž270.57.Gesche,,148…49,172…73,210…11.58.ThisisnotedalreadybySpeiserinhiscommentsinresponsetoLandsberger,nowtobefoundinLandsberger,ScribalConcepts,Ž120,andisalsonotedinWiseman,IsraelsLiteraryNeighbors,Ž81.59.Hallo,Expansion,Ž313;vanderToorn,CuneiformDocuments,Ž99.60.ThisnumbercomesfromthelistinginHorowitz,Oshima,andSanders,List.Ž61.Civil,Education,Ž302.
theinfluenceofmesopotamiadiplomacy.Manyoftheartisticrepresentationsofwritingin“rst-millenniumMesopotamiafeatureaSumero-Akkadianscribewithatabletworkingalong-sideanAramaicscribewritingonparchment.AusefulexampleofbothtypesofscribalisminthesametextisthebilingualAkkadian-AramaicTellFekheriyeinscriptionfromtheArameankingdomofSikaninupperMesopotamia.ThisinscriptionwaswrittenbyagovernorofSikaninupperMesopotamia,eitheranativewhotookonanAssyriannameoranAssyrianappointee.StockphrasesthroughouttheAssyrianversionoftheinscriptionshowthatitwaswrittenbyascribethoroughlyversedinstandardlegalphraseology.Indeed,theinscrip-tionpartakesevenmoreofthelanguageofcontractsandtreatiesthanitdoesoftypicalroyalstelae.ItmustalsoberecognizedthattheuseofAkkadianoutsideMesopotamiashiftedinthetwelfthcentury.ThiscanbeseenintheevidencefromtheSyro-Phoenicianarea.Ontheonehand,theevidencefromUgaritandEmaractuallyshowsthein”uenceoftheSumero-Akkadianeducationalsystemin-creasinginthethirteenthcentury,asAssyriaextendeditsin”uencewestwardunderkingslikeAdad-nirariIandShalmaneserI.Ontheotherhand,withthecollapseofthelateBronzeAgestates,wealsoseeaseveral-centurygapincuneiformevidenceoutsideMesopotamia.EvidencedoesnotreappearinPal-estineandPhoeniciauntiltheearly“rstmillennium.Fragmentsoftwocu-neiformstelaehavebeenfoundatAshdodandSamaria,alongwithahandfulofcuneiformlegalandadministrativedocumentsatGezer,Keisan,andSa-maria.Nevertheless,noschooltextshavebeenfoundsofarfromthatperiod,suggestingthatAkkadianwasmoreexclusivelythelanguageoftheconquerorsintheIsraeliteareabythispoint.SomescholarshaveneverthelessmaintainedthatlaterIsraelwasspeci“-callyin”uencedbytheSumero-Akkadianschooltradition.AlbrightsuggestedthatHebrew(teacherŽ)mightbeaHebrewversionoftheSumero-Akkadiantermsformasterscribe/teacher,nuSpeiserpro-posedthattheHebrewtermforschool,betsepher(houseofthescrollŽ)mightbeaHebrewcalqueoftheSumerian(nowmorelikely)Akkadianbš¯t-u(houseofthetabletŽ),thoughthisparticularargumentishamperedbythelateattestationoftheHebrewterm.Finally,RaineyandothershavepointedouthowtheUgaritictermforstudents,,isparalleledbyseveraloft-citedmentionsof(onestaughtŽ)inIsaiah.ThemostfamousistheoneinwhichIsaiahquotesGodtellinghimtopreservehisprophecyinthefollowingway.62.A.Millard,AramaeansandAssyrians,Ž45(1983):105.63.Cooper,Cuneiform,Ž1217.Again,notethesurveyofalmosttwentyadministrative,votive,andlegal“rst-millenniumcuneiformdocumentsgiveninHorowitz,Oshima,andSanders,List.Ž64.ThecommentsareinthediscussionsectionofLandsberger,ScribalConcepts,Ž105…6.SeenowPaulMankowskisargumentthatthisborrowingoftheSumeriantermcamebywayofAkkadian,PaulV.Mankowski,AkkadianLoanWordsinBiblicalHebrew,HarvardSemiticStudies(WinonaLake,IN:Eisenbrauns,2000),33…65.CommentrecordedinLandsberger,ScribalConcepts,Ž106…8.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationBindupthewitness,Sealtheteaching()inmystudents(;Isa8:16)HeretheprophetappearstobedescribingGodsdivinecommandtoper-petuatehisteaching,notinatextbutinagroupofpeoplewhomheteaches.ThiswouldparallelconceptionsfoundintheMesopotamiansystemthatthemasterscribeperpetuatestheancienttraditionnotjustthroughincisingtextsontabletsorothermediabutalsoonpeoplesminds.PreviouslythispassagewasusedtobuttressnowunpopularideasofanIsaianicschool,Žbutthesepasteffortswerehamperedbyanachronisticandimprecisemodelsforsuchanancientschool.ŽForthetimebeingitisenoughtonotethatthebiblicalHebrewtermsforthethreemaincomponentsofeducation„teacher,student,and(possibly)school„allhavepotentialanaloguesintheSumero-Akkadianeducationalsystem.TheothermainbitofdatasuggestingthattheMesopotamianeducationalsystemhadasigni“cantin”uenceonancientIsraelistheapparentre”ectionofstandardMesopotamianworksinIsraelitetexts.Forexample,scholarsoftenhavepointedtoremarkablyspeci“cparallelsbetweenMesopotamianandIs-raelitelegalandtreatytraditions.Soalso,therearemanyanalogiesbetweenprimevaltraditionsinGenesisandtextslikeAtrahasis,Gilgamesh,andEnumaElishthatwereprominentintheSumero-Akkadianeducationaltradition.Mosesstoryshowspossiblespeci“clinkswiththe(“rst-millennium)SargonandtherearesomecloseparallelsbetweenthebiblicalnarrativesofcovenantandthefestivalattestedatEmar.SometimesmotifsfromMesopotamianeducationaltextsappearinrelativelylateIsraeliteliterature,asinthecaseoftheremarkablyexactcorrespondencebetweenthecallofSiduri,thealewife,toGilgameshtoenjoyfood,goodclothes,andhisspouse(OBversion;tabletXiii,6…14)andQoheletscallforhisstudentstodoasimilarlistofthings(e.g.Qoh9:7…10).Weevenseeapossiblere”ectionofcentralvaluesoftheMesopotamiancurriculumintheGardenofEdencreationstory.AsIandothershavepointedoutbefore,thistextissaturatedwithterminology66.R.Frankena,TheVassalTreatiesofEssarhaddonandtheDatingofDeuteronomy,Ž14(1965):122…54;MosheWeinfeld,DeuteronomyandtheDeuteronomicSchool(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1972),59…157.Forspeci“csuggestionsofin”uenceatboththeearlylevel(indirect,bywayoftheSumero-Akkadianeducationaltradition)andlater(“rst-milleniumadoptionofspeci“ctreatyformulae)seeEckartOtto,TownandRuralCountrysideinAncientIsraeliteLaw:ReceptionandRedactioninCuneiformIsraeliteLaw,Ž57(1993):21.67.TheobservationsaresummarizedinCarr,ReadingtheFractures,(Louisville,KY:WestminsterJohnKnox,1996),241…46.68.OnthedatingseeBrianLewis,TheSargonLegend:AStudyoftheAkkadianTextandtheTaleoftheHeroWhoWasExposedatBirth,ASORDissertationSeries(Cambridge,MA:ASOR,1980),101…7;VanDeMieroop,CuneiformTexts,76…83.Onuseofthetextin“rst-millenniumeducationseeGesche,,148…49.Forthoroughargumentforspeci“cconnectionsbetweenthetextsseeLewis,SargonLegend,211…67.69.DanielE.Fleming,Emar:OntheRoadfromHarantoHebron,ŽinMesopotamiaandtheBible:ComparativeExplorations,ed.MarkW.ChavalasandK.LawsonYounger(Shef“eld:Shef“eldAcademicPress,2002),233…37.70.JamesL.Crenshaw,Ecclesiastes:ACommentary,OTL(Philadelphia:WestminsterPress,1997),51.
theinfluenceofmesopotamiafromspeci“cwisdomŽtextsinancientIsrael.Indeed,muchofthestoryrevolvesaroundthedecisionofthe“rsthumanstoeatfromthetreeofknowl-edgeofgoodandevil,Žaclearreferencetoancientwisdom.Moreover,thewomanherselfseesthatthetreeisgoodforgaininginsightŽ(;Gen3:6).Whatiskeyforourpurposeshereisthelanguageusedtodescribewhathappenstothemwhentheyeatfromthiswisdomtree:Shetookfromitsfruitandsheate,andthentookalsoforherhus-bandwithher,andheate.AndtheeyesofbothofthemwereopenedAndtheyrealizedtheywerenaked,andtheymadeloinclothsforthemselvesoutof“gleaves.(Gen3:6b…7)JustastheMesopotamianstudentreachedfullhumanitybygraduatingfromtheedubbaandhavinghiseyesopened,Žsothis“rsthumanpairintheBiblereachfulladulthoodthrougheatingofthetreeofknowledgeandhavingtheireyesopened.ŽIndeed,inclothingthemselves,theyparallelothermajorchar-actersintheSumero-Akkadianeducationaltradition,suchasEnkiduoftheGilgameshepic,whoachievefullhumanitybyputtingonclothes.Textslikethisprovideprovocativepointerstopossiblein”uenceoftheSumero-AkkadiantraditionontextswrittenlongafterthattraditionisattestedintheSyro-Palestinianarea.Yetitisquiteunclearhowsuchin”uencewouldhavetakenplaceorwhatkindoftextual-educationalsystemIsraelitselfhad.PerhapsearliestIsraelwasin”uencedsomewhatbythelastremnantsoftheSumero-AkkadiantraditioninCanaan,anditisstillpossiblethatsomelaterscribalcirclesinIsraelwerein”uencedbyelementsliketreatyformulaethatweremostpertinenttothesortsofinternationaldiplomacywithAssyriainwhichtheywereengaged.Themainfocushere,however,isnottoestablishthespeci“csofwhatevertransmissionprocess(es)oftheSumero-AkkadianenculturationsystemoccurredinCanaan-Israel.Instead,itistogivesomeinitialpointerstotheideathattheMesopotamianscribaleducationaltraditionwasimportantnotjustinElam,Ebla,Hatti,Nuzi,Alalakh,Amarna,Ugarit,Hazor,Aphek,andMegiddobutalsoinIsrael.Iturnnowtoanotherculturethatin”uencedIsrael,acultureeverybitastextuallyfocusedasMesopotamia,aculturewithitsowneducational-scribalsystemandindeedonethathasdemonstrablelinkstotheemergenceofaneducational-scribalsysteminearlyIsrael.Thatculture,ofcourse,isEgypt.71.DavidM.Carr,ThePoliticsofTextualSubversion:ADiachronicPerspectiveontheGardenofEdenStory,Ž112(1993):589…91.72.ForusefulparallelsseeHallo,SumerianLiterature,ŽandRichardE.Averbeck,Sumer,theBible,andComparativeMethod:HistoriographyandTempleBuilding,ŽinChavalasandYounger,Mesopotamiaandtheesp.90…91.73.Lambert,Forschungsstand,Ž70…71;Hallo,Expansion,Ž312.74.Seeearlier,note66.
This page intentionally left blank
EgyptianEducationandTextualityYouare,ofcourse,askilledscribeattheheadofhisfellows,andtheteachingofeverybookisincisedonyourheart.„SatiricLetterŽAsweturntoEgypt,we“ndaculturethatis,ifanything,evenmoretextuallyorientedthantheculturesofancientMesopotamia.WhereonlyisolatedkingsinMesopotamia(e.g.ShulgiorAshurba-nipal)claimedabilitytoread,anumberofroyalinscriptionsinEgyptclaimawritingcompetenceforpharaohs,andwritingimple-mentshavebeenfoundinsomeoftheirtombs.Virtuallyallof“-cials,whethertheywererequiredtowriteornot,wentthroughthescribaleducationalprocess,andscribesmaintainedtheirprestigelaterinEgyptianhistorythaninMesopotamianhistory.writinghadimmenseprestigeinEgypt.Itwasseenasameansofovercomingthefaultsofmemoryandasatoolfromthegods.Epigraph:TheSatiricLetterŽor(withFischer-Elfert):SatiricPolemic,Ž11,2…3.Asinthe“rstchapter,thisisanEnglishrenderingofthetranslationinHansWernerFischer-Elfert,LehreeinesMannesfu¨rseinenSohn:EineEtappeaufdemGotteswegdesloyalenundsolidarischenBeamtendesMittlerenReiches,gyptologischeAbhandlungen(Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz,1999),1.BainesandEyre,FourNotes,Ž79…81;Saggs,,98…99;K.Nordh,AspectsofAncientEgyptianCursesandBlessings:ConceptualBackgroundandTransmission,ActaUniversitatisUpsaliensis(Uppsala:AlmquistandWiksell,1996),32…33;DonaldB.Redford,ScribeandSpeaker,ŽinWritingsandSpeechinIsraeliteandAncientNearEasternProphecy,ed.EhudBenZviandMichaelH.Floyd(Atlanta,GA:ScholarsPress,2000),164…65.2.Morenz,,23.A.Schlottsurveysaseriesofoccasionswherenonscri-beshadthemselvesrepresentedasscribes(SchriftundSchreiberimAltenA[Munich:Beck,1989],152…53).3.Redford,ScribeandSpeaker,Ž171…205.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationThereisnoEgyptiancritiqueofwriting,suchasthatfoundinChineseorGreekphilosophicalsystems.Indeed,othercultures,likeGreece,sawEgyptastheprototypicalwrittenculture,occasionallylampooningEgyptianclaimstotextuallybasedwisdom.AtalefromPlatowellillustratesmanyoftheseaspectsoftextualityinEgypt„valuingofwriting,depictionofitasagiftfromthegods,devaluationoforalmemory„evenasitillustratesPlatohimselfinsertinghisownper-spectiveintoanEgyptianmouth.InhedescribesthemythofthegiftofwritingtotheEgyptiansbyTheuth,ŽhisnamefortheEgyptiangodThoth.InPlatosversion,Theuthproclaimsaboutwriting:Here,Oking,isabranchoflearningthatwillmakethepeopleofEgyptwiserandimprovetheirmemories;mydiscoveryprovidesarecipeformemoryandwisdom.(PlatogoesontohavetheEgyptianrecipientassertthatwritingisarecipenotformemorybutforforgetfulness.Nevertheless,PlatosdepictionoftheEgyptianrevealsmoreabouthisviewsthanthoseoftheEgyptiansthem-selves.Egyptiansourcesstresstheunreliabilityoforalmemory,and,likePlatosTheuthcharacter,theystressthevalueofwritingtoovercomeforget-ThusbothinternalandexternalsourcestestifytotheunusuallyhighregardinwhichwritingandwriterswereheldinancientEgypt.Furthermore,whatweknowabouteducationinEgyptsuggeststhatitwasintenselyfocusedonmasteryandmemorizationofkeytexts.TheEgyptologistJanAssmannhasdevelopedtheconceptofculturaltextŽtoarticulatethecentralityoftextsinenculturationandeducationinancientEgypt.HearguesthatmuchofwhatistermedEgyptianliteratureŽisinfactenculturationmaterial,textsthatwereusedineducationfortraininginwritingand„moreimportant„forsociali-zationintoaneliteclassoftradentsoftheseculturaltexts.ŽProspectivemem-bersoftherulingclasswereinductedintothatclassthroughhavingtheseculturaltextsintheirheart.ŽDoingsomadeone,forthe“rsttime,intoafullhumanbeing.AsAssmannputsit,thebiologicalsaysvirtuallynoth-ing,onlytheculturalmakesthepersonintoahuman.ŽThisculturalsoftware,ŽthisEgyptianliterature,ŽiswhatAssmanntermsaculturaltext.ŽObviouslythisconceptofculturaltextŽhasmuchincommonwiththe4.R.Hackforth,trans.,TheCollectedDialoguesofPlato,ed.E.HamiltonandH.Cairns(Prince-ton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1961),520.PlatosSocratesthengoeson(274e…275b)toinserthisowncritiqueoftextualityintheEgyptiankingsmouth,towhichPhaedrusagrees(275c).SeeMorenz,,20.5.Morenz,,29;Redford,ScribeandSpeaker,Ž171…205.6.Assmann,Texte,Ž69…70.Mytranslation.TheGermanoriginalhadtheitalicizedwordsaswell,thoughprobablybecausetheywereEnglish-languagewordsinaGermanlanguagecontext.7.ForthebroaderstatementseeAssmann,Texte.ŽForacriticalresponseseeJohnBaines,ResearchonEgyptianLiterature:De“nitions,Backgrounds,Prospects,ŽinEgyptologyattheDawnoftheTwenty-FirstCentury:ProceedingsoftheEightInternationalCongressofEgyptologists(Cairo,2000),vol.3,ed.ZahiHawassandLylaPinchBrock(Cairo:AmericanUniversityinCairoPress,2003),10…11.
egyptianeducationandtextualitySumero-Akkadianeducationalmaterialsdiscussedintheprecedingchapters.Nevertheless,beforepursuingsuchparallels(andcontrasts),IwillgiveanoverviewhereoftheEgyptiantextualmatrixinitself.BuildingonresearchbyHelmutBrunner,RonaldWilliams,JohnBaines,ChristopherEyre,JacJanssen,JanAssmann,LudwigMorenz,Gu¨nterBurkard,AndreaMcDowell,andothers,Iwillfocusonceagainoneducation,thoughIwillalsolookbrie”yatwhatisknownaboutancientEgyptiantextualproductionandlibrarystorage.ThisthenwillprepareforacomparisonandcontrastwiththeSumero-Akkadiansystemandabriefdiscussionofspeci“cindicatorsthattheEgyptianscribalmatrixin”uencedthescribalmatrixinIsrael.AncientEgyptianEducationTurningtolookatEgyptseducationalsystem,wecanseejusthowluckywearewithrespecttocultureslikeMesopotamiaandUgaritthatusedtabletssopredominantly.OurevidenceregardingtheeducationalprocessinEgyptismorescanty.Wehavesomecheapostraca,almostexclusivelyfromtheNewKingdomatDeirel-Medina.Ostracapreserveswell.Andtherearesomereusedpapyrithatcontaineducationaltextsfromthesameperiod.Otherwise,how-ever,welackwidespreadexamplesofupper-leveleducationaltexts,manyofwhichweredoneonlesspreservablewoodenboardsandpapyri.OverallwehavelotsofevidenceofthepresenceandimportanceofEgyptiantextsandeducationbutonlyhighlypartialandselectiveaccesstothetextsthemselves.Thatsaid,Egyptologistshavegatheredseveraltypesofevidenceforrecon-structionoftheEgyptiantextual/educationalmatrix.First,therearetheEgyp-tianinstructions(),textsthatwereusedintheEgyptiansystemtosimul-taneouslyinculcatevalues„thesilenttongue,thewell-formedheart„andliteracy.SuchinstructionsincludedwhatwemightnowtermwisdomŽin-structionsbyasagetohisson,Žbuttheyalsoincludedsomeotherliterature(e.g.Sinuhe)thatcametobeusedasstandardculturaltextsintheeducationalSecond,wehavetheeducationalpracticetextsenumeratedearlier.Third,EgyptologistshavebeenabletoinfersomeelementsofEgyptianedu-cationfromhymns,autobiographicalinscriptions,andotherliteraturethatwasneitherfocusedoneducationnorusedforit.AsinthecaseoftheSumero-Akkadiansystem,itiscrucialtoemphasizeattheoutsetthatonlysomeeducationtookplaceinanysortofseparateinsti-tution.Rather,theearliestandmostprominentformsofeducationappeartohaveinvolvedthesortoffamily-styledorfamily-basedlearningthatwehaveseenelsewhere.Aliteratefatherwouldtrainhissoninthescribalcraftandthusinducthimintotheeliteclass.Educationandliteracywerenotgeneral8.ChristopherEyre,TheSemnaStelae:Quotation,Genre,andFunctionsofLiterature,ŽinStudiesinEgyptologyPresentedtoMiriamLichtheim,vol.1,ed.SarahIsraelit-Groll(Jerusalem:Magnes,1990),151.9.JohnBaines,LiteracyandAncientEgyptianSociety,Ž18(1983):580…81;A.McDowell,Teachers
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationphenomenabutkeyelementsofahierarchicalsocializationprocessthatsep-arateddifferentlevelsofelitesfromeachotherandfromthegeneralpopulace.BoththefamilyrelationshipsandonepossiblecontextofeducationisillustratedbythestoryofthescribeAmenwahsuandhisfamily,astracedthroughaseriesofNewKingdominscriptionsspacedoverseveralgenera-Amenwahsuhimselfismultiplydescribedinvariousinscriptions,halfthetimeasapriestandhalfthetimeasascribe.Heworkedinahouseoflife,Žwhichappearstohavebeenascribalworkshopusuallyconnectedtoatemple,thoughnotinit.Wehaveanumberofinscriptionsthatspeakofscribeslocatedinthistemple-connectedscribalworkshop,scribeswhofrequentthehouseoflifeŽorareimmersedintheannalhavingscrutinizedthewrit-ingsofthehouseoflife.ŽInthiscase,Amenwahsuwasthesonofascribe,andhewasabletoleavetwosuccessors.Hissons,DidiaandKhaemopet,arelikewiseattestedasscribes(asisDidiasson).ThusAmenwahsudidnotjustleaveonereplacementforhimselfbuttwo,agoodthinginanotherancientculture„likeMesopotamia„whereuptohalfofthoseeducatedtobescribeswoulddiebeforeperformingmanyduties.UnfortunatelywedonothavedirectevidenceabouthowAmenwahsuorhissonswereeducated.Neverthe-less,giventheevidencethateducationoftenhappenedinthehouseoflife,thereisagoodchancethatAmenwahsuwaseducatedbyhisfatherandplayedamajor,ifnotafairlyexclusive,roleintheeducationandenculturationofthesesons.Fathersmayhaveeducatedtheirownsons,butwealsohaveextensivedocumentationofancientEgyptianeducationthatextendedbeyondthebio-logicalfamilyunit.AlreadytheCompendiumŽ/Kemitinstructionencouragesitshearersandreciterstoopenyourpapyrusscrollsandbecomeasonwhoiseducatedintextspro“tablefromthestart,ŽandastudentsmiscellanyŽinaChesterBeattypapyrusspeaksofhowthechildrenofothersŽaregiventoaandStudentsatDeirel-Medina,ŽinDeirel-MedinaintheThirdMillenniumAD:ATributetoJac.J.Janssen,ed.R.J.Demare´eandA.Egberts(Leiden:NederlandsInstituutvoorhetNabijeOosten,2000),219…22.
10.TheclassicdiscussionisBainesandEyre,FourNotes,Žacontributionthathasbeenhotlydebated.ForasummaryofthedebatearoundliteracyinancientEgyptseeRichardB.Parkinson,PoetryandCultureinMiddleKingdomEgypt:ADarkSidetoPerfection,AthlonePublicationsinEgyptologyandAncientNearEasternStudies(NewYork:Continuum,2002),67.11.ThefollowingisdrawnfromA.M.A.Amer,TheScholar-ScribeAmenwahsuandHisFamily,Ž127(2000):1…5.12.AlanH.Gardiner,TheHouseofLife,ŽJournalofEgyptianArchaeology24(1938):157…79;B.VandeWalle,Latransmissiondestexteslitte´rairese´gyptiens(Brussels:EditiondelafondationEgyptologiquereineElisabeth,1948),13;Nicolas-ChristopheGrimal,Bibliothe`quesetpropaganderoyalea`le´poquee´thiopienne,ŽinLivreducentenaire1880…1980,Me´moiresdelInstitutFranc¸aisdArche´ologieOrientaleduCaire104,ed.JeanVercoutter(Cairo:LInstitut,1980),39…40;R.Williams,TheSagesinAncientEgypt,Ž101(1981):220…21;TheSageinEgyptianLiterature,ŽinGammieandPerdue,SageinIsraelandtheAncientNearEast,26…27;Baines,Literacy,Ž581.ForthecentralityofthehouseoflifeŽfortemplescribes,particularlyinthelaterperiods,seealsoE.Wente,TheScribesofAncientEgypt,Žin,2216;E.Feucht,DasKindimaltenA(Frankfurt:Campus,1995),228…29;A.Biedenkopf-Ziehner,Kontinuita¨ta¨gyptischerAusbildungundBildunginpaganerundchristlicher¨ttingerMiszellen173(1999):24.13.Again,theworkofBainesandEyre(FourNotes,Ž72…73)isusefulhere.14.ThetranslationisfromE.Wente,LettersfromAncientEgypt(Atlanta,GA:ScholarsPress,1990),15.
egyptianeducationandtextualityscribetobeheirsas[his]ownchildren.ŽInthiswaythefamilyŽrelationshipisextendedbeyondbiologicaloffspringtoincludeothers.Andwehavecon-cretedatafromthecolophonsoneducationaltextsatDeirel-Medinathatevenliterateparentsmightsometimessendtheirsonstostudywithhigherprestigemembersofthecommunity.Again,suchexpansionofeducationwasimportantbecausemanywhowereeducateddidnotsurvivetousetheireducation.Sincemanywhowereeducatedwoulddieintheirteensandtwenties,itwasgoodthatsomescribestookonextrastudentsbeyondtheirownchildren.BythetimeoftheFirstIntermediatePeriod,weseetheemergenceofsomeorganizedschools,housesofinstruction,Žalongsideindividualizeded-ucation.Nevertheless,itisimportanttoemphasizefromtheoutsetjusthownoninstitutionalizedtheseschoolswere.AsinMesopotamia,suchschoolswerenotheldinspecialstructures.Rathereducationoccurredinthehomeorscribalworkshopofthemasterscribe.Moreover,itdoesnotappearthattherewasaspecialjobofteacher.ŽRather,higherlevelscribeswouldeducateThematerialsweresimple:ostraca,reusedpapyri,woodenboards,whateverconstitutedcheapwritingmaterial.Onceused,theexerciseswerediscarded.Thus,forexample,thebulkofeducationaltextsfoundatDeirel-Medinawereinagarbagedump.Wedoseetheemergenceofdifferentsortsofschools.Ontheonehand,thereismentionduringtheMiddleKingdomoftheKap,Žaplacewhereorphansandotherchildrenwithlowprospectsmightgoandbecometrainedforbasicscribalandadministrativeduties.Later,intheNewKingdom,thisschoolappearstohavetakeninstudentsfromoutsideEgypt.Ontheotherhand,theintroductiontotheKhetiInstructionreferstoaprovincialof“cialsendinghissontostudyinaroyalschoolintheMemphisarea.ThissortofschoolmayhavebeenaplacewherestudentsfromdiversepartsoftheEgyptianempireweresocializedtogetherwiththekingintoacohesiverulingclass.Anoft-quotedexhortationintheInstructionforKingMerikarespeaksofhowheistotreathisformerschoolmates:Donotkillamanwhoseexcellenceyouknow,withwhomyouusedtochantthewritings.15.ThetranslationofChesterBeattyVerso3,9comesfromMiriamLichtheim,TheNewKingdom,vol.2AncientEgyptianLiterature(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1976),177.16.McDowell,TeachersandStudents,Ž230.17.Assmann,Texte,Ž72.18.JacJ.JanssenandRosalindM.Janssen,GrowingUpinAncientEgypt(London:Rubicon,1990),76;Assmann,Texte,Ž72.19.Brunner,,32.20.A.McDowell,StudentExercisesfromDeirel-Medina:TheDates,ŽinStudiesinHonorofWilliamKellySimpson,ed.P.D.Manuelian(Boston:MuseumofFineArts,1996),219…22.21.Brunner,,17.22.Biedenkopf-Ziehner,Continuita¨t,Ž23.OnearliersimilarpracticesseeBaines,Literacy,Ž581.23.Brunner,,14.24.Merikare50…51asrenderedinRichardB.Parkinson,TheTaleofSinuheandOtherAncientEgyptian
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationManyhavehypothesizedthatthiseducationalsystemcreatedacohortofsim-ilarlyenculturatedadministrators.Thekeypointwasnotthewritingpersebutinductionofdiversestudentsalongwiththekingintotheselectfew,agroupmarkedofffromothersinpartbytheirmasteryofancientwritings,Assmannsculturaltexts.ŽEmergenceoftheMiddleKingdomEducationalCurriculumTheaforementionedroyalschooldevelopsaspartofabroadermovetowardcentralizationthatoccurred„atthelatest„intheFirstIntermediateandearlyMiddleKingdomperiods.TheEgyptofthetimewasemergingfromtheFirstIntermediatePeriod,atimeofdecentralizationthatwaslatertakenasatype-caseofthechaostobeavoidedthroughpropermaintenanceoforder.TheMiddleKingdomwriting-basedsystemofenculturation-educationwasakeystrategyforordermaintenanceontheothersideofsuch(perceived)chaos.Thisistheperiodwhenwe“rstseeaconsistent,coregroupofwritingsthatwereusedforhundredsofyearstoensureculturalandadministrativeconti-nuity.SomemayhavepreexistedtheMiddleKingdomperiod,butmanyweregivennewwritteneditions,editionsthathelpedsolidifystructuresofauthoritythatwereperceivedtobeinneedofreinforcement.JanAssmannusesthetermexcarnationŽtodescribethisprocessinancientEgyptof”eshbecomingword,Žwherehumanformsofauthority„nowperceivedasvulnerabletodis-continuity„werepartiallyexternalizedintotexts.Soweseethe(re)creationofanEgyptianeducation-enculturationcorpussimilartoandyetdifferentfromitsSumero-Akkadiancounterpart.WhereastheelementarySumero-Akkadiansystemprogressedthroughaseriesofsignandlexicallists,theclassicEgyptiancurriculumappearstohavestartedfairlyPoems1940…1640BC(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1997),220.ThewordforchantŽusedhere„„istypicallyusedforthesingingofspellsalongwithsomesongs.FordiscussionofitsusehereseeParkinson,Poetryand,79,n.20.
25.E.g.,Brunner,,14,151…52,andmorerecentlyFriedrichJunge,DieLehrePtahhotepsunddieTugendendera¨gyptischenWelt,OBO(Freiburg:Universita¨tsverlagFreiburg,2003),150…54.26.ForsuggestionsthatitmayhavebeenearlierseeBaines,Literacy,Ž580…81,594,nn.18,19,andJohnBaines,ModellingSources,ProcessesandLocationsofEarlyMortuaryTexts,ŽinDunmondealautre:TextesdesPyramidesetTextesdesSarcophages,ed.SusanneBickelandBernardMathieu,Bibliothe`quedEtude(Cairo:InstitutFranc¸aisdArche´ologieOrientale,inpress).Alreadyinthe“rstintermediateperiodwehaveaninscriptionreferringtoascribeafterhehasgonetoschoolŽ(Schlott,SchriftundSchreiber,202…3).27.JanAssmann,Schrift,TodundIdentita¨t:DasGrabalsVorschulederLiteraturimaltenAgypten,ŽinAssmann,Assmann,andHardmeier,SchriftundGeda¨chtnis,28.Morenz,,1…5.29.G.Posener,Lapportdestexteslitte´rairesa`laconnaissancedelhistoiree´gyptienne,ŽinLefontiindirettedellstoriaegiziana,ed.SergioDonadoni(Rome:Centrodistudisemitici,1963),28…29.Note,hereagain,thatthetermeditionŽmustbeusedinaquali“edsensetorefertoparticularwritteninstanciationsoftraditionthatwerechosenbylatercommunitiesasreferencepointsforeducationandenculturation.Forbriefdiscussionoftheproblemsassociatedwiththistermseepp.37…38andnote110inchapter2.30.JanAssmann,Fu¨nfStufenaufdemWegezumKanon.TraditionundSchriftkultureimaltenIsraelundfru¨henJudentum,ŽinReligionundkulturellesGeda¨chtnis:ZehnStudien,ed.JanAssmann(Munich:Beck,2000),87…89.SeethissourceforcitationofearliercoinageofthetermbyAleidaAssmann.
egyptianeducationandtextualityearly,withmasteryofaseriesofbasictextsdominatedbyinstructionsbygreatStudentslearnedwholewordsandtextualtemplates,ratherthanlearn-ingtosoundtextsoutasonemightintheinitialstagesofalphabeticeduca-OnewidelyattestedelementarytextwasKemit,anarchaicearlyMiddleKingdomletterwrittenwithcursivehieroglyphicsintheoldverticalcolumnformat.Itwasnotlong,containingtwopagesofmodelintroductoryformulaeforletters,amodelletter,andaconcludingsectionofexamplesentencesfromidealbiographiesandinstructions.Othercoretextscommonlyusedinearlyeducationincludedasatireontradesthatpraisedthescribalprofessionaboveothers(Kheti),theHymntotheInundation,LoyalistInstruction,ProphecyofNeferti,andwisdominstructionssuchasthoseattributedtoPtahhotep,Hard-jedef,andespeciallyAmenemhet.Wedonotknowasmuchaboutthese-quenceforuseofthesetextsaswedoforthoseofMesopotamia.Nevertheless,Hans-WernerFischer-Elferthasarguedthefollowingtrioofinterrelatedtextswereconstructedtobepartofasequentialcurriculumforscribesintheroyalresidentialschool:(1)thepraiseofthescribalprofessioninKheti;(2)basicinstructioninthedivinewayŽintheInstructionoftheManforhisSon;and(3)advancedinstructionintheLoyalistInstruction.Overall,theclassicEgyptiancurriculumwasmoreheavilyweightedtowardwisdominstructionsthanitsSumero-Akkadiancounterpart,butincludedfewerepictraditions,historicalchronicles,androyalhymns.Yet,likeitsSumero-Akkadiancounterpart,Egyptianeducationfocused“rstonclassicsthattaughtmoregeneralvalues,alongwithgivingtheprospectivescribeagraspofwritingandreading.Onlyafterwarddidthestudentfocusmoreonmoreclearlypracticaldocumentslikemodellettersandcontracts.Thecurriculumdidchangeslightlyoverhundredsofyearsofuse.WhenonegetstotheNewKingdomperiod,“ndsofeducationaltextsdemonstratethatthingshaveevolvedsomewhat.Weseeincreasingeducationaluseoflexicalandnamelists(buildingonanancientEgyptiantraditionoflists),thoughofadifferentsortfromtheMesopotamianeducationalliststhatsodominatetheNearEasternworldofthesametime.Someclassictexts,liketheInstruction31.Brunner,,66…73;U.Kaplony-Heckel,Schu¨lerundSchulwesenindera¨gyptischenSpa¨tzeit,ŽStudienzuralta¨gyptischenKultur1(1974):229…32.32.VandeWalle,Latransmission,17…18;Brunner,,2;EyreandBaines,Interactions,Ž96…101;SchriftundSchreiber,205…6.33.SeeespeciallyBrunner,,83…86;WinfriedBarta,DasSchulbuchKemit,Ž105(1978):6…14;JanssenandJanssen,GrowingUp,79;Parkinson,PoetryandCulture,322…25.34.Brunner,,83…86;R.Williams,EducationinAncientEgypt,Ž92(1973):217;A.Gasse,Lesostracahie´ratiqueslitte´rairesdeDeirel-Medina:Nouvellesorientationsdelapublication,ŽinVillageVoices:ProceedingsoftheSymposiumTextsfromDeirEl-MedšnaandTheirInterpretation,ed.R.J.Demare´eandA.Egberts(Leiden:CenterofNon-WesternStudies,1992),52…53.NotealsotheindicationsofborrowingfromPtahhotepalreadyintheInstructionoftheManforHisSon,surveyedbyHans-WernerFischer-Elfert,DieLehreeinesMannes¨rseinenSohn:EineEtappeaufdemGotteswegdesloyalenundsolidarischenBeamtendesMittlerenReichestologischeAbhandlungen(Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz,1999),318…20.35.Fischer-Elfert,LehreeinesMannes,334…416,423…25.36.Brunner,,15,19;EyreandBaines,Interactions,Ž94;Wente,Scribes,Ž2215;McDowell,TeachersandStudents,Ž232.37.Brunner,,78…81,93…98;Williams,EducationinEgypt,Ž219.ForlinkstotheSumero-
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationofPtahhotep,areusedlessoften.NewKingdomandstilllaterEgyptian“ndsalsoshoweducationaluseofsometextsnotseeninearliereducation,suchastheoldermaximsofAnyorthenewerSatiricLetter.Thereisevenaschool-text-likedateonalovepoematDeirel-Medina,suggestingthatsuchNewKingdomentertainmentliteraturecouldbeusedforeducation.Generally,itappearsthatNewKingdomandlaterEgyptianeducationfocusedearlyedu-cationonacorpusofteachingsnowseenasparticularlyancient,whiletextsinlater,morecontemporaryformsofthewrittenlanguagewerereservedformoreadvancedstudents.Inadditiontosuchbroadlyusedtexts,itappearsthateducatorsatDeirel-Medinamayhaveusedsomeoftheirownlocaltextsalongwiththemoregenerallyusedclassics.WeseeeducationalusagethereoftextssuchasalocallyauthoredwisdominstructionofAmennakhtforHorimin,thesonofhiscol-league,Hori,aswellasaninstructionwrittenbyHoriminforAmennakhtsson,Horicheri.Indeed,Amennakhtappearstohaveauthoredaminicorpusofeducationalliteratureinadditiontohisinstruction,acorpusincludingapoemaboutThebes,asatiricalpoem,ahymntoRamsesIV,ahymntoRamsesIVorV,andahymntothegodPtah.Thesetextsprobablyplayedaroleintheeducationofseveraldescendantsofhiswhoappeartohaveoccupiedprominentpositionsinthelatercommunity.OvertimethemorebroadlyusedportionsoftheEgyptiancurriculumweremarkedasspecialinwaysbothsimilartoanddifferentfromSumero-Akkadianclassictexts.AsintheSumero-Akkadiantradition,writingitselfgrantedanauraofspecialnesstothesetexts.WritingisasemimagicaltechnologywithinanycultureoflimitedliteracylikeEgypt,yetEgyptwentbeyondmanysimilarAkkadianlisttraditionseeBaines,Literacy,Ž96…97,butseeJohnBaines,AnAbydosListofGodsandanOldKingdomUseofTexts,ŽinPyramidStudiesandOtherEssaysPresentedtoI.E.S.Edwards,vol.7,ed.JohnBainesetal.,OccasionalPublications(London:EgyptExplorationSociety,1988),fordiscussionoftheantiquityofthelisttraditionwithinEgyptitself.Fortreatmentofstilllater,mostlyGreco-Roman,DemoticgrammaticalexercisesseeBrunner,,78…81;Kaplony-Heckel,Schu¨lerundSchulwesen,Ž229…32;EddaBresciani,SerioPer-nigotti,andMariaBetroOstrakademoticidaNarmuti,vol.1,QuadernidiMedinetMadi(Pisa:Giardini,1983),andM.Tassier,GreekandDemoticSchoolExercises,ŽinLifeinaMulti-CulturalSociety:EgyptfromCambysestoConstantineandBeyond,ed.JanetH.Johnson(Chicago:OrientalInstituteoftheUniversityofChicago,1992),
38.Brunner,,88.39.Brunner,,88…93;McDowell,TeachersandStudents,Ž231.40.McDowell,TeachersandStudents,Ž232.41.SusanneBickelandBernardMathieu,Le´crivainAmennakhtetsonenseignement,ŽBulletindelInstitutFranc¸aisdArche´ologieOrientale93(1993):49…51;McDowell,TeachersandStudents,Ž232.42.BickelandMathieu,Amennakht,Ž32…48.43.TherehasbeenconsiderabledebateabouttheextentofliteracysincethepublicationofanarticlebyBainesandEyrethatarguedindetailforquitelowlevelsofliteracyinancientEgypt:BainesandEyre,FourNotes.ŽSincethenBainesandEyrehavedevelopedtheirpositionandlinkedittopointsaboutthestructureofEgyptiansociety:Baines,LiteracyŽ;JohnBaines,Literacy,SocialOrganizationandtheArchaeologicalRecord:TheCaseofEarlyEgypt,ŽinStateandSociety:TheEmergenceandDevelopmentofSocialHierarchyandPolitical,ed.J.Gledhill,B.Bender,andMogensTrolleLarsen(London:UnwinHyman,1984),192…214;EyreandBaines,Interactions.ŽSomehavecritiquedtheirapproach(e.g.,LeonardH.Lesko,SomeCommentsonAncientEgyptianLiteracyandLiterati,ŽinStudiesinEgyptologyPresentedtoMiriamLichtheim,vol.2,ed.SarahIsraelit-Groll[Jerusalem:Magnes,1990],656…67;JacJanssen,LiteracyandLettersatDeirEl-Medšna,ŽinDe-´eandEgberts,VillageVoices,81…94),whileothershaveofferedmixedsupport(e.g.,Redford,Scribeand
egyptianeducationandtextualityculturesintreasuringwritingasagiftofthegods,amarkerofpermanencyandmemory.Indeed,thescrollsoftheHouseofLifesometimesweredesig-natedemanationsofRe,ŽwhilethosewhomasteredthemwerethegreatknowersofthethingslearnedintheemanationsofRe.ŽFurthermore,theeducationalculturaltextsŽintheEgyptiantraditionwereoftendescribedasveryold,muchaswerethestandardeducationaltextsoftheSumero-AkkadianThiswasaccompaniedbyanEgyptiancounterparttothattraditionthatattributedtheclassiccuneiformcurriculumtoprediluviansages.IntheNewKingdomperiod,fascinationwithandattachmenttothepastwasex-pressedthroughthetextual,visual,andritualcelebrationofthefabledauthorsofMiddleKingdominstructions.BythistimetheMiddlekingdomtextswerealsomarkedasspecialbytheirlanguage.Suchtextsalwayshadbeenwritteninapoeticmodethatmarkedthemaselevatedspeech,butnowMiddleEgyp-tianitselfwaslessandlessunderstandabletostudents.ErrorsinexercisessuggestthatstudentsintheNewKingdomandlaterperiodsoftendidnotunderstandtheMiddleKingdomtextstheywerewritingout.Finally,justastheprominenceofkeytextsintheSumero-Akkadiantraditionismarkedbyfrequentallusiontotheminlaterliterature,soalsothespecialnessofkeyEgyptiantextsismarkedbyechoesofthemthroughoutlaterEgyptianliteratureaswell.TheMeansandGoalsofEgyptianEducationAsintheSumero-Akkadianexample,Egyptianeducationinvolvedcopying,memorization,andrecitationofthecorecurriculum.AsoneofthemostrecentstudiesofeducationaltextsatDeirel-Medinaputsit:Themethodofinstructionappearstohavebeenthesameinallcases,however;theteachersetshortpassagesfromthetheMiddleEgyptianclassicsforhispupiltocopyoutand,presuma-Speaker,Ž151[includingn.22],154…57[butcf.146…47onBainesandEyre])orendorsedBainesandEyresgeneralestimate(e.g.,Morenz,,17[includingn.68onLesko]).
44.HermanTeVelde,Theology,PriestsandWorshipinAncientEgypt,Žin45.Morenz,,14…19,191.46.Morenz,,27;NiliShupak,CanonandCanonizationinAncientEgypt,ŽliothecaOrientalis58(2001):535…47;Parkinson,PoetryandCulture,30…32.OnthesagesseealsoSaggs,,98;Wente,Scribes,Ž2219…20;Redford,ScribeandSpeaker,Ž167…68,215…18.47.Schlott,SchriftundSchreiber,206…7;ChristopherEyre,WhyWasEgyptianLiterature?ŽinSestocon-gressointernazionalediegittologia:Atti.VIcongressointernazionalediegittologia(Turin:InternationalAssociationofEgyptologists,1991),115…20;Morenz,,32;Nordh,,148.48.Brunner,,71…72;Kaplony-Heckel,Schu¨lerundSchulwesen,Ž240…41;Gu¨nterBurkard,TextkritischeUntersuchungenzua¨gyptischenWeisheitslehrendesaltenundmittlerenReichesgyptologischeAbhan-dlungen(Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz,1977),244…45.ForlossoflanguageinthelateEgyptianperiod(“rstmillen-nium)andaidsthatwereusedtocombatthisseeJu¨rgenOsing,Lasciencesacerdotale,ŽinLede´cretdeMemphis:ColloquedelafondationsSinger-Polignaca`loccasiondelace´le´brationdubicentenairedelade´couvertedelaPierrede,ed.D.ValballeandJeanLeclant(Paris:DeBoccard,1999),135…38.49.Eyre,SemnaStelae,Ž154…57.Grimal,Bibliothe`ques,Ž140…44;Williams,Sages,Ž10…19;Eyre,SemnaStelae,Ž154…57;Morenz,,14.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationbly,tomemorize,andgavehimMiscellany-typetextstotrainhiminthecontemporarybureaucraticlanguageandstyle.Thegoalofmemorizationisre”ectedinvariouswaysintheEgyptianmaterialsTheInstructionofPtahhotepconcludeswithaninjunctiontolistenŽtothebeautifullywrittensayings,includingapromisethatthismem-orywillpreservethetradition:Memoryof(theteachingsmaxims)will[not]departfromthemouthsofhumankind,becauseoftheperfectionoftheirSimilarly,theInstructionofKagemeniconcludeswithascenewherethesageisdescribedascallingonhisstudentstolistenŽtohissayingsandnotgobeyondwhathasbeenordained,Žonwhichhisstudentsprostratedthemselvesandrecited/readitasitwaswritten.ŽMeanwhile,theSatiricLetterindicatesthatsuchmemorizationwasnoteasy,particularlywhenitcametokeepingthevarioussayingsinorder.Inatexttobediscussedshortly,aspeakercriticizesanothersfaultyknowledgeofasayinghequoted,notknowingwhichstanzaisbeforeit,whichafterit,Žandmanuscriptswithvariantordersofsayingstestifytothepossiblerearrangementofitemsintradentsmemories.AsintheSumero-Akkadianexample,onekeystrategyusedinthismemorization-enculturationprocesswastrainingthestudenttosingŽorchantŽthetexts,muchasthekingandhiscompatriotsdidintheforegoingquotationfromtheinstructiontoMerikare.ThewordforreadŽinEgyptian,,referstooralperformance„whetherfrommemoryorfromawrittentext„oftexts,andtheseculturaltextswerenotactualizeduntiltheyhadbeenIndeed,mostofthecoretextsappeartohavebeencomposedfororalperformance,withuseofmetrical,episodic,andrepetitivestructuresthatwouldcueaperformerseekingoralmasteryofthetext.Moreover,theoralperformanceitselfwouldhaveaidedtheprocessofmemorization,sincetheperformanceelementaddsacrucialadditionalsomaticandauditorydimensionthataidsrecall.Notably,manuscriptsofthetextsusedineducationaredis-50.McDowell,TeachersandStudents,Ž230.OnmemorizationseealsoBrunner,,65…66;EyreandBaines,Interactions,Ž94;Assmann,Texte,Ž67…71.51.OnthisingeneralseeMcDowell,TeachersandStudents,Ž217…21.52.Thistranslation,withmaterialinbracketsandparentheses,isfromParkinson,PoetryandCulture,51.53.ThetranslationisbasedonParkinson,EgyptianPoems,292,withtheslightadditionofrecited/readŽbecausetheverbusedhere,dj,isambiguousastowhetheritreferstoreadingorrecitationofmemorizedmaterial(personalcommunicationfromJohnBaines).54.ThistranslationfromSatiricLetter11.1…2comesfromParkinson,PoetryandCulture,52.55.SomeexamplesaresurveyedinAkselVolten,StudienzumWeisheitsbuchdesAnii,DetKgl.DanskeVidenskabernesSelskab,Historisk-“lologiskeMeddelelser(Copenhagen:LevinandMunksgaard,1937),49…51(seealso32…35);JoachimF.Quack,DieLehrendesAni:Einneua¨gyptischerWeisheitstextinseinemkulturellenUmfeldOBO(Freiburg:Universita¨tsverlagFreiburg,1994),18.56.Morenz,,43…52.Forsummaryoficonographicandtextualrepresentationsofread-ingsituationsseeJean-LucChappaz,Quelquesre´”exionssurlesconteursdanslalitte´raturee´gyptiennean-cienne,ŽinHommagesa`Franc¸oisDaumas(Montpellier:Institutde´gyptologie,1986),103…8;Parkinson,PoetryandCulture,79.OntheprimarilyoralcontextofearlyEgyptiantextualityseeBaines,MortuaryTexts.Ž57.Baines,Literacy,Ž578;Eyre,EgyptianLiteratureŽ;Parkinson,PoetryandCulture,114.E.Schottevensuggeststhatthecolophonstothetextsoccasionallywererecited(Bu¨cherundBibliothekenimaltenA¨ttingerMiszellen25[1977]:77).58.Rubin,MemoryinOldTraditions,15…193.
egyptianeducationandtextualitytinguishedbytheirlackofillustration,anotherindexthatthesetextswereprimarilyfororal-aural,notvisual,consumption.Themanuscriptsbearothermarksoftheiroralcontext.Redmarksareaddedtoguidetheoralperformance.Memorizablesectionsareidenti“ed.Somepoemsincludenumbersorplaysonnamesofnumberstoaidthestudentinrecallingstanzasinthecorrectorder.Manyexercisesincludethe“rstlineofthefollowingsectionsothatstudentsmemorizingindividualpericopescanputtheminthecorrectorder.ApreviouslyquotedNewKingdompolemicagainstexistingmodesofeducationdescribestheprocessexplicitly:Youhavecomehereloadedwithgreatsecrets.YouhavecitedaversefromHardjedef.Youdonotknow,however,whetheritisintendedasgoodorbad,whichstanzaisbeforeit,whichafterit.Youare,ofcourse,askilledscribeattheheadofhisfellows,andtheteachingofeverybookisincisedonyourheart.WeseeheremanyoftheelementsofEgyptianeducationdiscussedearlier.Textualmasteryisdepictedwithanuminousglow,asbeingloadedwithgreatsecrets.ŽThisconsists,inthe“rstinstance,ofmasteryofasnippetfromtheMiddleKingdomclassictheInstructionofHardjedef.Theidealbeingcritiquedisthis„the(mindless)incisionofsuchculturaltextsontheheart.ŽThe(“c-tional)addresseeischidedfornotyethavingmasteredeitherthemeaningortheorderofsuchclassics.Heisdepictedashavingincisedindividualpericopesfromtheclassicsonthemind,perhapsbuildingonacatalogueofincipits,whilenottakingcaretostudyandconsiderthetextsthemselves.Asinothercasesdiscussedthusfar,suchincision„howevermindless„doesnotmeanthatsuchtextswerepurelyoral.Rather,whatevertheoralan-tecedentsofthesetexts,ancientEgyptianteachersappeartohaveusedthetechnologyofwriting,sosacredintheEgyptiantradition,toensurethecon-tinuityandaccuracyofongoingmemorizationandoralperformance.AsFoxinparticularargues,thisintermixedoral-writtenenvironmentisre”ectedinanemphasisonwritingcombinedwithoralityinmanyoftheEgyptianinstruc-59.Altenmu¨ller,Illumination,Žin3:137…40;Parkinson,PoetryandCulture,73.60.JohnF.Brug,BiblicalAcrosticsandTheirRelationshiptoOtherAncientNearEasternAcrostics,ŽinTheBibleintheLightofCuneiformLiterature:ScriptureinContextIII,ed.WilliamW.Halloetal.(Lewiston,NY:Mellen,1990),296…99.61.VandeWalle,Latransmission,21;Brunner,,74…76.62.SatiricalPolemic10/9…11/3.Hereagain,theEnglishrenderingfollowsthetranslationinFischer-Elfert,SatirischeStreitschrift(1),94.63.FordiscussionofthispassageseeespeciallyFischer-Elfert,SatirischeStreitschrift(1),95…98.Fordis-cussionofthebroaderpurposesofthetextsee281…90ofthesamework.64.Forre”ectionsonthecontextandpurposesoftheinitialmovementfromoraltowrittenseePosener,Lhistoiree´gyptienne,Ž28…29;Burkard,TextkritischeUntersuchungen,243;Morenz,,3…4,andJohnBaines,KingshipBeforeLiterature:TheWorldoftheKingintheOldKingdom,Žin¨ndnisundRealita¨t:AktendesSymposiumszura¨gyptischenKo¨nigsideologieinMainz15.„17.6.1995,vol.36,ed.RolfGundlachandChristineRaedler,AgyptenundAltesTestament(Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz,1997),152…55.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationtionsthemselves.ThoughstudentsareoftencalledontohearŽagiventeach-ing,theinstructionsthemselvesarewritten,andtheyoccasionally„thoughnotconsistently„highlightthewrittencharacterofwisdomthroughelementssuchasthecallinMerikaretoimitateancestorswhosewordsremainintheirwritingsŽ(line35).Oftenthewrittenandtheoralarecombined.Forexample,Kagemenisfathergivesaninstructioninwriting,butitissubsequentlyper-formedorally(2.4…5).TheInstructionofPtahhotepdepictsitselfastherecordoftheinstructionthatPtahhoteptohisson(line51).AmenemopedepictshiswritingsasoralwhencallingonhissontohearŽhisinstruction(III:9…10),andheusesmetaphorsformemorizationsuchasletthemrestinthecasketofyourbelly,maytheybeboltedinyourheartŽ(III:13…14).ertheless,theinstructioniswritten,andAmenemopecallsonhissontolookatŽhisthirtychapters(XXVII:6).Similarly,theInstructionofKhetiislabeledasaninstructionhecomposed(inwriting)forhisson,yettheinstructiongoesontoquoteKhetis(oral)tohim(3,9…4,1),aspeechinturnthatbeginswithacalltoset[his]heartonwritings.ŽThese“ctionaldepictionsofinter-playoftextualityandoralityhighlighttheparticularstatusoftextsinabroaderoral-writteneducationalprocess.AsAssmannputsit,awrittentextwasa„anin-betweenstoragedevice.ŽEyreandBainesnotethatthewritingsystemitselfisnotequivalenttospeaking,thatitoriginatedasnotation,notspeech.Particularlywithintheeducationalsystem,writtentextswereamemoryaidto(andsymbolof)aprocessthatalsowashighlyoral.ThustheoralandwrittendimensionswerenotseparateinEgyptbutin-tegrallyintertwined.Thismeansthatprospectiveleaderswereinductedintotheartofwritingoutthestandardtextsandreadingthem.Thereissomedebateabouthowmuchofthisprocesswasdonebydictationandhowmuchbyvisualcopying.Whereasearlierandsomemorerecentstudiespointtomanuscripterrorsthatappeartoresultfromoralmishearing,itnowappearsthatsuchdictationwasmoretypicaloftheearliestcompositionofwrittenworks.manuscripttransmission,atleastforthecoreeducationaltexts,showssignsthatthestudentseitherdirectlycopiedfromwrittenversionsofthetextor65.Fox,Proverbs1…9:ANewTranslationwithIntroductionandCommentary,AB(NewYork:Doubleday,2000),74…75.Thefollowingportionofthetextisbasedonafullerpresentationoftheargument,Fox,Self-Presentation,Ž160…65.66.ThetranslationsherearefromLichtheim,AncientEgyptianLiterature2,149.67.ThistranslationsandreferencesinthisparagraphcomefromFox,Self-Presentation,Ž161…63.68.ThetranslationhereisfromParkinson,EgyptianPoems,275.69.Assmann,Texte,Ž67…69.70.EyreandBaines,Interactions,Ž103.NotealsoParkinson,PoetryandCulture,35,66…67,onhowliterarywritingwasagrapholect,akeyculturaltoolusedtoincludesomeandexcludeothers.71.Morenz,,6…7;Redford,ScribeandSpeaker,Ž205.72.Morenz,,52…55,citestherelevantolderandnewerstudies.73.TheexamplesofdictationcitedbyMorenz(,52…55)allinvolvetheoriginalcom-positionofawrittenwork.Butcf.DavidP.Silverman,TextualCriticismintheCof“nTexts,ŽinReligionandPhilosophyinAncientEgypt,ed.WilliamKellySimpson(NewHaven,CT:Yale,1989)andespeciallyidem.Epi-graphicEvidence,ŽinBershehReports:Reportofthe1990FieldSeasonoftheJointExpeditionoftheMuseumofFineArts,Boston,UniversityMuseum,UniversityofPennsylvaniaandUniversityofLeiden,ed.DavidP.Silverman(Bos-ton:MuseumofFineArts,1992),23,26.
egyptianeducationandtextualitymemorizedindividualsectionsandwrotethemdownshortlyafterward.theveryleast,allwouldrecognizethatthelearningofavisualsystemforlanguagenotationrequiresatleastaninitialvisualstageofcopying.Theulti-mategoal,however,wasmemorizedmasteryoftheculturaltradition,notnec-essarilytheproductionoftextualexperts.ApparentlymanytrainedasscribesŽwouldnothaveworkedwithscrollsonaneverydaybasis.Rather,atleastinideal,theycarriedthemincisedontheirmindsŽwherevertheywent.Especiallyinlaterperiods,errorsandotherindicatorsinthetextssuggestthatstudentsinthisoral-writtenprocess,atleastatbeginningstages,per-formedorwrotethetextsasmeaninglesssoundsandsymbols,ratherthanunderstandingandbeingshapedbythecontentsofthetexts.ThisproblemisthematizedinreferencestowritingandperformanceintheNewKingdomInstructionofAny.Earlyintheinstruction,Anycallsonhissontomemorizewrittenwisdom,tostudythewritings,putthemonyourheartŽ(20.4…5).Yetthewritingconcludeswithadebatebetweenhimandhisson,inwhichhisson,Khonsuhotep,pointsoutthatlearningbasedonwritingsisincompleteforthosewhodonotunderstandthem,forasonthinkspoorlyinhimselfwhenhe(merely)recitessayingsfrombooksŽ(22.15…16).Hegoesontomakeacontrastbetweentrulyinternalizedteachingsandthosethataremerelymouthedonthebasisofwrittenbooks:Whenyourwordsarepleasingintheheart,theheartinclinestore-ceivethem.[Then]theheartrejoicesintheabundanceofyourvir-tues,andthoughtsarelifteduptoyou.Aboycannotperformthemoralteachingswhenthebooksare(merely)onhistongue.(22:16…Thissayingpointstothefactthat,bytheNewKingdom,somestudentsunderwentaninstructioninclassicwritingsthattheydidnotunderstand.LikeacontemporarystudentwhohasapatinaoflearningfrombeingabletoreciteaLatinorGreekpassageheorshecannottranslate,theseancientEgyptianstudentshadsomesortofknowledge.Theyweredistinguishedfromtheirpeersbyanabilitytowriteorsoundoutarchaic,ancienttexts.Perhapssome,ifnotmany,studentswentontoachieveahigherlevelofunderstandingoftextstheyearlierhadwrittenorperformedwithoutunderstanding.Yet,evenifnot,thesestudents,liketheirMesopotamiancounterparts,wereenculturatedbysubjectingtheirmindsandbodiestoasystemofeducationinfundamentallyalientraditions.74.SeeespeciallyBurkard,TextkritischeUntersuchungen;supportedbyWilliams,Sages,Ž5;JanssenandJanssen,GrowingUp,78,andMcDowell,TeachersandStudents,Ž221.Cf.Brunner,,71…72,andSaggs,,103.75.JanssenandJanssen,GrowingUp,67…68.76.Hereagainseereferencesinnote48.77.Againthetranslation(thistimeofthepKairoCG58042versionofAny)isfromFox,Self-Presentation,Ž161.SeealsoQuack,LehrendesAni,107.78.ThisrenderingcomesfromFox,Self-Presentation,Ž161…62.FordiscussionofthebroaderEgyptiandiscussionintowhichthisdebate“tsseeQuack,LehrendesAni,186…88.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationThus,theprocessofEgyptianeducationwentbeyondtheinculcationoftextualknowledgeorculturalvalues.AsintheSumero-Akkadianexample,itshapedadocilemind.Agoodstudentwasonewhocouldhearandobey,onewhohadahearingheart,ŽastheEgyptianswouldputit.AbadstudentwaseitherafoolŽwhofailedtoapplyhimselftohisstudiesoronewithoutaheartŽwhocouldnottakeadvantageofsuchstudiesevenifhetried.Every-thingfocusedonthetrainingofthestudentsheart.ŽThroughdifferingratiosofforceandpersuasion,thestudentsheartwasgraduallysubjectedtothedemandsofanancient,sacredtradition.Thattradition,withitsblack-and-whiterules,guidedthestudentintoknowledgeofrightandwrong,aknowl-edgeofthewayoflifeŽamidacosmicorderrepresentedbyMaat.Throughroteandrepetitionofwritingwholewordsandworksinhieratic(andcursivehieroglyphic),throughmemorizationandrecitationofwritings,throughgrad-ual,oftenpartialassimilationofapoeticand(inNewKingdom)archaictongue,throughbodilybeatingsandphysicaltraining,thestudentwasinductedintothesacral-royal-bureaucraticelite.Thegoalwastocreateareliablebureaucraticstratummadeupofthekindofquiet,self-masteredmancelebratedintheEgyptianbookofthedeadandotherwritings:onewhoobeyshissuperiors,isthoroughlyversedintheancienttraditions,andlooksafterthoseweakerthanUltimatelytherewereprobablyimportantdistinctionsinthetypeofscribaltraininggiventoelitesofdifferentcontextsandthemethodsusedthere.ThoughtherewasnoaspectofEgyptianlifeabsentofwhatwewouldde“neasreligion,theremusthavebeendistinctionsbetweenthetraininggiventostatebureaucratsandthatgiventotemplepriests.Morenzsuggestsahierarchyextendingfromtheilliteratemajorityatthebottomupthroughbureaucratsspecializinginhieraticinthemiddle,tolectorpriestswhoalsoknewhiero-glyphic„termedinEgyptianthewordsofthegodŽ()„andthesecrettextsusedintemples.Yethealsoacknowledgesthatthelattergroupscanbedistinguishedonlyinpart,andoureducationalsourcesgiveuslittleinfor-mationregardingsubstantialdifferencesintheirtraining.Moststudieshavesupposedthatamoregeneralperiodofelementaryeducationwasfollowedbyahigherlevelofstudyduringastudentsapprenticeshipinthescriptoriumofhisspeci“clineofwork.Onepointertothisisasectionofatomb79.Nordh,,40…41.80.Brunner,,110…12.81.OntheinnerEgyptiandebateaboutdifferentmodesofpedagogyseeWilliams,EducationinEgypt,Ž82.SeeBrunner,,110…52,especially110…13and151…52.83.Morenz,,198…99.Forasophisticateddiscussionofthehomologiesofsocialhi-erarchiesandhierarchiesofrestrictedknowledgeseeJohnBaines,RestrictedKnowledge,HierarchyandDe-corum:ModernPerceptionsandAncientInstitutions,ŽJournaloftheAmericanResearchCenterinEgypt27(1990):1…23,andthesurveyoftheuseandsigni“canceofdifferentscriptsinEgyptinStephenHouston,JohnBaines,andJerroldCooper,LastWriting:ScriptObsolescenceinEgypt,MesopotamiaandMesoamerica,ŽStudiesinSocietyandHistory45(2003):439…43.84.Brunner,,19;Wente,Scribes,Ž2215;Biedenkopf-Ziehner,Continuita¨t,Ž25…26.Thiswouldmatchthe“ndingsofMcDowellatDeirel-Medina(TeachersandStudents,Ž219…20),whichshowthatmany
egyptianeducationandtextuality(auto)biographybyalectorpriestthatadaptslinesfromtheInstructionofThoughsuchapriestwastrainedinsecrettraditionsofhispriesthood,hehadundergoneapriorgeneraleducationininstructionaltextslikeAmenemhetaswell.Acrossthe“rstmillenniumthepriesthoodbecameanevermorecentrallocusforsucheducation.BytheHellenisticperiod,centraladministrativepostswereheldbyGreeksŽwhohadbeenformedinaneducationalsystemthatgenerallyexcludedEgyptiansandfocusedonGreekclassics.Iwilldiscussthatsystemlater.HereweneedtorecognizethatinHellenisticEgypt,asinHel-lenisticMesopotamia,thescribalartcontinuedtobetaughtintemplestopriests.Knowledgeofthescriptandwrittenformsofthelanguagebegantodeteriorate,andthepriestswhoweretrainedplayedanincreasinglyperipheralroleinsocietyatlarge.Nevertheless,theclassiccurriculumoutlinedabovecontinuedinsomeformforover“fteenhundredyearsafterithad“rstemergedintheMiddleKingdom.EgyptianTextualProduction,Reception,andStorageSofarIhavefocusedthisdiscussiononthemostimportantaspectofclassicEgyptiantexts:theiruseinabroaderprojectofenculturationoftherulingeliteinancientEgypt.Iwillnowexaminesomeofthemechanicssurroundingtheiruseinthisproject:howtextsweremade,received,andstored.ThiswillextendandreinforceourpictureoftheuseofculturaltextsinancientEgypt,anditwillprepareforlaterdiscussionsofwaysEgyptmightilluminatesimilarpro-cessesinancientIsrael.Asforproduction,weareprimarilyinterestedhereintheproductionofthesortsofhieratictextsthatwerethefocalpointofancientEgyptianeduca-tion.Thoughwrittenearlyoninverticalandotherformats,bythemiddleoftheMiddleKingdomsuchliterarytextsgenerallywerewritteninlinesfromrighttoleft.Asindicatedearlier,thewrittentextwasbutanaidtomemoryandoralperformance.Thisisre”ectedinnumerousaspectsofthematerialproductionofEgyptianeducationaltexts.Suchtextswerebrokenintochunksforeasycopyingandmemorization.Performablechunksoftextsoftenwereexercisesthereweredonenotinschoolbutoutsideofschoolinlargelyindividualizedinstructionofstudentcraftsmenundertheirparentsormoreseniorscribalmasters.
85.Morenz,,178…79.86.Kemit,aninstructionoftenusedearlyineducation,continuedtobewritteninsuchaformat(perhapsforhandwritingtrainingandpracticeincursivehieroglyphs),andPtahhotepshowssignsofhavingbeenorigi-nallywritteninthatformat.Williams,Sages,Ž8…9;HelmutBrunner,SchriftundUnterrichtsmethodenimAltenAgypten,ŽinErziehungsundUnterrichtsmethodenimhistorischenWandel,ed.LenzKriss-RettenbeckandMaxLiedtke(BadHeilbrunn:Linkhardt,1986),31;EyreandBaines,Interactions,Ž95.87.EyreandBaines,Interactions,Ž92.Therearesomeexceptions,suchastheverticleformatofKemit,whichalsodeviatedfrommostothereducationalmaterialsinbeingwrittenincursivehieroglyphic.Mosthieraticmaterials,however,werewrittenfromrighttoleft.OnthisseealsoSchlott,SchriftundSchreiber,80.88.EyreandBaines,Interactions,Ž103;Morenz,,6…7;Assmann,TexteŽ;Redford,ScribeandSpeaker,Ž205…14.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationmarkedbyaredmarkofseparationpriortotheirbeginningorbyhavingtheir“rstfewwordswritteninred.Anothermarkofprimaryoralityisthefactthatonlyconsonantswererepresentedinthewriting.GenerallytextswerevocalizedaccordingtothelanguageofcontemporaryEgyptian.Anymoreancientpro-nunciationwastaughtandrememberedthroughoraltradition.Mostsuchtextswerewrittenonpapyrus,thoughostracaandwoodenboardsalsoplayedanimportantroleineducation.Perhapspartlybecausesuchpapyrusonlyrarelysurvivesthetestoftime,wedonothavethesamelevelofdocumentationofgrowthofEgyptiantextsthatwedoforancientMesopotamia.OftenwehaveonlyonecompletecopyofagivenEgyptianstandardtext,alongwithahandfulofeducationalcopiesofvariousindividualsections.Still,weseethegradualgrowthofEgyptianliteraturethroughtwolenses:(1)recon-structionofthetransmissionhistoryofsuccessiveeditionsofEgyptianworks,and(2)tracingoflinesofcitationandallusionofearlierEgyptianworksinlaterones.MostoftheworkinthetracingoftransmissionhistoryhasbeendonebyearliergenerationsofEgyptologists,andmostsuchstudieslookedatthematicshifts,breaks,anddoubletstoarguethatkeyeducationaltextswerecreatedoutofmultiplesourcesorunderwentsuccessiverevisions.However,insomecases,likethecomplexrelationshipsbetweenthePyramidTexts,Cof“nTexts,andBookoftheDead„alongwiththeirvariousrecensions„wecanusema-terialevidencetotraceahighlycomplexandvariableprocessoftextualtrans-PerhapsmoreinterestingforourpurposesisaneducationaltextlikePtahhotep,wherewehavemanuscriptdocumentationofbothearlierver-sionsandlaterversionswithaddedlines.Generallythetextualtraditionap-pearstohavesolidi“edassuchatextenteredthemainstreamoftheeducationalprocess.EvenasMiddleKingdominstructionswerebeingtransmittedinstan-89.G.Posener,Surlemploidelencrerougedanslesmanuscritse´gyptiens,ŽJournalofEgyptianAr-37(1951):77…78;Parkinson,PoetryandCulture,21.90.SeeJu¨rgenOsing,Derspa¨ta¨gyptischePapyrusBM10808gyptologischeAbhandlungen(Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz,1976).91.Morenz,,11.92.ForanoverviewofthesestudiesseeWilliams,Sages,Ž6…9;Sage,Ž22…24.93.Seeinparticularadiscussionofsomespeci“ccasesinSilverman,TextualCriticism.ŽForanoverviewofinterrelationshipsbetweenthethreebodiesofliterature(withtheBookoftheDeadasthereferencepoint)seeT.G.Allen,TheBookoftheDeadorGoingForthbyDay:IdeasoftheEgyptiansConcerningtheHereafterasExpressedinTheirOwnTerms,SAOC(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1974),225…41.Variationbetweenvariousproductionsofthesetexts,eveninthesamespells,isclearlyevidentinpublicationsandtranslationsofthesetexts.See,forexample,A.DeBuck,TheEgyptianCof“nTexts(Chicago:OrientalInstitutePublications,1938…61).Amorerecentdiscussionwithanoverviewofdifferenttypesoftransmission(e.g.,Assmannscate-goriesofreproductivŽandreproductivŽ)andcitationofearlierliteratureisJochemKahl,Siut„Theben:ZurWertscha¨tzungvonTraditioneneimaltenA,ProblemederAgyptologie(Leiden:Brill,1999),37…43.94.ForacomparativeeditionseeZ.Za´ba,LesMaximesdesPtah-hotep(Prague:EditionsdelAcademieTchecoslovaquedesSciences,1956).FordiscussionseeBurkard,TextkritischeUntersuchungen,230…43.Cf.alsoJamesHenryBreasted,TheEdwinSmithSurgicalPapyrus,OrientalInstitutePublications(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1930),andKentR.Weeks,StudiesofPapyrusEbers,ŽBulletindelInstitutdEgypte(1981):58…59,292…99,fordifferingperspectivesontheprocessoflaterpreservationofmucholdermaterial.
egyptianeducationandtextualitydardeditionsduringtheNewKingdom,theorderandinclusionofsayingsinmorerecentinstructions(e.g.Any)variedconsiderably.Mostrecentworkhasfocusedonshowinghowauthorsoftenlinkedwithtraditionbyweavingtheirnewworksoutofstrandsofallusionstoolderones,sometimesattributingsuchworks„iftheyweretofunctioninaneducationalcontext„tomoreancientsages.EyretraceshowtheSemnastelaquotestheinstructionsofMerikareandPtahhotep,whilethelateTwelfth-DynastySeho-tepibrestelaadaptspartoftheLoyalistInstruction.WilliamsshowshowtextsfromPtahhoteptoAmenemopearealludedtoandquotedintextsjustabitlaterthanthem.Ineithercase,whetherthroughproductionofvariantver-sionsofoldworksorcreationofnewworks,includingquotationofolderworksfromothergenres,scribesinEgyptcouldworkofftheheritagetheyhadmem-orizedintheiryouth.Thoughtherearesomepointerstotheideathatmuchearlyeducationandtextproductiontookplaceintheinstitutionsofcentraladministration(includingthepalace),muchtextualwork„particularlyinlaterperiods„appearstohavebeenparticularlylinkedwithtemples.Tobesure,someprivatelibrarieshavebeenfound.Nevertheless,muchexistingdocumentationfortextpro-ductionpointstothehouseoflifeŽthatwasprominentintheforegoingdis-cussionofeducation.Thisinstitutionisparticularlywellattestedinlaterpe-riodsofEgyptianhistoryandappearsoftentohavebeenconnectedto,thoughseparatefrom,atemple.Colophonsonlatetexts,likethoseofAmenwahsu,identifymanycopyistsasworkinginhousesoflife.BythispointthetemplehadbecomeaprimaryplaceofpreservationofEgyptianculture,especiallyamidHellenization.Yetthelinkisnotexclusivelylate.We“ndwidespreadevidenceforhousesofbooksŽandhousesofbooksofgodsŽinearliertextsandarchaeologicalcontexts.Certainlytextsandinscriptionswereproducedelsewhereaswell,includingtheroyalschoolandKapmentionedearlier.Nev-ertheless,muchofourevidencefortextualstorageandproductioninEgyptislinkedwithtemples.Thereisnoknownpre-HellenisticroyalcounterpartinEgypttotheroyallibrariesoftheNeo-Assyrianperiod.95.Williams,Sages,Ž8…9;Parkinson,PoetryandCulture,52…53.ForanexcellentrecentsurveyoftheevidenceseeQuack,LehrendesAni,19…20.96.Eyre,SemnaStelae,Ž157.97.Williams,Sages,Ž10…19.98.SeealsotheolderstudybyC.Kuentz,Deuxversionsdunpane´gyriqueroyal,ŽinStudiesPresentedtoF.Ll.Grif“th(London:EgyptExplorationSociety,1932),97…110.99.Williams,EducationinEgypt,Ž215…16.100.SomerecentsurveysareP.W.Pestman,WhoWeretheOwners,intheCommunityofWorkmen,oftheChesterBeattyPapyri?ŽinGleaningsfromDeirelMedina,ed.R.J.Demare´eandJ.J.Janssen(Leiden:NederlandsInstituutVarHetNabijeOosten,1982),155…72;Nordh,,161…65,andParkinson,Poetryand,70…73.101.Gu¨nterBurkard,BibliothekenimaltenABibliothek:ForschungundPraxis4(1980):79…115.102.IpostponediscussionofevidenceregardingHellenisticEgyptiantemplesformytreatmentofedu-cationandtextualityduringtheHellenisticperiod.Thereisamuchricherfundofevidenceonwhichtodraw
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationOncetextswereproduced,therewasamystiqueaboutreadingperfor-manceinancientEgyptthathasnoexactcounterpartintheSumero-Akkadianworld.EarlyEgyptianburialinscriptionsattempttogetthereadertoextendthelifeoftheburiedonethroughconvincingthelaterreadertospeakforththeinscription.Latertextsdrawananalogybetweenthespeakingforthofsacredtextsandtheofferingofincense.OnespellintheCof“ntexthasthedeadonesay,Iamoverthebreath,thelordofthegreatsmokopenthecontainerofthegod,Imakethewritingsgoup.ŽLudwigMorenzarguesthatwritings,likeincense,areonlypotentialrealitiesuntilactualized.Bythem-selves,themanuscriptsthemselveswerebutnotationstoaidaspokenperfor-mance.Butwhenactualizedbyareader,thewordsspokenforthfromsuchsacredtextswereincenseofthemouth.ŽAsaresult,thepriestlyspeakerhadtohaveacertainspiritualpowertobeabletovoiceforthsuchtextsproperly.OnesmouthŽmustbepure.Asonetextsays:WhenitisthewishofThoth,toreadthisforRe,thenshouldhepurifyhimselfwithaninefoldpuri“cationforthreedays.OthertextsspeakoftheneedforEgyptianlectorprieststopurifytheirmouthswithmyrrhorincense.Tobesure,mostofthisevidencecomesfromspeci“callycultictexts,notthesortsofeducationaltextsthataretheprimaryfocushere.theworldsoftheeducationaltextandcultictextwerenotcompletelyseparate.Educationaltextswerewrittenusingtechnicalknowhowthatoriginatedwithreligioustexts.Traditionsspeakabouteducationaltextsinwaysanalogoustoreligioustextsandburialinscriptions.And,aswesawearlier,fromthelateNewKingdomonwardthetempleanditspriesthoodbecameaprimarylocusforbotheducationandtextualtransmission.Thisincreasinglocalizationofeducationandtextualityinthetemplereinforcedalreadyexistinghomologiesbetweeneducationalandreligiousliterature.Aoncesharperdistinctionbe-tweenclassicalnonpriestlyeducationalliteratureandmoreesoteric,secretre-ligiousliteratureofthepriestsblurred.Asindicatedearlier,theprimaryplaceofstorageŽofsuchtextswasinthemindsandheartsofthosewhohadmasteredthem.Nevertheless,wealsohaveduringthisperiod,andsomeofitmaybeapplicabletoearlierperiodsaswell.Nevertheless,theevidenceisfocusedenoughintheHellenisticperiodthatitmakessensetotreatitincontext.
103.ThereferencecomesfromMorenz,,48…49.IamindebtedtoJohnBaines(per-sonalcommunication)forthetranslation.104.MytranslationoftherenderingofthescrolloftheheavenlycowŽ(261…264)byL.Morenzin,51,withanadditionfromJohnBaines(personalcommunication).105.Morenz,,51.106.Assmann,Texte,Ž71.107.Posener,Lencrerouge,Ž77;Baines,Literacy,Ž579;Assmann,Texte,Ž66;Parkinson,Poetryand,116…17.108.Assmann,Schrift,TodundIdentita¨t,Ž81…87.
egyptianeducationandtextualitydocumentationthatwrittentextswerestoredinvariouswaysinancientEgypt,inadditiontobeingusedfordisplay,burial,andotherpurposes.Inparticular,we“ndvariousreferencestotheideaofdepositingor“ndingbooksinEgyp-tiantemples,probablyusuallystoredinwoodenboxes.Egyptiansacredtextsweretypicallymemorized,withacopydepositedinahouseoflifeŽ(ormorethanone)forsafekeeping.Afrequentmarkoftheirspecialnesswastheirse-crecy.Sometextsclaimauthoritybyincludingaccountsofhowtheywerefound„afterlongneglect„insuchatempledeposit.MorenzcitesseveraltextsthatclaimtobewordsfromthegodsthatwerelaterfoundinthegreathallŽofatemple.Forexample,amedical-magicalpapyrusclaimsthefollowing.Thisspellwasfoundinthenight,havingcomedowninthebroadhallofthetempleinKoptos,asasecretofthisgoddess[Isis]bythehandofthelectorpriestofthistempleWhilethislandlayindarknessItwasthemoonthatshoneonthisbook-rollŽonallitssides.ItwasbroughtforthasawonderTothemajestyofthekingofupperandlowerEgypt,Cheops.Itispossiblethatlaterpriestssometimesfoundoldwritingsinthebookdepositofagiventemple.Butitisalsopossiblethatlegendssuchasthisonehelpednewerwritingsgainanauthorityinthepresentthatwasotherwiseonlygiventomucholder,classicwritings.Thecombinationoftheideaofthesecrecyoftemplewritingsandknowledgethattheywerestoredinthetempleopenedthewayforclaimsofhavingfoundasecret,purportedlyancient,writinginthetemplethatnooneknewabout.ComparisonoftheEgyptianandSumero-AkkadianScribalMatricesTheforegoingbriefsurveyofEgyptonlytouchesthehighpointsofitseducational-textualmatrix,butitprovidesenoughtosketchsomesimilaritieswithanddifferencesfromtheSumero-Akkadiansystemswithwhichwebegan.Bothculturesusedtextsaspartofabroaderprocessofenculturationofelites.Inbothculturesthisenculturationinvolvedmuchmorethanmerelit-eracy.Rather,inadditiontoacquiringvaryinglevelsofmasteryofthewritingsystem(orsystems),studentsusedsuchskillstomemorizeandaccuratelyrecitealimitednumberofkeyworks.AttheoutsetofthischapterIsumma-109.ForafascinatingdiscussionofaplaquethatmightprovidesomehintstothelocusandmodeofstorageseeRichardB.Parkinson,TwoorThreeLiteraryArtefacts:EA41650/47896and22878…9,ŽininEgyptianAntiquities:ATributetoT.G.H.James,ed.W.V.Davies(London:BritishMuseum,1999),51…53.110.Morenz,,29.111.ThisismytranslationoftherenderingbyMorenzofPapyrusBM10059inMorenz,,16,correctedandimprovedbyJohnBaines(personalcommunication).
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationrizedAssmannsconceptofculturaltextŽforEgypt,butonecouldapplythisconcepttoMesopotamiaaswell.Theseculturaltextswereidenti“edinbothculturesasspecialbyvirtueofbeinggiftsfromthegods,extremelyold,andpasseddowntothepresentbymeansofachainofauthoritativescribes.Theverywritingofsuchtexts„ofteninspecialscripts(e.g.cursivehieroglyphs)andformats„alsolentanairofnuminouspowertothem,aswellasthefactthattheywereoftenwritteninalanguagemarkedofffromthepresentidiomasforeign,archaic,andpoetic.ThoughthecontentsoftheSumero-AkkadianandEgyptiancurriculumsweredifferentinmanyrespects,theybothincludedsomewritingsthatmightbeidenti“edaswisdomŽinstruction,hymns,andBothcurriculare”ecttheiroriginsinaprocessofcreatingaliterateelite.Thougheachcurriculumincludedsometextsthatcouldbevaguelycharacter-izedastextualtemplatespreparatorytoconcretescribaltasks,neitherwasfocusedonpreparingstudentsforthetasksandconcernsofeverydaywork.Thewritingsysteminbothcultureswasextremelycomplex,anditwasmerelyasketchynotationsystemevenforthosewhohadmasteredit.Unlesssome-onetrainedinthissystemhadalreadymemorizedagiventext,heprobablywouldnothavebeenpreparedtoreaditforth”uently.Furthermore,thecorecurriculaofbothculturesincludedanumberofoldertextswiththemesandconcernsincreasinglyirrelevanttothetimesinwhichtheywereused.Yet,asNiekVeldhuishasalreadysuggestedinrelationtotheSumero-Akkadiansys-tem,theveryobscurityofsuchsystemshelpsthemfunctionaseliteeducation.Onlytheelitecouldtakethetimetomasterthesetextsandtheirwritingsys-tems,andthisinternalmasteryofancient,sacredtraditionthenmarkedthemofffromtheirpeersasspecial.Doesthismeanthatalloftheliterate„whetherhigh-levelelitesorlowerleveladministrativescribes„underwentthesame,oftenesoterictraining?Itisdif“culttoknow.Sofar,ourdocumentationofeducationinEgyptfocusesalmostexclusivelyonthetypeofeducationjustIndeed,itisdif“cultinmanycasestoidentifyaseparateschoolŽinsti-tutionineitherEgyptorMesopotamiathatwasexclusivelyresponsibleforsuchenculturation-education.Certainlyalmostneverwasthereaseparatebuildingdedicatedtoeducation.Furthermore,teachersŽwerenotseparatefromscribesineitherculture,andteachingwasoftenintegrallyconnectedtoabroaderprocessoftextualproduction.Sometimeswe“ndrecognizableschoolsinbothEgyptandMesopotamia,butevenwhensuchschoolsŽexisted,itappearsthatmucheducationstillhappenedonanindividualizedorapprenticeshipbasis.Inbothculturesitwasoftenthefatherwhoinstructedasoninthefamilyvocation.Sometimes,literatemenofhigherstatuswouldtakeonaneduca-tionalfatherŽrolevis-a`-visthesonsofothers.Seeninbroaderperspective,therearealsosomeremarkableparallelsin112.Asnotedearlier,alphabeticsystemscanbedif“cultaswell,thoughfordifferentreasons.
egyptianeducationandtextualityhowsucheducationplayedaroleinbroaderculturalprocesses.Attheoutset,educationinSouthernMesopotamia(AkkadianandUr-IIIperiods)andEgypt(MiddleKingdom)reinforcedabroaderprocessofcentralization.Inbothcases,ithelpedcreateamorecohesiveandidenti“ableadministrativeelitetoknittogetheranemergentorrecentlyfragmentedempire.Later,especiallyinthelater“rstmillennium,educationandtextproductioninbothculturesbecomesincreasinglyfocusedonthetemple.AndwiththeonsetofHellenism,thistempletextualmatrixinbothcontextsbecomesakeylocusforpreservationofindigenousculture,whileGreekformsoftextualityandeducationincreasinglydominatedother(elite)spheresofeachculture.WehavealsoseenthroughoutthisdiscussionthattheEgyptiantextual-educationalmatrixisdifferentinsomecrucialrespectsfromtheSumero-Akkadianone.Scribesandwritingwere,ifanything,morehighlyreveredinEgyptthaninMesopotamia,andEgyptianrulersmoreconsistentlyclaimedscribalcompetenceforthemselves.RitualsaretextualizedmuchearlierinEgyptthaninMesopotamia,andweseespecialconceptsinEgyptlinkingtex-tualityandsacralritual:readingasanofferinglikeincense,thepuri“cationandspiritualpreparationoftheEgyptianreaderforrecitationofsacredtexts,themarkingoftextsasspecialbytheirsecrecyordiscoveryinatemple.ThestandardcurriculaofMesopotamiaandEgyptaresomewhatdifferent.Mostimportant,Egyptscurriculafeaturedamuchmoreprominentfocusonwisdominstructionsattributedtogreatsages.EspeciallyaswemovetotheNewKingdomperiod,weseeafocusonbygoneteachersinEgyptthatisnotsoobviousintheSumero-Akkadianworld.Moreover,theEgyptianfocusonspeci“callywisdomliteratureŽisdistinctive.TheSumero-Akkadiansystemdidcelebrateprediluviansages,andwisdomliteratureplayedacrucialroleinthetransitionfromelementarytohigherlevelsofeducation.Yetthesagesdidnotachievetheprominenceintext,relief,andcultinMesopotamiathattheydidinEgypt.Moreover,wisdomliteraturewasnottheprimaryfocusoftheSumero-Akkadiancurriculum.InEgypt,wisdominstructionslikeAmenemhetandKhetiplayedthecentralrolethatsign,name,andlexicallistsdidintheSumero-Akkadiansystem.Togetherthesepartialobservationspointtobothemergentpatternsanddifferencesinancienteducation.Puttogether,theSumero-AkkadianandEgyp-tiansystemsaresimilartoeachotherinmanywaysthatcontrastwithmodernmodesandideasabouteducation.Assuch,thepicturebuiltupfromtheseculturescancorrectanachronisticassumptionsabouttextandeducationthatareoftenimportedintostudyoftheBibleandotherancientdocuments.Atthesametime,wehavealsoseensomeimportantwaysinwhichthesesystemsweredifferent.Andthismeansthatthereisalikelihoodthatthetextual-educationalsysteminancientIsraelwasdistinctiveinvariouswaysaswell,in”uencedbythemixofculturesarounditwhiledevelopingitsowncharac-
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationLinksBetweenEgyptandIsraelIconcludethischapterwithadiscussionofsomeindicatorsthatEgyptstextualmatrix„liketheSumero-Akkadiansystem„hadspeci“clinkstothatofan-cientIsrael.CertainlyEgypthaddeeppoliticalandeconomiccontactswithCanaan/Israelfromanearlyperiod.AlreadyintheMiddleKingdomweseeattestationofmerchantexchangesbetweenEgyptandSyro-PhoeniciancitieslikeByblos,Ugarit,andMegiddo;thereismentionintheprophecyofNeferti(66…68)tobuildingawalloftherulersŽtobarSemitesfromenteringEgyptforfoodandwaterduringfamine;andtherewereseveralmilitarycampaignsintoSyro-Canaantosubduetheinhabitantsthere.Duringthesecondintermediatepe-riod,SemitestookoverEgyptforatime,andafterwardNewKingdomrulerslikeThutmoseIIIestablished“rmerEgyptiancontrolovermuchofSyro-Phoenicia.TheAmarnaarchivesdocumentinterchange(inAkkadian)betweenEgyptianrulersandEgyptian-supportedgovernorsincentralcitiesacrossSyro-Phoenicia,includingJerusalem,anexchangeapparentlyinvolvingscribesthemselvessometimestravelingtoandfromEgypttoreadtheletterstheyhadSomesuchgovernorsandotherof“cialsmayhavebeeneducatedinEgyptaspartofthebroaderprocessofensuringaloyaloverclassintheEgyptianempire.AndEgyptiansthemselvesappeartohaveemigratedtoserveinthecourtsofothers,asindicatedinthedepictioninWenamunofanEgyp-tiancupbearerandsongstressinthePhoeniciancityofByblos(Wenamun2,45…46and69)ortheappearanceoftheEgyptianscribeAmenmoseintheSyriancityofCarchemesh.AftertheNewKingdom,Egyptianpowerwaned,includingpowerovertheSyro-Phoenicianarea.Nevertheless,laterpharaohs,forexampleinthelatetenthandtheseventhtosixthcenturies.,stillcarriedoutcampaignsintheSyro-Phoenicianarea,andweseewidespreadEgyptianin”uenceontheartofSyro-Phoenicia,especiallyduringtheeighthandseventhcenturies:scarabs,”yingsuns,burningserpents,andsooninsealsandothermediaofbothJudahandIsrael.AwiderangeofbiblicalmaterialsatteststodeepandhighlyvariedlevelsofcontactwithEgypt.ThebookofGenesisreferstothe”ightofAbrahamandJacobsfamiliestoEgyptforfoodandwater,andthebooksofExodustoDeu-teronomyandnon-PentateuchalExodustraditionsreferIsraelsoriginstoits”ightoutofEgyptundertheleadershipof“gureswithEgyptiannameslike113.TheargumentsforsuchtravelarebasedontheglossesintheAmarnaletters.SeeIzreel,AmarnaGlosses,ŽandvanderToorn,CuneiformDocuments,Ž104.114.Ofcourse,Wenamunisaworkof“ctionbutpresupposesthatthisdepictionofEgyptiansinByblosisplausibletoitsaudience.115.R.Williams,AgyptenundIsrael,Ž1(1977):492…505.SeealsothereviewoficonographicremainsOthmarKeelandChristophUehlinger,¨ttinen,Go¨tter,undGottessymbole:NeueErkentnissezurReligionsgeschichteKanaansundIsraelsaufgrundbislangunerschlossenerikonographischerQuellen,2nded.,QuaestionesDisputatae(Freiburg:Herder,1993),282…98,401…6(Englished.:Gods,GoddessesandImagesofGodinAncientIsrael,trans.ThomasTrapp[Minneapolis:FortressPress,1996],265…81,350…54).
egyptianeducationandtextualityMoses,Phinehas,Merari,andPutiel.Solomonisreputedtohavehadpartic-ularlycloserelationswithEgypt,takinganEgyptianprincessasawifeandreceivingtheCanaanitecityofGezerfromthePharaohasherdowry(1Kgs9:16).1Kings11:14…40reportsthattwoadversariesofSolomon,HadadtheEdomiteandJeroboamtheIsraelite,”edtoEgypt,thelatterreturningtofoundthenorthernIsraelitemonarchy(1Kgs12;cf.Jer26:21…23).Andbiblicalhis-toricalnarrativesandpropheticoraclesrefertoeighth-centurydiplomaticef-fortsbybothnorthernandsouthernrulerstoenlistEgyptssupportinresis-tancetoAssyrianoppression(e.g.Hos7:11;9:6;Jer2:18,36).Lateron,wehavebothbiblicalandextrabiblicalattestationofEgyptasamajorsitewhereJudeanssettledoutsideIsrael(e.g.Jer24:8;44:1),andthedocumentsattheEgyptianJudeancolonyatElephantineshowthatsuchcommunitiesmaintainedcontactwiththeircompatriotsinJudah.TheseongoinganddeepcontactsbetweenEgyptandthelandofCanaan/Israelsuggestthepossibilityofsigni“cantculturalinterchangebetweenthetwoareas.ThoughtheEgyptiantraditiondidnotachieveinternationalprom-inenceinthewaytheSumero-AkkadiantraditiondidintheBronzeAge,EgyptplayedaveryimportantroleinthecultureandpoliticsoftheSyro-PhoenicianregionthroughouttheperiodofancientIsraelitehistory.Moreover,Egyptianin”uencewasstrongestintheregionduringthelateBronzeAge,theperiodinwhichIsrael“rstemergesonthehistoricalscene.Giventhesebroaderin-dicatorsofcontact,Inowturntolookatmorespeci“cindicatorsofEgyptianin”uenceonancientIsraelitetextuality.EvidenceofOverallEgyptianIn”uenceontheIsraeliteScribalMatrixAsisnotthecasefortheSumero-Akkadiansystem,weactuallyhaveIsraeliteexamplesofEgyptianeducationalexercises.Theseareexercisesinmathemat-ics,practiceexerciseswithhieraticnumeralsfoundatKadeshBarneaanddat-ingfromtheseventhcentury.Theyarenotexercisesinwritingextensivesec-tionsofEgyptianliterature.Nevertheless,theyshowthatEgypthadaspeci“cin”uenceonatleastonebranchofIsraeliteeducation.SuchEgyptian-styleeducationinhieraticnumeralspreparedscribestoproducethevariousex-amplesofsuchnumeralsfoundatArad,YabnehYam,Samaria,Murabaat,andpossiblyGezer.Inaddition,theBibleitselfpreservesevidenceofin”uencefromEgyptianeducationalmaterials.Forexample,itappearsprobablethatProverbs22:17…24:34wasmodeledinsomewayontheInstructionofAmenemope.Thepar-allelsarenotexact,butwehavealreadyseenintheSumero-Akkadianinstancehowthemovefromonelanguageandculturetoanotheroftenwasaccompa-116.T.Mettinger,SolomonicStateOf“cials:AStudyoftheCivilGovernmentOf“cialsoftheIsraeliteMonarchyConiectaneaBiblica„OldTestamentSeries(Lund:Gleerup,1971),49…50.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationniedbyfreeadaptationofthesourcetext.Overall,Egyptianin”uenceappearstohavebeenstrongestintheareaofbiblicalliteraturemostparalleltotheinstructionsŽthatwereespeciallycentralinEgypt:biblicalwisdomŽbookslikeProverbsandQohelet.NiliShupakhasstudiedtheentirerangeofvocab-ularyspeci“ctosuchbiblicalwisdomŽliteratureandfoundaremarkablelevelofcoincidencewithsimilartermsinEgyptianeducationalliterature.Inpartic-ular,thereisacommonemphasisinbotheducationalliteraturesonhearingŽandlayinginstructionontheheartŽ„inpartare”ectionoftheircommonfocusonoralityandmemorization.YetEgyptappearstohavehadanimpactonthetechnologyoftextpro-ductioninancientIsraelaswell.ThePhoenicianalphabeticsystemthatformsthebedrockoftheIsraelitesystemappearstohaveoriginatedinEgyptandgrewonanalogywithalphabetic-typeusesoftheEgyptianhieroglyphicsys-Notably,theEgyptianwritingsystemmayhavebeenbettersuitedasamodelforthewritingofNorthwestSemiticlanguageslikeHebrewbecauseit,unlikeSumero-Akkadiancuneiform,wasoriginallydevelopedtorepresentaHamito-Semiticlanguage.Moreover,likeEgyptianwriting,CanaaniteandHebrewalphabeticwritingmovesfromrighttoleft,andbothsystems„whenusedalphabetically„exclusivelyrepresentconsonants.Thecorrespondencescontinue.Insofaraswecanreconstructtheoriginalwritingmaterialofearlybiblicaltexts,itappearstohavebeenEgyptianpapyrus(alongwithassociatedwritingimplements)ratherthantheMesopotamiantabletmediaseenearlierinSyro-Canaan.Furthermore,HebrewScriptures,likesomeEgyptianstan-dardworks,weredividedintomemorizablepericopes.Indeed,studiesbyErnstRevellandothershaveshownhowtheQumranandotherearlytextualtraditionsalreadyusethesortsofsectionaldivisionsseeninEgypt,divisionsmuchlikethosethatappearinlaterJewishtraditionasFinally,certainaspectsofthebiblicaltraditionre”ectascriptureconscious-nessakintowhatwehaveseeninEgypt.Already,thePtahhotepinstruction,117.GlendonE.Bryce,ALegacyofWisdom:theEgyptianContributiontotheWisdomofIsraelPA:BucknellUniversityPress,1979);NiliShupak,WhereCanWisdomBeFound?TheSagesLanguageintheBibleandinAncientEgyptianLiterature,OBO(Freiburg:UniversityPress,1993),297…311.FollowingtheadviceofJamesCrenshawandMichaelFox,IhaveomittedreferenceheretotheoldertheorythatOldTestamentlists(e.g.,Job38;Psalm104)werein”uencedbyEgyptianexemplars.FordiscussionseeMichaelV.Fox,EgyptianOnomasticaandBiblicalWisdom,Ž36(1986):302…10.118.Note,forexample,theearlyalphabeticinscriptionbyAsiaticworkers,StevenFeldman,NotasSimpleasA-B-C:EarliestUseofAlphabetFoundinEgypt,ŽBiblicalArchaeologyReview26,1(2000):12.119.Hawkins,WritinginWesternAsia,Ž162…63.120.VictorBurr,BibliothekarischeNotizenzumAltenTestament,Forschungsstellefu¨rBuchwissenschaftanderUniversita¨tsbibliothekBonn,KleineSchriften(Bonn:H.Bouvier,1969),21…22;J.PhillipHyatt,TheWritingofanOldTestamentBook,Ž6(1943):73…74;M.Haran,BookScrollsinIsraelinPre-ExilicTimes,Ž(1982):161…73.121.SomeEgyptianperiocopesareidenti“edbyversepoints,whiletheHebrewtraditionusedasystemoflinespacing.122.Forreferencesseechapter9,note57.Inaddition,thereisanotheranalogy,thoughabitmoredistantchronologicallyandanalogically.Bothsystemsusedthebeginningofapericopeasamemoryaidforthere-mainder.WeseethisintheEgyptianpracticeoffollowingthecopyingofagivenpericopewiththecopyingofthebeginningofthenext„toreinforcethesequenceofpericopes.Andweseethisinearlyrabbinicbiblicaldiscussionswherebiblicaltextsarecitedbytheir“rstwords.
egyptianeducationandtextualityliketheMesopotamianErraepic,exhortsitshearersnottoaddorsubtractfromitinawayanalogoustolaterexhortationsinDeuteronomy.Moreover,justascertainNewKingdomEgyptiantraditionswereexaltedthroughtheliftingupoftheirauthorsassemidivinemediatorsofaclassicpast,soalsothebiblicaltraditioncomestobeisolatedastheproductofinspiredprophetsŽ„whetherMoses,David,Solomon,orprophetslikeIsaiah„beforetheendofprophecyŽinthetimeofEzra.Theforegoingindicatorsareprobablymoresigni“cantthanthefewpo-tentiallinguisticcontactsbetweentheEgyptianscribalsystemandtheIsraeliteone.PartlybecausetheEgyptianlanguageismoredistantfromHebrewthanAkkadian,therearenotasmanywordsthatweredirectlyborrowedfromtheEgyptianlanguageintoHebrew.Nevertheless,thereareseveralpotentiallysig-ni“cantinstancesofin”uence.First,thescribewhoislistedamongDavidsearliestof“cialsbearsthename(1Chr18:16)//(2Sam8:(1Kgs4:3)//(2Sam20:25),whichmanyhaveseenasapossibleIsraelite(orpre-Israelite)corruptionoftheEgyptiantermforchief,atermusedintheCanaanite-EgyptiancorrespondenceoftheAmarnaperiod.Ifthisisso,itcouldindicatethatDavidemployedanEgyp-tianinhiscourt,orthattradentswritingabouthimwereenoughin”uencedbyEgyptiantouseasimilartermtodescribehistextualspecialist,orjustthatIsraelwasindirectlyin”uencedbyEgyptonthispoint,havingborrowedanoriginallyEgyptiantermfortextual-accountingspecialistfromCanaanitepre-cursorswhothemselveswerein”uencedbyEgypt.Second,theHebrewwordsforinkŽ(;Jer36:18)andscribalpaletteŽ(;Ezek9:2,3,11)mayderivefromEgyptian.Ifso,thesesortsofborrowingswouldbeadditionalindicatorsthatEgyptwasanimportantsourceofearlyIsraelitewritingtech-nology.Overall,thequalityofevidenceforEgyptianin”uencevariesbutiswide-spreadthroughoutmanypartsoftheBible.Someoftheindicatorsarevagueanddif“culttopindown„suchasthepossiblein”uenceoftheEgyptianMem-phiteconceptofcreationbythewordonGenesis1,orthebroaderEgyptianideaofthekingbeingtheimageofGod„aconceptalsofoundinanotherformintheSumero-Akkadiantradition.SuchEgyptianroyalideologymayalsostandbehindthe“vefoldroyaltitularyseeninIsaiah9:5(ET9:6),orcertainlanguagefoundin2Samuel7:1…17and1Kings3:2…15.Andthereareothercases,such123.Cf.MichaelFishbane,VariaDeuteronomica,ŽZAW84(1972):350.124.A.Cody,Letitree´gyptienetlenompropreduScribedeDavid,Ž72(1965):381…93;R.Williams,APeopleComeOutofEgypt,ŽinCongressVolume:Edinburgh,1974,VTSup,ed.G.W.Anderson(Leiden:Brill,1975),236;Mettinger,SolomonicStateOf“cials,45…51.OntheusageofthistermintheAmarnalettersseeKarelvanderToorn,FromtheOraltotheWritten:TheCaseofOldBabylonianProphecy,ŽinBenZviandFloyd,WritingsandSpeech,100…101.Butcf.K.A.Kitchen,EgyptandIsraelDuringtheFirstMillenniumB.C,ŽinCongressVolume:Jerusalem,1986,VTSup,ed.J.A.Emerton(Leiden:Brill,1988),112…13.125.ForanuanceddiscussionoftheoptionsanddiscussionofearlierliteratureseeNiliS.Fox,IntheServiceoftheKing:Of“cialdominAncientIsraelandJudah,MonographsoftheHebrewUnionCollege(Cincinnati:HebrewUnionCollegePress,2000),100…101.126.ThomasLambdin,EgyptianLoanWordsintheOldTestament,Ž73(1953):149,154.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationasthestrongparallelsbetweenGenesis39(JosephandPotiphar)andtheNewKingdomTaleoftheTwoBrothers,whereBiblicalmaterialssharefolkloristicmotifsthataredif“culttolocalizeinjustEgyptorancientIsrael.Thatsaid,therearemanyinstanceswhereitisclearthatthebiblicalwriterswerepoorlyinformedabouttheEgyptianculturaltradition.Forexample,al-thoughtheJosephstoryincludesexamplesoflocalEgyptiancolor(names,embalmingofJoseph)andJosephlivestotheEgyptianidealageof110,neitherthisstorynortheaccountofMosessbirthfeaturesanyfocusonthescribaleducationsoimportantinthehigherrangesofEgyptiansociety.IntheseandotherwaysitisclearthattheIsraelitescribalmatrixwasnotasimpleextensionoftheEgyptianone.EgyptianandSumero-AkkadianIn”uenceontheBible:TheCaseoftheSongofSongsOneprominentreasonforsupposingthatIsraelwasnotasimpleextensionoftheEgyptianscribalsystemisevidencethatIsraelstoodbetweenmultiplerealmsofscribalin”uence,includingtheSumero-Akkadiansystemdiscussedinpreviouschapters.Indeed,aswesaw,Egyptitselfwasin”uencedbytheSumero-Akkadiansystem,justastheSumero-AkkadiansystemasfoundinEgyptwasin”uencedbyEgyptianpracticeslikeuseofcoloredink.Onegoodpotentialexampleoftheinterlacingofmultiplespheresofin-”uenceisthebiblicalSongofSongs(hereaftertheSongŽ).AlthoughscholarsofthepreviouscenturyfocusedonanalogiesbetweentheSongandArabPal-estinianlovepoetry,thebestcomparativeworkoverrecentdecadeshasfocusedonEgyptianlovepoetryontheonehandandSumero-Akkadianlovepoetryontheother.MostSumero-Akkadianlovepoemsrevolveinsomewayaroundtheplotofsacredmarriagebetweendeities.UpthroughtheOldBabylonianperiod,mostsuchpoemsfocusedonthesacredmarriageofInannaandDu-muzi,butweseewidespreadattestationofthispracticethroughoutthe“rstmillenniumandeveninasixth-centuryAramaictextwritteninDemoticscriptbysettlersfromtheAssyrianprovinceofSamaria.Incontrast,theNewKing-domEgyptianpoemsarenotsoculticinorientation.Instead,theyareenter-127.HermanTeVelde,ScribesandLiteracyinAncientEgypt,ŽinScriptaSignaVocis:StudiesAboutScripts,Scriptures,Scribes,andLanguagesintheNearEast,PresentedtoJ.H.Hosper,ed.H.L.J.Vanstiphoutetal.(Gron-ingen:Forsten,1986),254.128.Seepp.51…52earlier.129.OccasionallyscholarshavearguedthattheGreekpoetry,especiallythatofTheocritus,alsomightilluminatethebiblicalSongofSongs.ForarecentanalysisthatincludesiconographyalongsidetextsandcitessomeearlierliteratureseeAnselmC.Hagedorn,OfFoxesandVineyards:GreekPerspectivesontheSongof53(2003):337…52.Hagedornnotes(337)that,intheGreekinstance,suchstudiesdonotestablishin”uencebutinsteadallowustoreadtheSongbetterwithinitsbroader(eastern)Mediterraneanmilieu.130.RichardC.Steiner,TheAramaicTextinDemoticScript,ŽinCanonicalCompositions,vol.1ofContextofScripture,ed.WilliamW.HalloandK.L.Younger(Leiden:Brill,1996),309…27.
egyptianeducationandtextualitytainmentliterature,tobeperformedatvariousfestalbanquetsandotherfestiveInbothcases,lovepoetryseemstohaveplayedasecondaryroleintheeducationalsystem.OneMesopotamianschooltextfeaturesadetaileddescrip-tionofaroyallitterinthecontextofasacredmarriageritual,adescriptionparalleltoSongofSongs3:6…10.ThereisapracticecopyatUgaritofanotherSumero-Akkadianlovesong,theeroticallytingedsongofpraisebyLudingiraabouthismother.AndIalreadymentionedadatededucationalcopyofanEgyptianlovepoematDeirel-Medina.Thus,functioningprimarilyintheculticandentertainmentrealms,respectively,Sumero-AkkadianandEgyptianlovepoemsalsoplayedsomerole„howevermarginal„inenculturatingtheyoung.Sexisatopicthatplayswelltothoseofagetobeintheeducationalsystem,anditisnaturalto“ndthatalloftheseculturessometimesusedlovepoetryaspartofthebodyofliteraturethatsuchyouthsmemorizedandperformed.Furthermore,acloserexaminationofthecontentsoftheseloveliteraturesindicatesthattheSumero-AkkadianandEgyptianlovesongssharemuchincommonwitheachotherandwiththebiblicalSongofSongs.Inalloftheseliteratures,theloversaddresseachotheroftenasbrotherŽandsister,Žtheymentiontheirmothersasintermediaries,theydescribetheirbelovedastheloveŽoftheirheart,Žtheyoccasionallypraisetheirloversbodyasifitwereastatue,theyoftenfocusonthegardenŽasasceneoflovemaking,andtheyevensharemorespeci“cmotifs,liketheideaoflovemakingbeingassweetashoney.Femaleloversarethemainprotagonistsinallthreetypesofloveliter-ature,andfemalesongstresses,liketheEgyptianwhoentertainedWenamuninByblos,appeartohaveplayedaprominentroleintheirperformance.ThebiblicalSongofSongssharesspeci“ccharacteristicsofbothEgyptianandSumero-Akkadianlovepoetry.Ontheonehand,muchofthebiblicalSongofSongsfollowsthedialogueformthatismostprominentinSumero-Akkadianlovepoetry,thewomanisdescribedasabride,ŽandinbothformsoflovepoetryakingŽisaprominentprotagonist.Nevertheless,Sumero-AkkadianpoetryismuchmoreexplicitlyculticinitsorientationthaneithertheSongofSongsorEgyptianlovepoetry.Inthissense,thebiblicalSongofSongsismoresimilartoitsEgyptiananalogues,wheredivinemotifsocca-sionallyoccuraroundtheedgesofthelovepoetrybuttheprotagonistsareclearlyhuman.Inaddition,theSongofSongssharesmanyspeci“celementswithEgyptianlovepoetry:indirectionindescribingtheloverslovemaking,emphasisontheobstaclestheymustovercometobetogether,andspeci“c131.K.Deller,ST366:Deutungversuch1982,Ž3,4(1982):141,hasatranslationoftherelevantsection(11.4…13)andcontext.132.Seethediscussioninchapter3,p.53,andnote32inthatchapter.133.ThisisparticularlyclearintheeroticallychargedconclusiontoBenSirathatispreservedatQumran.ForthetextanddiscussionseeJamesA.Sanders,TheDeadSeaPsalmsScroll(Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress,1967),116…17.134.DavidM.Carr,TheEroticWord:Sexuality,SpiritualityandtheBible(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2003),91…107.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationthemessurroundingtheheart,thekiss,andtheimageofthemaleloverwaitingimpatientlyoutsideforhisfemalebelovedtojoinhim.Ifonehadtovoteononein”uenceortheotheronthebiblicalSong,theEgyptiancomparisonsmightwellwin.Thereislittleevidenceofasacredmar-riageritualinancientIsraelthatwouldcorrespondtotheSumero-Akkadiancounterparts,andtheSongofSongssharesmoregeneralandspeci“celementswithEgyptianlovesongsthanwithSumero-Akkadianloveliterature.Atthesametime,wedonothavetomakeaneither-ordecisionregardingEgyptianorSumero-Akkadianin”uence.Rather,theSongofSongspartakesofmanyelementsthatarecommontomanytypesofancientloveliterature,whilealsosharingsomeelementsspeci“ctotheSumero-AkkadiansystemontheonehandandtheEgyptiansystemontheother.AsIhaveshown,thereareindi-catorsthattheIsraelitescribalmatrixwasin”uencedbybotheducational-scribalsystems.Soweshouldnotbesurprisedto“ndlociliketheSongofSongswherethelinesofsharing,commondependenceonfolkloristicmotifs,andpotentialin”uenceareimpossibletountanglecompletely.UptothispointIhavefocusedalmostexclusively„withtheexceptionofUgarit„oneducationalsystemswithextensivecadresofscribeswhomasteredlogographicsignsystemsconsistingofhundredsofsigns.Ihavenotlookedatamoredecentralized,small-scaletextualmatrixorlookedindepthatasystemofeducationbasedonalphabeticwriting.We“ndsuchasysteminancientGreekeducation.135.ThemostcompellinganddetailedstudyoflinksofEgyptianlovepoetrywiththebiblicalSongofSongsisMichaelV.Fox,TheSongofSongsandAncientEgyptianLoveSongs(Madison,WI:UniversityofWisconsinPress,1985),onwhichmuchoftheforegoingisbased.
AlphabeticallyBasedTextualityandEducationinAncientGreeceAncientGreecepresentsasubstantiallydifferentpictureonanum-berofdifferentfrontstowhatwesawintheculturesoftheSumero-AkkadianandEgyptiantraditions.InthecaseoftheSumero-Akkadiantradition,wehadaccesstotheeducation-textualsystembywayofthousandsofeducationaltextscombinedwithexplicitde-scriptionsofeducationintheEdubbaliteratureandmentionsofed-ucationinhymnsandothernarratives.InthecaseoftheEgyptiantradition,wehadalessernumberofeducationaltexts,alongwithmentionofeducationinsomeinscriptionsandotherliterature.ButinthecaseofGreekeducation,wehavevirtuallynopracticetexts,andmentionoftextualeducationisrelativelyrare„especiallyfromperiodsmuchprevioustotheMacedonianperiod.ThereisaGreekabecedaryandsyllabaryfromTuscanythatisdatedtotheearlysev-enthcenturythattesti“estosomesortofGreekeducationthere,andthereisa“fth-century“ndofaboutonehundredinscribedslabsofslate-likestonefromaprobableschoolintheAthenianOtherwise,thecombinationofarainyclimateanduseofperishablewritingmaterialsforeducation(especiallypapyrus)meansthatwehavenoadvancedschooltextsfromancientGreece.Asaresult,wearemissingakeyformofevidencethatmightbeusedtoreconstructthecurriculumandteachingmethodsofearlyGreekeducation.Indeed,thisgapinevidence,alongwitharelativehostilityto-wardtextualitypresentinPlato,hasledsomeclassiciststodenythat1.FordiscussionseeTeresaMorgan,LiterateEducationinClassicalAthens,Ž49(1999):14.AnimageoftheEtruscan“ndcanbefoundinBeck(AlbumofGreekEducation:TheGreeksatSchoolandPlay[Sydney:CheironPress,1975]),no.37.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationtherewasmuch,ifany,educationinliteracypriortothefourth(orlate“fth)century.FromHavelocksargumentsregardingPlatosprecursorsinacetoPlato(1963)toMorgansrecentsurveyofdatablereferencestoeducation(1999),manyhavearguedthatearlyGreekeducationlackedmuchfocusontextualliteracy.Afterall,theearliestsourcesspeakoftwomainbranchesof(gymnastics,physicaltrainingŽ)andhereasmusicwithpoetryŽ).Speci“creferencesto(educationinwriting/readingŽ)asathirdbranchofeducationonlybecomeprominentinthefourthcenturyandlater.Moreover,PlatospeaksalmostexclusivelyofhearingŽinearlyeducation,showingaclearhostilitytowardtextualformsofmemory.Suchdata,someargue,undercutsanyassumptionofgeneraledu-cationinliteracypriortothelate“fthorearlyfourthcentury.Therejustisnotenoughevidence,itissaid,toestablishthepresenceofeducationinliteracymuchpriortotheHellenisticperiod.Thoughsuchstudieswillinformthediscussionthatfollows,theyhavehadtocontendwithonecrucialsortofevidencethatwaslargelylackinginMesopotamiaandEgyptbutispresentinancientGreece:widespreadpre-HellenisticartisticdepictionsofeducationandtextualuseinGreece.Fromtheearly“fthandpossiblylatesixthcenturyonward,wehaveGreekdepictionsofpeoplereadingtextsonterra-cottastatuesandredvaserepresentations.Usuallyoccurringonpotterythatwasusedforfestivesymposiaandotherhousepar-ties,theseartisticrepresentationsarepartofabroaderstreamofGreekrep-resentationsofdailylife.Theseimagesarenotstraightforwardevidenceforavarietyofreasons:wedonotknowtheiraudienceororiginalpurpose,anditislikelytheyrepresentanideal„ratherthantrueŽ„pictureofthelifeoftheelite.Nevertheless,suchimagesprovideanevocativesetoficonographicdataonancienttextualityandeducationthatislargelymissingfromMesopotamian,Egyptian,andotherNearEastern“nds.Whetherornottheyareimagesofeverydayreality,theydorepresentscenesofwhatsome“fth-centuryGreekartistsfoundaplausiblefantasyofthelifeofsome.Firstandforemost,theseGreekpicturesprovideavisualcounterparttoNearEasternexamplesoftheoral-writteninterfacethathasbeenthefocusofthediscussionsofar.Forexample,asixth-centurykylixinMunichfeatures2.SeeEricA.Havelock,PrefacetoPlato(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1963),alongwithlaterwritingssuchasessayscollectedinhisTheLiterateRevolutioninGreeceandItsCulturalConsequencesNJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1982).Morgansveryhelpful,thoughcautious,discussionscanbefoundinLiterateEducation,1…19;Morgan,LiterateEducation.Ž3.Seehereafterforargumentsregardingthecloselinkbetweenmusicandrecitationofpoetry.4.ThekeytextsaresurveyedinMorgan,LiterateEducation,8…10;Morgan,LiterateEducation,Ž48…50.5.See,forexample,argumentsalongtheselinesinHavelock,PrefacetoPlato,and(morerecently)KevinLiteracyandPaideiainAncientGreece(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1994),192…97,215…19.6.AsFordpointsout(n.33),theapproximatelyonehundreddepictionsofwritingandreadingarefaroutweighedbymorethanfourteenhundredrepresentationsofathleticactivity,andhesummarizesvariousotherproblemsraisedbyothersabouttheuseofthismaterialtoargueforgeneralliteracy(AndrewFord,ReadingtheSongCultureofClassicalGreece,ŽinWrittenTextsandtheRiseofLiterateCultureinAncientGreece,ed.HarveyYunis[Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2003],23…24.
textualityandeducationinancientgreecescenesfromtheGreeksymposia,includingadepictionoftwo“guresindif-ferentstagesofamusicalrecitation.One“guresitsrecitingwithalyre,whileanothersitsbehindhim,stillreadingatext.EgertPo¨hlmannarguesthatthelatter“gurewhoisreadingispreparingforrecitation,sincethemanwhoisrecitinghasthestaffinhislefthand,readytohanditofftohiscompanionbehindhim.Anotherimagefeaturesacombinationofamanandawoman.Ayoungmanstandswithalyrebeforeaseatedwoman.Hereyesareonthelastpartofthescroll,apparentlyhavingfollowedinthescrollthetexthehasjustrecitedtohim.Whereasthe“rstimagefeaturedpossibleuseofatexttofacilitatereviewofthetexttobeperformed,thelatterimagefeaturesprobableuseofatexttofacilitatethehearingoftheperformedtext.Thesameprocessistextuallyattestedbythelate“fth-centurywriterAristophanes,whoseplayTheFrogsfeaturescriticismofAthenianswatchingplaysandfollowingalongintextsbeforethem(Frogs1114…1119).Justasperformancestodayoftenfeaturemusicianssingingfromaprintedtextandaudiencesfollowingalongintheirprograms,sotheseancientGreeksaredepictedasusingtextsassubsidiarypartsofaperformancethatisprimarilyoralandmusical.Thoughmany,ifnotmost,oftheimagesfeaturepeopleofthesamegenderandsimilarage,therearesomethatpointtoatextuallysupportededucationalprocessinvolvingpeopleofdifferentagesandevengenders.Onefamousearly“fth-centuryrepresentation,theDouriscup,numbered2285attheBerlinAltesMuseum,featurestwosigni“cantimages:one(onthecoverofthisbook)inwhichaboystandsreadytorecitebeforeaseatedadultholdinganopenbookwithalineoflyricpoetryonit;andonewhereastudentreciteswithalyrewhiletheteacherfollowsalonginatabletwithastylus(orpreparestowriteinit).Aneducationalcontextissuggestedbothbythepresenceofdifferentgenerationsintheimageandbythebookrollsandlyreshungonthewalls.Anotherearly“fth-centurykylixsimilarlyfeaturessceneswithbookrollshungonthewalls;oneimageshowstwoboysreadingwithabook-rollchestbetweenthem,whiletheothermainimageshowsthreeyouthsinvolvedindifferentelementsofthewritingprocess„onesingingwithalyre,onewritingonatablet,andonereadingfromascroll.Stillanotherscenefromthelater“fthcenturyshowsLinus,afamousteacherinGreekmythology,standinginaroomwithascrollchest,preparingtochecktherecitationofhisfamousstudent,Weevenseeatleastoneinstancewhereawomanappearstobeplayingateachingrole.Anearly“fth-centurycupfeaturestwoscenes:anapparentcontestinmannersbetweengirlsononesideandontheotherside7.EgertPo¨hlmann,Mu¨ndlichkeitundSchriftlichkeitgesternundheute,Ž¨rzburgerJahrbu¨cherfu¨rAl-14(1998):17…18.8.H.R.Immerwahr,MoreBookRolesonAtticVases,ŽAntikeKunst16(1973):145.9.H.R.Immerwahr,BookRollsonAtticVases,ŽinClassical,MediaevalandRenaissanceStudiesinHonourofB.L.Ullman,ed.C.HendersonJr.(Rome:Edizionidistoriaeletteratura,1964),18…19.10.Po¨hlmann,Mu¨ndlichkeitundSchriftlichkeit,Ž18…19.11.Immerwahr,BookRolls,Ž20;Beck,,9…11.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationadepictionofaboy,probablyreciting,standingbeforeaseatedwomanwithascrollinherlap.TheimagesjustdiscussedareonlyafewofthesurvivingearlyGreekrepresentationsoftextualperformance,writing,andeducation.Somefeatureevidentcompetitionsbetweenreciters.Othersfocusonmoretenderscenesofpleasurablecommonenjoymentofatext.Mostfeaturehomogeneousgroupsofmen,boys,orwomen,whileothersshowmultiplegenerationsinrecitationsituationsoramanandwomantogether.Tobesure,thereareotherearlyGreekrepresentationsofyoungmenrecitingpoetrywithalyreandnotextinsight.Butimageslikethosejustdiscussedsuggestthat,atleastbythe“fthcentury,suchrecitationwasoftenfacilitatedbywrittentexts:studentpracticewritingoftextstoberecited,useoftextstocheckrecitationineducationalcontexts,useofwrittentextsforreviewofagivenpoembeforerecitation,anduseofawrittentextbytheaudiencetofollowarecitation.Moreover,wehavesomeideaofthetypesoftextsthattheartistsmeanttoshowbeingusedinsuchmusicalperformances:invirtuallyeverycasewherethetextonagivenscrollcanbedeciphered,itisafragmentofapoem.AtthispointlyricŽandotherpoetryisintimatelyassociatedwiththeplayingofthelyre,Žandviceversa.Yetwealsoseetheincreasingfocusonstichicverse,likeHomer,thatcanberecitedwithoutmusicalaccompaniment.Suchartisticrenditionsofancientlinksbetweenmusicality,orality,andtex-tualityareimportantenough,buttheseoldGreekimagesareimportantforanotherreasonaswell.Theypointtotheseverelimitationsofourwrittensourcesoneducation-enculturationinancientGreece,andbyextension,otherancientculturesaswell.Wheredatablewrittensourcesfailtoattesttomuchuseoftextsineducationorrecitationpriortothelate“fthorearlyfourthcentury,wehavemultiple“fth-centuryvisualimagesofsuchusage.Moreover,wherewelackalmostanyattestationofwomenreadingorteachinginancientGreece,thevisualsourcesshowwomenreadingalmostasfrequentlyasmen.Lackingsuchvisualsources,wecouldwellconcludethatearlyGreekeducationfocusedexclusivelyonmalesanddidnotfeaturemuchuseoftextsuntilafewdecadesbeforetheonsetoftheHellenisticperiod.Butthesevisualsourcessuggestanalternativepicture.12.Immerwahr,MoreBookRoles,Ž144…45.13.ForoverviewsoftheseimagesseeespeciallytheearlyarticlesbyImmerwahr(BookRollsŽ;MoreBookRolesŽ),alongwiththediscussionbyPo¨hlmann(Mu¨ndlichkeitundSchriftlichkeitŽ)andtheusefulcol-lectionofimagesbyBeck(14.SeeImmerwahr,MoreBookRoles,Ž143…47.AsImmerwahrsuggests,theoneexceptionprovestherule,sinceitappearstobealistofmythological“guresthatwouldhaveservedasaneducationalaidforrecitationofsuchlyricpoetry.15.Ford,SongCulture,Ž24…30.16.ThemaintextualexceptionisthedescriptionbyHerodotusofSkylesbeingeducatedbyhisGreekmother(4.78).OnthisandotherevidenceforfemaleliteracyseeespeciallyCole,GreekWomen.Ž
textualityandeducationinancientgreeceTextualWitnessestothe(Subordinate)RoleofTextsinGreekEnculturationAidedbysuchimages,wearebetterabletoanalyzethetrueroleofwrittentextsinancientGreekenculturation-education.Theyshowwrittentextsbeingusedinthecontextofmusicalrecitationofpoetry,aswellasinvariouscontextsoffestivepartiesandintimateencounters.Thispictureiscon“rmedandelab-orateduponinwrittenwitnessestoeducationfromthe“fthandearlyfourthFromtheoutsetitmustbeemphasizedthattheprimaryaimwasrecita-tion.Indeed,theearliestwitnessestoeducationfocussomuchonrecitationthatonemightthinktextsplaynoroleatall.Forexample,thecharacterBetterArgumentŽinAristophanesplaynostalgicallydescribesstudentstwo-foldeducationinearliertimes,“rst(musicwithpoetryŽ)andthen(gymnastics,physicaltrainingŽ)(961…968):Verywell,IshalldescribehowtheoldeducationusedtooperateinthedayswhenI”ourishedbypropoundingwhatsright,andwhendecencywasacceptedcustom.The“rstrulewasthatnotasound,notevenamutter,shouldbeheardfromaboy.Furthermore,theboysofeachneighborhoodhadtowalkthroughthestreetstothemusicmastersalltogetherandingoodorder,withoutcoatsevenifthesnowwascomingdownlikechaff.Thenhewouldteachthemtomemorizeasong„whilekeepingtheirthighsapart!„Palas,DireCitySacker,ŽorACrySoundsFromAfar,Žandtotunetheirvoicestothemodetheirfathershandeddown.(Henderson,LCL)Platosimilarlyhasseveralreferencestoeducationin.Inthe(earlyfourthcentury),Socrates,attheoutsetofanattackonthetraditionaleducationalfocusonHomericpoetry,leadsAdimantusthroughthefollowingexchange(376e).What,then,isoureducation?Orisithardto“ndabetterthanthatwhichlongtimehasdiscovered„whichis,Isuppose,gymnas-ticsforthebody,andforthesoul,music?Itis.AndshallwenotbegineducationinmusicearlierthaninOfcourse.Andundermusicyouincludetales,doyounot?Ido.17.ThetranslationisfromPaulShorey,trans.,Republic,ŽinHamiltonandCairns,CollectedDialoguesof,623.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationLater,inhisPlatosAtheniandescribeseducationinthesametwofoldway,againillustratingacharacteristicallyGreekfocusontrainingofbothmindandbody:Theirinstructionmaybesaidtofall,forpracticalpurposes,undertwoheads:physicalculture,whichisconcernedwiththebody,andmusic,whichaimsatmentalexcellenceŽ(795d).Sofar,thesedescriptionsofeducationlackanyreferencestouseofwritingorreading,butwehaveseveralcluesfromtexts„inadditiontotheaforemen-tionedimages„thattraininginliteracyplayedasubsidiaryroleintraininginrecitation,whichwasapparentlypartoftheveryearlieststagesoftrainingin.Towardtheendofthe“fthcenturyAristophaneslampoonsanun-educatedsausagesellerwhoadmitsattheoutset:but,myfriend,Iknownomusic/poetry(),exceptforletters[],andeventhatonlybadlyŽAnotherplayofhisfeaturesadogwhodoesnotknowmusicbutdoesknowhisletters(Wasps958…960).Inthesecases,literacyisportrayedasaformoftrainingthatiseitherbeforeanddistinctfromorpartoftheveryearliestpartoftraininginThecentralfocusofwasultimatelytheuseofwriting,music,andothermeanstomemorizethecentralepicandlyricpoets.Forexample,PlatoinhislatedialoguethehastheAthenianŽdescribeindetailhowthepeopleofhiscityusewritingindifferentwaystogainmasteryofthepoetsWehaveagreatnumberofpoets,inhexameterverse,iniambictrimeter,inawordinalltherecognizedmeters,somegraveandsome-gay.Onthem,sothosemanythousandsofvoicesproclaim,youngpeoplewhoarebeingrightlyeducatedshouldbefed,inthemtheyshouldbesteeped;theirreadinglessonsmustgivethemawideac-quaintancewiththeirworksandanextensivescholarshipinthem;wholepoetsmustbelearnedbyheart.Thereareotherswhocompileanthologiesofthepoetsandmakecollectionsofwholepassages,whichtheysaymustbecommittedtomemoryandlearnedbyheartifourprote´ge´swidefamiliaritywithliteratureandextensivelearn-ingistomakeagoodandwisemanofhim.ForPlato,instructioninoftenarecloselyassociated,withtheformerpreparatoryforthelatter,buttheyarenotidentical.18.ThetranslationherecomesfromA.E.Taylor,trans.,Laws,ŽinHamiltonandCairns,CollectedDia-loguesofPlato,1369.ForotherreferencestothetwopartsofeducationseePlatos94bandAeschines,AgainstTimarchus,9…12.InatleasttwoofthecasesfromPlato(376eand795d…e)thistwofoldtaxonomyisatleastpartiallycorrelatedwiththebody-minddichotomysocrucialtoPlatosbroaderconceptualityandGreekculturemorebroadly.19.Mytranslation.SeeH.I.Marrou,AHistoryofEducationinAntiquity,trans.GeorgeLamb(Madison:UniversityofWisconsinPress,1956[orig.1948]),43.20.ThetranslationhereisfromTaylor,Laws,Ž1381.FordiscussionofthefocusofthispassageonstichicverseseeFord,SongCulture,Ž26…27.21.AlanD.Booth,DourisCupandStagesofSchoolinginClassicalAthens,ŽEchosdeMondeClassique19(1985):275…80.NoteaswellthatAristophanessausagesellerisrepresentedasclaiming
textualityandeducationinancientgreecementionsthemusicmasterŽandthegrammarmasterŽintan-dembutseparatelyfromgymnastics(276a).Moreover,theforegoingpassagefromtheisprecededbyoneinwhichthelearningoflettersandgrammarisconnectednottomusicalpoetrybuttothelearningofworkswithoutmusicormeterthataremoredif“culttomemorize(Elsewhere,PlatohasProtagorasprecedehisdescriptionofwiththefollowingdescriptionofearlyeducationinWhentheysendthechildrentoschool,theirinstructionstothemasterslaymuchmoreemphasisongoodbehaviorthanonlettersormusic.Theteacherstakegoodcareofthis,andwhenboyshavelearnedtheirlettersandarereadytounderstandthewrittenwordasformerlythespoken,theysettheworksofgoodpoetsnexttothemtoreadandmakethemlearnthembyheart,poemscontainingmuchadmonitionandmanystories,eulogies,andpanegyricsofthegoodmenofold,sothatthechildmaybeinspiredtoimitatethemandlongtobelikethem.Platoobviouslyhasacriticalperspectiveonthischaracterizationofeducation,placingitinthemouthofSocratesSophistantagonistratherthaninthatofSocrateshimself.AswesawattheoutsetofthediscussionofEgypt,Platosawwritingaskillingratherthanhelpingmemory(,274c…275c).Never-theless,hisProtagorascharacterisdepictedaspresentingacrediblepictureofancienteducationintheearlyhalfofthefourthcentury.Moreover,histhreefolddescriptionofeducationin,andisparalleledbyseveralotherfourth-centuryreferences.Bythispoint,traininginwritingisgaininganintegrityofitsown,thoughitstillstandsaspreparatorytotheultimateaim:memorizationandrecitationofthecorecurriculum.Thus,Greekfocusednotongainingtheabilitytoreadandwritearangeofunfamiliartextsbutinsteadontheachievementofphoneticliter-acy,Žpossessionofenoughreadingabilitytopuzzleoutsyllablesaloudtolearnatextbyheartortosayprayers,butnottoreadsilentlywithimmediatecom-Indeed,Greekwordsusedearlyforreading,like,refertoreadingoutloud„performingatext,andevenprosetextsinlaterperiodswriting)asthesoleextentofhisbadmasteryof,thusimplyingthatsuchinstructioncameearlierratherthanlaterintheeducationalprocess.
22.SeealsoIsocrates181,266…267,andPlatos23.Assmannnotesthatwritingisparticularlywellsuitedtothememorizationofcontingentinformation„receipts,andsoon„whicharelesseasily“ttedtoschemasofplotortheme(Texte,Ž66…68).24.ThetranslationherecomesfromW.K.C.Guthrie,trans.,Protagoras,ŽinHamiltonandCairns,lectedDialoguesofPlato,322,slightlyadaptedtoomitdesksŽ(thankstoRaffaellaCribioreforthiscorrection).SeealsoFord,SongCulture,Ž25…26.25.Plato,407b…c;Xenophon,LaecedaemonianConstitution,1.10;Aristotle1337b23ff.;butcf.Aeschines,AgainstTimarchus,9…12.26.Thomas,LiteracyandOrality,91…92.27.J.Svenbro,Phrasikleia:AnAnthropologyofReadinginAncientGreece,trans.J.Lloyd(Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress,1993),109…22.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationmayhavebeencomposedinrelationtoaprimaryfocusonoralperformance.MostoftheearliestGreekinscriptionsareinscriptionsofpoetictextsthatwereperformedaloud.Moreover,earlymanuscriptswerenotwrittenforthosewholackedpriorknowledgeofthetexts.Asmentionedearlier,theywerewritteninunciallettersandscriptiocontinua,thusmeaningthatthereaderhadtoseparatewordsasheorshewent.Readerlyhelpswerecompletelylacking.Dramaslackedindicationsofchangeinspeaker.Andtheextendedscrollformofsuchwritingsmadeimpossibleanyquickconsultationofanextendedpoetictext.Itwasjusttoodif“cult,anddamagingtothescroll,tounrollandre-rollitfre-quently.TheseindicatorssuggestthatwritinginancientGreecewaslinkedfromanearlypointtothetraditionofrecitationofpoetry,servingasasecondarysupportforreaderswhoalreadyknewthepoetrywell.Traininginwritingsimplyallowedsuchreader-reciterstousetextualhelpsinmemorization,re-view,andaccuraterecitation„muchlikethereadersdepictedinthevaseim-agesdiscussedattheoutsetofthischapter.AsindicatedintheforegoingquotesfromPlatosstudentsweretolearnpoetsbyheart.ŽLikePindarrecitingthenamesofvictorsorAeschylusrememberingaletter,theGreekstudenteventuallyhadolderGreektextswrittenonthe(tablet)of[their]mindŽ(PindarOlympianOdes10.1…3;Aeschylus,PrometheusBoundcf.460…461),muchasthegodslikewisehadtextsinscribedontheirminds273…275;P.OxyXX[1952]2256,frag.9a21;Sophocles,frag.597;Euripides,frag.506N.Towardthisend,teachersandauthorsprovidedhelpsforstudents.Forexample,alreadyinAristotlesworkOnMemoryweseetherecommendationthatstudentslinkitemsinaseriestolettersinthealphabet,usingthealphabetsequencelearnedearliestineducationasastructureonwhichtohangmorecomplexitemsgainedlateron.Moreover,theverystructureoftextsfacilitatedtheirownmemorization.InHomerweseetheuseofthechiasticstructurefororderingmaterial,amodethathelpedreciterssolvetheage-oldproblemoforganizingpoeticunitsintheirproperorder.Inaddition,asParry,Lord,andothershaveoftenobserved,literaturelikeHomerisdensewithotherelements28.RosalindThomas,ProsePerformanceTexts:andWrittenPublicationintheLateFifthandEarlyFourthCenturies,ŽinYunis,WrittenTexts,29.Robb,LiteracyandPaideia,21…35,44…62.30.L.D.ReynoldsandN.G.Wilson,ScribesandScholars:AGuidetotheTransmissionofGreekandLatin,3rded.(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1991),2…3.31.TheseandothercitationsaregiveninRudolfPfeiffer,AHistoryofClassicalScholarship:FromtheBeginningstotheEndoftheHellenisticAge(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1968),26,andAlfredBurns,AthenianLiteracyintheFifthCenturyB.C,ŽJournaloftheHistoryofIdeas42(1981):376.FordiscussionofancientandmedievalcontroversiessurroundingtheheartŽandmindŽseeCarruthers,BookofMemory,48.32.Carruthers,BookofMemory,109…15.33.ForanoverviewofevidenceinHomerandotherliteratureseeStephenA.Nimis,RingCompositionandLinearityinHomer,ŽinMacKay,SignsofOrality,65…78.ForastudyofsimilarprinciplesinartseeAnneMacKay,DeirdreHarrison,andSamanthaMasters,TheBystanderattheRingside:Ring-CompositioninEarlyGreekPoetryandVasePainting,ŽinMacKay,SignsofOrality,
textualityandeducationinancientgreecethatwouldhaveaidedmemorizedrecallofthetext:useofstandardsequencesofepithets,repetitionofthesamesequenceattheoutsetofseverallines,rep-etitionofbroaderspeeches,andsoon.Ofcourse,students„particularlythosewhoprogressedtohigherlevelsofeducation„gainedincreasingabilitytoreadnewtexts.Equippedwitharep-ertoireofwidespreadphraseologyandvocabularyfromtheirmemorizationofkeytextslikeHomer,suchstudentswouldhavelearnedtoreadunfamiliarpoetictexts.Moreover,manyliteratepeoplewouldhaveusedtheirliteracytodecipherbusinessorlegaldocumentsthattheyhadnotseenbefore,usuallytextscharacterizedbyahighdegreeofformulaicpredictability.Nevertheless,thedatasuggeststhatwritinggenerallyfunctioned„outsidebusinessandlegalcontexts„asatoolforreinforcementofexistingknowledgeofculturaltexts,ratherthanasanaccesspointforintroductiontopreviouslyunknownma-TheCurriculumandEndsofAncientGreekEducationAswehaveseen,writingwasnotanendinitselfinearlyGreekdiscussionsofeducation,norwasitapracticaltoolfordoingaparticularjob.Onthecontrary,practicaleducationwasridiculedascoarseandtypicalofthemasses.Asaresult,ouroldersources„skewedtowardelitesastheyare„telluslittleaboutthetrainingofmenialscribesresponsibleforcopyinganddraftingdoc-uments.Theirtrainingmaywellhavebeensimilartothatofthearistocracy,butwehavelesstogoon.YetthisisnotasmajoradifferencefromthescribalŽculturesofMesopotamiaandEgyptasit“rstappears.For,aswesawthere,thetrainingofscribesŽinsuchculturesoftenwasanenculturationofeliteswhoperformedfew,ifany,scribalfunctions.Towardthatend,NearEasternadministratorsandleadersreadandinternalizedacorpusoflists,instructionsandliterarytexts,mostofwhichdidnotteachcompetenciestypicallyassociatedwithaneverydayscribe.ŽClassicalGreekeducationfocusedonlearningofthegreatGreekpoetsofthepast.WealreadysawthisinPlatos(810e…811a),wherePlatohastheAthenianŽdescribeindetailhowthepeopleofhiscityusewritingindifferentwaystogainmasteryofthepoets.Suchinstructionintextsequippedstudentstousewritingintheeverexpandingcirclesoflawandbusiness,circlesinwhichwritingwasincreasinglyusedinclassicalGreece.Nevertheless,inthemostdirectsense,thismemorizationandrecitationofolderpoetsprepareda34.TheclassicoverviewisLord,SingerofTales.SeealsoAlbertLord,Memory,MeaningandMythinHomerandOralEpicTradition,Žin`:Cultura,Letteratura,Discorso:AttidelConvegnoInternazionale,ed.B.GentiliandG.Apioni(Rome:EdizionidellAteneo,1985),37…63.ForlinkageofthisworktopsychologicalresearchonmemoryseeRubin,MemoryinOldTraditions,194…226.35.See,forexample,Isocrates,261…265.Forbroaderdiscussion,H.I.Marrou,EducationandRhetoric,ŽinTheLegacyofGreece:ANewAppraisal,ed.M.I.Finley(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1981),192…93.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationstudenttodowhatStrepsiadesaskedofPhidippidesinAristophanestheabilitytotakeamyrtlebranchafterabanquetandsingforththeancientsongsfrommemory(1353…1374):Iwillindeedtellyouhowourname-calling“rststarted.Youllrecallthatwewerehavingafeast.FirstofallIaskedhimtopickuphislyreandsingasongbySimonides,theoneabouthowRamgotshorn,andherightawaysaiditwasoldfashionedtoplaythelyreandsingatadrinkingparty,likeawomanhullingbarley...AndhesaidthatSimonideswasabadpoet!Ionlyjustputupwithit,butIdidputupwithitat“rst.ThenIaskedhimifhewouldatleasttakeamyrtlesprigandsingmesomethingfromtheworksofAeschylus.Andherightawaysaid,Inmyopinion,Aeschylusischiefamongpoets„chie”yfullofnoise,incoherent,awindbag,amakerofloftylocutions.ŽCanyouimaginehowthatjoltedmyheart?ButIbitbackmyangerandsaid,Allrightthen,recitesomethingfromthesemodernpoets,thatbrainystuff,whateveritis.ŽAndherightawaytossedoffsomespeechbyEuripidesabouthowabrother,godsaveme,wasscrewinghissisterbythesamemother!Icouldntputupwithitanylonger,butrightawaystartedpeltinghimwithlotsofnasty,dirtywords.(Henderson,LCL)Theabilitytorecitesuchtextwaspartofwhatmarkedoneasbelongingtotheeliteclasswhowouldshareabanquet.AstheinterchangedepictedbyAristophanesbetweenStrepsiadesandPhi-dippidesshows,therewassomedisagreementtowardtheendofthe“fthcen-turyaboutexactlywhatpoetsshouldbelearnedandrecitedbytheproperaristocrat.StrepsiadesbeatsPhidippidesforwantingtosingabawdypartofEuripidesinsteadofolderpoetrybySimonidesorAeschylus.Moreover,Platosinthemid…fourthcenturyindicatesanongoingdisputebetweenthosewhoexpectamorecomprehensivemasteryofthepoetsandthosewhodevelopanthologiestoaidmorerestrictedlearning(810e-811a).Withinthiscon-text,itisnotablethatbeginstoappearasaseparatesubjectofstudyaroundthetimethatstudentsbeginstudyingtragedianslikeEuripidesalong-sidetheolderpoets.Previously,hadencompassedallelementsthatledtothememorizationandmusicallyaccompaniedrecitationofpoetry.ButasthecurriculumbroadenedbeyondthelyricŽandotherpoetictraditions,westarttoseemoreuseofthetermtorefertoeducationinliteracythatcouldserveanincreasingvarietyofmemorization/recitationends.Bethatasitmay,certainpoetssuchasHomerenjoyedaparticularlycen-tralplaceintheliteraturethatwasmemorizedandrecited.PlatosSocratesmentionsthewritingsofHomeralongwithHesiodaskeyexamplesofthefalsetalesthateveryoneincludesineducationdespitethefactthattheycouldnevertrulyteachvirtue(377d).NicoratusinXenophonsproclaims,Myfather,wishingmetobecomeagoodmanmademelearnthe
textualityandeducationinancientgreecewholeofHomer,sothateventodayIcanstillrecitetheandthebyheartŽ(III.5).AndweseenumerousinstancesinHesiod,PindarandotherlaterpoetsoftheauthorsfreeuseofmemorizedfragmentsfromHomer(andotherearlypoets)inthecompositionofnewpoeticworks.Overall,Homeristakenastheparadigmaticexampleofpoeticliteraturethatcouldinspiregoodnessbyexample.ThestudentlearnedfromancientportrayalsofheroesinHomerage-oldGreekvaluessuchasloveofglory,thevirtueofcunning,andtheimportanceofpreservationofhonor.Theseweretheethicalbene“tswhichallagreedweretheprimaryaimofinsofarasitsupported).AsPlatosProtagorasargues,stu-dentsaretaughtmasteryofthegoodpoetssothatthechildmaybeinspiredtoimitatethemandlongtobelikethemŽ(Itappearsthatthiseducationoftenhappenedonasmallscale.Aristoph-anesRightReasoningŽcharacterinrecallshowstudentsusedtomarchtothehomeoftheharpmaster(964)orgymnasticsteacher(973)foreducationinsmallgroups.InthefourthcenturywealsoseetheemergenceofschoolslikethePythagoreanschool,PlatosAcademy,andAristotlesLyceum,whichwerereligiousassociationsdevotedtotheMuses,withseparatebuildings,fes-tivals,andobservances.Meanwhile,thesophistsfollowedthemodelofwhatMarroucallscollectivetutoring,Žwherestudentswouldworkinsmallgroupswithafamousteacher,whowaspaid.Suchpaycontrastedwithearlieridealsofeducationthatwerebasedinastudent-teacherrelationshipofemotionalandoftenphysicallove.Withinsuchearliercontexts,therewasalwaysacleardistinctioninpowerandprestigebetweenteacherandstudent.Nevertheless,thistypeofintellectual-homoeroticrelationshipwasquitedifferentfromthatseeninthefather-sonhierarchicalrelationshipsoftheSumero-AkkadianandEgyptianexamples.Aswelookcloser,itbecomesevermoreapparentthatthisoftenintimateeducationinHomerandotherpoeticclassicswasaboutmuchmorethanthelearningofcertainethicalprinciplesorimitationofgreatheroesofthepast.Itwastheinductionofastudentintoanelitemaleculturewherethepoetictraditionservedasaculturaltextonmultiplelevels.Onthemostmicrolevel,weseetextsofpoetryusedinsmall-scaleeducationofthesorttesti“edtobyafewvasesandtexts.Thispreparedastudenttorecitetheepictradition(orpartsofit)„oftenwithouttheaidoftext„inthecontextofprivatesymposia.Duringthedrinkingafterthemeal,themenwouldpassthestafformyrtle36.TranslationadaptedfromMarrou,withthereplacementofMarrousaccomplishedmanŽwiththemoreliteralgoodmanŽfor¯ragathos37.ForsomesurveysseeGregoryNagy,PindarsHomer:TheLyricPossessionofanEpicPastJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1990);Havelock,LiterateRevolution,23,234…56;Robb,LiteracyandPaideiaesp.23…31.38.Marrou,HistoryofEducation,10…13.39.TranslationadaptedfromGuthrie,Protagoras,Ž322.40.Marrou,HistoryofEducation,49.41.Marrou,HistoryofEducation,26…35.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationbranchandrecitefromtheepictraditiontheyhadmasteredasyouths.where,therewasstillahigherlevelofcirculationofthesetexts,onethatformedabroaderculturalcommunity:therecitationoftheepictraditionatpan-Hellenicfestivalsorthecourtbybardsparticularlyskilledinthetradition.Indeed,manyhavearguedthattheoriginsofthestabilizedHomerictraditionlieinsuchrecitation,perhapsbeginningwiththemid-sixthcenturyprocessattestedtobyPlatoinhisHipparchusofPhilaš¨dae,whowastheeldestandwisestofPisistra-tusssons,andwho,amongthemanygoodlyproofsofwisdomthatheshowed,“rstbroughtthepoemsofHomerintothiscountryofours,andcompelledtherhapsodesatthePanathenaeatorecitetheminrelay,onemanfollowingonanother,astheystilldonoAllthishedidfromawishtoeducatethecitizensinorderthathemighthavesubjectsofthehighestexcellence.(Lamb,LCL)Hereagainweseethefamiliarlinkofrecitationandmoralexcellence,onlynowtheeducationoccursonthelevelofpublicfestival.EducationpreparedadultstobefullparticipantsinthisrangeofeventswhereabroaderGreekŽcommunitywasformedthroughsharedepicmemory.Andtheeducationcontinuedthroughthereinforcementofsuchsharedmemoryinbothprivateandpubliccontexts.Thepoetictraditionwas,inasense,asecondlanguageforthoseeducatedintoit.AsaresultofmemorizingapoetlikeHomer,stu-dentsnotonlygainedabilityinhisIonicGreek,buttheyalsogainedareper-toireofthemes,phrases,charactersandplotsthattheythencouldincorporateintotheiroralandwrittenspeech.Allthisdoesnotmean,however,thatGreeceachievedanythinglikegen-eralliteracy.ThoughmanyhavearguedthattheintroductionofthealphabetinGreeceresultedinthe“rstgenerallyliteratepublic,morerecentstudieshavequestionedthatidea.Inparticular,WilliamHarriss1989study,,showedthatpaststudiesofliteracyhadfailedtotakeaccountofseveralkeyfactorsthatlimitedtraininginliteracyintheancientGreco-Romanworld:thesocietyspredominantlyruralcharacter,thelimitedusesofliteracyinthesociety,andtherelativeexpenseofeducatingpeopletohigherlevelsofliteracy.Althoughmanypastandpresentscholarshavereferredtothepracticeofos-tracismtojustifyassumptionsofwidespreadliteracyin“fthtofourthcenturyAthens,eventhatwouldonlyjustifytheassumptionthat15percentoftheadultmalepopulationreachedalevelofsemiliteracy.Morrisconcludesthat,atmost,5percentofthepopulation(includingslavesandwomen)achievedahigher42.MarkGrif“th,PublicandPrivateinEarlyGreekInstitutionsofEducation,ŽinEducationinGreekandLatinAntiquity,ed.YunLeeToo(Leiden:Brill,2001),43…59.43.GregoryNagy,AnEvolutionaryModelfortheTextFixationofHomericEpos,ŽinOralTraditionalLiterature:AFestschriftforAlbertBatesLord,ed.JohnMilesFoley(Columbus,OH:Slavica,1981),390…93;ReynoldsandWilson,ScribesandScholars,1.44.Nagy,PindarsHomer,21…22,54…81;Havelock,PrefacetoPlato,120.45.Grif“th,PublicandPrivate.Ž
textualityandeducationinancientgreeceleveloffullyfunctionalliteracy.Higherlevelsofliteracy„30…40percentofthefreemalepopulation„werenotachieveduntiltheHellenisticperiod,andeventhen,onlyinselecturbancontextspriortotheRomanperiod.quentresponsestoHarrissworkhavetendedtocon“rmhisbasiccorrectionofearlieranachronisticassumptionsofwidespreadliteracyinancientGreece,thoughtheyhavefurthernuancedhisemphasesondifferentsortsofliteracy.Meanwhile,itisbecomingincreasinglyclearthatthealphabetwasnottheimmediateandunquali“edsuccessitisoftenassertedtobe,evenwithinpartsoftheGreekworldthatknewit.TherelativesimplicityoftheGreekalphabeticsystemhavemeantthatabroaderrangeofGreeksachievedvariouslevelsofso-calledvulgarŽliteracy,wherebypeoplecouldlearntosigntheirnames,readfamiliarwords,and/orperformbasicbusinessfunctionswithletters.Nevertheless,thiswasnotlit-eracyŽinkeywaysthatcountedinGreeksociety.ContemporaryconceptsofliteracyŽ„includingthoseoftenusedinrecentdebates„arealltooshapedbyahighlylimitedfocusonreadingandwritingcompetence,afocusthathasaveryparticularbackgroundinEuropeanandNorthAmericansocialhistory.WhatappearstohavematteredmoreinancientGreekculturewasamuchbroaderliteracyŽinthestandardworksofthetradition,aliteracyŽthatmarkedsomeoneasafullparticipantintheancientGreekpolis.ThisliteracyŽ„likeitscorrelatesinancientMesopotamiaandEgypt„waspossessedalmostexclusivelybyelites.Tobesure,theseGreekeliteswerenotidenti“edinthesameway,partlybecauseofdifferentattitudestowardwritinginthesedifferentcultures.Aswesaw,theelitesintext-lovingcultureslikeMesopotamiaandEgyptwereatleastnominallydenotedasscribesŽevenwhentheirresponsibilitiesinvolvedminimalwriting.AncientGreece,incon-trast,onlyobliquelyandgraduallylinkedskillinreading/writing(withitselite.ThefullyeducateddepictedinclassicalGreektraditions,thoughtheycouldread,werenot“rstandforemostscribes.ŽInstead,theywerecitizenparticipantsinthebroad,butstillelite,formofdemocracyemergingintheancientGreekpolis.Onlytheyhadprogressedbeyondarudimentarygraspofletterstoachievemasteryofthepoetictradition.OnlytheywereculturallymarkedbytheircompetenceinthesecondlanguageŽoftheearlierGreek46.W.V.Harris,AncientLiteracy(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1989),328.47.Harris,AncientLiteracy,329.48.ForasamplingofscholarlyresponsestoHarrissworksee,forexample,J.H.Humphrey,ed.,intheRomanWorldJournalofRomanArchaeologySupplementarySeries(AnnArbor,MI:JournalofRomanArchaeology,1991).Thoughsomehaveraisedconcernsabouttheselectivityofpreservedsourcesandtheneedformoresensitivitytodifferentsortsofliteracy,Harrissworkhascorrectedpriorenthusiastic,anachronisticprojectionsofgeneralliteracyintotheclassicalandHellenisticworlds.OnthecontextsofliteracyseealsoGrif“th,PublicandPrivate,Ž66…68.49.SeeespeciallyAnnaMorpurgoDavies,FormsofWritingintheAncientMediterraneanWorld,ŽinTheWrittenWord:LiteracyinTransition,ed.GerdBaumann(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1986),23…50.50.ForsomediscussionofthisbackgroundseePattison,OnLiteracy;B.V.Street,LiteracyinTheoryand(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1984);Graff,andthesummaryofresearchinCollins,LiteracyandLiteracies.Ž
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationInsum,thoughtheGreekalphabetisoftencelebratedasarevolutioninsimplicitythatallowedabroadpublictoreadandwrite,Greekeducation„likeMesopotamianandEgyptianeducation„servedaprocessofclassformation.Themereabilitytoreadandwritewasridiculedasacompetencethatevenasausagesellerordogmightattain.Whatwasfarmoreimportantwastheabilitytoparticipateintherecitalsoftheancientepictraditionthatcreatedpan-Helleniccultureandhelpedde“netheeliteclasseswithinit.Educationinliteracyplayedanimportantroleingainingthatability.Nevertheless,sucheducationwasaimedatachievementofabasicliteracythatcouldenableayoungGreektouseatypicalreader-unfriendlyGreekmanuscriptasareferencepointforhisoranothersrecitationofamemorizedtradition.TheCreationandDepictionofGreekCulturalTextsAswehaveseen,theGreekwrittenandpictorialevidencepresentsuswithacomplexblendoftextualityandoralityinthetransmissionanduseofcoreculturaltextslikeHomer.Ontheonehand,theprimaryfocuswasontheoralityofsuchtexts.Theyweremeantforperformance.Moreover,wedontseethesamemystiquesurroundingwrittencopiesofthesetextsthatweoften“ndinMesopotamiaorEgypt,particularlyinlaterperiods.Ontheotherhand,writtentextsdoplayanimportant,albeitsubsidiary,roleinthetransmissionoftheseculturaltexts.Thoughtraininginphoneticliteracyissometimesden-igratedasapreliminary,virtuallyworthlessformofeducationinsomesources,writtentextsappeartohaveplayedanincreasingroleinthetrainingofGreeksforperformanceoftheculturaltradition.JanAssmannproposesacategoryofpragmaticliteracyŽthatnicelyencompassesthisambiguityinpriorities:atextualityinwhichwrittentextsserveasanancillarysupportforaprimarilyoralcompositional,transmissional,andperformanceprocess.ThisambiguityintheGreeksourcesthemselvesissometimesre”ectedinscholarlytheoriesaboutthecreationofGreekliterature.Oneschoolofthought„mostprominentlyrepresentedbytheParry-Lordschooloforal-traditionalcomposition„hasarguedthatGreektextswerecomposedinanexclusivelyoralcontextandtransmittedorallyupuntilafairlylateperiodinGreekhistory.ThisapproachhasbeensupportedbyLordsandothersstudyofelementsinHomericepic(andotherpoetictexts)thatwouldenableabardtomemorizeandperformamassivepiecewithouttextualhelp„elementssuchasdensityofformulae,poeticforms,themes,music,andsoon.Yetsuchap-proaches,focusedonoral-traditionalorality,havebeencontradictedbyotherrecentresearchthathasarguedpersuasivelythattheHomerictraditionwaswrittendownalreadyintheeighthcentury.Certainly,asdiscussedearlier,thereisstrongevidencefortheuseofwritingtoaidperformancefromtheearly“fthcenturyonward.AbriefdetourmayilluminatethismixofevidenceforbothoralandwrittentransmissionofGreek(andother)literature.TerrenceDeacon,abiologicalanthropologist,andothershavesuggestedanevolutionalmodelthatmight
textualityandeducationinancientgreeceexplainthemixofindicatorsoforalityandwrittentextualitythatareinvokedbytheaforementionedstreamsinclassicalscholarship.Intheprocessofar-guingthatlanguageisnothard-wiredintothehumanbrainassomesocio-biologistswouldargue,Deaconurgesthinkingofalinguisticsystemintermsofasymbioticparasite,thatis,aparasitethathasevolvedtoaidthesurvivalofitshost,evenasitshostevolvestoaidthesurvivaloftheparasite.Anexampleofsuchasymbioticparasiteinnaturewouldbetheendosymbiontintermites,aparasitethatprovidesacrucialenzymethatallowstermitestobreakdowncellulose.Suchsymbioticrelationshipsinnaturetendtoencouragebothpart-nerstoevolvetoaligntheirreproductiveandsurvivalprocesses.Inthecaseofhumanculture,thehumanimpetustomakesurethatagivenculturalset„language,text,ritual,art,andsoon„isingestedbychildrenandpassedontothenextgenerationstandsasawayhumansocietieshaveevolvedtoencouragethereproductionoftheculturestheyhost.Suchculturalelementsthemselveshaveevolvedtobemoreeasilytransferableandtosupport(oratleastnotcontradict)thesurvivalofthesocietiesthathostŽthem.Weseethedyingoutofthoseculturalelements„asortofsymbolicDNA„thatarenoteasilytrans-mittableorthatleadtotheself-destructionofthesocietythathostsŽthem.Thepointofthisdetouristosuggestthatthepoeticandformulaicele-mentsoftenpointedtobytheoral-traditionalschoolmightbecharacteristicsGreekepicthatevolvedtosupportitstransmissionwithinearlyGreeksociety.Overtime,thoseelementsofthewrittenGreektraditionthatpromotedoraltransmissionsurvived,whileelementsoftheliterarytraditionthatlackedsuchmnemoniccapacityweredropped,metaphoricallydyingout.ŽAsIhavearguedearlier,theGreektextual-educationalsystemwasorientedprimarilyaroundtrainingfororalperformance,howevermuchitusedwrittentextsasasupportfortrainingandreference.ThistextuallysupportedsystemwasacrucialwayinwhichGreekculturereproduceditself,whilereproducingkeypartsofthepoetictradition„forexample,Homer„intheprocess.ToextendDeaconsevolutionarymetaphorjustonestepfurther,thewrit-tentextservedthefunctioninthiscontextofprovidingastableformofculturalDNAŽforthetraining,transmission,andappreciationoftheculturaltradition.Comparedtopurelyoraltexts,thewrittentextswereaculturalformthatmu-tatedrelativelylittle.Asaresult,theyallowedforgreaterstabilityinculturalreproduction.Atthesametime,becauseGreekwrittentextssupportedalargelyoralprocess,theyencodedformsoftheculturaltraditionthatlentthemselvestoorallearningandrecitation:formulaicdensity,repeatingthemes,andsoon.Thetransmissionofsuchtextswasnotlefttosuchoral-traditionalelements,atleastnotinthecenturiesimmediatelyprecedingtheHellenisticperiod.In-stead,writtentextsprovidedasubsidiary,butnecessary,stablebedrockforaprocessfocusedonoralperformanceinclass-speci“ccontexts.51.ThisentirediscussionisdependentontheformulationinTerrenceW.Deacon,TheSymbolicSpecies:TheCo-EvolutionofLanguageandtheBrain(NewYork:Norton,1997),110…15.Henotes(468,n.3)manyearlierprecursorstothisapproach,fromthemid…nineteenthcenturyonward.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationThismixoffactorsthenwouldexplainhowGreekwrittenculturaltextsevolvedtodisplaysuchadensityoforalcharacteristics.Theyarethepreemi-nentoral-writtentexts,servingaprocessofculturalreproduction.Yettheyalsomaybeapointertoaphenomenonofparallelevolutioninothercultureswheretheoral-writtenmatrixislessthoroughlydocumentedbybothtextandart.For,aswehaveseen,bothMesopotamianandEgyptianculturaltraditionsfeaturetheirownmixofcharacteristicsthatwouldfacilitatethememorizationandoralperformanceoftheirkeytexts.Previousscholarshavenotedthewidespreadpresenceofformulae,poeticlines,andmusicintheSumero-Akkadiantradi-tion.Andwefoundasimilarpredominanceofmetrical,episodic,andrepetitivestructuresinEgyptianliterature,againfeaturesthatwouldhaveaidedthere-productionŽofthetraditionanditspassingontosubsequentgenerations.Oncloserexamination,someofthesefeaturesaresimilartoeachotherandtheGreekinstance„suchasthepresenceofpoeticlines,theemphasisonoralperformance,andthelinkageoftextandmusic.Likelanguageuniversals,suchfeaturesrepresenttheparallelevolutionofcertaintypesofculturalDNAto“tsimilarstructuresofthememorizinghumanmindandsociety.OtheroralelementsoftheMesopotamianandEgyptiantraditionsarenotsharedwitheachotherorwithancientGreece.Inthissense,wearelookingatdistinctiveformsofculture,evolvingwithindifferentculturalenvironmentsandbuildingondifferentculturalprecursors.TheGreekTextualTraditioninComparisonTheforegoingre”ectionsshowavarietyofsimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweentheGreektextualmatrixanditsMesopotamianandEgyptiancounterparts.Firstandforemost,thewritingsystemandtheteachingmaterialsaredifferent,atleastinthecaseofGreeceofthesixthandfollowingcenturies.Tobesure,GreeceofanearlierperiodusedapictographicsystemmuchmoreliketheMesopotamianandEgyptiansign-systems,andwehavealimitedcacheofsignandlexicallistsfromancientMycenaethatareanalogoustothescriballistsseenintheMesopotamianandlateEgyptianinstances.Suchlistswereprob-ablyusedtotrainscribalmastersanalogoustothosefoundintheNearEast.Nevertheless,thisancient,pictographicallyorientedGreekscribalmatrixdidnotsurviveintolaterperiods,andthealphabet-basedsystemoflaterGreeceuseddifferentmaterialstowarddifferentends.Thesolelistthatplayedaprom-inentroleinclassicalGreekeducationwastheabecedary,alreadyattestedonanearlyEtruscanjug.EpictextslikeHomertooktheplaceofthelexicallistsofMesopotamiaorthekeywisdominstructionsofEgypt.Finally,theaimofclassicalGreekeducationwasnolongertotrainatextuallyexpertscribalelite,butinsteadtoformanaristocraticeliteofGreekcitizens,de“nedinpartby52.SeeA.Heubeck,AusderWeltderfru¨hgriechischenLineartafeln¨ttingen:VandenhoeckandRuprecht,1966),esp.12,foranoverviewofthematerials.
textualityandeducationinancientgreecetheirabilitytoorallyperformtheculturaltraditionincontextslikethesym-posia,andtoappreciatesuchperformances,boththereandinbroaderdramatic-festivalsettings.ThecurriculumatthecoreofGreekeducationperformanceisidenti“eddifferentlyfromtheMesopotamianorEgyptianexemplars.AtleastforAth-enianstudents,theclassicGreektextsarenotsetapartinthesamewayfromeverydayutteranceasMesopotamianandEgyptianculturaltexts.ThoughtextslikeHomerwerecomposedinanIonicdialectsomewhatdifferentfromthestudentsAttic,suchstudentsdidnothavetoundergomuchofaprocessoflanguageacquisitiontoappreciatethem.Generally,itwastheGreektextspoeticformandlinktosongthatsetthemapartasspecialspeech.TheGreektraditiondidnotmakethesameclaimsaboutitscoretextsthatweremadeinMesopotamiaandEgypt.ThoughtherearesomebriefclaimsforinspirationbytheMusesattheoutsetofHomericandotherearlyworks(e.g.1.1,10;8.481,488),thisideaseemstohavedecreasedratherthanincreasedinprominence.Moreover,wedonotgenerallyseeclaimsthatHo-orotherkeytextsderivefromachainofscribesorwerecomposedbeforethe”ood.Instead,theauthorityofculturaltextsoftenseemstoresideintheauthorialpersonagesthemselves:Homer,Hesiod,Aeschylus,andotherkeypoets.Inthissense,theGreekexampleisperhapsclosertotheRamesideEgyptianone,wherethereisincreasingagreement„thoughitisstill”uid„oncoreauthors(//Egyptiansages)whoarethesourceofculturalpower,ratherthanjustacoregroupoflargelyanonymoustexts.ThekeydifferencefromtheEgyptianexampleisthatvirtuallyalloftheauthorsintheGreektraditionhavemultipleworksassociatedwiththem,whilethatistrueofonlyonecentralEgyptiansage,Kheti.This,then,openstheopportunityinGreece(andtheHellenisticworld)forthecreationandattributionofyetmoreworkstotheseauthoritativeauthorsandtheconcomitantentryofsuchworksintothestreamofGreekeducation.Sometimes,indeed,authorsthemselvesissuedmultipleeditionsoftheirworks,whilethemanuscripttraditionsofsometextsshowevidenceofinterpolationsbyactorsandothers.Overall,mostsuchtraditionsshowtheoral-writtendynamicsobservedinpreviouslydiscussedcultures:non-signi“cantvariants,nonstemmaticrelationshipsbetweenmanuscriptfamilies,andsoon.TherearebothsimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweentheroleofwrittentextsinGreeceandtheroleoftextsintheMesopotamianandEgyptiansystems.Asinthosesystems,writtencopieswereusedtolearn,review,andcorrectrecitation53.JohannesLeipoldtandSiegfriedMorenz,HeiligeSchriften:BetrachtungenzurReligionsgeschichtederantikenMittelmeerwelt(Leipzig:Harrassowitz,1953),34.Notethere”ectionsontheunusuallynontextualizedcharacterofGreekreligioninAlbertHenrichs,WritingReligion:InscribedTexts,RitualAuthority,andtheReligiousDiscourseofthePolis,ŽinYunis,WrittenTexts,54.Ihavebeenmosthelpedonthisbyarelativelyoldstudy,A.Gu¨demann,LiteraryFraudsAmongtheGreeks,ŽinClassicalStudiesinHonourofHenryDrisler(NewYork:Macmillan,1894),52…74.55.ForanoverviewoftheseissuesinearlyGreektextsseeW.C.West,TextualCriticismandEditorialTechnique(Stuttgart:Teubner,1973),15…17.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationofpoetictexts„bothineducationalcontextsandearlysymposia.Nevertheless,librariesofsucheducational-enculturationaltextsarenotwellattestedintheearliestperiods.ThemostfamousexampleistheAthenianMetroon,whereLycurgusdepositedcopiesofthreekeytragediansforthepurposeofreferenceandcontrol.AristotlesbookcollectioninhisLyceumisoneothermajorexampleofalibrary,inthiscaseateacher-scholarslibrary,whichispassedontohissuccessorteacher-scholar,Theophrastus.Hislibrarymayhavebeendistinguishedbyvirtueofitsowneroritsunusualcomprehensiveness,butotherteachersprobablyhadcopiesofmanytextstheytaught.ItisnotuntiltheHellenisticperiod,however,thatweseemorewidespreadattestationofprivatelibraries,abooktrade,andlargerroyallibrarieslikethoseofAlexandriaandPergamon.Overall,ancientGreekeducationandtextualproductiontookplaceinsomewhatdifferentinstitutionalcontextsfromthoseofancientMesopotamiaandEgypt.PerhapsbecauseofthedemocraticformofgovernmentinAthens,ourlargelyAtheniansourcesforearlyGreektextualityandeducationlackat-testationofroyalsponsorshipofeducationandlibrarycollections.WherethetempleandpriesthoodwereincreasinglyprominentinthetransmissionofMesopotamianandEgyptiantexts,theGreekcultappearstohaveplayedanevermoresubsidiaryroleintransmissionofkeyGreektexts.WhereboththeMesopotamiansandtheEgyptiansattachedaspecialmystiquetowrittencop-iesoftexts,theancientGreeksdonotappeartohavedoneso.Ingeneral,weneedtobecarefulnottooverreadPlatosanxietyabouttextsascharacteristicofallofearlyGreekculture.Nevertheless,inadditiontoPlatoscritiqueoftheuseoftextsforculturaltransmissionwehavetherelativesilenceofGreeksourcesabouttheroleoftextsinthatprocessandtheaccuracyoftheirre-Finally,incomparisonwithMesopotamiaandEgypt,textualcompetenceinancientGreeceappearstohavebeenlesscloselyconnectedtospeci“coc-cupationsandmoreconnectedtomembershipinabroadlyde“nedaristocraticelite.Tobesure,thescribesŽwhowereeducatedinbothMesopotamiaandEgyptdonotalwaysappeartohavedonejobsthatendeduprequiringregularuseofwriting.Nevertheless,itappearsthatbothofthoseculturesrequiredaliterateeducationintheculturaltraditiontoassumecertainrolesinpalaceortempleadministrations.Incontrast,text-supportededucationinGreecewasnotorientedtowardproducingidenti“ablescribes,Žnorwasitapparentlyre-quiredtoassumespeci“crolesinapalaceortempleadministration.Instead,itproducedcitizenscapableofreproducingandappreciatingtheculturaltra-ditionasitwasperformedinavarietyofcontexts,aswellasfunctioningina56.FormoreonthedatinganduseofthisarchiveseeW.C.West,ThePublicArchivesinFourth-CenturyGreek,RomanandByzantineStudies30(1989):529…43.57.BernhardKnox,BooksandReadersintheGreekWorld,ŽinCambridgeHistoryofClassicalLiteratureed.P.E.EasterlingandB.M.W.Knox(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1985),13…14.58.F.G.Kenyon,BooksandReadersinAncientGreeceandRome(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1951),18…25;Widman,HerstellungundVertriebdesBuches,Ž603…10;ReynoldsandWilson,ScribesandScholars,2…4.
textualityandeducationinancientgreecesocietywherewritingwasincreasinglyusedforavarietyofeconomic,legal,andotherfunctions.Alreadywehaveseenthismixofsimilarityanddistinctivenessoftextual-educationalsystemsinMesopotamia,intheculturesitin”uenced,andinEgypt.TogetherwithGreece,theypresentarangeofdistinctivetextuallysup-portedenculturationsystems.Theyshareafocusonmemorization,oralper-formance,andenculturationofagenerationofleaders.Ineachcase,thereisafocusonclassformation„theseparationofagroupofstudentsfromthewholebytheirmasteryofanolderculturaltradition.Yettherearealsoimpor-tantdifferences.Wewillneedtokeepthismixofsimilarityanddifferenceinmindasweturntothe“nalexampleofpre-Hellenistictextualityandencul-turationintheNearEast:pre-HellenisticIsrael.
This page intentionally left blank
TextualityandEducationinAncientIsraelForwhateverwaswritteninformerdayswaswrittenforourinstruc-tion,sothatbysteadfastnessandbytheencouragementofthescrip-tureswemighthavehope.„Romans15:4NRSVThe“rsttimeweactuallyhavedocumentationforhowtheHebrewBibleisused,itisusedineducationalcontexts.Theearliestsyna-gogueswereprimarilyteachinginstitutions,andtheBiblewasused“rstandforemostasaholyteachingtoolfortheeducation-enculturationofyoungJews(mostlymales).Withintheearlysyna-goguesandnonsynagogalschoolsstudentslearnedtoreciteandun-derstandbiblicaltexts,learningHebrewandmemorizingtheTorah,Psalms,andportionsoftheprophets.Suchpracticesofreading,learning,andmemorizationoftheBiblecontinueuptothepresentinmanytraditionalJewishcommunities.Despitethisearlyevidence,Christianbiblicalscholarshiphasof-tensharplydividedsuchphenomenainJudaismfromthepracticesofancientIsrael.BuildingonalongChristiantraditionofsepara-tionoftheOldTestamentŽfromJudaism,manynon-Jewishschol-arshavepresupposedthatJewishusagesofbiblicaltextsmustbede-cisivelydifferentfromtheiroriginalusage.Tosomeextentthisistrue:inIsrael,asinothercultures,culturaltextswereadaptedfromletters,hymns,displayinscriptions,annals,andsoonpreviouslyusedinvarioussettings.Nevertheless,buildingontheearlieranalo-giesofeliteeducationinMesopotamia,Egypt,andGreece,this1.Theargumentsfortheseassertionswillbegiveninchapter10.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationchapterwillarguethatsuchbiblicaltextsonlyjoinedthestreamoflong-durationusagewhentheywereusedtoeducateandenculturateyoungIsra-elites,ausagerelativelyconsistentwithlaterJewisheducationaluseoftheBible.FromtheearliestperiodoftheiruseasScripture,such(proto)biblicaltextsservedasauthoritativereferencetextsforuseineducationofliterateelitesinIsrael.Therearesomesigni“cantdifferencesbetweenearlyandlateruseofsuchtexts,butthesimilaritiesaremoresigni“cant.ApproachingtheEvidenceforTextualityandEducationinPre-HellenisticIsraelBeforeembarkingonasurveyoftheevidenceforeducationandtextualityinearlyIsrael,itisimportanttonotewaysinwhichthemultiplemodelsofnearbyculturescanre“neoursearch.Certainly,bothnonbiblicalepigraphicevidenceandtheevidenceoftheBibleitselftestifytosomesortofeducation-textualapparatusinancientIsrael.Overrecentdecades,archaeologistshaveuncoveredasigni“cantnumberofancientIsraeliteeducationaltexts,correspondence,taxreceipts,andgraf“ti.These“ndsconstituteclearlydatableevidenceforbotheducationandprofes-sionalscribalpracticesinpre-HellenisticIsrael.Moreover,theHebrewBible„acomplexcollectionoftextsfromwidelydifferentperiods„testi“estoaformofculturalreproductionthatisintenselytextual.Notonlydoweseefrequentreferencestotheuseoftextsinlegal,annalistic,letter-writingandothercon-texts(e.g.Deut24:1…4;cf.Jer32:10…12;Isa50:1);notonlydoestheBibleitselfoftenrefertopriortextsandtobook-rolls;butbothnarrativesandpropheciescloselylinkwritingwithrevelation,andkeybooksprominentlyfeaturestoriesofrecitingandhearinglikethoseofJosiahsreformandEzraslaw-reading(2Kgs23:1…3;Neh7:72b…8:18[ET7:73b…8:18]).Finally,thereistheevidenceoftheexistenceoftheHebrewBibleitself,asubstantialancientliteratureofvary-2.SomeotherexamplesoflegaltextsincludeJer32:10…14;Job31:35…36;Neh7:5,9:38.Someexamplesofletterwritingnarrativescanbefoundat2Sam11:14…15;1Kgs21:8…11;2Kgs5:5…7;10:1,5,6;Isa37:14[9…13]//2Kgs19:14[9…13];20:12//Isa39:1;Jeremiah29;Ezra4:7…23;7:11…26;Neh6:1…9;Esther1:21…22;3:13…14;9:20…23,29;2Chr30:1;32:17.3.See,forexample,Isa34:4;Job31:35andJer36:2and32;Ezek2:8…9;Psalm40:9[ET40:8];Zech5:1.WeseereferencestopriortextsalreadyinasuperscriptionlikeGen5:1andinthefrequentreferencestosourcematerialsinthehistoricalbooks:Josh10:13;2Sam1:18;1Kgs11:41(//2Chr9:29);14:19(//2Chr12:15),29;15:7(//2Chr13:22),23(//2Chr16:11),31;16:5,14,20,27;22:39,45(ET22:46;//2Chr20:34);2Kgs1:18(cf.2Chr24:27);8:23;10:34;12:19(ET12:20;//2Chr24:27);13:8,12;14:15,18,28;15:6,11,15,21,26,31,36(//2Chr27:7);16:19(//2Chr28:26);20:20(//2Chr32:32);21:17(//2Chr33:18…19),25;23:28(//2Chr35:26…27);24:5(//2Chr36:8);1Chr9:1;29:29;2Chr26:22;Esther10:2.4.ForasampleseeExod17:14;24:3…4,7,12;32:15…16;34:1,27…29;Deut4:13…14;9:10…11;10:1;27:2…3,8;28:58,61;29:19…20,26[ET29:20…21,27];30:10;31:9,19…24;Josh1:8;8:32…34;23:6;24:26…27;1Sam10:25;1Kgs2:32;2Kgs14:6;17:37;Ezra3:2…4;Isa30:8;Jer30:2;51:60…61;Ezek24:1…2;Hos8:12;Hab2:2;Neh10:36;13:1;1Chr16:40;2Chr23:18;25:4.5.ForabroadersurveyseeJamesW.Watts,ReadingLaw:TheRhetoricalShapingofthePentateuch,BiblicalSeminar(Shef“eld:Shef“eldAcademicPress,1999),15…22.
textualityandeducationinancientisraelingsortsofmaterial,withsuperscriptions,subscriptions,andothersortsofevidencepointingtoacomplexprocessofproductionandtransmission.InsofarasthesenonbiblicalandbiblicaltextsdatefromvariousperiodsofIsraelshistory,theyre”ectthepresenceofliterateindividualsabletowriteandreadthem.Thatsaid,wemustbecarefulabouthowweconceptualizethisprocess.PastdebatesabouteducationinancientIsraeloccasionallyhavefocusedonprovingordisprovingtheexistenceofseparate,identi“ableschools,Žsometimesassumedtobemuchlikethosethatweknowtoday:inseparatebuildings,staffedbyprofessionalteachersderivingtheirlivelihoodfromstudenttuition,andorientedtowardtheeducationofthegeneralpopu-Yettheeducationalsystemsdiscussedsofarcontrastwiththiscontem-porarymodelofeducation.Indeed,comparativeworkshowsthatamodelofclassroomeducationtowardgeneralliteracyismisleadingforthecultureschronologicallyand/orgeographicallynearancientIsrael.Aswehaveseen,mucheducationeveninlargercultureslikeMesopotamiaandEgypttookplacenotinidenti“able,separateschoolsŽwithprofessionalteachers,Žbutinanapprenticeship-likeatmosphereinthehomesorwork-shopsofscribalmasters.Tobesure,duringcertainperiodsthereweremoreclearlyidenti“ableschoolsinbothEgyptandMesopotamia,andbothhaveseparatetermsforschoolŽ(Edubba/¯t-tt-t;t-sb3).Nevertheless,wehavealsoseenthatmuchscribaleducation-enculturationinancientEgyptandMe-sopotamiaactuallyhappenedinfamilyorfamily-likearrangementsonafairlysmallscale.ThiswascertainlywidelytrueinearlyGreece,whereevensophisticmasterstakingonagroupofstudentsworkedonasmallscalecomparedwithcontemporaryclassrooms.Suchsmall-scaleeducationwouldbeevenmoretypicalinasmallerking-domlikeJudah.Tobesure,somehavesuggestedthatkingdomslikethoseinMesopotamiaandEgyptweresomuchbiggerthanthoseinJudah-Israelthatcomparativeanalogiesfromsuchlargerkingdomsareoflittleuse.SmallerkingdomslikeJudahorIsrael,sotheargumentruns,requiredfarlesslarge-6.OnthisphenomenonseeespeciallydiscussionsofcolophonsandsuperscriptionsbyM.Fishbane,summarizedwithrelevantliteratureinMichaelFishbane,BiblicalInterpretationinAncientIsrael(Oxford:Clar-endonPress,1985),26…29.7.Tobesure,somewouldarguethatsomeofthestoriesofwritingcitedearliercouldbe“ctional,butatleasttheirauthorshadtoimaginesuchprocessesofwritingandreadingasplausibleatsomepointinhistory.8.See,forexample,theargumentsforschoolsinIsraelinB.Lang,SchuleundUnterrichtinaltenIsrael,ŽLaSagessedelAncienTestament,ed.M.Gilbert(Louvain,Belgium:LouvainUniversityPress,1979),186…201andLemaire,LesEcoles,52…57;Andre´Lemaire,Sagesseete´coles,Ž34(1984):270…81.Note,however,Le-mairesalternativepictureofpropheticschoolsinLesEcoles,51…52,andhisimportantquali“cationsregardingsitesandpersonnelinschoolsinAndre´Lemaire,TheSageinSchoolandTemple,ŽinGammieandPerdue,SageinIsraelandtheAncientNearEast,167…68.Similarfocusonidenti“ableschoolsalsooccursincritiquesoftheideaoftheexistenceofschoolsŽinIsrael(e.g.,F.W.Golka,DieisraelitischeWeisheitsschuleoderdeskaisersneueKleider,Ž33[1983]:257…70;translatedasTheIsraeliteWisdomSchoolorTheEmperorsNewClothes,ŽinTheLeopardsSpots:BiblicalandAfricanWisdominProverbs,byF.W.Golka[Edinburgh:T.andT.Clark])andquali“cationsoftheideaofwidespreadschoolsinIsrael(e.g.,GrahamDavies,WereThereSchoolsinAncientIsrael?ŽinWisdominAncientIsrael,ed.JohnDayetal.[Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1995],199…211;JamesL.Crenshaw,EducationinAncientIsrael:AcrosstheDeadeningSilence,ABReference[NewYork:Doubleday,1998],90…99).
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducation
Figure1.Reliefstela,Bar-Rakib(r.744…727B.C.E.)andhisscribe.BildarchivPreussischerKulturbesitz/ArtResource.scalecoordinationthanthelargerempires,andthealphabeticsystemusedinSyro-Canaanwassomucheasiertouse(thancuneiformorhieratic)thatex-tensivescribaltrainingwasnotrequired.YetalreadytheAmarnaevidenceshowsthatsmallkingdomsinSyro-Canaanmaintainedscribes,indeedscribeswhocorrespondedwithEgyptusingaminimalleveloftraininginalocalvariantoftheSumero-Akkadiansystem.Ugaritisanothersmallerkingdomwithanextensive,two-trackeducational-textualsystem.Moreover,thisevi-dencecontinuesintoearly“rst-millenniumkingdomsusingalphabeticsys-tems.Forexample,Mesha,kingofMoab,akingdomintheTransjordan,leftasigni“cantstelare”ectinganactivescribaltraditionthere.TheTellDanin-scriptionshowssimilarlanguageandliteraryforminadisplayinscriptionfromDamascus,capitaloftheArameankingdom.AndBar-Rakibtookenoughprideinhisscribalapparatusthatheleftasteladisplayinghimwithhisscribe(“gure1).Thisevidence,alongwithnumeroussealsofscribesfromIsraelandother“rst-millenniumkingdoms,showthatsmall-scalekingdomslikeJudahandIsraelmaintainedscribal-textualsystems,oftenemulatingtheirbiggerneigh-borsandborrowingpartsoftheirsystemswhileworkinginbroaderregional9.Golka,IsraelitischeWeisheitsschule,Ž264…65(ETIsraeliteWisdomSchool,Ž10…11)andDavidW.Jamieson-Drake,ScribesandSchoolsinMonarchicJudah:ASocio-ArcheologicalApproach,JSOTSup(Shef“eld:AlmondPress,1991),152…54.
textualityandeducationinancientisraelscribaltraditions.Theissuewasnotjusttheuseofwritingtofacilitateeco-nomic,administrative,andlegaltransactionsbuttheuseofwritingtofurthertheprestigeofroyaldynastiesandelites/sub-eliteswithinthem.Suchsmallerkingdomsexistedinabroadercultural-politicalmatrix,whereasthemonarchsoflargerempiresdisplayedtheirpowerthroughthedisplayuseofwriting(e.g.stelae)andthemaintenanceoflargesub-elitesofliteratescholars.Whateverthelesserneedforwritinginadministrationorbusiness,theepigraphicandliteraryevidencesuggeststhatkingdomslikeJudahorIsraeldidmaintainascribal-educationapparatus,onein”uencedbythemethodsandexampleoflargerneighbors,albeitonasmallerscale.WehavenowayofpreciselyestimatinghowmanyliterateprofessionalsakingdomlikeJudahtrainedandmaintained.Giventhefactthatmanystudentsprobablydidnotlivelongenoughtoexerciseanadministrativeof“ce,therewassomeneedforeducatingmorethanthechildrenofagivenscribe.ertheless,asmallstatelikeJudahprobablydidnotsupporttheeducation-enculturationofmorethanahandfulofadministrativeprofessionalseveryyearoreveryfewyears,alongwiththelower-leveleducationoffunctionariesforworkinoutlyingregionalorculticcentersandgarrisontowns.Somehaveargued,onthecontrary,thatancientIsraelwascharacterizedbywidespreadliteracy.TheargumentoftenrunsthatthealphabeticwritingsystemusedinIsrael,likethatinancientGreece,enabledIsraeltoachieveageneralliteracyfarbeyondthelimitedscriballiteracytypicalofsocietieslikeMesopotamiaorEgypt.Oftentheepigraphicevidenceandcertainbiblicaltexts(e.g.Deut6:9;24:1…4;Judg8:14;Isa10:1…2,19)areinterpretedastesti-fyingtowidespreadliteracyinancientIsrael,atleastinthelaterpreexilicNevertheless,wemustbecareful.Acloserlookattheoft-citedbiblical10.SeethesurveyinWilliamSchniedewind,HowtheBibleBecameaBook(Cambridge:CambridgeUni-versityPress,2004),40…45andtheoverviewofsealsofscribesinY.AvishurandM.Heltzer,StudiesontheRoyalAdministrationinAncientIsraelintheLightofEpigraphicSources(Tel-Aviv:ArchaeologicalCenter,2000),56…11.Inthissense,Schniedewindhimselferrs,Iwouldargue,inmaintainingthatearliestIsraelwouldnothavehadmuchscribalactivitybecauseitsadministrativeneedswereminimal(BibletoBook,63).Grantingthatthelevelofactivitywasprobablylowerthanthelaterpreexilicperiod(onthisseehereafter),itisamistaketocharacterizethescopeoftextuality-educationinoneofthesekingdomssopurelyintermsofadministrative-economicutility.Classformationandbroaderdynasticprestigeprobablyplayedbiggerrolesearlyon.12.ThiscontraGolka,IsraelitischeWeisheitsschule,Ž263…65(IsraeliteWisdomSchool,Ž9…10).13.ThismodelismostcogentlydevelopedbyA.Lemaire,LesEcoles,49…50.OnpopulationandtextualityseealsoEhudBenZvi,TheUrbanCenterofJerusalemandtheDevelopmentoftheLiteratureoftheHebrewBible,ŽinUrbanisminAntiquity:FromMesopotamiatoCrete,ed.WalterAufrechtetal.(Shef“eld:Shef“eldAcademicPress,1997),194…209.Foranolderandsomewhatmaximalistbutstillinterestingattempttorecon-structafewgenealogicallinesofof“cialsinpreexilicIsraelonthebasisoftheBibleandseals(withaparticularfocusontheseventhcentury)seeS.Yeivin,FamiliesandPartiesintheKingdomofJudah[Heb.],ŽTarbiz(1941…42):241…67.14.See,forexample,A.Demsky,Education,Jewish,ŽEncyclopaediaJudaica6(1971):391.15.LorenzB.Du¨rr,DasErzeihungswesenimAltenTestamentundimAntikenOrient(Leipzig:J.C.Hinrichs,1932),106…7;A.Millard,AnAssessmentoftheEvidenceforWritinginAncientIsrael,ŽinBiblicalArchaeologyToday,ed.J.Amitai(Jerusalem:IsraelExplorationSociety,1985),301…12,andthereplyofDemskytoMillardinBiblicalArchaelogyToday,351.Lemaire,LesEcoles,57…58,arguesforgeneralliteracyinlatepreexilicperiodbasedonepigraphicevidence.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationtextsindicatesthattheydonottestifytogeneralliteracyinancientIsrael.addition,theevidenceforliteracyisconcentratedinthelatepre-exilicperiodandisconnectedtoartisansandprofessionalfunctionaries.EventheimportantLachishletter3,whereanarmyof“cerdisplaysrudimentarywritingcompe-tencyintheprocessofrefutingchargesthatheisilliterate,isauthoredbyamemberofwhatwouldhavebeenaneliteminorityinIsrael.AsHarrishaspointedout,ancientcultureslikeGreeceorIsraelsimplydidnothavecausetoinvesttheresourcestoproduceuniversalliteracy.Furthermore,asIpointedoutintheintroduction,wemustbecarefulhowweconceiveliteracy.ŽAfocusonrudimentaryabilitytoreadandwrite(forexample,signingonesname)ismoreprominentnowthanitwasintheancientworld.TheliteracyŽthatwasthefocusofmostancienteducationwentfarbeyondmasteryofthealphabettoamoreextensiveoral/cognitivemasteryofaculturaltradition:forexample,Gilgamesh,Kheti,Homer,Hesiod,orEuripides.Inlightoftheseconsiderations,wemustapproachtheevidencefortex-tualityandeducationinancientIsraelwithpresuppositionsappropriatetoed-ucationinantiquity.ThoughtherewaslimitedliteracyandwritinginancientIsrael,wewillnot“ndmanyschoolsŽofthesortweknowfromcontemporaryexperience,norwillwe“ndgeneralliteracy.Withthesecautions,Iturntotheevidenceitself.WritersandReadinginAncientIsraelWhenyoulistthosepeoplewhoaredepictedaswritinginancientIsrael,itquicklybecomesevidentthatvirtuallyallaresomesortofof“cial.AsidefromGod,whoisoneoftheBiblesmostproli“cwriters,virtuallyallwritersandreadersintheBibleareof“cialsofsomekind:scribes,kings,priests,andotherEspeciallystartingwiththemonarchiesofDavidandSolomon,suchliteratespecialistsappeartohavebeenimportantfortheinternationalcommerce,buildingprojects,censuses,andotherlargerscaleprojectsoftheemergentIsraelitestate(s).Writingisakeypotentialorganizationaltoolforsuchroyaladministrations,andsocrediblenarrativesabouttheIsraelitemon-archyincludementionofscribalprofessionals.BeginningwiththelistsofDavidsof“cials,weseetheof“ceofthesopherhammelek(scribeŽandscribeofthekingŽ)amongtheleadmem-16.H.J.Hermisson,StudienzurisraelitischenSpruchweisheit,WMANT(Neukirchen-Vluyn:NeukirchenerVerlag,1968),99…100;S.Warner,TheAlphabet:ItsInventionandDiffusion,Ž30(1980):82…85;M.Haran,OntheDiffusionofLiteracyandSchoolsinAncientIsrael,ŽinCongressVolume:Jerusalem1986,VTSup(Leiden:Brill,1988),82…85;Crenshaw,EducationinAncientIsrael,38…39;M.Young,IsraeliteLiteracy:Interpretingthe48(1998):249…53.17.OnwaysthisletterdisplaysaquitebasicŽlevelofliteracyseeWilliamSchniedewind,SociolinguisticRe”ectionsontheLetterofaLiterateSoldier(Lachish3),ŽZeitschriftfu¨rAlthebraistik13(2000):157…67.18.Harris,AncientLiteracy,12…20.19.M.Young,IsraeliteLiteracy,Ž239…53.20.Hermisson,,115…17.
textualityandeducationinancientisraelbersofthekingsentourage.Inthiscase,DavidsscribeisnamedvariouslyasSeraiah(2Sam8:17),Sheva(2Sam20:25),Shisha(1Kgs4:3)andShavsha(1Chr18:16),aseriesofnamesthat„asmentionedearlier„hasbeenlinkedtotheEgyptianwordforroyalsecretary.ŽThisscribessons,ElihorephandAhi-jah,arelistedasSolomonsscribesin1Kgs4:3,thusfollowingapatternofhereditaryappointmentalsoseeninthepriesthoodandotherof“ces(1Kgs4:2…6).ThescribeofthekingŽislisted,alongwiththehighpriest,ascountingandpayingoutmoneybroughttothetempleduringthelongreignofJehoashoverJudah(2Kgs12:11…16[ET12:10…15];2Chr24:11).TheIsaiah-Hezekiahnarrativein2KingsmentionsShebnah,thescribe,Žamongtheof“cialswhoaredescribedshuttlingbetweentheRabshekahandHezekiah(2Kgs18:18,37;19:2//Isa36:3,22;37:2).LateronShaphanisnamedasthescribeŽinthenarrativeofthediscoveryofthelawin2Kgs22:3…14//2Chr34:8…21(alsoJer36:10),andShaphanssonsandgrandsonsplayaprominentroleinnarrativessurroundingJeremiah(Jer26:24;29:3;36:10;39:14;40:1…41:10).Another“g-ure,Elishama,islistedasthescribeŽduringJehoiakimsperiod(Jer36:12,20…21),andhisson,Ishmael,islaterdepictedmurderingShaphansgrandson,Gedaliah(Jer41:1…10).Thisof“ceofroyalscribeisattestedoutsidebiblicalhistoriesaswell.ApsalmpraisingthekingathisweddingstartswiththePsalmistasserting:mytongueislikethepenofaskilledscribeŽ(sophermahirPs45:2)andProverbstellsstudents,doyouseeamanskilled(againHebrew)inhiswork?Heworksforkings,hedoesnotworkforcommonpeopleŽ(Prov22:29).Suchroyalscribesthencontrastwithotherpotentialscribalof“ces,in-cludingtheroyalpositionoftheandtheInaddition,theendsofthebooksofKingsandJeremiahincludeanarrativethatmentionsascribeofthecommanderofthearmywhomusteredthepeopleofthelandŽ(Jer52:25;2Kgs25:19)amongthoseexecuted21.N.Foxsdiscussionofthefunctionsofthescribefocusesparticularlyonthisaccounting(andrelatedregistration)dimensionofthescribalof“ce(ServiceoftheKing,101…7,271…72).22.ShebnaaccompaniesEliakim,sonofHilkiah,whoholdstheroleofoneoverthepalace,Žapparentlyahigherof“ce.Isa22:15…25isanoraclepronouncingShebnasdemotionfromthatof“ceandEliakimsreplace-mentofhim.Still,ShebnaisincludedonthelowerrankofsecretaryintheseIsaiah-Hezekiahnarratives.23.Cf.alsoJonathan,namedasscribeduringZedekiahsreign,Jer37:15,20.Onthesefamilies,cf.Yeivin,JudeanFamiliesandParties,Ž254…55,261…62.24.OnroyalscribesseeOttoProcksch,DerhebraischeSchreiberundseinBuch,ŽinVonBu¨chernundBibliotheken,Abschiedsgabefu¨rE.Kuhnert(Berlin:VonStruppeandWinckler,1928),esp.2;J.Begrich,SoferundMazkir,ŽZAW58(1940…41):1…29;W.F.Albright,ATeachertoaManofShechemAbout1400B.C,ŽBASOR86(April1942):28…31;Hermisson,,98;A.Demsky,Scribe,ŽEncyclopaediaJudaica14(1971):1041…43;Demsky,Education,Ž392;Mettinger,SolomonicStateof“cials,25…51;Fishbane,BiblicalInterpretation25.BegricharguesonthebasisofcomparativeevidencethatthecorrespondstotheEgyptian,royalspeaker.Thekeylociare2Sam18:16/1Chr8:15;20:24;1Kgs4:3;2Kgs18:18,37//Isa36:3,22;2Chr34:8;cf.Ezek21:28[ET21:23].Fortheasrecorderandkeeperofannalsseeesp.Procksch,HebraischeSchreiber,Ž7,butcf.NiliS.Fox,ServiceoftheKing,110…21.26.Num11:16;Deut1:15;16:18;20:5…9;29:9[ET29:10];31:28;Josh1:10;3:2;8:33;23:2;24:1;Prov6:7;1Chr23:4;26:29;27:1;2Chr34:13.SomehavesuggestedthattheHebrewrootmayberelatedtoAkkadianat¯ru,write,haveinscribed,ŽbutseeMankowski,AkkadianLoans,142…44.Forfurtherdiscussionoftheissue,com-parativematerial,andfunctionsofthisof“cialseeNiliS.Fox,ServiceoftheKing,192…96,275.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationbythekingofBabylon.ChroniclesincludesastoryaboutascribeofLeviticallineage,Shemaiah,recordingthepriestlyancestralhousesinthepresenceofthekingandotherof“cials(1Chr24:6).NonroyalscribesalsoappearinvariouswaysintheJeremiahtradition,includingtheprominent,positivedepictionofthescribeBaruch(Jer36:1…32;45:1…5;cf.32:12…16;43:3,6)andthevigorousattackonthosewhoclaimtobewiseŽandthattheTorahiswith[them]ŽwhenthatTorahhasbeencorruptedbythelyingpenofthescribesŽ(,Jer8:8).Finally,scribesappearelsewhereinpassing,fromthebriefmentionofthosefromZebulunwhobearthestaffofthescribeŽ()intheSongofDeborah(Judg5:14)tothescribalclanslivinginJabezthatarelistedinChronicles(1Chr2:55)andanenigmaticreferencetothesonsofŽ(the[female]scribeŽ?)amongSolomonsservantsinEzra2:55.Literacy,however,washardlycon“nedtothoselabeledas(scribesŽ)or(literateof“cialsŽ).Bothepigraphicandotherevidencetesti“estomorewidespreadliteracy,especiallyamongkings,priests,andotherof“cials.The“ndsatAradandLachishfeaturemultiplelettersfromarmycommandersandonefromthegovernorofLachish(6:5,8…9,13;12:4),includingonewhereanof“cerapparentlydefendshisliteracyandindignantlyassertshislackofneedofascribe(Lachish3:8…13).IntheBible,multiplekingsaredescribedasreadingandwritingdocuments(e.g.,David,Solomon,Jehu,Hezekiah,andJosiah),andthekingslawinDeuteronomy17:19presup-posesthatanyIsraelitekingwouldhavetheabilitytoread.Biblicalnarrativesdepictavarietyofother“guresaspossessingatleastbasicliteracy,includingMoses(Exod17:14;24:7;34:28;andsoon),theheadcraftsmenconstructingthetabernacle(Exod39:30),threetribaldelegatesfromeachtribeonlanden-try(Josh18:4),Samuel(1Sam10:25),prophetslikeIsaiah(e.g.Isa8:1)andEzekiel(e.g.Ezek24:2;seealsoHab2:2),priests,andLevites(e.g.Num5:23;Deut31:9…11;Neh8:8).Inaddition,boththeIsaiahandJeremiahtraditionsfeaturebroadindictmentsofgroupsusingwritingtooppressthepoor(Isa10:1…2)orcorrupttheTorahofGod(Jer8:8).Insum,writingisnotcon“nedtojustscribespersebutisthoroughlyintertwinedwithsocialstructuresinthepoeticandnarrativeworldsoftheHebrewBible.Perhapsthisispartlywhy27.Fordiscussion,includingthetranslationandrelatedliterature,seeNiliS.Fox,ServiceoftheKing,97(esp.n.61).28.FordiscussionofotherscribesinthebookofJeremiahseeespeciallyH.M.I.Gevaryahu,Baruch,theScribe[Heb.],ŽinZalmanShazarVolume,ed.N.Avigad(Jerusalem:IsraelExplorationSociety,1971),209…10.29.ScribesasidefromtheroyalscribearefocusedonparticularlyinProcksch,HebraischeSchreiber,Ž3…7;Hermisson,,98…99;Demsky,ScribeŽ;A.Demsky,WritinginAncientIsrael(part1),ŽinText,Translation,ReadingandInterpretationoftheHebrewBibleinAncientJudaismandEarlyChristianity,MartinJanMulder(Philadelphia:FortressPress,1988),16…17.30.Cf.alsograf“tiapparentlybytombcutteratKhirbetelQom.SeeSchniedewind,HowtheBibleBecameaBook,104,fordiscussionofthisandotherexamples.31.Forthetexts:David(2Sam11:14…15);Solomon(2Chr35:4);Jehoram(2Kgs5:7);Jehu(2Kgs10:1,6);Hezekiah(2Kgs19:14//Isa37:14;cf.alsoIsa38:9);Josiah(2Kgs23:2//2Chr34:30).ForbroaderdiscussionofDeut17:19inthecontextofotherclaimsforroyalliteracyseeJean-PierreSonnet,TheBookWithintheBook:WritinginDeuteronomy,BiblicalInterpretationSeries(Leiden:Brill,1997),72…78.
textualityandeducationinancientisraellatepreexilictextsenvisionagroupofwiseŽpeoplewhodonotjustembodythegoalofeducation(Prov9:9;10:8,14;12:15,18;13:14,20;14:24;15:2,7,12,31;16:21,23;18:15;21:11,22;24:23;29:11)norareade“nedgroupofsages(e.g.Jer18:18;cf.8:8)butinsteadarejudges,of“cials,andotherleadersaswell(Deut1:13…15;Isa5:21…24;29:14;cf.Isa31:1…2).ThesearetheIsraelitecounterpartstotheliterateelitesofMesopotamiaandEgypt.AsinthecaseofancientGreece,theissueinIsraelisnotmasteryofanesotericsignsystemtoachieveliteracybutuseofliteracytoenculturate,shapethebehavior,andotherwisementallyseparateaneducatedupperclassfromtheirnoneducatedSometimestheseliterategroupsinterlockandoverlap,especiallyaswemoveintolaterperiods.Forexample,2Kings12:3assertsthatJehoash,kingofJudah,didwhatwasrightintheeyesoftheLORDallhislifebecauseJehoida,thepriest,taughthimŽ().Notably,thistextseemstopresumethateducationofakingbyapriestisnotauniversalpractice.Elsewhere,biblicalnarrativesdepictSolomonsandAhabssonsasbeingbroughtupinabroadercohortofpeers,overseeninAhabscaseby¯nu(scribalmasters)muchlikethecohortsofhigh-levelsonsbroughtupandeducatedtogetherinEgypt(1Kgs12:8,10;2Kgs10:1…8;cf.1Kgs11:20).SuchdistincteducationofroyaltyisonlyattestedintheearlierportionofIs-raelsmonarchy,thusfollowingapatternofseparateroyalandpriestlyscribalof“cesthatisparticularlycharacteristicofearlyMesopotamianandEgyptiantextualityaswell.InlaterperiodsofMesopotamianandEgyptianhistory,tex-tualeducationandproductionwerehousedmoreandmoreexclusivelyintem-pleandtemple-relatedinstitutions.Similarly,theaforementioneddepictionofJehoashspriestlyeducation(2Kgs12:3)comesinthelatepreexilicperiodofIsraelshistory,andthepostexilichistoryofIsraelisdominatedbythe“gureofEzra,whoisbothpriestandscribe.Indeed,thesameword,mahir,thatisusedtodescribeEzrasskillasascribeisusedinPsalm45:2(ET45:1)todescribethesortoflinguisticskillonceusedtopraisetheking(cf.Prov22:29;alsoAhiqar1:1),butnowEzraisascribeskilledŽintheTorahofMosesŽ(Ezra7:6;sophermahirbtoratmosheh;cf.Ps45:2[ET45:1])or,inasubsequentcontext,scribeofthescrollofthewordsofthecommandmentsofYHWHandGodsdecreesforIsraelŽ(7:11)or„intheAramaicletter„scribeofthelawofheavenŽ(7:21).Insum,wehavewidespreadevidenceforliteratespecialistsandliterateof“cialsinearlyIsrael,particularlyinthemonarchyearlyandinthetemplelater.Yeteventhisevidencemustbeinterpretedwithcaution.Thoughthesetextspresentpicturesthatauthorsandaudiencesfoundplausible,manynar-rativesarealmostcertainlynothistoricallyreliable.Inaddition,itissometimes32.FortheEgyptianlinksseeespeciallyHermisson,,117…18;Lemaire,LesEcoles,35…36.33.M.Bar-Ilan,ScribesandBooksintheLateSecondCommonwealthandRabbinicPeriod,ŽinMulder,22;Lemaire,SageinSchoolinTemple,Ž180;Crenshaw,EducationinAncientIsrael,112…13.34.SeealsoNeh8:1,4,9,13.Procksch,HebraischeSchreiber,Ž12;Du¨rr,,396;Fishbane,BiblicalInterpretation,35…36;Lemaire,SageinSchoolinTemple,Ž180.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationunclearpreciselywhatismeantwhenatextassertsthatagivenkingorother“gurewritesŽorreads.ŽForexample,Jeremiah36:2describesJeremiahasreceivinganordertotakeabookscroll(gillatsepher)andwritedownGodswords.Jeremiahhimself,however,doesnotwritedownthesewordsbutcallsBaruch,whowritesdownthewordsdictatedbyJeremiahonabookroll(36:Exampleslikethis„however“ctional„ofputativereading/writingversusactualŽreading/writingraisequestionsaboutotherinstancesinwhichaking(e.g.David),othermajor“gure(e.g.Jezebelin1Kgs21:8…11),orgroupofpeople(e.g.Neh9:3)isdescribedaswritingorreading.Thebiblicalnarrativesofwritingandreadinggenerallypresupposeorareconsistentwithpictureselsewhereofancientcultureswherethemajorityofthepopulationdoesnotreadandreliesonliterateprofessionalsinthosein-stanceswherewritingisrequired.Theprimarywordforread,Ž,alsomeanscallorcryoutŽandreferstoaprocessbywhichatextisverbalized,usuallyforthebene“tofahearingaudience.Thewordreferstopublicread-inginDeuteronomy31:10…13,acommandthattheTorahbereadinthehearingofallIsraelduringthefeastofboothsintheyearofremission.Thisinstructionisfollowedbyseveralnarrativeswheremajorcharacters(e.g.,Joshua,Josiah,Ezra)aredescribedasreadingtheTorahtoallIsraelatmajoroccasions(Josh8:32…35;2Kgs23:1…3;Neh7:72b…8:18[ET7:73b…8:18]).Indeed,inNehemiah8:7…8theLevitesareevenrequiredtohelpthepeopleunderstandwhattheyhear,perhapsbecausetheTorahisinHebrewandmanyintheaudienceareseenasAramaicspeakers.Inanycase,whentheLevitesoftheNehemiahnarrativethusteachatthepublicreading,theyful“lltheroleofteachingoftenattributedtothemthroughmuchoftheBible(e.g.Deut17:9…12;31:9…13;33:10;2Chr19:8…11;cf.Hos4:6).Inadditiontosuchpublicreadingsandinstruction,literatespecialistsalsoplayedaroleonasmallerscale.Forexample,JeremiahisdescribedasrelyingonBaruchbothtowritehiswordsofprophecy(e.g.Jer36:4,32;45:1)andtoprovidesafekeepingforlegaldocuments(Jer32:12…16).Furthermore,PersianperiodlegaldocumentsfromElephantineandWadied-Daliyehattesttotheuseofscribalprofessionalsforavarietyoflegalandeconomictransactions,documentswhosesignatoriesoftendisplayaradicallyunpracticedhandcom-paredtothedraftersofthedocumentsthemselves.Variousbiblicaltextspre-35.Cf.alsoEsth8:8…9forasimilarsequence.ThisexamplealsocomesfromM.Young,IsraeliteLiteracy,Ž36.Cf.Demsky,Writing,Ž14.37.DanielBoyarin,PlacingReading:AncientIsraelandMedievalEurope,ŽinTheEthnographyofReadinged.JonathanBoyarin(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1993),12…16.38.Indeed,Nehemiah8:8…9evendescribestheLevitesasprovidingadditionalaidtothepeopletoun-derstandthatwhichisreadtothem.OthertextsthatpresupposeadependenceofthepubliconLeviticalinstruc-tionincludeDeut17:9…12;33:10;andHosea4:6.39.Gevaryahu,Baruch,theScribe,Ž211…13.40.E.Puech,LesEcolesdanslIsrae¨lpre´exilique:donne´ese´pigraphiques,ŽinCongressVolume:JerusalemVTSup(Leiden:Brill,1988),200.
textualityandeducationinancientisraelsupposethatwritingwasusedforvarioustransactionsineverydaylife,suchasinscribingTorahwordsondoorpostsandgates(Deut6:9;11:20),recordingdivorce(Deut24:1…4;Jer3:8;Isa50:1),possessionofproperty(Isa8:1;44:5;Jer32:12…16),indictments(Job31:35;cf.13:26),genealogy(e.g.Neh7:5),lackofdescendants(Jer22:30;cf.Ps87:6),andparticipationinanagreement(NehNevertheless,asinotherculturessurroundingIsrael,thosenonliteratecitizenswhooccasionallyrequiredsuchdocumentsprobablyreliedonliterateprofessionalstohelpthem.Thefrequencyofneedforsuchscribesprobablyapproachedourcontemporaryneedforlawyers„morefrequentforthoseofhigherstatus,muchmoreoccasionalforthosewithoutsigni“cantresourcestodistributeordefend.Thus,onemustmakeacleardistinctionintheBiblebetweenthosewhoknowhowtoread(knowscroll[s]Ž;ahassepher/s;Isa29:11;Ps71:15)andthosewhodonot.Thoughweencounteryoungmen(Heb.)whocanreadinJudges8:14andIsa10:19,theywouldrepresentyouths(anon-IsraeliteyouthinJudg8:14)whohadreceivedearlytrainingratherthanbeingevidenceforanysortofgeneralliteracy.Notonlydoestheforegoingevidenceconformmuchmoretoapictureoflimitedliteracy,but„asSusanNiditchhaspointedout„writingthroughouttheBibleoftenhasthenuminous,magicalaurathatitparticularlyhasinthosecultureswhereonlyaminorityofpeoplecanread.ThePentateuchalnarrativefeaturesmultipledescriptionsofGodsdivinewrit-ingandthedepositoftheholytabletsofthelawintheark(e.g.Exod31:18;32:16;34:1;Deut4:13;9:10;10:2,4;seealso2Kgs17:37).TheKorahstoryfeaturesanaccountinwhichthenamesoftheancestralhousesarewrittenontwelvestaffs,andtheprimacyofthetribeofLevi/Aaronisindicatedwhenitsproutsbuds,blossoms,andalmonds(Num17:16…28[ET17:1…13]).Similarly,thefuturejoiningofJudahandJosephisindicatedinEzekielwhenGodjoinstwosticks,onewithforJudahŽwrittenonitandonewithforJosephŽ(Ezek37:16…28).Theritualfordeterminingtheguiltofawomanaccusedofadulteryincludesapriestwritingdowncursesonatablet,washingitoffintowaterofbitterness),andmakingtheaccusedwomandrinkthatwatersothat,ifguilty,shefeelspainandsufferssomesortofreproductiveconsequence(Num5:23…28).Theseandmanyothernarrativesshowthesupernaturalpowerwrit-ingwasperceivedtohaveinancientIsrael.EvenwhenbiblicalstoriesandlawsdescribetheinscribingofpartsofhousesormonumentswithtextsfromtheTorah(e.g.Deut6:9;11:20;27:2…3;Josh8:30…32),thisagainrepresentstheluminouspresenceoflettersprobablyunintelligibletotheaverageIsraelite.As41.Albright,TeacherŽ;Demsky,Education,Ž392…94;Millard,EvidenceforWriting.Ž42.Thisissupportedbythefewoccasionswherethepartytosuchatransactionisnamed,e.g.,Isaiah(Isa8:1);Job(Job31:35)andthereturneeswithNehemiah(Neh10:1).43.SeeM.Young,IsraeliteLiteracy,Ž250ontheeliteassociationsofseveralelsewhereinthe44.Niditch,OralWorldandWrittenWord,78…88.SeealsoJamesL.Crenshaw,TransmittingProphecyAcrossGenerations,ŽinBenZviandFloyd,WritingsandSpeech,
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationinearlyGreece,thewritingonsuchmonumentsandotherinscriptionslentthemadditionalpowerasmemorialsanddisplays.Theywerenotintendedforthecommunicationofinformationtothemasses.Onemightarguethatthebiblicalconcentrationontheliteracyofscribesandotherof“cialsmightjustderivefromthefactthatsomuchoftheBiblefocusesonsuchhigh-level“guresratherthanoneverydaypeople,butnon-biblicaltextsfromancientIsraelcon“rmtheforegoingpictureoflimitedlit-eracy.Asidefromthecleareducationaltexts(tobediscussedlater),otherextantlettersandotherdocumentsshowclearsignsofhavingbeenproducedbyprofessional,literatespecialists.AsEmilePuechinparticularhasargued,thescriptsandspellingofmanydocumentsarestandardized;errorsarerare;and„asinMesopotamiaandEgypt„thelettersandotherdocumentshavebeencraftedfollowingclearformulaeandgenericconventions.ThewritersofthesedocumentswerenotjusttrainedintheHebrewalphabet,simpleasitis,buthadreceivedabroadertrainingthatincludedstandardspellingsandtextualtemplates.Othercultures,suchastheNeo-Punicone,testifytothesortofvarianceinspellingandgenericconventionsthatcanresultwhenabroadergroupgainsliteracyandbeginsusingitfortransactions.Tobesure,theremusthavebeensomeinancientIsrael,likeSimoParpolasmanwithoutascribe,whohadgainedalphabeticliteracybutnotthebroaderformsoftraininggivenmostpeoplewhoformedtheliteraterulingclass.Nevertheless,theepigraphicevidencesupportsthebiblicalpictureofalargelyilliteratepopulacecombinedwitharulingclasswhohadreceivedabroadertrainingthatbeganwithalphabeticknowledgebutmovedfarbeyondit.Inowturntotakeacloserlookatthattraining.EpigraphicEvidenceforEducationinPre-HellenisticIsraelAsaresultofepigraphic“ndsoverthelastfortyyears,wenowhaveclearlydatableevidenceforsomeprocessofalphabeticeducationinearlyIsrael.AsinancientGreece,the“rstandmostimportantformofevidenceforeducationistheabecedary,usedbystudentstopracticetheirlettersinastandardse-quence.ButwhereasforGreekeducationweonlyhaveanisolatedabecedaryfoundoutsideGreeceinTuscany,forIsraelwehaveabecedariesfromtwelfth-centuryIzbetSah,eighth-centuryLachishandKuntilletAjrud,seventh-centuryKadesh-Barnea,andsixth-centuryLachish.Notablytheseabecedariesexhibittwostandardorders,boththeorderfamiliarfrommorerecentJewishtradition(KuntilletAjrud)andavariationoftheorderwhereayinandpehareinreverseorder(IzbetSah).Suchdivergentpatternsofstandardizationpoint45.OnGreeceseediscussionsinThomas,LiteracyandOrality,65…88.46.AswasstressedtomeinapersonalcommunicationfromAndre´Lemaire,thisstandardizationisnotuniversal.Cf.theKuntilletAjrudinscriptions;Aradostraca,HUzaostraca,andsoon.47.Puech,LesEcoles,Ž201…2.48.Cf.Parpola,ManwithoutaScribe.Ž
textualityandeducationinancientisraeltosomesortofformaleducationalsystem,indeedonethathasachievedalevelofdifferentiationalongregionalorotherlines.Besidessuchabecedaries,thereareanumberofothertextsthatwereprobablyusedineducation.Theseincludeostracaonwhichasinglewordisrepeatedlywritten,suchasinscription99atArad(withAradŽrepeatedlywrit-ten)orafragmentaryostraconfromKadeshBarneawith,ml,andthentsr,wtInaddition,therearetheostracafromKadeshBarneafeaturingsequencesofthehieraticEgyptiannumbersusedwidelyinearlyAlltheseareinadditiontomorecontroversialexamplesofeducationaltexts,suchastheGezerlistofmonthsorletterostracathatcouldbeeitherpracticeoractualcopies.Takentogether,theepigraphicevidencepointstosomesortoftraininginliteracyinoutlyingareasofpreexilicIsrael.Insofarasyetmoresuchtrainingoccurredinurbanareas,thisevidencesuggeststhatmoreextensiveeducationalinstitutionsprobablyexistedincapitalcitieslikeJerusalemorSamaria.Usingthisepigraphicevidence,Lemairehassuggestedthatelementaryeducationinvolvedanumberofelements:reproducingcopiesoftheabecedarypreviouslymadebytheteacher,practicingrandomletters,practicingpairsoflettersthatweresimilar,repeatedwritingofcertainwords,practiceofletterorcontractformulae,writingoflistsofwords(e.g.,theGezercalendar),elemen-tarymathexercises,practiceinartandmusic,andpossiblyinstructioninaforeignlanguagelikeAramaic(2Kgs18:26//Isa36:11)orperhapsAkkadianorEgyptian(morerarely).PuechandothershaveraisedsomequestionsaboutwhethersomeofLemairestexts„foundonpottery,incaves,oronsteps„wereactuallyusedforeducation,butwenowhaveevidencecollectedbyCrib-iorethatsuggeststhatGreekeducatorssometimesusedpotteryforexampletexts,andthatplacesliketombsandoutdoorcolonnadeswereamongthemanyadhocsortsofcontextsinwhichearlyeducationtookplace.Thoughfromanotherculture,theyshowhowcontemporaryassumptionsaboutwhereed-ucationcouldandcouldnottakeplacecanbemistaken.Unfortunately,ancientIsrael,likeancientGreece,lacksclearexamplesof49.OnthesenonbiblicaltextsseeespeciallyLemaire,LesEcoles,7…36.Cf.Puech,LesEcoles,Ž189…96.50.Lemaire,LesEcoles,15…19,20…32.51.Puech,LesEcoles,Ž196,“ndsthesetobetheclearestexamplesofschooltexts.52.ForargumentsthattheLachishlettersarecopiesseeYigaelYadin,TheLachishLetters„OriginalsorCopiesandDrafts?ŽinRecentArchaeologyintheLandofIsrael,ed.H.ShanksandB.Mazar,trans.AryehFin-kelstein(Washington,DC:BiblicalArchaeologySociety,1984),179…86.See,however,thecounterargumentsinJohnA.Emerton,WeretheLachishLettersSenttoorfromLachish?ŽPalestineExplorationQuarterly133(2001):53.Lemaire,LesEcoles,49…54.54.Lemaire,LesEcoles,63…65.55.Seeespecially,Puech,LesEcoles,ŽandCrenshaw,EducationinAncientIsrael,100…108.56.SeeCribiore,,136,fordiscussionofajarwithadepictionofPlutoonitandaseriesofsyllablesusedineducation.Seealso23…24fordiscussionofaGreco-Romantombwithasyllabaryonthewallinscribedinredochre,andaseparate“ndofGreekmaximsinscribedonthecellsofearlyChristiantombs.Ineachcase,thenatureoftheexercisesindicatesthatthese“ndsareschoolexercises,notalphabetsservingamagicalfunction.Thisdoesnotruleoutthelikelihoodthatsomelateabecedaries,liketheonefoundonthearchwayofatombatBetShearim,didservesuchamagical-protectiveordecorativefunction.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationthehigherlevelofstudentexercises.Manysuchexerciseswereprobablyin-scribedonpapyrusorleather,whichdoesnotgenerallysurviveinthebetterwateredareas.Inaddition,theeducationaluseofhigherleveltextsbecomesprogressivelymoredif“culttodeterminethemoretheadvancedstudentpro-gressesinhandwritingability.Forexample,lackingmultiplecopiesofagiventext,itisoftenimpossibletodeterminewhetheragivenletterisapracticeletteroranactualletter.Asaresult,wehavelittleepigraphicevidencefromancientIsraeltohelpusinstudyofmoreadvancedformsofeducation.WearefacedwithasimilarsituationtothatofancientGreece:havingtorelyoninferencesabouteducationbasedontransmittedliterarytextsalongwithreferencestoeducationinthem.Nevertheless,thereisabigdifferencebetweentheevidencesituationinIsraelandthatinancientGreece:partlybecauseofanapparentIsraelite/Jewishavoidanceofimagesaftertheseventhcentury,welackthesortsoficonographicdatathatarehelpfulinreconstructingearlyGreekeducation.InthecaseofIsrael,wemustrelyvirtuallyexclusivelyonliterary/biblicaltextsforexplorationofeducationbeyondthemostbasiclevels.WehaveoneimageofapersonplayingalyrefromKuntilletAjrud.GiventheuseoflyresinGreecetoaccompanyperformanceoflyricpoetry,thisimageatKuntilletAjrudcouldbeoneofperformanceofatextualizedsong,butinthiscasetheperformerisnotdepictedwithacopyofanytext.LiteraryEvidencefortheShapeofEducationinAncientIsraelSeenwithinthecontextofthediscussionofotherculturesandepigraphicIsraeliteevidence,theBibleprovidesarichrangeoftextsthatilluminatethecentralfociandtechniquesofearlyIsraeliteeducation-enculturation.Istartwithanoften-discussedfragmentfromIsaiahthatappearstore”ectonewayinwhichtheaforementionedalphabeticinstructiontookplace(Isa28:9…13).Theeducationalconnectionsofthetextareindicatedattheoutset,whenIsaiahsopponentssarcasticallychargehimwithspeakingtothemasateacherspeakstotherecentlyweaned(possiblythetimeoftheoutsetofal-phabeteducation):Whomwillheteachknowledge,andtowhomwillheexplainthemessage?Thosewhoareweanedfrommilk,thosetakenfromtheIsaiahsopponentsgoontoquotewhatappearstobeasayingorsingsongusedinaneducationalcontext:57.WilliamHalloreports(personalcommunication)thateventhesurvivingostracaaretheexception,sincetheygenerallyfadeunlesstheyaredippedinwater.58.MesadHashavyahuisparticularlyplausiblecandidateforahigherlevelpracticetext.Lemaire(,65…66)alsofocusesonevidenceprovidiedbyLachish3:8…13.OntheseaspossibleeducationaltextsseealsoDemsky,Writing,Ž14.59.NotethatwhileDavid,theputativeauthorofmanypsalms,isdepictedinbiblicalnarrativesasaskilledplayerofthelyre(1Sam16:23;cf.16:16;18:10),heisnotdescribedassinginginthesenarratives.Songandplayingofthelyrearecloselyassociatedinseveralpsalms,andtheLeviticalsingersarealsoplayersofthelyre.60.Fordiscussionofthistextandofweaning,whichoftentookplacelateincultureslikeIsrael,asakeytransitionpointforeducation-enculturationseeG.Pfeifer,EntwohnungundEntwohnungsfestimAltenTes-ZAW84(1972):341…47.
textualityandeducationinancientisraelcommandtocommand,commandtocommand,linetoline,linetolinealittlethere,alittlethere.The“rstpartofthisquote,tzablatzab,tzablatzab,qablaqab,qablaqabmandtocommand...Ž)makeslittlesenseasastatementbutmoresenseasaquotefromaninstruction.Asmanyscholarshavesuggested,thisseemingnonsensephraseisprobablymodeledonapatternofcallandresponsebasedonthemiddlepartofthealphabet(hereandthen).Followingacall-and-responsepatternattestedinancientandmorerecentMuslimcontexts,theteacherwouldsaysomethingliketzablatzab,andthestudentswouldechohim;thentheteacherwouldgoontothenextletterofthealphabet.Thequotedinstructiongoesontosayalittlethereandlittlethere,Žperhapsreferringtosmallmarksoccasionallyusedtoseparatewords.TothistheprophetrespondsbypromisingthattheGodwhooncepromisedrestandreposewillspeaktothepeoplewithanalientongue,perhapsAkkadianortheAramaicusedbyAssyrianstospeaktotheiropponents(cf.2Kgs18:26//Isa36:11).ThenIsaiahrequotestheelementaryinstructionbacktohisopponents:tzablatzab...qab...Butnow,Isaiahmaybedrawingontheresemblanceofthisinstruc-tiontoAssyriantauntsandassertingthatthisinstructionwillnowbeusedtomakethemfallbackward,stumble,andbecaptured.Overall,thispropheticsayingisnotintendedasadescriptionofearlyeducation,butitprovidesanevocativepictureofanancientalphabeticallybasedprocessofcallandresponseintheprocessofmakingitsbroaderpoint.OthertextsintheBiblebearwitnesstotheuseofthealphabeticandothersystemstosupportmoreadvancedmasteryoftexts.Somebiblicaltextsbuiltonstudentsknowledgeofthestandardalphabetorderbyhavingeachpoeticlinebeginwithadifferentletterofthealphabet,thusfacilitatingmemorization.We“ndsuchalphabeticacrosticsthroughouttheBible,someofwhichfollowthestandardorderfamiliarinmorerecentJewishtradition(Pss25;34;119;145;Prov31:10…31;Lamentations1)andsomeofwhichfollowtheotherorderattestedatIzbetSah(Pss9…10;Lamentations2;3;4).Suchacrosticsrep-resentonestrategythatalphabeticculturesusedtocopewiththeproblemalreadyseeninMesopotamiaandEgypt:keepingmemorizedbitsoftraditioninthecorrectsequence.61.Lemaire,Sagesse,Ž38,63.Foradifferentargumentregardinghowthistextmightre”ectearlyreadingseeWilliamW.Hallo,Isaiah28:9…13andtheUgariticAbecedaries,Ž77(1958):338…42.62.A.VanSelms,Isaiah28,9…13:AnAttempttogiveaNewInterpretation,ŽZAW85(1973):336…39.TheforegoinginterpretationcomesparticularlyfromtheversionofthisargumentinLemaire,LesEcoles,39.63.Demsky,Writing,Ž12;Lemaire,SageinSchoolinTemple,Ž179.Sirach51:13…30(Hebrew)isanotherexampleandawisdomtextbutismostclearlyfromalaterperiod.Cf.Nah1:2…11,whichdoesnotreachayin-64.SeethesurveyofbiblicalaccrosticsandanalogousstructuresintheSumero-AkkadianandEgyptianrealmsinBrug,BiblicalAcrostics.Ž
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationInwhatfollowsIwilllookfurtheratevidenceforhigherleveleducation-enculturationinancientIsrael,particularlythesortoforal-writteneducation-enculturationthatisattestedintheMesopotamian,Egyptian,andearlyGreekexamples.Sucheducationnecessarilybuiltonalphabeticeducationbutmovedfarbeyonditininvolvingthereading,performance,andingestionofculturaltextsthatshapethesortofliterateprofessionalssurveyedearlier.WisdomLiteratureŽandAncientIsraeliteOneplacemanyscholarshavebegun,naturallyenough,isthebiblicalmaterialsthatfallunderthenarrowerheadingofwisdommaterial:forexample,Prov-erbs,Job,andEcclesiastes.Suchliterature,especiallyProverbsandpartsofEcclesiastes,correspondstothesortofgnomicmaterialthatwassoprominentinearlyphasesofeducationinotherculturesdiscussedhere.SumerianProv-erbcollectionsservedascrucialtransitionaltextsbetweenearlyandlaterstagesofSumero-Akkadianeducation,providinganintroductiontobasicSumeriangrammarandvalues.EarlyinstructionslikethoseofKemitandKhetiplayedakeyroleinearlyeducationinEgyptaswell.AndgnomicmaterialisamongthemostcommonearlyteachingmaterialinGreekschoolbooksandexercises,fromtheearliestHellenisticperiodonward.Ineachcase,suchwrittensay-ingsŽmaterialwasatoolusedespeciallyinearlyeducation,notonlytorein-forceemergentwritingandreadingcompetencies,butalsotosocializeyouthsinthebasicvaluesandworldviewofthegivenculture.Tobesure,abooklikeProverbswasnotwrittentoprovideusdataonsuchaprocessofeducationandenculturation,anymorethanthematerialsfromotherculturesreferredtoearlierwere.Nevertheless,we“ndre”ectionsinProverbsofasimilar,writing-supportedprocessofshapingyoungIsraelites.Forexample,theintroductiontoaseriesofsayingslateinthebookofProverbsrunsasfollows.Thewordsofthewise:Inclineyourearandhearmywords,andsetyourheart/mind[Heb.]onmyknowledge;foritwillbepleasantifyoukeepthemwithinyourbelly,ifallofthemareestablishedonyourlips.SothatyourtrustmaybeintheLORD,Ihavemadethemknowntoyoutoday„yes,toyou.HaveInotwrittenforyouthirtysayingsofadviceandknowledge,65.Foranolder,classicdiscussionseeDemsky,Education,Ž392…94.ForoneofthebestrecenttreatmentsofthecurricularsettingofthismaterialseeCrenshaw,EducationinAncientIsrael,221…37.
textualityandeducationinancientisraeltoshowyouwhatisrightandtrue,sothatyoumaygiveatrueanswertothosewhosentyou?(Prov22:17…21,NRSVadapted)Thissayingfocusesonaprocessthathasprominentoralcharacteristics:in-cliningtheear,Žhearinwords,ŽapplyingtheheartŽtothesesayings.Thestudentistomemorizethem„keepthemwithinyourbellyŽ„andper-formthemorally,establishedonyourlips.ŽNevertheless,theprologuestandsattheoutsetofacollection,indeedacollectionwrittenŽfortheexpresspurposeofshowingthestudentwhatisrightandtrueŽandofequippinghimtoprovideatrueanswertothosewhosent[him].ŽThisheadingisdoublyinterestingbecauseitisakeyfocusofargumentsthatmuchofthefollowingmaterialinProverbswasappropriatedfromthe(relativelyminor)EgyptianInstructionofAmenemope.AlthoughthematerialthatfollowsinProverbs(22:22…24:34)maynotcountouttothethirtyŽsayingsmentionedintheheadingandinAmenemope,therearesomestrikingthe-maticcorrespondencesthatindicatesomesortofIsraeliteadaptationoftheEgyptianmaterial,howeverradical.Moreover,thisspeci“cinstanceofprob-ableborrowingfromEgyptisnotisolated.Onthecontrary,collectionslikeProverbsaresaturatedwithIsraeliteequivalentstoEgyptianeducationandenculturationterminology.AsinEgyptandothercultures,thestudentsheartandmind(Heb)isakeyfocusinteachingtexts(Prov2:2,10;3:1;4:4,21;6:20…21;10:8;14:33;16:21;22:11,15;23:15,26;27:19;Eccl7:4,7;10:2).AhearingheartŽoranopenearŽistheoralmediumbywhichthisheartreceivesteaching(e.g.,1Kgs3:9;Prov2:2;Ps78:1;cf.Isa50:5).Yetwritingisagaincentralinthisoral-writtenprocess.JusttheEgyptianSatiricLetterspokeoftheaddresseeashavingtheteachingofeverybookinscribedon[his]heartŽandseveralGreektextsspokeofhavingtextswrittenonthe(tablet)ofthemindŽ(e.g.,Pindar,OlympianOdes10.1…3),soalsoseveralwisdomtextsjointextualityandmemorizationinthisway.ProverbscallonastudenttobindloyaltyandfaithfulnesstohisneckandwritethemonthetabletofyourheartŽ(Prov3:3;cf.Prov6:21)ortobindtheteachersteachingonhis“ngersandwriteitonthetabletofyourheartŽ(Prov7:3).Hereagainwriting,orality,66.MichaelFoxhasasimilar,independentdiscussionoftheoral-writtendynamicsinthisandotherbiblicalwisdompassagesinFox,Self-Presentation,Ž163…64.67.Foranoverviewoftheliteratureandandanuancedaf“rmationofthishypothesisseeJohnA.Emerton,TheTeachingofAmenemopeandProverbsXXII17…XXIV22:Re”ectionsonaLong-StandingProblem,Ž51(2001):431…65.Inaddition,Bryce“ndsevidenceofborrowingfromthesameinstructionelsewhereinProv-erbs,Prov15:16(,71…74)andJosephBlenkinsopp“ndsparallelsinPentateuchallegalmaterials(Priest,Prophet:ReligiousandIntellectualLeadershipinAncientIsrael,LibraryofAncientIsrael[Louisville,KY:WestminsterJohnKnox,1995],37).NotethatsuchradicaladaptationwasparticularlycommoninSumero-Akkadianinstanceswhereatextwasnotjustbeingborrowedbutalsobeingtranslated.Theprocessoflinguistictranslationseemedtocreateroomforconceptualtranslationaswell.68.ForEgyptianlinksseeNiliShupak,TheSitzimLebenoftheBookofProverbsintheLightofaComparisonofBiblicalandEgyptianWisdomLiterature,Ž94(1987):98…119.69.Lemaire,LesEcoles,61…62.Anearlier,classicdiscussionofmemorizationinearlyIsraeliteeducation
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationandmemoryareintertwined.Thewritingmetaphorisusedtoconceptualizeaprocessthatisalsooral,allofwhichisfocusedonthesortofword-for-wordinternalizationofatextthatischaracteristicoforal-written,ratherthanstrictlyoral,cultures.NowinProverbswehavemultipleexemplarsofthesortofmaterialsthatwereusedinthisoral-writtenprocessofeducationandenculturationinIsrael.ThesuperscriptsheadingallofthewisdombooksandscatteredthroughoutProverbsattesttoanextensiveprocessoftextualproduction.AsintheMeso-potamianandEgyptiansystems,theseheadingssometimesassigntheseedu-cationalmaterialstoapreeminentsage,usuallySolomon(Prov1:1;10:1;25:1;cf.30:1[Agur];31:1[Lemuel]).Yet,asinthoseotherculturesaswell,thelabelssometimesalsomentionthescribesinvolvedinthisproductionprocess.Prov-erbs25:1identi“esthematerialthatfollowsit,saying:These,also,areproverbsofSolomonthattheof“cialsofKingHezekiahofJudahcopied.ŽThecolophonattheendofEcclesiastesisevenmoreexplicit,speakingoftheprocessbywhichQohelet(assemblyleaderŽ?)listenedto,spiedout,andarrangedŽprov-erbs:Besidesbeingwise,Qoheletalsotaughtthepeopleknowledge,listeningto,spyingout,andarrangingmanyproverbs.Hesoughtto“ndpleasingwordsandwritewordsoftruthplainlyŽ(Eccl12:9…10).Thepassagegoesontode-scribehowthesewrittensayingsaretofunctioninthisteaching:thesayingsofthewisearelikecattlegoads,Žtheironpointsofsticksusedtodrivelivestockfrombehind.ThecollectedsayingsofonesuchshepherdŽarenails“rmlyplantedŽ(Eccl12:11).Thusthesayingsare“rmly“xedthroughwriting,buttheirwritten“rmnessbettersuitsthemtoprodstudents.Thecolophoncon-cludeswithadescriptionofboththebook-makingandthestudyingprocess:ofanythingbeyondthese,mychild,beware.Ofmakingmanybooksthereisnoend,andmuchstudyisawearinessofthe”eshŽ(Eccl12:12NRSV).Thematerialthussetdowninwritingiswellformedformemorization.Likeotheroral-writtenliteratures,itispredominantlypoetic.Inaddition,somematerialisshapedinadditionalwaystofacilitatememorization.Wehaveseenthisbefore.SomeEgyptianpoemsincludednumberedstanzastoaidthestu-dentinrecallingtheminthecorrectorder,andAristotlerecommendedtheuseofalphabetickeyingtoaidinmemorizationofsequentialbitsofinformation.AsMaryCarruthershasshowninherstudyofancientandmedievalmaterials,suchmemoryaidsoftenhelpedtheauthorsinoral-writtencontextsastheymentallycomposedmaterialinadvanceofinitialdictationofagiventext.Then,incorporatedbytheauthorintotheresultingtext,suchmemoryaidshelpedstudentsmemorizeit.Whetheritwasamoregeneralformlikepoetry,musi-canbefoundinGeoWidengren,LiteraryandPsychologicalAspectsoftheHebrewProphets,UppsalaUniversitetsrsskrift(Uppsala:Leipzig:Harrassowitz,1948),esp.90…91.
70.Qohelet,thoughprobablywrittenintheHellenisticperiod,isusedhereasacontinuationofanoldertraditionofHebreweducation.Forlinguisticargumentsforanearlierdatingcf.C.L.Seow,LinguisticEvidenceandtheDatingofQohelet,Ž115(1996):643…66.71.FordiscussionofbothoralandwrittendynamicsbehindIsraelitewisdomliteratureseeCrenshaw,EducationinAncientIsrael,182…83,andFox,Self-Presentation,Ž163…64.
textualityandeducationinancientisraelcallyshapeddeliveryofprose,catchwordassociation,chiasms,numberedoralphabeticallyorganizedversesorstanzas:allthesetechniquescouldaidbothanauthorandaudience.ThoughwedonotknowallofthetechniquesthatwereusedinancientIsrael,weseesomesuchaidsusedintheBible.Forexample,apoemlikethepraiseofthepowerfulwoman/wifethatconcludesProverbs(Prov31:10…31)isanalphabeticacrostic,withthelineseachstartingwiththenextletterofthealphabet.Asmentionedearlier,apersonmemorizingsuchatextwouldhaveaneasiertimerecallingthesequenceoflines,beingabletofollowthealpha-beticorderinglearned“rstinhisorhereducation.Similarly,deviceslikethree-fournumbersequencesaidinrecallofallelementsofasetsequence(e.g.,Prov30:15…31).Otherwise,studentslearningproverbialcollectionsgenerallyhadtorelyonthepoeticform,reinforcementofmemorythroughoralperfor-mance,andsomecatchwordassociationinordertoincise[thesecollections]onthetabletof[ones]heart.ŽThisincisionwasasometimesbrutalprocess.TheBible,likeMesopota-mian,Egyptian,andAramaictexts,containsnumerousreferencestophysicalbeatings,disciplineŽ(),thatwereapparentlyseenasanessentialpartofancienteducation-enculturation(Prov13:24;22:15;26:3;29:17).ThesefactorsarecombinedinanilluminatingrepresentationofastudentsspeechinProv-Yousay,Oh,howIhateddiscipline,andmyheartdespisedreproof!Ididnotlistentothevoiceofmyteachersorinclinemyeartomyinstructors.NowIamatthepointofutterruininthepublicassembly.Ž(Prov5:12…14NRSV)ThistextillustratesthetechniqueofIsraelitepedagogybydepictingitspossiblefailure:astudent,shamedinthepublicassemblyasaresultofhissexualmisdeeds,whohatesphysicaldiscipline,aheartŽhardenedtoreproof,andearsŽclosedtothevoiceoftheteacher(Prov5:1…23).Wheredidsuchinstructiontakeplaceandwhodidit?WehaveevenlessinformationabouttheIsraeliteteachersŽandinstructorsŽmentionedintheforegoingpassagethanwedoaboutcounterpartsinMesopotamia,Egypt,andGreece.Indeed,suchreferencestoateacherŽorinstructorŽarerareinbib-licalliterature.FarmoreofteninProverbsweseethefamily-likestructureattestedinotherculturessurveyedearlier:thestudentisasonŽwhiletheteacheristhefatherŽorevenmotherŽ(Prov1:8;4:3;6:20).Asinthoseother72.Du¨rr,,114…15.73.SomereferencesincludePs119:99;Prov5:13;Job36:22;Isa30:20;andHab2:18.Theyareoutweighedbyuseoffamilyterminologyforteachersandlearners.74.NotealsotheprominenceofthemotherŽinothersayingssuchasProv10:1//15:20;19:26;20:20;29:15;30:11,17,aswellasthepraiseofthepowerfulwomanattheconclusionofProverbs(31:10…31)andtheinclusionofmothersintheTenCommandments(Exod20:12//Deut5:16)andintheDeuteronomicregulation
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationcultures,thesefamilyepithetsoftenre”ectactualbiologicalrelationships.ThisisparticularlyclearinthecaseofthemotherŽmentionedinthesesayings.ItishighlyunlikelythatfemaleteacherswouldhavetakenontheepithetmotherŽwhowerenottheactualmotherŽofastudent,andProverbs31:1evenmentionsamotherresponsibleforagivenwrittenteachingattributedtoKingLemuel.Ultimately,sonsinancientIsrael,asinothercultures,generallyadoptedtheoccupationoftheirfathers,thusmeaningthatsomesortoffamily-basededucationmadethemostsense„usuallybyafatherŽinboththebio-logicalandpedagogicalsense.Indeed,evenoursketchyrecordsofIsraelsliterateelitehavepreservedinstanceswherescribesandotherspassedtheirliterateoccupationontosonsandgrandsons(e.g.1Kgs4:3[cf.2Sam8:17;20:25];Jer26:24;29:3;36:10;39:14;40:1…41:10).Thusmuch,ifnotmost,ancientIsraeliteeducationprobablyhappenedinthehomeandwasdonebyparents,particularlythefather.Yetbiblicalliteraturealsopresentssomepicturesofeducationbeyondhereditaryboundaries.Forexample,wehavetheassertioncitedearlierin2Kgs12:3thatJehoash,theking,hadbeeninstructedbyJehoidathepriest,andwehaveotherprobablere”ectionsofeducationoflargergroups,particularlyinroyalcontexts(1Kgs12:8,10;2Kgs10:1…8;seealso1Kgs11:20).ThisbiblicalattestationofbothfamilyandsomenonfamilyeducationissimilartothedistributionoftypesofeducationintheEgyptiancraftvillageDeirel-Medina.Theremosteducationwasdonebyfathers,butsometimeschildrenwouldbesenttoreceivetheireducationfromateacherwhowasnotaparent.Intheselattercases,theteacherwasnolongerarealbutasymbolicfather.ŽThestudentwasnowonlysym-bolicallytheson.ŽAkeygoalofsuch(largely)family-basededucationwastheculturalrepro-ductionoftheparent/teacher:enculturatingason(andsomedaughters)toplayasimilarsocioculturalroletothatoftheparent(orpseudoparent).Forsome,thisinvolvedthegainingofspeci“cwritingandreadingcompetenciesthatwouldbeusedinaspeci“callyscribalof“ce.Butformany,thegoalswereprobablymoregeneral.Forexample,theforegoingquotationonpossiblefail-ureofeducationsuggeststhatasuccessfulstudentwouldgainthe(sexual)self-disciplinenottoberuinedinthepublicassemblyŽ(Prov5:14).Suchsuccessregardinganunteachableson(Deut21:18…21).FordiscussionseeFox,Proverbs1…9,8…10.Inthiscontext,FoxrepliestostudiessuchasthosebyC.Fontaine(TraditionalSayingsintheOldTestament:AContextualStudy,BibleandLiteratureSeries[Shef“eld:Almond,1982])andC.Westermann(¨rzelnderWeisheit:diea¨ltestenSpru¨cheIsraelsundandererVo¨lkerlker¨ttingen:VandenhoeckandRuprecht,1990])whichlocatetherootsofOldTestamentwisdomliteratureintheoralsettingofvillageandfamilysocialization.ThoughtheymayberightabouttheoraloriginsofmanysayingsnowinProverbsandelsewhereintheBible,theoriginsofspeci“callyliteraturelieinfamily-sitededucationlinkedtobroaderinstitutionsoftempleandstate.
75.OnthisseeespeciallyMichaelV.Fox,TheSocialLocationoftheBookofProverbs,ŽinTexts,Temples,andTraditions:ATributetoMenahemHaran,ed.MichaelV.Foxetal.(WinonaLake,IN:Eisenbrauns,1996),228…32.Cf.Lemaire,LesEcoles,57,whosuggeststhattheinclusionofmotherŽinProverbs4:3maybedueto76.Yeivinarguespersuasivelythatthiswascharacteristicofvariousarmy,civiladministrative,priestly,andotherof“cialpositionsinIsrael,Yeivin,JudeanFamiliesandParties,Žesp.250…255.77.McDowell,TeachersandStudents,Ž219…30.
textualityandeducationinancientisraelwouldbeengenderedthroughvariousvirtuesrepeatedlyinculcatedinprover-bialsayingsandinstructions:fearoftheLord,carewiththetongue,respectforthosemorepowerful,andsoon.Thepersonwhoingestedsuchtextsandthevaluestheyadvocatedjoinedaminorityclass.Suchstudentsdidnotjusthavealphabeticliteracy„thoughthataidedthemontheirway„butabroader,textuallysupportedwisdomthatmarkedthemoffaspartofaliterateWedonotknowexactlywhensuchtext-supportededucationalprocessesbeganinIsraelorhowwidespreadtheywere.Givenparallelsinothercultures,itislikelythatsucheducationwaspartofIsraeliteurbanization.AssoonasIsraelstartedtotakeonthegreaterhierarchyofacity-statesystem,itwouldhavedeveloped„probablydependingonmodelsfromsurroundinghierarchi-calsystems„anoral-writtenprocessofenculturationthathelpedsocializeandsetapartapriestlyandroyalscribalelite.Thereismuchdebate,however,abouthowandwhensuchadevelopmentofanearlyIsraelitestateoccurred.Thebiblicaltraditionitselfassignsthecreationofaroyalcity-statestructuretoSaul,David,andSolomon(1…2Samuel;1Kings1…11).Moreover,Solomon„asinthesuperscriptsofProverbs„iscreditedwiththespeakingŽofthousandsofproverbsandoverathousandsongs,includingaformofspeakingŽrareplantsandanimalsthatisreminiscentoftheeducationallistsseenintheMesopo-tamianandEgyptiansystems(1Kgs5:12…13[ET4:32…33]).Nevertheless,manywouldarguethatsuchtraditionsofacity-stateduringSolomonstimearebasicallyideologicalretrojections.ThearchaeologicalevidenceforsuchastateandtheepigraphicevidenceofliteracyismoreextensiveinthelatepreexilicThelatterperiodisthetimeofactivityofthemenofHezekiahŽmentionedinthesuperscriptioninProverbscitedearlier(25:1),aswellasatimewhenweseeevidenceofcon”ictovertheascendancyofagroupofthewiseŽinpropheticcritiquesofthisgroup,forexample,Isaiah5:21:Woetothosewhoarewiseintheirowneyes,anddiscerningintheirownsight.ŽGiventhisevidence,thelatepreexilicperiodisthelatesttimetopositsomesystemofIsraeliteeducation-enculturation.Nevertheless,itislikelythatsuchalatepreexilicsystemwasabroadeningofemergentformsoftextualityandeducationfromearlierperiods,particularlytheSolomonicone.Sofar,thisdiscussion„andmanylikeit„isde“cientinacrucialrespect.Ithasfailedtoconsiderothersortsoftextsthatlikelywereincludedinthis78.Fox,Proverbs1…9,131…34,347…51.79.SeeBryce,,148…54.80.NotetheNRSVrendersHebrewhereascompose,Žbutthetraditionherere”ectstheprominentoralelementsoftheteaching-compositionprocess.81.TherelevantstudiesaresurveyedandrespondedtoinGaryN.Knoppers,TheVanishingSolomon:TheDisappearanceoftheUnitedMonarchyfromRecentHistoriesofAncientIsrael,Ž116(1997):19…44.82.Jamieson-Drake,ScribesandSchoolsinMonarchicJudah.83.SeealsoIsa29:14;Jer4:22;8:8…9;10:7…9;cf.propheticpronouncementsoverthewiseŽinothercountriesinIsa19:11…12;Jer10:7…9;50:35;51:57.84.ThebestrecentargumentforthisapproachistobefoundinSchniedewind,BibletoBook85.OntheinfrastructureofthisperiodseeespeciallyKnoppers,VanishingSolomon.Ž
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationeducation-enculturationprocess.Inthepast,mostargumentsforeducationaluseofbookslikeProverbshavebeenconnectedtotheanachronisticassump-tionsaboutschoolsŽdiscussedattheoutsetofthechapter,andmostscholarshaveassumedthatbookslikeProverbs,Job,andEcclesiastesweredistin-guishedfromotherbiblicalbooksbytheireducationalpurpose.Asaresult,suchscholarshavemisinterpretedthethematicandterminologicaldistinctive-nessofsuchwisdomŽbooks.CertainlyinstructionsinbothMesopotamiaandEgyptlikewiseweredistinguishedbycertainthemesandterms.Nevertheless,theinstructionsofShuruppakandKhetiwereusedalongsidepoetictexts(e.g.theEgyptianHymntotheInundation)andnarrativetexts(e.g.Gilgamesh)aspartofabroadereducationalprocessthatencompassedfarmorethanwhatwewouldde“neaswisdomŽliterature.WithinMesopotamia,wisdomŽin-structionsappeartohaveplayedanimportantbridgefunctionbetweenele-mentarylistsandhigherleveltexts.EgyptappearstohavebeguneducationwithshortinstructionslikethatofKemitandbroadenedouttoawiderrangeofinstructionsandotherworks.Soalso,classicalGreekinstructionfocusednotonlyongnomicmaterialbutalsoonHomericepicnarrativeandkeydra-matictexts.Ineachcase,wisdomŽorgnomicŽinstructionsoftenplayedrolesparticularlyintheearlystagesofabroadercurriculumofliteratureusedforteaching.Nevertheless,thecomparativeevidenceIhaveworkedwithsofarsuggeststhattheconceptofwisdomliteratureŽcanbemisleadingforbothbiblicalandnonbiblicalevidence,insofarasitsuggeststhatdidactictalesandsageinstructionswereseparatedfromotherformsofliteraturebytheiredu-cationalusage.Teachersinalltheseculturesauthoredand(re)usedawidevarietyofgenresoftexts.Therefore,Proverbs,Ecclesiastes,andotherIsraelitewisdomtextsareonlyaninitialpointertotheeducationaluseofotherbiblicalTheBibleitselfpointstoabroader,textuallysupported,oraleducationalprocessinIsrael.Forexample,thecentraltraditionaboutSolomonswisdomnotonlymentionshiswidespreadknowledgeofplantsandanimalsandhisauthorshipofproverbsbutalsohisspeakingforthof1,005songsŽ(1Kgs5:12[ET4:32]).Moreover,keybiblicaltextsdepictaprocessofinstructionthatutil-izeswrittentextstoteachoralsongs.ŽTake,forexample,thefollowingintro-ductiontoDavidslamentoverJonathan:He[David]orderedthattheSongoftheBowbetaught[]tothemenofJudah;itiswritteninthescrollofYashar.Hesaid:Yourglory,OIsrael,liesslainŽ(2Sam1:18…19*;NRSVadapted).Similarly,thesongofMosesinDeuteronomy32isframedbythefollowingtwotexts.Intheintroductiontothesong:86.ForcritiqueoftheconceptofwisdomŽinEgyptianliteratureseeLeclat,LesSagesses,11…15andEyre,SemnaStelae,Ž151.ForMesopotamiaseeLambert,WisdomLiterature,1…2;KonradVolk,Methodenaltmeso-potamischerErziehungnachQuellenderaltbabylonischenZeit,Ž47(1996):182.87.ThispointwasmadeinapreliminarywayforIsraelandEgyptinLeoPerdue,WisdomandCult:ACriticalAnalysisoftheViewsofCultintheWisdomLiteraturesofIsraelandtheAncientNearEast,SBLDS(Missoula,MT:ScholarsPress,1977),360.SeealsoBickelandMathieu,Amennakht.Ž
textualityandeducationinancientisraelNowthereforewritethissong,andteachittotheIsraelites;putitintheirmouths,inorderthatthissongmaybeawitnessformeagainsttheIsraelitesThatverydayMoseswrotethissongandtaughtittotheIsraelites.(Deut31:19,22NRSV)Afterthesong:Mosescameandrecitedallthewordsofthissonginthehearingofthepeople,heandJoshuasonofNun.WhenMoseshad“nishedrecitingallthesewordstoallIsrael,hesaidtothem,TaketoheartallthewordsthatIamgivinginwitnessagainstyoutoday;givethemasacommandtoyourchildren,sothattheymaydiligentlyob-serveallthewordsofthislaw[torah].Ž(Deut32:44…46NRSV)Bothcasesconcernpoeticmaterialattributedtomajor“guresinIsraelitehis-tory:DavidssongofthebowandthesongofMoses.Inbothcasesthetraditionthatistaughtisenvisionedasoral.Itistobesung.ŽYetinbothcases,thesungpoeticmaterialiswrittenŽtobetaught.ŽNeithertraditionfeaturesvo-cabularyorthemesthatwouldidentifyitaspartofthegnomictraditionseeninProverbs.ThisisnotwisdomŽliterature.Butitisclearlyenvisioned„however“ctionally„aswrittenmaterialthatisthesubjectofeducation.WithinthenarrativeworldoftheBible,suchwrittentextsareseenasthebasisforaprocessofteachingIsraelorJudahcertainclassicsongs.ŽThisinsightneednotbecon“nedtoinclusiononlyofsongsŽorpoetryinthebroadercategoryofinstructionalliterature.AslaterJewishtraditionattests,prosematerialcanbecon“guredtobesung,ŽandtextssuchasExodus17:14depictaworldwhereaproseworkiscommissionedtobewrittenasamemorial,reminderŽ(),whilealsobeingorallyplacedintheearsŽofachosensuccessor:writethisasareminderinascroll,andputitintheearsofJoshua:IwillutterlydestroytheremembranceofAmalekfromunderheavenŽ(NRSV).Later,IwillpresentadditionalevidencethatIsrael,likeMes-opotamiaandGreece,usedproseaswellaspoeticmaterialininstruction.Tobesure,evenifagivensongorprosetextwaseventuallyusedinedu-cation,itisimpossibletoarguethatallsuchtextswereoriginallywrittenforthatpurpose.Thisisanimportantdistinctionbetweennongnomicmaterialandthesortsofinstructionalmaterialdiscussedearlier.ThoughmostmaterialnowfoundinProverbsprobablywasusedfromtheoutsetinsomesortofeducation-enculturation,thesameisnotnecessarilytrueforDavidslamentoverJonathanandSaul,orMosesssong,norisittruefortherangeofnon-Israelitenarrative,historical,hymnic,andothertextsthatfoundtheirwayintoMesopotamian,Egyptian,andGreekeducational-enculturationalsystems.88.FordiscussionofthedepictionofthegivingoftheSongofMosesinrelationtoAhiqarandotherdepictionsoffatherly,educationaltestamentsattheendoflifeseeStevenWeitzman,SongandStoryinBiblicalNarrative:TheHistoryofaLiteraryConventioninAncientIsrael(Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress,1997),89.Demsky,Writing,Ž19…20;Hurowitz,Aspects,Ž21…23.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationInwhatfollowsIwilllookatseveralpointerstotheideathatancientIsraeliteeducationwasamorecomplexwholethanmightbesuggestedbyanexclusivefocusonclearlywisdomŽtexts.MostpaststudiesthathavelinkedbiblicalliteraturewitheducationhavefocusedonProverbs,Job,andsimilarStudiesthathavelookedmorebroadly(e.g.,LorenzDu¨rr,Lemaire)havenotreceivedenoughattention,partlybecausetheyhavebeenunderstoodtobepositinganonattested,institutionalizedsystemofseparateschoolsŽwithpro-fessionalteachers.Asdiscussedinearlierchapters,wenowknowthatsuchseparateschoolsŽwerenotthenorm,evenforcultureslikeMesopotamiaandEgyptwheretheywereoncethoughttobe.Moreover,recentresearchoned-ucationinthesecontextshasshownthattheliteratureusedwentwellbeyondthattypicallyassociatedwithwisdom.ŽThisprovidesadditionalcorroborationforDu¨rrandLemairesapproach.Thatapproachisaugmentedherewithad-ditionalfocusontheoral-cognitivedimensionofeducationseeninothercul-tures,adimensionthathelpsexplainwhybiblicalliteratureissofo-cusedonperformanceandinternalization.InwhatfollowsIstartbylookingattheeducationalvisionfoundinDeu-teronomyandrelatedmaterialinthebooksofJoshua,Judges,1and2Samueland1and2Kings(theDeuteronomisticHistoryŽ).Ithenturntolookatevidenceoftext-supported,oralpropheticeducation-enculturationsystems,particularlyasre”ectedinthebooksofIsaiahandJeremiah.Thiswillprepareusforabroaderlookathowbiblicalliteratureasawhole,whateveritsdiverseorigins,enteredthestreamoftraditionbywayofitsusetoeducate-enculturateancientIsraelites.ThenIwillreturntothequestionofcomposition-adaptationofsuchmaterialsforuseineducationandenculturation.EducationinDeuteronomyandtheDeuteronomisticHistoryEducationplaysacentralroleintheDeuteronomic/Deuteronomisticvision,thoughnotpreciselyasanextensionofspeci“callywisdomŽemphasesofthegnomicmaterialsurveyedearlier.RatherwhatwehaveinDeuteronomyisacounter-visionofur-educationplacedevenbeforeSolomon.ItisaneducationalvisionthatisprojectedintothecommunitysMosaicpastasapotentialre-placementforgnomicmaterialinitstraditionalearlyandkeyroleineducation.Tobesure,theauthorsofDeuteronomy,likeotherliteratesinancientIsrael,themselveswouldhavebeeneducated-enculturatedusingmoretraditionalma-terial.Andthisin”uenceshowsintheiradoptionofsomekeytermsandcon-ceptsthatarealsofoundinwisdomliterature.Nevertheless,wemustbeasclearonthecontrastsofDeuteronomywithwisdomasonthecontinuities.As90.ExemplarystudiesincludeHermisson,;J.P.J.Olivier,SchoolsandWisdomLiterature,ŽJour-nalofNorthwestSemiticLanguages4(1975):49…60,andShupak,WhereCanWisdomBeFound?91.Du¨rr,;Lemaire,LesEcoles92.Forfurtherdiscussionoftherelationofthisstudytopreviousonesseetheappendix.93.Themostin”uentialdiscussionisWeinfeld,DeuteronomyandtheDeuteronomicSchool,244…319.
textualityandeducationinancientisraelBernardLevinsonandJanAssmannindifferentwayshavepointedout,Deu-teronomystandsinahighlycomplexrelationshiptothepastanditspredeces-sors:innovative,yetdenyingoriginality;continuous,yetinsertingdifference.OneplacetostartisthestipulationsregardingteachinginDeuteronomy6:4…25,akeypassagetowardtheoutsetofthebookandperhapstheoriginalbeginningofsomeformofthebookofDeuteronomy.ItstartswithafocusontheheartŽsocentralinIsraeliteandothereducationaltexts,callingonallIsraeltoloveYHWHyourGodwithallyourheart,life-strengthandmightŽ(Deut6:5),alongwithafurthercommandtokeepthesewordswhichIamcommandingyoutodayonyourheartŽ(Deut6:6).Thetextcontinuesbyde-scribingtheprocessbywhichthesewordswillbeputontheheart:Repeatthemtoyourchildrenandrecitethemwhenyouareathomeandwhenyouareaway,whenyouliedownandwhenyouriseŽ(Deut6:7).AsGeorgFischerandNorbertLoh“nkhaveargued,thistextdoesnotrefertodiscussionofthecommandments,asisoftenimpliedbythetranslations(e.g.NRSVtalkaboutthemŽ).Insteaditcommandsaconstantprocessofrecitationofthetextsduringallactivitiesofthewakingday.Asthefollowingtextmakesclear,thisincisionoftextsontheheartispartofabroaderprocessofthemthroughoutonessurroundings,againparallelingwisdomexhortationstobindteachingsontheself(Prov6:21;7:3):bindthemasasignonyourhand,“xthemasanemblemonyourforehead,andwritethemonthedoorpostsofyourhouseandonyourgates.Ž(Deut6:8…9NRSV)Recitation,writing,andotherformsofreminderareallformsofculturalcirculation,ensuring„intheDeuteron-omicvision„thatIsraelitesdonotforgetŽYHWHandthecommandmentshehasgiventhem(Deut6:12).Thechapterconcludeswithapictureofed-ucation,thistimeadialogueinwhichthechildrenaskaboutthemeaningofthestatutesandcommandmentsthattheirparentisconstantlyreciting(Deut6:20),andtheparentthenputstheminthecontextofGodsrescueofIsraelfromEgypt,giftoftheland,andpromiseoflifeandrighteousnessifthepeopleobeythem(Deut6:21…25).SimilarthemesoccuragaininDeuteronomy11:18…21,towardtheendofthesectionofparanesisthatDeuteronomy6:4…25introduced.ThetextstartsbyrepeatingthecommandtoputthesewordsŽontheheartŽandlifestrengthŽ(,11:18a),andthenincludesatwofoldreturntothemesof94.Assmann,KulturelleGeda¨chtnis,212…29;BernardLevinson,DeuteronomyandtheHermeneuticsofLegal(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1997),esp.146…52.95.NorbertLoh“nk,DasJu¨discheamChristentum:DieverloreneDimension(Freiburg:Herder,1987),154…96.GeorgFischerandNorbertLoh“nk,DieseWo¨rtesollstdusummen:Dtn6,7¯ba:EinverlorenerSchlu¨sselzurmeditativenKulturinIsrael,ŽTheologieundPhilosophie62(1987):59…64.97.Sonnet,BookWithinBook,57…58.98.ForacatalogueofdifferentmemorytechniquesbywhichDeuteronomytriestoreinforceitsparticularformofoppositionalcollectivememoryseeespeciallyAssmann,KulturelleGeda¨chtnis,218…21.99.Forredaction…criticallyorienteddiscussionoftherelationofthesepassagestoeachotherandtheircontextseeGeorgBraulik,DasDeuteronomiumunddieGeda¨chtniskulturIsraels:RedaktionsgeschichtlicheBeobachtungenzurVerwendungvon,ŽinBiblischeTheologieundgesellschaftlucherWandel:Fu¨rNorbertLoh“nk,ed.GeorgBraulik(Freiburg:Herder,1993),19…20.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationwritingGodswordsonthebodyandondoorposts(11:18b,20).Thesethemesframethecentralfocusof11:19:teachingthechildrenthroughaprocessofconstantrecitation:Teachthemtoyourchildren,recitingthemwhenyouareathomeandwhenyouareaway,whenyouliedownandwhenyouriseŽ(NRSVadapted).Theprocessenvisionedhereisoneofself-andchild-educationthroughconstantvocalrepetition.Sincechildrenintheancientworldtypicallywereincludedintheirparentsdailyactivities,parentsconstantlyrecitingatextwouldputthattextnotonlyontheirownheartsbutontheirchildrensheartsaswell.YettheteachingŽtoberecitedhereisnotthetypicaleducationalmaterialusedinearlyeducationofchildren.Instead,asGeorgBraulikhasargued,theseinjunctionstorecitethesewordsŽinDeuteronomy6:7and11:19refertoDeuteronomy5…26asawhole.AccordingtotheDvision,thisMosaiccorpus,ratherthanSolomonicwisdomcollectionsofthesortdiscussedearlier,istoserveastheinitialandcentralfocusofIsraeliteeducationandTheteachingfocusofthisoverallcorpusisreinforcedbytheintroductiontothecorpusinDeuteronomy1…4,alongwithitsintroductioninDeuteronomy5:1.MosheWeinfeldinparticularhasobservedhowthestoryofMosessap-pointmentofof“cialsinDeuteronomy1:9…18isdistinguishedfromitsPen-tateuchalparallels(Exod18:13…26;Num11:11…17,24…30)byitsemphasisonhowtheleadersdelegatedbyMosesweretobewise,discerningandwithunderstandingŽ(Deut1:13;cf.1:15),termscommoninthegnomicinstructionalliteraturediscussedearlier.Similarly,Deuteronomy4issaturatedwithsuchconceptuality.ItstartsandcontinueswithdescriptionsofMosesteachingŽthelawstoIsrael(4:1,10,14).ItappliestothismaterialanoldscribalformulaseenoutsideIsraelfornotsubtractingoraddingtoŽtheinstructiontobeingested(Deut4:2).IttalksofhowtheIsraelitepeoplesobservanceofthelawswillrevealthemtobeauniquelywiseanddiscerningŽpeopleamongtheothernations,possessorsofauniquelyrighteousinstruction/torah(Deut4:6…8).ItexhortstheIsraelitesnottoforgetthewordsŽtheyhaveseenŽorletthemslipfromtheirheartsŽbuttomakethesewordsknowntotheirchildrenandgrandchildren(Deut4:9).AnditconcludesbyidentifyingwhatfollowsastheinstructionwhichMosessetbeforetheIsraelitesŽ(Deut4:44)andthein-struction,statutesandcommands,whichMosesspoketothesonsofIsraelwhentheycameoutofEgyptŽ(Deut4:45).Thislearningfocusisthenre-100.FordiscussionofthedesignofthispassageanditsconceptualityseeespeciallyFischerandLoh“nk,DieseWo¨rte,Ž64…67.101.SeeBraulik,Geda¨chtniskulturIsraels,Ž19…20,andLoh“nk,¨discheamChristentum,154…55.102.Weinfeld,DeuteronomyandtheDeuteronomicSchool,244…47.SuchtermsarealsocommoninsomecritiquesleveledatthewiseŽinearlyprophecy.SeeespeciallyIsa5:14;29:14.103.LeipoldtandMorenz,HeiligeSchriften,56;Fishbane,VariaŽ;Weinfeld,DeuteronomyandtheDeuter-onomicSchool,260…64.104.FortranslationofhereasinstructionŽseeB.Couroyer,:Stipulationdetraite´ouenseig-95(1988):321…31;NorbertLoh“nk,D(w)timDeuteronomiumundindenKo¨nigsbu¨chern,ŽBiblischeZeitschrift35(1991):91…93.Couroyerarguespersuasivelythatthetermprobablyreferstoaninstruc-tion.ŽLoh“nk“ndsCouroyerpartlypersuasive,suggestingthatthewordsfunctionwastakenoverlaterinDeuteronomicmaterialbythewordtorah,Žwhichalsoreferstoinstruction.ŽHeraisesthisasatranslation
textualityandeducationinancientisraelinforcedbyDeuteronomy5:1,whichcallsonIsraeltohearŽthestatutesandcommandmentswhichIamspeakinginyourearstoday.ŽIsraelistolearnŽ)andobeyŽthem.Theprocessenvisionedhereisclearlyoral(hear,ŽspeakinginyourearsŽ),yetthematerialtobelearnediswritten.Together,thisprologuematerial„thoughprobablylaterthanmuchofthehortatoryandlegalmaterialthatfollows„reinforcestheteaching-enculturationfocusalreadyfoundinDeuteronomy6…11.ItaccentuatesanemphasiselsewhereintheDeu-teronomicutopiaoneducationofmaleIsraelites„notjustasmallerelite„intextual-torahwisdom.Now,inDeuteronomy4:6…8,education,whichgen-erallyseparatedanelitegroupofffrompeersinsocietieslikeancientIsrael,isenvisionedasdistinguishingIsraelasawholefromothernations.Deuteronomy5:1isimmediatelyfollowedbyoneofthemostprominentbiblicalexamplesofearlyinstruction.TheTenCommandmentsinDeuteron-omy5:6…21areanexcellentexampleofteachingstructuredformemoriza-TherulesfocusoncentralvaluesofancientIsrael.AsErhardGer-stenbergerobserveddecadesago,theirapodicticŽformmostcloselyresemblesthatofgnomicinstructionsinsideandoutsideIsrael.Inaddition,theorder-ingofthelistintotenitems„howeverthisisdoneinvariousstreamsoftradition„allowsthebeginningstudenttousehisorher“ngerstocountoffandseewhetherheorshehasincludedallofthekeyelementsofthisfunda-mentalinstruction.Thiscombinationofelements„focusoncentralvalues,simplicityofform,andmemorizability„hascontributedtotheongoinguseoftheTenCommandmentsinreligiouseducationuptothepresent,alongwiththefocusonthemasaniconofcentralvaluesincontemporaryculturalbattlesoverthebiblicaltradition.TheTenCommandments,however,areonlythebeginningofthelegalinstructionalmaterialtobefoundinDeuteronomy.Deuteronomy1…11asawholeintroducesthefollowinglawsastheheartoftheinstruction,statutesandcommandmentsŽtobekeptontheheartŽofeveryIsraelite(Deut6:6;11:18).Tobesure,thisbodyoftexthasacomplexprehistory.LikethemultiplyredactedlegalinstructionsoftheMesopotamiantraditions,theinstructioninDeuteronomy12…26isacomplexmixofoldandnew.AsIarguedinchapter2,scribalmastersintheSumero-Akkadiantraditionprobablywrotenewsuchinstructionsthroughbuildingontheirword-for-wordmemoryofolderinstruc-tionsintheirearliereducation.Soalso,multiplesectionsofDeuteronomy12…26arecomplexrevisionsofstipulationsinthebookofthecovenantfoundinExodus20:22…23:33*.AsintheMesopotamianinstances,therelationshipofpossibilityalongsidethatofoath,treaty,Žbutthetwopossibilitiesarenotnecessarilymutuallyexclusive.Oathsandtreatiesweresometimesusedinancienteducation.TheDeuteronomycovenantmightatthesametimebeanoath/treatythatwasenvisionedforuseininstruction.
105.MostrecentscholarshipagreesthattheparallelversionofthecommandsinExodus20:2…17isalaterparalleltothatfoundinDeuteronomy.Itisalsopossible,however,thattheseareoral-writtenparallelvariantsofeachother.106.SeeespeciallyHermannSchulz,DasTodesrechtimAltenTestament,BZAW(Berlin:To¨pelmann,1969).107.ErhardGerstenberger,WesenundHerkunftdesapodiktischenRechts,WMANT(Neukirchen-Vluyn:NeukircherVerlag,1965).
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationthesetwocorporaisnotthatoftextandcommentarybuta”uidinterweavingofverbalechoingandmodi“cation.YetDeuteronomy12…26isnotmerelyarevisionofanearliercollection.Sometimesitincludesstipulationsthathavenoparallelinthebookofthecovenant.OnethatisparticularlyrelevantforourpurposesisthelawofthekinginDeuteronomy17:14…20.ThelawconcludeswithafocusontheneedforthekingtohaveacopyoftheDeuteronomicinstruction()writtenforhimsothathemayreaditcontinuallyandlearntofearYHWHhisGod,Žobserveallthewordsofthis/instruction,Žand„againparallelinggno-micinstructionalmaterial„notturntotherightorleftfromthecommand-ment(Deut17:19…20;cf.Prov4:27;7:25).Otherlawsfocusontheteachingof-“ceoftheLevites(Deut17:9…12;24:8;cf.31:9…13;33:10),dealingwithastubbornŽ()andrebelliousŽ()sonwhorefusesinstruction(Deut21:18…20;cf.useoftheverbalrootinIsa50:5),andtheimportanceofresistingtheteachingŽofthenations,prohibitionsthat„asinnon-Israeliteeducationalmaterial„sometimescharacterizetheforbiddenbehaviorwithequivalentsofthebiblicaltermabominationŽ(;Deut18:9;20:18).TheinstructionalcontentofDeuteronomy12…26,however,isnotlimitedtosuchexplicitreferencestoteachingŽorterminologythatisattestedinIsrael-itewisdomŽmaterial,anymorethantheinstructionalelementsofHomerandothernon-Israelitetextsweresolimited.Rather,thismaterialisquitesimilartolegalmaterialusedelsewhereininstruction.Moreover,thefactthatDeuteronomy12…26revisesmaterialslikethecovenantcodeisfurtherevi-dencethatitwaspartofanongoingprocessofwriting-supportededucationandenculturation.TowardtheendofthebookofDeuteronomymoretextsreferbacktotheinstructionalmaterial()andprovidestipulationsforfurtherreinforce-mentofit.Deuteronomy30echoesDeuteronomy6infocusingagainontheall-importantheart,ŽnowspeakingofGodsaimtocircumciseŽtheheartsothatIsraelful“llsthecommandinDeut6:5toloveŽYHWHwithallitsheartŽandlifestrengthŽ(30:6,10).Themind-oralconnectionseenintheprecedingtextsisreemphasized,asthischapterassertsthatthelawisnotfaroffbutneartoyou,inyourmouthandinyourhearttodoitŽ(Deut30:11…14).Func-tioningtogetherwithsimilarreferencesinDeuteronomy6and11,thismaterialinDeuteronomy30framestheinterveningwrittentorahŽasmaterialtobeorallywrittenonthehearttoensureobedience.IntertwinedwiththeinstancediscussedearlierofthewritingofthesongofMosesŽ(Deut31:19,22)thereisonemorekeytext,inwhichDeuteronomyspeaksofthecreationofanactualcopyoftheDeuteronomicTorahasa108.AsophisticatedrecentstudyoftherelationshipofthesetwocorporaisLevinson,109.Weinfeld,DeuteronomyandtheDeuteronomicSchool,303…4.110.ForEgyptiananalogiesseeWeinfeld,DeuteronomyandtheDeuteronomicSchool,260.ForSumero-AkkadiananaloguesseeWilliamW.Hallo,BiblicalAbominationsandSumerianTaboos,Ž76(1985):22…33(and34…35forothercultureareasoutsidetheBible).111.Braulik,Geda¨chtniskulturIsraels,Ž21…24.
textualityandeducationinancientisraelThisisthecopydepositedwiththeLevites,whointurnwillsupervisethecreationofthekingscopy.ThetextstartsbysayingthatMoseswrotedownthistorah[instructionŽ]andgaveittothepriests,thesonsofLevi,whocarriedthearkofthecovenantoftheLORD,andtoalltheeldersofIsraelŽ(Deut31:9;cf.17:18).MosesthencommandsapublicreadingofthecopyofthelawinthepresenceofallIsraeleverysevenyearsduringtheFeastofTabernacles(31:10…11).AsJean-PierreSonnetpointsout,verbalparallelsbe-tweenthispassageandDeuteronomy4…5indicatethatthisreadingisstylizedasareenactmentoftheHorebtheophany,usingtheperformanceofthewrittenTorahtoperpetuatetherevelationalexperienceacrosstimetosubsequentgen-Inthisway,laterIsraelites,accordingtoMoses,willlearnŽtofearYHWHandobservetheinstruction(31:12;cf.17:19),inparticularthechildren(31:13).Likethepan-HellenicrecitationsofHomericpoetryinclassicalGreece,thispublicreadingisenvisionedasyetanadditionalformofculturalcircula-tion,introducingmaterialtochildrenandreinforcingitforadults.YetthisisnottheonlyfunctionenvisionedforthecopyoftheTorahinthecareoftheLevites.Inaddition,itistoserveasareferencecopywhenMosesisnottheretoreciteitanymore.OnceMoses“nisheswritingthecopyoftheinstructiontotheveryend,ŽhecommandsthemtodeposititbesidethearkasawitnessŽ)amidthem(31:26).Thiswrittencopy,andMosess“nalrecitationofitscontentsinIsraelsearsŽ(31:28),willstandoveragainstIsraelspropensitytoturnasidefromthetruewayafterMosessdeath(31:27,29).Onceagain,oralandwrittenmodesareintegrallyintertwinedintheprocessoftransgenera-tionalculturalreproduction.ThefollowinghistoryinJoshuato2Kingsislessfocusedoneducation-enculturationthantheDtorahŽinstructiondiscussedsofar.Nevertheless,therearesomepointerstowardtheongoingimportanceofsuchinstruction.RightafterthedeathofMoses,thebookofJoshuaincludesthefollowinginGodsearliestinstructionstoMosesssuccessorJoshua.Bestrongandcourageousintakingcaretoactaccordingtothein-structionwhichmyservant,Moses,commanded.Donotturntotherightortheleftsoyoumaybesuccessfuleverywhereyougo.Thisscrolloftheinstructionshallnotdepartfromyourmouth;Youshallreciteitquietlydayandnight,sothatyoumaybecarefultoactinaccordancewithallthatiswritteninit.Thenyoushallprosperonyourway.Thenyoushallbesuccessful.(Josh1:7…8)Hereagainweseethejoiningoftext„scrollofinstructionŽ„withorality:fromyourmouth.ŽFurthermore,Joshuaiscommandedtoreciteitquietly112.OnthesynchronicdynamicssurroundingthisintertwiningseeSonnet,BookWithinBook,156…67.113.Sonnet,BookWithinBook,142…46.114.FischerandLoh“nk,DieseWo¨rte,Ž67…70;Hurowitz,Aspects,Ž22.115.FortheclassicargumentsregardingthesecondarycharacterofthissectionseeRudolphSmend,DasGesetzunddieVo¨lker:EinBeitragzurdeuteronomistischenRedaktionsgeschichte,ŽinProblemebiblischerTheo-logie:GerhardvonRadzum70.Geburtstag,ed.HansWalterWolff(Munich:KaiserVerlag,1971),494…97.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducation),thusful“llingtheinjunctionsforconstantrecitationinDeuteronomy6:6…7and11:18…19.Now,however,heistorecitetheentirescrollofDeuter-onomy.Later,theDeuteronomistichistoryincludesreferencestothegreatlearningofSolomon,thepreeminentfounderofthetraditionalinstructionalsystem(e.g.,1Kgs5:9…14[ET4:29…34]).Nevertheless,thekeynarrativeofSolomonsacquisitionofsuchwisdomappearstobeadaptedfromapre-Deuteronomisticversion,sothathisprimarygiftistorahwisdomforjudgingcases,notthebroaderwisdomoftypicalgnomicinstructions(1Kgs3:2…15).ThelatterpartofthebookofKingsnarratesthediscoveryoftheDeuter-onomictorahŽduringJosiahsreign,andhisinstitutionofthistorahinstruc-tionasacovenantbindingonallthepeople(2Kgs22:3…23:3).HeisdepictedfromtheoutsetasfaithfulinthewayJoshuawascalledtobe,turningneithertotherightnortheleftŽ(2Kgs22:2;likeDavidŽ).Hegoesbeyondthein-junctioninDeut17:18…20forthekinghimselftoreadandlearn,andreadsthescrolltotheentirepeople(2Kgs23:2).Furthermore,thenarrativeechoesthetextwithwhichwestarted,Deuteronomy6:5…6,indescribinghimaslead-ingthepeopletoobservethecommandments,instructionanddecreesŽwiththeirwholeheartandlifestrength(2Kgs23:3),andtogethertheyjoininmak-ingacovenanttoestablishthewordsofthecovenantwritteninthisscroll.ŽThisisamajorconcludingeventintheDeuteronomistichistory.Forthe“rsttimesinceJoshua(24:1…27;cf.23:6…16),thebookofDeuteronomy„whichisnotjusttorah-teachingbutstylizedasavassalcovenantbetweenGodandIsrael„isfullyinstitutedinitsdualroleascovenantandteaching,toberecitedpubliclyandtaughtprivately.AnearlyversionoftheDeuteronomistichistoryprobablyconcludedwiththisclimacticeventandthefollowingdestructionofnon-JerusalemsanctuariesandcelebrationofPassover.Onlylaterwasthepres-enteditionoftheDeuteronomistichistoryextendedtothebeginningoftheSuchre”ectionsondating,ofcourse,areseverelyhamperedbythelack116.OnseeespeciallyKo¨hler,Lauteslesen,ŽZAW32(1912):240.OnthistextseeFischerandLoh“nk,DieseWo¨rte,Ž70…71,whopointoutthatthistextimpliesabroaderreferenceforsuchrecitationthantheearliertexts.NowthewholescrollofDeuteronomyisincluded.117.SeeonthisparticularlyDavidM.Carr,RoyalIdeologyandtheTechnologyofFaith:AComparativeMidrashStudyof1Kgs3:2…15Ž(Ph.D.diss.,ClaremontGraduateUniversity,1988),120…22;cf.DavidM.Carr,FromDtoQ:AStudyofEarlyJewishInterpretationsofSolomonsDreamatGibeon,SBLMS(Atlanta,GA:ScholarsPress,1991),28…30.118.SuchareferencetothisscrollŽjumpsfromtheworldofthenarrative„whereitwouldbethescrollŽorthatscrollŽ„totheworldofthereader/hearer,whoistoldaboutthisscrollŽbeforehimorher.AtthisclimacticpointahistoricaltextcontainingDeuteronomyandJosiahauthorizesitself,markingitselfascontainingthewordsofthecovenantthatJosiahandtheentirepeoplejoinedtoenforce.Ofcoursenowthewordsfoundin2Kgs23:3aretransmittedinabookseparatefromDeuteronomy.Thescrollsforthishistoryhavemultiplied.Nevertheless,thisnarrativesuggeststhattheywerenotseparateatonepoint,oratleastwereconceivedasbeingpartsofasinglescrolltradition.WhereasatonepointDeuteronomyitselfstoodapartasascrolloftheTorah,Žnow2Kgs23:3depictsitasembeddedinabroaderhistoryextendingafterit.119.Frankena,VassalTreatiesŽ;Weinfeld,DeuteronomyandtheDeuteronomicSchool,59…157.120.TherelevantstudiesaresurveyedandbuiltoninJeffreyC.Geoghegan,UntilThisDayandthePreexilicEditionoftheDeuteronomisticHistory,Ž122(2003):201…27.
textualityandeducationinancientisraelofasuperscriptionofthesortwesawinProverbs25:1,whichidenti“edthemenofHezekiahŽasresponsibleforthefollowingcollection.WecannotknowforsureexactlywhichscribeswereresponsiblefortheboldnewvisioninDeuteronomyortheDeuteronomistichistory.AnincreasingnumberofrecentscholarshavewantedtoarguethatthenarrativeoffoundlawŽin2Kings22iscompletely“ctional,andthatthewholehistorydatesfromtheexileorlater.CertainlymuchofthevisioninthecoreofDeuteronomyisutopian,andthehistorysurroundingJosiahhasbeendesignedtoauthorizeit.Nevertheless,multiplestrandsofevidenceconvergetosuggestthelatepreexileasatimeforthecreationoftheDeuteronomicvisioninDeuteronomy,andthereignofJosiahasthemostlikelytimeforitsinclusioninabroaderhistory.Elementsofthehistoryitselfpointtoa(late)preexilicdating;thisisalsothetimewhenweseeincreasingepigraphicevidenceofliteracyinancientIsrael.Thestrikingdeclineinuseofimagesinthelatepreexilicperiodsuggeststhattheanti-iconismofDeuteronomywasinstitutedtheninsomeway.ThelatepreexileisthetimewhenweseereferenceslikethatinJeremiahtothosewhoclaimwearewiseandthetorahofYHWHiswithusŽwhenthefalsepenofthescribeshasmadeitintoalieŽ(Jer8:8;seeJer18:18;Isa5:21;29:14).Jeremiahisa“guresaidtobeactiveinthetimeofJosiah(Jer1:1…2),andthispassagecritiquesasortofcombinationofwisdomŽandtorahŽthatischaracteristicoftheDeuteronomicTorah.AlthoughthefamilyofJosiahsscribe,Shaphan,isprominentamongthosedepictedinthebookofJeremiahasJeremiahssupporters,Jeremiah8:8…9maybeararere”ectionofthesortofcontroversythatensuedwhenscribalmastersliketheminstitutedaradicalrevisionofearliertraditionsusedininstruction.TheDeuteronomictorahinstructionunderdiscussionhereisnotjustradicalinofferinganewversionofolderinstructions,thoughitsrevisionstothecovenantcodeareoftenprofound.Norisitradicalinincludinglegalornarrativematerialininstruction.Wehaveseenthatofteninothercultures,andIwillarguelaterthatearlyIsraelusedsuchmaterialineducationaswell.WhatmakestheDvisionparticularlyunique,especiallyinDeuteronomyitself,isthetotalizingclaimitmakesfortheinstructionadvocatedinit.Thisisnotaninstructiontobesetalongsideothers.Thisisnotjustanothercollectionofproverbsordidacticnarrative.Rather,thebookconstantlypresentsitselfasayetearlierandmorefoundationalMosaicTorah.istheTorahthatIsraelites121.PhilipR.Davies,ScribesandSchools:theCanonizationoftheHebrewScriptures,LibraryofAncientIsrael(Louisville,KY:WestminsterJohnKnox,1998),93…99.MostofDaviesargumentsregardingdatingrelatetotheutopianvisioninDeuteronomy,notthebroaderhistory.Allarespeculativeaboutwhatcouldandcouldnotbewrittenunderamonarchy.Europeanstudiesaresurveyedandaf“rmedinAndersRunesson,TheOriginsoftheSynagogue:ASocio-HistoricalStudy,ConiectaneaBiblica,NewTestamentSeries(Stockholm:AlmqvistandWiksellInternational,2001),247…48.122.SeestudiessurveyedinGeoghegan,UntilThisDay,Ž201…2.Alsonotethe(unpublished)discus-sionofancientNearEasternanaloguesinCarr,IdealogyandTechnologyofFaith,Ž132…39.123.KeelandUehlinger,¨ttinen,Go¨tter,undGottessymbole,406…22.124.SeeespeciallyJer26:24;29:3;36:10…19;cf.40:1…16.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationaretorecitealldayandnight.Thereisnoroomforanother.ThoughthisaspectoftheDeuteronomicutopianvisionwasnotfullyimplemented,justasotherswerenotaswell,itwouldhaveanimportantin”uenceonthelaterpositionofMosaicTorahŽamidtherangeofmaterialsusedinIsraeliteeducation-NotjustDeuteronomybutalsotheDeuteronomistichistoryfollowingit,wasshapedandusedforeducation.Suchdidacticuseofhistoricaltextshasprecedentsinotherancienteducationalcontexts.EarlierIdiscussedhowscribesintheMesopotamianandHittitesystemsusedolderdisplayinscrip-tionsandcreatednewhistoricaltextsoutofolderannalsforuseineducationandenculturation.SuchtextsareattestedamongMesopotamianeducationalexercises,particularlyinthe“rstmillennium,andtheir”uidtextualhistoryatteststotheiruseinoral-writtencontexts.Soalso,thetextualhistoryofthehistoricalmaterialspreservedintheDeuteronomistichistory(inMT,Qumran,andLXX),andappropriationoftheDeuteronomistichistoryinIsaiah36…39,Jeremiah52,Chronicles,andJosephusre”ectsasimilaroral-writtenusage.Moreover,thecontentsoftheDeuteronomistichistorygofarbeyondtheaimsofmerelyarchivalormonumentaltexts.Thoughsuchannalisticandothermaterialswereprobablyusedtowriteit,thehistorynowfeaturesmajorspeechesandothertransitionsthatwouldenableitsaudiencetodrawaned-ucationalpointfromtheeventsdescribed.LiketheHittitehistoriographictextsdiscussedbyHubertCancik,theDeuteronomistichistoryisfullofteachingincidentsandexempla.Itsjudgmentsonearliereventsstoodasaneworal-writtenrepresentationofcollectivememoryalmostasradicalasthelegal-educationalvisioninDeuteronomy,thebookitbuiltonandauthorized.To-gether,DeuteronomyandtheDeuteronomistichistoryformedthecoreofanemergentalternativecurriculuminancientIsrael,onethatwouldbequitein”uentialintheexileandlaterperiods.125.FrankCru¨semann,DasPortativeVaterland:StrukturundGenesedesalttestamentlichenKanons,ŽKanonundZensur:Beitra¨gederArcha¨ologiederliterarischenKommunikationII,ed.JanAssmannandAleidaAssmann(Munich:WilhelmFink,1987),65…67.126.Thisisnottosaythatallvariantsaretobeexplainedasoralvariantsbutonlythatthepreponderanceoflarge-scaleandnonsigni“cantvariantsisbestexplainedbyacombinedoral-writtenprocessofthesortalsoseeninMesopotamiancolophonsandotherancientevidence.Oneparticularlystimulatinguseofversionsandparallelnarrativestoreconstructtextualhistory(withsensitivitytooral-writtenissues)isRaymondF.Person,TheKings-IsaiahandKings-JeremiahRecensions,BZAW(Berlin:DeGruyter,1997).ButnotethereviewofthisworkinHermann-JosefStipp,ReviewofRaymondF.Person,TheKings-IsaiahandKings-JeremiahRecensionsTC:AJournalofBiblicalTextualCriticism3(1998),availableonlineat:http//rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol03/Person1998rev-x.html,andotherstudiescitedinthatreview.127.SeeCancik,¨ge,54…64,forparticularlyinterestingparallelsfromtheHittitehistoriography.ForanearlierdiscussionoftheDeuteronomistichistoryasteachingliteratureseeDu¨rr,,100…101,whocitesNorbertPeters,UnsereBibel:DieLebensquellenderHeiligenSchrift(Paderborn:Bonifacius,1929),208…10.ForamorerecentdiscussionofsuccessiveeditionsoftheDeuteronomistichistoryascurricularmaterialsinearlyIsraeliteeducationseeAndre´Lemaire,TowardsaRedactionalHistoryoftheBookofKings,ŽinsideringIsraelandJudah:RecentStudiesontheDeuteronomisticHistory,ed.G.KnoppersandJ.G.McConville(WinonaLake,IN:Eisenbrauns,2000),446…61,esp.459…60(withcitationsofotherrecentliterature).
textualityandeducationinancientisrael(Counter)EducationintheProphetsNevertheless,DeuteronomyandtheDeuteronomistichistorywerenottheonlyoreventhe“rstalternativecurriculuminancientIsrael.Weseeasimilarsortofjuxtapositionoftypesofeducationinearlyprophets,particularlyIsaiah.Isaiahwasprobablyeducatedinatraditionalway,whetherinthefamily,court,ortemplescribalworkshop.IhavealreadydiscussedhowonepassageinIsa-iah,Isa28:9…13,probablyre”ectsaformofalphabeticeducationknownbyboththeprophetandhisopponents.Moreover,studiesbyJohannesFichtner,WilliamWhedbee,andothershavehighlightedhowearlypropheticmaterialinIsaiah1…39issaturatedwithformsandterminologyalsocharacteristicofearlyinstructionalliteratureofthesortfoundinProverbs.Nevertheless,Isaianicmaterialalsosuggestsacriticalattitudetowardtra-ditionalwisdomŽandapushtowardofferinganalternativeformofinstruc-tion.Onewoeoracleproclaimsjudgmentonagroupwhoiswiseintheirowneyes,Ždrunkardsandpervertersofjustice(5:21…24).AnotheroracleproclaimsthatwisdomshallperishfromthewiseŽ(29:14),andyetanotherjudgesthosewhogotoEgyptbecauseofitsmilitarymightratherthanconsultingYHWHwhoisalsowiseŽ(31:1…2).AsMichaelFishbaneandothershavesuggested,thismaywellre”ectIsaiahscritiqueofarevivalofwisdomunderthemenofHezekiah,Žperhapsunderthein”uenceofincominginstructionalmaterialfromtherecentlyfallennorthernkingdom.Itprobablyre”ectsasubstantialcritiquebyIsaiahofthechiefrepresentativesoftraditionaleducationofhisFurthermore,indicatorssuggestthatIsaiah,facingoppositioninhisday,soughttopassonhisprophecyasateachingŽtosubsequentgenerations.Forexample,afteraseriesofpassagesdescribingoppositiontoIsaiahsprophecy(8:5…15),thefollowingpassagedepictsanintentiontowrapupŽ/sealŽhisinstruction-teachingamidhisstudents:ŽWrapuptheinstruction[Sealtheteaching[]amongmystudents[IwillwaitforYHWH,whoishidinghisfacefromthehouseofJacob.Iwillhopeinhim.See,bothIandtheyoungboysthatYHWHhasgivenme,128.InwhatfollowsIwillrefersimplytoIsaiah,Žthoughthereisachancethatsomeofthesayingsoftenattributedtohimwereauthoredbysomeoneofanothername.129.SomekeystudiesareJohanesFichtner,JesajaunterdenWeisen,ŽTheologischeLiteraturzeitung(1949):75…80;WilliamWhedbee,IsaiahandWisdom(Nashville,TN:AbingdonPress,1971);JosephJensen,UseofTorabyIsaiah:HisDebatewiththeWisdomTradition,CBQMonographSeries(Washington,DC:CatholicBiblicalAssociationofAmerica,1973).ForadditionalstudiesandresponsestothemseethesurveyinJ.Crenshaw,TheWisdomLiterature,ŽinD.KnightandG.Tucker,ed.,TheHebrewBibleandItsModernInterpretersdelphia:Fortress,1985),371…373.130.Fishbane,BiblicalInterpretation,33.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationaresignsandwondersamidIsraelfromYHWH,thelordofarmies,whodwellsonZion(Isa8:1KingsalreadydescribedcirclesofsonsoftheprophetsŽasgroupssurround-ingother“gureslikeElijahandElisha,longbeforeIsaiah,butitincludednocleardescriptionofaprocessofeducatingthem(2Kings2:1…18;4:38;6:1…7).InthisIsaianicpassage,however,wehaveaclearerre”ectionofthesortofsmall-scaleeducationcharacteristicoftheancientculturesdiscussedhere.ThetermforstudentsŽusedhere,,iscognateforthewordforstudentsatUgarit,.Inthiscase,theymaynotbejuststudentsbutIsaiahsownchildren,giventohimfromYHWHŽandfeaturedprominentlyinthepre-cedingnarrative(7:3;8:1…4).Whetherornotthisistrue,theinstructionthathewrapsthemuporsealstheminisopposedtothatofothers.ThepassageisfollowedbyajudgmentoracleonopponentswhoinsistthatapeopleshouldseekinstructionŽ()andteachingŽ()notfromaprophetlikehimbutfromancestralgods,ŽfromthedeadŽ(8:19…20a).Tobesure,thereisnothinginIsa8:16…22explicitlyaboutwritingŽthisinstruction-teaching.Nevertheless,therearemultiplemarkersbothhereandelsewhereinIsaiahthatthiseducationalprocess,liketheothersdiscussedinthisandprecedingchapters,wasbothwrittenandoral.First,suchinstructionŽandtorahŽmentionedinIsa8:16,20,wasoftenwrittenaswellasoralintheancientworld,and8:16usesmetaphorsforhandlingscrolls„wrapupŽandsealŽ„totalkoftheprocessofinculcatingthisteachinginstudents.thispassageisitselfawrittentext,followingonandauthorizingotherwrittentexts.Indeed,thepassageoccurstowardtheconclusionofanoften-positedearlycollectionofIsaianicprophecy,thetestimonybook(Isa6…8*).Iftherewassuchabook,Isaiah8:16…18or8:16…22couldhaveservedasaconcludingcolophontoit,liketheconcludingcolophontoEcclesiastesthatwasdiscussedearlier(Eccl12:9…12[13…14]).Moreover,thereisanotherIsaiahtext,Isaiah30:8,thatrefersexplicitlytothewritingofprophecyamidreferencestothepeoplesrejectionoftheprophetsprophecyasarejectionoftheinstruction/ofYHWH(30:9…11),whoisthetrueteacher(30:20)andwiseone(31:2):Go,writeitdownonatablet,andinscribeitinascroll.131.ThistexthaslongbeenalocusclassicusfordiscussionsofIsraeliteeducation.SeeA.Klostermann,SchulwesenimaltenIsrael,ŽinTheologischeStudien:TheodorZahn,ed.N.Bonswetsch(Leipzig:A.Deichertsche,1908),193…232;Jensen,UseofTorabyIsaiah,110…12,andthesurveyofrecentdiscussioninLemaire,LesEcoles132.Jensen,UseofTorabyIsaiah,110…14.133.Ifthecolophonwassoplaced,itwouldauthorizenotonlythetextbutthestudent-bearersofit.FordiscussionofolderscholarshipandmorerecentcritiquesoftheIsaiahtestimonybookhypothesisseeBrevardS.Childs,,OTL(Louisville,KY:WestminsterJohnKnox,2001),42…44.Forarecentaf“rmationofthehypothesisseeJosephBlenkinsopp,Isaiah1…39:ANewTranslationwithIntroductionandCommentary,AB(NewYork:Doubleday,2000),223…24.
textualityandeducationinancientisraelSothatitmaybeforalatertime,Awitnessforever.Thistext,occurringtowardtheendofpropheciesattributedtotheeighth-centuryprophet,explicitlyauthorizeswrittenmaterial.Isaiahistotorah-teachingofYHWHforrebellioussonsŽwhodonotheedtheinstruc-tionofYHWHŽ(30:9).MuchasDeuteronomyincludedapassagetowardtheendabouthowitwaswrittenanddepositedwiththeLeviticalpriestsasawitnessŽagainstfuturegenerations(Deut31:25…27),soalsothispassageto-wardtheendof“rstIsaiahmateriallikewiseauthorizesitselfasawitnessŽforfuturegenerationsamidarebelliouscurrentone.Moreover,asinthecaseofthelaterDeuteronomicinstruction,thisIsaianictorah-teachingispositedastrueversussurroundingteachingsthatarefalse.Inthiscase,thefalseteach-ingsarefollowedbypeoplewhogotoEgyptandrejectthetruetorahofYHWH,theholyoneofIsrael(Isaiah30…31*).AsoftenintheancientworldandinlaterprophetslikeHabakkuk(2:2),isparticularlypermanent.Itpreservesaworkforitsappointedtime.Suchreferencecopies„whetherontabletorscroll„ensuredthepersis-tenceofagiventeachingintoagenerationthatwouldotherwisehaveforgottenkeypartsofanexclusivelyoraltorah.Indeed,asHaimGevaryahuhassug-gested,theverywritingofaprophecylikeIsaiahswasprobablyresponsibleforthecontinuedpreservationofremnantsofhiswords,asopposedtoourlackofcomparablesayingsmaterialfromprophetsŽlikeElijahandElisha.ProphetslikeIsaiahmarktheemergenceoforal-writtenpropheticeducationthatcouldserveasthecontextfortransmissionofagiveninstructiontolatergenerations.LiketheEgyptianscribeAmennakht(thoughprobablyfordiffer-entreasons),Isaiahappearstohaveproducedaminicurriculumofmaterialsgenres.ThisincludednotjustjudgmentsorpropheticteachingsŽ(e.g.Isa1:10…20)butalsoroyalhymns(e.g.,Isa9:1…6[ET9:2…7];11:1…9),parables(e.g.Isa5:1…7),andotherformsofliterature.IsaiahprobablyalsoresembledAmennakhtinnothavingaschoolŽwithaseparatebuildingorfull-timeteacher.IsaiahdidnotevennecessarilyhavestudentsŽotherthanhisownchildren.ButatleastIsaiahsstudents,hisequiv-alenttothesonsofprophetsŽ(cf.2Kgs2:1…18;4:38;6:1…7),succeededinpreservingsomeformoftheteaching-instructionthathadbeenwrappedup/sealedinthem.ThebookofJeremiahistheothermajorsourceofpropheticmaterialrelatingtooral-writtentransmissionandinstruction.Thebookandprophetdepicted134.FordiscussionsofthisinrelationtoIsa30:8;Hab2:2,andothertextsseeGevaryahu,Baruch,theScribe,Ž207;MichaelH.Floyd,WritingandProphecyinHabbakuk2,1…5,ŽZAW105(1993):462…81;EhudBenZvi,Introduction:SettinganAgenda,ŽinBenZviandFloyd,WritingsandSpeech,135.Gevaryahu,Baruch,theScribe,Ž203.136.FordiscussionofthecaseofAmennakhtseechapter4,p.70.137.Gevaryahu,Baruch,theScribe,Ž205.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationinithavenumerousparallelstoIsaiah.AsthesonofHilkiahfromthepriestsofAnathoth(Jer1:1),Jeremiah,likeIsaiah,probablyreceivedanearliertradi-tionaleducation.AsinthecaseofIsaiah,thematerialinthebookofJeremiahre”ectsformsandconceptualityfoundinearlyeducationalliteraturelikeProv-Yet,likeIsaiah,Jeremiahisdepictedasopposingthechiefrepresen-tativesofsuchwisdomduringhisday.Hecritiquesthosewhoclaimtobewiseandwhopervertthetorahwiththeirfalsepen(Jer8:8…9;cf.Isa5:21…24),andheattacksopponentswhoproceedwithplotsagainsthimbecauseoftheirconvictionthatinstruction[]willnotperishfromthepriest,norcounselfromthewise,norawordfromtheprophetŽ(Jer18:18;cf.Isa29:14).ThelatterquotationsuggestsaconceptualitywheretorahteachinginJer-emiahisassociatednotwithprophetsbutwithpriests.Thus,JeremiahshouldnottooquicklybemergedwithIsaiah.Moreover,Jeremiahdoesnotuseteachingterminologyforhisprophecy,atleastnottothesameextentwesawinpassageslikeIsaiah8:16…18.Nevertheless,thereareindicationsthatJeremiah,likeIsaiah,drewonoral-writtenprocessesfortransmissionofhisprophecy,thankstowhichwenowhavethebookunderhisname.Moreover,despitethegenerallackofteachingterminology,thissystemowedmuchtotheoral-writtenteachingsystemthatJeremiahandsomeofhissupportershadundergone.Thechiefindicatorsofthis,asGevaryahuinparticularhasshown,arefoundinJeremiah36,oneofthemostexplicitdiscussionsofreadingandwritingintheHebrewBible.AsinthecasesdiscussedinIsaiah(Isa8:16;30:8),Jeremiahreceivesadivinecommandtowritedownhisprophecyforafuturegenerationbecauseofoppositionfromhiscontemporaries(Jer36:1…3).UnlikeinIsaiah,wethenhearofJeremiahcallingascribe,Baruch,whowritesdownJeremiahswordsforhimatJeremiahsdictationŽ(mippiyirm;Jer36:4;cf.36:32).Moreover,becauseJeremiahispreventedfromenteringthetemple,BaruchgoesonJeremiahsorderstodeliverorallythewordsofthescrollhehaswritten,“rsttothepeopleatthenewgateofthetemple(36:9…10)andthentoagroupofof“cialsoftheking(36:11…19).Afterassessingthatthescrollwasindeedproducedbydictation(36:17…18),theof“cialstellBaruchandJeremiahtohide(36:19)beforeinformingKingJehoiakim,whograduallydestroysthescrollwhenhehearsitreadtohim(36:20…26).This,however,isnottheendoftheprophetictransmissionprocess.Rather,Jeremiahreceivesyetanothercommandtoproduceascrollofhissayings,andBaruchproducesarevised138.Demsky,Education,Ž396…97.139.T.R.Hobbs,SomeProverbialRe”ectionsintheBookofJeremiah,ŽZAW91(1979):62…72.LaterinthischapterIdiscussthereferencestowritingontheheartŽinJeremiah.140.SeeChristofHardmeier,WahrhaftigkeitundFehlorientierungbeiJeremia:Jer5,1unddiedivina-torischeExpertiseJer2…6*imKontextderzeitgono¨ssischenKontroversenumdiepolitischeZukunftJerusa-lems,ŽinExegesevorOrt:Festschriftfu¨rPeterWeltenzum65.Geburtstag,ed.ChristlMaier(Leipzig:EvangelischeVerlagsanstalt,2001),137…39,whomakesagoodargumentthatJeremiahspriestlyidentityandthecharacterofJeremiah2…6suggestthatitmayhavehadthestatusofadivinatorydocument.141.ThatisaliabilityofadiscussionlikethatinGevaryahu,Baruch,theScribe,Ž203,whichonlyem-phasizessimilarities.
textualityandeducationinancientisraelandexpandedversionatthedictationofJeremiah(36:27…32).ApparentlyBa-ruchdidnotexperiencethetypicalgloriesofascribeasaresultofhisasso-ciationwithJeremiah.Towardtheendofthebookwe“ndanoracledirectedtowardhimfromJeremiahonthewritingofthescroll,whenheapparentlyhasofferedthefollowinglament.Woeisme!YHWHhasaddedgrieftomypain;Iamwornoutfrommygroaning,andI“ndnorestŽ(Jer45:3).Tothis,God„asquotedbyJeremiah„replieswithacommandnottoseekgreatthingsforhimself.Hewillreceivehisownlifeasaprizeofwaramidthedevastationtobevisitedonthewholeland(45:5).NowhereisBaruchcalledastudentŽofJeremiah,yetheperformsmanysimilarfunctions.HecomestoJeremiahalreadyascribe,Žmuchasmoreadvancedstudentswouldhavecomeafterreceivingearlyeducationintheirfamilyor(morerarely)aschool.Likeanadvancedstudent,hereceivestextbydictation,atextthatismeanttobedeliveredinoralform.Moreover,thisoral-writtentextualtradition„likeotherswehaveseen„isnot“xedbutisgivenmultiplerecensionsbythemasterwhodictates,inthiscaseJeremiah(36:27…32).Finally,asGevaryahuobserves,thedataintheJeremiahtraditionresemblesthatincludedinsomeMesopotamiancolophonsinrecordingnotonlythenameoftheoriginatingmasterbutalsothenameofBaruch,thescribe,andinemphasizingthefactthathereceivedthetraditionbymouthŽ(36:4,17…18;45:1).ThusBaruchescapestheanonymityofthetransmittersoftheIsaiahtradition.Moreover,standingattheedgeofthecatastropheofexile,heservesasacrucialoral-writtenbridgetolaterperiods,connectingthelargelyrejectedprophecyofJeremiahwithlatergenerationswhowouldreceivethatwordmorepositively.WhetheratBaruchshandsorthoseoflatertradents,thisprophecyisstylizedinwaysthatrecalltheoral-writtendynamicsseenearlierinProverbs,Deuteronomy,andIsaiah.Onceagain,writingmetaphorsareusedtodescribetheprocessoftransmission,bothhowsiniswrittenontheheartsoftheJu-deansandhowGodwillwriteGodsTorahontheirhearts.Inthe“rstinstance,Jeremiah17describestheimpactonchildrenwhentheirparentshavethewrongthingwrittenontheirhearts:ThesinofJudahiswrittenwithanironpeninscribedwithadiamondtipOnthetabletoftheirheart-mind142.Gevaryahu,Baruch,theScribe,Ž241…42.143.Gevaryahu,Baruch,theScribe,Ž209.144.Gevaryahu,Baruch,theScribe,Ž204.145.SeeGevaryahu,Baruch,theScribe,Ž203,205…9,forspeculationonthereasonsforthis.Gevaryahualsoemphasizes(220…21)thepossibilitythatBaruchmayhavebeenresponsbilefortheunusuallyextensivesuperscriptionsysteminJeremiah,thoughhenotesthatitisdif“culttodistinguishBaruchsworkfromthatofhissuccessors.146.Gevaryahu,Baruch,theScribe,Ž240…42.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationonthehornsoftheiraltars.Astheirchildrenremembertheiraltarsand.(Jer17:1…2*)Thistextshowshowthemetaphorofwritingonthemindcanbeusedtodescribethecorruptionofthemindaswellasitscultivation.LaterJeremiah31:33…34describeshowGodwilladdresscorruptionofthepeoplethroughre-placingtheirteachingwithGodsteaching:ThisisthecovenantthatIwillmakewiththehouseofIsraelafterthosedays,saystheLORD:Iwillputmytorahteachingwithinthem,andIwillwriteitontheirhearts;andIwillbetheirGod,andtheyshallbemypeople.Nolongershalltheyteachoneanother,orsaytoeachother,KnowtheLORD,Žfortheyshallallknowme,fromtheleastofthemtothegreatest,saystheLORD;forIwillfor-givetheiriniquity,andremembertheirsinnomore.(NRSV,empha-sisadded)Inthiscase,theprocessofdivineinscriptionontheheartandmindiscon-trastedwiththeprocessofmakingtheformercovenantwhereGodmarriedthem(altibam;31:32).ThemetaphorofGodasteachersucceedsandsu-persedesthemetaphorofGodashusband(31:31…32).Forthisauthor,writingontheheartŽisamoreeffectivewayofbindingIsraeltoGodthanismarryingher.Manyhavearguedthatthelatterpassage,Jer31:31…34,ispartlyanexilicDredactionofJeremiah,andthebroaderphenomenonofthepredominanceofsuchDŽelementsinJeremiahmayindicateanotherimportantstepinthetransmissionoftheJeremiahtraditions.ThoughcertainearlypartsoftheJer-emiahtraditionappearfairlydistinctfromtheDeuteronomistichistory,sub-stantialpartsofJeremiahareunusuallysaturatedwithlanguageandconcep-tualityreminiscentofDeuteronomicandDeuteronomisticmaterials.PerhapsthefamilyofJosiahsscribe,Shaphan,developedaneducationalsystemfo-cusedonDeuteronomicmaterialsthat(later?)includedmaterialsfromJere-miahaswell.CertainlydescendantsofShaphanarementionedinthebookofJeremiahasamonghisprotectorsandsupporters(Jer26:24;29:3;36:10…19;cf.40:1…16).Ifthiswereso,thescribesresponsibleforfurthertransmittingJeremiahwouldhaveingestedDeuteronomicandDeuteronomistictextsaspartoftheirformation.Asaresultoftheirmemorizationofthistextualrepertoire,termsandphrasesfromsuchclassictexts„moreorlessslightlymodi“ed„wouldcometotheirlipsandpensastheytransmittedthelegal,historical,andprophetictraditionstheyhadreceived.Forexample,havingmemorizedthe147.SiegfriedHermann,Jeremia:DerProphetunddasBuch,Ertra¨gederForschung(Darmstadt:Wissen-schaftlicheBuchgesellschaft,1990),76…77,providesabriefsummary.148.FordiscussionofwritingandthecircleofJeremiahssupportersseeGevaryahu,Baruch,theScribe,Ž
textualityandeducationinancientisraelDeuteronomicinjunctiontohavethewords[God]iscommandinginyourheartŽ(Deut6:6)andput[Gods]wordsonyourheartandsoulŽ(11:18)theythenmighteasilywriteaprophecyfromJeremiahthatspokeofhowGodwillputmytorahinthemandwriteitontheirheartŽ(Jer31:33).ThisisavisionofdivineeducationinthebookofJeremiahbuiltontheeducationalvisionintheDeuteronomicutopiaandspokenintheDeuteronomicidiom.ThebookofEzekieldoesnotcontainexplicitteachingimagerylikethatofIsaiah.Nevertheless,Ezekielisyetanother“gure„likeJeremiah„whoprob-ablyreceivedaneducationwithinthecontextofthepriesthood(Ezek1:3).Moreover,hisprophecycontainsvividimageryoftheoral-writtenmatrix.RatherthanusingwritingmetaphorsofthesortseeninJer31:33,EzekielspeaksofGodgivingthepeopleoneheart,Žanewheart,ŽoranewspiritŽ(Ezek11:19;18:31;36:26;cf.11:21;14:3…5;16:30;40:4;44:5,7,9).Nevertheless,EzekielscallnarrativeincludesavividdescriptionofhimactuallyingestingGodswordsinwrittenform:Ilooked,andahandwasstretchedouttome,andawrittenscrollwasinit.Hespreaditbeforeme;ithadwritingonthefrontandontheback,andwrittenonitwerewordsoflamentationandmourn-ingandwoe.Hesaidtome,Omortal,eatwhatisofferedtoyou;eatthisscroll,andgo,speaktothehouseofIsrael.SoIopenedmymouth,andhegavemethescrolltoeat.Hesaidtome,Mortal,eatthisscrollthatIgiveyouand“llyourstomachwithit.ThenIateit;andinmymouthitwasassweetashoney.(Ezek2:9…3:3,NRSV)Havingthusingestedatext,Ezekielisthentoldtogoandittothepeople,whetherornottheyhear(Ezek3:4…11;seealso33:30…33).Thusthetextmovesfromapictureoftheprophetingestingawholetext,thescroll,tohiscom-municatingthiswordŽorallytothebroaderpopulace.ThisresemblesthedepictionofJeremiahinJeremiah36,whoisabletodictatetheentirecontentsofhisearlierscroll(andmore!)toBaruchafterthe“rstcopywasdestroyed(Jer36:32;cf.36:4,17…18,27…32).Bothtexts„EzekielscallandtheJeremiahnar-rative„envisionaworldwhere“gureslikeprophetscouldholdentiretextsintheirmindsandheartswhichtheythenorallycommunicatedtootherIsrael-ites.YetwritingcontinuestobeimportantintheEzekieltradition.LikebothIsaiahandJeremiah,EzekielisdepictedasreceivingacommandtowritedownŽhisvision(ofthetemple)foralatergenerationwhocanhearhim(EzekWeseeexplicituseofeducationalterminologyinthelaterexilicandpostexilicportionsofthebookofIsaiah.Inawrittenpassagethatrepeatedlyechoesan149.Demsky,Education,Ž396…97.150.Gevaryahu,Baruch,theScribe,Ž237.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationancientoraleducationalcontextwithitsfrequentbeatings,anexilic(orpost-exilic)writerauthorizeshisownwordswiththefollowing.TheLordYHWHhasgivenmethetongueofateacher,thatImayknowhowtosustainthewearywithaword.Morningbymorninghewakens,wakensmyeartolistenasthosewhoaretaught.TheLordGODhasopenedmyear,andIwasnotrebellious,Ididnotturnbackward.Igavemybacktothosewhostruckme,andmycheekstothosewhopulledoutthebeard;Ididnothidemyfacefrominsultandspitting.(Isa50:4…6,NRSV,adapted)Thespeakeradoptsthestanceofsomeonewhoknowstheexperienceofastudentandisundergoingitagain.OnlynowhisearsŽareopentoGodsinstruction,whileheenduresthebeatingsofhishumanpeers.thesameorasimilarauthorelsewherecharacterizesGodasateacherŽ(48:17)andpromisesZionthatallhersonswillbestudentsŽ()ofYHWH,muchashewas(54:13;cf.50:4…5).AsinearlierIsaiah,theimportantteachingisGods,tobereceivedthroughtheearoftheprophetandpreservedinwriting,aswellasdeliveredorally.Ofcourse,thepropheticwritingsarefarlessfocusedonrevealingthecontextoftheirowntransmissionthanonGodsvisionforIsrael.Onthebasisoftheevidenceprovidedbythepropheticbooks,itisimpossibletoreconstructfullythemixofgroupsresponsibleforthediversepropheticwritingsthatmadeitintotheBible.Sometimesweseesnapshotsofsupportersorothergroupssurroundingagivenprophetic“gurelikeJeremiah(e.g.Jer36:25)orZechariah(Zech11:11).SometimescluesliketheDeuteronomisticlanguageinthebookofJeremiahsuggestalinkagewithotherbiblicaltraditionsintheenculturationtransmissionprocess.Generally,wecannotknowthedevelopmentofuseofthesetextsnorthecirclesthatusedthem,butwedoknowthattheprophetictextsfoundtheirwayintothepresentBible.Whatevertheirorigins,theywerenolongermerearchivalrecordsofapropheticwordorscholarlynotationsoforaclesgiven.Instead,suchpropheticwordseventuallybecamepartofastreamofeducational-enculturationaloral-writtenliteratureusedintheformationof(elite)Israelites.ThecolophonattheendofHosea,theintroductorybookintheBookoftheTwelveProphets,pointstothisunderstandingofprophetic151.ThistextwasalreadyintroducedtothediscussionofancientIsraeliteteachingbyKlostermann.ForamorerecentdiscussionusingcomparativematerialseeGevaryahu,Baruch,theScribe,Ž237.152.Jensen,UseofTorabyIsaiah,124…32.153.Gevaryahu,Baruch,theScribe,Ž236.
textualityandeducationinancientisraelTheonewhoiswisewillunderstand,Theonewhoisdiscerningwillknowthem.ForthewaysofYHWHarestraight,therighteouswalkinthem,whilethewickedstumbleinthem.(Hos14:10[ET14:9])Throughthissubscription,theprecedingmaterialinHoseaisdesignatedasshapedforthosewhoarewise.ŽThishardlymeansthatHoseawasproducedorrevisedbyaspecialgroupofsages.ŽRather,thiscolophonisanindicatorthatbookslikeHoseahadenteredthestreamofvariouskindsofliterature,includingbookslikeProverbsandDeuteronomy,thatcouldbeusedforgainingandkeepingwisdom„inotherwords,foreducation.SucheducationaluseofpropheticmaterialissomewhatunusualinthebroaderscopeoftheancientNearEast.OnepossibleanalogymaybeNeo-AssyrianreferencecopiesofmultipleoraclesfromIshtar.Amoregeograph-icallyproximateanalogy,proposedbyLemaire,istheDeirAllasite,whereanabecedary,probablyusedineducation,wasfoundalongwithawall-copyofthescrolloftheseer,Balaam,sonofBeor.ŽPerhapsin“rstmillennium,northwestSemiticcultureslikethosemanifestatDeirAllaandintheBible,propheciesweretheequivalentoftheextensivedivinatorycollectionsusedinadvancedMesopotamianeducation,withprophets„someofwhom(e.g.,Jer-emiah,Ezekiel)werepriests„playingadivinatoryrole.Where“rst-millenniumMesopotamianscholarswerelearningtoreadŽtheheavensandvariousomens,“rst-millenniumIsraelitesandtheirneighborsstudiedthescrollsŽofseerslikeBalaamorIsaiah.WithinMesopotamia,suchwritingswereusedonahighleveltoeducatespecialistsinthehighestformofcosmichermeneutics.Soalso,withinIsrael,propheticwritingsappeartohavebeenusedinitiallytoenculturateasmallgroupofsonsŽ(e.g.Isa8:16…18)andweretransmittedthroughindividuals(e.g.Baruch).Yettheinclusionofthisspe-cialistliteratureintheBibletesti“estothefactthatitgainedabroaderaudi-ence.Prophetshadbeencommandedtowritetheirwordsforafuturegener-ation(Isa8:16;30:8;Jer36:1…3;Hab2:2…3),andlatergenerationsapparentlyheardthem.154.NoteargumentsbysomeforspecialwisdomŽmaterialinHabbakuk:DonaldGowan,HabbakukandWisdom,Ž9(1968):157…66;GaryA.Tuttle,WisdomandHabakkuk,ŽStudiaBiblicaetTheologica3(1973):3…14.155.NoteMarttiNissinen,Spoken,Written,QuotedandInvented:OralityandWrittennessinAncientNearEasternProphecy,ŽinBenZviandFloyd,WritingsandSpeech,156.Andre´Lemaire,LesinscriptionssurplatredeDeirAllaetleursigni“cationhistoriqueetculturelle,ŽTheBalaamTextfromDeirAllaReevaluated,ed.J.HoftijzerandG.vanderKooij(Leiden:Brill,1991),52…55.157.Hardmeier,WahrhaftigkeitundFehlorientierung,Ž137…39.158.ForanearlierdiscussionoftheschoolŽcontextofprophecies,particularlyJeremiahs,thatusesextensivecomparisonswithscribalandschoolpracticesofotherculturesseeGevaryahu,Baruch,theScribe,Žesp.pp.203…5,209,215…16,220…21.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationOtherBiblicalLiteratureasEducationalLiterature:Torah,Psalms,andOtherTextsSofarwehaveseenseveralbiblicalparallelstothesortsoftextsusedinancienteducation:gnomic/instructionalwisdom(e.g.Proverbs),didactictales(e.g.Job),law(e.g.Deuteronomy),andhistoricalmaterial.Wehavealsoseentheeducationaluseofatypeofmaterial,prophecy,thatisonlyobliquelyattestedineducationelsewhere.Butthereareseveralothersortsoflong-durationtextsthatweretransmittedineducation-enculturationinotherancientculturesandhavenotbeendiscussedinthischaptersofar:cultic-priestlyinstruction,semi-mythicearlynarratives,andhymns.Suchtextsinotherculturesarealmostnevermarkedbytheircontentsaseducational.Wewouldrarelyknowoftheireducationalfunctionasidefromtheoral-writtendynamicsoftheirtransmis-sionortheirattestationinschoolexercisecopies.Thesameissomewhattrueofbiblicalnarratives,priestlyinstructions,andhymns.Nevertheless,Iwillshowsomeexplicitmarksthattheywereusedineducation-enculturationand(re)shapedforthatpurpose.Priestsintheancientworldwereamongthemostliteratemembersofthepopulace,andpriests,particularlyLevites,areoftendepictedinbiblicalnar-rativesasthekeepersofthetexts(e.g.Deut31:9…11;cf.Num5:23)andtheteachersofIsrael(Hos4:6;Deut17:9…12;31:10…13;2Chr19:8…11;Neh8:8…9).Notably,theLevitesarealsoidenti“edinChroniclesasthemusiciansandsingersofancientIsrael(e.g.1Chr25:2…6;2Chr5:12),perhapsindicatingajoin„onthepriestlylevel„betweensongandtextthatwasevidentinotherculturesaswell.Thetermfortheirteachingistorah,ŽasinJeremiahsquo-tationofopponentswhoclaimthattorahwillneverperishfromthepriestsŽ(Jer18:18),thoughothers,likeprophets,areknowntooffersuchtorahteach-ingsaswell.LeviticusandNumbersareparticularlysaturatedwithremnantsofpriestlyteachings,completewithsuperscriptionsofthesorttypicalofscribaleducationaltransmission.Someappeartofollowchiasticdesignsofthesortusedelsewheretoorganizeoral-writtenmaterialforeasymemori-Nevertheless,suchpriestlyteachingsinthePentateucharedistin-guishedinakeyrespectfromtheircounterpartsinothercultures.PriestlyinstructionoutsideIsraelwasreservedforadvancedranksofculticprofes-sionals.Culticregulationsdidnotplaythegeneraleducationalroleofgno-micmaterial,narratives,orhymns.Incontrast,the/teachingsinLevit-icusandNumbersnowsitinatext,thePentateuch,usedbyabroader159.A.F.Rainey,TheOrderofSacri“cesinOldTestamentRitualTexts,Ž51(1970):307…18;MichaelFishbane,AccusationsofAdultery:AStudyofLawandScribalPracticeinNumbers5:11…31,Ž45(1974):32…35;OnColophons,TextualCriticismandLegalAnalogies,Ž42(1980):438…49.160.AnearlystudyofthisphenomenonintheOldTestament,N.W.Lund,ThePresenceofChiasmusintheOldTestament,ŽAmericanJournalofSemiticLanguagesandLiteratures46(1929):114…21,foundapartic-ularlyhighproportionofexamplesinLeviticus(Lev11:24…28;14:10…20,21…32,49…53;24:13…23).
textualityandeducationinancientisraelThePentateuchalsoincludesanotherkeytypeoflong-durationmaterialthatwastypicallyusedelsewhereinancienteducation:narrativesthatfocusonhistorylongbeforeanycontemporaryroyaldynasty.ThisbroadcategorywouldcovertextsliketheEnumaElishcreationaccount,Atrahasiscreationand”oodstory,Gilgameshstory,andHomericepic.TheBibleincludesparticularlycloseparallelstothesenonbiblicaltextsinGenesis1…11,whichcoversbothcreationand”ood.Nevertheless,othernarrativesintheBiblelikewisefocusonearly,pre-landancestral“guresinIsraelshistory(e.g.,Abraham,Sarah,Isaac,Re-bekkah,Jacob).Unlikethepriestlyteachings,theearliest,non-Pversionsofthesenarrativesarenotseparatedbydifferentsuperscriptions.Perhapstheywerelost,ortheymayhavebeenlongercontinuoustexts.Somemayhavebeenproducedfornoneducationalpurposes.Nevertheless,thesenarrativesalsocametobeincludedinthepresentPentateuch,aliterarywholethatnowgoesbythetermteachingŽ/Asmuchscholarshipinthepasthasstressed,thepresentwholeofthePentateuchiscomplex.Itnowbeginswithandcontinueswithnarrative,in-cludespriestlyinstructionslikethoseinLeviticus,andconcludeswiththeDeu-teronomicteaching.ŽYetboththeplacementofthesematerialsandtheirlaterusageappeartohaveledtoanextensionoftheconceptoftorahŽtoincludenotjustpriestlyteachingsorDeuteronomybutthebroaderliterarywhole.ThoughtheinjunctiontoconstantlyrecitetorahŽinJosh1:8originallymayhavereferredtotheDeuteronomicTorahandnotthePentateuch,itnowreferstothewholeTorah,standingasitdoesjustafteritsconclusion.Furthermore,weseesimilarterminologyregardingconstantrecitationlaterinPsalm1:2,whichproclaimsthehappinessofthosewhosedelightistheTorahofGod,andhisTorahtheyrecitequietlydayandnight.ŽThesetextsfromJoshuaandPsalmsaresimilarenoughthatsomehaveusedthemtopositaneditorialredactionthatlinkedthePsalmswiththeTorahandhistoricalbooks.importantpointforourpurposes,however,isthattheyconstruetheTorahasawrittentexttobeinternalizedthroughoralrecitation.Whatevertheoriginalusageandoriginofitsnarrativesandlaws,thosetextsnowformpartofaTorahwholethatistakenasoral-writtenliterature:nevertoleavethemouth,tobereciteddayandnight.TheDeuteronomicauthorsmayoriginallyhavecon-ceivedofconstantrecitationofjusttheirowntorahteaching,butthoseclaimsofprimacyhavenowbeenextendedtocoverarangeofpriestlyandotherpre-landtraditionsaswell.Thelastmajorcategoryofancienteducationaltextissongorhymn.Ihavealreadydiscussedhowcertainsongsembeddedinnarratives,likethesongofMosesandDavidslamentoverJonathan,areexplicitlyidenti“edintheircon-161.ForanoverviewofpotentiallinkagesseeCarr,ReadingtheFractures,241…46.162.ThegenealogicalsuperscriptionsofGenesis(e.g.,2:4a;5:1;andsoon)arewidelyagreedtobelaterpriestlyadditions.163.Du¨rr,,77;Lemaire,LesEcoles,esp.72…83.164.OdilHannesSteck,DerAbschlussderProphetieimAltenTestament:EinVersuchzurFragederVorges-chichtedesKanons,Biblisch-theologischeStudien(Neukirchen-Vluyn:NeukirchenerVerlag,1991),161…63.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationtextsasoral-writtenliteraturetobetaught.ThebookofPsalmsstandsasanothermajorsourceofIsraeliteoral-writtenteachingliterature.ThisdoesnotmeanthatallPsalmswerewrittenfromtheoutsettoserveaneducationalpurpose.Manywereusedinworshiporareimitationsofformsactuallyusedinworship.ThepresentwrittenPsalter,however,thoroughlyre”ectsitsfunc-tionasteachingliterature,indeed,literatureforteachingtorahpiety.Thein-troductoryPsalm1,quotedearlier,callsforconstantrecitationofTorah.ThecalltolearnandteachTorahŽinPsalm78(78:1),whateveritsoriginalreferent,nowfunctionstodirectitshearerstowardoral-writteningestionofthePenta-teuch.ThelongestPsalm(119)isanacrosticpoemcallingforsimilarrecitationofanddevotiontoTorah.Inaddition,thePsalterfeaturesseveralso-calledwisdompsalmsthatareparticularlydensewithterminologyfoundinearlyinstructionalliteraturelikeProverbs,anditincludesseveralacrosticpoems,inadditiontoPsalm119(Pss9…10;25;34;145),thatusethealphabeticprincipletoaidmemorizationandrecitationoftheirvariedcontents.Indeed,onepsalmevenusesthewritingontheheartŽimageryseeninProverbsandelsewhere,nowtalkingoftheinternalizationofGodsTorahandthesuperiorityofanopenearŽtoculticSacri“ceandofferingyoudonotdesire,butyouhavegivenmeanopenear.Burntofferingandsinofferingyouhavenotrequired.ThenIsaid,HereIam;inthescrollofthebookitiswrittenofme.Idelighttodoyourwill,OmyGod;yourtorah-teachingisinmyinmostparts.Ž(Ps40:7…9[ET40:6…8],NRSV,modi“ed)This,alongwithotherTorah-focusedpsalms,nowsetsthetonewithinabroaderpsalterthatisintroducedbyPsalm1anddividedbydoxologiesinto“vepartsmirroringthe“vepartsofthePentateuchalTorah:3…41;42…72;73…89;90…106;107…149.Insum,despitetheprobableculticoriginsofcertainpsalmsandgenresusedinthebookofPsalms,thePsalterasawholeisnowpartofabroadereducationalprocess,interlacedwithscribalsuperscriptionsofthesortwehaveseensofrequentlyelsewhereineducationallong-durationliterature(oftenincludingmusicalnotations),shapedthroughtheirmusical-poeticform(andoccasionalacrosticform)foreducationalmemorization,oftenechoingso-calledwisdomthemesofearlyteachingtexts,mirroringtheTorahteachinginstructure,andcallingatstrategicpointsforconstantoralinternal-izationoftheTorah.165.Seeabove,pp.132…33.166.ForanearlierdiscussionseeJ.Reindl,WeisheitlicheBearbeitungvonPsalmen,ŽinCongressVolume:Vienna1980,VTSup,ed.J.Emerton(Leiden:Brill,1981),340…41.OnwisdomPsalmsŽseetheoverviewof
textualityandeducationinancientisraelTheSongofSongsstandsasyetanotherexampleofabiblicaltextpossiblytransmittedwithinthecontextofeducation.Inchapter4IdiscussedhowloveliteratureliketheSongofSongswasadocumentedpartofeducationinancientMesopotamia,Egypt,andUgarit.ThereIarguedthat,whateveritsoriginsinearlyIsraelitebanquets,itprobablyenteredScriptureasanincreasinglyfre-quentpartofearlyIsraeliteeducation.Moreover,it„likeProverbsandEccle-siastes„wasattributedtothepreeminentIsraelitesage,Solomon.Someotherbiblicaltextsarelesslikelycandidatesforextensiveuseineducation.Forexample,thebookofChronicles,despiteitsintensivefocusonteachingandeducation,doesnotseemtohaveplayedacentralroleatanypointofJewisheducation.ItappearstobeareformulationofmaterialalsoseenintheDeuteronomistichistory,areformulationthatneverdidmorethanstandinitsshadow.Othermegillot(scrolls),likeEsther,seemtohaveplayedtheirprimaryeducationalroleinthemicroeducationalcontextofanannualfestival,Puriminthiscase.Thisideaoforal-writteneducation-enculturationshouldnotbepushedtoofar.SomepartsoftheBiblemayhavebeenincludedinthebroaderlibraryofIsraeliteheritage,despitetheironlyoccasionaluseforformationandconsultation.Thepointarguedsofar,however,isthefollowing:suchbooksarefarmoretheexceptioninthebib-licaltraditionthantherule.Moreover,thosepartsthatwerenotusedinei-therongoingeducationorregularfestival„forexample,ChroniclesandEzra-Nehemiah„wereprobablyincludedbyvirtueoftheirparalleltoandassociationwithotheritems„forexample,thehistoryextendingfromGen-esisthrough2Kings„thatwere.ThoughwecannotknowexactlywhichbiblicaltextswereusedinIsraeliteeducation,thescopeofmaterialcoveredwasremarkablybroad.Tobesure,itisdif“cultforcontemporaryscholarstoimagineachievingmemorizedmasteryofsuchavastcorpus.Suchmemorizationisraretoday,exceptperhapsforthememorizationoftheKoranintraditionalIslamiceducation.Andindeed,suchmemorizationwasprobablynottypicalinancientIsrael.IhavearguedherethatfewIsraelitesachievedmasteryofeventheearlierstagesofsucheduca-tion„whetherdominatedbyProverbs,DeuteronomicTorah,orthePenta-teuch.Fewerstillwouldhaveachievedmasteryofthewhole.Still,wehaveattestationofelitescribe-scholarsachievingmasteryofsim-ilarsizedcorporainothercultures.AsWilliamHallopointsout,thepresentHebrewBible,atapproximatelytwenty-threethousandverses,iscomparableinsizetotheGreekHomericcorpusoftwenty-eightthousandlinesandsome-whatsmallerthantheSumerianeducationalcorpusofapproximatelyfortyliteratureanddiscussioninJamesL.Crenshaw,ThePsalms:AnIntroduction(GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans,2001),87…95.CrenshawsargumentsagainstaseparategenreofwisdomPsalmŽdovetailwiththepresentargumentsfortheinstructionalcharacterofthePsalterasawhole.
167.Seeearlier,pp.88…90.ThiswashelpedbySolomonsreputationforloveandthementionthathecomposedmanysongsandproverbs,alongwiththereferencetohisweddingandroyallitterin3:7…10(possiblyaddedatthetimeofascription?).Butitalsocon”ictedwithelementslikeSongofSongs8,whereSolomonspossessionofavineyardiscontrastedwiththelovedepicted.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationthousandlines.AndthoughonemightobjectthatHomericorSumerianpoetryisbettersuitedtomemorizationthanbiblicalprose,itshouldbenotedthatsuchprosecanbepoeticizedbybeingorganizedintocantedlinesandreinforcedthroughsemimusicalperformance,asithasbeenbylaterJewishcommunities.Thereareavarietyofways,poetryŽbeingonlyone,ofshapingacorpussothatitcanbeincisedonthemindandheart.HebrewandForeignFormsofEducationin(andbefore)AncientIsraelSofartheclaimsmadeinthischapterarefairlylimited.Someothershavefeltabletosaymorespeci“cthingsaboutliteratepersonnel,theprocessoftraining,andtheproductionanduseoftextsinancientIsrael.Thischapter,however,hasconcentratedonbuildingthecaseforapictureoforal-writteneducationofaliterateeliteinIsrael,aprocessbeginningwithbutsometimesbuildingfarbeyondalphabeticliteracytoencompassenculturationaccomplishedpartlybymeansofmemorizationandrecitationofwrittentexts.Ihavearguedthatmuchofbiblicalliteraturecametoserveaskeypartsofanindigenouscurric-ulumforearlyIsraelitescribesandotherliteratemembersoftheupperclass.Thatsaid,ancientIsraelmaynothavebeencon“nedinallperiodsandcontextstoinstructioninHebrewliterature.TheHezekiah-Isaiahnarrativefeaturesatantalizingstoryaboutthreeof“cials„theoneoverthepalace(Eliakim),theroyalscribe(Shebna),andtherecorder(Joah)„askingtheRab-shekahtospeakhistauntsinAramaicratherthanHebrewsothatthepeoplewillnotunderstand(2Kgs18:26//Isa36:11).Thus,theauthorpresupposesthatof“cialsofthissorthadreceivedtraininginAramaic,thelinguafrancaofthelateAssyrian,Neo-Babylonian,andPersianempires,givingthemacom-petencethenlackinginthegeneralpopulace.WesawsimilarforeignlanguagetrainingintheSumero-Akkadiantradition,includingattestationoutsideMes-opotamiaduringthesecondmillennium,whenAkkadianwasthelinguafrancaofmuchoftheNearEasternworld.Therefore,itwouldbemistakentoassumethatIsraelanditsmostim-portantCanaaniteprecursorsalwayshadonlyasingle-trackeducationalsystemfocusedonindigenouslanguagetexts(e.g.,Ugaritic,Canaanite,orHebrew).InearlierchaptersIdiscussedsomefaintcluesthatIsraelwasin”uencedbythetextual-educationalsystemsofancientMesopotamiaandEgypt.Moreover,weknowthatAramaicbecameincreasinglyimportantinancientIsrael,bothbecauseofinteractionwiththeAramaeankingdomsandthearrivalofforeignconquerorswhousedAramaicforinternationalcommunication.Giventhisdata,itislikelythatsomeroyalof“cialslikeEliakim,Shebna,andJoahunder-wentspeci“cinstructioninanotherlanguage,languageinstructionthat„in168.Hallo,SumerianLiterature,Ž30,38,n.5.
textualityandeducationinancientisraeltheancientworld„appearstohavebeenintricatelyboundwithlearningalanguagesassociatedinstructionalliterature.Ifso,latepreexilicJudahwouldhavehadatwo-trackeducationalsystem,likethosefoundinBronzeAgeUgaritorAmarna:onetrackfocusingontextsinthelocallanguageandanother,moreexclusiveeducationaltrackfocusedoneducationinaforeignlanguageandahighlylimitedcorpusofforeignlanguagetexts.Thissortoftwo-tracksystem,whetherinIsraelitselforinthetextual-educationalsystemsprecedingit,isthemostplausiblecontextsuggesteduptothispointforin”uenceofnon-IsraelitetextsonIsraeliteliterature.Previ-ously,manyhavespokenoftheinternationalcharacterofwisdomŽliteratureandarguedthattheschoolŽwouldhavebeenalikelycontextforIsraeltobein”uencedbytextslikeAmenemope.Thisbook,however,isproposingtoun-derstandmostancientliteratureasprimarilyinstructional-enculturationallit-erature,thusbreakingdownmuchofthedistinctionpreviouslyseenbetweenwisdomŽandotherliterature.Thus,ifagivenearlyCanaaniteorIsraelitescribewastrainedinanotherculturesliterature,hewouldnotnecessarilyjustlearnwhatwewouldtermwisdomŽliterature.Ratherhe(oroccasionallyshe)wouldlearnadditionalnarrative,hymnic,andothermaterialsaswell.Thiskindofeducationdoesappeartohaveoccurredforpre-Israelitescribeslikethoseattestedthrough“ndsatAmarna,Emar,andUgarit,scribeswhothem-selvescouldthenproduceanalogous,highlyadapted,indigenous-languagecounterpartstotheforeigntextualtraditionstheyhadlearned.EarlyIsraelitescribeslikeDavidsShisha,whomusthavegainedtheireducationfromsome-where,probablywereeducatedinsomeformofsuchapre-Israelitetextual-educationalsystem,onestillbearingthemarksofpastimportation-translationofMesopotamian(e.g.,GilgameshorAtrahasis)andEgyptianmaterials.YetitisalsopossiblethatafewIsraelitescribesthemselvesgainedanexpertiseinaforeignlanguageandliterature,whetherinordertoclaimabroader,higherlearningortofacilitateinternationalinterchange.Forexample,latertextualspecialists,likeShebnaorEzra,mayhavebeenin”uencedbyabodyofAramaicliteraturethatisnowlargelylost(thoughcf.theInstructionofAhiqar).Thereislittledataforspeci“cassertionsabouttheprocessordatingofin”uenceandinterchange.Nevertheless,signi“cantlinksbetweentheBibleandothereducational-enculturationalliteraturesshowthatsuchin”uenceandinterchangehappened,whetherdirectlyorindirectly.Moreover,someformoftheoral-written,textual-educationalmatrixfocusedoninthisbookisthemostlikelycontextforsuchinterchange,notjustofwisdomŽtextsbutofalltexts.Thissystemisthebest-documentedmodebywhichtextscrossedboundariesintheNearEast,particularlyintheSumero-Akkadianinstance,andthenon-Israelitetextsre”ectedinpartsoftheBiblearewellattestedinMesopotamianandEgyptianeducation.Furthermore,onceaforeigntextual-educationalele-169.OswaldLoretz,QoheletundderalteOrient:UntersuchungenzuStilundtheologischerThematikdesBuches(Freiburg:Herder,1964),93…94.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationmenthadbeenadaptedtoserve(intranslatedform)intheIsraelitestreamoftradition,itcouldpersistamongcertainelitesforaremarkablylongperiodoftime.Forexample,BenSirasbookofwisdomhasastrikingnumberofpos-siblecontactswithnative-languageEgyptianinstructions,despitethefactthatanyneedforEgyptianininternationalinterchangehadceasedcenturiesear-lier.Whenbilingualscribes„whetheratUgarit,Israel,oranothercontext„adaptedtraditionsforindigenoususe,theyapparentlyshowedthesamesortoffreedominappropriationthatwesawearlierinthetransitionfromSume-riantoAkkadianformsoftheMesopotamiantradition.Themoveacrossthelanguageboundaryofteninvolvedothermassiveshiftsinthetraditionaswell.Workingfrommemory,agivenIsraeliteorpre-Israelitescribecoulddrawonbothwordingandthemesofforeigneducation-enculturationtexts,evenashecreatedindigenoustextsuniquely“ttedtohisowncontext.Whethersuchbi-lingualscribeswerepre-IsraeliteorIsraelite,theirinternalizationofforeigninstructionalmaterialsallowedthemtousethisliteraryrepertoireinavarietyofwaysandinvariousloci:forexample,earlyinstruction,primevaltraditions,law,lovepoetry.Thatsaid,itisalsoclearthatmostscribes„particularlyinancientIsrael„neverwouldhaverequiredsuchintricatetraininginaforeignbodyoftextsandliterature.Instead,most,ifnotall,IsraelitescribalelitesprobablyweretrainedonastandardcurriculumofIsraelitetexts,theforerunnerstoourBible.Dayafterday,yearafteryear,thesefutureadministratorswouldhaveingestedIsraelitestoriesofcreation,prophecies,psalms,andwisdom.Thesepre-Biblicaltexts,liketheirMesopotamianandEgyptiancounterparts,wereim-buedwithanauramarkingthemasauniquemeansofaccesstoastoriedpast.WhetherMosaicrevelation,propheticword,orevenhistoryandinstruction,thesetextsasawholecometobemarked„likemanyoftheirforeigncoun-terparts„asadivineword.Withinapredominantlyoralcontext,thewrittenstatusofthetextslentthemextranuminouspower.Moreover,asHebrewdialectschangedandthepeoplebeganspeakingAramaicastheir“rsttongue,thelanguageoftheBible„likethatofotherinstructionalliteratures„becameevermorealientothelinguisticcontextinwhichitisheardandlearned.Itslinguisticstrangenessandwrittencharacterbecameadditionalmarksoftheuniquenessandspecialnessofthedivineinstruction.ThisisnotyetcanonŽinatechnicalsense.Ratherthisisthesortofpowerfulbodyofwritten-oralinstructionalwritingsknownalreadyintheMesopotamian,Egyptian,andGreekinstances.170.O.Rickenbacher,WeisheitsperikopenbeiBenSira,OBO(Go¨ttingen:VandenhoeckandRuprecht,1973),176…96;JackT.Sanders,BenSiraandDemoticWisdom,SBLMS(Chico,CA:ScholarsPress,1983).171.SethSchwartz,Language,PowerandIdentityinAncientPalestine,ŽPastandPresent148(1995):3…47.ForQumranHebrewseealsoWilliamSchniedewind,QumranHebrewasanAntilanguage,Ž118(1999):172.Assmann,KulturelleGeda¨chtnis,103…29.
textualityandeducationinancientisraelTextualTransmission,Storage,andRevisionFurthermore,IproposethatsuccessivegenerationsofmasterIsraelitescribesrevisedandaugmentedthiseducation-enculturationcurriculumasconditionschanged.Wehavealreadyseenthisdocumentedthroughdivergentversionsofmajortexts,especiallyinMesopotamia,wherethewrittenmediaofinstruc-tionaltextshassurvivedthetestoftime.ButwealsosawitinsubstantialrevisionsofEgyptianinstructionalmaterials,liketheinstructionofPtahhotep.Inthesecasesofbroadrevision,thetextualvariantsoftenpointtoaprocessofmemorizationandaugmentation:nonsigni“cantvariants,theinterchangeofgraphicallydifferentbutsemanticallyorphonemicallyequivalentsigns,andsoon.Ancientauthorscouldcopytexts,buttheydidnotrequiretheancienttextstobebeforethem.Instead,theyhadalreadyingestedsuchtextsintheprocessoftheireducation-enculturation.Theseancienttextswerepartoftheirvocabulary.TheycouldciteorconsciouslyalludeŽtothem,butoftenthein-”uenceoftheinstructionalcurriculumwentfarbeyondthat.ManyEgyptianandMesopotamiantextsareapatchworkofdistantandcloserechoesofothertexts,aproductofaneducationalsystemwherepeoplelearntowritenewtextsbyinternalizingancientones.Soalso,manypost-HomericGreektextsclearlydemonstratetheirauthorsthoroughinternalizationoftheHomericandotherlyrictraditions.Similarly,itisincreasinglyclearhowmuchofIsraeliteliteratureislikewiseintertextual.ŽButitisnotintertextualinthesensethatearlyIsraeliteauthorswereconstantlyengagedinaprocessofvisuallyconsulting,citing,andinter-pretingseparatewrittentexts.Commentaryandexegeticaldebatecomeslater.Rather,IamsuggestingthatsuchIsraeliteauthorshadbeentrainedfromtheoutsettowritebybuildingontemplatesprovidedbyearliertexts.AsinothercultureslikeMesopotamiaorEgypt,youngscribesshowedtheircompetencethroughtheirabilitytoaccuratelyreciteandcopytextsfromtheauthoritativecurriculum.Yetfullyeducatedliteratespecialistsinthoseotherculturesalsodemonstrablyaddedtothatcurriculumatkeypoints,whetherthroughpro-ducingatranslationorneweditionofmajorworks,orthroughauthoringnewworksthatoftenechothoseworksinwhichthescribalauthorwastrained.Soalso,Israelitespecialistsappeartohaveaddedto,recombined,andotherwiserevisedelementsoftheIsraelitetextual-educationaltradition.Theliteraturebearsclearmarksofthisprocess,andthesemarkshaveprovidedthebasisfortheoriessuchasthedocumentaryhypothesisforthecreationofthePentateuchorthemultipleauthorshipofbookslikeIsaiah.YetsuchsourcesŽgenerallywerenotincorporatedinwrittenform,nordideditorsjugglemultiplecopiesofmanuscriptsintheprocessofproducingtheircon”atedtext.Itispossiblethatascribemayhaveworkedwithagivenmanuscriptonoccasion.Certainlycolophonsinotherculturesshowvisualconsultationofcopies.Nevertheless,well-educatedscribesoftencouldwriteoutaverbatim,memorizedformofanolderauthoritativetext,sofaithfullyreproducingitthatitsbordersandclasheswithothermaterialwouldstillbevisibleinthe“nalproduct.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationFurthermore,havinglearnedsuchprecise,verbatimmemorizationinatext-supportedoraleducationalsystem,Israeliteauthorswereable„likenon-Israeliteauthorstaughtinsimilarsystems„toechotheirownwriting.Theirtraininginverbatimmemorizationinatext-supportedenvironmentgavethemtoolsforexactorsemiexactrepetitionthatallowedthemtoproduceworksthatfeaturedremarkablypreciseparallels.Theycouldauthormultiplespeechesandothernarrativeelementsthatcloselyparalleledearlierspeechesandnarrativesintheirowncomposition.Thoughoccasionallyanauthormighthavecon-sultedanearlierlocusinascroll,suchechoingdidnotrequirevisualcopying.Anauthorcouldconstructelaborate(semi)repetitionsthroughmemorizationskillslearnedinhavingmultipletextsinscribedon[hisorher]heart.ŽOfcourse,textsoftenwerewrittendown,stored,andvisuallyconsulted.Wehavealreadyseenscoresofexamplesdescribingthewritingofvarioustexts.Nevertheless,whatisdescribedintheBibleisnotthemakingofcopiesofothertexts.Instead,asEdgarConradpointsout,theBiblesowndescriptionsoftextproductionfeatureaworldwheretextsaregenerallywrittendownfromdictationforsubsequentrecitationandreference.Oralvocalizationaidedtheinternalizationofsuchtextsbyaliterateelite,andthiselitethencouldperformsuchtexts(possiblystillusingawrittencopy)forabroader,illiteratepopulace.Thus,long-durationIsraelitetexts,liketheircounterpartsinMesopotamia,Egypt,andGreece,weretransmitteddually„inwrittenmediaandinthemindsandheartsofthosewhohadingestedthem.Ononelevel,writtencopieswerestoredinascribalworkshoportemplesanctuary.These(usually)visuallycopiedtextswereacrucialreferencepointforfurtherwrittenandoraltrans-mission.Nevertheless,aprimaryfocusoflong-durationtextualitywasthein-scribingandpreservingoftextsinthepeopletheywereusedtoeducate.Storedwrittencopies,holythoughtheywere,weremerelythetechnologyandtangiblewrittentalismanforabroaderprocessofpassingontothenextgenerationofleadersthevalues,views,andlesstangiblequalitiesoftheancient,reveredTheHebrewBiblesaysvirtuallynothingaboutanyformallibraryinan-cientIsrael.MostofourevidenceregardingancientIsraelitebookstoragere-173.Thisdidnotmeantheydidntaltercertainelements,whetherthroughslightmemorylapsesorthroughliterarydesign.Foranextensiveargumentregardingthepossibleliteraryusesofsuchvariationinrepetitionseeesp.MeirSternberg,ThePoeticsofBiblicalNarrative:IdeologicalLiteratureandtheDramaofReadingIndianaStudiesinBiblicalLiterature(Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress,1985),365…440.174.Thereareexceptions,suchasthereferencetothekingscopyoftheDeuteronomicTorahinDeut17:175.E.W.Conrad,HeardbutNotSeen:TheRepresentationofBooksintheOldTestament,Ž(1992):46…47.FishbanenotespossibleechoesinDeut4:2and13:1(alsocf.Prov30:6),ofaMesopotamianformularegardingexactcopying„notaddingtoorsubtractingŽ„thatisfoundintheErraepic,atraditionthatitselfappearstohavebeentransmittedthroughvisualcopying.Suchclaimsofandexhortationstoexacttrans-mission,however,alsohaveparallelsinoraltradition.176.ThismodelisadvocatedbyWidengrenforIslamicand,byextension,Israelitetradition.SeeWiden-HebrewProphets,esp.1…46.Itwasdeveloped,focusinglargelyonrabbinicdescriptionsofeducationandreading,inBirgerGerhardsson,MemoryandManuscript:OralTraditionandWrittenTransmissioninRabbinicJudaismandEarlyChristianity,trans.EricSharpe(Uppsala:AlmqvistandWiksells,1961),33…66.
textualityandeducationinancientisraellatestostorageofholytextsinacentralsanctuary,andvirtuallyallofitcomesfromtheHellenisticandRomanperiods.TheHebrewBibleitselfonlyde-scribesstorageofMosaicrevelationincentralsanctuariesleadinguptothetempleinJerusalem.ThepriestlytraditionoftheSinainarrativepresupposestheideaofstorageoftextsinsanctuarieswithitsconceptofthedepositoftheinstruction/witnessdocumentsŽ()inanarkthatwaskeptinthecoreofthewildernesssanctuary(Exod25:16).Asnotedearlier,Deuteronomyde-scribesMosesgivingtheTorahŽtotheLevites,thepreeminentTorahteachers(Deut31:9…13),whoalsobearthearkoftheLord(Deut31:9,25…27;cf.Deut10:1…5;Josh8:32…35).1Kings8:9,21,assertsthatthesetabletsarestillinthearkwhenSolomonputsthearkinthecenteroftheJerusalemtemple,andthetempleistheplacewherealong-lostTorahissaidtobefoundbyJosiahsof“cialsduringrenovationworkcenturieslater(2Kgs22:3…8).thebiblicalnarrativeatthispointdescribesJosiahsdestructionofcompetingsanctuariesinJudahandeventhenorth,sothattheJerusalemtemplebecomesthecentralizedlocusfororthodoxIsraelitereligiosityandtextuality(2Kgs23:8…20).WealsohavethenarrativeofJeremiahpassingonadivinecommissiontoBaruchtostoreadeedofpurchaseoflandinanearthenwarejar(Jer32:14),probablyre”ectingwidespreadpracticesofprivatestorageofdocumentaryma-terials.Otherwise,theBibleislargelysilentontheissueofcollectionandstorageofwrittencopiesoflong-durationtexts.Moreover,thearchaeologicalevidenceisnothelpfuleither,atleastwithregardtopre-Hellenisticstorageoflong-durationtexts.TheclosestwecomeistheDeir-Allainscription(andabe-cedary),apossibletestimonytothedisplayona(sanctuary?)wallofnon-IsraelitetextualmaterialsimilartothatfoundinpropheticnarrativesandtheBalaamstory.Otherwise,wehaveonlythetantalizingremnants,discussedearlier,ofearlyalphabeticandnumericeducation,alongwithsomearchivalmaterials:receipts,letters,andsoon.EducationandTextualityAcrossIsraeliteHistoryThisoverallmodelforthedevelopmentanduseofIsraelitescripturehassig-ni“cantimplicationsforreinforcingandrevisingourcurrentpictureofthedevelopmentoftextualityinancientIsrael.Mostimmediately,itprovidesanalternativemodeltothatparodiedbyNiditchinthequotationthatopenschap-ter1.Ratherthanjugglingmultiplescrollsorhavingonescribetakedictationfromtwoorthreeothers,thismodelsuggeststhatIsraelitescribesmostlikely177.Fromthispointforwardthepriestlytraditionfrequentlyreferstothearkinrelationtotheinitasthe178.Hereagain,muchoftherestofthenonpriestlytraditionassumesthispictureinreferringtothearkasthearkofthecovenantŽ(aronhabb)andrelatedexpressions.179.ForsomeadditionalindicatorsofdepositinearlyIsraelitesanctuariesseeBurr,,14…15.180.AgainseeLemaire,DeirAlla,Ž52…55.181.Niditch,OralWorldandWrittenWord,113.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationwouldhavedrawnontheirverbatimmemoryofothertextsinquoting,bor-rowingfrom,orsigni“cantlyrevisingthem.Ofcourse,asinothercultures,Israelitescribesprobablyvisuallycopiedcertaintextsthattheywishedtore-produceprecisely.Yet,asinothercultures,Israelitescribesprobablydidnotworkwithcumbersomescrollswhentheyneededtoproducesomethingnew,somethingnotbearingtheclaimofbeingaprecisevisualcopyofanearlierdocument.Moreover,asIwillshow,therearecrucialinstancesinIsraelitehistory,“rstandforemosttheBabylonianexile,whenIsraelitescribesprobablyhadnoaccesstoreferencecopiesofkeytraditionsonwhichtobasetheirreproductionorrevisionofthecorpus.Inwhatfollows,Iwillofferasketch„onlyincompletelydeveloped„ofthisandseveralotherpointsintheevolutionofIsraelitetextualproduction.Myfocusisoninstanceswhereacorpusoflong-duration,educational-enculturationaltextsmighthaveemergedorchanged.AsIwillshow,thehis-toryofthedevelopmentofIsraeliteliterature,particularlythePentateuch,ap-pearstohavebeenextraordinarilycomplex.WhereMesopotamianandEgyptiantraditionsoftenmanifestasingleredactionofagiventradition,thePentateuchandotherkeytraditionsappeartohavegonethroughmultiplestagesofrevision.AsIwillshow,theserevisionshavetodowithmassiveshiftsthathappenedatmultiplestagesinIsraelitetextuality-enculturation,suchastheinitialmoveinearlymonarchalcontextstowardappropriationofatextual-educationalsystem,theextensionandrevisionofthetextual-educationalcorpusamidurbanismandexpandingliteracyintheeighthcen-tury,themassivereorganizationofthecorpusaroundtheMosaicTorahintheseventhcentury,thereconstructionoforal-writtentraditionsinthewakeofthedestructionofJerusalem,andtherecombinationoftraditionsandrenewedfocusonTorahinthepostexilicperiod,thelatterperhapswithsomeinvolve-mentbythePersians.Mesopotamiawasabletomaintainamorecontinuousscribaltraditionacrossthe“rstmillennium,andthetabletmediumofitseducational-enculturationalcorpuswasmoredurable.Egypttoo,despiteoc-casionalincursions,wasabletomaintainacomparativelystableculturaltra-dition.InIsraelwehavetheremnantsofaneducational-enculturationalcorpusofalandoftendominatedbymorepowerfulneighbors.Theresultinglong-durationliteraturehasfracturesandcrosscurrentsthatmarktheimpactofsuccessivedislocationsandIsraelitereactionstothem.Turning“rsttotheprestateperiod,themodeldevelopedinthisbookreinforcesthesuppositionofmuchscholarshipthattheuseofwritingcannotbedatedplausiblytotheprestateperioddepictedinthebiblicalnarrative.AlthoughstreamsofbiblicaltraditiondescribethecreationofholytextsintheperiodofMoses,theuseofwriting-supportededucationandtextproductionappearstohavebeenparticularlycharacteristicofcity-stateandempirestructuresinthe182.ThemainexceptionofwhichIamawareisthemultistagehistoryofformationoftheGilgameshtraditions.SeeTigay,GilgameshEpic
textualityandeducationinancientisraelancientworld.DepictionsofwritinginthetimeofMosesorscribesinthetimeofDeborah(Judg5:14)areprobablyretrojectionsoflaterformsoftex-tualityintoearlierperiods.Tobesure,somewouldcitetheliterarydescriptionofGideoncommissioningayouthŽ()tomakealistoftheof“cialsinhishometownofSukkoth.Nevertheless,othershavepointedout:(1)thistextisaretrojectionofapictureofwritingfromalatertimeinIsraelshistory,latepreexileattheearliest,whenwritingwasmorewidespread;(2)the(“ctional)pictureofliteracyitdepictsisnotthatofIsraelbutofthe(then)CanaanitecityofSukkoth;(3)thetypeofliteracyitdepictsisatthemostelementaryleveloflistmaking;and(4)theremaybesomeeliteconnotationswiththewordthatwouldmeanthatthedepictionofliteracyinthisyouthŽdoesnotimplygeneralliteracy.Sowhendidwriting,speci“callywritingofthesortfoundintheBible,actuallybegin?OnepossibilityistheDavidic-Solomonicperiod,atimetheBibledepictsasthetimeofemergenceofcity-statestructures.Moreover,thereissomearchaeologicalevidencethatthisdepictionofatenth-centuryIsraelitecity-stateincentralCanaanisatleastpartiallyaccurate.ItislikelythatsuchanIsraelitestate„lackingitsownliterateresources„wouldhavedrawnonpre-Israelitemodelsofliteratebureaucracyandevenusedliteratebureaucratsfrompre-IsraeliteJerusalem.Oneindicationofthis„inadditiontothelistsofDavidicscribesandotherof“cialsdiscussedearlier„isacacheofearlyostraca,fromtheJudeanoutpostofArad,datingin(small)parttothetenthcentury,whichuseEgyptianhieraticnumeralsandaccountingsignstorecordamountsofbarley.Tosomeextent,earlyIsraelitesalsomayhavedrawnonpre-Israelitetexts,suchastheEgyptianinstructionofAmenemope.ThisalsowouldbetheobvioustimeforthetextualizationofprobableprestatepoemslikethesongofDeborah,theemergenceofanearlyIsraelitecorpusofroyalandZionPsalms,thedevelopmentofearlycollectionsofpoemsliketheoften-citedbookofYashar(Josh10:12…13;2Sam1:18;and[LXX]3Kgdms8:53a),thecreationofpreformsofpartsofProverbsaspartofIsraeliteearlyeducation,andthepossibledevelopmentofanearlyprosecurriculumaswell,includingearlyformsofthecreation-”oodnarrativesandnarrativescenteringon“gureslikeJacob,Moses,andDavid.Wheresuchtraditionsdidnotdrawonprior183.E.g.,Procksch,HebraischeSchreiber,Ž2;Du¨rr,,106…7.184.Burr,BibliothekarischeNotizen,12.185.Demsky,Education,Ž392…94;Writing,Ž12.186.Young,IsraeliteLiteracy,Ž250.187.AsSchniedewindpointsout,biblicalnarrativesoftotaldestructionofCanaaniteculturearelaterideologicalrepresentations.Schniedewind,BibletoBook,56…57.188.O.Goldwasser,AnEgyptianScribefromLachishandtheHieraticTraditionoftheHebrewKing-TelAviv18(1991):248…53.189.OnargumentsthatAmenemopein”uencedmultipleIsraelitetextsseenote67.190.FordiscussionoftheseandotherpossiblereferencestoancientsongpoetryinExod15:1;Deut31:30;andNum21:17seenowSchniedewind,BibletoBook,52…56.191.ContrarytoSchniedewind(BibletoBook,63),asmall-scalewriting-educationsystemdoesnotprecludethecreationoflongerworks.Allthatisrequiredisafewscribesandthefeltneedtocreateandperpetuateawriting-stabilizedculturaltraditionthatmarksofftheemergenthierarchyfromothers.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationscribalknowledgeofnon-Israelitetexts,theywouldhaverepresentedthe“rstwrittenrecordingofIsraelitetraditionsthat„uptothatpoint„hadbeenex-clusivelyoralandextremely”uid.Manymayhavebeenpoeticormusical.CertainlythetraditionssurroundingDavidfocusonhismusicalcompetence.Yetthereisnoindicationofspecialeffortstowardstabilizingthetradition.Onlywhentheyenteredtheoral-writteneducation-enculturationprocesswouldsuchtraditionshavegainedthestabilitygivenbywritingandtheothertech-niquesforaccuraterecallthatareoftenusedaspeoplerecognize„throughwriting„variationinthetradition.Theepigraphicevidence,however,suggeststhatanysuchearlyformsoftextualityandeducationpaleincomparisontothedevelopmentofeducationinthelaterpreexilicperiod.TheepigraphicmaterialappearsearliestandmostprominentlynotinJerusalemorbroaderJudahbutinnorthernIsrael:includ-ingtwogroupsofSamarianostraca,theKuntilletAjrudinscriptions,andmorethan“ftyinscribedseals.ThisdoesnotmeanthatwritingwasunknowninnorthernIsraelpriortotheeighthcentury.Thefoundingofanorthernmon-archy,andespeciallyitsexpansionunderOmri-Ahab,wasprobablyaccompa-niedbyatleastasmall-scalenorthernIsraelitetextual-educationalsystemofthesortweseeinotherkingdoms.WeevenhavepossiblehintsofeducationalgroupsinnorthernIsraelinthereferencestothesonsoftheprophetsŽ(e.g.,2Kgs2:3,5;6:1…2)orthesonsofAhabŽundercareofguardiansinSamaria(2Kgs10:1…11).Unfortunately,ouraccesstonorthernIsraelitetextualityismostlyindirect,bywayofwritingslikeHoseasthatareattributedtonorthern“gures,ormaterialsinthePentateuchandelsewherewhichappeartoderivefromnorthernIsraeliteprototypes.Nevertheless,wecandolittlemorethanclaimthenorthprobablyhadatextual-educationalsystemandthatmaterialsfromitappeartohavehadsomeimpactonthesouth,perhapsbywayofrefugeeswho”edtoJudahafterthedestructionofthenorth.Theeighthcenturyalsoseesexpansionofepigraphicevidenceinthesouth,suchastheKhirbetel-Qominscriptions,theSiloaminscription,theAradostraca,sealsofroyalof“cialsunderUzziahandAhaz,thousandsofjarswithroyalstampinscriptions,andvariousotherstampsofroyalof“cials.Moreover,asDavidJamieson-Drakehasshown,itisduringthetimeofHez-ekiahandJosiahthatweseeasubstantialexpansionbothofarchaeologicalremainsofsubstantialbuildingstructuresandofepigraphicevidencefored-192.Compare,inthisinstance,theextensiveeffortsmadeinothercultures,suchasareseeninrecitationtechnologyfortheKoranortheVedas,toensureaccuraterecallofthetradition.Inbothcases,thesetechniquesdevelopedincultureswithananxietyaboutvariationassociatedwithwriting,evenifthetraditionsthemselveswereprimarilyorexclusivelyoral.193.ForausefulbriefsummaryoftheshiftinlevelofepigraphicdocumentationseeAndre´Lemaire,SchoolsandLiteracyinAncientIsraelandEarlyJudaism,ŽinTheBlackwellCompaniontotheHebrewBible,ed.LeoPerdue,trans.AliouNiang(Oxford:Blackwell,2001),208.Thefollowingmaterialinthisparagraphisbasedlargelyonthesamesource.194.Lemaire,LesEcoles,36…38.195.Forabroaderlist,againseethesurveybyLemaire(SchoolsandLiteracy,Ž208),alongwiththemorerecentdiscussionbySchniedewind(BibletoBook,71…73).
textualityandeducationinancientisraelucationandwritinginancientJudah.Thesedata,combinedwithindicatorslikethesuperscriptionregardingHezekiahsmeninProverbs25:1,suggestthatalphabeticliteracyexpandedsigni“cantlyinthisperiod,includingarmyof“cers,priests,prophets,androyalof“cials.AsWilliamSchniedewindsug-gests,theimpactoftheNeo-Assyrianempiremayhavebeenamajorimpetusforthisexpansionineighth-centuryJudah:increasingurbanizationthroughdestructionofoldercommunitystructures,pushingsomeliteratenorthernimmigrantsintoJudahthroughthedestructionofthenorthernstateofIsrael,andmoregenerallystimulatingtheuseofalphabeticwritinginJudahandneighboringnationsthroughthepromotionof(alphabeticallywritten)Aramaicasanempire-widelinguafrancaforof“cialexchanges.Hereagain,however,wemustbecarefulnottoimposecontemporarymodelsofuniversalliteracyonthisancientcontext.Thoughliteracyapparentlybroadened,mostIsraelitesinthenorthandsouthwouldnothavebeenabletoread.Theepigraphicandbiblicalevidencearebothskewedheavilytowardroyaladministratorsandpriests,andthis“tswiththefactthatpremoderncultureshadnocausetotrainpeopleingeneralliteracy.Thatsaid,theeighthcenturysawasigni“cantbroadeningofboththemonarchyandtheliteracyofitsadministration,andthisbroadeningincludedanexpandinguseofwritingthatcorrespondstoincreaseduseoforal-writtentextsforeducation-enculturationofthegrowingclassofroyalfunctionaries.Notably,oneofourclearestindicationsoftextualcollectionatthispoint,thementionofthemenofHezekiahŽinProverbs25:1,isassociatedwiththesortofwisdomŽliteraturethatwasintensivelyusedinearlystagesofsucheducation-enculturation.Yetthisisalsothetimefortheemergenceoforal-writtenprophetic,divinecounterteachingofthesortseeninIsaiah.Further-more,theeighthcenturyinJudahisaprobablecontextforthewritingand/orentryofothersortsoftextsintotheIsraeliteoral-writteneducational-enculturationalcorpus:aversionofthebroaderhistoryofthemonarchyex-tendingtoHezekiah,andprobablysomePentateuchalnarratives,ofthePsalms,aformofthecovenantcodeŽinExodus20:22…23:33,196.Jamieson-Drake,ScribesandSchoolsinMonarchicJudah,48…106.SeealsothesummaryofmorerecentworkinSchniedewind,BibletoBook,68…69.197.Schniedewind,BibletoBook,64…75.198.FortworecentargumentsrelatingtothisseeLemaire,RedactionalHistoryŽandSchniedewind,toBook,77…91.Itispossiblethatthisoranearlierversionofthehistory(e.g.inthetimeofManasseh)corre-spondedinkeyinstancestothematerialincommonbetweenSamuel-KingsandChronicles(lackingmaterialpresentinonebutnottheother),ratherthancorrespondingmorewithwhatweseeinSamuel-KingsupthroughthetimeofHezekiah.Forpresentationofthecaseforthismodel,seeparticularlyA.GraemeAuld,KingsWithoutPrivilege:DavidandMosesintheStoryoftheBiblesKings(Edinburgh:T&TClark,1994),alongwithquestionsraisedaboutthisasanexclusiveparadigminStevenL.McKenzie,TheChroniclerasRedactor,ŽinTheChroniclerasAuthor:StudiesinTextandTexture,M.PatrickGrahamandStevenL.McKenzie,ed.,JSOTSup263(Shef“eld:Shef“eldAcademicPress,1999),80…87(andAuldsresponseonpp.91…99).199.Regardingtheformer,IjudgethisthemostlikelycontextforthecreationoftheJudah-focusedversionoftheJacob-JosephstorythroughtheadditionoftextslikeGen38and49andrelatedadditionsin30:21;34:1…31;and35:21…22a.FordiscussionofthisstratumandcitationofearlierliteratureseeCarr,ReadingtheFractures200.SeethediscussionandreviewofliteratureinRainerAlbertz,ReligionsgeschichteIsraelsinalttesta-
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationsomespecializedpriestlyinstructionalmaterial.SuchgrowthinIsraelitelit-eratureintheeighthcenturywouldcorrespondtomovementstocollectolderliteratureinMesopotamiaandEgypt.Moreover,scribesresponsibleforwrit-ingbookslikeKingswouldhavehadaccessintheeighthcentury(andtheseventhcentury)toof“cialarchivesthatwouldhavebeenpreservedinthepreexilicperiodbutweredestroyedin587.Movingtoseventh-centuryJudah,weseeseveralindicatorsoffurtherex-pansionofwriting,includingtheuseoflong-durationoral-writteneducationalTheepigraphicevidenceisevenmoreextensive,includingnumeroussealsandostraca(e.g.,MesadHashavyahu,Lachish,Arad,KadeshBarnea,Uza,andJerusalem),inscribedweights,theMurabaatpapyrusletter,artisangraf“ti,andasetofsilveramuletsfromKetefHinnonthatcontainparaphrasesofpassagesnowinNumbers(6:24…26)andDeuteronomy(7:9…10).Multipleindicators,suchastheLachishletter3discussedearlier,showthatrudimentaryliteracynowextendedeventorelativelylowlevelsofthearmyandroyalbureaucracy.Perhapsmostimportant,thisisthetimewhenweseethenarrativeofJosiahspriestlyandroyalof“cialsdiscoveringascrollinthetemple,atextthatthenpromptsthekingtoengageinawide-rangingreligiopoliticalreform(2Kings22…23).Thusa,probablyanearlyformofDeuteronomy,comestohavesuchstatusthatitnotonlywastoenculturatethekingandhisof“cialsbutwastobehisspeci“cguideinfuturedecisions(Deut17:14…20).PerhapsreactingtodecadesofAssyrianoppressionandatumultuoustransitionintheDavidicdynasty(2Kgs21:19…26),itappearsthatcertainsub-elitesinJudah„thoseresponsibleforeducating-enculturatingtheyoungking,Josiah„implementedaprocessofthesortthatJanandAleidaAssmannlabel„theshiftfrom”eshtoword.ThiselevationofMosaicTorahappearstohavebeenconnectedwithamentlicherZeit,vol.1,VondenAnfa¨ngenbiszumEndederKo¨nigszeit,GrundrissezumAltenTestament(Go¨ttingen:VandenhoeckandRuprecht,1992),283…90.FrankCru¨semann,buildingonearlierliterature,raisessomecau-tionarycommentsbasedonthelackofaconnectionbetweenHezekiahsreformasdepictedin2Kgs18:4//2Chr31:1…21andthecontentsoftheCovenantCode(DieTora:TheologieundSozialgeschichtedesalttestamentlichen[Munich:KaiserVerlag,1992],230)yetalsoraisessomeadditionallinksbetweenthecovenantcodeandtheeventsofthelateeighthcentury(230…34).
201.See,forexample,theargumentsbasedonlinguisticfeaturesraisedinAviHurvitz,TheEvidenceofLanguageinDatingthePriestlyCode,Ž81(1974):24…57;ALinguisticStudyoftheRelationshipBetweenthePriestlySourceandtheBookofEzekiel:ANewApproachtoanOldProblem(Paris:Gabalda,1982).ForadiscussionandbrieflistofproblemswithusingsuchevidencetodatePasawholeseeCarr,ReadingtheFractures,133…35.202.Schniedewind,BibletoBook,74…75.203.SeeHardmeier,WahrhaftigkeitundFehlorientierung,Ž124…27,forasurveyofevidence,particularlywithintheBible.204.ForoverviewsseeLemaire,SchoolsandLiteracy,Ž209,andSchniedewind,BibletoBook,98…106.ThelattermistakenlyassertsthattheKetefHinnonamuletscontaintextsfromtheTorah(106),whenthemostwecansayisthatthetextsonthoseamuletsfoundtheirwayintotheTorahatsomepoint.205.Formorediscussionofthistextandhistoricalproblemssurroundingitseeforegoing,pp.140…41.Onthisperiodcf.Schniedewind,BibletoBook,91…117,thoughIdonotagreewithhisclaimsforasharpcontrastŽbetweenoralandwrittenandthistimeasoneofthemostprofoundculturalrevolutionsinhumanhistory:theassertionoftheorthodoxyoftextsŽ(p.91).206.Assmannplacesthismoveabitlater,intheexile,Assmann,Fu¨nfStufen,Ž87…89.Seethissourceforcitationofearlierdiscussions.
textualityandeducationinancientisraelradicalreconceptualizationoftheeducational-enculturationalcorpus.Incon-trasttocomparableeducationalcurricula,theascendantMosaicTorahwasplaced“rstintheeducationalprocess(asenvisionedinDeuteronomy),whileolderintroductoryproverbialandinstructionalmaterialswererelegatedtoalaterpoint.Moreover,thisDeuteronomicTorahitselfappears„inlargepart„tobeascribalrevisionoftheolderCovenantCode(Exod20:22…23:33),anexampleofrevisionofanoral-writteneducationalcurriculumthatislinkedwithbroadershiftsinthereligiomonarchalstructure.Furthermore,theMo-saicTorah,asseeninDeuteronomy,becamethelensforasigni“cantrevisionofearlierIsraelitetraditions.WeseetheimpactoftheDeuteronomicidiomandideologyintheshapingofcollectionsofprophetslikeIsaiah,Hosea,andparticularlyJeremiah.Soalso,asarguedearlier,thistimeappearstobeacon-textfortheproductionofanewversionoftheauthoritativehistoryextendinguptothetimeofJosiah.Overall,duringthistimeandlater,thewritingsinthisemergentcorpusaredepictedasprophetic.ŽMosesistheprophetparexcellence(e.g.Deut34:10…12),whiletheprophetsafterhimaredepictedcollectivelyinDeuteronom-isticandrelatedmaterialsasaseriesofprophets„oftenGodsservants,theprophetsŽ(e.g.,2Kgs17:13,23;Jer44:4;Ezek38:17;Amos3:7;Zech1:6;Dan9:10)„towhompastIsraelwasnotobedient(2Kgs17:7…23;21:10…15;24:2;cf.Jer7:25;26:4…6;29:19;35:13…15).WhereonceprophetslikeIsaiahofferedacountercurriculumtothewisdomŽoftraditionaleducation,nowthewholecurriculumoftheroyalestablishmentis„atleastintheory„prophetic.ŽAsitdevelops,thispropheticteachingnolongermarksaprophetandhiscircleofffromtherebelliouspeoplesurroundingthem.Rather„atleastintheory„thewordsofTorahandprophetsmarkIsraelasawholeofffromothernationsasauniquelyspecialandwisepeople(e.g.Deut4:6)andreinforcetheirresolvenottobelikethenationsŽ(see1Sam8:5,19…20).Inaddition,itappearsthattheentirecurriculumwasincreasinglydepictedinpropheticways.Forexam-ple,incontrasttoothereducationalliteraturesinMesopotamia,Egypt,andGreecethatwereonlyirregularlysacralized,thisemergentcorpusofTorahandtheprophetsisdepictedresolutelyasadivineword.Thiscurriculumisanewlevelofsacredliterature,scriptureŽproper,probablystoredinthetempleyettransmittedinoral-writtenformandusedbyscribeslikeShaphanandhisdescendants(amongothers).Butwhathappenedtothisemergentcorpusduringtheexile?Ifoneworkswithamodeloftextualityfocusedexclusivelyonwriting,itisnotclearhowpreexilictraditionswouldhavesurvivedintolaterperiodsofIsraelitehistory.207.FormoredetailedstudyofthisprocessandcitationofearlierliteratureseeLevinson,208.Seeforegoing,p.140.209.OnthisseeinparticularStephenChapman,TheLawandtheProphets:AStudyinOldTestamentCanonFormation,ForschungenzumAltenTestament(Tu¨bingen:MohrSiebeck,2000),112…31,198…209.Fordiscussionofthetwo-levelpedagogicalsituationinwhichsuchliterarycondemnationsofpastgenerationsmightservetheaimsofeducatinglatercommunitiesseeWeitzmansilluminatingdiscussioninWeitzman,SongandStory,42…54.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationThetempleandvirtuallyallmajorstructuresinthelanditselfweredestroyed,andtheliterateelitewasdeported.ThoughitisprobablethatsomeofJe-hoiachinsretinueweremastersofthetraditionandwenowhaveinscriptionalevidencethatscribeswereactiveelsewhereintheJewishDiaspora,itisunclearhowsuchgroupswouldhaveaccesstowrittenversionsofthetradition,espe-ciallyafterthedestructionoftheJerusalempalace-templestructureandthecaptureofitselite.Whateversortsofcorrespondencecharacterizedinter-changebetweenexilesandpeopleinthehomelandintheyears597…587itstillseemsunlikelythatJewscouldhavecarriedtrunkloadsofholyscrollsfromtheruinsofthetempletoBabylonianexile.Theoral-writtenmodelbeingadvocatedhereprovidesonewaytoexplainhowthetraditionscontinued.Accordingtothismodel,thecatastropheoftheexilewouldhavebeenakeyoccasionwhenscribeswouldhaveaugmentedandrevisedearliertradition,whenthetraditiondemandedare-presentationandrecasting.LikeEgyptianscribesfacingthepossibleextinctionofkeytraditionsinthe“rstintermediateperiod,IsraelitescribeshadtoproducenewreferencecopiesofoldertraditionsinthewakeofthedestructionofJe-Withlittleornoaccesstoreferencecopiesofthetradition,suchscribesmaynothavehadanalternativetotheuseofmemorizedformsofdocuments.Evenifunabletoaccessgoodwrittencopiesofthetradition,theycouldworkfrommemoryinbuildinganewstandardIsraelitelitera-ture„onebuiltonmemorizedbuildingblocksoftheoldbutaddressingtheneedfornewhopeandrebuilding.Sometimessuchscribesmayhavepro-ducednewversionsofoldertextsthatwerequiteclosetotheformtheyhadinthepreexilicperiod.Inothercasestheymayhaveradicallyreusedpartsofolderlong-durationtextssothattheywerenomorerecognizableaswholesthanreusedarchitecturalelementsareinavillageofhousesmadeupofcol-umns,lintels,andotherpartsofolderbuildings.Overall,itappearsthattheexilewasatimeofrenewedfocusonIsraelspre-landtraditions,theMo-saicTorah,withradicalreformulationsofthosepre-landtraditionsbeingdoneintheoral-writtenmatricesofbothroyal,nonpriestlyscribalcirclesandpriestlygroups.Ineithercase,theresultingTorahŽ(teaching)andotherdocuments(ProphetsŽ)thenservedastheeducationalgroundworkforIsraeliteeducationintheexilicandpostexilicperiodsandbeyond.TogethertheseHebrewtexts,210.SeeSchniedewind,BibletoBook,141…49,forsurveyofthedatarelevanttowritingintheexile.211.ForJehoichinseeSchniedewind,BibletoBook,149…57.ForinscriptionalevidenceseeprovisionallyF.Joanne`sandAndre´Lemaire,Troistablettescune´iformesa`onomastiqueouest-se´mitique,ŽTranseuphrate`ne(1999):17…34.IamindebtedtoA.Lemaire(personalcommunication)foradditionalinformationaboutevidenceofJewishscribalpracticesinthesame“nd.212.Assmann,Fu¨nfStufen,Ž87…89,discussestheanalogiesbetweenthesetwoperiods.213.Cf.Burr,whoarguesthatthetempletextswerehidden,asinthecaseofQumran;Burr,arischeNotizen,22…24.214.JeanLouisSka,IntroductionalalectureduPentateuque,trans.Fre´dericVermorel(Brussels:EditionsLessius,2000),266…67.215.Foranoverviewofthedataregardingidenti“cationofsuchpriestlyandnonpriestlytraditionsinGenesis,alongwiththelocationofconsolidationofeachintheexileseeCarr,ReadingtheFractures,43…232.
textualityandeducationinancientisraelevermorelinguisticallyalientotheincreasinglyAramaiccontextoftheirread-ers,stoodassemimagicalmanuscripttalismans,travelingforwardthroughthePersianperiodasstable,numinouslinksofIsraelitestothedivineandtoanotherwiseinaccessiblepast.TheparticularHebrewrepertoireinthiscorpusoftextsgaineditsownsanctity.Thoughcommonplaceinthelatepreexilicperiod,suchclassicalHebrew,initsdiverseforms,becamealiteraryidiolect,asetoflanguagecommonplacesmarkingthese„andtextswrittenfrominsidethetraditionandusingitslinguisticrepertoire„ascomingfromthehallowed,preexilicpast.Ancientcopiesofthisliteraturearelost,probablyduetothewritingofitonperishablemedialikepapyrusandhumanmemory.Fromhereonout,thesurvivingwrittenrecordstestifytoashift,fromtheexileonward,towardtheuseofAramaicforthetypesofadministrativeandlegaltransactionsthatoncewererecordedinHebrew.Soonaftertheexile,weseesigni“cantchangeinthegroupsinvolvedintextualtransmissionanduse.ThoughDavidicroyal“guresappeartohaveenjoyedacertainstatureintheBabyloniancourt,wehearnomoreofDavididesafterthedisappearanceofSheshbazzarandZerubbabelintheearlypostexilicperiod.Duringtheexilesuchroyal“guresortheirentourageprobablyextendedandretouchedpreexilictraditions,buttheydonotappeartohavebeenaforceinpostexilicJudaism.Instead,themaingroupthatisexplicitlyattestedasteachingandreadinginSecondTempleJudaismisthepriests(includingLe-vites).ThustheIronAgetrend(alsoseeninMesopotamiaandEgypt)towardconcentrationoftextualityinthetempleismanifestinIsraelaswell.ThepriestsofIsraelbecomethemainrepositoryforbothpriestlyandnonpriestlytraditionstransmittedearlier.Theriseinprominenceofpriestsprobablyexplainskeychangesintheusestowhichpriestlytraditionswereputinthepostexilicperiod.Earlier,priestsweresubordinatepartsofatemple-palaceapparatusheadedbytheking,andthey„liketheircounterpartsinMesopotamiaandEgypt„proba-blyunderwentanearlyeducationsimilartothatofotherfunctionaries:abe-cedaries,proverbs,instructions,hymns,andsoon.Inaddition,wecansup-posethatearlyIsraelitepriests„liketheircounterpartselsewhere„probablyformulatedtheirownupper-levelinstructionalmaterials,reservedfortheirsubgroup,thatmarkedtheirmembershipinapriestlysub-elite.Asmen-tionedbefore,someculticinstructionalmaterialsinLeviticusandNumbers216.ForobservationofthecontrastofholylanguageandAramaiccontextseeBurr,,9.FordiscussionoftheaxialshiftŽtowardbothTorahŽandProphetsŽseeMichaelFishbane,FromScribalismtoRabbinismŽinTheSageinIsraelandtheAncientNearEast,JohnG.GammieandLeoPerdue,ed.(WinonaLake,IN:Eisenbrauns,1990),440…445.217.Schwartz,Language,PowerandIdentity.Ž218.M.J.Geller,TheLastWedge,Ž87(1997):43…64,notesasimilarphenomenoninlaterMeso-potamia,whereeverydayindigenous-languagetransactionsaredoneinAramaic,alongsideacontinuingtraditioninAkkadian.Thedifference,however,inMespotamia,isthatthetabletformatpreservedtheliterarytraditionalongsideeverydaytransactions,whilethemediausedfortheliterarytraditioninIsraelandsimilarculturesdidnotlast.219.SeeLemaire,SchoolsandLiteracy,Ž209…10,andSchniedewind,BibletoBook,175…77.220.Schniedewind,BibletoBook,149…64.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationshowsignsofhavingoncebeensuchpreexilicprofessionalinstructions,in-structionsthatDeuteronomyinturnpresupposes.Yetsometimeintheexileorpostexilicperioditappearsthatcertainpriestlygroups,particularlytheAa-ronides,wroteapriestlyversionoftheMosaicTorahŽtostandalongsidetheDeuteronomic/non-priestlyone.ThisTorahincludedolderpriestlyinstruc-tionalmaterialsbutwentfarbeyondthem,encompassingnarrativesaboutIsraelspre-landhistoryandexhortationstoIsraelasawhole.AvacuumhadopenedintheoldersystemofroyalJudeantextuality-enculturation,and(Aaronide)priestssteppedin.Ultimately,however,thenewpriestlytraditionsdidnotreplacetheirnon-priestlycounterpartsbutstoodalongsidethem.Indeed,Israelsongoingpres-ervationofmassiveamountsofnonpriestlynarrativeandpropheticmaterialscontrastswiththeevidenceseenin“rst-millenniumtemple-focusedtextualsystemsinEgyptandMesopotamia.BythetimeoftheauthoringofEzra-Nehemiah,IsraelappearstohaveendorsedaMosaicTorahmadeupofboththePriestlyProto-Pentateuchanditsnon-Priestlycounterpart.Thereismuchdebateabouthowthissomewhatunprecedentedcon”ationoftraditionscameabout.Tosomeextent,itmayhavebeentheproductofacompromisebetweentheremnantsofroyalgroupsinearlypostexilicJudahandthenewlydominantpriests.Yetitisalsopossible,evenprobable,thatthePersiansplayedsomeroleinendorsingandevencommissioningthecombinedTorahofPriestlyandnon-Priestlytraditions.PeterFreiandothershavesurveyedwaysinwhichthePersiansendorsedlocalcultictraditionsandsupportedthecollectionofwrittentraditionsinEgypt.Furthermore,AssmannnotesthatDariuss“rsttempleinEgyptrepresentsaremarkableextensionofEgyptiantradition,goingbeyondthecultictocodifyotherformsofknowledgeaswell.Thisbackgroundgivesextrasigni“cancetothenarrativeinEzra-NehemiahinwhichEzraisdepictedascommissionedbythePersianstoenforcethelawofyourGodandthelawofyourkingŽ(Ezra7:26),alawdepictedthereasvirtuallyidenticaltothe221.Forsummaryofbasicargumentsforidenti“cationoftheGenesisportionofthisPriestlyinstructionandquestionsofdatingseeCarr,ReadingtheFractures,43…140.ThemodeladoptedhereresemblesthatofIsraelKnohl(SanctuaryofSilence:ThePriestlyTorahandtheHolinessSchool[Minneapolis:FortressPress,1995];seealsoM.Haran,TemplesandTempleServiceinAncientIsrael:AnInquiryintoBiblicalCultPhenomenaandtheHistoricalSettingofthePriestlySchool[Oxford:ClarendonPress,1977],108…9,146…47).IdivergefromKnohlonthecontoursandcharacterizationofthelaterlayerofPriestlytradition.222.OnthisseeJosephBlenkinsopp,WasthePentateuchtheCivicandReligiousConstitutionoftheJewishEthnosinthePersianPeriod?ŽinPersiaandTorah:TheTheoryofImperialAuthorizationofthePentateuched.JamesWatts(Atlanta,GA:SocietyofBiblicalLiterature,2001),56…58.Inthiscontext,heattemptstoaddresstheabsenceinourPentateuchofthefestivalofwoodbutapparentlyoverlookstheattestationofthisfestivalinaneditionofthePentateuchre”ectedin4QRP(4Q365;frag.23,col.1.6…8).FordiscussionseeCarr,Method,Ž223.ForarecentsummaryseePeterFrei,PersianImperialAuthorization:ASummary,ŽinPersiaandTorah:TheTheoryofImperialAuthorizationofthePentateuch,ed.andtrans.JamesWatts(Atlanta,GA:SocietyofBiblicalLiterature,2001),5…40,alongwiththemorerecentcontributionbyBlenkinsopp,Constitution,ŽandtheinsightfulobservationinJamesWatts,introductiontoWatts,PersiaandTorah,3…4.OtheressaysinthesamevolumehelpinqualifyingsomeofFreisoriginalclaimsbutdonotsuccessfullyrefutetheoverallapproach.224.Assmann,Fu¨nfStufen,Ž89.
textualityandeducationinancientisraelpresentP/non-PPentateuchthatwehave.ThoughnoneoftheexamplesofPersianinvolvementinculticaffairsareexactlycomparable,theexamplestakentogethersupporttheideathatPersianswereinvolvedinencouragingtheformationofourP/non-PPentateuch,adocumentthePersianssomehowrec-Ifthisisso,thiswouldbeasomewhatdifferentiterationofanlinkagealreadyseenbetweeneducationandempire.Inthiscase,thePersians,bywayoflocalelitesthattheysponsored,reinforcedthewestern”ankoftheirempire(e.g.Egypt,Judah)byempoweringsuchelitesintheirconsolidationoflocaltraditions.WhetherthroughPersianendorsementornot,theMosaicPentateuchgainedasupremeauthorityinpostexilicJudah.IftherewasanyquestionoftherelationshipbetweenGodsTorahandtheprophetsŽinthepreexilicorexilicperiods,itappearstohavebeenresolvedtowardsupremacyofTorahaftertheexile.ItistheTorahthatisreadinNehemiah8andnoothertext.TorahistheprimefocusofcitationsinChronicles.AndaswemovelaterintotheSecondTempleperiod,itistheTorahthatenjoysprideofplacealong-sidethetempleasthefocalpointforJewishlife.Godsservants,theproph-ets,ŽaremerelytheTorahsinterpreters,exhorterstoTorahobedience,andpointerstoIsraelsfuture.Onemarkofthisdevelopmentistherelativelyearly“xingofthebasiccontoursoftheMosaicTorah.WenowhaveatQumranseveralearlymodi“-cationsandcon”ationsofthePentateuchsdivergenttraditions„theso-calledproto-Samaritantradition,and4QRP,andQTemple„yettheseenduprele-gatedtothemarginsofthestreamoftradition.Incontrast,theSeptuagintand“ndsfromQumranshowusthatourpresentHebrewBiblecontainslaterrevisionsofnon-TorahbookssuchasJoshua,Jeremiah,andEzekiel.Tobesure,thePentateuchstillwasusedintheoral-written,educationalprocess.AsIwilldiscussinchapter9,theMosaicTorahtraditionsatQumrantestifytoanon-going,highlydynamicprocessoforal-writtenuseandtransmissionoftheTorah.Nevertheless,itappearsthatsuchoral-writtendynamismhadcompar-ativelylittleimpactonthetextoftheTorahthatwastransmittedasauthoritativetosubsequentgenerations.TheversionoftheTorahfoundinmostearlyman-uscriptsandincludedintheHebrewBibleisdistinguishedbyitsrelativean-225.ForanalysisoftheEzratextandasurveyofscholarspursuingthisapproachseeBlenkinsopp,Con-stitution,Ž56…61.226.Runesson,,288…92,pointsoutwaysinwhichtheplacementofthisnarrativeandritualsassociatedwiththereadingoftheTorahhighlightitsaugmentedauthorityinthisperiod.227.ThisisevidenteveninChapmansexplorationofhowTorahandprophetsarecoordinatedinChron-icles(LawandtheProphets,218…31).228.ForsurveysseePietervanderHorst,WastheSynagogueaPlaceofSabbathWorshipBefore70CE?ŽinJews,ChristiansandPolytheistsintheAncientSynagogue:CulturalInteractionDuringtheGreco-Roman,ed.StevenFine(London:Routledge,1999),34…35,andSethSchwartz,ImperialismandJewishSociety,200.to640(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,2001),14…16.229.Cf.Chapman,LawandtheProphets,231…85,whodocumentsongoingvalueontheprophetsinthepostexilicperiodbutalsothesubordinationofprophetictraditions,wheretheyappear,toMosaicTorah.230.FordiscussionandcitationofsomeearlierliteratureseeCarr,Method,Ž113…23.
earlyexamplesoftextualityandeducationtiquity.ForthebulkofJudaism,itappearsthatthehighlycomplexprocessofformationoftheTorahhadcometoanend.Thisrelatively“xedMosaicTorahinstructionnowstandsatthecenterofatemple-centeredcommunityheadedbypriests.Themonarchyisgone.Whereaking,Josiah,isenvisionedasleadingthepeopleintheTorah-readingandcovenant-makinginKings(2Kgs23:1…3),thebookofNehemiahdepictsapriest,Ezra,leadingthepeopleinasimilarTorah-reading(Nehemiah8).Inaddition,theTorahŽtaughttosuchIsraelites„whetherinEzrasperiodorafterward„isanincreasinglypriestlyTorah.ThroughtheinclusionintheTo-rahofpriestlytraditions,layIsraelitesreceivesomeoftheeducation-enculturationoncereservedforpriests.Asaresult,IsraelisnolongerjustawiseŽpeople(asinDeuteronomy)butapeoplemadeholyŽbytheirreceptionofa(partly)priestlyeducation-enculturation,anationofpriests.ŽInliterarydepictionslikeNehemiah8theyreceivethiseducation-enculturationfromtruepriests,butitmarksthem„atleastincomparisontonon-Israelites„asaholyThisisaparticularlypriestlyenactmentoftheolderDeuteronomicidealpictureofuniversaleducationofawiseanddiscerningnation.ŽWithinthatideal,asystemofancienteducationonceusedtoseparatealiterateelitefrompeerswasdepictedasseparatingIsraelasawholefromtheothernations(Deut4:6…8;cf.6:6;11:18).Class-educationaldistinctionswereenvisionedinthosetextsaspotentialdistinctionsbetweenIsraelandothernations;ethnicIsraelwasaneducatedelite.Whateveritsolderassociations,thisDeuteronomicvi-sionwouldhavehadspecialcogencyduringthepostexilicperiod,whenwavesofthereturnees„beingdescendantsoftheeliteclassesofIsrael(2Kgs24:14;25:11…12)„weremorehighlyeducatedthanthebulkofthoseremaininginthedevastatedland,andmanyofthoseremaininginthelandwererede“nedasCanaanite.ŽYetthelatertraditionsunderdiscussionnow(e.g.Exod19:6)gofurther.TheydepictemergentIsraelnotonlyaseducatedbutaspriests„aparticularlyholy,educatedminority„withinabroaderworldofuncleannations.IwillshowthismovecontinuingintothelaterSecondTempleperiod,bothinthecreationofaspeciallyholygroupofpriestsandnonpriestsamongtheEssenesandinthemorewholesaleextensionofpriestlypurityregulationstothepeopleinthePharisaicmovement.Thestartingpointforsuchdevel-opments,however,isthemovemadeinthewakeofthedestructionofthemonarchytowardthereconceptualizationofIsraelasapriestlypeople,andtheconcomitantrevisionofitsgeneraleducation-enculturationtraditionstoin-cludeprominentpriestlytraditions.ThesepicturesofawiseŽandpriestlyŽpeople,however,areeitherpro-jectionsofidealsintotheMosaicpastorvisionsforthefuture.Atnopointinpre-HellenisticIsraelitehistorydothepeopleasawholeactuallygainthesortofliteraryliteracyŽthatcountedmostintheancientworld.GeneralliteracywasnotachievedamidtheemergenceofanearlyIsraelitestate.Duringthelaterpreexilicperiodvariousformsofalphabeticliteracyexpanded,andweseetheDeuteronomicvisionoforal-writteneducation.Nevertheless,wedonothaveclearevidenceofliteracybeyondmembersoftheadministrativeandrul-
textualityandeducationinancientisraelingclasses.Soalso,theexilicperiodwashardlythetimeforaradicalexpan-sionofIsraeliteliteracy,neitherinIsraelitselfnorinBabylon.Andthepost-exilicperiod,asSchniedewindargues,wasnotmuchbetter.ThoughtheconditionsforwritingimprovedsomewhatinthelaterPersianperiod,expansioninpercentageofliteracyprobablycamemorefromthepostexilicrede“nition,describedearlier,ofwhatconstitutedanIsraeliteŽratherthanmajorincreasesinaccesstoliterateeducation.WemustwaituntiltheHelle-nisticandRomanperiodsbeforewebegintoseemoreevidenceofabroadlybasededucationalsysteminIsrael,asystemformedinresponsetoamorebroadlybasededucationalsystemintheGreco-Romanworld.IturnnowtotakeacloserlookatthatHellenisticeducationalsystem.231.ThebestevidenceforsuchwidespreadliteracywouldbetheMesadHashavyahuostracon,alongwithgraf“tiatsiteslikeKhibetel-QomandKhirbetBeit-Lei.Nevertheless,thegraf“tiwasprobablywrittenbyartisans,anunusuallywell-educatedclassintheancientworld(cf.Deirel-Medina),andtheostracon„possiblywrittenbyascribe„isaslenderbasisonwhichtobuildapictureofgeneralliteracyinIsraelthatwouldbeunprecedentedelsewhereintheancientworld.OnthisseeSchniedewindsargumentsforwidespreadbasicŽliteracyintoBook,103…4.232.Schniedewind,BibletoBook,167…82.233.BenZvi,UrbanCenter,Ž197…98.
This page intentionally left blank
partiiTextualityandEducationintheEasternHellenisticWorld
This page intentionally left blank
EducationandTextualityintheHellenisticWorldEgyptandOtherExamplesofHellenisticHybridityTheHellenisticperiodmarksade“niteshiftinmanyimportantre-spectsfromthepre-Hellenisticone.Firstandforemost,educationandtextualityarepartofabroaderclashofcultures.IncontextslikeHellenisticEgypt,participationineliteGreekeducationmarkedoneasaGreekŽandthusamemberoftheGreekrulingclass,espe-ciallyifoneprogressedtothepointofhavinggraduatedfromthegymnasium.YetIwillshowinthischapterhowthiseducation,par-ticularlyontheelitelevels,wasnotopentoall,norwasitequallyaccessibletoallstudents.Instead,educationandtextualitybecomesacentralmeansforlegitimatingGreekoverlordshipbywayofpos-sessionofpurportedlysuperiorGreekculture.Inresponse,domi-natedcultureslikeEgyptarticulatedatleastpartoftheirresistancetoGreekrulethroughassertingandrede“ningtheirownculturalHellenisticEducationandTextProductionBeforeprogressingfurtherindetailingthisclashofcultures,letustakealookattheHellenistictextual-educationalmatrix,particularlyasitisattestedoutsideoftheGreekheartland.Fortunately,thisstageofancienteducationisbetterdocumentedthanalmostanyotherstage,saveperhapsthatofMesopotamianeducationintheOldBabylonianperiod.NotonlydowehavetheoreticaldiscussionsofeducationinHellenisticGreekliterature,butwecanalsodrawonextensive“ndsofschoolbooksandeducationalexercisesfromHelle-nisticandRomanEgypt.InthecaseoftheuseofthetheoreticianQuintilian,forexample,IdrawonRomanperiodtextstoilluminate
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworldtheshapeofaneducationalsystemthatprecededhimandremainedremark-ablycontinuousintothetimeofearlyByzantinematerials.Nevertheless,theprimaryaimhereistoreconstructsystemsofGreektextualityandeducationasthey“rstaroseinHellenisticcultureslikePtolemaicEgypt.Thepicturethatemergesfromthesematerialsisremarkablysimilartothatseeninearlierchapters:small-scaleeducationalprocessesratherthanfor-malschools,focusonmemorizationandrecitationofatextualheritage,useofsucheducationforclassformation.Still,therearesomeimportantwaysinwhichHellenisticeducationisdistinctfromSumero-Akkadian,Egyptian,andevenpre-HellenisticGreeksystems.Asbefore,Hellenisticeducationappearstohavehappenedinavarietyofsites,particularlyontheelementarylevels.Tobesure,weseementionofschools,ŽaswedidintheSumero-AkkadianandEgyptianinstances.Yet,asinthoseinstances,schoolŽcanmeanverydifferentthingsindifferentcon-texts.CribioresexcellentsurveyofHellenistictoearlyByzantinesitesofed-ucationidenti“esevidenceofearlyeducationinprivatehomes(particularlyforelitestudents),onthestreet(goodforpublicityoftheteacher),inthecountry,andintemples(particularlyforlow-levelGreekandDemoticeducation),tombs,andcolonnades.Lateron,upper-levelteacherslikeLibaniuscouldrentspecialroomsfortheirteaching,andthereisfairlyextensivearchaeologicalevidenceforgymnasia.Nevertheless,onlyafewstudentswouldhavereachedsuchadvancedlevels,anditisnotclearinanycasehowmuchliterary-culturaleducationhappenedingymnasia,asidefromanoccasionalcompetitionorvisitinglecturer.Therewereexceptions,butHellenisticeducationappearstohavebeenanenterprisecenteredonindividualteachers,andaschoolŽoftenconsistedoflittlemorethantheteacher,anagreedmeetingplace,andanyassociatedupper-levelstudentsfunctioningasassistants.AmidthisvarietyinHellenisticeducationalarrangements,weseetheemergenceofaremarkableconsistencyinwhatwastaught.Indeed,pastandrecentresearchhasidenti“edtheHellenisticperiodashavingachievedareg-ularityinpedagogythatwasnotseenpreviouslyinGreekeducation.discussions“ndithelpfultosummarizethecontentsofHellenisticeducationaccordingtoanoverallthree-partstructure:elementaryeducationinbasiclit-eracy,secondaryeducationingrammar,andhighereducationinrhetoric.Thoughthesedifferentlevelscouldbetaughtindifferentcontexts,thethree-partschemeisausefulstartingpointforanoverviewofthecontentsofHel-lenisticeducation.1.RaffaellaCribiore,GymnasticsoftheMind(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,2001),21…34.SeealsothediscussionofproblemsinidentifyingschoolsettingsinTeresaMorgan,LiterateEducationintheHellenisticandRomanWorlds,CambridgeClassicalStudies(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1998),28…29.2.Cribiore,,31…32.Thoughthisislaterevidence,thereislittlereasontobelieveteacherslikeLibaniusinauguratedthispractice.3.Thestandardsurvey(thougholder)isJeanDelorme,Gymnasion:EtudesurlesMonumentsConsacre´salEducationenGre`ce,DesOriginesa`EmpireRomain(Paris:Boccard,1960).4.Onthisissueseehereafter.5.See,e.g.,Morgan,LiterateEducation,34.6.Fordiscussionoftheproblemswithpastassumptionsofathree-partpatternseeesp.AlanD.Booth,
hellenistic-periodgreekeducationandtextualityThe“rststageofeducationoccurredinthegreatestvarietyofcontexts.Theteachercouldbethechildsparent,aslaveworkinginthehousehold,aprivatetutor,oralow-paidteacherrunningaclassinamakeshiftlocationlikethestreet,colonnade,tomb,orcountry.Atthisinitialstagestudentscopied,readaloud,memorized,andsanginitiallistsandliteraryexcerpts.Lookingmorecloselyattheseearlyteachingmaterials,westillseetheabecedariesthatwerealreadyattestedforclassicalGreekeducation,butthesewerefollowedbyamoreregularizedseriesofotherteachingmaterials,suchassyllablelists,namelists,andlistsofmultisyllabicwords.Wisdommaximswerealsofeaturedprominently,alongwithpoeticliterarypassagessuchasthe“rstpartofHo-andrelatedworks.ThissortofsequenceiswellillustratedbyschoolbooksthatappeartohaveservedasteachersmodelsinHellenisticEgypt.ItisalsoattestedintheoreticaldiscussionsoutsideEgyptlikethefollowingoft-quoteddescriptionofeducationbyDionysiusofHalicarnassus(Comp.25;seealsoDem.52):Whenwearetaughttoread,“rstwelearnbyheartthenamesoftheletters,thentheirshapesandtheirvalues,then,inthesameway,thesyllablesandtheireffects,and“nallywordsandtheirproperties,bywhichImeanthewaystheyarelengthened,shortened,andscanned;andsimilarfunctions.Andwhenwehaveacquiredknowledgeofthesethings,webegintowriteandread,syllablebysyllableandslowlyat“rst.Itisonlywhenaconsiderablelapseoftimehasim-planted“rmlyinourmindstheformsofthewordsthatweexecutethemwiththeutmostease,andwereadthroughanybookthatisgiventousunfalteringlyandwithincrediblecon“denceandspeed.(Usher,LCL,p.57)Thislaterdiscussionprovidesausefulframeworkforinterpretingtheearlierevidencefromexercises.Accordingtothispicture,thestudentprogressedfromthesmallertothelarger,fromindividualalphabetlettersupthroughlargerliteraryexcerpts.ThoughtheorderprobablyvariedmorethandiscussionslikeDionysiusswouldallow,eachstepneededtobemasteredbeforeonepro-gressedtothenext.Forexample,bythetimeofQuintilian(.1.1.25…26),studentsmemorizedthealphabetnotonlyfrombeginningtoendbutinre-verseorder,pairsbeginningwith“rstandlast,andrandomorders.Fromtheoutsetofeducation,memorizationofmaterialsplayedakeyrole.ElementaryandSecondaryEducationintheRomanEmpire,ŽFlorilegium1(1979):1…14;RobertKaster,NotesonPrimaryandSecondarySchoolsinLateAntiquity,ŽTransactionsoftheAmericanPhilologicalAssociation(1983):323…46;andCribiore,,36…44.
7.HMaehler,DieGriechischeSchuleImPtolema¨ischenAgypten,ŽinEgyptandtheHellenisticWorld:ProceedingsoftheInternationalColloquium,Leuven,24…26May1982(Louvain:StudiaHellenistica,1983),196…97;,150…63.8.Cribiore,,167…72.9.MaryCarruthers,TheBookofMemory:AStudyofMemoryinMedievalCulture(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1991),111.
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworldThethirdcentury(.)writerAthenaeusdepictsabanquetdiscussionofhowchildrenlearnthealphabetthroughsingingit.Herodasprovidesasketchinwhichastudentfailstoreciteamemorizedspeech.Callimachussepi-gramsincludeonethatplayfullyinterpretsaschoolbustwithagapingmouthasarepresentationofhowyoungstudentsmustsingforthvariouslinesofLaterGreektheoreticianslikePollux(4.18),Pseudo-Plutarch(9e…f)andQuintilian(.1.3;10.1.19;11.2;etc.)discussthecentralityofmemoryandmemorizationtotheeducationalprocess.Indeed,memoryŽwasrecognizedasthemotherofthesevenMuseswhowereseenassponsorsofeducationandtextuality.Suchmemorizationwasimportantbecausemanuscriptsofliterarytextswereasdif“culttoreadandsearchthroughatthistimeastheywereduringtheclassicalperiod.Exceptforeasy-to-readschoolmodels,textslackedsyllable-orword-separators,andvirtuallyalltextswerewrittensolelyincapitalletters,withoutaccentsorotherreaderlyhelps.TheRomananecdotalistAulusGel-liusindicateshowmuchmorewasrequiredtoreadatextthanjustknowledgeoflettersandwords.InhisAtticNightshedescribesthehumiliationofamanwhoboastedmasteryofVarrobutwasunabletoreadatextofVarro”uently,sowretchedlydidhepronouncethewordsandmurderthethoughtŽ(13.31;Rolfe,LCL).InanotheranecdotefromtheShepherdofHermas,Hermasre-ceivesabookofvisionsthathemustcopyletterbyletter,forIcouldnotmakeoutthesyllablesŽ(2:3…4).AsCribiorehaspointedout,oneofthebestindicatorsthatagiventextisaneducationalmodelforstudentcopyingisthepresenceofword-separatorstohelpstudentswiththeprocessofinitialinterpretation.Onlyasstudentsgraduallymasteredaneverbroaderrangeofliterarymaterial,weretheycapableofreadingŽ/rerecognizingŽ(Greek¯skein)andre-10.Athenaeus,10.453d.AthenaeuswasanativeofNaucratisinEgypt.11.Herodas,3(SchoolmasterŽ),lines30…36.12.Callimachus,Epig.49.CallimachusworkedmostofhiscareerinAlexandria.Cribiore(,15)quotesathird-century(.)schoolbookfromGaulthatlikewisedescribeshowstudentslearntheircolloquiaandrecitethem.13.FormoreonthecentralityofmemoryinHellenisticeducationseeH.I.Marrou,AHistoryofEducationinAntiquity,trans.GeorgeLamb(Madison:UniversityofWisconsinPress,1956[1948original]),150…59;Raf-faellaCribiore,Writing,Teachers,andStudentsinGraeco-RomanEgypt,AmericanStudiesinPapyrology(Atlanta,GA:ScholarsPress,1996),154…55(whonotesthesimilarpatternsintheSumero-AkkadianandEgyptiansys-tems);T.Olbricht,DeliveryandMemory,ŽinHandbookofClassicalRhetoricintheHellenisticPeriod330B.C.…A.D.400,ed.S.Porter(Leiden:Brill,1997);Morgan,LiterateEducation,194…97,246,250…51;Cribiore,,esp.149,151,166…67andbooksonmemoryinantiquitybyCarruthersandSmall(Carruthers,BookofMemory;JocelynPennySmall,WaxTabletsoftheMind:CognitiveStudiesofMemoryandLiteracyinClassical[London:Routledge,1997]).FordiscussionofasimilarfocusonmemorizationinLatineducationseeHistoryofEducation,271,289andCatherineHezser,TheMishnahandAncientBookProduction,ŽinTheMishnahinContemporaryPerspective,ed.AlanJ.Avery-PeckandJacobNeusner(Leiden:Brill,2002),184…14.Somediscussionsofthedif“cultyofmanuscriptsforreadingincludeF.G.Kenyon,BooksandReadersinAncientGreeceandRome(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1951),67;Marrou,HistoryofEducation,166;MartinP.Nilsson,DieHellenistischeSchule(Munich:C.H.Beck,1955),4;L.D.ReynoldsandN.G.Wilson,ScribesandScholars:AGuidetotheTransmissionofGreekandLatinLiterature,3rded.(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1991),2…3;Small,WaxTablets,esp.11…25,andCribiore,,189…90.15.Cribiore,Writing,Teachers,Students,48…49,123…28;Cribiore,,132…40.
hellenistic-periodgreekeducationandtextualitycitingagivenworkwithoutsuchhelps.AsCribioreputsit,ratherthanstoreacopyofaschoolbookinhishouse,thestudentstoreditscontentsinhismemory:thecubbyholesofhismindcontainedthesyllabariesofthepast,thelistsofmythological“gures,andtheworksofthepoetshehadscrutinized.ŽAsinotherculturesdiscussedearlier,thisworkofmemorizationwasaidedfromtheoutsetthroughthepredominanceoforalperformance.Studentswouldsingthealphabetandsomeverses,orperhapsreadatextaloud.Thiswasnotanissueoftheirinabilitytoprocessagiventextinternally.Rather,oralperformancehelpedstudentsinternalizetextsthroughprocessingthembymouthandearaswellasbyeye.LaterwriterslikeQuintiliansometimeslikenedfacilitationofmemorizationthroughvocalmurmuringtothemouth-lyruminationofatext,chewingonitandingestingit.Moreover,oralperfor-manceoftextsprovidedameasureofthecompetenceorincompetenceofstudentsthroughdemonstrationandcompetition(e.g.,Herodas,3[TheSchoolmasterŽ]).Thustheoralregisterwasimportantbothforachievinginitialmasteryoftheculturaltraditionandforprovingthatmasterytoothers.Thisworkofmemorizationandoralperformanceofliterarytraditionwouldnothavecomenaturallytostudents,especiallythosewithoutextensivepriorknowledgeofsomeformofGreeklanguageandculture.AsMorganpointsout,the“rststagesofalphabetandsyllablelearningturnthestudentintoareciterofnonsenses.ŽThisistheoppositeofwhole-wordliteracyedu-cation.Studentslearnletternamesandsyllableswithoutanyreferenttothingstheyalreadyknow.Thesituationdoesnotimprovemuchwhentheyprogresstomasteringmeaninglesssequencesofmultisyllablewords.Andmanystu-dentswouldnothaveunderstoodmuchmorewhentheystartedwritingandmemorizingwisdommaximsandexcerptsfromHomer.Suchliteraturewouldhavebeenincrediblydif“cultforbeginningstudents,fullofgrammarandvocabularyunfamiliareventostudents”uentintheKoineGreekoftheHel-lenisticperiod.Nevertheless,suchliteraturewasintroducedattheoutsetofastudentseducationandrepeatedthroughoutinhopesofreshapinghislanguageandmoldinghismoralcharacter.Roman-periodeducationaltheoristslikeQuintil-16.OntheverbseeNilsson,HellenistischeSchule,4,whocommentsonthesimilarmeaningsofLatinandGerman17.Cribiore,,149,151.18.SeeA.K.Gavrilov,TechniquesofReadinginClassicalAntiquity,ŽClassicalQuarterly47(1997):56…73,foradiscussionofcontemporaryresearchonthedevelopmentofsilentreadingcapabilityandofseveraltextsthatpointtosilentreadingasamoretypicalmodeofreadingthanistypicallyassumed.Cf.alreadySedgewick,ReadingandWritinginClassicalAntiquity,ŽContemporaryReview135(1929):90…91,whonotestheoralsettingofmostperformanceofliterature,notlackofreadercapacity,asthegroundforpreferringvocalizedtononvo-calizedreading.Cf.Carruthers,BookofMemory,170…71,forproposalofanalternativewayofunderstandingthefunctionandterminologyforsilentandvocalreading.19.Carruthers,BookofMemory,164…65.20.OntheimportanceofreadingaloudinHellenisticeducationseeMarrou,HistoryofEducation,165…66,195,224;Cribiore,,190…92.21.Morgan,LiterateEducation,100…110,165…66.SeealsoMaehler,GriechischeSchule,Ž200…201ontheunsuitabilityofGreekeducationalmaterialsforlanguageacquisition.
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworldianarguedthatitwasespeciallyimportanttointroducesuch“neliteratureatanearlyagelestimpressionableyoungstudentsbemorallyformedbysub-standard,contemporarywritings(1.8.5…6).Soalso,PlinytheYoungerwritesofhowthestudentwouldstartandreturnagainandagaintothesame,centraltextsandauthors.Alongtheway,teachersprovidedsomehelps.Forexample,RomanperiodauthorslikeQuintilianbuiltonearlierGreekantece-dentsincomposingandusing(excerptcollections)consistingoflit-eraryextractsorganizedbymoralorothercategories.AsCarruthersargues,theirpurposewasnottosubstituteforthestudyoforiginaltexts,buttoprovidecuesforrecollectingmaterialreadearlier.ŽInaddition,theuseofalphabeticacrosticsasmemoryaidscontinued.Especiallyattheearlierstages,studentswouldhavebeenconfrontedwithaphysicallybrutalprocessofinscribingthisalientextualmaterialontheirminds.EvidencefromtheHellenisticperiodtesti“estowidespreaduseofphysicalviolenceonyoungerstudents.Lower-levelteachershadawidearrayofweaponstowieldontheirstudents,andmostappeartohavedoneso„despitethecriticismsofsuchpracticesbytheoristslikeLibaniusandQuintil-Butteachersdidnotjustbeatstudentsintolearning.Theyalsoprovidedaidstotheirlearning„forexample,educationalmodelswithword-separators.Moreover,theyprovidedpositiveencouragementforstudentstolearn,suchasimagingeducationasanattractiveladyŽtobewon.Despiteallthis,thema-terialwasfarfromeasytodigest,especiallyforstudentsfromnon-Greekfam-ilies.Teacherswoulduseviolenceonrecalcitrantstudents,andwehaveisolatedstoriesofstudentsbreakingtheirteachersschoolbooksinrebellion.Thesuc-cessfulearlyteachermasteredhisstudents,tamingtheirmindsbywayoftheirbodiesandengravingonthosemindstherudimentsofGreekculture.Manystudentswouldhavestoppedthere,butsomewentontoabroaderanddeeperencounterwithGreekliterature.Iftheyhadnotalreadybegunstudyoutsidethehomebythispoint,theyusuallybegansuchstudynowwithamorehighlypaid,higher-statusgrammarian()orwithassistantswork-ingunderateacherofrhetoriclikethelaterLibanius,perhapstravelingfromtheirsmalltowntoacentralurbanarealikeAlexandriatopursuetheirstud-Undertheguidanceoftheteacher(orhisupper-levelstudents/assistants)thestudentsbranchedoutintheirreading,coveringlargerstretchesofclassic22.Epistulae7.9.15asreferredtobyCribiore,,192…93.23.ThequoteinCarruthers,BookofMemory,176…77.See174…78forabroaderdiscussionofdatingissuesandthepedagogicalusesofsuchinancientandmedievaleducation.24.Marrou,HistoryofEducation,158…59;CatherineAtherton,Children,Animals,SlavesandGrammar,ŽPedagogyandPower:RhetoricsofClassicalLearning,ed.YunLeeTooandNiallLivingstone(Cambridge:Cam-bridgeUniversityPress,1998),242…44;Cribiore,,65…73;JoyConnolly,ProblemsofthePastinImperialGreekEducation,ŽinEducationinGreekandLatinAntiquity,ed.YunLeeToo(Leiden:Brill,2001),366…25.Cribiore,,156…57.26.OnthehigherstatusandpayofsuchteachersseeespeciallyCribiore,,53…63.See106…8ofthesamebookfordiscussionofeducationofchildrenbyparents.
hellenistic-periodgreekeducationandtextualityliterature,suchasEuripides,Isocrates,andothers,suchasHerodotusandThucydides,thatoftenoccurredintheeducationaltextsandstandardlistsfoundinancienttheoristssuchasQuintilian.Asbefore,Homertookprideofplace,butnowportionsofthewereusedthathadnotbeenstudiedasmuchearlierinGreekeducation.Moreover,Homerwasnotjustreadandmemorized;thestudentlearnedglossariesofHomericlanguage,listsofrealiaandunusualwords,commentarieselaboratinghowHomericheroescouldbeconstruedasmoralideals,andsoon.Studentsnolongersangasmuch,buttheystillreadaloud,whilealsopracticingaddingaccentstoteachermodelsandotherwiseperfectingtheiroraldemonstrationoftheircomprehen-sionofthegiventext.Suchhigher-level,grammaticalŽeducationwasonlyavailabletoafew,anditprovedtherealwatershedindistinguishingmereutilityliteracyfromthehigherliteratenessthatmarkedanupper-classperson.Onlythroughdeeperengagementwiththelinguisticdetailsofabroadrangeofliteraturecouldastudentgainfacilityinthesomewhatarti“cialbrandofAtticGreekthatmarkedoneoffastrulyeducated.Moreover,onlysuchabroadanddeepengagementgavestudentsthefullfacilitytoreachthegoaloutlinedbyDionysiusofHali-carnassusinhisstatementquotedearlier:Itisonlywhenaconsiderablelapseoftimehasimplanted“rmlyinourmindstheformsofthewordsthatweexecutethemwiththeutmostease,andwereadthroughanybookthatisgiventousunfalteringlyandwithincrediblecon“denceandspeed.ŽFinally,anevensmallernumberofstudentswentontoathirdstageofeducationthattypicallyincludedtraininginrhetoric,alongwith,possibly,phi-losophyandothersubjectslikemedicine.Theemphasisontheoralwordwas,ifanything,moreprominentatthisstage.Nevertheless,studentswerenolongerlimitedtoingestingclassicworksbutwerebeingtrainedtoproducenewspeechesandcompositionsbuildingonthewordingandgrammaroftheolderworksthathadbeenthefocusoftheireducationthroughout.Thus,forexample,astudentmightlearnwritingbycopyingamaximfromDiogenesinthe“rststage,learngrammarbydecliningthatsamesayinginthesecond27.Cribiore,,192…219.28.SeeCribiore,,194…97,204…205.GlennW.Most,CanonFathers:Literacy,Mortality,Power,Ž1(1990…91):48…49,notesthatHomerŽoftheHellenisticperiodhasbeenpurgedofvariousearlylyricalpoemsthatwerecirculatedearlieraspartoftheHomericŽcorpus.29.ForsomediscussionofthecentralityandusesofHomeratthisstageseeMarrou,HistoryofEducation162…63,169…70;Nilsson,HellenistischeSchule,80,95…96;Cribiore,,194…97.Cribiore(131)notesonestoryfromPlutarchwhereAlcibiadesbeatsamanforclaimingtobeateacherofgrammarandnothavingacopyofHomerinhispossession(30.OnthechangeintypeofperformanceseeMarrou,HistoryofEducation,165…66.OnreadingaloudatthisstageseealsoCribiore,,189…91.31.Morgan,LiterateEducation,166…67;Atherton,Children,Ž214…17,236…40.32.Marrou,HistoryofEducation,195.33.ForoverviewsofrhetoricaltrainingseeMorgan,LiterateEducation,190…239,andCribiore,220…44.FordiscussionofmemorizationevenatthestageofnewcompositionseeOlbricht,DeliveryandMemory.Ž
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworldstage,andlearnrhetoricbyelaboratingthatsayingduringthethird.Theoverallprocessstarted,returnedto,andconcludedwiththeclassicaltextsatthecoreofGreekculture.TheavailableevidencesuggeststhattherewassubstantialagreementaboutthescopeoftheancientGreekculturetobetaught.Gnomicmaterial,whetherisolatedsayingsorliteraturedensewithmaxims,wasespeciallypopular.Forexample,thereareanunusuallylargenumberofeducationalexercisesusingMenanderintheearlierHellenisticperiod,perhapspartlybecauseMenandercombinededucationinaGreekworldviewwithpracticeinAtticGreek.merwasthemostdominantsourceofliterature,particularlymaterialfromthe“rstsixbooksoftheandtheportionsofthethatmostcloselylinkedtothecharactersoftheEuripideswasalsopopular,particularlyhisplaywithitslinkstotheIsocrateswasalsofrequentlypartoftheregularcoreŽorminimalpackageŽofHellenisticeducation,againbecauseoftheprominenceofsayingsmaterial.Yetstudentswerenottaughtjustsuchcoretexts.Rather,theymasteredamixofliterarystandardslikeHomerandawide-ranginglistofmoreperipheralworks.MorganhasproposedthemodelofcoreŽandperipheryŽtocharac-terizethisteachingmaterial,arguingthatitbetterapproximatestheevidencethanconceptsofastandardcurriculum.ŽOthershaveplacedgreaterstressonthetestimonyoflatertheoreticians(e.g.Libanius)thattherewasafairly“xedcurriculumacrossthefullrangeofeducation.Ineithercase,thepointwasforstudentsnotjusttogainmasteryofaculturalcore(e.g.,Homer,Euripides)butalsotospiceuptheirspeechwithelementsfromotherauthors.ThismixofcorecompetenceandeclecticrangecommunicatedtotheirpeersagraspofthebreadthofGreekliteraryculture.Thisculturaldepositingestedbystudentswasclearlyde“nedoveragainstcontemporarytextsandlanguagebytheantiquityofitsauthorsandtheirlan-guage.Homerwasclearlydistantfromthetimeandidiomofstudents.Eurip-ides,Isocrates,andMenanderlikewisecamefromatimefardistant,certainlymoredistantthanwhensuchauthorswereoccasionallyusedinpre-HellenisticGreekeducation.Throughenshriningcertainworksbysucholderauthors,Hellenisticteachersenculturatedstudentsintowritingandspeakingaschol-34.ForausefuloverviewofhowsimilarmaterialsmightbeuseddifferentlyatdifferentstagesseeRonaldHockandEdwardONeil,TheChreiaandAncientRhetoric:ClassroomExercises,WritingsfromtheGreco-RomanWorld(Atlanta,GA:SocietyofBiblicalLiterature,2002).35.AndreasMehl,ErziehungZumHellenen„ErziehungZumWeltbu¨rger:BemerkungenZumGym-nasionImHellenistischenOsten,Ž5(1992):66;Morgan,LiterateEducation,120…51;Cribiore(,201…4)notesthatAristophanesreplacesMenanderinlaterexercises.36.Morganarguesonthebasisofdistributionofeducationalexercisesthatquitelimitedportionsofthewereused,especiallyattheelementarystages(Morgan,LiterateEducation,105…106.Cribiore(204…5,esp.205,n.98)arguesthatsucheducationaltextsmaypresentamisleadinglynarrowpictureoftheamountofHomerencountered.Thoughsheagreesthatthebeginningofthewasfavored(pp.194…197),shearguesthatbroadermasteryofbothworkswasnotasexceptionalasMorgansuggests.37.Morgan,LiterateEducation,115;Cribiore,,140,197…201.38.Cribiore,,178…80.39.Morgan,LiterateEducation,67…73.
hellenistic-periodgreekeducationandtextualityarlyversionofAtticGreekthatwasdistinctfromtheKoineGreekinuseatthetime.Studentswhoprogressedfurthergainedamore”uentmasteryoftheoftenunpredictableformsandexpressionsofthedocumentsthatformedthecoreoftheireducation.ThelaterRomansatiristLucianprovidesvividpicturesofwhathappenedtostudentswhoavoidedsuchadvancededucation,focusingonlyonafewcontemporaryauthors.Hedepictsthemasembarrass-ingthemselvesbecauseoftheirinabilitytodoanythingmorethanciteasmat-teringofolderexpressionsandnamesfromancientwritings.Overall,thisHellenisticGreektextualheritagewasbothsimilartoanddifferentfromtheSumero-AkkadianandEgyptianones.Ontheonehand,thesyllable,word,andnameliststhatbegintooccurinHellenisticschoolbooksbearamarkedresemblancetosimilarteachingmaterialsthatwereusedinSumero-AkkadianandEgyptianeducation.Moreover,alloftheseculturaldepositsweredistinguishedbytheirantiquity,language,andclaimtorepresentthevaluesofabygoneage.Generally,onlyGreekworksattributedtopre-Hellenisticauthorswereconsideredforinclusionintheeducationalprocess,whilelaterworkswereexcluded.Ontheotherhand,theHellenisticeduca-tionalliteraturewasdistinguishedfromitscounterpartsinfocusingalmostexclusivelyonasetofhumanauthorsratherthanclaimingthatthetextsweredivinelyinspiredorwerefaithfullycopiedfrombygonetimesbyasetofsem-idivinescribesorsages.Inthisrespect,HellenisticGreekeducationisclosertoEgyptiancounterparts,particularlyNewKingdomtextsliketheChester-BeattyPapyrus,whichlistsasetofauthoritativeancientsageswhilealsoclaim-ingspecialinspirationforthem.Onere”ectionofthisunusuallevelofemphasisonauthorsintheHelle-nistictraditionistheemergenceduringthelatethirdorearlysecondcenturyofanauthoritativeAlexandrianlistofthebestoldGreekauthors.Thislistisnotacompletelynewdevelopment.ItisanoutgrowthofearlierdebatesintheGreektraditionaboutthebestAttictragedians,comedywriters,andsoon.Nevertheless,itappearsthatAristophanes,workinginthecontextoftheAl-exandrianlibrary,succeededinestablishingabroaderlistofthebestlyricpoets,orators,philosophers,andsoon,authorswhothenwererecognizedas(admitted,sanctionedŽ[asclassical]).Thislistde“nedtheouterlimitsofclassicalGreeklearning,servingastheexclusivefocusofAristophanesandotherslexicalefforts,andde“ningthoseworksthatweregivenneweditionsbyAlexandrianscholars.Itwasnotcalledacanon,Žandithadonlyalimitedimpactontheeducational-textualsystem.Moststudentswouldneverhavemasteredmanyauthorsonthisselectlist.Nevertheless,Aristophaneslistdidhaveasigni“canteffectinde“ningtheGreekcorpusandsideliningnonin-cludedGreekwritings.InaforeigncontextlikeAlexandria,ithelpedconcen-tratetextualproductiononaselectionofcertainauthors.Moreover,itsolidi“ed40.See,forexample,Lucian,TheRhetoricProfessor41.Seehereafterformorediscussionoftheproblemsindeterminingin”uence.42.MorerecentLatinworkswereincludedinLatineducation(Atherton,Children,Ž217).OntheperiodcoveredseeMost,CanonFathers,Ž54…55.
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworldanemphasisontheseancientauthorsworks,liftingthemupasmodelsforanegativelyjudgedpresent.Yetsuchlistsalsoinvolvedadecisiveshiftingofattentionawayfromotherauthors,asaresultofwhichworksbysuchauthorsfelloutofproductionanddisappeared.ThisnewleveloffocusonauthorsintheHellenisticworldhadimportanteffectsontextualproduction.Forexample,textualcreativityintheHellenisticworldoftentooktheformofthecreationofnewworksattributedtoolderauthors,alongwiththeadditionofnewmaterialtoolderworks.Pseudonymitybecamemoreprominent.Partlyinresponsetothis,scholarsateliteinstitu-tionsliketheAlexandrianMuseonmadecopiesofmanyrarebooksandat-temptedtoestablishauthoritativescholarlyeditionsofolderworksthatex-cludedlateradditions.Thein”uenceofthesescholarlyeffortsonbroadertextualproductionisdebated,buttheytestifytotheearlier-describeddynamismoftextualproduction,includingproductionoffalselyolderworksandsupple-mentationandcorruptionoftrulyolderworks.CertainlylibrarieslikethatinAlexandriathemselvesstoodasastatementofthepowerandscopeofGreeklearning.Callimachusscatalogueofthelibrary,spanning120volumesoflistsofvariousauthorsandworksbythem,stoodasamajortestimonytotherangeandprestigeoftheGreektraditionsoimportanttothebroaderHellenisticsocialsystem.BoththecreationofpseudonymousbooksandtheAlexandrianefforttoprovideacomprehensive,veri“edcollectionofGreekintellectualheritagewerepartofamorebroadlyattestedexpansionoftheproductionandconsumptionofbooksintheHellenisticworld.Bythispointthepossessionofbookshadexpandedinimportantwaysbeyondthosestateandtemplecontextswherecollectionswereprimarilyhousedinthepre-Hellenisticperiod.NotonlydocitieslikeAlexandriaandPergamongainprestigethroughtheirvastcollectionsofbooks,butanincreasingnumberofwealthyscholarsfollowearlierexampleslikeAristotleinbuildingcollectionsoftheirown.43.FordiscussionseeespeciallytheclassicoverviewinRudolfPfeiffer,AHistoryofClassicalScholarship:FromtheBeginningstotheEndoftheHellenisticAge(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1968),203…8,alongwithsubsequentdiscussioninErnstA.Schmidt,HistorischeTypologiederOrientierungsfunktionenvonKanoninderGrie-chischenundRo¨mischenLiterature,ŽinAssmannandAssmann,KanonundZensur,246…58;Most,CanonFathers.Ž;FrancoMontanariandTheodoreHeinze,Kanon,ŽinDerNeuePauly,ed.AugustFriedrichvonPaulyandHubertCancik(Stuttgart:Metzler,1999),248…50.OnthedistinctivedynamicssetupbythecensureinvolvedinthecreationofsuchlistsseeJanAssmannandAleidaAssmann,KanonundZensur,ŽinAssmannandKanonundZensur(Munich:WilhelmFink,1987),7…27.44.Foranilluminating,thoughdated,discussionofthesephenomenaseeA.Gu¨demann,LiteraryFraudsAmongtheGreeks,ŽinClassicalStudiesinHonourofHenryDrisler(NewYork:Macmillan,1894),52…74.45.ReynoldsandWilson,ScribesandScholars,5…6;MostafaEl-abbadi,TheLifeandFateoftheLibraryof(Paris:UNESCO,1990),107…8,111.46.Comparethepositivestatementsaboutin”uenceinHartmutErbse,UberlieferungsgeschichtederGriechischenKlassischenundHellenistischenLiterature,ŽinGeschichtederTextuberlieferungderAntikenundMittelalterlichenLiteratur,ed.HerbertHunger(Zu¨rich:AtlantisVerlag,1961),221…23;Most,CanonFathers,Ž55;ReynoldsandWilson,ScribesandScholars,5…6;El-abbadi,AlexandrianLibrary,114…16,withmorescepticalonesbyKenyon,BooksandReaders,69;Marrou,HistoryofEducation,164…65.
hellenistic-periodgreekeducationandtextualityTheGoalandScopeofHellenisticEducationCertainlythevastmajorityofpeopleneverachievedtheliteracyorpossessedtheresourcestoenjoysuchaprivatelibraryduringtheHellenisticperiod.Rather,onlyaminorityofthebroaderpopulationpursuededucationonanylevel.Onlyafewofthoseprogressedtotheadvancedlevelsofliberaleduca-tionŽthatmarkedthemasmembersoftherulingclass.Tobesure,theHellenisticperiodwasatimewhentheuseofwrittenrecordsrapidlyexpanded,atleastinwell-documentedareaslikeHellenisticEgypt.Weseeamoveinmanycirclesbeyondtheideaofscriballiteracytowardasocietywhereeventheilliterateinthesocietyhadtoreckonwithwritingintheireverydaylivesandrecognizedtheconventionsgoverningwriting.over,anincreasingnumberofleadingcitizensneededliteracytomaketheirway.Theydidnotnecessarilyneedwritingintheirdirectwork,buttheydidneedliteracyandbasicoratoricalskillstoperformadequatelyasmembersoftheirclass.Thuseducationisgeneralizedandstandardizedtoplayanewroleforthiselite.Forthem,therewasnoalternativetolearningthestandardGreekAnyonewithresourceswasvulnerableinsuchacontextifheorshecouldntread.Thatpersonwasdependentonliteratepeoplefortrustworthyaccesstowrittendocumentationofeconomicandlegaltransactions.Thiswasnosmallthing.Papyriattesttofraud,andthepresenceofanilliterateamidtheGreekaristocracywasconsiderednoteworthy.Thisphenomenonofin-creaseddocumentationparallelstheevidenceofsomestateandprivatespon-sorshipoflower-leveleducation:thePtolemaicexemptionofteachersfromthesalttaxandtheprivateendowmentofpublicschoolsatplaceslikeTeosandRhodes.TheseareamongthefactorsthatledHarristoestimatethatliteracyreachedahighpointincertainsettingsduringtheHellenisticperiod,with20…30percentofadultmalesinurbanareaslikeTeosorRhodesbeingliterate„alevelapproachingthecraftliteracycharacteristicofcertainurbanmedievalcontexts.Thoughsuchliteracylevelsmaysoundlowbycontemporarystan-dards,theywerevirtuallyunprecedentedinhumanhistory.EarlierGreektraditionssometimesspokeofanidealofuniversaleducation.Buttheselater,isolatedHellenisticurbancontextscamecloserthantheirpredecessorstowardrealizingthatideal.LiteracydynamicswerequitedifferentinacontextlikeEgypt,whereGreeks„whetherbybloodoreducation„wereinasmallminority.GreekpresencewasconcentratedinlargercitieslikeAlexandria,Naucratis,andPto-47.Cribiore,,163.48.W.V.Harris,AncientLiteracy(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1989),144…45.49.Harris,AncientLiteracy,141.ForintroductionoftheusefulconceptoftextbrokerŽtocharacterizethedynamicsofasocietywithlimitedliteracyandyettheneedforbroaderservices,seeH.GregorySnyder,TeachersandTextsintheAncientWorld:Philosophers,Jews,andChristians,ReligionintheFirstCenturies(London:Rout-ledge,2000),11,186…205,and215.
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworldlemais,alongwithsomeEgyptiancenterslikeMemphis.Educational-literarytextsappearearliestinthoseareaswiththemostGreekwealth,suchastheArsinoitenome,andthenappearelsewhere.Overall,onlyaverysmallpro-portionoftheoverallpopulationofPtolemaicEgyptwasliterate.BagnallandFrierestimatethat32percentofthemalepopulationoftheheavilyHellenizedArsinoitenomewasliterate,whileDorothyThompsonarguesforbroaderlit-eracyratesofaround9percentintownsand2percentinlargeurbancenters.Hereagain,dependingonhowonede“nesliteracy,theratesareratherhighbythestandardsoftheancientworld.Thisisespeciallytrueifoneshiftsfocusfromtheoverallpopulation„whichwasprobablymajoritynonliterate„totheGreekŽminority.Partlybyde“ningasGreekŽthosewhowereeducated,theHellenisticworldprojectedtheidealthatmostGreeksŽintheoverallpopu-lationhadachievedsomeeducationinGreekletters.Thoughsomeresidentforeigners(e.g.,JewsandPersians)andfewernativeEgyptiansgainedaccesstoeducation,GreekeducationandtextualitywasakeypartofasystemthatlegitimatedGreekoverlordshipbywayofapurportedlysuperiorGreekculture.WeseehintsofculturalconfrontationinbothGreekandnon-Greeksources.Inonepapyrus,anon-Greekcamel-drivercomplainsthathehadnotbeencompensatedregularlybecauseIamabarbarianŽandIdonotknowhowtobehavelikeaGreek.ŽElsewhereanEgyptianpriestassertsthatthepersonheislitigatingagainstdespisesmebecauseIamanSoalso,HarrishassuggestedthattheGreekminoritylivinginEgyptmayhavefeltallthemoreimpelledtoestablishinstitutionsofeducationduringtheirconfrontationwithbarbariansthere.ThisdynamicofculturalconfrontationcouldevenleadtotheeliminationofEgyptianelementsfromolderGreekteachingliterature.CribiorenotesoneinstancewhereAesopsfable48(inwhichaman”eestotheNileandiseatenbyacrocodile)ispurgedofanyelementofEgyptianlocalcolorinanEgyptian-Greekversionofit.theoriginalsixth-centuryGreekcontextinwhichthefablewascomposed,EgyptiandetailsliketheNileandcrocodilesaddedtotheexoticattractionofthestory.Nevertheless,suchelementsapparentlywereperceivedasproblem-atictotheHellenizedGreekminoritypreservingtheircultureamidbroaderSucheducationwasnotnecessarilylimitedtoethnicGreeks.Theoretically,non-GreekscouldbecomeGreekthroughbeingeducatedproperlyinGreektradition.AlreadyIsocratesspeaksofthispossibility.WithintheHellenistic50.F.W.Walbank,TheHellenisticWorld,rev.ed.(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1993),113…51.Morgan,LiterateEducation,59…60.52.DorothyJ.Thompson,LiteracyandPowerinPtolemaicEgypt,ŽinLiteracyandPowerintheAncientWorld,ed.AlanBowmanandGregWoolf(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1994),75…76.53.P.Col.Zen.,66,lines19,21,asrenderedbyWalbank,HellenisticWorld,115.54.P.Yale,46,col.i,line13,againasrenderedinWalbank,HellenisticWorld,115.55.Harris,AncientLiteracy,138…39.56.Cribiore,,180.47…51and
hellenistic-periodgreekeducationandtextualityworldthisoptionwasusedtovaryingextentstosocializenon-Greeksintolower-andmid-leveladministrativerolesinrulingsystemsdominatedbyWithinEgypt,wealreadyseeearlyPtolemaicperiod“gureslikeMa-nethowithenoughGreekeducationtopromotetheirculturetotheirnon-Egyptiancounterparts,andthereisincreasingevidenceofEgyptianparticipa-tioninGreekeducationduringthelaterPtolemaicperiod:interferenceofspokenEgyptianinschoolexercisesandattestationofteachersofGreekwhoseparentshaveEgyptiannames.EspeciallyasGreekreplacedDemoticastheof“ciallanguageforalllegaldocumentation(145.),anincreasingnumberofEgyptian-speakingscribeswererequiredtotranslateandwritethepetitionsofnativeEgyptians.Non-EgyptianforeignerslikeJewsorPersiansplayedanintermediaterolebetweentheGreeksandthenativeEgyptians.Generallytheydidnotperformthehighestjobsinadministration,norweretheyincludedintheeducationalsystemasmuchasGreeks.ButtheGreeksusedsuchforeignersearlyonforlower-andmid-leveladministration.TheirrelativelyhighlevelofGreekedu-cationisre”ectedintheintegrationofHellenisticthemesinJewishwritingsfromtheearlyHellenisticperiodonward.MorganarguespersuasivelythattheHellenisticeducationalsystemhelpedensurethatmostsuchnon-GreekstudentsdidnotattainthesamelevelofachievementasstudentswhobegantheireducationwithapriorknowledgeofGreekandGreekculture.OnlystudentscomingfromculturallyGreekfamilieswouldhavebeenabletomakesenseofthelanguageandcontentsofmuchoftheearlyteachingmaterial.Intheory,educationissupposedtobeamerito-craticwayofsortingbetweenpeople.Nevertheless,inpracticeitprivilegedthosestudentswhohadpriorGreekculturalcapitalandthuscouldprogressthroughthedif“cultprocessofmemorizationofoftendisconnectedtidbitsoflanguageandculture.Indeed,thismayevenbeimplicitlybuiltintothesys-tem.MorgannotesthatdiscussionsofeducationlikeQuintiliansappeartobedirectedtowardstudentspreparingforthehighestlevelsofruleinHellenisticsociety,whilethemaximsusedinmostoftheeducationalpapyrifromEgypt58.GerhardWirth,DerWegandieGrenze:Blu¨teundSchicksalderAntikenBildungstradition,ŽinSchulgeschichteImZusammenhangderKulturentwicklung,ed.LenzKriss-RettenbeckandMaxLiedtke(BadHeil-brunn:JuliusKlinkhardt,1983),85…88;Morgan,LiterateEducation,20…23.59.Cribiore,,211.60.DorothyJ.Thompson,LiteracyandtheAdministrationinEarlyPtolemaicEgypt,ŽinJohnson,inaMulti-CulturalSociety,324…26.61.DorothyJ.Thompson,LiteracyinEarlyPtolemaicEgypt,ŽinProceedingsoftheNineteenthInternationalCongressofPapyrology,Cairo,2…9September1989,ed.A.H.S.El-Mosalamy(Cairo:AinShamsUniversity,CenterofPapyrologicalStudies,1989),79,n.3;Mehl,ErziehungZumHellenen,Ž53…55.Cf.Harris,AncientLiteracy143…44,whosaysthatthelevelofEgyptianparticipationwascertainlyminuscule.ŽClarysse(GreeksandEgyptiansinthePtolemaicArmyandAdministration,Ž65[1985]:57…66)andMehl(ErziehungZumHellenen,Ž62…63)notesomefactorsthatwouldexplainthelackofbroaderdocumentationofEgyptianpartici-pationineducation:EgyptianuseofGreeknames,lackofsignaturesonschoolexercises,lackofschoollistsingeneral,andsoon.62.OnthisseeespeciallyCarlHolladay,JewishResponsestoHellenisticCulture,ŽinEthnicityinHelle-nisticEgypt,ed.PerBildeetal.(Aarhus:AarhusUniversityPress,1992),139…63.63.Morgan,LiterateEducation,esp.22…23,102…3.
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworld“tstudentsdestinedforlifeassub-eliteswithlittleindividualpower.foundinoutlyingareasofPtolemaicEgyptandoftenshowinginterferenceoftheEgyptianlanguage,manysuchexercisesre”ecttheeducationofnativeEgyptiansforlow-levelparticipationinHellenisticsociety.AnotherwayoflookingattheissueofeducationalandsocialhierarchyistoconsiderwhatsortofliteracytrulycountedintheHellenisticworld.Writingandreadingabilitydidnotqualifyapersonforthearistocracy.Indeed,lower-levelteachersofliteracyappeartohavehadlowstatusandbeenpoorlypaid.Furthermore,themostliteratescholarsoftenusedslavesorservantstoperformthemanuallaborofreadingtextsorwritingdocumentsforthem.Rather,hereaselsewhere,anothertypeofliteracycountedforfarmore:themasteryofGreektraditionprovidedbyaliberaleducation.Thiswasnotpreparationforspeci“ctasksofliteracyneededinoneseconomicorlegaldoings.Onthecontrary,partofwhatde“nedaliberaleducationŽwasitsinapplicabilitytospeci“c,manualtasks.Theliberallyeducatedperson,generallymale,wassomeonewhohadtheresourcesandleisuretoprogresstothehigherlevelsofeducation,morefullymasteringtheclassicsofGreekliteratureandincorpo-ratingtheirlanguageintohisspeech.Hellenistictextsdepictthepersonwhoascendsthiseducationalmountainasclearlysuperiortothosebelowhim.Forexample,apersonwhomasteredthespeechoftheclassicswasassuperiortohispeersasahumanwastospeechlessanimals.Itiseducationthatgivespeoplehumanityandseparatesthemfromtheanimals.Inaddition,themaximsencounteredearlyandthroughoutHellenisticeducationstressedthesuperiorityofmenoverwomenandthevalueofmalebonding.Theydepictwomenasuneducated,unwise,andonlyusefulaswives,whilemenmenaredepictedasself-controlled,autonomous,andthemastersofothers.Notably,thisdoesnotnecessarilyre”ectreality,sincewomenpossessedsigni“cantlegalrightsinmanyHelle-nisticcultures,andthereisextensivepapyrologicalevidencethatmanywomenwereindependent,well-educated,andpowerful.Thus,thepictureofweak,dependentwomeninmanymaximsre”ectstheideologicalorientationoftheeducationalprocess,depictingliteratemenasmastersonthehighsideofmultipledichotomies:men,notwomen;Greek,notbarbarian/Egyptian;free,notslaves;human,notanimal.Withinthe“ctionalworldthateducationalliteraturesoughttoactualize,theHellenisticmalestoodapartfromandabovethosehehadbeeneducatedtoorganizeandrule.Hestoodtogetherwith64.Morgan,LiterateEducation,146…50.65.ForadiscussionofeducationfocusingoncopyistsfromasomewhatlaterperiodseeKimHaines-GuardiansofLetters:Literacy,PowerandtheTransmittersofEarlyChristianLiterature(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2000),21…40,53…75.66.KonradVo¨ssing,StaatundSchuleinderSpa¨tantike,ŽAncientSociety32(2002):249…50.67.Atherton,Children,Ž214…17.68.See,e.g.,AulusGelliusXIII.17(LCL2,456…59).69.Morgan,LiterateEducation,135…38.70.Morgan,LiterateEducation,269.
hellenistic-periodgreekeducationandtextualityothereducatedmalesinbondsoffriendshipandassociationthatsupersededfamilyandotherroles.Manyofthesethemesofhierarchy,socialization,andassociationcometogetherinanothercontextIhaveonlyminimallydiscussedsofar:thegym-nasium.CertainlywithinHellenisticEgyptthegymnasiumappearstohaveservedasamoredecisivemarkerofmembershipintheupperechelonsoftheGreekrulingclassthancompletionofanyspeci“cformofeducation.Anum-berofinscriptionsidentifyagroupofthosefromthegymnasiumŽashavingspecialprestigeandpower.WeseeclubsŽ()ofmalecompatriots(¯boi)whocontinuetoworktogetheryearsafterconcludingtheirbrieftimeintheephebate.Thismaleassociationappearstohavebeentheprimarycontextforthesortofmalebondingstronglyadvocatedinthemaximsdis-cussedearlier.Muchlikecollegetoday,itwasakeymarkerofelitesocialstatus.NetworksformedinthegymnasiawerethemostimportantonesforthosewhoreachedthatlevelofHellenisticeducation-enculturation.Perhapsasaresult,gymnasiawerewidelypresentinGreektownsandcities,whileparticipationinthemwashighlylimited.AtleastintheearlyPtolemaicperiod,member-shipinthegymnasiawaslimitedtochildrenbornoftwoGreekparents.lateron,whenparticipationseemstohavebeenabitbroader,participationofEgyptiansinthegymnasiawasextremelyrestricted.Theactivitiesofthegymnasiumcontrastedwiththoseofeducation-enculturationinGreekculture.Bythetimeayouthparticipatedinthegym-nasium,hewasnotprimarilyinvolvedinfurtheringhisliteraryeducation.Indeed,thereissomeevidencethatafewephebesstillhadtroublewriting.Instead,theprimaryfocusofthegymnasiumappearstohavebeenathletictrainingandcompetition,socializingstudentsintotheGreekwayoflife.ThoughtheHellenisticperiodwasatimewhenathleticsappearstohavebeenalessprominentpartoftheoverallHellenisticeducationalprocess,trainingremainedanimportantmarkerofculturaldifferencebetweenGreekandnon-GreekintheHellenistickingdomsoftheEast.Forexample,suchtraininghadnotbeenacentralpartofeducationinEgyptforhundredsof71.Morgan,LiterateEducation,141.72.ThomasA.Brady,TheGymnasiuminPtolemaicEgypt,ŽUniversityofMissouriStudies11(1936):11…12;Nilsson,HellenistischeSchule,91…92;M.Rosotovtzeff,ASocialandEconomicHistoryoftheHellenisticWorld(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1998[1956orig.]),1058…59;Walbank,HellenisticWorld,117…18.73.OnthewidedistributionofgymnasiaseeMaehler,GriechischeSchule,Ž195;Nilsson,,83…87.Cribiore(,35…36)notesthatgymnasiaaremorewidelypresentinthePtolemaicperiodthantheyareintheRomanyears.74.Nilsson,HellenistischeSchule,91;MichaelAvi-Yonah,HellenismandtheEast:ContactsandInterrelationsfromAlexandertotheRomanConquest(AnnArbor,MI:InstituteofLanguages,Literature,andtheArts,1978),131…33;Marie-Franc¸oiseBaslez,LEtrangerdanslaGre`ceAntique(Paris:LesBellesLettres,Ž1984),301,352…4.75.Brady,Gymnasium,Ž16…20;Nilsson,HellenistischeSchule,85;Avi-Yonah,,126…28;Walbank,HellenisticWorld,117…20.76.Nilsson,HellenistischeSchule,95.77.C.Pre´aux,LettresPrive´esGrecquesdEgyptRelativesaDleducation,ŽRevueBelgedePhilologieet8(1929):800;Wirth,Weg,Ž86;Mehl,ErziehungZumHellenen,Ž67…68.
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworldTherefore,whenaGreek,Egyptian,ornon-Egyptianforeignerengagedinextensivephysicaltraining,thatmanarticulatedhisdistinctionfromhissurroundingnon-GreekpeersinanevenmoreconcretewaythanhecouldifhewerestudyingorperformingaGreektext.Nevertheless,inadditiontoaprimaryfocusonathletictrainingandcom-petition,theHellenisticgymnasiumappearstohavepresupposedGreekedu-cationandenculturation.ThereareanumberoflibrariesassociatedwithThegymnasiumitselfwasoftenhosttovisitinglecturesbyschol-arsand(occasionally)competitionsinliteraryrecitation.Thereissomeevi-denceoftraininginrhetoricatsomegymnasia.Attheveryleast,thepresenceofagymnasiuminagivencommunityisagoodpredictorofthepresenceofassociatededucationalinstitutions.Allsuchliteraryactivities,however,tooksecondplacetotheprimarygoalofmostgymnasia:athletictrainingofpro-spectiveeliteyouths,teachingthemamasteryoftheirbodiesthatmirroredtheirprospectivemasteryofothers.Insum,thegymnasiumwasakeypartofabroadereducational-enculturationalprocessthathadmultipletracksandlevels.Atthelowestlevels,students„whetherinelitehomesorlow-levelschools„wereharshlyeducatedintoaninitialmasteryofGreeklettersandexcerptsofcentralGreekliterature.ThemostprivilegedstudentsprogressedtoabroadermasteryofGreektradi-tionandspeech,physicaltraining,andthevariedliteraryactivitiesofthegym-nasium,and„forsome„advancedtraininginrhetoric.Theultimategoalwastheautonomous,self-controlledmale:onewhowasmasterofhisownbodyandpreparedformasteryofothers.SuchamanhadintegratedtheheroicmoralsoftheGreektraditionandwaspreparedforrulethroughhisexperienceofbeingforcedtosubjugatehisbodyandmindtohisteachers.Earlyoninhiseducationhewastheonebeingsubjugated.But,aspsychodynamictheorytellsus,peopleoftenrespondtosuchexperiencesbyinternalizingtheirsubjugatorandthenlivingoutthatroleinrelationtootherslater.CribiorenotesanimageofchildrenplayingteacherŽwhereoneofthemisalreadysittingontheteacherschair,holdingtheteacherscharacteristicweapon„thestaff.Indeed,notjustmenwerein”uencedbythesedynamicsofformation78.SeethesurveyoftextsanddiscussioninWolfgangDecker,QuellentextezuSportundKo¨rperkulturImAltenA(SanktAugustin:Richarz,1975).79.Nilsson,HellenistischeSchule,97.80.Marrou,HistoryofEducation,187…88;Wirth,Weg,Ž87;Nilsson,HellenistischeSchule,51…52.Cf.Crib-Writing,Teachers,Students,19…20.81.Marrou,HistoryofEducation,187…88.82.JohannesChristes,Gesellschaft,StaatundSchuleinderGriechisch-Ro¨mischenAntike,ŽinmassnahmenundFu¨rsorge:ZurEigenartAntikerSozialpolitik,vol.3,ed.H.Kloft,GrazerBeitra¨ge.Supplementband(Graz[Horn]:F.BergerandSo¨hne,1988),62…63;Morgan,LiterateEducation,28…29,156.Broaderclaimsofinstructionatgymnasia,suchasthosefoundinDelorme(,316…24),havenotbeensustainedinrecentscholarship.SeethecautionsinNilsson,HellenistischeSchule,93…94;Harris,AncientLiteracy,134…35;andCrib-,34…36.83.Cribiore,,36.84.Cribiore,,65…73.
hellenistic-periodgreekeducationandtextualitytowardmasculinityandpower.Somehigh-bornwomenreceivedthissortofeducation,thoughnotasamatterofcourse.ThougheducationofgirlsatschoolsisattestedatTeosandPergamon,itisnotatallclearhowtypicalsuchexampleswere.Probablymanygirlsinelitefamiliesreceivedtheireducationathome,andthisintellectualdistinctionhelpedcon“rmtheirmembershipinthearistocraticclass.WeevenhavedocumentationofsomewomenbecomingThesewomen,likethemen,werealsoshapedbytheeducational-enculturationalprocess,ifonlybywayofdisplacingthemalemodelonothers.Inonecollectionoffourletters,Isidora,occasionallywritinginherownhand,repeatedlyurgedherbrother,Asklepiades,toactlikeamanŽ(Aswehaveseen,literatemenlikeAsklepiadeshadbeeneducatedtostandaboveandruleothers.Theywereexpectedtoactthepart.IndigenousHellenisticCulture:TheEgyptianInstanceTheconfrontationofcultureschangedoverthehundredsofyearsofthePtol-emaic,Roman,andlaterByzantineperiods.ConcentratinghereonthePtole-maicperiod,itapparentlystartedwithcomparativelygoodrelationsbetweentheGreeksandEgyptians.AtleastsomeEgyptianswelcomedtheMacedonianconquerorsasliberatorsfromthehatedPersians,EgyptianDemoticandGreektextswereusedsidebysidetodocumentkeytransactions,andtheearliestHellenisticrulersappeartohavedependedonEgyptiancollaboratorstorunthecountry.Soonitbecameclear,however,thattheHellenisticrulerswereasruthlessanduninformedaboutnativeEgyptianreligiouspracticesastheirPersianpredecessors.DreamsofareturntorulebynativeEgyptianphar-aohsresurfaced,focusednolongeronoverthrowofthePersiansbutonover-throwoftheGreeks.EgyptiansbecameinvolvedinquiteconcreteandrelativelysuccessfulresistancetoGreekrule.AfterEgyptiansoldierswereusedtowinthebattleofRaphiain217.,aseriesofrevoltsrockedthePtolemaicking-dom.Thisstartedwitharevoltextendingfrom217to185.andextendedtoEgyptiancollaborationwiththeattemptofaSeleucidking(AnthiochusIV)totakeEgypt,massrefusalstowork,andraidsandsmallerinsurrectionsthroughoutthesecondcentury.Meanwhile,perhapspartlyinresponsetosuchdevelopments,weseegreaterinvolvementofEgyptiansbothinGreekeducationandinhigherlevelsofHellenisticadministration.Moreover,Hel-lenisticrulersappeartohavestrengthenedtheireffortstoprovideforand85.ForbroaderdiscussionofliteratewomenintheHellenisticperiodseeesp.Cribiore,,74…86.ThetranslationandexampleisfromCribiore,,92.87.SamuelK.Eddy,TheKingIsDead:StudiesintheNearEasternResistancetoHellenism334…31BCUniversityofNebraskaPress,1961),260…67.88.Thompson,LiteracyandAdministration,Ž323…24.89.ForanoverviewoftherevoltsseeEddy,KingIsDead,297…302.90.Walbank,HellenisticWorld,118…20.
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworldprotectEgyptiantemples,thusenlistingthesupportofthenativeEgyptianTheEgyptiantemplesandpriesthoodwereimportantbecausetheywerethenodalpointforEgyptianculture,especiallyfromthePersianperiodonward.InearlierperiodsofEgyptianhistory,royalandprovincialadministrationsrep-resentedanotherlocusforeducation,textuality,andculturethatwasdistinctfrom,thoughhighlyintegratedwith,theoperationsoftheEgyptiantemple.ButwiththePersianandfollowingperiods,thatlevelofadministrationwasincreasinglytakenoverbyforeignrulers.Egyptiancultureandtextualitywasconcentratedinthetemple.Priestseducatedtheirownchildrenusingoldereducationalmethods,oldtextswerereproduced,tombswereinscribed,andManethocouldstillconsultolderrecordsinwritinghishistoryofEgypt.WhenweseenewtextswritteninEgyptianduringtheHellenisticperiod,wecanstartwiththeassumptionthattheywerewrittenbysomeoneeducatedinthetempleandprobablyworkingthere.ThetextualevidencesuggeststhatthemembersofthepriesthoodofthetempleswererelatedincomplexandvaryingwaystoHellenisticruleandcul-ture.Ontheonehand,royalsponsorshipandsolicitationofEgyptiantempleswassometimesrewardedbypriestlyendorsementofagivenrulerasalegit-imatepharaoh.ThereareeveninstancesofhymnsofpraisefortheGreekprincessBerenicecomposedinanEgyptianhouseoflife.SuchcollaborationmayhavewonprotectionforsometemplesamidtheseriesofrevoltsagainstGreekrule.Ontheotherhand,thetemplesystemwouldhavestoodasoneofthecentralnetworksfororganizationofsuchrevolts,andthereissomespe-ci“cevidencethatEgyptianpriestlygroups,likethepriesthoodofKhnum,playedaroleinthem.Moreover,duringtheHellenisticperiod,weseeaseriesofvisionarytextsappear,probablyoutofpriestlymilieus,thatenvisionanendtoGreekruleandthebeginningoftruepharaonicrulewithobservanceofthepropercustoms.TheDemoticChroniclelooksforwardtotherestorationofMaatwiththedefeatoftheoppressiveGreeksbyanativepharaoh.ThePottersOracleisanoriginallyEgyptiantextthatlikewiseforeseesagoldenageofnativepharaonicruleontheothersideofthecosmicdisasterofGreekrule.AnotherDemoticprophecyisfoundona“rstcenturypapyrusthatcon-tainsalambsvisionofthedespoilingofEgyptsshrinesbyforeigners91.Eddy,KingIsDead,313…20.92.HelmutBrunner,¨gyptischeErziehung(Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz,1957),27…32;Kaplony-Heckel,¨lerundSchulwesen,Ž237;Ju¨rgenOsing,LaScienceSacerdotale,ŽinLeDe´cretdeMemphis:ColloquedelaFondationsSinger-Polignaca`lOccasiondelaCe´le´brationDuBicentenairedelaDe´couvertedelaPierredeRosette,ed.D.ValballeandJeanLeclant(Paris:DeBoccard,1999),138…40;StephenHouston,JohnBaines,andJerroldCooper,LastWriting:ScriptObsolescenceinEgypt,MesopotamiaandMesoamerica,ŽComparativeStudiesinSocietyandHistory45(2003):447.93.DonaldB.Redford,PharaonicKinglists,AnnalsandDaybooks:AContributiontotheEgyptianSenseofHistory(Minnisauge:Benben,1986),214…22.94.K.Nordh,AspectsofAncientEgyptianCursesandBlessings:ConceptualBackgroundandTransmissionActaUniversitatisUpsaliensis(Uppsala:AlmquistandWiksell,1996),139.95.Eddy,KingIsDead,319.
hellenistic-periodgreekeducationandtextualityandtheireventualrecoverybytheEgyptians,againbringingaboutagoldenThoughtheguardiansofEgyptianculture,Egyptiantempleswerenotsep-aratefromtheGreekculturewithwhichtheyinteracted.BothGreekandEgyp-tiantextswerefoundatlocationssuchastheSoukhostemplelibraryatTeb-tynusoftheFayyumandattheSerapeumatMemphis.WehavelaterdocumentationofbilingualeducationinDemoticandGreekinthetempleprecinctofthevillageofNarmuthis.ThoughknowledgeofGreekinearlieryearswasprobablycon“nedtoaminorityofEgyptianpriestsandfocusedonspokenGreek,knowledgeofEgyptiandeclinedinlateryears,whilethereisincreasingevidenceforEgyptianprieststeachingintheHellenisticsystem.EvenearlyresistancetextslikethePottersOracleweretranslatedintoGreek,andlaterresistancetextsliketheapocalypseofAsclepiuswereoriginallywrit-teninGreek.AsBaineshasshowninarecentstudy,monumentalremainsofEgyptianelitesfromthePtolemaicperiodshowacomplexinteractionbe-tweenEgyptianandGreekculture.Atthesametime,Egyptianeducationandenculturationmethodsmayhavein”uencedGreekones.ThesortsofwordlistslongcharacteristicofDe-moticeducation“rstappearinGreekeducationinEgyptianeducationalex-ercisesoftheearlyPtolemaicperiod.SinceDemoticappearstohaveplayedasubstantialroleinearlyPtolemaicadministration,itispossiblethatGreekeducatorsintheearlyPtolemaicperiodborrowedsuchafocusonlistsfromtheirEgyptiancounterparts,whointurnwerebuildingonamuchmorean-cientandextensivetraditionofeducationaluseoflistsintheancientNearOneotherpossibleareaofindirectin”uenceofHellenisticandGreek96.Osing,ScienceSacredotale,Ž128.97.Kaplony-Heckel,Schu¨lerundSchulwesen,Ž237…38.98.Cribiore,,22.99.SeeGarthFowden,TheEgyptianHermes:AHistoricalApproachtotheLatePaganMindCambridgeUniversityPress,1986),16,fordiscussion,includingnotes19and20foroverviewsofthelimitedscopeofsucheducationandthefrequentattestationofEgyptianpriestsilliterateinGreek.100.OnthedeclineinknowledgeofEgyptianseeKaplony-Heckel,Schu¨lerundSchulwesen,Ž135…38.ForthedriftofEgyptianpriests,particularlyintheRomanperiod,towardteachingintheGreeksystemseeFowden,EgyptianHermes,165…66.101.JørgenPodemannSørensen,NativeReactionstoForeignRuleandCultureinReligiousLiterature,ŽinBilde,EthnicityinHellenisticEgypt,169.102.JohnBaines,EgyptianEliteSelf-PresentationintheContextofPtolemaicRule,ŽinAlexandriaBe-tweenEgyptandGreece,ed.WilliamV.HarrisandGiovanniRuf“ni,ColumbiaStudiesintheClassicalTradition(Leiden:Brill,inpress).103.Thompson,Literacy,Ž87;Thompson,LiteracyandAdministration,Ž323…24;Thompson,LiteracyandPower,Ž72…73.104.Fordiscussionofvarioussidesofthedebatesurroundingtheissueofpossiblein”uenceseeKaplony-Heckel,Schu¨lerundSchulwesen,Ž229…32;HelmutBrunner,SchriftundUnterrichtsmethodenImAltengypten,ŽinErziehungsundUnterrichtsmethodenImHistorischenWandel,ed.LenzKriss-RettenbeckandMaxLiedtke(BadHeilbrunn:Linkhardt,1986),32(bothseelikelyin”uence);M.Tassier,GreekandDemoticSchoolExercises,ŽinJohnson,LifeinaMulti-CulturalSociety,313…15(skepticalaboutin”uence);andMorgan,,274(possiblelimitedin”uencebutdif“culttoverify).
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworldcultureliesintheareaoflibraries.IhavealreadydiscussedbothHellenisticGreekandolderEgyptianlibraries.Egypthadalongtraditionoftextcollectionshousedintemples,butthelargestlibrarycomplexinthePtolemaicperiodwasthepairofprestigiouslibrarieshousedinAlexandria,boththeinitialroyallibraryandtheSerapeum.ThelatterlibrariesformedpartofthePtolemiesclaimofculturaldominancenotonlyoflocalEgyptianculturebutofHellenisticculturemoregenerally.Callimachussgreatcatalogueoftheworksstoredinthoselibraries,alongwiththesheerbulkofbooks,stoodastangibleevidenceofthebreadthandpowerofGreekculture.OtherGreekrulers,suchasthoseatPergamon,attemptedtocompetewithAlexandriainamassingtheirownGiventhiscontextofcompetitionandculturalcontact,itisnoteworthythattheHellenisticperiodisthe“rsttimeweseecataloguesofactualworksstoredinEgyptianlibraries.AlistofritualbooksisinscribedonapillaratthetempleatEd-Tod.Amoretheoreticalinventoryofforty-onebooksisengravedonawallatthetempleofEdfu.AlistquitesimilartotheoneatEdfulaterappearsinClement(Stromata/MiscellaniesVI,chap.4),wherehedescribesaproces-sionofpriestsresponsiblefordifferentbooksinthecollection,withthemostimportantones“rst.Notably,boththeEdfuandthelistinClementhaveforty-twoitems,anumberrepresentingwholenessinEgyptianculture.Yettheyarenotpurelytheoretical.AcomparisonofClementslistwiththecon-tentsofHellenistic-periodEgyptianlibrariesatTanisandTebtynusrevealedasigni“cantlevelofoverlap,alongwithsomelocaldifferences.Later,weseemorecollectionsofEgyptianwritings,suchasthosefoundintheSuchosTem-pleintheFayyum,atleastoneitemofwhichmayalsobefoundintheEdfucatalogueandonClementslist.Whateverin”uencepresenthereisquitecomplex.ThisisnotanissueofEgyptianprieststryingtosetuptheirlibrariesincompetitionwiththeonesatAlexandria.Noraretheyputtingtinycataloguesintocompetitionwithacata-loguebyCallimachusthattheyprobablyneversawandpossiblyneverheardabout.Instead,asAssmannhassuggested,thesecataloguesofEgyptianworksrepresenttheapparentformationofatextualcommunity.Morespeci“cally,105.A.Grimm,Alta¨gyptischeTempelliteratur.ZurGliederungundFunktionderBu¨cherkatalogevonEdfuundet-Tod,ŽStudienZurAlta¨gyptischenKulture,Beiheft3(1988):162…69.106.FordiscussionseeGrimm,Alta¨gyptischeTempelliteratur,Ž152…59.AnEnglishtranslationofthelistisgiveninFowden,EgyptianHermes,57…58.107.ForanargumentthatClementslistmayrepresentaninsertionofoldermaterialseeFowden,,58…59.108.JanAssmann,Fu¨nfStufenaufdemWegeZumKanon.TraditionundSchriftkultureImAltenIsraelundFru¨henJudentum,ŽinReligionundKulturellesGeda¨chtnis.ZehnStudien,byJanAssmann(Munich:Beck,2000),96.109.Fowden,EgyptianHermes,61…62;Osing,ScienceSacredotale,Ž127…34.110.FordiscussionofthislibraryseeE.A.E.Reymond,FromtheContentsoftheLibrariesoftheSuchosTemplesintheFayyum,MitteilungenAusderPapyrussammlungderOsterreichischenNationalbibliothek(n.s.)(Wien:InKommissionbeiVerlagBru¨derHollinek,1977),esp.25…41.ForcorrectionofReymondscharacteri-zationofthesewritingsasHermeticŽanddiscussionofaninstanceofpotentialoverlapseeFowden,,61…62.111.Assmann,Fu¨nfStufen,Ž91…96.FortheconceptoftextualcommunityŽheexplicitlydrawsonBrian
hellenistic-periodgreekeducationandtextualityIamsuggestingherethattheseHellenistic-periodEgyptiantemplesstoodastextualcommunitiesofresistancetoGreekculture.TextswerealreadyafocalpointinHellenisticeducation,androyalpowerwasdisplayedthroughlibraries.ThoughkeytextsintheseEgyptianlistswerepreservedfrompre-Hellenistictheappearanceofformalized,theoreticallyroundedlistsofEgyptiantraditionsinthiscontextrepresentsapreviouslyunseenformalizationandpartialstandardizationofthosetraditionsoveragainstthedominantGreektradition.Moreover,theEgyptianpriestsdidnotattempttocompetewithGreekcultureonitsownterms,surpassingitinvolumeorbreadth.Instead,thesecataloguesstandasasecret,precious,andpotentcounterparttothemyriadofbooksfoundinapublicinstitutionliketheAlexandrianlibrarysystem.UnliketheAlexandrianlibrary,theEgyptiancollectionsarecloselybounded.Noteverythingisletintothem.Moreover,accessismorerestricted.ThoughtheAlexandrianlibrarywasopentoavarietyofscholarsandvisitorsforusewithroyalpermission,theaccesstotemplebooksintheEgyptiansystemwastightlylimitedtotheEgyptianpriesthood.TheconceptofhybridityŽfrompostcolonialcriticismcanhelparticulatethecomplexityoftheculturalinteractionhere.Postcolonialstudieshaveshownavarietyofwaysinwhichformerlycolonizedcultures“ndthemselvesartic-ulatingtheirresistancetocolonizationthroughpartiallyadoptingculturalformsfromtheircolonizers.NativeAmericansadoptspeci“cformsofwrit-ingintheprocessofcompetingwiththewritingcultureofEuropeansettlers.Africanwritersexplorewhatitmightmeantowriteaspeci“callyAfricannovel.AsiancommunitiesposetheirancientwritingsasBiblesŽtobalancetheChris-tianBibleoftenusedbymissionaries.Withinthephenomenonofculturalcontact,fewculturalexpressions„bycolonizerorcolonized„arepure.In-stead,theyarehybridmixes.Oftenthein”uenceofthecolonizerissubtlypresentevenintheverywaysinwhichcolonizedpeoplesattempttodivergefromtheircolonizersculturalmodels.Inthecaseofthetemplecatalogues,Egyptianprieststookveryancientindigenoustraditionsandposedthemasatightlybounded,cosmicallywholeseriesofsecretwritingsincontradistinctiontotheubiquitousGreekwritingsusedbytheirHellenisticoverlords.Indoingso,theywerein”uencedbyGreekculture,evenastheyattemptedtoposethesuperiorityoftheirownculturetothatoftheGreeks.Moreover,thisparticularculturalmovewasnotlong-lived.Native-languageEgyptianliteraturedidnotsurvivemuchintotheRomanpe-riod.GreektransformationsofEgyptianliterature,suchastheHermeticcor-pora,lastedabitlonger.ButthestrategyofpreservationofpriestlylorewithinTheImplicationsofLiteracy:WrittenLanguageandModelsofInterpretationintheEleventhandTwelfthCen-(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1983).
112.OnsomelinesofcontinuityseeFowden,EgyptianHermes,60…61.113.FortheclassicdiscussionoftheconceptseeHomiBhabha,TheLocationofCulture(London:Routledge,1994),37…39,111…15,193…94.SeealsosummariesofsubsequentdiscussionoftheconceptinBartJ.Moore-PostcolonialTheory:Contexts,Practices,Politics(London:Verso,1997),180…82,192…95,andAniaLoomba,(London:Routledge,1998),173…80.
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworldthetightboundsoftheancienttemplepriesthooddidnotprovealong-termOtherModesofInteractionwithHellenismInthenextchaptersIwilldiscussamorelong-lastingculturalresponsetoHellenism,butbeforedoingso,IconcludewithamuchbriefersurveyoftwootherzonesofcontactbetweenHellenisticandothercultures,bothinsideEgypt(inthecaseofinteractionofJudaismandHellenism)andoutsideEgypt(intheinteractionofSeleucidHellenismandindigenouscultures).EgyptianJudaismpresentsanimportantcomparisontotheexampledis-cussedearlierofindigenousEgyptianculture.Itpresentsavariedpicture.InsomeinstancesJewishmodesofinteractionwithHellenismmaynothavebeenthatdifferentfromthoseoftheEgyptianpriests.Onegrouphadtheirownpre-HellenistictemplecomplexatLeontopolis,andthisJewishtempledoesnotseemtohavehadalongerlifethanitsEgyptiancounterparts.Inaddition,however,JewsinHellenisticurbancenterslikeAlexandriahadearlierandmoreopportunitiestoparticipateintheHellenisticeducational-culturalenterprisethanEgyptiansdid.Asmentionedearlier,theHellenisticrulersusedforeignerslikeJewsextensivelyintheprocessofrulingEgyptians.ThepresenceofhighlyHellenizedJewishworksfromtheoutsetofthePtolemaicperiodtesti“estoJewishparticipationinHellenisticeducation.Moreover,alaterRomandecreeforbiddingJewishattendanceatthegymnasiumsuggeststhatsuchattendancewaspossibleearlier.AndthiscontinuedintotheRomanperiod,inwhichPhilo,a“rst-centuryJew,providessomeofthemostdetaileddiscussionofHellenisticeducationtobefoundanywhere.Again,Philosmaindiscussionofeducationisahybridproduct,anallegoricalinterpretationofGenesis16:1…6.TheallegoricalmethodandtheeducationbeingdiscussedarelargelyGreek,butthetextualfocusisancientIsraelite.Ingeneral,JewslikePhiloappeartohavethoroughlyintegratedcentralelementsofHellenisticculturewhilemaintainingadherencetothetextsandpracticesoftheirindigenousculture.TurningtothebroaderSeleucidkingdom,wehavefarlessdatatoworkwiththanwedidintheEgyptianinstance.Therearefewereducationalinscrip-tions,andvirtuallynoschooltextshavesurvived.Nevertheless,thesurvivingevidenceclearlypointstothelocalizationofHellenistic-period,indigenoustex-tualityinMesopotamia,asinEgypt,inthetempleandonlythere.Thatsaid,114.Holladay,JewishResponsesŽOnJewishparticipationinHellenisticeducationseealsoRosotovtzeff,History,vol.1,323…25,andvol.2,1070…72.115.Maehler,GriechischeSchule,Ž195…96.116.ThisworkisPhilosOnthePreliminaryStudies.ŽFordiscussionofPhilosviewsoneducationinthisandotherworksseeAlanMendelson,SecularEducationinPhiloofAlexandria(Cincinnati:HebrewUnionCollegePress,1982).117.M.J.Geller,TheLastWedge,Ž87(1997):43…64;PetraD.Gesche,SchulunterrichtinBabylonienImErstenJahrtausendv.Chr.,AOAT(Mu¨nster:Ugarit-Verlag,2001),29…31;Houston,Baines,andCooper,LastWriting,Ž451…52.
hellenistic-periodgreekeducationandtextualityindigenous-languagetempletextualityinMesopotamiamanifestssomeslightlydifferentpatternsfromthoseseeninEgypt.Twowillbementionedhere.The“rstistheextenttowhichSeleucidruledeviatedfromthehighlycentralizedpatternseeninEgypt.WherethePtolemiesruledalarge,relativelyhomogeneouspopulationfromafewmajorurbancenters,theSeleucidscon-trolledamuchmorevariedarrayofethnicgroupsthroughanetworkofHel-lenisticcitiesscatteredacrosstheirkingdom.MostofthesecitieswerefoundedearlyintheHellenisticperiod,whentheSeleucidrulerswereabletoenticeGreekimmigrantstohelpbuildthem,butanotherserieswasfoundedintheearlysecondcenturybyAntiochusIV,particularlyinnorthSyria.educationaltextsdidnotgenerallysurviveintheclimatesofthesecities,ar-chaeologicalremainsofgymnasiatestifytothepresenceofeducationalcom-plexesinmanyofthem.Thesecondsigni“cantdistinctionoftheSeleucidinstancefromthePtol-emaiconeistheextenttowhichnativeswereapparentlyadmittedintotheHellenisticeducationalsystem.Perhapspartlybecausethesystemofcontrolwasmoredispersed,itdependedmoreoneducation-enculturationofnativepeoplesforparticipationinruleoftheircompatriots.ThiswasnotpartofamoregeneralHellenizationofthenon-Greekpopulation.Onthecontrary,partofthepointwastheseparationofaHellenizedoverclass„whetherethnicallyorculturallyGreek„fromthenoneducated,nativemajority.Asaresult,theimpactofHellenismoncentralMesopotamiansocialentitieswasevenmoremarginalthanintheEgyptianinstance.SuchareexamplesfromEgyptandotherHellenistic-periodculturesoftheNearEast.Iturnnowtoonemoreexampleoftemple-centered,Hellenistic-periodindigenous-languagetextualityandeducation,thatfoundinIsraelofthelaterSecondTempleperiod.118.Walbank,HellenisticWorld,123…40.OnthelimitedevidenceforHellenizationintheSeleucidrealm(anditsconcentrationinNorthSyria)seeFergusMillar,TheProblemofHellenisticSyria,ŽinHellenismintheEast:TheInteractionofGreekandNon-GreekCivilizationsfromSyriatoCentralAsiaAfterAlexander,ed.Ame´lieKuhrtandSusanSherwin-White(London:Duckworth,1987),110…33.119.Rosotovtzeff,History,vol.3,1060…61;Nilsson,HellenistischeSchule,83…84.120.SeePeterGreen,AlexandertoActium:TheHistoricalEvolutionoftheHellenisticAge(Berkeley:Uni-versityofCaliforniaPress,1990),319…20,fordiscussionandreferences.121.Onthissee,forexample,R.J.Spek,TheBabylonianCity,ŽinHellenismintheEast:TheInteractionofGreekandNon-GreekCivilizationsfromSyriatoCentralAsiaAfterAlexander,ed.Ame´lieKuhrtandSusanSherwin-White(London:Duckworth,1987),57…74.
This page intentionally left blank
Temple-andPriest-CenteredTextualityandEducationinHellenisticJudaismDrawneartome,youwhoareuneducated,andlodgeinthehouseofinstruction.„Sir51:23,NRSVThoughthereismuchdebateaboutwhetherearlyIsraelhadschools,mostscholarsagreethatthismentionofabethammidrash(houseofstudyŽ)inBenSirarepresentsanunambiguousreferencetosomesortofformalschoolinearlyJudaism.Yet,asIwillshow,thisquotationispartofarangeofdatatestifyingtofundamentalshiftsintextualityandeducationinJudaismduringtheHellenisticŽportionoftheSecondTempleperiod(333BenSira/Sirachisbutonebookthattesti“estothemergingofTorahanded-ucation,adevelopmentalreadybeguninthepre-Hellenisticperiod.Furthermore,weseetestimonyin2MaccabeestothecollectionofJewishbooksbyJudasMaccabeus,creatingatemplelibrarywithinHellenisticJudaismthatparallelstheindigenousEgyptianlibrariesdiscussedinHellenisticEgypt.Writing-supportededucationismorewidelyattestedthroughphenomenaliketheappearanceofwritten1.ButnotethequestioningofthisinterpretationindiscussionssuchasRainerRiesner,Je-susalsLehrer:EineUntersuchungzumUrsprungderEvangelien-U,WUNT(Tu¨bingen:Mohr-Siebeck,1981),166…67;OdaWischmeyer,DieKulturedesBuchesJesusSirach,BZAW(Berlin:DeGruyter,1995),175…77,andFox,Proverbs1…9,7,n.7.Cf.Rickenbacher,WeisheitsperikopenbeiBenSira,207…8.2.HellenisticŽisputinquotationmarksbecause,asMortinSmithandothershavepointedout,Hellenismwasaculturalforcepriorto333.Thisdate,however,representsasigni“-cantturningpointinthetypeandintensityofHellenisticin”uencesinJudaism,bothinPalestineandtheDiaspora.FordiscussionofboththerealityofinterchangewiththeGreekworld,thelim-itsofthetermHellenization,Žandthesigni“canceofthechangein333seeespeciallySchwartz,ImperialismandJewishSociety,12,22…27.
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworldTestamentsŽof“gureslikeAmramorthepatriarchs,whichrecordinwritingthepurported“nalteachingofimportantmentotheirsons.Keyarchaeological“ndsprovideexamplesofeducationalexercises.TheQumranmanuscriptsgiveunparalleledtestimonytobotheducationalpracticesandthetransmissionofancienttexts.Finally,duringthe“rstcenturyPhilo,Josephus,andotherstestifytotheidealofuniversaleducationofJewishmalesinthesacredtextsandtheprominenceofpublicstudyandreadingofthosetextsinanemergentJewishsynagogue.AndthisisnoteventobegintosurveytherangeoflaterrabbinicevidenceregardingeducationandScripture,evidencewhoselatedatingren-dersproblematicitsuseforoutliningtheSecondTempleperiod.BytheendoftheSecondTempleperiod,keypartsofJudaismhaveen-dorsedadifferentblendofHellenismandindigenouseducation-textualityfromthatseeninEgypt.PartlyinresistancetothepowerofHellenisticculture,Judaismdevelopsitsownindigenouseducationalsystem,asystemsupportedby(purportedly)pre-HellenisticHebrewtextsbutaimed„likeHellenisticed-ucation„ateducationofmorethanascribalelite.Judaismdoesnotfullyachieveuniversal(male)educationinthisperiod,butittakesacrucialturntowardsucheducation,aneducation-enculturationsystemfocused“rstandforemostonmasteryofTorahandtherestofanearlyHebrewBible.ŽInthechaptersthatfollowIwillsurveythemostpertinentdatashowingthejourneytowardthisemergent,culturallyhybrideducational-textualsystem,asystemwhosehighlyprotectedindigenouscurriculumisaBibleŽmuchliketheScrip-turesoflaterrabbinicJudaism.Inthischapter,however,Itraceaformofeducationthatprecededandundergirdedanybroadertext-supportededucationofmaleIsraelitesingeneral:theuseofscripturalliterature“rstandforemostbyandforpriestlyeducation-enculturation.FollowingtheleadofearlierstudiesbyAlbertBaumgarten,StevenFraade,andothers,Iwillshowhowmuchindigenous-language,text-supportededucationinHellenistic-periodIsrael„asincontemporaryEgyptandMesopotamia„wascenteredinthetempleandfocusedonpriests.More-over,asIwillshow,thisemphasisontempleandpriesthooddoesnotendintheperiodunderdiscussioninthisbook.Rather,laterformsofbroaderedu-cationpreserveremnantsofthetemplelocusofearliereducationandstillfeatureafocusonpriests.TheTestamentsandOtherPseudepigraphicWritingsOurearliestevidenceforHellenistic-periodJewisheducationalliteratureisfoundinpseudepigraphicliterature.Though“ctional,thisliteraturepreserves3.Iamindebtedformuchofwhatfollowsonthefollowing:AlbertI.Baumgarten,TheFlourishingofJewishSectsintheMaccabeanEra:AnInterpretation,JSJSupplements(Leiden:Brill,1997),esp.117…18,andStevenD.Fraade,TheyShallTeachYourStatutestoJacob:Priests,Scribes,andSagesinSecondTempleTimes,Žun-publishedessay(2003).IamgratefultoProfessorFraadeforsharinghisessayandallowingmetocitepartsofitforthefollowingsurvey.Seethesestudiesforreferencestoearlierworks.
priest-centeredtextualityinjudaismvaluablere”ectionsofwhatSecondTempleauthorspresupposedaboutthecontextsandmeansofeducation.AsIwillshow,itre”ectsasituationinwhichIsraeliteindigenous-languagetextualityandeducationareconcentratedamongvariouspriestlygroups.Thegroupseducatedintheindigenouslanguagetraditionsarenotlarge,con“nedastheyaretomalesinoneoranotherpriestlyline.Asinsmall-scaleeducationelsewhere,thesepriestlyelitesareeducatedinafamily-based,text-supportedenvironment.JustsuchanenvironmentispresupposedintheearliestlayersoftheEn-ochictradition,someofwhichdatetothethirdcenturyorearlysecondcentury.Forexample,1Enoch81envisionsEnochhavingoneyeartobewithhissonMethusaleh,duringwhichhewritesdownanewlawŽforhischildren(1Enoch81).Thenarrativeworldherepresupposesacontextwhereafathertransmitshislearningtohischildrenbymeansofacombinationoforalandwritteninstruction.Soalso,theEpistleofEnochpurportstogivetheteachingthatEnochgaveMethusaleh(1Enoch92:1).Andweseethesameliterary“ctionoffatherlyoral-writtenteachingin1Enoch108,achapteraddedtotheendofEnochtowardtheconclusionofitsformation.TheseareearlyexamplesoftheincreasinglywidespreadJewishgenreofpseudepigraphictestament,Žwhereagivenwritingpresentsitselfasthe“nalteachingofaprominentIsraelitepatriarch:thetwelvepatriarchs,Kohat,Am-ram,orMoses.Inthiscase,fromearlyon,theEnochtraditiondepictedEnochasascribeŽparalleltoEzraandfocusedonEnochswritings.Thetestamentsembeddedinthebookof1Enochdepicthimpassingonhisknowledgetohisson,ŽwithEnochasbothbiologicalandteacherfatherŽandMethusalehasstudentsonŽaswellashisbiologicaloffspring.SometimesthetestamentŽisdirectedtoabroadergroup,asintheintroductiontotheBookoftheWatch-ers.ŽHeretheauthoruseslanguagereminiscentofMosess“naladdresstoIsrael(Deut33:1)tointroducethefollowingtextasEnochsaddresstofuturegenerations,anaddresslongpredatingtheMosaicrevelationonwhichitdraws.Thegrouphereislargerthantheaudience-of-onerepresentedbyanheirlikeMethusaleh(cf.1Enoch81;92:1),butitissmallerthanthesonsofIsraelŽintheparallelDeuteronomytext.ThistextandtheEnochictextsjust4.ThismaybepartoftheearlyastronomicalbookŽin1Enoch,or,asarguedbyRandalArgall,itmaybepartoftheoriginalconclusiontothebookofWatchersŽ;1EnochandSirach:AComparativeLiteraryandConceptualAnalysisoftheThemesofRevelation,CreationandJudgment,SocietyofBiblicalLiterature,EarlyJudaismandItsLiterature(Atlanta,GA:ScholarsPress,1995),257…65.5.FordiscussionofvariouselementsoftheTestamentŽgenreintheforegoingandotherEnochicwritingsseeArgall,1EnochandSirach6.1Enoch12:3…4;13:3…7;14:1;15:1;89:68…77;90:17…20;92:1;98:7…8;104:2,7,10…13;4QEnGiants1…4;4QEnGiantsII,14(also39:2intheparablesofEnoch).FordiscussionofsomeofthesereferencesseeChristineSchams,JewishScribesintheSecondTemplePeriod,JSOTSup(Shef“eld:JSOT,1998),92…98,andM.A.Knibb,TheBookofEnochintheLightoftheQumranWisdomLiterature,ŽinWisdomandApocalypticismintheDeadSeaScrollsandintheBiblicalTradition,ed.F.Garcš´aMartš´nez(Leuven:LeuvenUniversityPressandPeeters,2003),196…97.TheparallelstoEzraarediscussedinGeorgeW.E.Nicklesburg,Enoch,LeviandPeter:RecipientsofRevelationinUpperGalilee,Ž100(1981):585.7.FordiscussionoftheintroductiontothebookofthewatchersandcomparisonwithitsparallelinDeuteronomyseeArgall,1EnochandSirach,18…20;see24…35fordiscussionofotherindicatorsofthetestamentgenreinthebodyofthebookofthewatchers.
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworlddiscussedallbuildonthepresuppositionsofsmall-scaleeliteeducationtopresentthemselvesasthesecret,writtenrecordsofaneducationlongavailabletosomebutnottothemany.Thoughsuchpseudepigraphaareuselessforaccesstotheactualsayingsoftheancient“gurestowhichtheyareattributed,theyareimportantwitnessestowhattheirwritersconsideredtobeplausiblepicturesofeducationandso-cialization.Theycreatedanarrativeworld,purportedlyplausibletotheircon-temporaries,whereknowledgewastransmittedfromgenerationtogenerationbywayoforalinstructionbythegreatpatriarchs.Yettheypresentedtheirownwritings,theseTestaments,Žasthewrittendepositofsuchoralteachings.Theresultingtextspresupposethatsomepeoplehaveaccesstothisteachingwhileothersdonot.Theyareaneliteformoftext-supportedinstruction,inwhichonlyanexclusiveelectcanparticipate:thosewithaccesstothetextsandtheabilitytointerpretthemproperly„usuallypassingdowntheirknowledgewithinthelimitedcontextofthefamily.TheoriginalsociallocationoftheEnochictraditionsisunusuallydif“culttoreconstruct,sincethe“guresofEnochandhiscontemporariesarenotcon-nectedtospeci“csocialgroupsinlaterIsrael(cf.LeviorJudah).Nevertheless,thereareseveralcluesthattheEnochictraditionsoriginatedasthepolemicsofspeci“cpriestlygroupsagainstothers.TheEnochcharacterattheircenternotonlyisascribebutalsohaspriest-likeaccesstotheheavenlytempleandintercedeslikeapriestonbehalfofthewatchersbeforeGod.JonathanZ.SmithandMichaelStonehavearguedpersuasivelythatapocalypticliteratureingeneralandEnochinparticularre”ectthespeci“csortsofcalendricalcon-cernsandesotericlearningofHellenisticpriestlygroups.Inaddition,DavidSuterandGeorgeNicklesburgarguethattheproblemofmixedmarriageandotherelementsinthebookofthewatchersmarkitasapriestlycritiqueoftheJerusalempriesthood.ThebookofJubileesprovidessimilarpicturesofpriest-centered,small-scale,family-orientedformsoftextualityandeducation.Withinitsnarrativeworld,allliterate“guresuptoandincludingJacobarepriests,while„ofthedescendantsofJacob„itisthedescendantsofLeviwhoareespeciallylearned8.BenjaminWrightcitesanunpublishedpaperbyDavidSuter,ThePriesthoodandApocalyptic,ŽonEnochscombinedpriestly/scribalroleandhisaccesstotheheavenlytemple(FeartheLordandHonorthePriest:BenSiraasDefenderoftheJerusalemPriesthood,ŽinTheBookofBenSirainModernResearch,ed.PancratiusC.Beentjes[Berlin:DeGruyter,1997],199).ForEnochsintercessoryroleseeMarthaHimmelfarb,AscenttoHeaveninJewishandChristianApocalypses(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1993),23…25.9.JonathanZ.Smith,WisdomandApocalyptic,ŽinReligiousSyncretisminAntiquity:EssaysinConver-sationwithGeoWidengren,ed.BirgerA.Pearson(Missoula,MT:ScholarsPress,1975),131…56;MichaelStone,TheBookofEnochandJudaismintheThirdCenturyB.C.E,Ž40(1978):489.10.DavidSuter,FallenAngel,FallenPriest:TheProblemofFamilyPurityin1Enoch6…16,Ž(1979):115…35;RevisitingFallenAngel,FallenPriest,Ž24(2002):137…42;Nicklesburg,Enoch,LeviandPeter,Ž584…87.Cf.somecriticalre”ectionsonthisthesissummarizedinMarthaHimmelfarb,TheBookoftheWatchersandthePriestsofJerusalem,Ž24(2002):131…35,andEibertTigchelaar,SomeRemarksontheBookoftheWatchers,thePriests,EnochandGenesis,and4Q208,Ž24(2002):143…45.11.OnthefamilyorientationofeducationinJubileesseeBaumgarten,FlourishingofJewishSects,121.
priest-centeredtextualityinjudaisminthetextualworldcreatedbyJubilees.Asothershaveargued,thismayre”ecttheoriginsofJubileesinLevitical,possiblyanti-Aaronide,priestlycircles.Furthermore,likeEnoch,Jubileesdepictsthesepriest-like“guresasinvolvedinaprocessoftext-supportededucationoftheirsons.JubileesenvisionsEnochasthe“rsttolearnwritingandwisdom,and„like1Enoch„speaksofhisdepositofawrittentestimonyaswell(4:17…19).Later,afterthe”ood,Noahssonsgodifferentways,eachofwhichischaracterizedbyaformofwriting-supportedinstruction.Shemsson,Arpachshad,teachesCanaanknowledgeofwriting,whichheunfortunatelyusestoreadandcopytheBookoftheWatch-ers,leadinghimtosin(8:2…4).NoahgivesallofhissonsatestamentŽthathereceivedfromhisfathersbacktoEnoch(7:34…39;cf.GenesisApocryphonV.20…29),buthemorespeci“callyleavesawritingofangelicinstructionabouthealingforShem,hisfavoriteson(10:13…14).ThepatternchangesinthecaseofAbraham.Hisfather,Terah,teacheshimwriting(11:16),butGodsangelteacheshimHebrew,thelanguageofcreation,forgottenuntilthen(12:25…27).TherestofJubileesportraysAbrahamsheirsasparticularlyeducated:JacoblearnswritingandEsaudoesnot(19:14),andJacobreceivesawrittenrevelationfromGodatBethelinwhichGodgiveshimthepowertomemorize(32:21…26).YetthisliterateknowledgeisbestowedparticularlyonLevi(30:18):Jacobmentionshistaskofteachinginhisblessing(31:15),andhegivesallofhisbookstoLevi,hisson(45:15).Hereagainweseepriestsasparticularlyrespon-siblefortextsandinstruction.AsimilaremphasisonpriestsismanifestintheearlyAramaicformoftheTestamentofLevitradition,foundatQumranandlinkinginmultiplewayswiththeLeviticallyorientedbookofJubilees.AsreconstructedandtranslatedbyKugler,theconclusiontothistraditionincludesthefollowingexhortationtohisLeviticaldescendants:ListentothewordofLevi,yourfather,andpayheedtotheinstruc-tionsofGodsfriend.Iaminstructingyou,mychildren,andIre-vealtruthtoyou,mybelovedones...Andnow,mychildren,teachreadingandwriting,andinstruction,andwisdomtoyourchildren,andmaywisdombewithyouforeternalglory.Hewhoteacheswis-dom,sheisanhonorinhim,butwhoeverabandonswisdom,todis-12.Fordiscussionofthepriestlydepictionof“guresinJubileesseeMarthaHimmelfarb,AKingdomofPriests:TheDemocratizationofthePriesthoodintheLiteratureofSecondTempleJudaism,ŽJournalofJewishThoughtandPhilosophy6(1997):91…92.Asshenotes(93…96),JubileesdepictsallofIsrael,notjustthedescen-dantsofLevi,asobservingpriest-likeregulationsregardingbloodandsexuality.Inthiscontext,itisnotablethatitisintheareaofliteracythatJubileesdistinguishestheLevitesfromtherestofIsrael.13.AndersHultgard,LeschatologiedesTestamentsdesDouzePatriarches,vol.1,´tationdestexts,ActaUniversitatisUpsaliensis(Stockholm:AlmqvistandWiksell,1977),21…45;RobertKugler,FromPatriarchtoPriest:TheLevi-PriestlyTraditionfromAramaicLevitoTestamentofLevi,JudaismandItsLiterature(Atlanta,GA:ScholarsPress,1996),144…46.14.Knibb,EnochandQumran,Ž198.15.Hultgard,Leschatologie,15…44;Kugler,PatriarchtoPriest,146…69.16.Kugler,PatriarchtoPriest,120.
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworlddainheisgiven.Observe,mychildren,mybrotherJoseph[who]taughtreadingandwritingandtheinstructionofwisdomforglory,andforgreatnessandforknowledge.(Ar.LeviBythispointthepriestlylinkagesofthetextareevenmoreexplicitthaninthematerialsdiscussedearlier.ThetextfocusesonLevi,theancestorofamajorpriestlygroup.Itcritiquesotherpriestlygroups,focusinginparticularonpar-ticularlypriestlyconcernsofexogamousmarriagesandcalendricalissues.Andthetextincludesspeci“cpriestlyinstructions(13…60).Indeed,thesimilarityoftheconcernsoftheLevitraditionwiththoseof1EnochhasledsometoproposethatbothtextsrepresentthecritiquesofLeviticalpriestsagainstthedominanceofAaronidesandZadokites.ThistraditionofpriestlytestamentsŽadvancingtheperspectiveofvariouspriestlygroupscontinuedintothelaterSecondTempleperiod.ThelaterTes-tamentofLevithatwasincludedintheTestamentsoftheTwelvePatriarchsincludesasection,likethatjustquoted,inwhichLeviexhortshissonstolearnandteachwriting(13:1…3).Anothertestamentinthesamedocument,theTestamentofReuben,evenelevatesLevioverReubenbecauseofhisauthori-tativeknowledgeofthelawofGodŽ(T.Reu.Moreover,weseethisconceptofpriestlyteacherinotherearlytestaments.The“ndsatQumranincludedthepriestlytestamentofbothAaronsfather,Amram,andthatofhisgrandfather,Kohat.Bothareonlypartiallypreserved,andtheexistingfrag-mentsdonotmentioninstruction.Nevertheless,theveryexistenceofsuchwrittentexts,purportingtobethedepositofpriestlyinstructionstothenextgeneration,testi“esagaintotheprominenceofpriestlyteachingintheedu-cationaluniverseofSecondTempleJudaism.Allshowsignsofhavingbeencreatedinapriestlycontext,andtogethertheyprovideevidenceforpriestlyconceptsofidealeducationinasmall-scale,familysetting.BenSiraOurothermajortestimonytopre-MaccabeanJewishtextualityandeducationisthebookofBenSira(translatedastheGreekSirach).BenSiraisimportantfromavarietyofperspectives.Unlikeothertextstobediscussedinsubsequentchapters,thebulkofBenSiraisdatabletoaperiodbeforetheMaccabeanrevolt,basedonthetestimonyofitsprologue,itslackofre”ectionofissuesthatemergedinthatrevolt,andprobablereferencesin50:1…21tothehigh17.SaulOlyan,BenSirasRelationshiptothePriesthood,ŽHarvardTheologicalReview80(1987):279…80;Wright,BenSiraasDefender,Ž203.AnearlierdiscussionfocusingonthepriestlyoriginsoftheLeviTestamenttraditionisHultgard,Leschatologie,44…81.SeealsoKugler,PatriarchtoPriest,135…37.18.AgainseeHultgard,Leschatologie,44…81,forpotentiallinkagestotheLeviticallineofpriests.19.SeeOlyan,BenSira,Ž281,forotherlinkagesoftheTestamentsoftheTwelvePatriarchstoLevitical
priest-centeredtextualityinjudaismpriestSimontheSecond(219…196Moreover,unlikemanyotherwis-domtextsfoundatQumran,BenSirahasbeenpreservedasanentirebook,providinganexampleofacompleteinstructionwritteninthiskeyperiod.Finally,BenSirawitnessestoatransitionstageinIsrael,showingparallelstoaspectsofpre-HellenisticIsraeliteeducation-textualitybutalsoanticipatingchangesthataremorewidelyattestedlater.AseriesofrecentstudieshashighlightedmotifsthatBenSirashareswiththeearlyapocalypticwritingsdiscussedearlier,evenashisteachingŽappearsdesignedincertainrespectstoopposetheirs.First,andmostimportantforthiscontext,BenSirastandsasanotherexampleoftextualitybasedinthepriesthood,oratleastcloselyconnectedtoit.Inonepassage,Sirach7:29…31,BenSirauseslanguagefromtheShema(Deut6:5)toexhorthisstudentstowardadevotiontoprieststhatparallelsthedevotionthattheyshouldhaveforGod.InhispraiseofIsraelsfathershedevotesmorespacetopraiseofAaronthanhedoestopraiseofMoses(45:6…24,25;cf.45:1…5),andhespendsthemostspaceofallonapraiseofSimon,thehighpriest(50).Moreover,thereareindicationsthatthisfocusonpriests,particularlyAaronidepriests(50:13),isnotjustthatofapiouslaymanbutre”ectsthepriestlyidentityofBenSirahimself.HeisnamedasthesonofoneEleazarŽ(atypicalpriestlyname),andhebetraysinhispraiseofSimonaremarkablyspeci“cknowledgeofpriestlygarmentsandpractices.Whetherornothehimselfperformedpriestlyculticfunctions,alltheseaspectsestablishhiscloseconnectionstothetemplepriesthood,particularly„asSaulOlyanhaspointedout„theAaronidepriestlyline.Despitetheselinkstothepriesthood,BenSirarepresentsaverydifferentsortofteachingfromthatseeninthepseudepigraphaalreadydiscussed.Thoughhesharesnumerousthemesandmotifswiththosewritings,BenSiraappearstoexplicitlycritiquethesortsofspeculations,dreams,andvisionsthatarefeaturedinthepriestlytestamentsandapocalypses(3:21…24;18:4…7;34:1…20.FordiscussionofthekeydataseeAlexanderA.DiLellaandPatrickW.Skehan,TheWisdomofBenSira:ANewTranslationwithNotes,AB(NewYork:Doubleday,1987),8…10.ForasurveyseeDiLellaandSkehan,WisdomofBenSira,51…59.Seenow,however,questionsraisedaboutreadingBenSira50:1…21asareferencetoSimontheJustŽorSimonIIinchapter3ofJamesVanderKamsFromJoshuatoCaiaphas:HighPriestsafterthe(Minneapolis:Fortress,2004),141…57.21.Tobesure,mostofBenSiraisonlyaccessiblenowintheGreekandSyriactranslationsandmedievalJewishmanuscripts.22.HelgeStadelmann,BenSiraalsSchriftgelehrter:EineUntersuchungzumBerufsbilddesvor-makkaba¨ischen¯fe¯runderBeru¨cksichtigungseinesVerha¨ltnisseszuPriester-,Propheten-undWeisheitslehrertum,WUNT(Tu¨bingen:MohrSiebeck,1980),65…66;Olyan,BenSira,Ž263…67;Wright,BenSiraasDefender,Ž193.23.Olyan,BenSira,Ž267…72;Wright,BenSiraasDefender,Ž194…95.Stadelmann(,68…138)andWright,BenSiraasDefender,Ž193…94,alsonoteBenSirasextensivesectiononpropersacri“ces(Sir24.ForolderandmorerecentargumentsthatBenSirahimselfprobablywasapriestseeStadelmann,,esp.4…39;Himmelfarb,KingdomofPriests,Ž103.JohnCollinsarguesagainstBenSirabeingapriestbecauseofthelackofspeci“cpriestlycalendarandculticconcerns(JewishWisdomintheHellenisticAgeOTL[Louisville,KY:WestminsterJohnKnox,1997],37),buttheQumranliteraturetobesurveyedhereaftersuggeststhatIsraelitepriests„liketheircounterpartsinothercultures„couldproduceandcollectbothexplicitlyculticandnonculticinstructionalliterature.25.Olyan,BenSira.Ž
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworldThosedocumentsadvancedperspectivescriticalofthecontemporarypriesthoodbypresentingthemselvesastheteachingsŽofpriest-sagesyetolderthanMoses.BenSira,incontrast,writesinhisownname,praisesthecon-temporarypriesthood,andaf“rmstheMosaicTorahasthedecisiveteachingaboveothers.PartlybecauseBenSiradoesnotpurporttobeanarchaicrecordofpre-Mosaicinstruction,itprovidesmoredirectevidencethanthepseudepigraphaaboutcontemporaryeducationalpractices.Likethem,BenSirare”ectssmall-scale,writing-supported,oraleducationofaliterateelite.Thebookdoesnotwitnesstoanypublicschooloruniversalliterateeducationyet.WhenBenSiratalksofeducationingeneral,hepresupposesthatparentsaretheprimaryteachersoftheirchildren(Sir8:9;30:3…4;cf.also14:26).HealsoenvisionstheAaronidepriestsasthoseresponsibleforteachingthepeopleGodscom-mandments(Sir45:5,17).Nevertheless,itisunclearwhatthecharacterofthisteachingwasorhowwidespreaditwas.BenSirapresentshimselfasamoreadvancedteacher.Heisateacherandcounselorofeliteleaders(Sir33:18…19;39:4).Furthermore,herecognizesthatthewisdomofthescribedependsontheopportunityofleisure;onlytheonewhohaslittlebusinesscanbecomewise.Ž(Sir38:24,NRSV).Theseandothercommentscon“rmthatBenSiraswisdom,ŽlikethatofmostancientNearEasternsages,wasintendedforthesmallminoritywhohadthetimetomasterhigherinstruction.BenSirasteachingitselflikewiseshowsmanyresemblancestothedataseeninearlyIsrael.Asbefore,oralityisakeymedium,ifnotthekeymedium,forteaching.BenSirasinstructionisfullofcallstolistenŽandhearŽtheinstruction(e.g.,3:1;6:23,33;35;16:5;andpassim),andateachablestudentisonewhohasanattentiveearŽ(Sir3:29).YetthebookitselfwitnessestoBenSirasuseofwritingtopasshisinstructiontofuturegenerationsŽ(24:33…34;cf.39:32),andheconcludesitwithacolophonurgingstudentstolaythese26.OnsharedmotifsseeArgall,1EnochandSirach;CompetingWisdoms:1EnochandSirach,Ž24(2002):169…78,alongwithsomeadditionalobservationsinJ.Corley,WisdomVersusApocalypticandScienceinSirach1,1…10,ŽinMartš´nez,WisdomandApocalypticism,275…80.OnBenSirascriticalresponsetoEnoch,TestamentofLevi,andJubileesseeWright,BenSiraasDefender,Žesp.204…17;Sirachand1Enoch:SomeFurtherConsiderations,Ž24(2002):179…87.Ididnot“ndWrightsarguments(204…208)regardingBenSirascritiqueofalunarcalendar(Sir43:6…8)aspersuasiveashistreatmentofotherthemes.27.ForargumentsthattheEnochtraditionactuallyaimedtoreplaceMosaicTorahwithEnochicteachingseeGeorgeW.E.Nicklesburg,EnochicWisdom:AnAlternativetotheMosaicTorah?ŽinHesedve-Emet:StudiesinHonorofErnestS.Frerichs,ed.JodiMagness(Atlanta,GA:ScholarsPress,1998),123…32.28.NotethathistextoccursinthecontextofapraiseofthescribeŽthatshowsstrikinglinkstoclassicEgyptianpraiseofthescribeŽdevelopedinacultureofeliteeducation.ThisdoesnotnegatethevalueofthistextinwitnessingtoeducationinIsraelinthisperiodbutdoesshowhowmodelsandmaterialsfromeliteeducationalsettingswerestillin”uential.29.MartinHengel,JudaismandHellenism:StudiesinTheirEncounterinPalestineDuringtheEarlyHelle-nisticPeriod,trans.JohnBowden(Philadelphia:FortressPress,1974),80(seealsovol.2,p.54,n.168);Wisch-meyer,,175…77,181;JohnJ.Collins,JewishWisdomintheHellenisticAge,OTL(Louisville,KY:WestminsterJohnKnox,1997),38.30.Wischmeyer,,185…86;JamesL.Crenshaw,ThePrimacyofListeninginBenSirasPedagogy,ŽWisdom,YouAreMySister:StudiesinHonorofRolandE.Murphy,ed.M.L.Barre´(Washington,DC:CatholicBiblicalAssociation,1997),180…87.
priest-centeredtextualityinjudaismwrittenteachingstotheirheartŽinordertobecomewiseŽ(50:27…29).Suchmemorization,layingtoheart,ŽofBenSiraswritteninstruction,wasfacili-tatedbyitsuseofpoeticformandtacticslikenumericalproverbs(e.g.,23:16…17;25:1…2;25:7…11).Suchmemory-helpsarecontinuedinthetransmissionofthebookthroughtheappendingtoitofanacrosticpraiseofwisdom(51:13…30)anditslaterorganizationthroughtheaddition„intheGreektradition„ofsuperscriptions(e.g.,23:7;24:1;30:1;30:18).Later,BenSirasgrandsonde-scribeshimasonewhonotonlyreadthelaw,prophets,andotherwritingsofourancestorsŽbutalsomemorizedthem,havinggainedpossessionforhimselfŽofthesewritings(¯samenos).Butsuchoral-writtenmasteryofthewritingswasnotenough,becauseBenSirarecognizedthedutyofscribeswhoarelearnedinbookstoinstructthoselackingknowledgethroughuseofbothspeakingandwriting(kailegontaskaigraphontasThereismuchdebateaboutexactlywhichbooksBenSirahimselfsawaskeytoeducationalinstruction.BothhispraisetothefathersandtherestofhisinstructionshowadeepfamiliaritywithandappreciationofmostbooksnowfoundintheHebrewBible.Nevertheless,BenSirasowndescriptionofthescribalcurriculumisfartherfromtheHebrewBiblethanlaterdescriptionslikehisgrandsonsprologuetoBenSira.InthistexthedescribeshowthetruescribestudiesthelawofthemostHigh,Žwisdomoftheancients,Žproph-ecies,Žsayingsofthefamous,Žparables,ŽandproverbsŽ(39:1…5).foritsplacementofTorahattheoutset,thislistingdoesnotfollowthelatertripartitedivisionofTorah,Prophets,andWritings,orevenlaterbipartitelist-ingsofTorahandProphets.ŽInstead,BenSiramentionsnonpropheticin-structionalliteraturebeforeandafterpropheciesŽ:bothwisdomofthean-cientsŽandlaterparablesŽandproverbsŽ„andsomeofthisinstructionalliteraturemaywellhavebeenforeignmaterialsobtainedthroughtravelsabroad(39:4;cf.51:13).BenSiraonlyapproximateslatermentionsofTorahandProphetsŽwhenheturnstowardtheendofhiswritingtoapraiseoffathersŽ(44:1;emphasisadded).Hereheusesthetermfather,Žwhichelse-whereinthebookreferstoteaching“gures,tointroduceanoverviewofspe-teachings.AsAlonGoshen-Gottsteinhasarguedrecently,theoverviewisdividedintotwosections:(1)apraiseof“guresfromtheTorahwhichconstruesthatworkasatimelessrevelationbyGodofGodscovenant(44:16…45:26)and(2)asurveyofpost-Torah“guresthatconspicuouslylinkstoalmostallworkslaterincludedintheHebrewBible(46:1…49:16).Thelatterpraiseof“guresfromnon-TorahbooksrefersbothtolaterpropheticŽbookslikeIsaiahandtoworkslaterincludedamongthewritings,ŽsuchasPsalms31.OtherexamplesincludeSir26:5…6;26:28;50:25…26.32.Cf.DiLellaandSkehan,WisdomofBenSira,452,whoassertswithoutargumentthatSir39:1referstothetripartiteHebrewcanon,while39:2…3referstoforeignwisdom.33.ForsurveysseeJackT.Sanders,BenSiraandDemotic,27…106;DiLellaandSkehan,WisdomofBen,46…50;Collins,JewishWisdom,39…41.34.Esther,Ezra,andDanielarenotmentionedexplicitly.
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworldasacompositionofDavid(47:8),wisdomworksattributedtoSolomon(47:17),andJobtheprophetŽ(49:9).ItevendrawsonChronicles.Thissurveyanticipates,butisnotyetequivalentto,laterconstrualsoftheHebrewScrip-turesasacollectionofTorahontheonehandandacollectionofProphetsŽontheother.Inthiscase,BenSirasprophetsŽcollectionincludesbookslikeJob,Psalms,andProverbs.Evenwithinthisbroadersurveyofspeci“callyIsraelitefathers,ŽitisclearthatTorahoccupiesaplaceofitsownwithinBenSirasconsciousness.ItistheTorahthatisattheheadofBenSirascurricularoverviewin39:1.AnditistheTorah,notanybroadercorpus,thatisthefoundationonwhichBenSirahimselfbuilds.Asheputsit,Torahistheriverfromwhichhisownwritteninstruction”ows,parallelingtheprophecyŽofearliergenerations(24:23…33).ThisfocusonTorahisanintensi“cationofoldertrends.Wealreadysawamoveinpre-HellenisticwritingslikeDeuteronomytoreplaceearlyinstruc-tionalmaterialsoftheProverbstypewithaMosaicTorah.Nevertheless,BenSiratakessuchtendenciesfurther.ForBenSira,thefearoftheLORDŽsocharacteristicofearlierIsraelitewisdomisalwaysTorahobedience(e.g.,10:19;19:20;21:11;cf.,e.g.,Prov15:33).Moreover,thoughattimeshespeaksofwisdomŽasafemale“gureobtainedthroughobediencetotheTorah(e.g.,1:26;15:1),hewitnessesintextslikechapter24toanemergingidenti“cationofTorahlawwiththefemalewisdomŽ“guresoprominentinbookslikeProv-AsintheTanachitself(e.g.,Jos1:8…9;Ps1:2),BenSiracallsonhisstudentstoingestGodsstatutesandcommandsthroughconstantrecitation(6:37;cf.14:20…21[wisdom]).Moreover,BenSirapromisesherethattheGodwhogavethosecommandswillestablishthemintheheartŽofthestudentwhodoesthis(6:37).Hereagain,weseetheinsistencenotonlyonstudyandobediencebutonthecognitiveinternalizationofwisdom,ŽnowTorahwis-dom,Žintheheartofthestudent.BenSirasteachingbuildsonaTorahteachingthatis“rstandforemost35.AlonGoshen-Gottstein,BenSirasPraiseoftheFathers:ACanon-ConsciousReading,ŽinBenSirasGod:ProceedingsoftheInternationalBenSiraConference(Durham,2001),vol.321,ed.RenateEgger-Wenzel,BZAW(Berlin:DeGruyter,2001),244…60(onJobsee242).36.SeeLesterGrabbe,JewishHistoriographyandScriptureintheHellenisticPeriod,ŽinDidMosesSpeakAttic?JewishHistoriographyandScriptureintheHellenisticPeriod,ed.LesterL.Grabbe(Shef“eld:Shef“eldAca-demicPress,2001),145…48,andJeanLouisSka,Le´logedespe`resdansleSiracide(Si44…50)etlecanondelAncienTestament,ŽinTreasuresofWisdom:FestschriftM.Gilbert,ed.N.Calduch-BenagesandJ.Vermeylen(Leuven:LeuvenUniversityPressandPeeters,1999),188…91(thelatternotingsomeimportantcontrastsbetweenChroniclesandBenSira).37.Goshen-Gottstein(BenSirasPraiseoftheFathers,Žesp.250…60)notesapropheticemphasisinthesecondportionofBenSiraspraise.Nevertheless,asherecognizes(e.g.,242),thispartofthepraisedoesnotfollowtheprecisecontoursandlimitsofthelaterProphetsŽsectionofthetripartiterabbinicScriptures.Inaddition,IwouldmaintainthatGoshen-Gottsteinsuseofthetermcanon-consciousŽforthispraiseisanach-ronisticforBenSirasperiod.BenSiraisdescribingtheworksofthosespeci“callyIsraelitefather-teachersthatshouldformpartofagoodcurriculum.ThisisonthewaytolaterconceptsofcanonŽbutisnotyetthere.38.T.Swanson,TheClosingofHolyScripture:AStudyintheHistoryoftheCanonizationoftheOldTestamentŽ(Ph.D.diss.,VanderbiltUniversity,1970),114…21;Goshen-Gottstein,BenSirasPraiseoftheFa-thersŽ,esp.244…49.39.NotealsosimilarlinksinSir15:1;23:27;24:23…27.40.ThisisalsoseeninBaruch3:9…4:4andkeyQumranwisdomtextstobesurveyedinthenextchapter.
priest-centeredtextualityinjudaismtheresponsibilityofpriests.Inhispraiseofthefathers,hepresentsMosesastheonewho“rsttaughtIsraelthecommandments(45:1…5)andthepriest,Aaron,astheonecommissionedtocarryonthistask(45:17).Theteachinghereis“rstofalloral:Godallowed[Moses]tohearGodsvoiceŽandgavehimthecommandmentsfacetoface,thelawoflifeandknowledgeŽ(45:5NRSV).YettherestofBenSiramakesclearthatthecommandsenvisionedherearethoseofthePentateuch.ThusAaronidepriests,includingperhapsBenSira,areresponsibleforteachingthepeoplethetraditionswrittenintheTorah.BenSirahimselffocusesonanupper-levelinstructionthatpresupposestheimportanceofTorahstudyandobedience,yetgoesbeyonditingenreandfocus.ThoughmanyofthestricturesheincludescanbecomparedwithTorahcommandments,heexplicitlyclaimstohavesoughtwisdomintravelsoutsideIsrael(39:4),andseveralpartsofhisinstructioncloselyparallelnon-Torahinstructionalliteratures,includingsomeEgyptianandGreekinstructionalcor-Certainly,instructionalgenreslikeproverbsŽandparablesŽformakeypartofhisinstruction(39:1…3).Nevertheless,asinpre-HellenisticIsrael,BenSiradoesnotlimithisteachingtosuchintroductorywisdomŽgenres.Rather,heincludesanhymnicoverviewofIsraelitehistoryuptoNehemiah(44…49),aprophet-likewoeoracleŽin41:8…9;aprayerfordeliveranceofIsraelin36:1…22;andanindividualthanksgivingin51:1…12,amongothergenres.Asinearlierperiodsandothercultures,suchmaterialsareasmuchapartoftheeducationalprojectasproverbs,instructions,orwisdom-hymn-likecomposi-tions(likethepraiseofcreatorin39:12…35andthehymntoGodscreatedorderin42:15…43:33).BenSiradoesnotrepresentthe“rstinstructionaluseofsuchhistorical,prophetic,orliturgicalgenres.Instead,herepresentsakeyexampleofanupper-levelinstructionalsynthesisofthesegenresforacurric-uluminitiallyfocusedonTorah.BenSiramanifestsseveralshiftsawayfromearliermodelsofIsraelitetextuality,shiftsthatbecomeyetmorepronouncedinlaterperiods.Firstandforemost,heisoneofthemostimportantwitnessestotheidenti“cationofthefemalewisdom“gurewiththeTorahofMoses,anidenti“cationweseeinotherwitnessesaroundandafterBenSirastime(e.g.,Baruch3:9…4:4;4Q4172I,14;4Q18414…15;4Q5252…3II,1…6;11QPsXVIII,10…13[//Ps154:12…15]).Second,asmentionedearlier,healsowitnessestoanintensi“cationofamorewidespreadtendencyinIsraelandtheancientNearEasttohouseindigenoustextualityandeducationinthetempleandwiththepriests.Whetherornothehimselfwasan(Aaronide)priest,heworksinaworldwherepriestsenjoyagodlikecentrality(7:29…31)andcanbeplausiblydepictedastheoriginalandprimaryTorah-teachersofIsrael(45:17).Finally,BenSiraisatantalizingearlyexampleofGreek-Israelitehybridity41.Fordiscussionseethestudiescitedearlier,note33.42.Foranolder,butstillusefulsurveyofthevarietyofgenresinBenSira,includinghymns,thanksgivingsongs,laments,andpropheticformsseeW.Baumgartner,DieliterarischenGattungeninderWeisheitdesJesusZAW34(1914):161…98.
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworldinavarietyofways.Tobesure,itisdif“culttoestablishjusthowmuchheisdependentonspeci“cGreektraditions.Nevertheless,heshowsmuchmorespeci“clinkagestosuchtextsthanwereevidentinpre-HellenisticIsraeliteliterature,especiallyTheognisandbook4oftheMoreimportant,asEliasBickermaninparticularhassuggested,BenSirasintensi“edemphasisontheTorahmorphologicallyresemblestheGreekemphasisonHomerasthepre-eminentteacheroftheGreeks.ForBenSira,MosesplaysarolelikeaJewishHomer,andthePentateuchsroleascoreofJewisheducationislikethatofand(toalesserextent)intheHellenisticcurriculum.Atleastatthisstage,thisisnotanantagonisticdevelopment.Thereisnoexplicitpo-lemicagainstGreekeducationortextualityinBenSira.Moreover,thisisanoutgrowthofearliertendenciestofocusonTorah,suchasthoseseeninJosiahsreformortheaf“rmationoftheTorahinthePersianperiod.Still,BenSirasfocusonTorah-WisdomintextslikeSirach24hastakenonacosmicdimen-sionnotseenbefore.Indeed,somehavearguedplausiblythatBenSirasde-pictionofTorah-Wisdomasthelawofcreationmaybein”uencedsomehowbyStoicideasofprominentinGreekeducationinhisareaandtime.Moreover,theincreasingfocusonTorahevidentinBenSiraisaprobableearlyexampleofaformofJewishhybriditythatwewillseeagainelsewhere,ahy-bridityinwhichSecondTempleJudaismreactstothe(Homer-focused)Hel-lenisticcurriculumintheprocessofshapinganindigenousIsraeliteHebrewformoftextualityandeducation.OtherRe”ectionsofTemple-FocusedTextualityandEducationInsum,bothearlypseudepigraphicwritingsandBenSira,opposedastheyaretoeachother,similarlywitnesstothelodgingofmostindigenoustextualityinIsraelinthetemplewithpriests.Thisisatrendseeninother“rst-millenniumNearEasterncultures,particularlyintheHellenisticperiod.Itisnotbrandnew.WealreadysawafocusonpriestsinIsraelitetextualityofthepostexilicPersianperiod,withtheassociationoftheTorahwithEzra,ascribeandpriest.Nevertheless,PersianperiodmaterialsliketheNehemiahmemoirtestifytothepresenceoflayexegeteslikeNehemiahalongsidepriestlytextualmasterslikeEzra.Thisdualityisnotsopresentinthematerialssurveyedhere.Instead,ourearliestHellenistic-periodwitnessestotextualityappeartoema-nateoutofvariouspriestlygroupsandexpresstheircompetingperspectives.Moreover,wehavegoodexternaltestimonytothedominanceofpriestsovertextualityandeducation.AsBaumgartenpointsout,itiscon“rmedinHeca-taeusofAbdera,whoreportsaround300.thatMosesappointedthe43.EliasJosephBickerman,TheJewsintheGreekAge(Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress,1988),170…74,191;Hengel,JudaismandHellenism,75;Wischmeyer,,199…200;CatherineHezser,JewishLiteracyinRomanPalestine,TexteundStudienzumantikenJudentum(Tu¨bingen:Mohr-Siebeck,2001),70…71,104.NotealsotheevocativediscussionbyBurtonMack,UndertheShadowofMoses:AuthorshipandAuthorityinHellenisticJudaism,ŽSocietyofBiblicalLiteratureSeminarPapers21(1982):299…318.
priest-centeredtextualityinjudaismpriestsasthoseentrustedwiththeguardianshipofthelawsandcustomsŽkaite¯nto¯nnomo¯nkaito¯netho¯nphulakeAnditisindirectlyevidentaswellinthepriestlyassociationsoftheHasmoneans(tobediscussedlater)andtheHasidimattestedin2Maccabees.SuchassociationsevenpersistlateintotheSecondTempleperiodandbeyond.Inthe“rstcenturywestillseealotaboutfamily-basededucationandtextualityassociatedwithtemplesandpriests.Forexample,4Maccabeesde-pictsamotherofsevenmartyredsonsrecountingtheeducationthatherhus-band,apriestknownforhislearning(4Macc5:4),gavethosesonsintheLawandtheProphets,ŽwithProphetsŽapparentlyincludingDaniel,David,andSolomon(4Macc18:10…19).Josephus,oneofthemostproli“cJewishwritersofthe“rstcentury,claimsapriestlyof“ceforhimself(1…2[1…9];39[198]),linkshisknowledgeofsacredpropheciestothisof“ce(.1.3;3.352)andboaststhatpriestsconsultedhimwhilehewasstillaboy(9).Similarly,theGospelofLukeclaimsthatJesusimpressedpriestswithhisunderstandingwhenhestayedseveraldayswiththematthetemple,listeningandaskingquestionsŽ(Luke2:46),andtheGospelofJohnrefersrepeatedlytoJesusteach-ing()inthetemple(John7:28;8:2,20;see18:20).JosephusandPhilobothdescribethepriestsasthoseentrustedwiththeguardianshipofthelawandpursuitsofeverydaylifeŽ(Josephus,Ag.Ap.2.187;[Thackeray,LCL];seealso,e.g.,Ag.Ap..14.194;Philo4.188…192),evenintheDiaspora(Philo7.13).Thoughthesamewritersattestelsewheretoteachingandreadingoutsidethetemplebynonpriests(e.g.John18:20),intheselocationstheytestifytotheprimacyofthetempleandthepriesthoodinJewishtextuality,eveninthelateSecondTempleperiod.Inaddition,Josephusandothersattesttothecentralityofthetempleastheage-oldlocusforstorageofsacredwritings.HedepictsMosesasgivingthelawtothepriests(.4.304),andwesubsequentlyhearageneralreportaboutthedepositofsacredtextsinthetempleingeneral(5.51;10.57…58).Therearealsospeci“cstoriesaboutSamuelsstorageofbookshehadwritteninthetentofmeeting(6.66),JosiahsdiscoveryoftheTorahscrollde-positedinatreasureclosetofthetemple(10.57),andthelatertheftofthesacredtorahscrollsfromthetempleonitsdestruction(.7.150,162).JosephusstestimonytothestorageofScripturesinthetemple(seealso3.38;4.302…304;5.61)correlateswithearliertexts,suchastheletterofAristeas,thatdepicttheJerusalemtempleasthesitewheretheauthoritativecopiesoftheToraharestored(Let.Arist.46,176…177;seealso1Macc14:49;2Macc2:14…15),andrabbinictraditionpreservesmultipleandvariousmentionsofref-erencecopiesoftheTorahinthetemple.AsFraadeinparticularhasargued,44.Baumgarten,FlourishingofJewishSects,117…18.TheHecataeusmaterialisquotedbyDiodorusofSicily,40.3…5.Cf.BiblicalmaterialsuchasMal2:7thatlikewisepresupposesaprominentinstructionalroleforpriests,butaninstructionalrolenotasfocusedonguardianshipoftexts.45.Fraade,Priests,Scribes,andSages.Ž46.ForoverviewsoftherelevanttextsseeSaulLiebermann,HellenisminJewishPalestine(NewYork:JewishTheologicalSeminaryofAmerica,1950),21…26;ShemaryahuTalmon,TheThreeScrollsoftheLawThatWere
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworldtheseandothertextsshowthatthetempleandpriesthoodwerestilltheprimarylocusoftextualityandlearninginthelateSecondTempleperiod.Thoughformedfarlaterinapost-templecontext,rabbinicwritingspre-servepalere”ectionsoftheearliertemple-centeredformsofHebrewtextuality.NumerousrabbinicwritingsstilltestifytotheoriginalstorageofTorahscrolls„orscripturalscrollsingeneral„inspeci“cpartsofthetemple,majorannualandseptennialreadingsoftheTorahatthetemple(m.Yomam.SotahRabbisspeakofHebrewasthetemplelanguageŽ(andprecedenceisgiveninreadingtheScripturestopriests.Furthermore,severalrabbinicdescriptionsofelementaryeducationinTorahstillspecifythatitshouldbeginwitheducationintheculticprescriptionsofThismayre”ectarealitythatthemodesofeducationadoptedbylaterJudaismoriginatedinapriestlytrainingthatfocused“rstandforemostonculticinstructionsofthesortfoundinLeviticus.Onlylaterdidthisprofes-sionalpriestlytraininggetbroadenedbeyondthepriestlycircles.TheforegoingsurveyonlycoversafewofthecentralwitnessestothelastingimportanceoftempleandpriesthoodinearlyJewishtextualityanded-ucation.InthefollowingchaptersIwilllookatsomeexamplesofJewishtex-tualityandeducationthatwerebasedoutsidethetempleandfeaturedanin-creasinglyprominentrolefornonpriests.Yet,asIwillshow,eventheseexamplesatQumranandelsewherebetraytheongoingdominanceofpriestlypersonnelinJewishoral-writteneducationandenculturation.ThoughtheseformsofJewishtextualityandeducationmaynotbeasfocusedonpriestsandthetempleasthematerialsdiscussedearlierappeartobe,theyallhavelinkstothepriesthoodortheJerusalemtemple.Theyrepresentformsoftemple-centeredtextualityradiatingoutward,eveniftheyarenotspeci“callytemple-orpriest-focused.FoundintheTempleCourt,ŽTextus2(1962):14…27;ArievanderKooij,DiealtenTextzeugendesJesajabuches:einBeitragzurTextgeschichtedesAltenTestaments,OBO(FreiburgandGo¨ttingen:Universita¨tsverlagandVandenhoeckandRuprecht,,1981),332…35;MordechaiA.Friedman,PublicationofaBookbyDepositingItinaSanctuary:OnthePhraseWrittenandDeposited[Heb.],Ž48…49(1983…84):49…52;RogerBeckwith,TheOldTestamentCanonoftheNewTestamentChurchandItsBackgroundinEarlyJudaism(GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans,1985),80…86;Bar-Ilan,ScribesandBooks,Ž23;ArievanderKooij,TheCanonizationofAncientBooksKeptintheTempleofJerusalem,ŽinCanonizationandDecanonization,ed.ArievanderKooijandKarelvanderToorn(Leiden:Brill,1998),31.Examplesincludem.Yad.3:5;m.Yoma7:1;andm.Sot7:7;Tg.Ezek1:1.
47.Fraade,Priests,Scribes,andSages.Ž48.Seeforegoing,note46.49.Runesson,,207…13.50.Schwartz,Language,PowerandIdentity,Ž33…34.51.Hezser,JewishLiteracy,453…54.52.See,e.g.,AbotR.Nat.6and15;LevRab.7:3.FordiscussionoftheseanddivergenttraditionsseeSamuelKrauss,TalmudischeArcha¨ologie,vol.3(Leipzig:GustavFock,1912),235,357,nn.295…97,andHezser,JewishLiteracy,76…78.53.ForadditionalreferencesinrabbinicliteraturetoapriestlyfocusinSecondTempleeducationseeBar-Ilan,ScribesandBooks,Ž21…23.
QumranasaWindowintoEarlyJewishEducationandTextualityThe“ndsinthecavesnearKhirbetQumranprovidethemostim-portantevidencetodateofvariouslevelsofeducationandtextuality.InBenSiraandthePseudepigrapha,wemustextrapolateapictureofeducationintheSecondTempleperiodfromtheirpresupposi-tionsandindirectreferences.Incontrast,theQumranmanuscriptsprovidedirecttestimonytoaprocessofeducation,alongwithphysi-calevidenceoftextualityandeducation.Moreover,theQumrandoc-umentsdivergesomefromthepriest-templefocusofthewritingsdiscussedinthepreviouschapter.ThoughIwillshowhowpriests(cometo)playaprominentroleinthecommunity,theQumrandoc-umentsprovideamodelofpriestlyinstructionofnonpriests,oneinwhichpriestsarethebearersoftheteachingbutthecommunityasawholeachievesahithertounseenlevelofeducationinScriptureandhighermysteries.Forthisreason,Idevoteconsiderablespaceinthefollowingtoadiscussionofthe“ndsnearQumran.ThisstartswithasummaryofolderargumentsthatQumranwasacommunitydevotedtotextual-ityandeducation,bothofwhichwerethoroughlycontrolledbypriestsfromanearlyperiodonward.Ithensurveyexplicitlyeduca-tionalmaterialsatQumran,bothwritingexercisesandinstructionalmaterialsthatmorecloselyresemblewhatmanywouldtermwis-domŽwritings.Iwillshow,however,thattheseclearinstructionalmaterialsalreadyindicatethatthecategoryofwisdomŽatQumran,asinBenSiraandearlierIsraeliteliterature,failstoencompasstherangeoftextsusedininstruction.SoIturnnexttoindicatorsfortheoral-writteninstructionaluseofothertextsatQumran,theTorah“rstandforemostbutalsootherbooksbothwithinandoutsideofthe(present)HebrewBible.Iconcludewithsomere”ectionson
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworldhowtheQumranmaterials,likeBenSira,re”ectanimportantinstanceofHellenizedJudaism,linkingwithmultipleaspectsofHellenisticassociations(soWeinfeld),includingtheperformanceandstudyof(Hebrew)textsaspartofasymposium-likemeal(MatthiasKlinghardtandDennisSmith).Iturn“rsttoindicatorsofthecommunityshistoryofandfocuson(priest-directed)study.TheQumranCommunity,Education,andPriestsThescribalpracticescharacteristicofmanytextsfoundatQumranareespe-ciallypronouncedinafamilyoftexts(e.g.,theCommunityRule,DamascusDocument,Hodayot,Pesharim)thatarticulatethecommunitylifeofthe,agroupofsonsoflightŽwhohadrejectedthecurrenttemplecult,separatedfromthesonsofdarkness,ŽandtakenuplifeinthedeserttoawaitGodsinterventiononbehalfofthetemple,itsrightfulpriests,andproperculticobservance.MostscholarsplausiblysupposethatthisgroupisidenticalwiththeEssenesdescribedbyJosephus,Philo,andPliny,oratleastasplintergroupofsuchEssenes.Particularlyimportantformypurposeshere,however,ishowthisgroupappearstohavecometobeguidedbypriestsfromtheJerusalempriesthood.Theirmainearlyleader,theteacherofrighteousness,Žisdescribedasapriest(4QpPs[4Q171]III,15)anddepictedinpriestlyways(1QpHabII,8…9;VII,4…5).Moreover,thesonsofZadokŽareextremelyprominentthroughoutspeci“callyQumrandocuments:1QSa(1Q28a)givestheruleofthecongregationwhentheygatherincommunitytowalkinaccordancewiththejudgmentofthesonsofZadok(1.1…2);1QSb(1Q28b)hasthe(teacher)blessthesonsofZadokŽwhoareresponsibletoteach[Godspeople]inaccordancewithwhatGodcommandedŽ(III,23…24);theDamascusdocu-mentspeci“esthatthereshouldalwaysbeapriestŽinanygroupoften,learnedinthebookofHAGY,ŽandbyhisauthorityallofthemshouldbegovernedŽ(CDXIII,2…3;alsoXIV,6…8);andthe“nalredactionofthecom-munityrulesaysthatallwhojointhecommunityoftorahandpossessionsŽmustsubmittotheauthorityofthesonsofZadokwhoguardthecovenantandtheauthorityofthemenofthecommunitywhoholdfasttothecovenantŽ(1QSV,2…3).1.ForajudicioussurveyoftheissuesseeArminLange,WeisheitundPra¨destination:WeisheitlicheUrord-nungundPra¨destinationindenTextfundenvonQumran,StudiesontheTextsoftheDesertofJudah(Leiden:Brill,1995),21…23.FordetailedresponsetothosewhohavedisputedanylinkbetweentheEssenesandQumranseeesp.F.GarciaMartš´nezandA.S.vanderWoude,AGroningenHypothesisofQumranOriginsandEarlyHistory,Ž14(1990):526…36.2.FordiscussionoftheterminthedocumentsseeJohnJ.Collins,TheOriginoftheQumranCommunity:AReviewoftheEvidence,ŽinToTouchtheText:BiblicalandRelatedStudiesinHonorofJosephA.,ed.M.HorganandP.Kobelski(NewYork:Crossroad,1989),162…67.Againstthosewhowouldmaintainthattheteacherofrighteousnesswasanexpelledhighpriest,CollinsnotestheconspicuousabsenceofanyreferenceintheQumrandocumentstosuchanexpulsionandtheoccasionaluseoftoreferto“gureswhoarenothighpriests.
qumranasawindowTobesure,thesortsofpriestlyleadershipinvolvedintheQumrancom-munityappeartohaveevolved,judgingfromthedescriptionofatimeofgropingŽbeforethearrivalofthepriestlyteacherofrighteousness(CDI,9…11)andfromlackofreferencestothesonsofZadokŽinearlyredactionsofthecommunityrule.Nevertheless,thesonsofAaron,ŽalongwithotherpriestsandLevites,arepresentfromanearlypointincommunitydocuments(e.g.CDI,7),andthisin”uenceofpriestly“guresgainsfurthershapewiththearrivaloftheteacherofrighteousnessandtheappearanceofthesonsofZadokŽincommunitydocuments.TheprominenceofpriestsatQumranwouldexplainthelargenumbersoftextswithpriestlyconcernsintheQumrancaves,someofwhichwereapparentlyauthoredbymembersofthecommunityandothersnot:purityregulations,priestlyinstructions(),andvarioustextssurroundingtheproperobservanceofapre-Hasmoneansolarcalendar,includingSongsoftheSabbathSacri“ce,ŽappeardesignedtoaccompanythatcalendaratatimewhensomepriestsatQumranstillpresidedoversacri“cesinthetemple.Moreover,avarietyofindicatorssuggestthatakeyeventintheearlyhistoryofthecommunitywasthereplacementinJerusalemofthesolarculticcalendaruseduptothatpointinthetemplewiththelunaronestillprevalentinJudaism.LikepriorpriestsoftheJerusalemtemple,thepriestsatQumranappeartohavefeltaspecialresponsibilitytoprovideinstructiontothosearoundthem.Theirfounder,inadditiontobeingdescribedasthepriest,Žismoreoftencalledateacherofrighteousness,Žandhiskeycontributionisteaching(1QSIII,13;IX,12…X,5),includingprovisionofproperinterpretationoftheTorahandProphets(1QpHabVI,15…VII,5andII,7…10).AsCarolNewsomargues,thisteacher,the,standsattheheadofahierarchyofknowledgeinacommunityofthoselearnedinlawŽandwiseinknowledgeŽ(1QMX,10),eachmemberofwhichisregularlytestedonhisknowledgeŽ(1QSV,23…24;VI,18).Othercommunitydesignationscon“rmthisself-understandingasacommunityfocusedonlearningandstudy.ThoseincludedinthecommunityarecalledstudentsofGodŽ()inCDXX,4ormenofTorahŽ()in4QSI,1.Inaddition,theteacherofrighteousnessisdesignatedastheinterpreterofTorahŽ(doreshhattorah;CDVI,7;VII,18;cf.4QFlorI,11),andthecommunityisahouseofTorahŽ(CDXX,10,13).Centraltexts(pesharim,”orilegia)articulatetheauthoritativeinterpreta-tionofsacredtextsofferedbytheteacherofrighteousnessandothersonsofZadok.Forexample,acentraltextinthecommunityrulegivesadescription3.ForausefuloverviewofthepresenceandabsenceofreferencesinthecommunityruleseeRobertKugler,PriesthoodatQumran,ŽinTheDeadSeaScrollsAfterFiftyYears:AComprehensiveAssessment,vol.2,ed.PeterW.FlintandJamesVanderkam(Leiden:Brill,1998),97…100.4.FordiscussionoftheissuesseeLange,WeisheitundPra¨destination,21…28;JamesVanderkam,IdentityandHistoryoftheCommunity,ŽinFlintandVanderkam,DeadSeaScrollsAfterFiftyYears,vol.2,487…533,esp.5.CarolNewsom,TheSageintheLiteratureofQumran:TheFunctionsofthe´kš,ŽinGammieandPerdue,SageinIsraelandtheAncientNearEast,373…82,esp.382.
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworldofinductionofinitiatesintoproperexegesisbytheinterpreterŽ(1QSVIII,10…12)andthenarticulatesthefunctionofthecommunityaspreparingthewayŽthroughstudyofTorahandobedienceofit:Asitiswritten,Inthedesert,preparethewayof[YHWH]makestraightinthewildernessahighwayforourGod[Isa40:3].ŽThisisthestudyofthetorahwhichhecommandedthroughthehandofMoses,inordertoactinaccordwithallthathasbeenrevealedfromagetoage,andaccordingtowhattheprophetsrevealedthroughhisholyspirit.(1QSVIII,14…16)Othertextsinthesamerulespecifythataprospectivememberofthecom-munitymustsweartoreturntotheTorahofMoses,accordingtoallthathasbeenrevealedfromittothesonsofZadokŽ(V,9;cf.V,2…3citedearlier),beexaminedfor“tnessforinstructionŽ()bythecollectiveofthecom-munity(VI,12…16),andtakenintoatwo-yearprobationaryperiod.Withintheprocessenvisionedhere,theinitiateisnotyetincludedinthepuri“edmealsandcommunitypossessionsofthecommunityduringthe“rstyearbutstudiesandisexaminedafteroneyearconcerninghisknowledgeŽandobservanceoftheTorahŽ(VI,18).Ifhepasses,hecompletesasecondyearofstudyandanotherexamination,whosepassagebringshisentryintothemidstofhisbrothersforTorah,judgment,purityandcommonpossessionsŽaswellasforvoiceinthecommunitycouncil(VI,21…22).Thiselaborateprocess„paralleledbyasimplerprocessofexaminationbyanoverseerinCDXIII,11…12„thenbeginsparticipationinanongoingcommunityofstudy,whereeverygroupoftenmustalwayshaveaninterpreteroftheTorahdayandnight,relievingoneanotherinshifts,readingthescrollaloud,investigatingthelaw,andblessingthecongregation(1QSVI,6…8).ThisandasimilarregulationintheDamascusdocumentrepresentsthecommunitysexecutionoftheearlierregulationinJoshuatorecitesoftlyŽ()thescrolloftheTorahandhaveitontheirmouth(Jos1:8).Indeed,exactlythistextinJoshuamaybebehindtheuseoftheenigmaticexpressionsepherhagi/hagupossiblytodesignatetheMosaicTorah.AregulationintheDamascusdocumentparalleltotheaforementionedCom-munityRulepassageregardingreadingTorahinshifts(CDXIV,6…8;cf.1QSVI,6…8),speci“esthateverygroupoftenmusthaveapriestlearnedinthe6.SeeStevenD.Fraade,InterpretiveAuthorityintheStudyingCommunityatQumran,Ž44(1993):51…52,onthecentralityofthistextforformationofcommunity.HartmutStegemann,TheLibraryofQumran:OntheEssenes,Qumran,JohntheBaptist,andJesus(GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans,1998),52…55,hasaninterestingsetofargumentsregardingtherelevanceofthistexttotextproductionintheJudeandesert.HenotesthattheinVIII,13mayindicatethatthiscommunitywasparticularlyresponsibleforproductionoftextsforotherEssenecommunities.7.JosephusJ.W.11.138…142,whosaysthattheEsseneshadathree-yearprobationaryperiod.Lemaire(Lenseignementesse´nienetle´coledeQumran,ŽinHellenicaetJudaica:Hommagea`ValentinNikiprowetzky,ed.Caquotetal.[Leuven:LeuvenUniversityPressandPeeters,1986],192…94)understands1QSVI,13…23tobeinagreementwiththethree-yearprobationaryperiodmentionedbyJosephus,buttheplainsenseofthetextappearstobesomewhatdivergent.Notealsothetwo-yearprobationaryperiodenvisionedforthosereturningtothecommunityin1QSVII,18…21;VIII,20…25.
qumranasawindowscrollofrecitation/meditationŽ(sepherhagi).Thoughitisnotuniversallyagreed,thesepherhagithatissoprominenthereandelsewhereinQumrandocumentsisprobablytheMosaicTorah.Similarly,theruleofthecongregation,1QSa(1Q28a),describestheprocessofinitiationofamalechildbornintothecommunity.ThekeypassagefollowsaninitialcallforthemenofhiscounselŽtoassemblewomenandyoungchildrenandreadaloudintotheirearsalltheregulationsofthecovenantŽ(1QSaI,3…5).ThisoralinstructionofwomenandchildreningeneralthencontrastswiththefollowingregulationtoinstructeachnativeIsraeliteboyinthebookofrecitation/meditationŽ(probablytheTorah)and„accordingtohisage„inthespeci“cregulationsoftheQumrancommunity(1QSaI,6…8).Heisclassi“edasachildduringthe“rsttenyears.Atagetwentyheentersamongthoseregisteredinthecommunityandcanmarry.AftertenmoreyearsofstudyheiseligibleforfullinclusionintheassemblyuponapprovalofthepriestlysonsofAaronŽ(1QSaI,8…16).Wemustbecareful,ofcourse,nottohomogenizethesedescriptionstoomuchortoassumethattheyaccuratelyre”ecttherealitiesoftheQumrancommunity.Onthecontrary,thetextsthatappearspeci“callyconnectedtotheQumrancommunityrepresentvariedidealconstructsofitshistory,presentoperations,andfuture.Nevertheless,amidthisvarietysomelinesofcontinuityemerge.Inparticular,thesevariousvisionsconcurintheeducationalorien-tationofkeyaspectsofcommunityboundaryregulationandde“nition:focusonstudyofTorah,inductionintotheauthoritativeinterpretationofitbythecommunityspriestlyleader(ortheinspectorŽ;CDXIII,7…9;XIV,9…11),ex-aminationsinknowledgeoftheTorahasinterpretedbyauthorities„usuallypriests„andde“nitionofthecommunityintowhichtheyenterasaholycom-munityofstudy.Thecommunitythusde“nedrepresentsanimportantextensionofpriestly8.ForinterpretationsofsepherhagiastheTorahseeNaphtaliWieder,TheJudeanScrollsandKaraism(London:EastandWestLibrary,1962),215…36;J.Licht,TheScrollofRegulationsfromtheDesertofJudah,TheManualofDiscipline[Heb.](Jerusalem:Bialik,1965),255…56;M.Delcor,QumranIV,C,Litte´ratureesse´nne,Ž9(1979):845;Lemaire,LEnseignementEsse´nien,Ž195;Fraade,InterpretiveAuthorityatQumran,Ž56…58.Thisinterpretationisnotuniversal(seeMartinJaffee,TorahintheMouth:WritingandOralTraditioninPalestinianJudaism,200BCE…400CE[NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2001],31and173…74,n.25)andhasbeendisputedrecentlybyA.Lange,basedonhisreconstructionof4Q4172I,15…18andhisunderstandingoftextslikeCDXIV,6…8asdistinguishingthebookofmeditationŽfromthelawsoftheTorahŽ(WeisheitundPra¨destination51,84…90;DieWeisheitstexteausQumran:EineEinleitung,ŽinTheWisdomTextsfromQumranandtheDevel-opmentofSapientialThought,ed.C.Hempel,A.Lange,andH.Lichtenberger[Leuven:LeuvenUniversityPress,2002],19…20).4Q4172,I,15…18,however,mentionsnotthesepherhagioflaterQumrandocumentsbuta,whichappearstobesomesortofspecialrevelatorydocumentbequeathedtoEnosh,muchlikethepseud-epigraphadiscussedinchapter8(onthedistinctionbetweenthesebooksseeKnibb,EnochandQumran,Ž203).AtQumran,thereisnocandidateforaseparate,non-MosaicbookthatcouldbeasepherhagialongsidetheMosaicTorah.Non-Torahworks,includingapocalypticandsectariandocuments,werecopiedandcitedfarlessoften.Therefore,itmakesmoresensetounderstandtheexpressionsepherhagiubkolmishpatehattorahinCDXIV,7…8asahendiadysreferringtoknowledgeofthesamenomisticbodyofwork:theMosaicTorah.9.MuchofthissurveyisindebtedtoLemaire,LEnseignementEsse´nien,ŽandFraade,InterpretiveAuthorityatQumran.ŽNoteparticularly,aswell,MichaelO.Wise,ThunderinGemini:AndOtherEssaysontheHistory,LanguageandLiteratureofSecondTemplePalestine,JSPSup(Shef“eld:JSOT,1994,103…51)andJaffee,TorahintheMouth,28…38.
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworldlearningbeyondthatofthepriestsalone.Thepriests,longunderstoodtobeinstructorsofthepeople,aredepictedhereaspresidingoveramuchmoreintensiveprocessofeducationandongoingsocializationofnonprieststhanisdescribedinotherSecondTempletextsdiscussedsofar.Fromearlyon,thecommunityappearstohaveconsistedofmanynonpriests,andtheleadershipgroupenvisionedin1QSVIII,1…3includes“fteenpersonsfullyknowledgeableintherevealedTorah„twelvenonpriestlymen,correspondingtothetwelvetribesofIsrael„alongsidethreepriests.Thoughothertextsdescribeahier-archywith[Zadokite]priestsatthetop,italsoincludesLevitesbelowthem,alongwithleadersofvariouslevelsofIsraelandthenprobationarymembers(1QSa[1Q28a]I,22…25;CDXIV,3…6).Theeducationofyoungboysinthetorahandpreceptsofthecommunityisenvisionedin1QSa,andallinitiatesanticipatedin1QSandCDlikewisereceiveinstructioninthetorahandcom-munitypreceptswhichtheymustreciteandobserve.Thereisnoplaceforilliteracyinthecommunityofinterpretationenvisionedhere.Insum,theQumrancommunityseeninitsself-representationsrepre-sentsonerealization„oratleastidealization„ofaparticularlyliterateIsrael,anIsraelwhoseholinessisnotonlyconstitutedbyproperobservanceofvariousregulationsbutalsobyitsmembersspecialknowledgeofsacredtexts,theTorahaboveall.Priestsstandattheheadofthecommunity,regulateitsbor-ders,andsupervisetheinstruction.ButthisnewIsrael,ŽechoingtheoldIsraelintheprimacyoftwelveTorah-knowledgeablelayleaders,isacommunityofnonpriestlylearnedaswell.TogethertheyrepresentanewJewishiterationoftheolderDeuteronomicidealofanIsraeldistinguishedfromthoseoutsideitbytheexcellenceofitsknowledge(Deut4:6).Throughthethoroughinvolve-mentofsplit-offpriests,thisnewIsraelŽasawholegainsaneliteknowledgethatseparatesitfromothersassurelyasolderscribaleducationoncede“nedtheolderliterateelite,whetherroyalscribalorpriestly,inIsraelandothercultures.AtleastwithinthebubblerepresentedbytheQumrancommunityanditsrelativeselsewhereinJudea,theolderidealofIsraelasaholypeopleŽandnationofpriestsŽappearstohavereachedahithertounattestedlevelofEducationalExercisesandWisdomŽLiteratureatQumranFurthermore,wehavemultipleindicationsthatthisvisionwasrealized.Notonlyisitwidespreadinthecommunitysowndocuments,andnotonlyweretheEsseneswellknownbyJosephustobeparticularlyintensiveinthecareofbooksandstudy(J.W.2.136,142),buttheQumrancavesincludedprobablestudentexercises,andanostraconwiththeunpracticedhandofastudentwasevenfoundintheruinsofQumranitself.Tobesure,itisnotalwayseasyto10.Andre´Dont-Sommer,TheEsseneWritingsfromQumran(Oxford:Blackwell,1961),63.FordiscussionofpossiblelocioftextualproductionandeducationatQumranseeLemaire,LEnseignementEsse´nien,Ž199…
qumranasawindowdeterminewhetheragiventextisanexercisebyanadvancedapprenticeoracopymadebyanaccomplishedscribe.Nevertheless,itisclearthattheone(tothree)abecedariesfoundatQumranattesttosomelevelofelementaryinstruc-tionthere.Inaddition,4QExercitiumCalamiA(4Q234)containsseveralwordswrittenindifferentdirections,and4QExercitiumCalamiAandB(4Q234and360)isaHebrewexampleofthesortoflistoftenusedjustafterlearningofthealphabetinHellenisticeducation:alistofnamesfollowingtheorderofthealphabet.Yetinstructionalmaterialisnotlimitedtosuchhighlyelementaryexer-cises.AswesawinthediscussionofHellenisticeducation,instructioninGreekliteraturemovedfairlyquicklyfromthelearningofthealphabetandlistsofnamestothecopying,recitation,andmemorizationoflongerstretchesoftextfromtheHellenisticcurriculum:Homeraboveall,butalsognomicliterature,dramassuchasEuripides,andothertexts.InthecaseofQumran,wehaveseveralcopiesoftextsthatothershaveproposedasstudentexercisesbecauseoftheirpoorhandwriting:acopyofGenesis48onasinglesheet,asectionofaDaniel-Susannatradition,Enoch,andaversionofPsalmTogether,thesepotentialexamplesofstudentexercisesatQumranpro-videepigraphicevidenceoftheprocessofeducation-socializationtesti“edtointheQumranliterarytexts.Moreover,theseexercisesstandinoppositiontothosewhowouldsupposethatalloftheQumrandocumentswereoncepartofJerusalemlibraries,exportedforsafekeepingtotheDeadSeaarea.exerciseswereofsuchanelementarynatureorpoorqualitythattheyusuallywerediscardedasuseless,unworthyofsafekeepingoranykindoflong-termstorage.YetthesefewexercisessurvivedatQumran,representingthetipofanicebergofabroadereducationalprocess,onethatincludedtheseidenti“ableexercises,othersnowlost,andtheprobablepresenceatQumranofmoread-vancedstudentcopiesoftextsthatareindistinguishablefromtheworkofaccomplishedscribes.201;Qoumran:safonctionetsesmanuscrits,ŽinQoumranetlesmanuscritsdelaMerMorte:uncinquantenaireed.E.Laperrousaz(Paris:Cerf,1997),128…31.
11.SeeEmanuelTov,TheScribesoftheTextsFoundintheJudeanDesert,ŽinTheQuestforContextandMeaning:StudiesinBiblicalIntertextualityinHonorofJamesA.Sanders,ed.C.A.EvansandS.Talmon(Leiden:Brill,1997),140,onthetwoabecadariesdisplayedattheIsraelmuseum.Lemaire,LEnseignementEsse´nien,Ž201…2,worksonlywiththeonepublishedbyRolanddeVauxandarguesonthebasisofthisrelativeraretyofabecedariesandtheevidenceofJosephusthatQumranwasfocusedoneducationnotofchildrenbutofadults.Nevertheless,1QSaenvisionsaprocessofeducationofchildren,wemayhavemoreabecedariesfromQumran,andtheirfrequencyisnotagoodindexofhowwidespreadsucheducationwouldhavebeen.Suchelementaryexerciseswouldhavebeenthemostlikelytobediscarded.12.Seethediscussioninchapter7,p.179,wherethistypeofHellenisticlistisdiscussed.SeealsoJ.Naveh,AMedicalDocumentoraWritingExercise?TheSo-called4QTherapeia,Ž36(1986):52…55.Hezserstreatmentofthisandotherevidenceforeducationinwriting(JewishLiteracy,85…89)isdiscussedinchapter10,note5.13.ThislistcomesfromTov,Scribes,Ž140…41,whocitestherelevantdiscussions.14.ExamplesofthisapproachareKarlH.Rengstorff,irbetQumranunddieBibliothikvomTotenMeer(Stuttgart:Kohlhammer,1960);NormanGolb,WhoWrotetheDeadSeaScrolls?TheSearchfortheSecretofQumran(NewYork:Scribner,1995).ForresponseseeStegemann,LibraryofQumran,64…65;Martš´nezandvanderWoude,GroningenHypothesis,Ž526…36;Runesson,,336,n.326.
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworldOnekeyindicatoroftheprominenceofeducationatQumranisthelargecorpusofwisdomŽtextsfoundthere,manyofwhichhavebecomeavailableonlyinthelastseveralyears.Ashasbecomeincreasinglyevident,abulkofthesetextspredatestheQumransplitfromthetemple,thusprovidinghithertounavailableaccesstotextualmaterialsusedtoeducatepriestsinpre-HasmoneanJudah.Thelargestandbest-attestedofthesewisdomwritingsisatextoncecalled4QSapientialbutnowoftenknownas4QInstruction(sar¯bš).ThistextisfoundinsevenoreightcopiesatQumranyetprobablypredatesthecommunity.Itincludesinstructionforthe,juniorsage,includingdetailedregulationsforformsofcommunitylifethatarenotenvi-sionedinspeci“callyQumranwritings.Notably,likeBenSira,theinstructionbuildsspeci“callyonTorahteachings,especiallyGenesis2…3(4Q4162,III,20…IV,6),Exodus32:16(4Q4172,I,14),andpriestlyregulationsinNumbers30:6…15(4Q4162,IV,7…10)andDeuteronomy22:9…11(4Q418103,II,6…9).YettheinstructiondoesnotyetfeaturetheexplicitjoiningofWisdomŽandTorahthatisseeninBenSiraandelsewhere.WithregardtoattitudestowardMosaicTorah,4QInstructionstandsbetweenProverbs,whichisnotexplicitlycoordinatedwithTorah,andBenSiraandothers,wherethelinkwithTorahismorefullyestablished.AsisseeninlaterQumranliterature,theTorahisunderstoodasrevealedwisdom,givinginsightintothemysterytobeŽofaworlddividedbyGodbetweenevilandgoodandinwhichGodwillinterveneeschatologicallyonbehalfofthegodly.Assuch,4QInstructionstandsaspartofabroaderstreamofHellenistic-period,priestly,indigenousliterature,liketheEgyptianPottersOracleandEnochicmaterials,thatarticulatesasecretwisdomofdivineliberationfromunrighteousoppressors.Yetthisdeeperwis-domprobablywasnotuniversallyaccepted.Dualistictextslike4QInstructionmaybetheopponentsBenSiracritiquesinSirach15:11…20,whichattacksthosewhoattributewrongdoingtoGod.Indeed,4QInstructionisbutaparticularlywell-attestedexampleofamuchbroadercorpusofexplicitlyinstructionalliteratureatQumran,muchofitsim-ilarlydualisticandeschatological.Containedin4Q424,atextthatnowappearstohavebeenacompositionseparatefrom4QInstruction,areproverbsandsay-ingsthatrepresentanevenearlierstageofinstructionalliterature.Thoughithassomevocabularyincommonwith4QInstruction,4Q424stilltalksofre-search()withoutequatingitwithscripturalinterpretationandofjudg-ment()withoutequatingitwithTorah.LangearguesthatitmaybeafragmentofinstructionalliteraturecomparableindatewiththatfoundinProv-erbs,perhapsevencontainingtraditionsantecedenttoEzekiel(13:10…11).15.ForarecentoverviewoftheresearchrelatingtothetextsdateandrelationtothecommunityseeM.TheWorldlyandHeavenlyWisdomof4QInstruction,StudiesontheTextsoftheDesertofJudah(Leiden:Brill,2003),219…32.16.Lange,DieWeisheitstexteausQumran,Ž18…19.17.Lange,WeisheitundPra¨destination,31…36.18.Hengel,JudaismandHellenism,303,alreadypointedtothistextfromSirachinthecontextofdualism,longbeforedualisticwisdomtextslike4QInstructionhadcometolight.19.SeeLange,DieWeisheitstexteausQumran,Ž27,fordiscussion.
qumranasawindowlatertextistheBookofMysteries,aninstructionalworkwhichresembles4QInstructioninitsuseofpriestlyterminology,linkstopriestlyTorahmaterial(Lev5:18in1Q27VI,2…3),and(fragmentary)speci“callypriestlyinstructions(e.g.4Q29955:5;69:1…2;79:6…7).IttoospeaksofthemysterytocomeŽanddepictsadualismofgoodandevil,yetshowsclearindicatorsoforiginsoutsidetheQumrancommunity.4Q525,4QBeatitudes,Žisanothertextshowingsignsofnon-Qumranoriginandcontainingexhortationstoseekwisdom,awisdomwhichishereequatedwithTorah.4Q184,originallytitledthewilesofawickedwoman,Žechoesearlierwisdomdepictionsofdamefollyasanim-ageoftemptationawayfromwisdom(cf.Proverbs7),andappearstoequateto-rahobservanceandwisdom(frag.1,line15;seealsofrag.5,line5).4QSapientialWork,ŽreferstotheTorahstoryofExodusintheprocessofex-hortingitsaudiencetopursuewisdom,anditlikewiseequateswisdomandTo-AlltheseinstructionaltextsstandinadditiontocopiesofpreviouslyknownwisdomŽworksfoundatQumran:BenSira(2Q18;11QPsXXI,11…17;XXII,1),ahymntoTorahwisdomthatwaspartoftheSyriacPsalter(11QPsXVIII,1…16//Ps154);copiesofpartsoftheBiblicalbooksofProverbs,JobandEcclesiastes,andtwoAramaictranslationsofJob.SeveralothertextsfoundatQumrancombineinstructionalelementswithgenresnottypicallyassociatedwithwisdom.Ž4Q420…421,4QWaysofRight-eousness,Žcombinessayingsabouttemplematterswithexhortationstotherighteoustoseekwisdom.Itandthemorefragmentary4Q473(4QTwoWaysŽ)standalongside4QInstruction,4QMysteries,andsoonasadditionalexamplesofthecombinationofpriestlyŽandwisdomŽconcernsinQumraninstructionalmaterial.Anothertextwithamixofaspectsis4Q302,4QpapAdmonitoryParable,Žwhichisaddressedtothewise,butfeaturesthegenre.Wesawasimilarcombinationofinstructionalandpro-pheticelementsinBenSirasuseoftheoracleform(Sir41:8…9).,Žisahymnwhichechoesthevocabularyofearlierwisdomandprophetictexts,includingitstalkofGodhavingputintomyheartknowl-20.SeeLange,WeisheitundPra¨destination,94…120,fordiscussionofthetextsideology,dualism,andsoon.FormoreonitspossiblepriestlyoriginsseeEibertTigchelaar,YourWisdomandYourFolly:TheCaseof1…4QMysteries,ŽinMartš´nez,WisdomandApocalypticism,81…82,andcf.TorleifElgvin,PriestlySages?TheMilieusofOriginof4QMysteriesand4QInstruction,ŽinSapientialPerspectives:WisdomLiteratureinLightoftheDeadSeaScrolls,E.G.Chazon(Leiden:Brill,2004),67…87.21.DanielHarrington,WisdomTextsfromQumran(NewYork:Routledge,1996),68…69;Collins,Jewish,113…14.22.SeeLange,DieWeisheitstexteausQumran,Ž9…10,fordiscussion.23.JohnJ.Collins,WisdomReconsidered,inLightoftheScrolls,Ž4(1997):270.SeeCarolNewsom,4Q370:AnAdmonitionBasedontheFlood,Ž13(1988):23…43,onlinksofthistextto4Q370;andLange,DieWeisheitstexteausQumran,Ž11,onprobabledependenceof4Q370onthistext.24.Collins,JewishWisdom,129.OntheproblemsseeLange,DieWeisheitstexteausQumran,Ž8.25.SeealsoEibertTigchelaar,Moreon4Q264A(4QHalakhaAor4QWaysofRighteousness75(2000):452…56,whoarguesthat4Q264aisanotherfragmentofthesamework.26.Cf.Lange,DieWeisheitstexteausQumran,Ž5.OnthegenreseeB.Nitzan,Post-BiblicalPattern:Admonitionsin4Q302/302aand4Q38a69,76…77,ŽinBiblicalPerspectives:EarlyUseandInterpreta-tionoftheBibleinLightoftheDeadSeaScrolls,ed.M.E.StoneandE.G.Chazon(Leiden:Brill,1998),
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworldedgeandunderstandingŽ(frag.1,line4).OthertextswithlinkstowisdomŽliteratureincludeapairofshorthymnstothecreatedorder(4Q411[4QSa-pientialHymn];4Q412[4QSap-Didacticandfragmentswithwisdomvo-cabularywhosebroadercontoursaredif“culttodiscern(4Q303…5;4Q425[4QSap-HymnicIfweturntoincludetextswithspeci“cindicatorsofprobableoriginintheQumrancommunity,thecorpusofinstructionalmaterialisyetlarger.Oneparticularlyinterestingexampleis4Q298[4QcryptA].Writteninacodescriptfoundinsomespeci“callyQumrandocuments,itappearstorepresentaninstructionusedforinitiatesundergoingtheinitialprobationaryperiodout-linedin1QS.TheinitialeditorofthetexthasarguedplausiblythatitsaddresstothesonsofdawnŽreferstoagrouponthewaytobeingsonsoflight.ŽThecrypticscriptmayhavebeenintendedtokeeptheinstructionsecret,sincesuchinstructionnecessarilyhappenedbeforetheinitiateswereallowedtoliveinthecommunity.Itincludesaninitialaddresstothemasmenofheart,Žalongwithtypicalwisdomexhortations.Onlytowardtheendaretheresomenowfragmentaryreferencestoanendtime.Notably,theonemanuscriptofthissecretinstructionhadmultipleerrors(e.g.1…2,5I,3and3…4II,7),apos-sibleindicationthatitwasastudentcopy.Severalothertextsspeci“callyassociatedwiththeQumrancommunityshowstronglinkswithinstructionalmaterial.Forexample,justasBenSirasinstructionincludeshymnswrittenorcollectedbytheteacher,soalsothe“ndsatQumranincludeeightcopiesofabookofhymns,theHodayot,Žattributedtothepriestlyteacherofrighteousness.ŽThisbookappropriatesvocabularyandphrasingfromthepreviously-surveyedinstructionalworks.TheDamas-27.SeeLange,DieWeisheitstexteausQumran,Ž8,onidenti“cationproblemsbecauseofthefragmentarycharacterofthetext.28.ButseeLange,DieWeisheitstexteausQumran,Ž6.JohnStrugnell,TheSmallerHebrewWisdomTextsFoundatQumran:Variations,Resemblances,andLinesofDevelopment,ŽinHempel,Lange,andLichten-berger,WisdomTextsfromQumran,38,arguesforpresectarianoriginforthismanuscriptandassociatesitwithwisdomworks.29.OnthesefragmentsseeLange,DieWeisheitstexteausQumran,Ž5;Strugnell,SmallerHebrewWisdomTexts,Ž37.30.SeeLange,DieWeisheitstexteausQumran,Ž6…7,andStrugnell,SmallerHebrewWisdomTexts,Ž31.Strugnell,SmallerHebrewWisdomTexts,Ž52,suggestsonthebasisofsharedvocabularythat4Q420,4Q421,4Q424,4Q425,and4Q426mayturnouttobepartsofasinglework.32.S.J.Pfann,4Q298:TheMaskilsAddresstoAllSonsofDawn,Ž85(1994):203…35.AsCollinsnotes(JewishWisdom,128),speci“callyeschatologicalelementsonlyappearattheendofthetext.33.Harrington,WisdomTexts,65…66.34.ThereferencetoheartŽin4Q2981againechoesafocusontheshapingofthemindandheartinearlyinstruction,particularlyinEgyptianbutalsoinotherinstructionalliteratures.Someotherprominentref-erencestotheheartŽinQumraninstructionalliteratureinclude4QBarkiNapshi(4Q436)1I,4(discussedlater)and4QSapiential-DidacticWorkB(Q425)frags.1and3,lines2and8.35.FortheerrorsseeLange,DieWeisheitstexteausQumran,Ž12.ThiscriterionmightbeappliedtootherQumranmanuscriptsaswell.36.SeeSarahTanzer,TheSagesatQumran:WisdomintheHodayotŽ(Ph.D.diss.,HarvardUniversity,1987);Newsom,Functionsofthe´kš,Ž378…81;Lange,WeisheitundPra¨destination,195…232.OnlinkstothemysterythatwillbeŽandothermotifsseeDanielHarrington,TenReasonsWhytheQumranWisdomTextsAreImportant,Ž4(1997):253.Lange(WeisheitundPra¨destination,128…30)alsoshowslinkstothetwo-
qumranasawindowcusDocumentopenswithawisdom-likeexhortationtothosewhohaveenteredthecovenant(CDII,2…13).AndthelaterredactionsoftheQumrancommu-nityruleincludetheteachingofthetwospiritsŽ(1QSIII,13…IV,26//4QpapS[4Q257]V…VI).AsfoundatQumran,thisteachingisbothanintegralpartofthecommunitysowntextsandaprobableexampleofpre-Qumranwisdom.AsArminLangehasargued,theteachinglackskeyvocabularyofthesurround-ingcommunityruleandismarkedasadistinctcorpuswithincommunityrulemanuscriptsbyaprecedingspaceandprologue(1QSIII,13…18).Thetextbuildsonandextendsthedualismandrevelatorywisdomfoundinbookslike4QInstructionandtheBookofMysteries,speakingonceagainofGodsmys-teryŽ().Nowincorporatedintothecommunityrule,itstandsasabridgeexampleoftherelationbetweentheQumrancommunityandpre-Qumranwisdom.Itisaprobablepre-Qumraninstructionaltextthateventuallywasincludedinspeci“callyQumrancommunitymaterialtoplayastrategicintro-ductoryrole.InstructionalUseofOtherFormsofLiteratureSofar,however,theforegoingdiscussionhasbeenlimitedtotextsatQumranthatfeaturevocabularyorgenresfoundinProverbs-likewisdomŽmaterial.Aswehaveseeninthecaseofnon-Israelitecultures,manyotherformsofliteraturebesidesgnomicorwisdomŽmaterialwereusedineducation-enculturation:epicnarratives,prosehistory,hymns,andsoon.Moreover,inchapter6Ipresentedevidenceofinstructionaluseofothermaterialsinpre-HellenisticIsrael:theMosaicTeachingŽ/Torah,historicalbooks,prophets,psalms,andotherliterature.AlreadywehaveseenseveralindicatorsthatSecondTempleJewslikewiseusedavarietyofmaterialsininstruction.BenSiraatteststotheprimacyofMo-saicTorahasaninstructionaltext,perhapsre”ectinganinteractionwithGreekconceptsoftheprimacyofHomerintheHellenisticcurriculum.Healsoin-cludespropheticandliturgicalgenresinhisinstruction.Inaddition,manyoftheQumrantextssurveyedearliertestifytotheproblemwithattemptstoisolatewisdomŽtextsfromothergenres.ThosetextsoftenequateTorahandWisdom(e.g.4Q18415;4Q185;4Q525;and11QPsXVIII,1…16),andseveralofthemcombinewisdomŽfeatureswithpriestlyŽorpropheticŽelements.spiritsteaching,whichhearguesisapre-Qumranwisdomtextaswell.T.Elgvin,TheReconstructionofSap-ientialWorkA,Ž16(1995):561…62,providesausefulsurveyofparallelsinlanguagebetween4QInstructionandspeci“callyQumranworks.
37.ThisispreservedintencopiesfromQumran,alongwithtwofromtheCairoGeniza.FordiscussionofthewisdomelementsandotherissuesinthispassageseeLange,WeisheitundPra¨destination,233…70.38.OntheredactionalevidenceregardingthistextseeSariannaMetso,TheTextualDevelopmentoftheQumranCommunityRule,StudiesontheTextsoftheDesertofJudah(Leiden:Brill,1997),esp.147…48.Ontheprobablepre-QumranoriginsseeLange,WeisheitundPra¨destination,127…28.39.Formorespeci“ccitationsoftheseandothertexts,alongwithdiscussion,seeHarrington,TenRea-sons,Ž249.
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworldThesetextsindicatethatthefunctionofidenti“ableŽwisdommaterialchangedinIsrael,especiallybythetimeofBenSiraandQumran.EarliersuchwisdomŽmaterialsprobablyserved„asinmanynon-Israelitecultures„asakeypartoftheeducationofawidevarietyofIsraeliteof“cials:priests,scribes,royalof“cials,andsoon.YetfromtheseventhcenturyonwardtheMosaicTorahappearstohaveincreasinglyassumedtheintroductoryroleonceservedbywisdomwritings,ŽadevelopmentalreadysignaledbytextslikeDeu-teronomy4:6.Later,notonlyisTorahstudyplacedatthebeginningofedu-cationbysourceslikeBenSiraandtheQumrancommunitydocumentsTorahisincreasinglyidenti“edwiththewisdomŽ“gureofearlierinstructionalliterature.Increasingly,wisdomŽrepresentsarevealedinterpretationofTorahoraformofhigherlearning.AsisevidentinthelargecorpusofwisdomŽ-likeinstructionalmaterialatQumran,thisforegroundingofTorahdoesnotmeanthatwisdommaterialisdiscarded,butratherthatsuchwisdomŽma-terialnolongerservesthediscrete,introductoryfunctionineducationitoncedid.Asaresult,wisdomvocabulary,genres,andconceptualityaremoreeasilycombinedwithformsofliteratureusedatvariousstagesineducationinSec-ondTempleJudaism.Itbecomesmoredif“culttoidentifyspeci“callywis-domŽtexts.Avastvarietyoftextsisusedforinstruction,andthewisdomŽelementsonceconcentratedattheoutsetofeducationarenowstrewnacrosstheliterary-instructionalcorpus.ThemorewerealizethelimitsofcategorizingwisdomŽtextsastheprod-uctofsomesortofseparatesapientialŽgroup,themorewecanuse“ndslikethosediscussedearliertoilluminatethebackgroundoftheHellenistic-periodtradentsofbiblicaltraditions.SomesuggestiveworkalongtheselineshasalreadybeendonebyLange.He“ndsindicatorsthatpre-Qumran,probablepriestlyworkslike4QInstructionand4QMysteriesshowaknowledgeofthebookofQoheletyetanideologyclosesttoelementsofQohelet,likeitssecondepilogue(Qoh12:12…14)thatoftenareidenti“edaspartofitslateredaction.Bothsuchredactionalelementsandthepre-Qumranwisdom(priestly?)worksshareadualisticperspective,Torahorientation,andfocusonfuturejudgment.Buildingontheseobservations,Langesuggeststhatmaterialslike4QInstruc-tionand4QMysteriesmayprovideuswithabroaderviewintothepriestlyinstitutionalsetting(SitzimLeben)anddualisticideologyofthetradentsofFurthermore,inanotherstudyLange“ndssimilarindicatorsofthe40.ThisgeneralizationaboutearlyplacementofTorahinstructionmightseemtobecontradictedby4Q298,theinstructionforthesonsofdawn,ŽatextmeantforearlystagesofQumraneducationandatextcharacterizedbyapredominanceofwisdomŽinstructionalexhortationandvocabulary.Yeteven4Q298maynotbeacounterexampletothisphenomenonofdisplacementofwisdomŽtolaterstagesofeducation.AsLemairehaspointedout(LEnseignementEsse´nien,Ž201…2),bothQumranliteratureandJosephusfocuspri-marilyontheproblemofinductionofadultmembersintothecommunity.IfthiswasindeedtheprimaryfocusatQumran,4Q298maynothavebeendesignedfortheinitialinstructionofchildrenbutinsteadwouldhavebeenmeantforadultnovices,menbeingmorelikelytohavehadapreliminaryeducationintheTorahbefore41.ForthemostcomprehensivepresentationoftheargumentseeArminLange,InDiskussionmitdem
qumranasawindowideologyof4QInstructionand4QMysteriesinelementsoftheredactionofthePsalteradoptedbytheMassoretictradition.Inthiscase,hearguesthattheQumraninstructionaltextsprovidepotentialadditionalbackgroundtoadu-alisticideologyusedbypriestlytradentsofthePsalmsintheearlysecondcentury,rightaroundthetimeoftheHasmoneanrevolt.Suchworksuggeststhatthepre-QumraninstructionalmaterialsfoundatQumranmayprovideaglimpseintothescribalworkshopswheresomescrip-turalbooksreceivedtheir“nalformation.GiventhediversityofSecondTempleinstructionalmaterials,wemustbecarefulnottoformtoounilinearaviewofsuchscribalworkshops.Nevertheless,thisworkonthelateformationofbookslikeQoheletandPsalmsmaybeextendedmorebroadly.Forexample,oneofthemostprominentcharacteristicsoftheideologyofpre-Qumraninstructionalliteratureistheprominenceofeschatologicaldualisminit.WhetherinEnochorin4QInstruction,itappearsthatsomepriestlygroupsofthethirdandsecondcenturiesincreasinglysawtheirworlddividedintotherighteouswhowouldberewardedinafuturedivineinterventionandthewickedwhowouldbepunished.Interestingly,asJosephBlenkinsopppointsout,thesameper-spectiveappearstobere”ectedinthe“nalredactionofseveralpropheticbooks,particularlythose,likeIsaiah,thatconcludewithextensivesectionsonthedistinctionbetweenthedestiniesoftherighteousandthewicked.Suchinsights,moreover,maynotbelimitedtoHebrewinstructionallit-erature.Alreadyinhisdiscussionof(pre)QumranwisdomandQohelet,Langenotesaf“nitiesbetweentheideologyoftheWisdomofSolomon,ontheonehand,andtheideologyof4QInstructionand4QMysteriesontheother.WisdomofSolomonisparticularlyinterestinginthiscontextbecauseitrep-resentsanothercriticalresponsetoQohelet,thistimeinGreek.Inparticular,the“rstpartoftheWisdomofSolomonrespondspointbypointtoQoheletsperspectivesonthe“nalityofdeath,theroleofwisdominsecuringlife,andtheimportanceofseekingmoderatepleasureasamajorendinlife.Moreover,itusesthespeci“cterminologyofmysteryŽthatwasfeaturedprominentlyinTemple:ZurAuseinandersetzungzwischenKoheletundweisheitlichenKreisenamJerusalemerTempel,ŽinQoheletintheContextofWisdom,ed.A.Schoors(Louvain:Peeters,1998),113…59.AnabbreviatedEnglishversionoftheargumentisgiveninArminLange,EschatologicalWisdomintheBookofQoheletandtheDeadSeaScrolls,ŽinTheDeadSeaScrollsFiftyYearsAfterTheirDiscovery:ProceedingsoftheJerusalemCongress,July20…25,,ed.LawrenceSchiffman(Jerusalem:IsraelExplorationSociety,2000),817…25.
42.ArminLange,DieEndgestaltdesprotomasoretischenPsaltersunddieToraweisheit,ŽinDerPsalterinJudentumundChristentum,ed.E.Zenger(Freiburg:Herder,1998),101…36.ForacriticalresponsetoLangespresuppositionsaboutthepriestlyoriginsof4QInstructionand4QMysteriesseeTorleifElgvin,PriestlySages?ŽElgvinpresupposesbroadercirclesofeducationthanmyworkdoes.YetintheprocessofjudiciouslyconsideringthehypothesisofpriestlybackgroundofQumraninstructionalmaterials,hebringsupseveraladditionaltextsthatsupportthehypothesisheiscritiquing.43.Foranilluminatingrecentdiscussionofthe“nalredactionofpropheticbooksanddualism(anddiscussionofsomeearlierliterature)seeJosephBlenkinsopp,TheFormationoftheHebrewBibleCanon:IsaiahasaTestCase,ŽinTheCanonDebate:OntheOriginsandFormationoftheBible,ed.LeeMartinMcDonaldandJamesA.Sanders(Peabody,MA:Hendrickson,2002),65…66.44.Lange,Endgestalt,Ž143…44.45.ForasummaryofargumentsandcitationofliteratureseeCarr,FromDtoQ,159…61.
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworld4QInstructionandotherearly„probablypriestly„instructionalandapocalyp-ticmaterials(Wis2:22).ThisdoesnotmeanthattheWisdomofSolomonnecessarilyoriginatedinpriestlycircles,thoughthatisnotimpossible.ertheless,theQumran“ndsofinstructionalliteraturelike4QInstructionarebroadeninganddeepeningourunderstandingofthepreoccupationsofthelargelypriestlyliteratioftheSecondTempleperiod.ThismeansthatwenowcanseeconnectionstoHebrewinstructionalliteratureeveninGreekliteratureliketheWisdomofSolomon.SuchworkoncorrelationofQumran“ndswiththeformationofbiblicalcompositionsisnecessarilyquitepreliminary.Manyofthetextshavebeenpublishedonlyrecently,andmuchremainstobedoneonbasicissuesofiden-tifyingthecontoursofpreviouslyunknowndocumentsatQumran,correlatingthemwitheachotherandpreviouslyknownliterature,anddevelopingamoresolidpictureofhowtheycorrelatewithsocialstructuresoftheSecondTempleperiod.Nevertheless,itisalreadybecomingevidentthatthe“ndsatQumranprovidepotentialaccesstothepreoccupationsandideologiesofthelatetra-dentsofbiblicalliterature.Moreover,these“ndsofwisdomŽliterature,withtheirmixtureofavarietyofgenresandgeneralfocusonTorah,showtheneedforareconceptualizationofwhatitmeanstospeakofwisdom,ŽespeciallyintheSecondTempleperiod.InstructionalUseoftheMosaicTorahandPara-TorahTextsThisreconceptualizationofinstructionalliteraturecouldhaveasigni“cantim-pactonourperceptionofthecharacterofthetextsfoundatQumran.Themorewebegintoperceivehowavarietyofgenreswereusedineducation-socialization,themorewecanexplorethepotentialinstructionaluseofava-rietyoftextsfoundatQumran:thePentateuchalTorah“rstandforemostbutothertextsaswell.OneexampleofthiscanbefoundinearlycopiesoftheTenCommandmentsfoundatQumranandelsewhere.Inchapter6IarguedthattextsliketheTenCommandmentswereintendedfromtheoutsetforinstruc-tionaluse,withtheirten-foldnumberingschemesfacilitatingmemorizationthroughuseofthe“ngers.NowearlycopiesofthisPentateuchaltextatQum-ran(4QPhylG[4Q134],8QPhyl[8Q3]and4QmezA[4Q149]),alongwithotherearlyversions(Philo;PapyrusNash),provideconcreteevidenceofsuchoralmemorizationofapartoftheMosaicTorah.InnocentHimbazaarguesinarecentarticlethatthetypesoftextualdivergencesinthesecopiesindicatethat46.FordiscussionoftheuseofmysteryŽ(¯ria)inWis2:21…24andsimilaritiesanddifferencesbetween4QInstructionandtheWisdomofSolomonseeJohnJ.Collins,TheMysteriesofGod:CreationandEschatologyin4QInstructionandtheWisdomofSolomon,ŽinMartš´nez,WisdomandApocalypticism,47.AnyassumptionthatpriestscouldnotwriteinGreekisrefutedbyexamplesliketheEgyptianManetho.Still,iftheWisdomofSolomonwaswrittenbyapriest,heappearstodirecthiswisdomatabroaderaudience,likeBenSira,andtherearenospeci“cindicationsofpriestlyculticorcalendricalconcerns.
qumranasawindowtheydonotfollowacleartexttypeandwereprobablyproducedfrommemory.Thus,intheinstanceofthesevariantwrittencopiesoftheTenCommand-ments,oralmemorizationappearstohavebeensupportedbywriting,butthememorycomponentwasimportantaswell.TheevidenceforinstructionaluseoftheTorahisnotlimitedtosuchob-viousexamplesasthetencommandments.SomeQumrantextsdisplaythesortsofnonsigni“cantvariantsthataretypicaloftextstransmitted„atleastinpart„throughhumanmemory.ThisisparticularlytrueofquotationsoftheTorahinnon-Torahtexts,butitisalsopointedtoinafewofthediver-gentmanuscripttraditionsthemselves.Forexample,asEdwardGreensteinpointsout,oneprominentcharacteristicofmemorizedquotationsisthecon-taminationofonepassagewithwordingfromanother.SuchcontaminationisfoundonasmallscaleinavarietyofquotationsatQumranofbiblicalpas-sages.Butweseesuchaphenomenononabroaderlevelaswellinthevar-ioussortsofcon”ationaryPentateuchalmanuscripts,whereelementsofDeu-teronomyareinsertedintotheirparallelcontextsinExodus,andviceversa(oftenlabeledproto-SamaritanŽ).Certainly,theseandotherQumranmanu-scriptsalsoshownumeroussignsofvisualerrors,attestingtothefactthatvisualcopyingwasacrucialpartofthetransmissionprocessbythetimeoftheQumrancommunity.Nevertheless,thenonstemmaticcharacterofsomeQumranmanuscriptsandtheirwitnesstocontaminationbydivergenttraditionsmaypointbacktoearlierstagesofmanuscripttransmissionwhenvisualcopyingwasnotasdominantasitappearstohavebeeninthelaterSec-ondTempleperiod.Yetitisextremelydif“cultwithinthisbriefcompasstoanalyzetheentireQumrancorpusfromtheperspectiveofancienteducationandtextuality.Itislarge,andmanypartsofitarestillbeingidenti“edandanalyzed.Therefore,IwillfocushereononeblockofmaterialsatQumranwiththemostdemon-strablyeducationaluse:textsassociatedwithMosesandtheMosaicTorah/teaching.Aswehaveseen,theQumrandocumentsthemselvestestifytotheimportanceofstudyofTorah,perhapsalsoknownasthescrollofrecitation/meditation.ŽThespeci“callyQumrandocumentsclearlyindicatethatthisscrollwascrucialforbothprobationaryandongoingmembers.Moreover,thenumberofcopiesofTorahbooksatQumrancorroboratethisemphasis.Not48.InnocentHimbaza,LeDe´calogueduPapyrusNash,Philon,4QphylG,8QPhyl3et4Qmez,Ž79(2002):411…28.49.ForexamplesseeJ.DeWaard,AComparativeStudyoftheOldTestamentTextintheDeadSeaScrollsandtheNewTestament,StudiesontheTextsoftheDesertofJudah(Leiden:Brill,1965),63…64;EdwardGreen-stein,MisquotationofScriptureintheDeadSeaScrolls,ŽinTheFrankTalmageMemorialVolume,ed.BarryWal“sh(Haifa:HaifaUniversityPress,1993),76…78.50.Greenstein,Misquotation,Žesp.76.51.FortheimpossibilityofclassifyingQumrandocumentsindifferentmanuscriptfamiliesseenowShe-maryahuTalmon,TheTransmissionHistoryoftheTextoftheHebrewBibleintheLightofBiblicalManuscriptsfromQumranandOtherSitesintheJudeanDesert,ŽinTheDeadSeaScrollsFiftyYearsAfterTheirDiscovery:ProceedingsoftheJerusalemCongress,July20…25,1997,ed.LawrenceSchiffman,EmanuelTov,andJamesC.Vanderkam(Jerusalem:IsraelExplorationSociety,2000),45.
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworldonlyisDeuteronomyoneofthemostwidelyattestedindividualbooksinthe“ndsatQumran,buttheincidenceofscrollswithmultipleTorahbooksonthemindicatesthatatleastsomeQumrancopiesofindividualbooksoftheTorahmaybepartofcopiesofbroaderpartsoftheTorah,ifnottheentireTorah.Evennottakingthatsortofreasoningintoaccount,Tovnotesthatap-proximately44percentofallbiblicalmanuscriptsatQumranwerecopiesofoneormorebooksfromtheTorah.SeveralaspectsoftheQumran“ndscon“rmthatsuchwrittenTorahtraditionswereusedaspartofanoral-writtenprocessofmemorization-education.First,itisdif“culttoestablishsettexttypesforTorahmanuscripts,andmanymayhavebeenproducedfrommemoryratherthanfromvisualThepossiblescribalexerciseidenti“edbyTov,4QGen(4Q6),isanexampleofsuchatext,inthiscaseonethatwaspoorlywritten.ManyotherTorahscrollsprobablywereproducedthroughvisualcopyingordictationfromavisuallyreadscroll,inordertoensureaccuracyinproductionofcopiesforreferenceandstudy.Thismaynotalwayshavebeenthecase,however.Asnotedearlier,con”ationaryPentateuchalmanuscripts,thougheventuallycopiedvi-sually,mayhavebeenproductsofanoral-writtenenvironmentwherewrittenmaterialwassupplementedwithmemorizedmaterialfromotherloci.Second,thequotationsoftheTorahinQumranliteraturepointtoabroaderphenomenonofmemorization.Thesequotationsareonlysometimesformallyintroducedthroughaformulalikeasitiswritten.ŽSuchquotationformulaearemoretypicalofawritingculturelikeourown.Yetinavarietyofadditionalcases,biblicalpassagesarewovencontinuallyintothefabricofagivenwrit-Inaddition,analysisofsuchweavingsshowsthatuseoftheTorahandothertextsoccurredacrossagradualcontinuum,extendingfromcloseuseofanextendedpassagetomore”uiduseofapre-textslanguage,imagery,orconceptuality.Inthissense,thewritersoftextsfoundatQumran„whetherfromthecommunityitselforbeforeit„appeartohavegainedthoroughenoughmasteryofthebiblicalcorpusthattheycouldspeakitslanguageinavarietyofregisters.Finally,treatmentsofthetextualcharacterofTorahandotherquotationshavehighlightedtheirnonstandardizedcharacter.RatherthanbeingvisualcopiesofagivenmanuscripttraditionorevencontextualvariantsŽcreatedbyanauthoradaptingatexttoapurpose,mostbiblicalquotationsfoundatQumranappeartobevariantversionsofamemorizedtradition.This52.EmanuelTov,TheBiblicalTextsfromtheJudaeanDesert:AnOverviewandAnalysisofthePublishedTexts,ŽinTheBibleasBook:TheHebrewBibleandtheJudaeanDesertDiscoveries,ed.EdwardD.HerbertandEmanuelTov(Newcastle,DE:OakKnollPress,2002),141.53.ForargumentsagainsttheideaoftexttypesintheQumranmanuscriptsseeEugeneUlrich,TheQumranBiblicalScrolls:TheScripturesofLateSecondTempleJudaism,ŽinTheDeadSeaScrollsinTheirHistoricalContext,ed.TimothyH.Lim(Edinburgh:T.andT.Clark,2000),67…87.54.TimothyLim,HolyScriptureintheQumranCommentariesandthePaulineLetters(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1997),164…68.55.JonathanG.Campbell,TheUseofScriptureintheDamascusDocument1…8,19…20,BZAW(Berlin:DeGruyter,1995),esp.176…77.
qumranasawindowwouldcorrelatewiththepredominanceofmemorizedquotationsinotheran-cientliteratures.Peoplehadmemorizedthemanywayaspartoftheireducation-enculturation,andscrollswerejusttoocumbersometoconsultforthespeci“csonagiventext.Third,theparagraphstructureofTorahmanuscriptsatQumransuggeststheiruseinanoral-writtenenvironmentofstudyandrecitation.JosefOeschsstudiesofopenandclosedparagraphs,Revellsstudyofpausalforms,andEmanuelTovsandothersstudiesofparagraphmarkershaveshownthatmanyTorah(andother)manuscriptsatQumranfeaturedivisionsintoreadingsec-tionsthatanticipatesimilarsortsofdivisionslaterfoundintheSamaritan,Jewish,andChristiantraditions.InatleasttheJewishandChristianin-stances,suchdivisionshelpedsplituplargercorporaforuseinoral-writteneducationalandliturgicalenvironments.Yetuseofsuchdivisionsfororal-writteneducationandrecitationismoreancientaswell.Wesawsimilardivi-sionsofeducationaltextsinancientEgypt,wheretheyservedtobreakupalongtextintorecitableandlearnableunits.Notably,suchdivisionsarenotusedtypicallyindocumentarytextslikereceipts,legaldocuments,andothertextswrittenanddepositedforvisualreference.WithintheSumero-AkkadianandEgyptianliteratures,wefounddocu-mentedevidenceofgradualgrowthandaugmentationoftheeducationalcur-riculum,andthatisevidentintheTorahtraditionsatQumranaswell.We“ndseveralexamplesofapre-SamaritantextualtraditionharmonizingDeuteron-omicandTetrateuchaltraditions,theso-calledProto-Samaritanmanuscripts.Inaddition,the4QRPtextsrepresentasigni“cantexpansionoftheMosaicTorahtoincludeitemslikeanexpandedspeechofMiriamandthefestivalofAndtheTempleScrollrepresentsayetmoreradical,probablyearlier,56.Foranoverviewofpossibleexamples,citationofearlierliterature,andcorrelationwithrabbinicandpatristicevidenceseeGreenstein,Misquotation.Ž57.Seeesp.E.J.Revell,BiblicalPunctuationandChantintheSecondTemplePeriod,Ž7(1976):181…98;Oesch,TextgliederungimAltenTestamentundindenQumranhandschriften,Ž5(1983):289…321;G.H.Wilson,TheEditingoftheHebrewPsalter,SBLDS(Chico,CA:ScholarsPress,1985),93…96;DavidRothstein,FromBibletoMurabaat:StudiesintheLiterary,TextualandScribalFeaturesofPhylacteriesandMezuzotinAncientIsraelandEarlyJudaismŽ(Ph.D.diss.,UniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles,1992),215…44;EmanuelTov,ScribalMarkingsintheTextsfromtheJudaeanDesert,ŽinCurrentResearchandTechnologicalDevelopmentsontheDeadSeaScrolls:ConferenceontheTextsfromtheJudaeanDesert,Jerusalem,30April1995,ed.DonaldW.PerryandStephenD.Ricks(Leiden:Brill,1996),44…53.Lateintheprocessof“nishingthisbookEugeneUlrichnoti“edmeofanarticlehewroteonthisthatcritiquessomeoftheforegoingandestablishesthedistinctionbetweentheQumransystemsandlaterones:EugeneUlrich,ImpressionsandIntuition:SenseDivisionsinAncientManuscriptsofIsaiah,ŽinUnitDelimitationinBiblicalHebrewandNorthwestSemiticLiterature,ed.MarcoC.A.KorpelandJosefM.Oesch(Assen:VanGorcum,2003),279…307.58.Seechapter4,p.77…78.59.EmanuelTov,ScribalPracticesRe”ectedintheTextsfromtheJudaeanDesert,ŽinFlintandVander-DeadSeaScrollsAfterFiftyYears,vol.1,425…26.60.ForthetextuallinkagesofthelattertraditionseeEmanuelTov,TheTextualStatusof4Q364…367(4QRP),ŽinTheMadridQumranCongress:ProceedingsoftheInternationalCongressontheDeadSeaScrolls,ed.J.TrebolleBarreraandMontanerL.Vegas(Leiden:Brill,1991),43…82,andthesummaryinEmanuelTovandSydneyWhite,ReworkedPentateuch,ŽinQumranCave4(VIII):ParabiblicalTexts,Part1,ed.H.Attridgeetal.(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1994),192…96.
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworldrevisionofMosaicTorah,oneincludingextensiveadditionalmaterialandchangingthevoiceofDeuteronomicsectionsfromMosesstoGods.AlloftheserepresentprogressivescribalredactionsandreformulationsofthePen-tateuchaltraditionfromaveryearlyperiod.Yet„despitetheirearlydate„theywerenotadoptedbylatercommunities,withtheminorexceptionoftheadop-tionofarevisedformoftheproto-SamaritanŽrecensionoftheTorahbytheSamaritans.Indeed,inthisrespecttheTorahtraditionsofearlyJudaismappeartohavebeen“xedearlierthantheirnon-Torahcounterparts.BothQumranmanuscriptsandtheSeptuagintshowthattheJewishBiblecontainsalaterformofseveralnon-Torahbooks(e.g.,Joshua,Jeremiah,Ezekiel,andsoon),buttherelativelynoncon”ationaryformoftheTorahincludedintheJewishBibleistheearliestoneattestedinthemanuscriptsatQumran.Furthermore,theforegoingdiscussionofthePentateuchaltraditionsdoesnotyetexhaustthemultiplewaysinwhichMosaicinstructionisprominentinthemanuscriptsfoundatQumran.Inhisoverviewofparabiblicalprophetictexts,GeorgeBrookelistssevenpara-Mosestexts,includingacacheof“vecopiesofonemanuscriptentitledPseudo-Moses.ŽItispossiblethatsuchfragmentarydocumentsfromQumranthatfeatureTorahtextsor“gureswereintendedatsomepointtobepartoftheMosaiccorpus,muchlikeearlyGreeklyricpoetrywasonceunderstoodtostandundertheheadingofHomer.ŽTheQumrancommunityevenmayhaveparticipatedinthisprocessofaug-mentationoftheMosaiccorpus.SepherMosheh,Ž4Q249,iswritteninthecrypticwritingseenintheinitialinstructiontothesonsoflightŽandmayhavebeenacommunityinstructionattributedtoMosesthatwaslikewisemeantforprobationarymembers.Moreover,thisandmanyotherparabibli-calŽTorah(andother)documentsdonotshowthelevelofverbatim,spelling-levelagreementthatisproducedthroughvisualcopying.Indeed,eventheearliestexpansionistversionsofTorahdocumentsneednothavebeenpro-ducedthroughvisualcopying.Rather,theauthor-tradentsofthesetraditionscouldsupplementthemanuscripttheywereproducingbydrawingonTorahmaterialtheyhadmemorizedfromelsewhere.AllthisisnottosuggestthatmostTorah(orother)manuscriptsatQumranwereproducedfrommemoryorthatsuchtextswereusedexclusivelyinedu-cation.AlreadywesawinMesopotamia,Egypt,andelsewherehowscribesoftenproducedmanuscriptsthroughvisualcopying,andthatappearstohavebeenthecaseformostQumranTorahmanuscriptsaswell.Manyerrorsinmanuscriptsareofthetypeproducedbyreading,andthustestifytoeithervisualcopyingoratleastproductionofatextthroughdictation.Inaddition,61.FordiscussionandpresentationofseveralparalleltextsillustratingthetypesofexpansionsinthesetraditionsseeCarr,Method,Ž115…26,131…39.62.GeorgeBrooke,ParabiblicalPropheticNarratives,ŽinFlintandVanderkam,DeadSeaScrollsAfterFiftyYears,vol.1,273…74.63.SeeespeciallyMost,CanonFathers,Ž48…49.ForonegoodrecentdiscussionoftheanachronisticcharacterofthepresentdistinctionsofbiblicalŽandparabiblicalŽseeGeorgeJ.Brooke,TheRewrittenLaw,ProphetsandPsalms,ŽinHerbertandTov,BibleasBook,31…40,esp.36.
qumranasawindowtheQumran“ndsincludesomeTorahmanuscriptsthatbearthespeci“cor-thographicandtextualcharacteristicsofagiventradition„pre-Samaritanandprotorabbinic„thussuggestingaprocessthatincludedvisualreadingandcop-yingratherthanpurememorization.Furthermore,Tovhasnotedsomeaddi-tionalfeaturesofmanysuchscrollsthatsuggesttheywereproducednotbystudentsbutbyaccomplishedscribesforongoingreference.Hehasidenti“edaseriesofwhathetermsdeluxeeditionsŽcharacterizedbylargetopandbottommargins,“newriting,(generally)minimalcorrections,andthepre-dominanceoftheprotorabbinictexttype.Yeteventhesescrollscanbecorre-latedwitheducation.Tov(followingonearlierdiscussionsbyLiebermann)plausiblysuggeststhatthistypeofmanuscriptmaybetheexactcopiesmeantintheTalmud,whenitsays:whenyouteachyourson,teachhimfromacorrectedcopy.ŽNotably,overhalfofthedeluxecopiesofbiblicalmanuscriptsatQumranarecopiesofbooksfromtheTorahorparabiblicalTorahcompo-ThustheQumran“ndsprovideuswithpreviouslyunparalleledaccesstoinformationaboutthedevelopmentanduseofearlyTorahtraditions.Theor-iginsofmanytraditionsnowfoundatQumranprobablyliewellbeforetheQumrancommunity.Iftheargumentssummarizedinearlierchaptersarecorrect,manytextsnowatQumranprobablyoriginatedintheJerusalemtem-ple.TheDamascusdocument(CD)VII,15…17appearstodescribeeventheremovaloftextsfromthetemple,allegoricallyinterpretingAmos5:26…27asreferringtothetakingofthelawŽandtheprophetsŽfromJerusalemŽtoDamascusŽbytheteacherofrighteousness:As[God]said,IwillsendintoexiletheSikkutofyourKingandtheKiyyunofyourimagesfromtenttoDamascus.Ž[Amos5:26…27]ThescrollsoftheToraharetheSikkutoftheking,asitissaid,Iwillraiseupthefallenbooth[Sukkat]ofDavid.Ž[Amos9:11]...AndtheKiyyuneofimages,andtheKiyyunoftheimages,ŽarethescrollsoftheprophetswhosewordsIsraeldespised.HerethescrollsŽoftheTorahandprophetsaredescribedasgoingintoexileŽtoDamascus,ŽpossiblyanobliquereferencetothetransferofscrollsfromtheJerusalemtemple(orsimilardeposit)totheQumrancommunity(oraprecursorgroup).WhetherornotthefoundersoftheQumrancommunityactuallyremovedTorahexemplarsfromtheJerusalemtemple,wehaveseenthatQumranapparentlyhadanumberofpriestswhohadaccesstovarious64.Tov,BiblicalTextsfromtheJudeanDesert,Ž145…46,160;TheTextoftheHebrew/AramaicandGreekBibleUsedintheAncientSynagogues,ŽinTheAncientSynagoguefromItsOriginsuntil200C.E:PapersPresentedatanInternationalConferenceatLundUniversity,October14…17,2001,ed.BirgerOlssonandMagnusZetterholm(Stockholm:AlmqvistandWiksell,2003),245…50.65.Tov,BiblicalTextsfromtheJudeanDesert,Ž158(sevenoutoftwelve).TovalsolistseightdeluxeoftextsnotintheJewishorChristianBibles,outofwhichthreearerefractionsofTorahtraditions(1QapGen;4QCommGen[4Q254];4QapocrLevi[4Q541]).NosuchnonbiblicaltextswerefoundindeluxeeditionsatothersitessuchasMurrabaat,NahalHever,orMassada.ForasurveyofthelatterseeTov,AncientSynagogues,Ž244.
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworldcopiesofMosaicinstruction.Someofthese,suchas4QRPand11QTemple,wereredactionsandreformulationsoftheTorahthatwerenotgenerallyfol-lowedbylatercommunities.Stillotherforms,suchasthepre-Samaritanorprotorabbinicmanuscripts,wereadoptedoraugmentedbylaterJewishcom-munities.Furthermore,Tovhasarguedplausiblythatthepaleo-HebrewcopiesofboththeTorahandthebookofJobmayrepresentSadduceeŽcopiesofaMosaiccorpusthatincludedJob(cf.b.Certainly,itisclearthatmanyTorahandpara-TorahtextswerecopiedintheQumrancommunityitself.Thusmanyfeaturesofthe“ndsatQumran„theoralnatureofmanymanuscripterrorsandTorahquotesatQumran,readingdivisionsinTorahmanuscripts,andproductionofnewformulationsofTorahtraditionsthroughuseofpriormemorizedversions„alltheseelementswouldre”ectthephe-nomenonofmemorizationofTorahinpriestlyscribalcirclespriortothecom-munitysemergenceandinthecommunitysintensiveeducationalprocessInstructionalUseofOtherTextsBesidesWisdomŽandTorahTextsAsiswellknown,theQumrancommunity,thoughfocusedonTorah,explicitlyrecognizedtheimportanceofotherdocumentsaswell.OnewaythisisclearisthepresenceofsomeformulationsthatendorsethestudyofnotonlyTorahbutprophetsŽaswell.TheveryoutsetofthecommunityruletalksofwhatGodcommandedthroughMosesandhisservantstheprophetsŽ(1QS1:2…3),andthesamepairingappearsafterthepassagediscussedearlieraboutpre-paringtheway,ŽmakingthisequivalenttostudyofthetorahwhichGodcommandedthroughthehandofMosesinordertoactincompliancewithwhathasbeenrevealedfromagetoageandaccordingtowhathasbeenre-vealedthroughtheprophets.ŽEarlierIcitedatext,CDVII,15…17,whichlike-wisefeaturesthescrollsoftheprophetsŽprominentlynexttoscrollsoftheTorahŽinadiscussionoftheexileŽofsuchscrollstoDamascusforinterpre-tationbytheInterpreteroftheTorah.ŽYetwemustbecarefulabouthowweunderstandthiscategoryofprophet.ŽThoughmanyhavebeentemptedtoidentifytheseprophetsŽat66.Tov,BiblicalTextsfromtheJudeanDesert,Ž151(withcitationofearlierarguments).TovalsonotesthatJobfollowsimmediatelyontheTorahinsomePeshittamanuscripts.ForargumentsthattheQumrancommunityshouldbemorespeci“callylinkedwiththeSadduceesseeLawrenceSchiffman,TheNewHalakhicLetter(4QMMT)andtheOriginsoftheDeadSeaSect,Ž53(1990):64…73;LawrenceSchiffman,theDeadSeaScrolls:TheHistoryofJudaism,theBackgroundofChristianity,theLostLibraryofQumranJewishPublicationSociety,1994),83…89;cf.JamesVanderkam,ThePeopleoftheDeadSeaScrolls:EssenesorSadducees?Ž7(1991):42…47.AlternativelytoTovsinterpretation,suchmanuscriptsmayderivefromaZadokitepriestlycachethatprecedesanysplitbetweentheQumranZadokitesandanidenti“ableSadduceeŽ(cf.Zadokite)group.67.Otherrelevantreferencestothe[Torahand]Prophetsinclude4Q381(4Qnon-CanonicalPsalms)frag.69,lines4…5,and4Q504(4QWordsoftheLuminaries)1…2,III,12…13.
qumranasawindowQumranwiththerabbiniccollectionofformerandlatterprophets,Žthisseemsincreasinglyunlikely.11QPsXXVII,11includesapassagethat,likesomeotherSecondTempletexts,identi“esDavidasaprophetŽandthustakesPsalmcompositionsasprophetic.ŽOverall,theQumrantexts,likeotherstreamsofJudaismIwilldiscusslater,treatawiderangeofourpropheticŽandnon-propheticŽbooksinasimilarway.Forexample,the“ndsincludedanumberofeschatologicalcommentariesonbooksnowfoundintheprophetssectionoftheBible:forexample,theNahum,Habbakuk,andIsaiahpesharim,butalsoapesheronPsalms(4Q171)andapesherontheapocalypseofweeks(4Q247),thussuggestingthatagroupatQumrantreatedthese(now)nonpro-phetictextsaspropheticdivinatoryliterature.Moreover,theQumrantextscontainformalcitationsandallusionstoawiderangeoftraditions,boththosethatarenowpartofthelaterrabbinicBibleandsomethatarenot.The“ndsincludedmorecopiesofbookslikeEnochandJubileesthanofmanybooksthatlaterfoundtheirwayintotheHebrewBible.Finally,thesemanuscriptsofbooksthatdid/didnotgetincludedintheHebrewBiblearenotdistinguishedfromeachotherbydifferentscribalpracticesatQumran.Rather,thescribeswhoproducedthebulkoftheQumranmanuscriptsfollowmanyofthesameconventionsincopyingnownonbiblicalbooksthatlaterrabbinictraditionsreservedfortreatmentofspeci“callybiblicaltraditions.Ifourpresentbiblicalbookswereseparatedfromtheseothers,itisnotre”ectedclearlyinseparatescribalpracticesforthem.ThisisnottosaythatalltextsatQumranwereequallyimportant.WehavealreadyseentheprimacyofTorahthere.CertainothertextsintheJewishBible,likeIsaiahandPsalms,werecopiedandcitedparticularlyoften,whilesomeothertextsfoundatQumranappearinonlyonecopyandarerarelycited,ifatall.ManytextsnowfoundinourBiblearealreadypresentinstandardizedtext68.TherelevantprimarytextsandsecondaryliteraturearesurveyedinDavidM.Carr,CanonizationintheContextofCommunity:AnOutlineoftheFormationoftheTanakhandtheChristianBible,ŽinAGiftofGodinDueSeason:EssaysonScriptureandCommunityinHonorofJamesA.Sanders,ed.RichardD.WeisandDavidM.Carr(Shef“eld:JSOTPress,1996),40…41.69.IwilldiscussthisphenomenoninotherformsofJudaismlaterinchapter11,pp.264…67.70.EugeneUlrich,FromLiteraturetoScripture:Re”ectionsontheGrowthofaTextsAuthoritativeness,Ž10(2003):11.ForanexcellentsurveyofmanticwisdomŽatQumranseeJamesVanderkam,ManticWisdomintheDeadSeaScrolls,Ž4(1997):336…53.ForbroaderdiscussionofthephenomenonofrevelatoryinterpretationofpropheticliteratureinIsraelandnearbyculturesseeArminLange,InterpretationalsOffen-barung:ZumVerha¨ltnisvonSchriftauslegungundOffenbarunginapokalyptischerundnichtapokalyptischerLiterature,ŽinWisdomandApocalypticismintheDeadSeaScrollsandintheBiblicalTradition,ed.F.Garcš´nez(Louvain,Belgium:LouvainUniversityPress,2003),17…33.71.JustafewexamplesincludethereferencetotheApocryphonofJoshuain4Q175(4QTestimonia)22…23,thecitationsofJubileesin4Q2281,I,9…10andCDXIV,3…4(4Q2706III,17;4Q2714,II,5)andallusionsto(now)nonbiblicalworksin4QAdmonFlood(4Q370)II.5…9and4QSapientialWork(4Q185)II,3.SeeEugeneUlrich,TheStatusoftheBiblicalTextsintheQumranCorpusandtheCanonicalProcess,ŽinHerbertandTov,BibleasBook,22…24,andArminLange,FromLiteraturetoScripture:TheUnityandPluralityoftheHebrewScripturesinLightoftheQumranLibrary,ŽinOneScriptureorMany?CanonfromBiblical,Theological,andPhilosophicalPerspectives,ed.Chr.HelmerandChr.Landmesser(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2004),fortheseexamplesandothers.72.SeeTov,ScribalPractices,Ž425…26;Tov,BiblicalTextsfromtheJudeanDesertŽ;Tov,ScribalPrac-tices,Ž425…26,esp.144.
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworldforms,whileothertexts„particularlydocumentsadaptedorproducedfordi-rectregulationofthecommunity(e.g.,1QM,1QS)„seemtohavebeenopentoongoingmodi“cation.Thepointisthefollowing:themorewelearnabouttheQumran“nds,thecleareritbecomesthattheirconceptofrevelatory,often-used,non-Torahbooks„prophetsŽ„wasidenticalneitherwiththeProph-etsŽnortheProphetsŽandWritingsŽsectionsofthelaterrabbinic,tripartiteTheTorahofMoses„asinterpretedbythecommunity„wasprimary,whileavarietyofnon-Torahbookswerealsousedwidelyineducation,study,andrecitation,whetherbooksfoundinlaterBibles(e.g.Isaiah,Jeremiah)orbooksthatwerenotincludedinmostBibles(e.g.Enoch,Jubilees,4QInstruc-Aswelookinaverybriefwayatthesenon-(Moses)Torahworks,theyshowsomeofthecharacteristicsofmemorizationandrecitationseenintheTorahworksdiscussedearlier.Inparticular,quotationsofpropheticandotherbooksoftenillustratethetransmissionofthesetextsbywayofmemory,thoughsomemanuscriptvariantsshowevidenceofvisualcopyingaswell.Insomecases,weseeevidenceforvarianteditionsofnon-Torahworks,againprobablyproducedthroughreformulation„whetherslightorradical„ofworksmem-orizedverbatimratherthanthroughsupplementationofavisuallycopiedwork.Indeed,someworksnowlabeledparabiblicalŽmayhavebeenconceptualizedaspotentiallyauthoritativeperformancesorextensionsofthebiblicalworkstheyresemble,thusrepresentingvarianteditionsofthoseworks.They,alongwithclearerexamplesofsuchvarianteditions,suchastheMTofJoshua,ascomparedwiththeearlier4QJos,re”ectanapparentcontinuing”uidityinthestandardizationofbiblicalŽtraditions.Atthesametime,sometraditionsseemtohavebeenpreservedinaspecialway.AsinthecaseoftheTorahmanuscripts,therearesomedeluxeeditionsofnon-Torahworks,probablyusedforreferenceinrecitationandeducation.Inaddition,somemanuscriptspreservereadingdivisions,againfacilitatingthestudyandmemorizationof73.ForthecommunityruleseeespeciallyMetso,TextualDevelopment,esp.146…47.ForthewarscrollseetheearlierstudybyC.H.Hunzinger,Fragmenteeinera¨lterenFassungdesBuchesausHo¨hle4vonZAW69(1957):131…51,butcf.theupdatedoverviewofmanuscriptsinM.Baillet,Lesmanuscritsdelaregledelaguerre´,Ž14(1972):217…26,andtheargumentforamorecomplexmodelofrelationshipbetweenthemanuscriptsinJ.Duhaine,Etudecomparativede4QM77(1990):459…72.ThereisalsoaveryhelpfultabularcomparisonofparallelpartsofCDinJonathanG.Campbell,UseofScripture,153…55,thatprovidesharddocumentationoftextualgrowth.Note,however,theapparentattempttoendmodi“cationofCDthroughlabelingitasthe“nalinterpretationŽofTorah(4QD1120…21//4QD7II,15;cf.CDXX,6).74.Iwilldiscusstheoften-citedquotationfrom4QMMTC10inchapter11,265…66.75.OnthisseetherangeofpublicationsonScriptureandcanonatQumranbyE.Ulrich,keyearlyexamplesofwhicharecollectedinhisbookTheDeadSeaScrollsandtheOriginsoftheBible,StudiesintheDeadSeaScrollsandRelatedLiterature(GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans,1999);notealsohisQumranBiblicalScrolls,ŽalongwithdiscussionsofScripturebyJamesVanderKam„recentlyTheWordingofBiblicalCitationsinSomeRewrittenScripturalWorks,ŽinHerbertandTov,BibleasBook,41…56„andArminLange,StatusoftheBiblicalTexts,ŽLiteraturetoScripture.ŽSeethelatterforafulloverviewoftherichliteratureonScriptureandQumran.76.Thisassertion,ofcourse,doesnotpresupposethatthevariantversionsofsuchtextsfoundatQumranarelaterthantheir(proto)MTcounterparts.77.Tov,BiblicalTextsfromtheJudeanDesert,Ž158…60.
qumranasawindowdiscreteunits.Moreworkneedstobedonetoexploretheexactcharacteroftheseparabiblicalworksandtheextenttowhichtheirrelationshipwith(now)biblicalworkscanbeexplainedbyoral-writtendynamics.Finally,wecontinuetoseeoral-writteninstructionalthemesinsuchnon-Torahworks,muchaswedidinbookslikeProverbs,Isaiah,andJeremiah.Forexample,4Q435…438,4QBarkiNapshi,isaliturgical-poeticworkofthesortoftenmemorizedinearlyeducation,withfourcopiesdatedtothe“rstcentury.Itcontainsreferences,particularlyin4Q436,totheeducationalprocessofmemorization-ingestionoftexts:YouhavepreservedyourlawbeforemeAndyourcovenanthasbeencon“rmedforme,AndyouhaveprevailedovermyheartowalkinyourpathsYoucalledmyhearttoattentionandmykidneysyousharpened,Sothattheydidnotforgetyourlaws.(4QBarkiNapshi1I,4…5)ThispassageplaysonthewordusedinDeut6:7forconstantrecitationofTorah,,indescribinghowGodhassharpened,,thespeakerskid-neyssothathedoesnotforgetGodslaws.Inthiswaytheoralityofthemem-orizingprocessisinvokedbydescribingthedivineprocessbywhichGodin-scribesGods(writtenTorah)lawsontheinwardpartsofthesinger.SpacedoesnotallowafullanalysisofotherliteraturefoundatQumraninordertoassesspossiblelinkstotheeducation-memorizationprocess.Nev-ertheless,thebroaderbodyofworkfoundtherecorrelateswellwiththechar-acteristicsofeducational-enculturationalcurriculaseenelsewhere:transmittedinpartthroughthestillexclusiveandnuminoustechnologyofwriting,writteninanancient,noncontemporaryidiom(Hebrew),yetmemorizedand(occa-sionally)augmentedandreformulatedbythosewhogainmasteryofit.Inaddition,thereareanumberofinnovationswehaveseenasparticularlychar-acteristicoftheHellenisticperiod:asinEgyptandtheMesopotamianBeros-sus,thecentralinstructionalworksfoundatQumranareattributedto“guresfromafardistanttime:Moses,Enoch,andsoon.Thewritingsareunderstoodtobedivinelyinspired.Andthehyperarchaiclanguageofnewdocumentsdem-onstratesboththedif“cultyofmaintainingtheindigenouslanguageinthenewenvironmentandanationalisticdeterminationtodoso.78.ThetranslationisadaptedslightlyfromthatinFlorentinoGarcš´aMartš´nezandEibertJ.C.Tigchelaar,TheDeadSeaScrollsStudyEdition(Leiden:Brill,1998),915.79.ExceptionswouldincludeAramaicdocumentslikeEnoch,theGenesisApocryphon,andsoon,alongwithafewGreekmanuscriptsandtexts.80.Schniedewind,QumranAntilanguageŽandLinguisticIdeologyinQumranHebrew,ŽinDiggersattheWell:ProceedingsofaThirdInternationalSymposiumontheHebrewoftheDeadSeaScrollsandBenSira,ed.T.MuraokaandJ.F.Elwolde(Leiden:Brill,2000),245…55.MorebroadlyontheuseofHebrewseeSchwartz,Language,PowerandIdentity.Ž
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworldQumranCommunity,Textuality,andHybridityOnemightconcludefromthearchaizingandintenselyHebrewelementsofQumrantextualitythatthecommunitywasapurereactionagainsttheGreco-Romanelementsoftheculturefromwhichithadseparated,butacloserlookattheevidenceshowsthatconclusiontobeoffthemark.ThoughthefoundersatQumranmayhavebeenhostiletowardsomeHasmoneanleadersorpriestswhomayhaveintroducedclearlyHellenisticelementsintothetempleandcommonwealth,therearenumerousaspectsoftheQumrancommunityitselfthatre”ectHellenisticstructuresofassociationandtextuality.Forexample,WeinfeldhasbeenforemostinshowingwaysinwhichtheQumrancommu-nityresemblesHellenisticassociationsinitsregulationssurroundingtherul-ingcouncil,highof“cials,rankingofmembers,probationandotherprocessesfornewmembers,andsoon.ThoughQumranhassomefeaturesnotfoundinsuchassociations(e.g.,thestrongmoralrhetoric,blessing/curse)andlackssomefeaturesoftenfoundinsuchassociations(e.g.,regulationssurroundingburial,dues),itappearsthattheQumrancommunityisanexemplarofaJewishcommunityseparatefromthetemplewhichadoptedaformquitelikethatofaHellenisticassociation.Weinfeldsobservationshavebeenreinforcedinre-centyearsthroughKlinghardtsandSmithsobservationsofhowthecom-munalmealatQumranresembledthecommonmealofaHellenisticassoci-ation,includingtheprominentuseofsungtextsandstudy-discussionduringtheperiodafterthemeal.Suchafter-mealuseoftextsatQumranisjustonewayinwhichthecir-culationoftextsthereresembledthatfoundelsewhereintheHellenisticworld.TheoverallstructureofthecurriculumalsoappearsquitesimilartotheHel-lenisticcurriculumbestattestedinEgypt:proceedingfromthealphabetthroughalphabetizednameliststoliterarytexts.WeevenseeatQumrantextsthatgenericallycorrespondtothecompilationsofexcerptsoftenusedinGreco-Romanrhetoric.TheseincludenotonlytheexcerptedŽbiblicalmanuscriptsfoundatQumranbutalsoandprimarilytheconcatenationsofbiblicalquotes„sometimeswithbriefinterpretationalnotesadded„suchasthosethatgounderthelabelof4QTestimoniaor4QFloreligium.Thoughthesecompila-tions„likethecommunityinwhichtheywerefound„arenotidenticaltotheirGreco-Romancounterparts,theyarequitesimilar.Theywouldsupportthefo-cusedingestionofcertaintextsforthepurposeofrecitation,study,anddebate.Thus,onceagain,asinthecaseofBenSira,we“ndinQumrananexample81.MatthiasKlinghardt,GemeinschaftsmahlundMahlgemeinschaft:SoziologieundLiturgiefru¨hchristlicher,TexteundArbeitenzumneutestamentlichenZeitalter(Tu¨bingen:FranckeVerlag,1996),217…49;DennisSmith,FromSymposiumtoEucharist:TheBanquetintheEarlyChristianWorld(Minneapolis:FortressPress,2003),152…58.82.ForanevocativecomparisonofTanhumim(4Q176)withnoteextractsinGreco-Romaneducationandconsiderationoftheirroleinanoral-writtencontextseeC.D.Stanley,TheImportanceof4QTanhumim15(1992):578…81.
qumranasawindowofculturalhybridity.ThecommunityapparentlyreveredtheMosaicTorahandabroadercorpusofostensiblypre-HellenisticwritingsandhyperarchaicHe-brewwritingsbytheirfounderandsubsequentauthoritativeleaders.Yetitdidsowithinthecontextofacommunitywithsigni“cantHellenistictraits,in-cludingthewayitstructurededucationinthosetextsandusedthosetextsinafter-mealdiscussionanddebate.Inaddition,likeBenSira,theQumrancom-munityseemstohaveparticipatedintheongoingoftheMosaicTorah,givingitaspecialstatusmuchlikethatHomerenjoyedwithintheHellenisticcorpus.SuchaprivilegingofMosaicTorahhad,ofcourse,beenknownbeforeinthedepictionofJosiahsreformorEzrasreading,butitap-pearstohavereceivedanadditionalimpetusasJudaismencounteredHelle-nismanditsHomer-centriccurriculum.Oneotherpossibleareaofhybridityliesintheexistenceofthelibraryitself.Itstandsasyetanotherexampleofthecomprehensivecollectionofin-digenoustextsintheeasternHellenisticworld,alongsideexamplesdiscussedinchapter8suchastheEgyptiantemplesofEdfu,Tanis,andTebtynus.Suchtemplelibrarieswiththeirde“nedlistsofauthentictextsre”ectedanintensi-“cationofpreservationofnativetraditionsinacontextwhereGreektexts,education,androyaldisplaycollections(e.g.,theAlexandrianlibrary)weredominant.Indeed,asarguedearlier,theQumranlibraryitselfmaybe,inpart,derivedfromtheJerusalemtemplelibraryoratleasttherelatedlibrariesofitspriestlyleaders.Aswehaveseen,indigenoustextualityofthesortweseeatQumran(alongwithEgypt,Mesopotamia,andotherNearEasterncultures)waspreservedintemplesandamongpriestsduringtheHellenisticperiodunderdiscussionhere.Perhapsmostimportant,QumranrepresentsacrucialmodelofonewayaparticularlyradicalSecondTempleJewishcommunitystructureditslifeapartfromthetemple.TheearlyQumrancommunityissomewhatunusualforitstimeinrenouncingparticipationintheJerusalemtemple.YetinformulatingacommunallifeasaHebrew-archaizingHellenisticassociation,Qumranmod-elsoneexampleofnontempleJewishlifethatwillhavepartialparallelsinlaterperiods.Itisdatedtoperiodsinboththecenturiesbeforethecommoneraandthe“rstcentury.IturnnowtoalookatotherformsofSecondTempleJewishtextualityandeducationasattestedatthelatterendofthattime,towardtheveryendoftheSecondTempleperiod.83.E.P.Sanders,TheDeadSeaSectandOtherJews:Commonalities,OverlapsandDifferences,ŽinDeadSeaScrollsinTheirHistoricalContext,ed.TimothyH.Lim(Edinburgh:T.andT.Clark,2000),16…17.
This page intentionally left blank
Synagogue,Sabbath,andScriptureNewFormsofHellenisticJewishTextualityandEducationBeyondtheTempleSofarIhavefocusedmydiscussiononformsofHellenisticJewishtextualityandeducationthatwereeitherprimarilybasedinthetem-pleor(largely)implementedbyformertempleelites.AtleastsomeleveloftempleorpriestconnectionpersistsineverysortofearlyJewishtextuality.Nevertheless,asthischapterwilldemonstrate,wealsosee„bythe“rstcentury.atthelatest„anincreasingdistri-butionofnon-temple-basedformsoftextualityinearlyJudaism,formsoftenlinkedwithSabbathgatheringsatearlysynagogues.Theseformsarenotopposedtothetemple.Indeedpriestsareprivi-legedinsofarastheyarepresent,andtheTorahtextsusedinthesecontextsmaywellbecheckedagainsttempleexemplars.Neverthe-less,thesecontextsrepresentwhatmightbetermedemergenttranstempletextualityandeducation:linkedwiththetempleinim-portantwaysbutincreasinglysitedoutsidethetempleandstaffedbynonpriests.Moreover,bythe“rstcentury.atthelatest,weseetheemergenceofahardened,clearlyde“nedcorpusofHebrewScripturesŽusedintheseandothercontexts,acorpusgenerallyre-ferredtoasTorahandProphets.ŽInthenextchapterIwillarguethattheoriginsofthissystem,infact,lieearlier.ButIturn“rsttotheclearestevidenceforthecontoursofthissystem,evidencecon-centratedinthe“rstcentury.andimmediatelyafterward.1.Iwilladdressinthenextchaptertheoften-arguedpositionthatathirdgrouplikethelaterwritingsŽcategoryisalreadyattestedbythispoint.
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworldInitialIndicatorsfromArchaeologyandtheNewTestamentofaBroadeningofTextualityInthe“rstcentury.,weseeanimpressivedistributionofevidenceoftextualityandeducationoutsideJerusalem.Numerousabecedariesandsomeslightlyhigher-levelexerciseshavebeenfoundfromthe“rstandearlysec-ondcentury.Somesuchtexts,suchasthepartialabecedaryinsidethelidofossuary6atJericho,probablyre”ecttheattemptsofsometousethemagicalqualitiesofwritingtoprotectthecontentsofthetombs.Yetthisdoesnotmeanthatallsuchtombabecedariesaremagical.Wealsosawattesta-tioninEgyptofeducationinfunerarycontexts,anditispossiblethatsomeabecedariesfoundinthewallsorothervisualsurfacesoflaterJewishtombswerepartofeducationtakingplaceinthem,forexample,thealphabeticin-scriptionatNahalMihInaddition,weseeseveralclearlyeducationalexercisesatMurabaat:apalimpsestwithanabecedaryandanaccount(10B),anotherparchmentwithanabecedary(11),andfourostracawithabecedariesrevealingdifferentlevelsofwritingability(73,78…80).TheHerodianhasyetanotherabecedary(53),andGreekabecedarieswerefoundatMasada(782…Somehigher-levelexercisesareattestedalso,onceagainorderedbytheall-importantalphabet.Puechhaspublishedanostraconthathedatestotheearlysecondcentury.thatcontainsanabecedaryalongwithalistofnamesorderedbythelettersofthealphabet.AsimilaralphabetizedlisthasalsobeenfoundontwoostracaatMasada(608…609).Suchstandardlistsofalphabetizednamesparalleltheuse,discussedearlier,ofsuchlistsinGreekHellenisticIndeed,speci“callyGreekeducationisre”ectedin“rst-centuryPalestineaswell,notonlyintheGreekabecedaryfromMasadabutalsoinmentionsofHomerandGreekeducationinearlyrabbinictexts.Suchevi-2.Seetwootherlateexamples:thecompleteabecedaryinthethird-century.catacomb25atBetarimandthethird-orfourth-century.alphabetinscriptiononthewallatKhirbetEitun.ForcitationsanddiscussionseeHezser,JewishLiteracy,85…86.3.Hezser,JewishLiteracy,85…88.4.E.Puech,Abecedarieetlistealphabe´tiquedenomshe´breuxdude´butduIIeS.87(1980):5.Again,muchoftheforegoingbuildsonC.HeszerssuperboverviewoftheevidenceinherJewishLiteracy,85…88.Thoughhercautionaboutidentifyingall“ndsasscribalexercisesiswelltaken,hergeneralizationofthisskepticismtocoverthese“ndsasawholeis,Iwouldargue,anovercorrection.Thewidespreaddocu-mentationoftheuseofabecedariesineducation,thepoorqualityofthewritinginseveralexamples,andtheattestationoftheuseofalphabetizednamesinHellenisticeducationsuggestthatmostoftheseexamples,particularlythoseonparchmentandostraca,arere”ectionsoftraininginwriting.Furthermore,wehavenoevidenceofancienttraininginreadingthatdidnotinvolveatleastsomepracticeinwriting.Therearenogoodprecedentsforthemodelsheproposesoflimitedtraininginreadingwithoutsometraininginwriting,andtherearemanycontraryexamples.6.ForbriefmentionoftherabbinicreferencestoJewishschoolsofGreekseePietervanderHorst,JewishPoeticalTombInscriptions,ŽinStudiesinEarlyJewishEpigraphy,ed.JanWillemvanHenten,PietervanderHorst(Leiden:Brill,1994),136…38,whoalsodiscussesseveralJewishtombinscriptionsthatshowechoesof
synagogue,sabbath,andscripturedencesuggeststhat,despitetheemergenceandpersistenceofanti-GreekthemesinJudaism,GreekeducationexistedalongsideHebreweducationinthelateSecondTempleperiod,perhapsoften„asinthecaseofJosephus„inthesameperson.ArchaeologicalevidenceandtextsfromtheNewTestamentcon“rmthesensethatanincreasingamountofreadingandstudytookplaceoutsidethetemplecontext.Asaseriesofnewstudiesofearlysynagogueshasshown,the“rstcenturyisthe“rsttimeweseecleararchaeologicalevidencefortheemergenceofsynagogues.ThereissomeyetearlierevidenceforhousesofprayerŽinEgypt,butitisunclearwhethertheyfunctionedlikelatersyna-gogues,orwhethertheyoriginatedaslociforaDiasporasacri“cialcultandevolvedlaterintositesforstudyandprayer.Bythe“rstcentury,however,weseemultiplesitesofprobablesynagogues,andtheseappeartobemajorsitesforreadingandeducationoutsidethetemple.ScrollsofEzekielandDeuter-onomywerefoundinasynagogueatMasada.Moreover,theNewTestamentcontainsnumerousreferencestoJesusandothersteachingŽinthesynagogue,includingreferencestoSabbathreadinginthesynagogueoftheMosaicTorah(Acts15:21),theSabbathreadingandexpositionofIsaiah(Luke4:16…27),andtheSabbathreadingoflawandprophetsŽ(Acts13:15).ThereissomeevidenceofasynagogueorsynagoguesinJerusalemaswell.ThefamousTheodotusinscriptioncomesfrom“rst-centuryJerusalemanddedicatesasynagogueconstructedforthereadingofthelaw,andeducationintheprecepts,Žaswellasforhospitalityforforeigners.ThissynagoguemayormaynothavebeenidenticalwiththesynagogueofthefreedmenŽdescribedinActs6:9orthesynagogueofAlexandriansŽmentionedinToseftaThismixofevidencetesti“estoanapparentexpansionintextualityandeducationoutsidetheimmediatetemplecirclessopredominantinearlierSec-ondTempleJewishtexts.Nevertheless,eachsortofevidencementionedsofarHomer(perhapsproducedbyartisanshiredbyJewsratherthanre”ectingJewisheducationofthefamiliesthemselves).FordiscussionofrabbinicreferencestoHomerseeHezser,JewishLiteracy,71.
7.J.GwynGrif“ths,EgyptandtheRiseoftheSynagogue,ŽinAncientSynagogues:HistoricalAnalysisandArchaeologicalDiscovery,ed.DanUrmanandPaulV.M.Flesher(Leiden:Brill,1995),3…16;Runesson,8.ForasurveyoftherelevantpublicationsanddiscussionseeTov,AncientSynagogues,Ž238…40.AsHezserpointsout,scrollswerenotnecessarilystoredasamatterofcourseinearlysynagogues(JewishLiteracy163…64),soweshouldnotpresupposethatallsynagogueswouldcontainsuchremnants.9.OtherexplicitreferencestoreadingandstudyofScriptureinthesynagogueincludeActs17:2…3and10…11.ForotherreferencestoJesusandhisapostlesteachinginsynagoguesseeMark1:21…28(//Luke4:31…37;cf.Matt7:28…29);Mark1:39(//Matt4:23;Luke4:44);Mark6:1…2(//Matt13:53…54);Matt9:35;Luke6:6(cf.Mark3:1;Matt12:9);13:10;John6:59;18:20;Acts9:20;13:5;14:1;17:2…3,10…11,17;18:4…6,26;19:8.StillotherreferencestosynagoguescanbefoundinlocisuchasMark5:22(//Luke8:41;Matt9:18);Luke7:5;John9:22;12:42;16:2;Acts22:19;24:12;26:11.10.Thedatinghasbeendisputed,butdecisiveargumentsforaSecondTempledatingareamassedinJohnS.Kloppenborg,DatingTheodotus(CIJII1404),Ž51(2000):243…80.II,1404,lines4…8.12.Theseareoftenidenti“ed,yetRunesson(,226)notesthatthesynagogueinActsislimitedtofreedmenwhoheunderstandstobeimmigrantspermanentlyresidinginJerusalem.
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworldisproblematic.Itisoftendif“culttodistinguishpreciselywhenagivenar-chaeological“ndisasynagogue,Žand„unlesstextsorinkwellsarefoundthere„itisusuallyimpossibletospecifywhatwasdoneinsuchpotentialTheNewTestamentismorespeci“caboutwhatwasdonethere,butthereferencesarebrief,andthenarratorshaveoccasionallyfaultyknowledgeaboutwhatactuallywentoninJewishcommunities.AninscriptionliketheTheodotusoneismorehelpful,butitstillsayslittleabouttheprocessofeducationortheoccasionsofreading.SoIturnnowtoamoreextendedlookateducationandtextualityinPhiloandJosephus,ourtwomostextensivewitnessestolateSecondTempleJudaism.Philo,EducationandScriptureThoughPhiloislocatedinEgypt,heprovidespotentialevidenceaboutvariousformsofJewishtextualitytowardthemiddleofthe“rstcentury.OneexamplethatlinkstotheprecedingchapterofthisbookishisbriefcommentsonEs-senes.ŽTheonesPhiloknewlivedawayfromcitiesinvillagesandstudiedconstantly.Accordingtohim,theysetasidetheSabbathforspecialstudy„bothreadingandallegoricalinterpretation„atholyplacestheycallsyna-goguesŽ(GoodPersonThewayPhiloexpressesthis,heappearstothinkofsynagogueŽasarelativelynewtermtohisaudience,butothertextsmakeclearthatheseesSabbathstudyasanancientandgeneralJewishpractice,ifnotatasynagogueŽatleastataplaceofprayerŽ().InhisLifeofMosesŽhecommentsonMosesancientinstitutionoftheSabbath,notingthatJewsdedicatethedaytostudyofthephilosophyofourfathersŽuptothepresent,gatheringinhousesofprayerŽ(¯ria),whichare,hesays,schoolsŽ()ofvariousvirtues(2.216).Inhisallegoricalstudyofcreation,heagainassertsthatMosesestablishedtheSabbath,impressingitonthemindsofallwhoweresetunderhim,Žtokeepitholybyabstainingfromworkanddedi-catingthedaytocharacter-improvingphilosophy(128;ColsonandWhitaker,LCL).Elsewhere,inhisSpecialLaws,hecommentsyetagainontheinstitutionofSabbathbyMoses,depictingitasadaydevotedtostudyofphi-losophyŽ(),particularlythetruthsofdutytoGodandhumanity,forallthoseguidedbyhissacredinstructionŽ(Spec.Laws2.60…64).Inastudyofpriestlyinstruction,Philogoesfurther.HearguesthatMosesinstitutedtheSabbathinorderthattheentirepeople,notjustthepriests,wouldhaveexpertknowledgeoftheirancestrallawsandcustomsŽandbeabletoanswereasilyanyonewhoquestionedthemabouttheirlaws.Therefore,Philosays,MosesinstructedthemtoassembleŽ()inthesameplaceandhearthelawsŽreadandexpoundedbyapriestwhoispresentor13.Evenwhenwritingsorwritingimplementsarefoundinanarchaelogicalcontext,thereisroomfordebateaboutwhatsuch“ndingstellus.Butthereis,atleast,moretodebateinsuchinstances.
synagogue,sabbath,andscriptureoneoftheelders.ŽTheywereequippedforsuchassembliesbyeducationinthefamily,whereahusbandteachesknowledgeofthelawsŽ(tousnomous)tohiswife,thefathertohischildren,andthemastertohisslave(PhilosothermentionsoftheSabbathindicatethatheperceivedbothitspracticeandJudaismingeneralasunderthreat.EvenashearticulatesthepurposesofSabbathandSabbathgatheringsinHellenistictermslikephilos-ophyŽandschoolsŽpromotingvirtue,elsewherehementionsGreekattacksonitspractice(2.123…129),andhearguesthatsuchattacksareviola-tionsoftheJewsancientrighttopracticetheirancestralcustomsŽ(tapatriaparticularlytheirrighttohaveschoolsoftemperanceandvirtueŽinsyna-gogues,ŽasensuredthroughrulerslikeAugustus(311…313).Soalso,155…157hementionsprotectionoftherightsoftheJewsofRome,permittingthemtomeetintheirplacesofprayer,ŽparticularlyontheSabbath,whentheyreceiveatrainingintheirancestralphilosophyŽ(¯npatrionpai-deuontaiphilosophian)andreceiveinstructionsinthelawsŽ(tasto¯nnomo¯ge¯seis).Stillearlierin,PhilomentionsthatGaiuspersecutedtheJewsalonebecausetheyhadopposedhim,groundedastheywereinthesacredlawsandunwrittencustoms.ŽThistrainingledthemtoacknowledgeGodratherthan”atterthefalselydei“edGaiusandtodiewillinglyratherthanbreakevenoneoftheirancestraltraditionsŽ(AswelookbackonPhilosdescriptionsofJewishstudyandeducation,theyappeartobeshapedbothbytheactualitiesofJudaismofhistimeandbyhiswishtodescribesuchactualitiesinawaythatwasintelligibleandevenattractivetohisGreekaudience.HeiswritinginGreekinacontextwhereJudaismisunderthreat,andhedescribesJewishsynagogues/schoolsasHellenistic-likecultivatorsofvirtue,assertingthattheirfocusisphilosophy.ŽNevertheless,itisclearthatthetextualpracticeshedescribesherearenotprimarilyGreek.ThefocusoftheseSabbathgatheringsisstudynotofGreektexts,butofHebrewones,especiallytheTorah.PhilohimselffocusesalmostexclusivelyontheTorahinhisownwritings,citingitfortytimesasoftenasnon-Torahbiblicaltexts.Hisspeci“cdescriptionsoftheSabbathcurriculumoftenmentionstudyoflaws,Žsacredlaws,Žorlawsofthefathers,Žandheidenti“esJewsasthoseguidedbyMosessacredinstructionŽ(Spec.Laws2.64)„aprobablereferencetoMosaicTorah/teaching.Tobesure,thoughPhilofocusesonTorah,heknowsnon-TorahJewishtextsandknowsofgroupswhoemphasizethemmore.NotonlydoesPhilohimselfoccasionallycitenon-Torahtexts,buthealsodescribesEssenesasagroupwhoreadbroadly,depictingthemasfocusingonthebooksŽ(tasbiblousratherthanusingthewordlawsŽorsimilarexpressionsheoftenuseselse-14.Asmentionedinchapter7,p.198,PhilodoesredescribeGreekeducationalprocessesinJewishtermsincontextslikehisMatingoftheSpecies,butsuchtextsarenotunderdiscussionhere.15.W.L.Knox,ANoteonPhilosUseoftheOldTestament,ŽJournalofTheologicalStudies41(1940):30.16.PhiloalsoknowsofafestivalatPharosdedicatedtocelebrationofthetranslationoftheTorahintoGreek(
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworldwhereforMosaicTorah(e.g.thebooks,ŽGoodPerson82).Furthermore,intheContemplativeLifehedescribestheTherapeutae,whokeepthememoryofGodaliveand[do]notforgetitŽbytakingwiththemintoacelllawsandoraclesdeliveredthroughthemouthofprophets,andpsalms,andanythingelsewhichfostersandperfectsknowledgeandpietyŽ(25).SomescholarshaveconsideredthelattertextabouttheTherapeutaetobeevidenceoftheearlyexistenceoftherabbinictripartiteBible,butitactuallydoesnotservethisfunctionwell.RatherPhilosdescriptionofaloose,four-partcate-gorizationofbooksreveredbytheTherapeutaemoreresemblesthepermeablecollectionofbooksseeninBenSiraandatQumran,acollectionthatisheadedbyTorahandincludesprophetsandpsalmsbutalsocontainsotherbooksthatfosterandperfectknowledge.ŽNotably,asKlinghardtandSmithhaveargued,PhilosTherapeutaealsoresembletheQumranEssenesintheirfocusonasymposium-likecommonmeal.Josephus,EducationandScriptureWeseeamuchmorede“nitepictureofscripturalboundariesatonepointinJosephus,whowritestowardtheendofthe“rstcentury.Nevertheless,inordertoputthispictureofScriptureincontext,Iturn“rsttoanoverviewofwhatJosephushastosayabouttextualityandeducation.LikePhilo,JosephusassociatestheSabbathwithstudyoftexts.InhedescribeshowMosesestablishedtheSabbathasadaydevotedtolearningthecustomsandthelaw(.16.43).InAgainstApionheassertsthatMosesordainedthatJewsdeserttheirotherworkandstudytheLawŽeveryweek(Ag.Ap.2.175).InhisJewishWar,heagainmentionssuchweeklymeet-ings,alongwiththepresenceofaTorahscrollinasynagogue,whenhetellsaboutanincidentinwhichJewswhohadbeenattackedontheSabbathinCaesarearemovedthelawsŽfromthesynagogueandwithdrewtosafetyafewmilesaway(J.W.Inaddition,JosephussinglesouttheEs-senesasparticularlyinterestedin(constitutional)writingsoftheancientsŽperitato¯npalaio¯nsuntagmataJ.W.2.136),andnotesthattheymakenewmemberssweartopreservethebooksofthesect(J.W.2.142).AsLemairepointsout,thesementions,alongwiththoseinPhilo,suggestthattheEs-senesweredistinguishedfromotherJewsbytheirunusuallevelofinterestin17.See,forexample,Beckwith,OldTestamentoftheNewTestamentChurch,117…18;JulioC.TrebolleBarrera,OriginsofaTripartiteOldTestamentCanon,ŽinMcDonaldandSanders,CanonDebate,18.Klinghardt,,183…216;DennisSmith,SymposiumtoEucharist,158…59.19.Inaddition,inhisautobiographyhementionsatypicalmiddaymealontheSabbath,anoccasionthatmayhaveinvolvedasymposium-likeafter-mealdiscussionoftexts,butthisisnotexplicitlymentioned(20.Lemaire,LEnseignementEsse´nien,Ž192.
synagogue,sabbath,andscriptureJosephusismostexplicitabouteducation,bothhisownandthatofotherJews.Hehimselfclaimsinhisautobiographytohaveexcellentmemoryandunderstanding.ŽMorespeci“cally,hedescribesbeingeducated„alongwithhisbrother„byhisfather,Matthias,winningaccoladesforhisloveoflettersŽ(tophilogrammaton)andbeingconsultedbypriestsandotherleadersforinformationaboutthelaw(7…9).HethusexcelledinJewishlearning,possessingexpertknowledgeŽofthelawsŽ/customsofthefathersŽ(198),exactknowledgeofthelaw,ŽandabilitytointerpretholyscripturesŽ20.264).ButhealsoexcelledinhisknowledgeofGreekproseandpoetry.20.263).JosephussmoregeneralcommentsaboutJewisheducationarethemostexplicitsofarinclaiminguniversalJewishlearningofthelaw,alearningthat„asinPhilo„isoftendepictedasgroundinganunwaveringJewishobediencetothelaw.InAgainstApion,aclearlypolemicalwork,heinsiststhatJewspridethemselvesaboveallintheireducationofchildren,whichinvolvesobservanceofthelawsandpiouspractices(1.60).Towardthisend,theLawŽre-quiresthatallchildrenbetaughtlettersŽ(grammatapaideuein)andlearnboththelawsanddeedsoftheirforefathers,inorderthattheymayimitatethelatter,and,beinggroundedintheformer,mayneithertransgressnorhaveanyexcuseforbeingignorantofthemŽ(2.204;Thackeray,LCL).ThissortofexplicitassertionofuniversalJewishliteracyisnewinJudaism.EarlierwesawbiblicaltextsinDeuteronomyandelsewherethatposeduni-versalTorahmemorizationasanidealbutdidnotyetspeakspeci“callyofinstructioninreading.EvenPhilospeaksonlyofgeneraleducationinthelawsofMoses.ButinthisworkJosephusnowspeaksofauniversalJewishliteracythathasitsclosestparallelsinHellenisticidealsofthesame.AsBaumgarten,Hezser,andothershaveargued,Josephusprobablyrepresentsmoreanemer-gentidealthanreality.WesawasimilarphenomenonofidealversusrealityinHellenisticeducation.Still,Josephus,combinedwithlessexplicitstate-mentsaboutgeneraleducationinPhilo,representsanewlevelofemphasis,appearingforthe“rsttimeinJudaism,ontheideaofuniversal(male)edu-cationwithinthepeopleofGod.ElsewhereJosephussdescriptionsoftenfocusoneducationinthelaw,Žwhichheassertsisthebeginningpointofeducation(.4.211).Asaresultoftheireducation,Josephusclaims,Jewscanrecitethelawsmorereadilythantheirownname.ŽTheirthoroughgroundinginlawfromearlyonhasensuredthatthelawsareengravenon[their]soulsŽ(Ag.Ap.2.178).Soalso,in21.InthisheparallelsearlierclaimsintheLetterofAristeas(121…122)fortheabilitiesofthetranslatorsoftheSeptuagint.22.TranslationfromH.S.J.Thackeray,trans.,JosephusI:TheLife,AgainstApion,LCL(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1976),375.23.AlbertI.Baumgarten,TheTorahasPublicDocumentinJudaism,ŽStudiesinReligion14(1985):18…FlourishingofJewishSects,121;Hezser,JewishLiteracy,41…47,esp.46…47.24.Seethediscussioninchapter7,pp.187…90.
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworldJosephusdescribestheseventh-yearreadingofthelawtoallthepeopleattheFeastofTabernaclesasresultinginitsbeinggravenontheirheartsandstoredinthememorysothattheycanneverbeeffacedŽorsogravenontheirheartsthroughthehearingofthatwhichtheycommandthattheywillforevercarrywithintheirbreaststheprinciplesofthecodeŽ(4.210…211).InthesewaysJosephusappropriatesancientlanguageformemo-rizationineducationtodescribehowJewishingestionoflawresultsinstead-fastTorahobedience.JosephussfullestdescriptionofJewishScripturesisthefollowingoft-citedpassageinAgainstApion:Wedonotpossessmyriadsofinconsistentbooks,con”ictingwithoneanother;butourbooks,thosewhicharejustlybelieved,areonlytwenty-two,andcontaintherecordofalltime.Ofthese,“vearethebooksofMoses....FromthedeathofMosesdowntoArtaxerxeswhofollowedXerxesaskingofPersia,theprophetsafterMoseswrotetheeventsoftheirowntimesinthirteenbooks.Theremain-ingfourbookscontainhymnstoGodandpreceptsfortheconductofhumanlifeWehavegivenpracticalproofofourreverenceforourownScriptures.Foralthoughsuchlongageshavenowpassed,noonehasventuredtoadd,ortoremove,ortoalteranything,anditisaninstinctwitheveryJew,fromthedayofhisbirth,toregardthemasthedecreesofGod,toabidebythem,and(ifneedbe)cheerfullydieforthem.Timeandagainerenowthesighthasbeenwitnessedofprisonersenduringtorturesanddeathineveryforminthetheaters,ratherthanutterasinglewordagainstthelawsandthethingswrit-tenwiththese.(Thackeray,LCL,1.38…41,adapted)Severalaspectsofthisquotationarenotnew,eitherwithrespecttoJosephusortootherdescriptionsofJewishliteratureorofNearEasterneducationalcurricula.TheformulaofneitheraddingnorsubtractingfromacollectionwasalreadyseenintheSumero-AkkadiancurriculumandaDeuteronomicrefrac-tionofit.AselsewhereinJudaism,thisbodyofliteratureisheadedbytheMosaicTorahandconsistsoftheunchangingdecreesofGod.ŽAndinthenextchapterIwillpresentearlierprecedentsforthedelimitationoftheScrip-turestoincludeonlythoseprophetsŽfromthedeathofMosestothetimeofEvenJosephuss“nalcategorizationoftheworks„lawsandthethingswrittenwiththeseŽ(tousnomouskaitasmetatouto¯nanagraphas)„cor-respondstobipartitedescriptionsofJewishliteratureasmadeupofTorahand25.Thackeray,JosephusI,179,181.26.NotealsothatJosephusclaimsasimilarunchangingcharacterfortheGreektranslationoftheTorah,assertingthatithasbeencarefullycorrectedbacktotheoriginalwhenevercopiesdeviated.27.Thisisdiscussedmoreinchapter11,pp.264…65.
synagogue,sabbath,andscripturenon-Torahworks(e.g.,BenSira,Qumran).Finally,JosephussassertionthatallJewsreverethesetextsfrombirthisconsistentwithhisstrongassertionselsewhereofgeneralJewisheducation.WhatisunprecedentedaboutJosephussdescriptionhereisthathenum-bersandliststhebooksincludedinthisJewishbodyofliterature,andhecontraststhisclearlyboundedJewishScripturewiththemore”uidandcon-tradictoryHellenisticbodyofliterature.Aswesaw,theHellenisticcurriculumwasfairlyde“nedalready,focusedparticularlyonHomerandasmallgroupofoft-usedworks,thoughincludingascatteringofless-usedworksaswell.YetthereweresomeexamplesofamoreclearlydelimitedinHellenisticEgypt,whereEgyptianpriestsapparentlywentfurtherthantheGreekteachersinde“ningaboundedliteratureattheheartoftheirscribalapparatus,anumberedlistofancientEgyptianworkscollectedintheirtemples.Josephussargumentshereareasimilarpromotionofasharplyde“nedindig-enousscripturalcollection.HeassertsthatJudaismexceedsHellenisminre-veringaclearlyde“nedgroupofworks,twenty-twoinnumber,thathasnotchangedthroughlongages.ŽThenumber22,signi“cantly,correspondstothenumberingoftheHe-brewalphabet.Thisconnectionismadeexplicitinanumberofearlychurchfathers,severalofwhom,likeOrigen,knewHebreworwereincontactwithJewishauthorities,andsomeofwhomquoteaGreekformofJubileesthatapparentlyincludedalikeningofthenumberofbooksintheJewishcanontothenumberoflettersinthealphabet,forexample,alltheworksaretogether22,equalinnumberwiththe22Hebrewlettersandthe22Hebrewbooksandthe22foundingfathersfromAdamtoJacobasisstatedintheLittleGenesis.ŽManyofthesechurchfatherslongpostdatetheSecondTempleperiodunderdiscussionhere.Nevertheless,asRogerBeckwithargues,itisunlikelythatthesetheologianswouldhavemadeupatraditionthattheOldTestamentwouldcorrespondtothetwenty-two-letterHebrewalphabetsincemostofthemwerewritinginGreek,alanguagewithatwenty-four-letteralphabet.Moreover,theyappeartobequotingfromacommonGreektranslationofJubilees,indeedatranslationthathadnotyetbeencorrectedtoashorterHebrewtextofthesortfoundatQumran.BeckwitharguesthatthislongerGreektranslationofJubi-28.Somehavewishedtoseeinhisinitialthree-partdescriptionofthecontentsofthistwenty-two-bookScriptures„“vebooksofMoses,thirteenbooksofprophetichistory,fourbooksofhymnsandprecepts„evi-dencefortheexistenceoftherabbinictripartitecollectionsofTorah,prophets,andwritings.Asothershavepointedout,however,JosephussnumberinganddescriptionofcontentsofthesethreepartsdonotcorrespondtothoseoftherabbinicTanak(seerecently,SteveMason,JosephusandHisTwenty-Two-BookCanon,ŽinMcDonaldandSanders,CanonDebate,110…27).Instead,JosephussoverviewofthematerialscontainedinwhathelatercharacterizesastheTorahandallieddocumentsŽappearsintendedtoclarifythecontentsofthiscol-lectiontoaGreekaudienceunfamiliarwithanyofthebooks.FormorediscussionseeCarr,CanonizationinCommunity,Ž52…53.29.Inthisnumbering,theletteriscountedasoneunpointedletter.30.Thequotation(fromGeorgiusSyncellus)isfromBeckwith,OldTestamentoftheNewTestamentChurch237.BeckwithincludesanextensivediscussionoftheearliertreatmentofthesequotationsbyCharles,alongwithcorrelationofthoseolderargumentswiththefragmentsofJubileesfromQumran(235…40).
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworldlees,ifitexisted,probablydatestothe“rstcentury.andthusprovidesevidencethatthetwenty-two-letternumberingoftheHebrewScriptureswasalreadycurrentintheHasmonean(orearlyHerodian)period.Thisispoten-tiallysigni“cantformydiscussioninthenextchapteroftheemergenceoftheseScriptures.WhatisimportanthereistheideathatJosephusspresentationofatwenty-two-bookscripturalcorpuslinkstothealphabeticprinciplestandingattheoutsetofandinterwoventhroughHellenisticJewishandGreekeducation:abecedaries,alphabetizedlistsofnames,andacrostics.ThenumberingcitedinJosephus(andpossiblyinGreekJubilees)takesanalphabeticprinciplecom-montobothGreekandHebreweducationandallowspolemicistslikehimtoclaimamoreancientoriginfortheJewishScripturesthanthatofthebodyofGreco-Romanliterature.Moreover,thenuminousqualitiesofthealphabeticsysteminanoral-writtenculture„suchasareseenintheuseofabecedariesaswardsinfunerarycontexts„mayhavebuttressedclaimslikeJosephussfortheantiquityandunchangedcharacterofJewishScriptures.LaterwritersdidnotalwaysagreeinhowtheyconstruedtheJewishScripturesasmadeupoftwenty-twobooks,butongoingin”uenceoftheprincipleofatwenty-two-book,alphabet-likenumberingisdemonstratedbytheirvariousattempts.Preservedin2Esdras,4EzraprovidesadditionalevidenceforaJewishscripturalcorpusnumberingtwenty-somethingbooks,thoughitpresumesthenumberingoftwenty-fourbooksseeninlaterrabbinictraditionratherthanthetwenty-twoseeninJosephus.InthisworkEzra,thelegendaryrecipientoftheMosaicTorah,reportshowhewasgivenadrinkthatincreasedhiswisdomandmemory,afterwhichhedictatedto“vemenasetofninety-fourbooks,writinginascript„probablyHebrew„thattheydidnotknow(2Esd14:38…42).Oftheseninety-fourbooks,hewasinstructedbyGodtomaketwenty-fourpubliclyavailable,whilekeepingtheremainingseventyforthewiseamongyourpeopleŽ(2Esd14:45…46).Theoverallfocusofthepassageisonjustifyingthehigherlearningfoundintheseventyprivatebooksofreve-lation,whichcontainthespringofunderstanding,thefountainofwisdom,andtheriverofknowledgeŽ(2Esd14:47).Nevertheless,thepassageacknowl-edgesinpassingtheexistenceofapublictwenty-four-bookbodyofScriptures,oneavailablenotjusttothewiseŽbuttotheworthyandunworthy.ŽStrangelyenough,thenumber24in4Ezraandlater(Hebrew)rabbinictextscorrespondstothetwenty-four-letternumberingoftheevenasthenumberingoftwenty-twoinJosephusandtheGreekfatherscor-31.Beckwith,OldTestamentoftheNewTestamentChurch,235…36.32.ForasurveyofsomeoftheattemptsseeDuaneChristensen,JosephusandtheTwenty-Two-BookCanonofSacredScripture,ŽJournaloftheEvangelicalTheologicalSociety29(1986):38…44.ChristensenarguesthatEstherwasaparticularlyproblematicbookupintothelaterperiodandthatthenumberoftwenty-fourwaspartlyspurredbytheneedforanalternativenumberingthatcouldincorporateEsther.33.Forcitationofrelevantmentionsoftwenty-fourbooksinJewishScripturesinJerome(asanalternativenumbering)andvariousrabbinictextsseeLudwigBlau,ZurEinleitungindieHeiligeSchrift(Budapest:AdolfAlkalay,1894),6…9;Beckwith,OldTestamentoftheNewTestamentChurch,120,240.
synagogue,sabbath,andscripturerespondstothetwenty-twolettersoftheNevertheless,thenumberstwenty-twoandtwenty-fourareclosetoeachother,andbothcorre-spondtothealphabeticprinciplesocentraltoeducationinboththeGreekandHebrewsystems.Moreover,theemphasisin4Ezraonthepubliccharacterofthetwenty-fourbookscorrespondstoJosephussstrongclaimsfortheantiquityandwidespreadcharacterofthetwenty-twobookJewishscripturalcanon.Tobesure,thereisstillsome”uidity.Thenumberingofbooksisnotyet“xed„twenty-twoversustwenty-four„andtheemphasisonthegreaterwisdomintheseventysecretbooksre”ectsongoingdebateaboutthesigni“canceofthisbodyofpublicScriptures.Still,thecorrelationof4EzraandJosephusonthealphabet-likenumberingandpubliccharacterofJewishScripturesissigni“-Thiscomparisonwith4EzrashowsthatitwouldbewrongtoattributeJosephussentirepresentationofJewisheducationandliteraturetohispolem-icalaims.Tobesure,writinginGreekandincon”ictualsettings,Josephus„likePhilo„oftenmoldshispresentationtopresentJudaismpositivelyintermsofHellenisticeducationandtextuality.Nevertheless,instancesliketheafore-mentionedcorrelationwith4EzrasuggestthatsomeofJosephussclaimsre”ectabroadersituation,oneinwhichrelativelydisparategroupsintheJu-daismofhistimealreadyacceptasimilarbodyofJewishScripture,numberedincorrespondencewithoneoranotheralphabeticschemeandincludingbothTorahandabodyofnon-Torahbooks.Furthermore,Josephusappearstothinkhecanmakecredibleclaimsfortheantiquityofthisalphabeticallyde“nedbodyofscriptures,claimsthatwoulddisqualifyotherpointshemakesinhisargumentsagainstApioniftheycouldbedisproveneasily.Therefore,weshouldnotassumethatthistwenty-two-ortwenty-four-bookbodyofScripture“rstemergedinthelate“rstcentury,althoughitismostclearlyattestedthen.Iturnnowtodiscussionofthemostprobablecontextfortheinitialestablish-mentofthishardened,alphabeticallybasedconceptofJewishScriptures:theeventssurroundingtheemergenceoftheHasmoneanmonarchyanditsex-pansionintopreviouslynon-Judeanareas.34.Beckwith(OldTestamentoftheNewTestamentChurch,250…52)decisivelylinksthetwenty-two-booknumberingtothenumberingoftheHebrewalphabet(perhapsbecauseofthepossiblecitationsfromGreekJubilees),despiteitsattestationprimarilyinGreek-languageworks.Nevertheless,herejectstheideathatthetwenty-four-booknumberingislinkedtothenumberingoftheGreekalphabetbecauseofthelackofattestationoftwenty-fourbooksinworksofAlexandrianorigin(esp.Philo)andcertainconsiderationsregardingtheprobablewaysinwhichtheAlexandrianJewswouldhavecountedtheirbooks.Sincewehavenoexplicitstatementthatthetwenty-four-booknumberingoftheJewishScripturesislinkedtotheGreekalphabet,itismoredif“culttoprovethattherewassuchalink.Nevertheless,wealsoshouldnotpresupposesuchachasmbetweenGreekspeakingJewsŽandAramaicspeakingJewsŽ(Beckwith,OldTestamentoftheNewTestamentChurch,250)thatitwouldbeimpossibleforJewishscholarsoftheRomanperiod,evenJewswhoknewAramaicorHebrew(oftenGreek),topreferanumberingcorrespondingtotheGreekalphabettolisttheHebrewScripturesprominentinJewisheducation.AsHezsershows(JewishLiteracy,85,90…94),thereisgoodevidenceforeducationinGreekalongsideeducationinHebrew,evenincontextslikeMasadaandwellintotherabbinicperiod.Thisproduced“gureslikeJosephus,whowerethoroughlyshapedbyHebrewandGreekalphabeticallybasededucation.35.ForthispointandotherdiscussionofthispassageinthebroadercontextofJosephusswritingsseeMason,JosephusandHisCanon.Ž
This page intentionally left blank
TheOriginsofScriptureasaHellenistic-StyleAnti-HellenisticCurriculumInanarticleIwrotein1996,Iarguedthatthedestructionofthetempleanditsimmediateaftermathwasthekeyperiodforthecon-solidationoftheScripturesre”ectedinJosephusand4Ezra;chapterwillmodifythatpositionsomewhat.Iwillargueherethattheoriginsof(1)widespreadHebrewstudyoutsidethetempleand(2)hardenedScriptureslieearlier.Bothdevelopmentswereinte-grallyconnectedtotheHasmoneanspromotionofapurportedlyanti-Greekandpro-Jewishculture,ahighlyhybridconstructionthatre-”ectedformsofGreekcultureevenasit„initially„opposedthatculture.ThoughsomeformsofJudaismdidnotacceptkeypartsofthisconstruction(e.g.,theanti-Hasmonean,Qumrancommunity),thetextual-educationalsystemthatwaspartofitwasdecisiveinshapingmuchofsubsequentJudaism.Sincethisargumentiscomplex,Istartwithananticipationofitsmainpointandparts.IwillbearguinginwhatfollowsthattheemergentJewishScriptures„likethoseseeninEgypt„originatedasahybrid,indigenousresponseofJudeanroyal-templeelitestoGreektextualityandeducation.Morespeci“cally,theJewishBible,soclearlyestablishedinthe“rstcentury.,originatedinthesec-ondcentury.asapurportedlypre-HellenisticdepositofsacredHebrewtexts,adepositinitiallystandingopposedtoanddistin-guishedfromthecorpusofGreekeducationaltexts.ThiscollectionofHebrewScripturesŽwaspromotedbytheHasmoneanroyalpriesthoodaspartofabroaderconsolidationoftheirculturallydi-versekingdom,aconsolidationthatwaspartlymadepossiblethrough1.Cf.Carr,CanonizationinCommunity,Ž34…58.
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworldthespeci“cationofaclearlyboundededucationalcurriculumconsist-ingofTorah(aboveall)andade“nedgroupofnon-TorahtextsunderstoodasProphetsŽbutincludingbookslikePsalmsthatarenotincludedinthelaterrabbinicProphetsŽsectionoftheTanach.AsweseeincasesliketheQumranEssenes,thisattemptattextualconsolidationdidnotsucceedequallywithallgroups.Moreover,itappearstohaveexistedalongsideongoingGreekandGreek-likeculturalformsinJudaism,includingongoingJewishparticipationinGreekeducationandtextuality.Nevertheless,thisbroaderTorah-ProphetsHebrewscripturalcollectionbecomes„bythe“rstcentury.atthelatest„apointoforientationfordiversegroupsinJudaism,groupsbythatpointhos-tilelyengagedwithanotherempire,Rome.TheIssueofGreekŽversusHebrewŽinEarlySecond-CenturySourcesItshouldbemadeclearattheoutsetthatseveralrecentstudieshavearguedforthepatentlyconstructedcharacterofliterarydepictionsoftheHasmoneanpresentationoftheirrebellionasanti-Hellenistic(e.g.,1and2Maccabees).Asoneimportantstudynotes,theculturalcontest,inshort,hasbeenover-Thereasonsforskepticismabouttheprominenceofanti-HellenismasafactorintheMaccabeanrebellionarevarious.AsHeinemannalreadyarguedinthe1930s,thereisasigni“cantdiscrepancybetweenthemostclearlyHellenisticŽinitiativesofJasoninthemid-170sandtherebellionunderJudasMaccabeusintheearly160s.IfHellenismŽwassoproblematic,whydoesrebelliononlyoccurunderMenelaus,whoisaccusedofmanycrimesin1and2MaccabeesbutnotexplicitlyHellenisticmeasures?Inaddition,evenJasonsHellenismappearstohavebeenoverblowninthesources,startingwiththemerefoundingofagymnasiumandthewearingofGreek-stylehatsin2Mac-cabees,beforenewcrimesofnudenessandthereversalofcircumcisionareaddedinsourceslike1Maccabees,Jubilees,andJosephus.Oncetherebellionisactuallyunderway,thesourcesappeartodepictitasabattleforJudaismratherthananattackonHellenists.TheHasmoneansthemselvesappeartorisetopowerthroughstudiedcollaborationwithSeleucidrulers,andtheirsupportersappeartobedrawnbroadlyfromvariousgroupsofthetime.Indeed,eventhesupposedlyanti-HellenistHasideansappeartohavebeenwillingtoallywiththeHellenistŽpriestAlcimus(1Macc7:13…18),andother“guresassociatedwiththeHasmoneans,suchasEupolemus,wouldhavebeenthor-oughlyeducatedinHellenistictextsandrhetoric,sothattheycouldfunctionsuccessfullyasliaisonstotheRomans(1Macc8:17;2Macc4:11).NumerousaspectsoftheHasmoneanmovementarethoroughlyimbuedwithHellenism,includingbutnotcon“nedtotheirdevelopmentofafakegenealogylinking2.ErichS.Gruen,HeritageandHellenism:TheReinventionofJewishTradition(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1998),9.
originsofscriptureasanti-hellenisticcurriculumtheJudeanstoSparta,theengravingoftheresolutionof140.ontablets,themintingofcoins,andtheuseofGreekdocumentslike2Maccabeesinroyalpropaganda.YettheHasmoneankings,despitetheirTorahobservance,areuntraditionalinmanyrespects,takingonthehighpriesthooddespitetheirexposuretocorpseimpurityandlackofZadokitelineage.Suchaspects,itisargued,wouldnotbetypicalofamonarchyfoundedprimarilyonatradition-alistoppositiontoHellenism.ŽTheseargumentshavemerit,butthereareindicatorsthatsuchanap-proachwouldbemistakeninsofarasitpositsthatoppositiontoHellenisticculturewasnofactoratallintheemergenceoftheHasmoneans.Onthecontrary,itappearstohavebeenimportantontwolevels.First,HellenistictextualityandenculturationappeartohavebeenoneimportantfactorintheemergenceoftheHasmoneanmonarchy.Second,andmoreimportant,theconstructanti-HellenismŽappearstohavebeenkeyintheHasmoneansownpresentationofthemselves,evenastheirmonarchyboremanyclear„tooureyes„linkstoHellenisticculture.IstartwithseveralindicatorsthatHellenisticenculturationandtextualityprobablywereimportantelementsintheeventualemergenceoftheHasmo-neanmonarchy.InmydiscussionofEgyptIpointedtoindicatorsofacultureclashorganizedalongthelinesofGreekversusnon-Greek.Ontheonehand,therewasevidenceofGreekdisdainfornon-Greeks.Ontheotherhand,wesawthesolidi“cationofindigenousnon-Greektemplecollectionsandtheemergenceofpriestlyanti-Greekliterature.SuchoppositiontooverlordshadlongbeenpresentinEgypt(andelsewhere),butitreceivedanewanti-GreekcoloringinPtolemaic-andRoman-periodEgyptianresistancedocuments.WiththepossibleexceptionofearlylayersofEnoch,suchoppositiontoHellenismdoesnotappeartohavebeenasprominentinthird-centuryPtolemaicPales-tine.Nevertheless,itappearstohavereceivedanewimpetuswiththeshiftofJerusalem/JudahtoSeleucidruleand,inparticular,AntiochusIVsintroduc-tion„mostlyintheSyrianarea„oftheolderHellenisticpracticeofcityfound-ings.ThoughsuchfoundingsdonotappeartohavebeenprominentintheimmediateareaofPalestine,theyprobablyformedthebackgroundbothfor(1)theattemptofJerusalemeliteslikeJasontoseizethemomentandtakestepstowardtransferringJerusalemtoamoreopenHellenizedcitymodeland(2)AntiochusIVslaterreadiness„perhapsfollowingtheleadofsomelocalau-3.ShayeCohen,TheBeginningsofJewishness:Boundaries,Varieties,Uncertainties(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1999),139.See1Macc12:5…23;Josephus4.TheforegoingisabriefoverviewofmoredetailedargumentstobefoundinEddy,KingIsDead,238…44;JonathanGoldstein,JewishAcceptanceandRejectionofHellenism,ŽinJewishandChristianSelf-De“nitioned.E.P.Sandersetal.(London:SCM,1981),64…87;RobertDoran,JasonsGymnasium,ŽinOfScribesandScrolls:StudiesontheHebrewBible,IntertestamentalJudaism,andChristianOriginsPresentedtoJohnStrugnellontheOccasionofHisSixtiethBirthday,ed.HaroldW.Attridge,JohnJ.Collins,andThomasH.Tobin(Lanham,MD:UniversityPressofAmerica,1990),106…8;Gruen,HeritageandHellenism,1…40;Schwartz,andJewishSociety,33…35.5.ApointmadewellinT.Rajak,TheHasmoneansandtheUsesofHellenism,ŽinATributetoGezaVermes:EssaysonJewishandChristianliteratureandHistory,ed.PhilipR.DaviesandRichardT.White(Shef“eld:JSOTPress,1990),261…80.
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworldthorities„toenforcetheHellenizationofJerusalemthroughathoroughgoingattackonTorah-observantJudaism.ThereisprecedentelsewhereintheHel-lenisticworldofindigenousculturesself-deconstructingthroughtheadoptionofGreekidentityandculturebytheirlocalelites.Moreover,moredetailedanalysesoftheHellenisticcrisisbyBickerman,MartinHengel,andRobertDoranhavearguedpersuasivelythat1and2Maccabeesre”ectasimilarini-tiativeinJudaism.WealreadysawinthelastchapterhowthegymnasiumwasanorganizingcenterandpinnacleofHellenizedcommunitiesinEgyptandelsewhere,suchthatJasonsfoundingofsuchaninstitutionwouldhaverep-resentedacrucialstepforwardintheeducation-enculturationoftheJerusalemeliteasHellenists.Furthermore,1and2Maccabeesdepicttheseleadersinwaysthatsuggestthattheiraimwastheeducation-enculturationoftheeliteofJerusalemawayfromtheseparatistaimsofTorahandtowardtheworldciti-zenshiptypicalofHellenisticeducation:LetusgoandmakeacovenantwiththeGentilesroundaboutus,forsinceweseparatedfromthemmanyevilshavecomeonusŽ(1Macc1:11).Thoughlatersourceslike1MaccabeesandJosephuscaricaturethisinitia-tiveintermsdrawnfromthebiblicaltradition,Doranpersuasivelyarguesthatthethingatissuehereisthegymnasiumasasymbolofabroaderprocessofeducation-enculturationthatincludesboththeathleticelementssocentraltotheHellenisticgymnasiumandthetextualelementsassociatedwithbothgym-nasiumsandtherestoftheHellenisticeducationalsystem.TheemergenceoftheJerusalemgymnasiumwastheculminationofalongerprocessofgradualandlargelyunproblematicadoptionofGreektextualityinJewishculture,notonlyintheDiasporabutalsoinPalestine;notonlyinnonpriestlycirclesbutalso„asinJasonscase„in(Zadokite)priestlygroups.ThefoundingofagymnasiumwouldnotbethebeginningoftheestablishmentofaGreekeducation-enculturationalsystem,butitsculminationandconsolidationthroughtheadoptionoftheoneelementthatmostdistinguishedHellenisticfromJewisheducation:athletics.TheimpetustowardovercomingJewishseparatismthroughintensi“edinstitutionalizationofHellenisticenculturationdidnotendwithJasonsde-parture.ThereisnoreportoftheclosingofthegymnasiumunderMenelaus,andJosephusdepictshimassupportedbytheHellenizedTobiadsandrespon-6.Schwartz,ImperialismandJewishSociety,25…27.7.EliasJosephBickerman,TheGodoftheMaccabees:StudiesontheMeaningandOriginoftheMaccabean,trans.HorstR.Moehring(Leiden:Brill,1979[originally1937]);Hengel,JudaismandHellenism,267…309;Doran,JasonsGymnasium,ŽandTheHighCostofaGoodEducation,ŽinHellenismintheLandofIsrael,ed.JohnJ.CollinsandGregoryE.Sterling(NotreDame,IN:UniversityofNotreDamePress,2001),94…115.Thematerialthatfollowsrepresentsasynthesisofsomeinsightsfromthestudiescitedearlier.ForahelpfuloverviewandassessmentofthedebateseeLesterGrabbe,ThePersianandGreekPeriods,vol.1ofJudaismfromCyrusto(Minneapolis:FortressPress,1992),247…58.8.Bickerman,GodoftheMaccabees,84…86;Hengel,JudaismandHellenism,299…300.9.Doran,JasonsGymnasiumŽ;HighCost,Ž106…15.Notealsothediscussionofthedepictionofthiscon”ictin2MaccabeesbyMarthaHimmelfarb,JudaismandHellenismin2Maccabees,ŽPoeticsToday(1998):27…30.
originsofscriptureasanti-hellenisticcurriculumsibleforinstigatingAntiochusIVsattackonJudaism(.12.384…385).addition,BickermanandHengelarguepersuasivelythatonlytheinitiativeofalocalpartyschooledintheimportanceofspeci“callyJewishtraditionscouldexplainthepeculiarturnofAntiochusIVsattackonJewishobservance,anattackthatconspicuouslycontrastswiththetreatmentofsimilarlyJewishcom-munitiesliketheoneinSamaria.Notably,thisattackappearstohavefocusednotonlyonJewishpracticeslikeavoidingporkbutalsoonJewishtextuality.Both1and2MaccabeesreportanorderbyAntiochusfortheJewstoforsakethelawsoftheirfathers/God(1Macc1:49;2Macc6:1),and1MaccabeesreportsthatthosewhoforsookthelawattemptedtosystematicallydestroyallcopiesoftheTorah(1:56)andkillanyonepossessingacopyorobeyingit(1:57…58).Insum,thesesourcesappeartore”ecttheunfoldingofanincreasinglyhostileencounterthatincludedacon”ictbetweentwoformsoftext-supportededucation-enculturation:(1)someformofJewisheducation-enculturationintoTorahobservance,and(2)education-enculturationintoamorebroadlyde“nedHellenisticidentity.Sucheducation-enculturationseemstohavecoexistedinearlierPalestine,atleastamongitsmoreelitegroups,andHellenisticeduca-tionappearstohavecontinuedaftertherevolt,despitetheanti-Hellenisticprotestationsofsomepost-Hasmoneandocuments.Whatwasnewwasthis:themovementunderJasontomakeGreekeducation-enculturationmorecen-tralinJerusalem,andtheeventualpushbyAntiochusIV„withthecoopera-tionandeveninitiativeofcertaineliteslikeMenelaus„toeradicateTorah-focused,Hebrewidentity.Howevermuchthisistrue„andmanyaspectsoftheforegoingoutlinehavelongbeenavailableinworkslikeBickermansandHengels„whatisevenmoreclearisthattheHasmoneansandsomeoftheirsupportersstylizedtheirownmonarchyasananti-Hellenizingconstruct.ItmaybecleartousnowjusthowHellenizedŽtheHasmoneansandtheirsupporterswere.WemayrealizenowthattheHellenisticcrisisŽwasmorecon“nedthananddif-ferentlyfocusedfromtheversionofitthatispresentedinbookslike1and2Maccabees.Nevertheless,keyaspectsoftheHasmoneansself-presentationsuggestthattheyfounditusefultodeveloporaugmenttheconceptofHel-10.Cf.,however,KlausBringmann,HellenistischeReformundReligionsverfolgunginJuda¨a:EineUntersu-chungzurju¨disch-hellenistischenGeschichte(175…163v.Chr.),AbhandlungenderAkadamiederWissenschaften¨ttingen:VandenhoeckandRuprecht,1983),93…96,whoarguesthattheHellenisticreformendedwithJasonsdepartureandMenelaussaccessiontothehighpriesthood.HearguesthisfromthesilenceaboutthegymnasionintherestofMaccabeesandonthebasisofhisreadingoftheletterin2Macc11:27…33,whichdepartsfromtypicalHellenisticexpressionsinreferringtothelocalcouncilofleadersandencouragesthemtofollowMenelausinreturningtoJewishfoodsandlaws.ThislettercertainlydoespresupposethattheelementsofpersecutionofJewishobservanceareover,butmuchofBringmannsargumentdependsonthesilenceofthetextsratherthanexplicittestimonythatMenelausendedearlierinitiatives.Bringmann(esp.130…32)doesemphasizeMenelaussroleinbringingaboutthepersecutionthroughreplacingworshipofYHWHwithworshipoftheSyrianLordofHeavenreveredbythelocallystationedSyriantroupsbutarguesthatthiswasexclusivelyadesparationmeasurebyaleaderwhohadlosteverypossibleformofsupportfromthelocalpopulace.11.FordiscussionseeBickerman,GodoftheMaccabees,108…11;Hengel,JudaismandHellenism,283…89(withcitationofotherrepresentativesofthisviewinvol.2,192,n.203).12.HereagainC.Hezserssurveyisimportant(JewishLiteracy,90…94).
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworldlenizerŽasakeyopponentintheirfoundingmyths.MultipleaspectsofHas-moneanruleappeartore”ectanemergingformofHellenized,anti-Hellenistic,ŽTorah-observantJudaism.Assuchtheyrepresentaparticularlyhybridmixof(1)anti-Greekpropagandaalongwithpromotionandextensionofastylizednon-Greekindigenousculture,and(2)theuseofGreekformstoadvancesuchpropagandaandculturewithinamonarchyadoptingsigni“cantelementsofHellenisticculture.Indeed,itmaybethattheprominentanti-HellenismoflaterHasmoneanandJewishtraditionsmayhavebeenpromptedinpartbyanxietyabouttheirongoingandbroadlinkagetoHellenisticculturalOthershavesurveyedtheanti-HellenizingelementsoftheHasmoneanself-presentation.Spacedoesnotallowafullreviewhere.Instead,inwhatfollowsIwillfocusparticularlyonthosetraditionssurroundingHasmoneanrulethatbearparticularlyonhowthishybridHellenistic/anti-HellenismmixshapedemergentJewisheducationandtextuality.Myargumentisthatthispeculiarmixprovidedacrucialimpetusforatleasttwodevelopments:(1)theshapingandhardeningoftheJewishScripturesintoapurportedlypre-Hellenisticcollection,and(2)thestudieduseofthishardenedcollectionasthefocalpointofaGreek-like,butHebrew,educationalprocess,aprocessprivilegingJudeanelitesandotherseducatedinHebrewScripturesamidanincreasinglyexpansiveHasmoneankingdom.AsMarthaHimmelfarbandTessaRajakhaveshown,theforegoingpos-tulatedcontradictionsbetweenHellenisticandanti-Hellenisticelementsemergewithparticularclarityin2Maccabees.ThetextiswritteninGreekandre”ectstheauthorsthorougheducationintheGreekliterarytradition.ItissaturatedwithGreekliterarygenres,anditpromotes„albeitwithHebrewexamplesandconstantechoesofJewishScripturesliketheAqedah„Greekeducationalandcharactervalueslikenobility,reason,beauty,self-control,andtheabilitytosacri“cefamilialrelationships.Moreover,theauthorpresentshisownGreektextasapossiblefocusformemorizationofthetypewehaveseenelsewhereinGreekeducation,withtheauthorstylingthestorysoitdelightstheearsŽ(15:39)andshapingittopleasethosewhowishtoread,tomakeiteasyforthosewhoareinclinedtomemorize,andtopro“tallreadersŽ(2Macc2:25).Intheseways,2MaccabeesisaJewishexample,fromtheHas-moneanperiod,ofGreek-languageoral-writtentextuality.Thistext,however,depictstheentiresequenceofeventsleadinguptothedefeatofNicanorasoriginatinginamisguidedattempttotheJewishpeople,startingwithJasonsshiftofthepeopletotheGreekwayoflifeŽ(prostonhelle¯nikonchar-¯ra)andconcomitantforsakingofthelaw(2Macc4:10…17;cf.1:7).ThisthenprecedesLysiass(eventual)attempttomakeJerusalemahomeforGreeksŽ(2Macc11:2)and„afterLysiassdefeat„AntiochusVspurportedrecognitionoftheJewishpreferenceoftheirancestralwaystoourfathers13.NoteinparticularthenuancedbalanceoftheseperspectivesinRajak,UsesofHellenism.Ž14.OneparticularlyhelpfulsurveyisHimmelfarb,JudaismandHellenism,Ž32…40.
originsofscriptureasanti-hellenisticcurriculumchangetoGreekcustomsŽ(2Macc11:24).Overall,2MaccabeespresentsanaccountofunsuccessfulattemptstodestroyJewishlifeandpromoteGreekcustomsbygreedyGreekrulers,attemptspromptedbyunscrupulousJewisheliteslikeJasonandsuccessfullyresistedbyTorah-observant,God-fearingŽcharacterslikeEleazar(6:18…31;cf.BenSira).Inaddition,prophetictextsareinvolved.ThoughtheresistanceisfocusedonpreservingTorahobservance,2MaccabeesdepictsJudasencouraginghisfollowersfromboththelawandtheprophetsŽ(2Macc15:9),andheisdepictedrepeatedlycitingthenarrative„foundin2KingsandIsaiah„ofGodsmiraculousdestructionoftheenemiesoftheJewsduringthetimeofSennacherib(2Macc8:19;15:22;2Kgs19:35//IsaThoughaGreektext,2MaccabeescombineswithothersourcesfromtheperiodintestifyingtotheemergenceoftheHebrewlanguageasakeysymbolofindigenousculture,asymbolopposedtotheGreekculturepromotedby“gureslikeJasonorenforcedbyAntiochusIV.Twiceinthecentralnarrativeofthemartyrdomofthesevenbrothersandtheirmother,charactersspeaktoeachotherinthelanguageof[their]fathersŽ(7:8,27),aconstructthatislinkedherewiththeMosaiclawofthefathersŽsocentralthroughoutthenarrative(e.g.7:37).JudaslaterexhortshistroopsinthelanguageoftheirfathersŽ(12:This,then,correlateswiththefactthattheothermajorpro-Hasmoneanaccountoftheoriginsofthemonarchy,1Maccabees,waswritteninarchaizingHebrew.Soalso,Hasmoneancoins„thoughmintedfollowingHellenisticcustom„featureHebrewinscriptionsinpaleo-Hebrewwriting.ThisnationalisticfocusonHebrewisnotsomethingcon“nedtotheHas-moneans.SethSchwartzsurveysprecursorstoitinthird-centurymaterials.Inaddition,weseeasimilarfocusonHebrewinstreamsofJudaismthatpro-motedthesolarcalendar,apparentlyopposedtothelunaroneusedbytheHasmoneans.JubileesdescribeshowAbraham,thefatheroftheJewishnation,wastaughtbothHebrewandHebrewScripturesbyanangelduringtherainyseason(Jub12:25…27).SchniedewindhasshownthatQumranHebrewisahyperarchaicformofthelanguage.Indeed,certainQumrancommunitydoc-umentspromotetheirformoftheholylanguageasyetmorecorrectthanthatoftheiropponents.ThusanypromotionofHebrewbytheHasmoneanstookplacewithinabroadercontextwheresuchpromotionwascompelling.Whatareimportantherearetwothings:(1)thisfocusonHebrewintheHellenisticperiodwouldrepresentaformofhybridculturalresistancetoatextual-15.FordiscussionofvariousassertionsinthesourcesthatAntiochusIValsoinstitutedGreekworshipinthetemple(e.g.2Macc6:2)seethesurveyofliteratureinGrabbe,Judaism16.Notealsothecitationofpara-Jeremiahtraditionsin2Macc2:1…8andthevisionofJeremiahin2Macc17.Schwartz,Language,PowerandIdentity,Ž26.18.JonathanGoldstein,1Maccabees:ANewTranslation,withIntroductionandCommentary,AB(GardenCity,NY:Doubleday,1976),4…26(see14forhiscommentsontheHebrew).19.ForfulldiscussionseeSchwartz,Language,PowerandIdentity,Ž25…31.20.Schniedewind,QumranAntilanguage,ŽandSchniedewind,LinguisticIdeologyinQumran,Žesp.
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworldeducationalsystemfocusedongainingcompetencein,and(2)thiside-ologicalfocusonHebrewbeginstobewidespreadintheyearsfollowingthefoundingoftheHasmoneanmonarchy,evenindissidentcommunitieslikethatatQumran.Meanwhile,asShayeCohenhasargued,weseeanotherhybriddevelop-mentassociatedwiththeHasmoneanmonarchy:theemergenceforthe“rsttimeofaJewishidentitynotexclusivelybasedinethnicaf“liation.Itisaroundtheearlysecondcenturythatwe“rstseestoriesofconversionŽtoJudaismandotherindicatorsthatJewishidentity,likeHellenisticGreekŽidentity,isbecomingawayoflife,a,ratherthannationalidentity.Before,JewishŽmeantJudean,Žjustasmanyotherpeopleswerede“nedbytheirethniciden-tity.Yet,aswesawearlieron,HellenismintroducedtheideaofatransethnicGreekŽidentityde“nedbywhetherornotanindividualhadtakenonGreekculture,includingundergoingsomeformof(Hellenistic)Greekeducation-enculturation.Cohenshowsthatitisinthetimeofthepurportedlyanti-HellenisticHasmoneansthatwe“rstseetheemergenceofasimilarformationinJudaism:theideaofaJewishidentitybasedonaTorah-focusedwithcircumcision)inadditiontoethnicorigin.ThisemergentJewishallowedtheincorporationbytheHasmoneansofnon-JudeanbutcircumcisedpeoplesliketheIdumaeansandIturaeansintotheirexpandingregionalem-pire.Cohenexplicitlycomparesthisdevelopmenttocontemporaryexamplesofculturalhybridity,wherethoseinacolonizedpeoplewhohavebeenmostaffectedbycolonialculturearethe“rsttotakeupthetoolsofthatcultureandusethosetoolstoresistit.TheEmergenceofHebrewScripturesŽConsistingofTorahandProphetsŽintheHasmoneanPeriodInterestingly,CohendoesnotconnecttheemergenceofthisGreek-likeJew-ishŽidentitywitheducationorthemasteryofHebrewandHebrewliterature.Indeed,heexplicitlyrejectstheideathatthisidentityincludedafocusonHebrewanalogoustothefocusonGreekŽinitsHelleniccounterpart.Yetanincreasingnumberofstudiesarepointingtoexactlythisperiodasthekeytimefortheemergenceofamorede“nedcollectionofScriptures.Indeed,theScripturesthatemergeatthispointappeartoconsistalmostexclusivelyofdocumentswritteninHebrew,thelanguagenewlyideologizedbytheHas-moneans,amongothers.Inthefollowingsection,Ibuildonthisinsighttoarguethefollowing:thattheHebrew-languagenationalismSchwartzfocusesonandtheemergentTorah-basedJewishCohenstudiesbothissuedinaspeci“callyJewishŽformofenculturation-educationwithHebrewŽScrip-turesatitscenter.Thus,justaseliteHellenicidentityappearstohavebeen21.SeeCohen,BeginningsofJewishness,109…39,esp.135…39.22.Cohen,BeginningsofJewishness,132…35.
originsofscriptureasanti-hellenisticcurriculumshapedbyeducationandparticipationinaculturede“nedbyGreekliterature,theHasmoneanperiodsawtheemergenceandgradualdiffusionofanemer-genteliteJewishidentityshapedbyasharplyde“nedcollectionofHebrewtexts.Greekculturalformswerenowopposed,balanced,and/orsupplementedbyadistinctivelyJewish,purportedlypre-HellenisticHebrewformofbased„atleastforelites„inaHebrewIstartwithseveralindicatorsthatagroupoftextsemergedasScriptureintheearlysecondcentury.,acollectionliketheBibledescribedbyJo-sephus(1.38…41)andassumedby4Ezra(14:38…47).First,asArieVanderKooijinparticularhasobserved,thereisasigni“cantshiftfromthekindofcurriculumdescribedbyBenSirahimselfin39:1…3andhisgrandsonsrefer-encetoTorah,Prophets,and[otherwritingsŽseveraltimesintheprologuetohisbook.BenSirasowncurriculumdescriptioniswrittensomewherearoundtheturnfromthethirdtothesecondcenturyandincludesTorah,wisdom,prophecies,parables,andproverbs,includingmaterialgleanedfromforeigntravels(39:1…4).Incontrast,hisgrandsonrepeatedlyreferstothreeitems,twoofwhicharephrasedinexactlythesamewayeachtime,TorahŽandproph-ets,Žandathirdgroupwhosedesignationvaries:othersthatfollowedthemŽ/otherbooksofourfathersŽ/restofthebooks.ŽLaterIwillreturntodiscussthisvariablethirdcategory,butthisquotationissigni“cantherebecauseitstandsasoneofthe“rstclearmentionsofTorahandProphetsŽasastandardpairandbecauseitcontrastswiththecontentsofthetextitintroduces.seesimilarreferencestoTorahandProphetsŽin1and2Maccabees,Qumran,andavarietyof“rst-centurytexts.Thisgroupofprophets,Žmoreover,appearstobenewlyde“nedinthisperiod.The“rstreferencetotheideathatprophecyhadceased,thussettingaprobablelimittothebooksthatmightbecontainedinsuchprophets,Žoccursin1Maccabees(1Macc9:27;cf.4:44…46;14:41).Finally,therearetwoothershiftsthatsuggestanincreasedfocusonastabilizedgroupofScripturesinthesecondcentury.InaforthcomingarticleLangeshowsasigni“cantreductioninallusionstoparabiblicaltextsinSecondTem-pleJewishwritingsandtheappearanceofcitationsofscripturalbooksastexts(ratherthanmereallusionstotheircontents).Moreover,MosesSegal,MosheGreenberg,DominiqueBarthe´lemy,andothersobservedlongagoanincreas-ingstabilizationoftheHebrewbiblicaltextbeginningbythe“rstcenturyTheseindicatorswillbediscussedinmoredetaillater.Whatiscrucial23.VanderKooij,Canonization,Ž33…36.24.AsGoshen-Gottsteinsuggests,thisdivisionbetweenTorahandProphetsŽisanticipatedinthedivisionbetweenTorahandpost-TorahbooksinBenSirasoverviewofspeci“callyIsraelitefathersŽ(BenSirasPraiseoftheFathersŽ).25.WilliamSchniedewind,TheWordofGodinTransition:FromProphettoExegeteintheSecondTemple,JSOTSup(Shef“eld:Shef“eldAcademicPress,1995),241…49,putsthemovesomewhatearlier.FordiscussionoftherelevanttextsseeChapman,LawandtheProphets,264…66.26.A.Lange,FromLiteraturetoScripture:TheUnityandPluralityoftheHebrewScripturesinLightoftheQumranLibrary.ŽInOneScriptureorMany?CanonfromBiblical,Theological,andPhilosophicalPerspectivesed.C.HelmerandC.Landmesser(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2004).27.M.H.Segal,ThePromulgationoftheAuthoritativeTextoftheHebrewBible,Ž72(1953):35…47;MosheGreenberg,TheStabilizationoftheTextoftheHebrewBible,Ž76(1956):157…67;Dominique
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworldatthispointisthewaytheypointtowardtheearlysecondcentury.asasigni“cantturningpointintheestablishmentofamoreclearlyde“nedcollec-tionofHebrewScriptures,acollectionmadeupatleastofTorahandTosuggestthattheHebrewScripturesemergedintheearlysecondcenturyisnotnew.NeitherisahypothesisthatlinksthisdevelopmentwiththeHas-noronethatlinkstheHebrewScripturesinsomewaywithanti-orwitheducation.WhatIwillattemptinwhatfollowsistoputtheseideastogetherwithotheremphasesinthisbookandpresentthemorespeci“cthesisthattheJewishHebrewScriptureswerede“nedandfunctionedwithintheregionalempireoftheHasmoneansaspartofaprojectofspeci“-callyHebrew(andnon-Greek)education-enculturationtocreateaJewishŽidentity.Thisidentitywasanalogousyetopposedtotheemergent,transna-tionalHellenisticŽidentityoftheHellenisticeducationalsystem.MystartingpointisthefactthattheHasmoneanstookonthemantleofthehighpriesthood,thusplacingthemselvesatthecenteroftextualityinlateSecondTempleJudaism.Inaddition,theirpromotionofHebrewtextualityparallelsthepreservationofindigenoustextualitybypriestsinHellenisticEgyptandelsewhere.Morespeci“cally,thebooksof1and2MaccabeeseachindicatethattextualitywasakeypartoftheHasmoneansbroaderideologicalIn1MaccabeestheHasmoneansaredepictedsuccessfullydefeatingthosewhowoulddestroyorforsaketheTorah(1:56…57),whiletheythemselvesshapetheirwholeresistanceinaccordancewiththebookofthelawŽ(3:46…´lemy,LesdevanciersdAquila:premie`republicationinte´graledutextedesfragmentsduDode´caprophe´tontrouvedanslede´sertdeJuda,VTSup(Leiden:Brill,1963)andthemorerecentcommentsinJamesA.Sanders,TheIssueofClosureintheCanonicalProcess,ŽinMcDonaldandSanders,CanonDebate,254…55,andTov,AncientSynagogues,Ž245…55.
28.Forexample,LudwigBlau,Studienzumalthebra¨ischenBuchwesenundzurbiblischenLiteratur-undTextgeschichte(Strasbourg:KarlTru¨bner,1902),107;Segal,Promulgation,Ž40;Greenberg,Stabilization,Ž160…61;ShnaverZ.Leiman,TheCanonizationofHebrewScripture:TheTalmudicandMidrashicEvidence,TransactionsoftheConnecticutAcademyofArtsandSciences(Hamden,CT:Archon,1976),131…35;Beckwith,OldTestamentoftheNewTestamentChurch,151…53;PhilipR.Davies,ScribesandSchools,177…82;TheJewishScripturalCanoninCulturalPerspective,ŽinMcDonaldandSanders,CanonDebate,49…50;vanderKooij,Canonization,Ž37…38;CanonizationofAncientHebrewBooksandHasmoneanPolitics,ŽinTheBiblicalCanons,ed.J-M.AuwersandH.J.DeJonge(Louvain,Belgium:LouvainUniversityPress,2003),27…38;Lange,FromLiteratureto29.Forexample,Bickerman,JewsintheGreekAge,170…74.30.ExamplesincludeNathanMorris,TheJewishSchool:AnIntroductiontotheHistoryofJewishEducation(London:EyreandSpottiswoode,1937),11…12,37…47;Gerhardsson,MemoryandManuscript,27;Hengel,JudaismandHellenism,77…83;Baumgarten,FlourishingofJewishSects,118…21;PhilipR.Davies,JewishScripturalCanon,Ž39…41.NotealsoBickermansarguments,linking(Pharisaic)JewisheducationwithHellenisticpatterns,EliasJosephBickerman,FromEzratotheLastoftheMaccabees:FoundationsofPost-BiblicalJudaism,ed.MosesHadas(NewYork:Schocken,1962[orig.1949]),160…65.31.Therelationshipof2MaccabeestotheHasmoneansisadebatedtopic.JonathanGoldstein(1Maccabees2Maccabees:ANewTranslation,withIntroductionandCommentary,AB[GardenCity,NY:Doubleday,1983],82)arguesthatthelimitedscopeofthetext,itsnumerousdisagreementswiththepro-Hasmoneanaccountin1Maccabees,andotherfeaturesinitsuggestoppositiontothepoliciesofJohnHyrcanusandhissuccessors.Himmelfarb(JudaismandHellenism,Ž21,n.4),amongothers,“ndssuchargumentsunconvincing.TheclearpromotionofJudasMaccabeusin2MaccabeesmakesGoldsteinspositionimplausibletome.
originsofscriptureasanti-hellenisticcurriculumTheaccountin2Maccabeeslacksparallelstothetextualfocusofthesenarratives,butitdepictsJudasexhortinghistroopsfromtheTorahandproph-ets(2Macc15:9;cf.15:22),andheisrepresentedasreconstitutingthetemplelibrary,alibrarypurportedlyoriginallycollectedbyNehemiahbutdispersedundertheHellenizers:ThesamethingsarereportedintherecordsandinthememoirsofNehemiah,andalsothathefoundedalibraryandcollectedthebooksaboutthekingsandprophets,andthewritingsofDavid,andlettersofkingsaboutvotiveofferings.InthesamewayJudasalsocollectedallthebooksthathadbeenlostonaccountofthewarwhichhadcomeonus,andtheyareinourpossession.Soifyouhaveneedofthem,sendpeopletogetthemforyou.(2Macc2:13…14,NRSV)Tobesure,thecollectiondescribedhereisnotequivalenttomentionselse-whereofTorahandProphetsŽ(e.g.,thebooksaboutthekingsandprophets...andlettersofkingsaboutvotiveofferingsŽ),andtheJudasofthispassageisnoEzra.NoneofthesetraditionsattributetoJudasoranyotherHasmoneantheresponsibilityoforiginallyconstitutinganauthoritativecollection.Thatwouldcontradicttheirclaimtobeofapre-Hellenisticdepositofdivinetraditions.Nevertheless,thequotationlikensJudastoNehemiahasarestorerofancienttraditionsaftertheirlossamidcrisis(exileandHellenisticattackonJudaism).SeveralindicatorssuggestthattheboundariesandcharacterofthepresentHebrewScripturesweregiventheir“nalshapebytheHasmoneans,thoughtheybuilt„asseeninchapter6„onacorpusoftextsalreadyshapedbylonguseinpre-HellenisticJewisheducation-enculturation.ConsistentwiththeHas-moneansideologicalpromotionofHebrew,theJewishScripturesthatarecon-solidatedinthelaterSecondTempleperiodarealmostexclusivelyinHebrew.TheycontainnoGreeksectionsandonlysmallfragmentsofAramaicinspe-ci“ccontexts.Furthermore,thechronologicalcon“nesoftheHebrewScrip-turescorrespondtotheHasmoneanspurportedanti-Hellenisticbias.Theidenti“edauthors,fromMosestoEzra,allprecedeHellenisticdominationofthearea.ExplicitlylaterworkslikeBenSiraareexcluded,despitethefactthattheyapparentlywerereveredbyvariousgroupslateintotherabbinicperiod.32.AsSchwartzpointsout(Language,PowerandIdentity,Ž59),2Maccabeeslacksthesedescriptions.Aswillbenotedlater,1Macc7:16…17quotesPsalm79:2…3asanaccurateprophecyofthekillingoftheHasidimbyAlcimus.33.ForotherargumentsseeSchwartzsdiscussionofthesimpli“cationandconsolidationŽofthisdualsymbolicsystemamidtheAntiochanpersecution,Language,PowerandIdentity,Ž21…25.34.Onthepurposesofthepassageanditsdistinctionfromspeci“callycanonicalŽissuesseeMechthildKellermann,WennihrnuneinesvondiesenBu¨chernbraucht,solassteseuchholen(2Makk.2,15):EineantikeAufforderungzurFernleihe,ŽZeitschriftdesDeutschenPala¨stina-Vereins98(1982):107…9.35.Tobesure,thereareseveralpotentialGreekloanwords,particularlyinlaterwritings,butnocontinuousstretchesofGreek.
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworldTobesure,theHebrewBiblecontainsvariousworks„forexample,Qohelet,Daniel„andsectionsofworks„forexample,portionsofIsaiahandPsalms„thatwereprobablywrittenaftertheHellenisticconquestoftheregion.Nev-ertheless,theyappeartohavebeenincludedbyvirtueoftheirassociationwithpre-Hellenisticauthors.Finally,theentirechronologicalsystemoftheproto-MassoretictextualtraditionofthehistoricalbooksisstructuredsothattheHasmoneansrededicationofthetemplefallsexactlyfourthousandyearsafterCreation,withtheExodusoccurringinyear2666afterCreation„two-thirdsofthewaytothetemplerededication.Thischronologicalsystem„distinctfromancientparallelsintheSeptuagintandSamaritanPentateuch„probablyre”ectsthefactthattheHasmoneanswereresponsibleforthechoice,“nalshaping,and(re)productionofreferencecopiesoftheJewishScriptures,copiesdepositedinthetempleandlatertakenastheauthoritativereferencepointforposttemple,rabbinicscholars.ThevastmajorityofearlyreferencestotheHebrewScripturesde“neitasacollectionconsistingoftheTorahontheonehandandacollectionofnon-Torah,pre-HellenisticworkslabeledProphetsŽontheother.ThelattergroupofworksdidnotconsistonlyoftheprophetsŽnowfoundintheProphetsŽsectionoftherabbinicBible.Ratheritincludedauthorsofallnon-Torah,pre-HellenisticworksincludedintheHasmoneancollection(andsometimesmore„asinthecaseofQumran).In1Maccabees7:16…17Psalm79:2…3iscitedasanaccurateprophecyofthekillingofHasidimbyAlcimus.In11QPsXXVII:11thereisexplicitreferencetoDavidasaprophetintalkingofhisauthorshipofthePsalms.Earlier,Imentionedthat4MaccabeescitesDaniel,David,andSolomonasprophets(4Macc18:10…19).Furthermore,thePsalmsandotherpartsofthewritingsareoftenusedasprophetictextsintheNewTestament.Thisprophecy,Žhowever,isunderstoodbymanytobearealityofthepre-Hellenisticpast.ThetextunderdiscussionwiththeclearestlinkstoHasmo-neanpolitics,1Maccabees,hasthe“rstunambiguousreferencetotheideathatprophecyŽceasedinthetimeofEzra,thede“ningend-pointoftheJewish(purportedly)pre-HellenisticScriptures(1Macc4:44…46;9:27;14:41).Hellenistic-periodtraditionsaboutanendtoprophecyŽhappeninginthePer-sianperiodmayre”ectyetanotherwaytheHasmoneansde“nedthelimitsoftheirpre-HellenisticHebrewscripturalcorpus.Andonceagain,thisde“nitionishybrid:appropriatingHellenisticculturalformsintheprocessofopposingthem.Alreadywehaveseenhowlate-third/earlysecond-centuryAlexandrianscholarslikeAristophanesconsolidatedolderGreektraditionsoflistsofthe36.JeremyHughes,SecretsoftheTimes:MythandHistoryinBiblicalChronology,JSOTSup(Shef“eld:JSOTPress,1990),233…37,providesadiscussionofhowtheMTtraditiondeviatesfromothersystemsandpossibleproblemswithreadingitaslinkedtotheHasmoneanrededication.37.FordiscussionofotherpossiblereferencestothisideaseeChapman,LawandtheProphets,264…66.ForresponsetocritiquesofthehypothesisoftheceasingofprophecyseeBenjaminSommer,DidProphecyCease?EvaluatingaReevaluation,Ž115(1996):31…47,whocitesotherreferencesinearlyJewishandrabbinic
originsofscriptureasanti-hellenisticcurriculumbestolderauthorsofvariousgenresintheGreektradition.TheHasmoneanscreatedasimilarauthor-focusedlist,thistimefocusingonHebrewpropheticŽauthorsfrombeforethetimeoftheHellenisticconquest.ThroughthisnormtheyexcludedHellenistic-periodworkslikeBenSiraaspostprophetic,despiteclaimslikeBenSira24:33thathisbookisonaparwiththestreamofprophecy.Thisrede“nitionofthelimitsofusefulteachingmayexplainwhyBenSirasgrandsonemphasizeshowhisfathergainedwisdomfromstudyingpost-propheticbookslikehisown.Heemphasizeshowthesage,BenSira,gainedwisdomfromstudyingtheotherwriterssucceeding[theprophets]Ž/otherbooksofthefathersŽ/otherbooks.ŽContrarytothetypicalinterpretationofthispassage,IwouldarguethatthisprologueemphasizingBenSirasbroaderstudiesisnotendorsingacategoryofScripturelikethelaterWritingsŽoftherabbinicTanach.Instead,heisprefacinghistranslationofBenSirawithanendorsementoftheongoingworthofstudyofHellenistic-periodworkslikethebookofBenSiraitself.Thisendorsement,madearound130.,wouldhavebeenparticularlyurgentinthewakeoftherecentascendanceoftheHasmo-neanmonarchyinPalestineandtheirearlypromotionofanemergentTorahandProphetsŽHebrewscripturalcollection,onethatexcludedHellenisticpe-riodworksbyfatherŽ-teacherslikeBenSirabecausetheywerepostprophetic.Inotherwords,theprologuetoBenSiraisnotanendorsementofaproto-rabbiniccanonofTorah,Prophetsand[Writings].ŽRather,itisoneofthe“rsttestimoniesofJewishresistancetoaHebrewcollectionofScripturepromotedbytheHasmoneansand(muchliketheone)usedbytherabbis.Suchresistancedoesnotappeartohavebeensuccessful.Asnotedearlier,mostwitnessesofthetimeappeartoworkwithabroadcategorizationofTo-rahŽandProphetsŽorrelatedcategories(e.g.,JosephussTorahandthingswrittenwiththeseŽ)inreferringtotheScripturestheyknew.AsidefromtheprologuetoBenSira(discussedabove),theonlyremainingcandidatesforreferencestoatripartiteScripturearetheisolatedreferenceinLuke24:44toTorah,ProphetsandPsalmsŽandthenowhighlyquestionablereadingofTorah,ProphetsandwritingsofDavidŽthatseekersforatripartitecanon“ndin4QMMTC10.Neithertextisusableasevidenceforatripartitescripturalcorpus.Luke24:44followscloselyonareferencetoabipartitecorpusinLuke24:27,anditdoesnotrefertoathirdcategoryofwritingsŽbuttoPsalms,possiblygivingthatscrollanelevatedstatusvis-a`-visothernon-Torahwrit-Moreover,thereadingof4QMMTC10isnowinquestion,and„evenifreadastypicallyreconstructed„itdoesnotunequivocallysupporttheidea38.Seechapter7,pp.185…86.39.Seetheprecedingpagesfordiscussionofoft-citedtextsthatareinterpreted„wronglyinmyopinion„astestimoniestoatripartitescripturalcorpus:chapter10,pp.248…49andnote28(onJosephusandp.246(onPhilo.25).40.JosephBlenkinsopp,ProphecyandCanon:AContributiontotheStudyofJewishOrigins(NotreDame,IN:UniversityofNotreDamePress,1977),126…27,suggeststhatPsalmsmaybehighlightedbecauseofliturgicalusage.Swanson,Closing,Ž256,suggeststhatthespecialmentionofPsalmsheremaybeare”exofaparticularfocusonmessianicpredictionsatthispoint.
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworldofatripartitescripturalcorpus.EventheMishnahexclusivelyreferstoScrip-tureasTorahandProphets.ŽWe“rstseeatripartitedivisionofScriptureinrabbinicwritingsinarevisionofaMishnahsayingfoundintheTosefta(t.Ros4.6;cf.m.RosHas.4.6).Bythen,thenewwritingsŽcategoryforsomebookspreviouslyregardedasprophetic„forexample,Psalms„appearstore-”ecttheirstatusasbooksnotincludedintheemergentreadingcycleofrabbinicJudaism(readingsfromtheprophetsŽ).Thesebooksare„inthissense„trulywritings,Žthatis,arenotreadaspartoftheregularhomileticalThebookofDanielisananomalythatillustratesboththeoperationoftheaforesaiddynamicsandtheirlimits.AlthoughitisoneofthelatestbooksinthepresentHebrewBible,itisattributedtoa“gure,Daniel,whoislocatedintheexile.Andthoughitincludessigni“cantAramaicsections,itmayhavebeenincludedbecauseofitslinkstothecrisisthatledtotheemergenceoftheHasmoneansandevenmorebecauseofitsmostimportant“gure.TheDanielfeaturedinitisawell-known“gurefromancientCanaan,citedasaprophetintheNewTestamentandmentionedasthegreatestoftheprophetsŽbyJosephus(.10.266…288).WrittenshortlybeforetheemergenceoftheHas-moneanmonarchy,thebookofDanielisamarkerofaterminusadquemthede“nitionofthebroaderscripturalcollectionthatincludesit.ItisnotyetknowntoBenSirabutwasprobablyimportanttotheHasmoneans:sectionsofit(e.g.,Daniel3and6)appeartoanticipatethevictoryoftheMaccabeans,andDanielisincludedinalistofheroesinaspeechofMattathiasreportedin1Maccabees(1Macc2:59…60),aquintessentiallypro-Hasmoneanwork.Yettherearesignsthatsomedidnotrecognizeitsauthority,perhapspartlybecauseitwassuchaborderlinecaseofinclusion,bothlateandpartiallyAramaic.Forexample,LangesuggeststhatsectionsofDanielarerejectedinkeypartsoftheQumran4QMysteriesinstruction.ThusDanielstandsasakeyexampleofpossiblecriteriaforinclusion„attributiontoapre-HellenisticprophetŽ(ver-susBenSira)andlinkagetotheideologyoftheHasmoneans(versusEnoch).Nevertheless,itsmixedlinguisticcharacterandpartialacceptancemakeita41.TimothyLim,TheAllegedReferencetotheTripartiteDivisionoftheHebrewBible,Ž77(2001):23…37;JamesA.Sanders,Closure,Ž252…53;EugeneUlrich,TheNon-AttestationofaTripartiteCanonin4QMMT,Ž65(2003):202…14;QumranandtheCanonoftheOldTestament,ŽinAuwersandDeJonge,BiblicalCanons,67…69.42.Carr,CanonizationinCommunity,Ž57…58.Cf.JackN.Lightstone,TheRabbisBible:TheCanonoftheHebrewBibleandtheEarlyRabbinicGuild,ŽinMcDonaldandSanders,CanonDebate,180.NotethatitisonlyTorahŽandProphetsŽthatarethefocalpointfortheaxialshiftFishbanediscussesintheshiftofJudaismtowardaccesstothedivinebymeansoftextualmediation.SeeM.Fishbane,FromScribalismtoRabbinism,ŽTheSageinIsraelandtheAncientNearEast,ed.JohnG.GammieandLeoPerdue(WinonaLake,IN:Eisen-brauns,1990),440…45.43.OnthedatingofDanieljustpriortotheHasmoneansemergenceandplacementofitinwisdomcirclesseeJohnJ.Collins,Daniel:ACommentaryontheBookofDaniel,Hermeneia(Minneapolis:FortressPress,1993),61…70.ForasurveyofearlyreferencestoDanielseeBeckwith,OldTestamentoftheNewTestamentChurch44.4QMysteriesin4Q300.A.Lange,FromLiteraturetoScripture.Ž
originsofscriptureasanti-hellenisticcurriculumusefulillustrationoftheshadyborderlineontheedgeofaconsolidatingcol-TheEnculturationFunctionofHebrewScripturesintheHasmoneanPeriodIfthisinterpretationofdatapointingtoaHasmoneandatingoftheHebrewScripturesissound,whatwouldhavebeenitsfunction?Iproposethefollow-ing:thisemergent,pre-Hellenisticcollectionwouldhavebeenthefocalpointfornationalistic,non-GreekeducationofelitesintheHasmoneansfragileyetincreasinglyexpandedkingdom.SchwartzsrecentworkhasbeenparticularlyhelpfulinemphasizingtheremarkableexpansionoftheHasmoneankingdom,anexpansionthatapparentlytooktheformofJudaizingtheareasofpeopleswhowerecircumcisedandnotexplicitlyGreekŽ(e.g.Samaritans/Shechem,Idumea,Galilee)combinedwithdestructionofGreekcities(e.g.,Samaria,Beth-Shean/Scythopolis).Thisexpansionmeantariseinthepowerofnon-JerusalemelitescombinedwithanunderminingofpriorpriestlymonopoliesonpowerinthePersianandpre-Maccabeanperiods.Inearlierperiodsdis-cussedalready,largerexpansionsofpower„forexample,intheSargonidMe-sopotamianorEgyptianMiddleempires„wereoccasionsforthedevelopmentorreinforcementofsystemsoftext-supportededucation.Soalso,themostlikelyoccasionforthe“nalizationandexportofaclearlyde“nedHebrewscrip-turalcollectionistheemergenceofanincreasinglyexpansive,emphaticallypro-JewishHasmoneanminiempire.JewsinthePersianandPtolemaicperiodsappeartohavebeensatis“edwithamorepurelytemple-focusedindigenousHebrewtextuality.InthelateSecondTempleperiod,rulerslikeHerodwerenolongertheimmediateheadofthetempleapparatus,andeducation-textualityappearsalreadydispersedenoughthatitisdif“culttoknowwhocouldorwouldwanttoandenforceaclearlyde“nedHebrewcollection.Certainlythe“rstcentury.,withitsdiversegroups,isanunlikelytimefortheiniti-ationofsuchabroadlyrecognizedcollection.Rather,theHasmoneanmon-archy,withitsroyalpowerbase,priestlymonarchs(1Macc2:1;10:20;11:27),documentedexpansionistefforts(includingdestructionofGreekcities),andpro-Jewish,anti-Greekideology,istheprimecandidateforthesharpde“nitionofpurportedlypre-HellenisticHebrewScripturesandthepromotionofthissharplyde“nedcollectionasafocalpointforeducation-enculturationinitsbroader,increasinglycomplex,andspeci“callyJewishkingdom.SinceourdataforuseoftextsbytheHasmoneansarecon“nedtoelementslikeJudassreconstitutionofthetemplelibraryanddescriptionsofhisuseoftheTorahŽandProphetsŽtoencouragehistroops,ourmainindicatorsoftheuseofsuchabroadcollectionmustcomefromthebetterdocumented45.Schwartz,ImperialismandJewishSociety,36…42.
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworldexamplesoftextualitysurveyedinpreviouschapters.Theseexamplessuggestthatlong-durationcollectionsofthesortseenintheHebrewScripturesemergedandwereusedparticularlyintheeducation-enculturationofyouth,alongwithotherreinforcingformsofculturalcirculationlikefestivalandsmallerbanquetperformances(e.g.,thesymposium).Nevertheless,thereisaspeci“ccontextfortheemergenceofamoresharplyde“nedcollectionofthesortweseeintheHebrewBible:theisolationandprotectionofindigenouseducational-enculturationalliteraturesbytemplepriestsintheHellenisticpe-riod.Suchtemple-basedefforts,whichappeartohavediedoutatvariouspointsinthevariousareasoftheeasternHellenistickingdoms,prolongedindigenousliteratures(e.g.,Egyptian,Sumero-Akkadian)amidtheincreasinglydominantHellenisticsystemofGreekeducationofelites.WhatisdifferentinlateSecondTempleJudaismisthefollowing:thisindigenous(Hebrew)educationappearstohavemovedfrombeingcon“nedtothetemple(orgroupslikeQumranwithprominentpriestlyleadership)tobeingatemple-enabledprocessofindigenouseducationofabroadergroupofreadersinthenewlyJewishareas.ThebroaderscopeofthisJewisheducationresembledthescopeofthecontemporarysystemofHellenisticeducation.wastemple-enabledinthesensethattheHasmoneans,ashighpriests,wereinthepositiontoextendthesystemofeducation,thetemplewasthemostlikelysiteforthecreationandstorageofreferencecopiesforanybroadersystemofeducation,andpriestsandpriestlyborncharacterslikeJosephuswouldhaveremainedatthetopoftheHebrewtextualsystem.GraduallyeducationintheTorahandotherHebrewScripturesappearstohavebecomelesscon“nedtothetemple.JosephusandPhilotestifytothebroaderidealsofeducationinHebrewliteracybytheendofthesecondtempleperiod,idealsthatcorrespondintheirmovebeyondthetempletothebroad,non-temple-centeredscopeofHellenisticeducation.Whetherallelitesco-optedandrecruitedbytheHasmoneansunderwenteducation-enculturationinHebrewScripturesishighlyquestionable.Nevertheless,thepromotionofaspeci“callyHebrewsystemofeducation-enculturationwithintheHasmoneankingdomwouldhavelentacertainamountofprestigetoJudeanswhopos-sessedsuchaneducation,anditwouldhaveincreasedthefutureprospectsofanychildren,includingnon-Judeanchildren,educatedintheHebrewsystem,howevermuchsuchchildrenalsoreceivedaGreekeducation.Thus,through46.Bickerman,JewsintheGreekAge,170…74,stressestheuniquenessofthismovetowardabroaderaudience.Heistoonarrow,however,inarguingthatitwasthealphabeticcharacterofHebreweducationthatwasdecisiveinencouragingthismove.Therewereotheralphabeticindigenousliteraturesthatdidnotsurvive.WhatwasuniqueintheJewishinstancewasthesuccessfuldevelopment,duringthebriefperiodoftheHas-moneans,ofahybridGreek-like,anti-Greeksystemofeducationinpurportedlypre-HellenisticHebrewtexts.ThealphabeticcharacteroftheHebrewScripturesmayhavemadetheseeffortseasierbutwasnotthepromptfortheexpansion,promotion,andenforcementofthisemergentScripture.47.SeethediscussioninBaumgarten,FlourishingofJewishSects,121.48.JosephuswouldbeanobviousexampleofaPalestinianJewwhoreceivededucationinbothGreekandHebrewScriptures,andtheexistenceofaHellenistic-period,JewishPalestinianwritinginGreek(e.g.2
originsofscriptureasanti-hellenisticcurriculum(re)collectingHebrewworksinthetemple(2Macc2:14)andpromotingHe-brewScriptures,theHasmoneanssetupagravitationalpullthat(1)privilegedformsofHebrewtextualityoverwhichtheirJerusalemtemplehadultimatecontrol,and(2)counteredanalogous,Greek-focusedsystemsinthesurround-ingareas.TheinterplayoftempleandnontempleisillustratedbythecaseofthegradualandpiecemealstandardizationofthetextoftheBiblemanifesttowardtheendoftheSecondTempleperiod.Ontheonehand,dissidentgroupslikeQumranseemtohaveworkedwithavarietyoftexts,manifestinglittleorien-tationtoacleartexttype.ŽOntheotherhand,boththe“rst-centuryMinorProphetsscrollandlater“ndsofmanuscriptsatavarietyof“rst-century.(andlater)loci(e.g.,Murabbaat,NahalHever,WadiSdeir,NahalSemanifestastrikinglyprecisesimilaritytolaterrabbinicmanuscripts.Further-more,manyoftheHebrewexamplesarewhatTovtermsdeluxeeditionsofbiblicalmanuscripts,manifestingvariousgraphicindicatorsofstandardizationandelevatedstatus.Onthebasisofthisandotherevidence,Tovarguesper-suasivelythatthesemorenarrowlyproto-rabbinicŽdeluxeeditionsarecor-rectedcopiesofexemplarsofthegivenbiblicaltextsstoredoriginallyintheTemple.Thoughmost„thoughnotall„examplesarefoundafterthedestruc-tionofthetempleandmayderivefromanexemplarstoredinanewJewishcenter,suchexacttextualstandardizationisonlypossiblewithreferencetosingleexemplarsoftherelevanttexts,exemplarsalmostcertainlykeptorigi-nallyinthetemple.AselsewhereintheHellenistic-periodNearEast,thetem-plewasthe“rstrepositoryforindigenouslanguageexemplarsoftextsliketheHebrewScriptures.Nevertheless,fromthe“rstcentury.(andpossiblybefore),thesetempleexemplarsappeartohavebeenusedasthebasisforeditionsoftheHebrewScripturesthatwereusedinsynagoguesandotherreadinglocioutsideJerusalem.SuchHebrewScripturesŽformedacounterpointtoGreektextualityinamonarchythatcultivatedapro-Torah,anti-Hellenisticimage„however“c-tional.Atleastasanideal,educationintheseHebrewScriptures„particularlytheTorah„spreadtoencompassnonpriestlyJews,aimingatanaudienceasMaccabees)testi“estotheexistenceofothersucheducatedJewsaswell.ForasurveyoflaterevidenceforJewisheducationinGreekseeHezser,JewishLiteracy,90…94.ForanearlierproposalofexpansionofeducationundertheHasmoneansseeBaumgarten,FlourishingofJewishSects,122…23.HengelisoneoftheearlierproponentsoftheideathatJewisheducationemergedaroundthistimeasacountertoHellenisticin”uence(Judaismand,80).
49.Tov,AncientSynagogues,Ž245…55.Tovidenti“esonlyacouplepossibleexamplesofsuchastan-dardizedtextatQumran,4QGenand4QProv.SuchtextsthenaretobedistinguishedfromabroadergroupofmanuscriptsatQumranthatbearlessersimilaritiestotheMTtradition(243…44;cf.thecautionsaboutidenti“cationoftext-typesatQumraninUlrich,QumranBiblicalScrollsŽ).ForearlierdiscussionoftextualstandardizationamongJewishelitespriortothe“rstcenturyseeespeciallyGreenberg,Stabilization,Ž162…66.Hearguespersuasivelythat”uidityintheQumran“ndsisnotagoodindexfordatingstandardization,sincesuchmanuscriptswerekeptandcopiedinanoutlyingJewishgroup.BiblicalmanuscriptsfoundatlocilikeMasadamaynotre”ectmorestandardizationbecausetheyarelaterbutbecausetheyarethepossessionofgroupsassociatedwithmorecentralJewishleader-elites(e.g.Akiba).
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworldbroad(orbroaderthan)thatseeninHellenisticeducation.Indoingthis,thepromotersofthisemergentscripturecouldbuildonidealsthatwehaveseeninHebrewScriptureitself,whereeverychildwastobeeducatedinTorahandthepeoplewastobeanationofpriests.Yeteventhishighlyprotectedindig-enoussystemwashybrid.ItborrowedGreektechniquesfortextualstandard-izationtoprotecttheemergentstandardizationoftheHebrewtext.ItusedGreek-likeparagraphmarkerstomarkpericopesintheHebrewcorpus.Itdrewboundariesaroundthetextthatweremodeledonyetsurpassedtherel-ativelysharpcontoursoftheHellenisticcurriculum.ItoftenwasdesignatedinHellenisticcategorieslikeancestrallaws,Ževenasthosecategoriesweremodi“edinoftenradicalwaysto“ttheemergentJudaeanwayoflife.thishardenedscripturalcollectionprovidedthebasisforabroadlyaimeded-ucationalprocessthatcorrespondedtothebroader,non-temple-focusedaimsofHellenisticeducation.Likeotherproductsofwhatmightbetermedresis-tancehybridity,ŽthisbodyofindigenousHebrewtextsappearstohaverepre-sentedahyperversionoftheGreekformsoftextualityitopposed.Itsadvo-catesfocusedonacorpuswithsharperboundariesthanitsGreekcounterpart,theyclaimedayetmoreancientoriginforthiscorpus,andtheyaimedatyetbroaderJewishliteracythanwasattainedinthealreadybroadHellenisticGreeksystem.Wehavetwotypesofindicatorsthatthetwenty-two-book,alphabeticnumberingwasalreadyinforceatthispoint.First,asalreadydiscussedinthelastchapter,wehavethepotentially“rst-century.referencetothetwenty-twobooksandthealphabetinaformoftheGreekJubilees.Theproblemwiththisreferenceisthatitisbasedonlatesourcesthatcanbelinkedtothe“rstcenturyonlybytenuousargumentation.Second,andmoreimportant,thealphabeticprincipleimplicitinthetwenty-two-booknumberingisrelatedtotheeducation-enculturationalprinciplesdiscussedthroughoutthischapterandthisstudy.InsofarasaconsolidatedcollectionofHebrewScripturesun-dertheHasmoneansdidfollowthisnumbering,itwouldhaveproducedaHe-brewcurriculumencompassedbythealphabeticprinciple:anchoredattheearlyendbylearningthealphabetandextendingultimatelytomasteryofaHebrewcorpusde“nedbythealphabetsnumbering.WehaverepeatedlyseentheprominenceofthealphabetthroughouttheeducationalandtextualprocessesofbothGreekandHebrewcultures,withacrostics,alphabeticallyorganizednamelists,andalphabeticschemesformemorizationofmaterial.50.OnthisseeparticularlyHansG.Kippenberg,Dieju¨dischenUberlieferungenalspatrioinomoi:Hel-lenizationofanunknownentity,ŽinDieRestaurationderGo¨tter:AntikeReligionundNeo-Paganismus,ed.R.FaberandR.Schlesier(Wu¨rzburg:Ko¨nigshausenandNeumann,1986),45…60,whoalsonotes(49)occasionaldistinctionsbetweenreferencestoancestrallawsŽandthetraditionsfoundinourwrittentexts.51.Onceagain,suchclaimsforbreadthofliteracyintheHellenisticGreeksystemaremerelyrelativetoearlierlevelsofliteracy.Therewasnogeneralliteracyintheancientworld,whetherGreekornon-Greek.Still,evenHarrisscautiousreckoningoflevelsofancientGreekliteracynotesthatthedataaremostplentifulforeliteandevencraftliteracyincertainareasofHellenisticculture.Harris,AncientLiteracy,139…46.52.ForthisargumentationseeBeckwith,OldTestamentoftheNewTestamentChurch,235…40.
originsofscriptureasanti-hellenisticcurriculumThealphabetwasthewaterinwhichthestudentswamthroughouthisedu-cation,inboththeGreekandHebrewsystems.Withinthiscontext,thecrea-tionofaHebrewcollectionofScriptures,withanumberingcorrespondingtothelettersofthealphabet,wouldhavebeenanultimatemanifestationofamorebroadlyattestedalphabeticprinciple.Indeed,itwouldrepresentanotherHebrewhyperversionofalphabeticformsprominentinHellenisticeducationaswell.WemayevenhavefragmentsofJewishmemoryofthisexpansioninsomerabbinictexts.Themostoftencitedtextsfortheemergenceofasys-temofeducationbeyondthefamily,b.B.Bat.21aandy.Ketub.8:11.32c,mayrefertotheHasmoneanperiod„albeitintermsmoreappropriatetotheircontextcenturieslater.Y.Ketub.8:11.32cassertsthatthe“rstcentury“gureofShimonb.ShetachwasresponsibleforinstitutingtherequirementthatallchildrenattendaschoolŽ(betsepher),thusputtingthisdevelopmentaroundthelateHasmonean/earlyHerodianperiod.Inb.B.Bat.21aatwo-stageprocessofexpansionbeyondfamilialeducationisdepicted,startingwiththeappointmentofteachersineverydistrictŽforboysofsixteenorseventeenyearsandculminatingina“rst-centuryhighpriest,Jehoshuab.Gamla(63…65.).AsRainerRiesnerpointsout,thisspeci“cationofageforstartingschool,sixteenorseventeen,isstrange.Itcorrespondsnottoatypicaltimeforenteringelementaryschoolbuttotheageforephebestoen-terthegymnasium.GiventhehistoryofgymnasiainJudah,hespeculatesthatthemiddleportionofthisearlyrabbinicsayingpreservesamemoryoftheestablishmentofHebrewschoolsinreactiontoJasonsgymnasium,sothatsonsofephebeagewouldattendaTorah-centeredHebrewschoolinsteadoftheJerusalemgymnasium.Tobesure,asDavidGoodblattinparticularhasargued,theserabbinictraditionsareseparatedfromtheeventstheyde-scribebyhundredsofyearsandoftenrepresentidealsratherthanreality.Otherrabbinicandepigraphicevidencesuggestsitisunlikelythatteacherswereappointedinallvillagesorthatchildren„whetherseventeenorseven„wererequiredtoattendschoolsŽduringtheSecondTempleperiod.ertheless,suchfragments„particularlywhentheycontainanomalousele-mentsliketheephebeageofattendingschoolin21a„shouldnotbedismissedoutofhand.They„liketherabbinicrecollectionsoftemple-centeredtextualitydiscussedearlier„mayrepresentdistantrecollectionsofabroadeningofeducationbeyondatemple-scribalelitealreadyinthesecondor“rstcentury53.Riesner,JesusalsLehrer,206.SeealsoCollins,JewishWisdom,36.54.DavidGoodblatt,TheTalmudicSourcesontheOriginsofOrganizedJewishEducation[Heb.],ŽintheHistoryoftheJewishPeopleandtheLandofIsrael5(1980):89…90,whodatesthetraditiontothesecondorearlythirdcentury.55.Seep.214.Onattributionoftheb.B.Bat.21aversiontoYehoshuab.PerachiahinthetimeofJohnHyrcanusseeWilhelmBacher,Dasaltju¨discheSchulwesen,ŽJahrbuchfu¨rJudischGeschicteundLiteratur(1903):58…59.
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworldFinalMatters:TheScopeoftheScripturalCollectionandtheLimitsofItsRecognitionInallthis,letmebeclear:ourevidencedoesnotsuggestthattheHasmoneanssuccessfullyintroducedaneducationalsystemorsetofScripturesthatallJew-ishgroupsrecognized,northattheirsystemwascreatedexnihilo.SecondTem-pleJewishgroupsallhadtheMosaicTorahincommon,andmostcommunitiesmaintainedagreaterorlesserfocusonit.IndeedtheSamaritans(andperhapstheSadducees)focusedexclusivelyonMosaictraditions.Meanwhile,margin-alizedgroupsliketheQumranEssenesappeartohaveworkedwithamore”uidconceptofscripturalnon-Torahbooksandwithsomenonstandardman-uscripts.Soalso,theendorsementofseventyadditionalbooksin2Esdrastes-ti“estocontinuingresistanceinsomecirclesofthe“rstcentury.toare-stricted,semialphabeticallynumberedcollectionofscripturalbooks,evenasitalsoatteststothepublicpredominanceofsuchacollection.AndthereisagoodchancethatJewishgroupsdivergedsomewhatonwhichbookstheyconsideredpartofatwenty-two-bookcollection,muchaslaterChristianwritersdid.Furthermore,thelimitsappeartohavebeenfocusedonindigenouseducation,notthetextsinGreektranslation.WhenJewishgroupsusedscripturalworksinGreektranslationtheyappeartohaveincludedawiderrangeofworksoutsidetheinitialtwenty-two-bookcollection.Forexample,theearlyChristianmovement,initsinitialstagesaJewishsect,appearstohaveworkedwithasetofScripturesthat„atleastinthecaseofJude14…15„in-cludedthebookofEnoch.This“tswiththecasearguedearlierthattheforcesleadingtoahardenedscripturalcollectionwerefocusedontheestablishmentandpreservationofanindigenous,culturalsystem.ThoughIwillshowinthenextchapterhowthecollectionattheheartofthissystemhadsomeeffectontheeventualde“nitionofacorrespondingGreekcollectioninthechurch,wewouldnotexpecttoseethehardenedcollectionexactlyreproducedwhenJewsusedGreekversionsofJewishwritings.Insum,wecannotpostulateauniversallyrecognizedcanonŽofHebrewScriptures„letaloneaclearlyde“nedLXXŽ„intheSecondTempleperiod,orintheHasmoneanperiod,oreveninthelate“rstcentury.Nevertheless,Iamarguingthattheindicatorssurveyedherearesuf“cienttoassignahighprobabilitytotheideathattheHasmoneanswereresponsibleforconsolidatingahardened(purportedly)pre-HellenisticHebrewcollectionconsistingofbooksnowincludedintheJewishTanach,acollectionusedineducationandosten-siblyhavinganumbercorrespondingtooneoranothernumberingoftheHebrewalphabet.ItisthisHasmonean-originatedcollectionthatJosephusbe-lievesprecededhimbylongages.Ž56.FordiscussionseeCarr,CanonizationinCommunity,Ž35…38.AsIarguedthere,thereareindicationsthatsomeEgyptianJews,suchasPhilo,workedwithavirtuallyexclusivefocusonTorah,butthereareimportantexceptions.OnthisseeLange,LiteraturetoScripture.ŽForEnochicJudaismasapossibleexceptiontothisstatementaboutuniversalacceptanceofTorahseeNicklesburg,EnochicWisdom.Ž
ConcludingRe”ectionsontheHellenisticShapingofJewishScriptureFromTempletoSynagogueandChurchTheprecedingchapterexploredtheoriginsofthehardenedHebrewcollectionofScripturesandemergenttranstempleeducational-textualsystem.Bothdevelopmentsaredistinctivevis-a`-visearlierSecondTempleJudaism.EarlierIsurveyedtestimonyofBenSiraandothers„uptothe“rstcentury.„toformsoftextualityandeducationthatweredeeplylinkedtothetemple.Inchapter9,Iar-guedthatQumranrepresentedacrucialwindowbothtothetemple-andpriest-dominatedtextualityofthepre-HasmoneanperiodandtoahybridJewishexampleofnontempletextualityshapedbyHellenis-ticcommunitymodelsandtheHellenisticmeal.YettheQumransettlement,apparentlyfoundedinpartbypriestswhosplitofffromthetemplewiththeriseoftheHasmoneanpriesthood,doesnotyetre”ectthesharplyde“nedcollectionofHebrewScripturestesti“edtobysourceslikeJosephusand4Ezra.Rather,Ihavearguedthatthepre-Hellenisticcontents,Hebrewfocus,alphabet-likenumber-ing,andotherfeaturesoftheHebrewScripturesarebestsetinthecontextoftheHasmoneanpriest-kingspromotionofdistinctivelyHebrewcultureintheirwideningkingdom.Ihaveacknowledgedthatthesekingshadtheiropponents,suchasthosefoundatQum-ran,andtheydidnotcommandtheassentofallDiasporagroupsorevenperipheralgroups„forexample,theSamaritans„withintheirminiempire.Nevertheless,theHasmoneansarethemostlikelyagentstohavehadthepowerandmotivationtomakethismove.TheynotonlycollectedolderHebrewwritingswithinthetempletheycontrolled(2Macc2:14)butalsopromotedaspeci“ccollectionofthosewritingsforuseoutsidethetemple„acollectionthatwaseventuallycharacterizedbyincreasinglystandardizedtextformsbasedontempleexemplars„aspartoftheirconsolidationoftheir
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworldkingdom.ThissetofwritingswasalmostexclusivelyHebrew„exceptforthequotedlettersinEzraandtheAramaicin(thespecialcaseof)Daniel,anditconsistedoftheTorahandacollectionof(purportedly)pre-Hellenistic,non-TorahwritingsthatwereusuallydesignatedasProphets.ŽFromtheHasmoneanstotheFirstCenturyWhatIhavenotclari“edhereisthejourneyofsuchScripturesfromtheHas-moneanperiodonward.EvenaftertheHasmoneanperiod,someJewishgroupsappeartohavepersistedinfocusingexclusivelyoralmostexclusivelyontheTorah,whileotherslikethoseatQumrantreatedabroadercollectionofwritingsasinspiredandworthyofcopyingandstudy.Nevertheless,oncetheHasmoneanpriest-kingshadsetthistemple-basedsystemofbroadered-ucationinmotion,itstempleconnectionswouldhavesupporteditscontinu-anceduringtheRomanperiod,evenwhenrulerslikeHerodappointedhighpriestsbutwerenothighprieststhemselves.Indeed,HerodsinitiativesmayhavestrengthenedlinksbetweenthetempleandthebroaderJewishDiaspora.AsSchwartzhasargued,Herodinvestedconsiderablesumsandin”uenceindefendingtheinterestsofJewishcommunitiesoutsidePalestine,whilebuild-inguptheJerusalemtemplecomplextothepointwhereitwasamagnetforlarge-scalepilgrimages.Thiscontextwouldhavebeenconducivetothecon-tinuanceandreinforcementofthetemple-centricbutbroadlyfocusedsystemofHebreweducationinauguratedbytheHasmoneans.TheconsolidationoftheselinkstotheDiasporamayexplainthegradualemergenceofaGreeksetofScripturetranslationshighlyparallelincontenttotheHebrewScriptures,thoughnotassharplyde“ned.Thisisnotyetaclearlyde“nedSeptuagintŽthatgoesbeyondtheTorah.ThatbroaderGreekBibleonlyappearsastheOldTestamentŽportionoflaterChristianScriptures.ButthisemergentcollectionofGreekJewishScripturesisreferredtointer-minology„TorahandProphetsŽ„thatisparalleltothatseenfortheHebrewScriptures,anditscoreappearsdeterminedbythecontentsoftheHebrewDespitesuchwaysGreek-languageexpressionsofJudaismcorrespondedtoandpromotedHebrewScriptures,anti-GreektendencieswithinJudaismdidnotceasewiththeHasmoneans.Rather,suchtendenciesmerelyrefocused,asPalestinianJewsclashedwiththeRomansinaseriesofincidentsleadingtotheJewishrevolts,whileDiasporaJewslikethoseinAlexandriafoughtwiththeGreekŽcommunitiesoftheircities.WithinthiscontextweseeexampleslikeJosephusspromotion„inGreekandonGreekterms„ofHebrewScrip-turesassuperiortothoseoftheGreeks.Thereareevensigni“cantanti-Greeksayingsinrabbinicliterature,sayingsthatstandalongsidenonjudgmental1.Schwartz,ImperialismandJewishSociety,40…47.
fromtempletosynagogueandchurchrabbinicreferencestoHomerandassertionsoftheexistenceofschoolsofGreekrunbyrabbis.Ateachstageweseeasimilarmixofpro-Hebrew,anti-GreekrhetoriccombinedwithGreekandsigni“cantin”uenceinotherwaysofGreekculture.ThishybridoppositiontoHellenistsŽandHellenizersŽonlysolidi“edandconsolidatedafocusonHebrewScriptures,particularlytheTorah.Thusthephenomenon,especiallywithinJudaism,ofScriptureasatightlyboundedconceptisaphenomenonofculturalresistance.Likemostformsofculturalresistance,itisintegrallyboundupwiththeelementsandformsofthecultureitresists.Itishybrid,yetitisresistancenevertheless.Attheoutsetoftheperiod,wesawBenSiradrawingfreelyfromvarioussourcesforhisteaching„HebrewScripturesaboveall,butalsoGreekandpossiblyDemoticwisdom.AndsuchamixofScriptureandothersourcescontinuesinJewishGreekteachingsliketheWisdomofSolomon.ButwealsoseetheemergenceovertimeofafocusonHebrew,otherlanguages;onthesebooks,AsIhaveargued,thesesharpde“nitionsareahyperversionofthealreadyde“nedHellenisticcurriculum.TheyrepresenttheperceivedneedofJewishelitestobuildtheireducationalcoherencearoundasetof(purportedly)pre-Hellenistictextsnottaintedbythein”uenceofHellenism.Tobesure,wemustdistinguishthroughoutbetweentheactualthreatofHellenismandthemanufacturingofathreatofHellenismtoserveotherin-terests.Manyelites“nditconvenienttomanufactureacommonenemyinordertounitepeopleunderthem,andthisappearstohavebeenthecasewiththethoroughlyHellenized,Žanti-HellenisticHasmoneans.ThroughfocusingonaGreekŽattempttoeradicateJudaism„includinginternalcollaborators„theHasmoneanscoulduniteasnon-GreekŽtheotherwisedisparatepeopleofthePalestinianarea.IndeedthisstoryofGreekthreatbecomesthecenter-pointoftheirfoundinghistories(1and2Maccabees),akeypartoftheculturalmemoryŽthatreinforcedtheshort-livedHasmoneankingdom.Ofcourse,inde“ningthisthreattheHasmoneanscouldbuildonadeepambivalenceaboutforeignin”uencealreadyseenintheHebrewbiblicaltradition,particularlystreamsin”uencedbyHoseaandDeuteronomy.YetIhavearguedthattheywentbeyondDeuteronomyinpromotingabroaderanti-GreekcollectionofHebrewScriptures,includingbothTorahŽandabroadgroupofprophetsŽthatencompassedbookslikePsalmsandevenProverbs.Thisnewmanifestationofthelongstandingde“nitionofJudaismoveragainstthepeoplesŽ„thecreationofasharplyboundariedcollectionofScrip-tures„wasfoundationallongafterthedemiseoftheHasmoneankingdom.Indeed,assourceslikeJosephustestify,theHebrewScriptures,particularlytheTorah,remainedcentraltoJewishcultureafterthedestructionoftheSecondTemple.Thoughthetemplebaseforpromotionandconsolidationofthescrip-turalcollectionhadbeenlost,theenculturationsystemanditstextualcorpuswasalreadyestablishedenoughthatitformedthecenteroftheemergentrab-binicmovement.Yetevenhere,weseepalere”ectionsoftheearliertemple-centeredformsofHebrewtextuality.AsIshowedinchapter8,numerous
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworldrabbinicwritingsstilltestifytotheoriginalstorageofTorahscrollsinspeci“cpartsofthetemple,speakofHebrewasthelanguageofthetemple,ŽandspecifythatelementaryeducationshouldbeginwithLeviticus.Bethatasitmay,weshouldbeclearinconclusionthattheHebrewScrip-turesthatformedthecoreofstudyinthissemi-Hellenistic,broadenedformofJewisheducationwerenotacanon,Žneitherinterminologynorfunction.Indeed,asAssmannandothershaveshown,theGreekwordwasnotappliedtoalistofauthoritativebooksuntilthechurchsynoddecisionsofthelatefourthcenturies.Priortothatthetermwasusedinatleastfourways,todesignate:(1)anartisticguidetobeimitated;(2)alimitedgroupofliteraryworkstobeusedasexactmodelsforfurthercompositions;(3)laws(orcreeds)tobeusedasanormtojudgealldecisionsofthehighesthumanauthorities;and(4)nonnormativelistslikeRomanperiodtablesofastronomers.Withthechurchsynoddecisions,wasusedforthe“rsttimetodesignatealistofbooks(meaning4)andlawtobeusedasguide(meaning3),thuscreatingalaw-likecollectionofScripturesdesignatedasThoughJewshadlongsincehadsuchanormativeandboundedcollectionofbooksintheformoftheTorah,theydidnotusetheterm(oraHebrewequivalent)forit,andtheycertainlywouldnothaveappliedthetermtoabroadercollectionofTorahandProphets.Giventhevarietyoffunctionsofthisbroadercollectionwithintheeducation-enculturationsystemofsemielitesinSecondTempleJudaism,itprobablydoesnotmakesensetousethetermcanonŽorevenprotocanonŽtodescribeit.Rather,theemergentHebrewcollectionis„asitsusersoftensuggest„acollectionofscripturesŽ:numinous,divinelyinspiredwritingsthatwereacrucialpartofaprocessofeducation-enculturation,writingstobekeptonthemouthandwrittenontheheart,sothatJewsfromJudastoJosephuscouldremainTorah-observantandresisttheonslaughtoftheGreco-Romanworld.ItisonlywiththesubsequentjourneyofthesetextsintotheGreekandChris-tiancontextthatweseetheapplicationofthetermcanonŽtothemaspartofabroaderChristianBible.SomewhatlatertherabbisincorporatedtheseScrip-turesŽintoabroader,gradedgroupofwritings,nowcombinedwithcollectionsliketheMishnahandtwoTalmuds,whichweredesignatedasrecordsofanoriginallynonwritten,oralTorahfromMoses.Iwillnowtakeabrieflookateachofthesecontexts„rabbinicandChristian„beforemovinginthe“nalchaptertosomeconclusions.ScripturesMovingForwardIntheoriginalconceptofthisbookIplannedtoincludeafullchapterontextualityandeducationintheearlyrabbinicandChristianmovements.ThoughIknewofthemassofinformationinbothareas,Iwantedtoinclude2.Assmann,KulturelleGeda¨chtnis,103…29.
fromtempletosynagogueandchurchatleastabriefoverviewofmajorsourcesandworksthatshowedthecontin-uationofdynamicsdiscussedintheprecedingchapters.Nevertheless,theear-lierportionsofthisprojectgrewtobemoreextensivethanIintended,andIdiscoveredamixofolderandmorerecentworksthatalreadydoagoodjobofsurveyingtheevidenceforChristianandJewisheducationandtextuality.TheyshowthatlinespursuedherecontinueforwardinvariousrefractionsintheJewishandChristiantraditions.Thefollowingismerelyasketchofsomepos-sibleconnections.OntheJewishside,CatherineHezsersmonumentalJewishLiteracyinRomanPalestine(2001)isnowthestartingpointforcollectionandcriticalanalysisofthedatafortextualityandeducationinearlyJudaism.Inthisbookandrelatedarticles,sheshowsthatJudaismmaintainedthesortofsmall-scale,family-orpseudofamily-basededucationalprocessthathasbeendescribedinpreviouschapters.ThoughsomehavepositedtheearlyadventofseparateschoolsŽinJudaism,Hezsershowsthatthereislittlereliableevidencefortheexistenceofsuchschools.WheremanyhavefollowedrabbinictraditionsinassumingvirtuallyuniversalmaleliteracyinearlyJudaism,Hezserusestech-niquesbestknownfromHarrissworkontheGreco-RomanworldtoarguethatliteracyinearlyJudaismwas,infact,muchmorelimited.WhateverliteracydidexistwasfocusedoncompetenceinreadingandperformingTorah,anditwaslimitedprimarilytothosewhohadafatherwithsuchcompetence.YetevenasTorahwasacrucialsymbolofJewishidentityandafocalpointfortheemergentsynagogue,Hezseralsopointstootherformsoforal-writtenJewishinstruction,particularlythenon-Torah-basedMishnahthatisitselfingested.StudentsmemorizedtheMishnahmuchasstudentsintheGreco-RomanworldmemorizedtheRomanlawcodes.Soalso,bothHezserandJaffeehavepointedtoasimilaroral-writtendynamicinthedevelopment,ingestion,andperformanceoftheJerusalemTalmudtradition,againpro“tablyusingmodelsfromtheGreco-Romanworld.ThesebodiesofearlyJewishliterature„theMishnahandtheYerush-almi„comefromaperiodwhererabbinicteachingistakentobespeci“callyoral,Ževenthematizedaspartoftheoraltorah.ŽIndeed,thereareclearstricturesagainsttheformationofcomprehensiverecordsofthesetraditions.Thereareafewreferencestotheuseoftabletsornotebooksfortemporaryrecordingofrabbinicrulings,buteventheseareclearlydistinguishedfromliteraryrecordsbytheirmedia„tabletsorcodicesratherthanhigherprestigescrolls„andtheambivalenceoftherabbinicsourcestowardtheuseofeventheselimitedwrittenmediafortherecordingoftheemergentrabbiniclegalNevertheless,despitethisambivalencetowardwritinginearlyJudaism,it3.Hezser,JewishLiteracy4.Seethequali“cationsregardingthedatingofreferencestosuchnotesandtheirnatureinHezser,MishnahandBookProduction,Ž178…79.ForcriticaldiscussionoftraditionsaboutwritingthingsdownseealsoJacobNeusner,TheRabbinicTraditionsaboutthePhariseesbeforeAD70:TheProblemofOralTransmission,Ž22(1971):1…18.
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworldplaysarole.Hezser,MartinJaffee,andothershaveuncoveredphenomenawithinearlyrabbinicJudaismthatmirrortheoral-writtendynamicsoftheGreco-Romanculture.They“ndphenomena„includingbutnotlimitedtothereferencestonotetakinginearlyrabbinictraditions„thatpointtoaprocessofrabbiniceducation-enculturation.Sucheducation,tobesure,waslimitedtoafairlycon“nedJewishintellectualelite.Nevertheless,thosewhoprogressedfarintheemergent,initiallysmallrabbinicintellectualhierarchydidsobylearningtoperform,ingest,andexegetebothbiblicalandpostbiblicalrabbinictraditions.Atsomepoint,perhapsearlierthanof“ciallyrecognized,theselatterrabbinictraditions„thoughideologicallydistinguishedfromScripturebytheirpredominantlyoralŽcharacter„werestabilizedthroughthetechniqueofwrit-ing.Attheveryleast,byaround200.weseeawritteneditionoftheMish-nah,andthisisfollowedbywrittenversionsofvariousotherrabbiniccorpora:Midrashim,Talmudim,andsoon.LaterrabbinicJudaismendsupwithagradedsetofScriptures.ThewrittenMosaicTorahstandsatthesymboliccenteroftheseScriptures,surroundedbytheProphetsandWritingsoftherestoftheTanach.Yet,asmanystudieshaveshown,thenowwrittenOralTorahŽplaysasimportantormoreimportantaroleintheemergentdiscourseoftherabbinicmovement.StudentsstillhadtomasterthetextsoftheTanach,Torahaboveall,buttheirtruelearningwasoftenmeasuredbytheirabilitytoingestanddiscussabroaderscopeofpost-biblicalwrittentraditions:theMishnah,Talmudim,andMidrashim,alongwithotherauthoritativerabbinictraditions.Theoral-writtenprocessofeducation-enculturationcontinued,anditcontinuedtode“neanintellectualelite„ide-allyallofIsrael,butinrealitystillanelitede“nedbytheiroral-written,cognitive-performativemasteryofthecommunaltradition.Meanwhile,aJewishmales(andincreasinglytoday,females)entryintoadulthoodismarkednotbydemonstratedmasteryofthewholecorpusbutbyhis(orher)publicreadingperformanceofasinglereadingfromanunpointedtextoftheTorah.ThisperformancedemonstratestheyouthsmemorizedmasteryofthevocaltraditionofthatTorahportion.Itstandsasamicrocosmicsymbolofthebroadermasteryofthetraditionheldupasanidealforall.5.Seeinparticular,MartinJaffee,ARabbinicOntologyoftheWrittenandSpokenWord:OnDisciple-JournaloftheAmericanAcademyofReligion65(1997):534…35,andJaffee,TorahintheMouth,100…152,forargumentsthattheoralŽcharacterofrabbinictraditionreferredmoretohowitwasperformedthantohowitwastransmitted.6.Formorenuancedanalysisanddiscussionofevidencefordifferentlevelsoforalityindifferentrabbiniccorpora,seeworkbyYaakovElman,includinghisAuthorityandTradition:ToseftanBaraitotinTalmudicBabylonia(Hoboken,NJ:KTAV,1994)andOralityandtheTransmissionofToseftaPishainTalmudicLiterature,ŽinIntroducingTosefta:Textual,IntratextualandIntertextualStudies,ed.HarryFoxandR.Meacham(Hoboken,NJ:KTAV,1999),123…180.SeealsothebroaderdiscussionoftheseissuesinYaakovElmanandIsraelGershoni,Introduction,ŽinTransmittingJewishTraditions:Orality,Textuality,andCulturalDiffusion,ed.YaakovElmanandIsraelGershoni(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,2000),1…26andStevenD.Fraade,LiteraryCompositionandOralPerformanceinEarlyMidrashim,ŽOralTradition14.1(March,1999):33…51.7.Onthesmall-scaleintellectualelitediscussedhereseeCatherineHezser,TheSocialStructureoftheRabbinicMovementinRomanPalestine,TexteundStudienzumantikenJudentum(Tu¨bingen:MohrSiebeck,
fromtempletosynagogueandchurchAsothershaveobservedandisevidentfromthisstudyaswell,thiscultureformhasmuchincommonwithinstitutionsofHellenisticeducationandhigherlearning.ThoughthecentraltraditionsareinHebrew,theyaremas-teredinwaysanalogoustothemasteryofGreektraditionsinHellenisticed-ucation.Moreover,scholarssuchasLiebermann,Goldin,andothershavefoundmanysimilaritiesbetweenthesortsofexegeticaloperationsperformedbyrabbinicmastersonscripturaltextsandthesortsofexegeticaloperationsperformedonHomerandotherkeyGreekeducationaltexts.Finally,asLie-bermannoriginallyargued,JewishscribesappeartohaveadoptedsomeofthetechniquesoftheAlexandriangrammarianstopreservetheintegrityoftheircentraltexts.PartsofearlyChristianityemphasizedoralityinwayssimilartotheirrabbinicJewishcounterparts.Liketheirrabbiniccounterparts,earlyChristiansappeartohavemasteredthewrittenJewishScriptures,albeitinGreekform.Theyalsoresembledtheircounterpartsinrelyingheavilyonmemorizedformsofthatwrittentraditionintheirquotationofit.Indeed,FrancesYoung,buildingonPeterKatz,hasuncoveredwaysinwhichthewrittenmediaofearlyChris-tianitypointtoaconstrualofScriptureasanoral-likedepositoftraditionsre-latingtotherisenLord.ShepointsoutthattheearlyChristianuseoftheco-dexform„generallyusedintheHellenisticworldfornotesandbusinessrecords„involvesadowngradingofJewishscripturaltraditioninfavorofaheightenedfocusonJesus,theunderstoodreferentoftheJewishScriptures.Wheretheirrabbiniccounterpartsweresanctifyingthescripturaltraditionwithscrollsandusingnoteformsforoccasionalrecordingoforalrabbinicsayings,ChristianswereusingthecodexformforScripturesinalargelyoralliturgicalcontextfocusedonvenerationofJesusChrist,theWordmade”esh.ŽThisrelative”exibilityvis-a`-vistheJewishwrittentraditionwasre-”ectedaswellinearlyChristianopennesstowardthetranslationofJewish(andlateron,Christian)traditionsintovariouslanguages.Theholinessre-sidednotinthewrittentextorthelanguageinwhichitwaswrittenbutintheChristologicalrealitytowhichitwitnessed.Moreover,becauseChristiansusedtheGreekformofJewishScripturesratherthanthemoresharplyde-“ned,purportedlypre-HellenisticHebrewScriptures,theyfreelyusedtextslikeaGreektranslationofEnochortheWisdomofSolomonthatwerenotel-8.Liebermann,20…27;J.Goldin,APhilosophicalSessioninaTannaiteAcademy,ŽTraditio(1965):1…21;SeveralSidelightsofaTorahEducationinTannaiteandEarlyAmoraicTimes,ŽinExploringtheTalmud:Education,ed.HaimZ.Dimitrovsky(NewYork:KTAV,1976),3…18.9.ThislimiteddiscussionisnottheplaceforspeculationonthepossibilitythatJesusofNazarethandhisimmediatecirclesawhim(self)primarilyasateacher.ŽForproposalsmovinginthisdirectionseeRiesner,JesusalsLehrer;Riesner,JesusasPreacherandTeacher,ŽinJesusandtheOralGospelTradition,ed.HenryWansbrough(Shef“eldAcademicPress,1991),185…210;SamuelByrskog,JesustheOnlyTeacher:DidacticAuthorityandTrans-missioninAncientIsrael,AncientJudaism,andtheMattheanCommunity,ConiectaneaBiblica:NewTestamentSeries(Stockholm:AlmqvistandWiksell,1994).10.Barton,SpiritandtheLetter,79…104;FrancesM.Young,BiblicalExegesisandtheFormationofChristian(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1997),12…16.
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworldigibleforinclusioninthespeci“callyHebrewcurriculumofrabbinicJudaism.TheJewishtexts,tobesure,arestillwritten,butearlyChristiansrecordthesetextswithmaterialsusuallyusedfortemporaryrecordsandtreatthemwitha”exibilitytypicaloforaltradition.NewtraditionsoftheearlyChristianmovementappeartohavebeentrans-mittedindifferentways.Q,Thomas,andotherearlysayingstraditionswitnesstothedevelopmentoforal-writtenChristiangnomicmaterial,perhapsmeantforuseinelementaryinstructionofconverts„onanalogywiththesimilaruseofsuchgnomicmaterialinearlyeducationinotherculturalcontexts.wheresuchmaterialwasusedinanintenselyoral-writtencontext,andthatap-pearstobethecasewithChristiansayingsmaterialaswell.Forexample,thevariantsbetweenversionsofQsayingsinMatthew,Luke,andotherparallelsoftenshowthedynamicsofgnomicmaterialthatwastransmittedinoralororal-writtenform.Thoughthereissigni“cantverbatimoverlap,thereisalsosemanticoverlapamidverbalvariation:synonyms,variantwordorders,smallphrasesorwordsappearinonevariantandnottheother.Consider,forex-ample,thefollowingexamplefromJesussayingaboutanxiety.Luke12:25:tisdeexhumo¯nmerimno¯ndunataiepite¯nhe¯likianautouprostheinaipe¯chunWhichofyou,beinganxious,cantohisspanoflifeaddacubit?Matt6:27:tisdeexhumo¯nmerimno¯ndunataiprostheinaiepite¯nhe¯likianautoupe¯chunWhichofyou,beinganxious,canaddtohisspanoflifeacubitInthisexample,asectionwithcloseverbalagreementjustappearsrearranged,withaslightadditionalelement,(single),intheMattheanversion.Inthenextverse,thereisacombinationofsemanticoverlapandverbalagreement.Matt6:28*:kaiperiendumatostimerimnate;katamathetetakrinatouagroupo¯sauxanou-andaboutclothing,whyareyouanxious?Considertheliliesofthe“eld,howtheygrow.Luke12:26…27*:tiperito¯nloipo¯nmerimnate;katnoe¯satetakrinapo¯sauxaneiWhyareyouanxiousabouttheremainingthings?Considerthelilieshowtheygrow.11.AclassicearlystudylinkingQwithsuchgnomicmaterialisJamesM.Robinson,LOGOISOPHON:OntheGattungofQ,ŽinJamesRobinsonandHelmutKoester,TrajectoriesThroughEarlyChristianityphia:Fortress,1971),71…113.ForfurtherstudyofthewisdomelementsofQseeparticularlyJohnS.Kloppenborg,TheFormationofQ:TrajectoriesinAncientWisdomCollections(Philadelphia:FortressPress,1987).
fromtempletosynagogueandchurchHereweseeslightvariants„¯nloipo¯sate(growŽ)„andthepresenceofaslightadditionalphraseinMatthew(touagrou,the“eldŽ).Thevariantsdonotaffectthemeaning;theyaretechnicallyinsignif-icant.ŽButinanothersensetheseandothervariantsarequitesigni“cant:theypointtoaprobableoral-writtenprocessoftransmission.ThelevelofverbalagreementhereandelsewhereinJesussayingssuggeststhatwritingisplayingsomeroleinstabilizingthetradition.Nevertheless,thepresenceofsigni“cantvariationsuggestsaprominentrolefororalmemoryaswell.Ifthisisso,thetraditionmanifestinsourceslikeMatthew,Luke,andothermaterialshasnotyetreachedastageofexclusivelywrittentransmissionwhereanur-textcanbeestablished.Thoughwemaysometimesbeabletospeculateaboutspeci“cvariantscausedbythepreferencesofMatthew,Luke,orotherperformersŽofsuchJesusinstructionalmaterial,itappearsthatthesayingstraditionmanifestinMatthew,Luke,andsoonhadnotattainedastabilityallowingforsecurereconstructionofthewordingofthesayings.ThesortsofvariantsjustsurveyedsuggestthatthisearlyChristianinstruc-tionalmaterialisbeingtransmitted„atleastinpart„inthememoriesofauthoritativeearlyChristiantradents.TheworkofWernerKelberhasbeenparticularlyhelpfulinshowinganambivalenceinsomeearlyChristiantraditionsaboutoral-writteninstructionaltextualityofthesortseeninQ.IndicatorsofthisincludePaulandMarksapparentavoidanceofsuchsayingsmaterial,Marksnegativedepictionofthepredominantcandidatesfortheauthoritativetransmissionofsuchoral-writtensayingsmaterial(thedisciplesandJesusfamily),andtheeventualreplacementoftheseparatesayingsgenre(e.g.Q)bygospelsthatincorporatedthatgenreintoabroadernarrativeframework(especiallyMatthewandLuke).while,narrativegospelslikeMark„apparentlyambivalentabouttheoral-writtengnomictradition„representanimportanttextualizationofearlyChris-tiannarrativesaboutJesus.AsKelberandothershaveargued,thestoriesprecedingMarkbearsignsofhavingbeentransmittedinoralform.Followingothers,Kelbersuggeststhatthistextualizationoftheseoralnarratives,appar-entlyoccurringaround68…90.,mayhavebeenpromptedbythedestruction12.HereIammodifyingmyearlierviewsonthefeasibilityofmorepreciseQreconstruction.Cf.treatmentofthisverypassageinQinCarr,FromDtoQ,208.13.WernerH.Kelber,TheOralandWrittenGospel:TheHermeneuticsofSpeakingandWritingintheSynopticTradition,Mark,PaulandQ(Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress,1983),90…183.NotealsoLovedayAlexander,TheLivingVoice:SkepticismTowardstheWrittenWordinEarlyChristianandinGraeco-RomanTexts,ŽinBibleinThreeDimensions:EssaysinCelebrationofFortyYearsofBiblicalStudiesintheUniversityofShef“eld,ed.DavidJ.A.Clines,StephenE.Fowl,andStanleyE.Porter(Shef“eld:Shef“eldAcademicPress,1990),221…47.AsKelberpointsout,bytheearlycenturies.,traditionslikeThomasarerelegatedtogroupsoutsidetheascendantstreamsofChristianity.ForargumentsthattheNagHammadimaterialsareremnantsofananti-hereticallibraryofChristiansseeTorgnySa¨ve-So¨derbergh,HolyScripturesorApologeticDocumentations?TheSitzimLebenoftheNagHammadiLibrary,ŽinLestextesdeNagHammadi:Colloqueducentredhistoiredesreligions(Strasbourg,23…25octobre1974),ed.Jacques-E.Me´nard(Leiden:Brill,1975),3…14.
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworldofthetempleandtheperceivedthreattooralcontinuityrepresentedbythedispersalofinstitutionshousedinJerusalem.Liketheearlyrabbinictradition,theearliestgenerationofChristiansin-sistedontheoralityoftheirspeci“callyChristiantraditions,evenassomestrataofthegospelswitnesstoanemergent(oral-)writtentradition.Thus,forex-ample,we“ndslightlyvariantformsofMarkintheGospelofMarkproperandembeddedinMatthewandLuke.Somehaveusedsuchminoragree-mentsŽtoargueagainstthetwo-sourcehypothesis,butIwouldarguethatthesevariants„oftenshowinganefforttoimproveMarksGreek„betrayastill”uidprocessofvariationinsuchtraditionsastheyareusedinoral-writtenearlyChristianeducation-enculturation.Thesenowstandalongsidethesortsofsay-ingstraditionsdiscussedearlier(e.g.Q),likewisecharacterizedbyword-orderchanges,wordsubstitutionsnotaffectingmeaning,andotherinsigni“cantvariantsŽthatpointtoaprocessoforal-writtentransmission.Thoughsuchsayingswereprobablyusedininstruction,theydonotstandaloneasseparatewisdomŽmaterialscirculatedamongadiscretesapientialstrainofChristi-anity.ThroughoutthisstudyIhaveshownhowsuchwisdomŽmaterialstyp-icallystoodalongsideothermaterialsininstruction,includingandespeciallyinearlyJudaismofthesortseenatQumranandelsewhere.Rather,materialsofthesortdesignatedasQŽstandalongsidevariantversionsofMark,anemergentepistolarycollectionassociatedwithPaul,andotherearlyChristianmaterialsaspartofabroaderearlyChristianoral-writteninstructionalcorpus.Whatevertheoriginsofthesetextsinotheruses(e.g.,Paulsletters),theyenteredtheChristianstreamoftraditionasdiverserecognizedfociforChris-tianteaching.OnlywithtimewouldsuchearlyChristianmaterialsbesolidi“ed,de“nedandcircumscribed,onanalogywiththeJewishScriptures.Onlylaterwouldthey(andnototherChristiantexts)becomepartofanauthoritativeChristianScripture,aBiblewithaGreekOldTestamentontheonehandandaclearlyde“nedChristianNewTestamentontheother.Thoughitisdisputed,thisrenewedemphasisonscripturalizationinearlyChristianityprobablywasanattempttoenforcestabilityamidaproliferationofdivergentgroupsinearlyChristianity,gnosticandother.Bythispointinthestudywehaveseenthisphenomenonbefore.FromtheearlykingdomsofMesopotamiatotheconsol-idatingEgyptianmonarchyoftheMiddleKingdomtoanascendantAthensofthe“fthcenturytoexpansionistperiodsinIsraelshistoryinthelatepreexilicandthenHasmoneanperiods,inthesecontextsandmorewehaveseenex-pansionandconsolidationofwriting-supportededucation-enculturationcon-14.Kelber,OralandWrittenGospel,211.15.ForsurveyofevidenceofearlyChristiantextuality(acritiqueofKelbersover-emphasisonexclusiveoralityinearlyChristianity)seeHarryGamble,BooksandReadersintheEarlyChurch:AHistoryofEarlyChristianTexts(NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress,1995),28…32.Inthesamebook(esp.205…30),GambleemphasizesliturgyasaprimarycontextforearlyuseofChristiantexts(alongsideprivatereadingandmagicaluses).AsintheJewishinstance,suchpublicliturgicalŽreadingwasateachingeventthatwaspartofabroaderoral-writtenprocessofeducation.
fromtempletosynagogueandchurchnectedtoreinforced,centralizedinstitutionsofculturalpower.Soalsoitap-pearsthatearlyChristiantraditionstoowereconsolidatedaspartofabroadercentralizationofChristianinstitutionalauthority,marginalizationofperceiveddeviantgroups,andtheconsolidationofhierarchicallinesofauthority.Onlyatthispointdowe“nallyseeacleardelineationofboundariedGreekScrip-tures,ŽtheGreekOldandNewTestamentsthatformedtheemergentChristianThustowardtheendofthesecondcenturyweseetheemergenceofade“nedcorpusofaChristianBible„OldandNewTestaments„thatservesastheincreasinglystablecurriculumoftheinstitutionalchurch.Moreover,wealsoseeincreasingemphasisonauthorizedwaystoreadthiscomplexcorpus,waysthatconstruethewholeasintegrallyinterrelatedprophecyŽoftheful-“llmentofthenewcovenantŽproclaimedbyJeremiah,arecordofthe„nowsuperseded„covenantwiththeJewsandapointertotherealityofJesusInthisway,thedevelopmentandconstrualoftheearlyChristianbiblical-educationalcorpusnotonlyconsolidatedChristianityvis-a`-visunau-thorizedChristiangroupsbutalsoconsolidateditvis-a`-vistheopposingedu-cationaluseofsimilarScriptureswithinthecontemporaryrabbinicJewishcontext.AndthisprocessoftheuseofwritingandinstructiontoestablishandconsolidateChristianityonlyacceleratedinthefourthand“fthcenturieswiththelinkageofinstitutionalChristianityandtheConstantinianempire.EarlyChristiansusedothertextsforeducationaswell,especiallytheGreekclassics.Thoughtherewassomeambivalenceaboutsuchongoingstudyofclassics,itisclearthatcentralstreamsofeliteChristianintellectuallifepresupposedGreeklearning.Forexample,thoroughlyeducatedscholarslikeOrigenillustrateaninterplayoftwoformsoforal-writteneducation-enculturation:theGreekBibleandtheGreco-Romanclassics.AndevenwhereChristiantheologianscriticizedtheuseofGreekclassicsforeducationofChristians,theyoftendidsousinghighlylearnedtropesandthemesalreadypresentintheGreektraditionitself.Inthisway,asinothers,theChristianmovementblendedwithitsGreco-RomanenvironmentatlociwhereitsJewishcounterpart,atleastasde“nedbytherabbinicmovement,preservedmoredistinctiveness.ThoughrabbinicJudaismitselfthoroughlyadoptedvariousHellenisticculturalformsandsomeJewspursuedGreekandLatinlearning,16.ForfullerdiscussionseeCarr,CanonizationinCommunity,Ž58…63.17.ForacompellingcaseforthisapproachseeFrancesM.Young,ExegesisandCulture,49…69.18.OnthisseeinparticularthesuggestivestudyofearlyChristianscribalpracticesbyKimHaines-EitzenGuardiansofLetters,37…40,91…94,152),particularlyherobservationsonshiftsfromthesmallscaleandrelative”uidityofsuchpracticesinthesecondtothirdcenturiestogreaterstandardizationandconsolidationinthefourthand(particularly)“fthcenturies.OnearlyChristianliteracyandtextualityseealsoP.J.Botha,Greco-RomanLiteracyasSettingforNewTestamentWritings,Ž26(1992):195…215,andHarryY.BooksandReadersintheEarlyChurch19.TheclassicstudyofuseoftheclassicsinearlyChristianeducationisMarrou,HistoryofEducation314…39.FormorerecentdiscussionseeSaraRappe,TheNewMath:HowtoAddandtoSubtractPaganElementsinChristianEducation,ŽinEducationinGreekandLatinAntiquity,ed.YunLeeToo(Leiden:Brill,2001),405…20.ForasubtleoverviewofthisinterplayandrelatedissuesseeRappe,NewMath.Ž
textualityandeducationintheeasternhellenisticworldspeci“callyrabbiniceducation-enculturationremainedaHebrew(andsomeAramaic)enterprise,whiletheChristians„asidefromexceptionslikeJe-rome„moreconsistentlycombinededucationin(Greek)biblicaltraditionswitheducationintheGreekclassics.JudaismandChristianitywerealsodistinguishedinthewaytheydrewonculturalmodelsintheancientMediterranean.Hellenisticeducationandtex-tualityparticularlyemphasizedtwositesforongoingeducationandformation:(1)theoftenprivateorsmall-scaleschoolŽprocess„focusedparticularlyontheformationofchildren„and(2)thereinforcementandelaborationofsuchformationthroughperformanceanddiscussionofkeytextsinthesymposium-mealcontextoftheHellenisticassociation„anadultinstitution.VariousformsofSecondTempleJudaismappeartohavefeaturedbothformsoftextuality,bothHellenistic-likeJewishschoolsofHebrewandGreekandJewishorgani-zationsliketheQumranEssenesortheTherapeutae(seealsoBenSira)thatresembledHellenisticassociationswiththeirmealsandassociatedtextdiscus-Thetwocultural-religiousformsthatsuccessfullyemergefromSecondTemple…periodJudaism„rabbinicJudaismandChristianity„preservebothelements,butindifferentmeasures.RabbinicJudaismemphasizesJewishcounterpartstotheHellenisticearlyandadvancedschools.Itre”ectsthemealelementsoftheHellenisticassociationprimarilyinthetraditionssurroundingPassover.Christianityhassomesuchschoolelementsanddevelopsthemmoreovertime.Nevertheless,itputthe(Symposium)meal„nowtheologizedasEucharist„atthecenterofitscommunallife.MuchChristiantextuality,then,becomesconnectedwiththismeal.Perhapsthisdifferenceinemphasisre”ectsageneraldifferenceinhoweachcommunityconceiveditsprimarysourceofnewmembers.RabbinicJudaismwasorientedtowardtheeducationof(some)childrenbornintothecommunityforhigherformsofadultdiscourseaboutwrittenbiblicalandoral(-written)rabbinictraditions.Therefore,itfo-cusedmoreexclusivelyontheeducational-enculturationalsideofHellenisticculture.EarlyChristianityincorporatedpartsoftheHellenisticeducationalsystem,butitwasorientedmoretowardtheincorporationofadultconvertsintoasacralmeal…likefellowshipledbyasmallminorityofmastersoftheoral-writtenJewish(andearlyChristian)heritage.SoaChristiancounterparttothesymposiummeal,nottheschool,tookcenterstageinChristiancom-munallife.Thus,bytheendofthisstudy,weendupwiththreeoriginallyMediter-raneanstreamsoftext-supported,oral-writteneducation-enculturationthatpersistintolateantiquity:(1)ongoingeducation-enculturationinGreekandLatinmaterials,(2)Christianeducation-enculturationinthosematerialsalongwithGreekbiblical(OldandNewTestaments)andotherspeci“callyChristiancatecheticaltexts,and(3)therabbinicJewishcombinationofolderformsof21.Klinghardt,,183…249;Smith,SymposiumtoEucharist,133…72.22.Klinghardt,,251…61;Smith,SymposiumtoEucharist,144…50.23.Klinghardt,,269…522;Smith,SymposiumtoEucharist,173…277.
fromtempletosynagogueandchurchJudeaneducation-enculturationinHebrewscripturaltextswithingestionandstudyofanincreasingbodyoforal(-written?)rabbinictraditions.Eachoftheseenculturationalsystemsformasocialidentitythatistransnational:Christian,Jewish,and„increasinglyde“nedvis-a`-vistheothers„Pagan.ŽThesethreesystemsdonotjustenculturatesomeoneintoageographicallyandethnicallyde“nedsocialbodybutactively„atleastatsomepoint„incorporatediversepeoplesintoasocialwholethatextendsbeyondtraditionalboundaries.Althoughthismovewasanticipatedbythesomewhatinternationalchar-acterandscopeofearlyeducationalsystemsliketheSumero-Akkadian,itwas“rstfullyexecutedbytheemergentHellenisticeducationalsystem,asystemthatwasusedtoshapecitizensofacityintocitizensoftheworld.Aswesaw,atleastduringtheMaccabeanperiod,itappearsthatJudaismdevelopeditsownformoftransnationalsystemtouniteitsregionalempire,nowasystembasedonpre-Hellenistic,Hebrewtexts.AndthoughJudaismdidnotcontinuethispushmuchbeyondtheHasmoneanperiod,thatextensionandtransfor-mationofIsraeliteidentitywascontinuedinanotherwayintheexpansionoftheChristianculturalsystem,anexpansionthatlikewisefeaturedaBibleoftenblendedwithHellenisticeducationalmaterials,atleastfortheeliteminorityofChristianswhoattainedhighertheologicallearning.Thesetransnationalsystemsofeducation-enculturationthenformthebackdropforaconceptofreligionŽapartfromlocalizedethnicidentity,aconceptthatissoprominentintheWestandcontemporaryacademicstudyofthesetraditions.Thisisanidentitybasedinaneducation-enculturationapartfrom/inadditiontoonesformationasanEgyptian,Italian,Argentinian,Jap-anese,andsoon.Itisthiswriting-supportededucation-enculturationthatbringsaperson„whetheryoungchildoradult„overtheboundaryintothecon“nesofthetransnationalidentityofthepeopleofIsrael,Žchurch,Žandsoonandkeepshimorherthere.Thetransnationalidentitythatisthusformedandreinforced„boththroughtext-supportedandothermeans„isanidenti-“ablereligionŽthatstandsdistinctfrom„thoughalwaysrelatedto„thecul-tureoftheparticipants.Thewrittentext,whetherreadablebymanyornot,providesbothanemblemofcontinuityandastablemeansforensuringthestabilityoftheculturalformationintothenextgeneration.Nevertheless,themainpoint,always,istomakesurethatthesacredtextiswrittenonthetabletoftheheartofthoseleaderswhoareresponsibleforensuringthepersistenceandadaptationofthetransnationalsocialbodyasitmovesacrosstime.24.Cf.FrancesM.Young,ExegesisandCulture,esp.69.ThoughIhavelearnedfromYoungsoverview,Ireverseherproposeddevelopment.RatherthanChristianitybeingthe“rstofthesetransnationalidentities,IseeHellenistic-GreekeducationstandingattheoutsetandtheformoftransethnicJudaisminitiallyadvancedintheHasmoneanperiodassecond,withChristianityasanextensionofthatculturalphenomenon.
This page intentionally left blank
IntheprecedingchaptersIhopeIhavedemonstratedthepotentialbene“tsofcomparativelyanalyzingancientlong-durationtextsfromMesopotamia,Egypt,Greece,andIsraelasoral-written,numinousliteraturecognitivelymasteredforsocializationandongoingencul-turation.Suchliteraturewasoriginallyusedforformationofelites,butthisusagewasexpanded„atleastinideal„indifferentwaysintheHellenisticperiod.Atthatpointweseeanincreasingmoveto-wardbroadereducationoffreecitizensincertainurbanquartersoftheHellenisticworld.Inaddition,inresponsetotheunusualcir-cumstancesoftheanti-JewishpersecutionbytheSeleucids,weseethedevelopmentofaresistantcounterliteracyinHellenistic-periodJudaism:aliteracyfocusedoncognitivemasteryoftheHebrewTo-rahandotherpre-HellenisticpropheticŽbooks,aliteracythaten-compassed„ideally„allJewishmales.Thisapproachcanbeadvocatedinmoreandlessthorough-goingversions.Themorethoroughgoingversionwouldtakealllong-durationtextsliketheBibleas(almost)exclusivelyusedfororal-writteneducationandongoingenculturationofancientelites.Build-ingonatraditionofsociologicalanalysisassociatedwithEmileDurkheim,itwouldidentify(virtually)allusesofsuchtextsintheancientworld„whetherexplicitlyeducationalorliturgical,ceremo-nial,andsoon„asintellectuallyshapingandmarkingoffagroupofpeoplefromothers.Thisshaping,ofcourse,happenedtodiffer-entextentswithdifferentelites(e.g.,kingsonlyirregularlyachievedmuchmasteryofthetradition),andseveralculturesalsoattesttotheideaofanexclusivelyoralshapingofnonliterateothersthroughperiodicperformancesoftheculturaltraditionforthebroaderpub-lic.Thelessthoroughgoingversionofthistheorywouldnotinsist
writingonthetabletoftheheartasmuchontheeducation-enculturationrolesoftextsineveryaspectoftheirusagebutwouldmaintainthatoral-writtenmasteryofthetraditionwasachievedatleastbythosewhoplayedleadingrolesintheculturallifeofagivenpeople.Althoughmanyeliteleadersmightnotachievesigni“cantmasteryoftheoral-writtentradition,wewouldstillrecognizethatthescribe/priests/teach-erswhostoodatthetopoftheeducationalpyramiddidachievesuchmastery.Long-durationtextslikeGilgamesh,theInstructionofKheti,Homer,andtheJewishBiblemightbeusedforavarietyofworship,artistic,orotherpurposes,buttheirchieftradentsweremarkedasculturalelitesbytheirsuperlativeoral-writtenmasteryofthegiventradition.Thein”uenceofsuchtextsonothergroupsmightbeenvisionedasaseriesofconcentriccircles.Theinnercirclewouldbedominatedbythoseeliteswhohadachievedtheidealofrelativelycomprehensivemasteryofthetradition.Yettheremightbeanoutercircleofsub-elitesdistinguished(ataminimum)bytheirmasteryofamicrocosmicfragmentofthetradition(e.g.,masteryofaBarMitzvahTorahportion).Stillfartheroutwouldbecirclesofothersexposedtotheliterarytraditionthroughperiodicperformancesatbanquetsorpublicfestivals.ItmightseemfrompartsofthisbookthatIhavebeenarguingonlyforthemoreintenseversionofthetheory,butinactualityIrecognizethatbothversionshavetheirplace,particularlywhenlookingatidealandrealityindifferentcul-turesanddifferentperiods.IfIhaveseemedtoinsistoneducationalusageoflong-durationtexts,eventotheexclusionofotherformsofenculturationandculturalcirculation,ithasbeentoemphasizetheimportanceofoftenoverlookeddimensionsofcognitivemasteryandoral-writtenperformance.ThroughoutIhavemaintainedthatpastdiscussionsoftextualityandeducationinIsraelandnearbyculturestoooftenhavebeendominatedbyassumptionsaboutoralityversusliteracyorevenacontinuumwithoralityononeendandliteracyontheother.AndthoughtraditionsrangingfromPlatostoearlyChristianandrabbinictextstestifytooccasionaloppositionbetweentheoralandwritten,thisstudysuggeststhatmostculturalusageofwrittentraditionshasinvolvedsigni“cantelementsofbothoralperformanceandcognitivemastery.Asare-sult,whetheroneoptsinagiveninstanceforamoreorlessintenseversionoftheapproachbeingadvocatedhere,bothversionsinsistontheinterplayoftheoralandwrittenintheperformanceandtransmissionofancientliterature,alongwiththeachievement„atleastamongthechieftradentsoftheculturaltradition„ofcognitivemasteryofthattradition.Theideal,atleast,wasthewritingofthetraditiononthetabletoftheheart,Žwhetherornotmanypeopleinagiventimeachievedthatideal.Thetextsbearthesignsofhavingbeencreatedbysuchcognitivemastersofthetraditionfororal-writtentransmissiontoandconsumptionbyothers.Furthermore,whetherde“ningabroadersocial-culturaleliteorjustthemastersofthetradition,cognitivemasteryoftextslikeGilgameshortheBibleplayedakeyroleinsocioculturalstrati“cation.1.Thisismychiefobjectiontotherecentwork,sohelpfulinthisstudy,ofSchniedewind,HowtheBibleBecameaBook
Thesearethekeyemphasesthroughoutthebook,butthereareotherelementsthatwarrantmoreattentionasimportantpartsoftheoral-writtenliterarymatrix.Forexample,onlyinconsistentlyhaveItakenspacetodiscusstheroleofwhatmightbetermedelevatedlanguageŽintheincisingoftraditionsonthemind„especiallytheroleofsingingorcantingthetraditionandofpatternedlanguagethatmightbebroadlytermedpoetic.ŽMultipleculturesappeartohavefoundthattheuseofpoeticŽandmusicalŽmodesintheperformanceoftraditionmoreindeliblyimpresseditonthemindthanmererotereading.Soalso,Icouldhavehighlightedmoreconsistentlythematerial,graphicelementsofwritingintheuseoftextsforculturalreproduc-tion.Asothershaveemphasized,predominantlynonliteratecultureshaveaparticularappreciationforthetechnologyofwriting,andoftentheytreatcopiesofculturaltextswithparticularreverence.Moreover,theantiquityandspecial-nessofsuchwritingsismarkednotjustbytheiroftenarchaiclanguageandformsbutalsobyparticularscripts,writtenmedia,andformattingofthescriptonthepage.Indeed,asM.T.Clanchy,KatharineOKeefe,andothershaveargued,thetypographicrepresentationofwordsonapageoftenservestheendofmemorizingandperformingaculturaltradition.Theseandotherdimen-sionsdeservemoreconsistentandnuancedtreatmentinamorefocusedstudyoftheoral-writtenuseofliteratureforsocializationandenculturationthanIcouldgivehere.Somemayobjectthatthisstudyhasfailedsuf“cientlytorecognizeanimportantdistinctionbetweentheliteraturesunderdiscussion:thesharpdi-videbetweenaliterarycorpusŽontheonehandandaholyscripturalcorpusŽontheother.Certainlywithinrecenttimestherehasbeenadistinctionbe-tweenthereligioususeofatextliketheBibleandthewaytextsliketheGreekclassicsweretreatedassecularliteratureinaChristianculturethatnolongerrecognizedtheGreekgods.TextsliketheBible,sotheargumentruns,aretreatedasdivinelyinspiredandasourceofsacrednorms.Incontrast,aliterarycorpusliketheGreekclassics„orlaterclassicsofEnglish,German,orotherliterature„istreatedasanonsacredsourceofelevatedlanguageandapossiblemeansofinstillingcertaincharactertraits.Suchadistinctionisnotpurelymodern.AsIhavenotedalongtheway,thereareimportantdistinctionstobemadebetweentheJewishscripturalcorpus„withitshardenedboundaries,normativeauthority,andconstrualofitasdivinerevelation„andmanyoftheothercorporaunderdiscussionhere.Despitetheclearworthofdistinguishingbetweenhowdifferentcorporafunctionintheirrespectivesocieties,Imaintainthatthisdistinctionbetweenliteraryandscripturalcorporashouldnotbeoveremphasized.Ourcontem-porarydistinctionbetweenliteratureŽandScriptureŽcanobscuremorethanitilluminatesthestudyofhowthesetextsfunctionedinantiquity.Merelyby2.Seeesp.Clanchy,MemorytoRecord,142…43;OKeeffe,VisibleSong,14…15.3.Infact,peopleoftenspeakofaliterarycanonŽandscripturalcanon,ŽbutIhaveelidedtheissueofcanonŽinmysummaryhereasanachronistic.
writingonthetabletoftheheartvirtueofbeingwritten,alltheseculturaltextsboreanuminous,semidivinequalityinthecultureswheretheyweretransmitted,andthiswasreinforcedbyarchaicelementsoftheirlanguage,purportedauthors,materialpresenta-tion,andperformance.Atleastbylaterperiods,weseethepresentationofsuchtextsinmultipleculturesasauthoredorinspiredbythedivine.Forex-ample,wealreadyseetheassertionofdivineauthorshipoftheErraepicinMesopotamia,andtheGreeksdepictedtheirculturalliteratureasinspiredbytheMuses.Moreover,alloftheseliteraturesappeartohaveplayedakeyroleinmoralformation,eveniftheydidnotachievetheroleofsupraroyalconsti-tutionthattheJewishScripturesapparentlydid.Inlightoftheseoverlapsandthekeypointsofcontinuityintheuseofsuchtextsfortheshapingofculturalelites,Iarguefortheheuristicworthofblurring„atleasttemporarily„theboundariesweoftenpresupposebetweenasecularliterarycorpusŽandreli-giousScripture.ŽAfterall,thegodswereanintegralpartofallthesetextualcorpora,andreligioninfusedlifeineachculturewheretheywereused.WouldtheancientGreeks,Mesopotamians,orEgyptianshaveseenthesharpdistinc-tionofliterarycorpusandreligiousscripturethatwedo?Lackingoursharpdistinctionbetweenreligionandculture,Isuggestthattheywouldnot.TermslikeauthoritativeliteratureŽorcanonŽaremostusefulwhenhigh-lightingthenormativefunctionsofspeci“ccorporainthisbroaderarena,func-tionsthatcorrespondtotheuseofthetermfortextlistsinlaterChristianusageandforotherculturalareasinearlierGreekculture.Forexample,termslikecanonŽorprotocanonicalŽareespeciallyappropriateforhighlightingtheauthoritativefunctionofJewishwritings,especiallytheMosaicTorah,insomecirclesofJudaismfromthelatepreexilicperiodonward.Suchwritingsdoappeartohaveservedasset-apart,community-guidingtextslongbeforeChris-tiansappliedthetermcanonŽtotheirown,latercollectionoftheseandotherYetevenintheJewishinstance,excessivefocusoncanonŽpersecanobscurethebroaderrangeofusesofJewishScripturesinthisperiodandlater.ThoughJewishtextsliketheTorahfunctionedasnormative,canon-liketexts,theywerepartofawebofeducation-enculturationliteraturethatservedabroaderandmorepervasivefunctionintheshapingofthelanguageandthoughtofelites,andeventuallypeoples.AswelookathowtheTorahandotherwritingswereused,weseethatcertainlytheywerecitedasauthoritative.Nevertheless,justasoftentheywereusedasa”uidstorehouseofphrases,practices,concepts,andplotsforscribeswhohadthemwrittenontheirhearts.Therefore,especiallyintheJewishinstance,IproposethattheEnglishtermscriptureŽmaybemoreappropriatefordesignatingthecomplexrangeofusesofauthoritativetextsratherthanthelaterandnarrowertermcanon.ŽScrip-tureŽhassemidivineconnotations.Itcandesignatenormativeliteraturebutencompassesbroaderusesaswell.Anditexplicitlyincludesanemphasisonwriting„scriptŽ„thatissocrucialtothebroaderenterpriseoforal-writtenshapingofbothindividualsandabroadercommunity.Inthepastsomescholars„includingsomewhohavebeenimportantineducating-enculturatingme„urgedafocusontheBibleascanonorurgedthe
practiceofcanonicalcriticism.ŽIndoingso,theyfocusedonsomeofthesameissuesemphasizedinthisbook,forexample,theshapinganduseofbiblicaltraditionsincommunitiesoffaith,thedynamicssurroundingthecon-solidationandhardeningofbiblicaltradition,andtheconstrualofitspartsinrelationtooneanother.Yet,giventheforegoingre”ectionsonterminology,IwouldurgetheuseofthedesignationscripturalcriticismŽratherthanca-nonicalcriticismŽtocharacterizestudyofthephenomenologyoftheearlyformationanduseofbiblicaltexts.Moreover,suchscripturalcriticismŽwouldnotfocusontheologicalelementstotheextentofworkdonebyBrevardChilds,JamesSanders,andthosepursuingsimilarapproaches.Instead,asexempli“edinthisstudy,ascripture-criticalŽapproachtotheBiblealsowouldemphasizeabroadrangeofnontheologicaldynamicssurroundingscripture„forexam-ple,thesocialdynamicssurroundingthetextuality,language,graphicpresen-tation,andoftenarchaiccharacterofbiblicaltexts.PossibleImplicationsofThisApproachforBiblicalStudiesMuchanalysisremainstobedoneofthephenomenologyoftheBibleandotherliteraturesasoral-writteneducationandsocializationliterature.Givenmorespaceandtime,IwouldhavefocusedmuchmorethanIdidhereonthewayinwhichvariouseducationalandenculturationalstructuresspeci“callyfocusonandsimultaneouslyconstructsocialgroupsde“nedbygender,race,andothercategories.Pastworkhasoftenstressedtheoccasionalpresenceofwomenineducationalstructures,butsofarmostworkontheroleofeducation-enculturationinconstructingsocialcategorieshasbeendoneinClassics.Inaddition,thisstudyjoinsothersinpointingtotheimportanceofstudyofthecharacterofvariantsandquotationsinearlytransmissionofculturaltexts.Mostsuchtextshavebeenpublishedinscholarlyeditions,wherevariantsŽarenotedinanapparatus.Butthisandotherstudiesshowtheneedtolookmorebroadlyatthephenomenaofvariants,notasadistractionfromrecon-structinganur-exemplar,butascrucialaccesspointstoaprocessoftextualmasteryandperformancenotalwaysmeasuredbycentralreferencecopies.Inaddition,myworkforthisbookhasunderlinedthespecialimportanceoftheQumran“ndsforscholarshipoftheHebrewBible.UpuntilrecentyearsmuchoftheemphasishasbeenontherelevanceoftheDeadSeaScrollsasback-groundtoearlyChristianity,buttherecentpublicationofcave4materialshasrevealedmoreclearlytheunparalleledvalueofthescrollsinprovidingaccesstonon-Qumranreligious,instructional,andscribalpractices.WehaveonlybeguntoscratchthesurfaceoftheimportanceofthesematerialsforstudyofearlyJudaismandtheHebrewBible.Inaddition,thisworkhasledmetoreevaluatebroadermethodsinbiblicalstudies.Asindicatedinthechapterontextualityandeducationinpre-HellenisticIsrael,Imaintainthatbiblicalscholarsshouldreckonwiththelike-lihoodoforaltransmissionoforal-writtenbiblicaltraditions,especiallyattimesliketheexilewhereversionsofbiblicaltraditionsmayhavebeenreproduced
writingonthetabletoftheheartfrommemorybyscribalmasterswhonolongerhadaccesstowrittenversionsofthattradition.Thisstudyhasreinforcedmyskepticismabouttext-criticalattemptstoreconstructaneclecticur-textofbiblicalbooksfortimesprecedingtheidenti“cationofauthoritativereferencecopiesagainstwhichothertextswritteninthesametraditioncouldbecorrected.Onecanspeculateaboutindividualreadingsofthetraditioninearlierperiods,butthe”uiddynamicsoftextualtransmissioninsuchperiodsrenderimpossibleamethodologicallycontrolledreconstructionofabroadertextualtraditionbeforesuchauthoriza-tionofasingletextualtraditionoccurred.Asaform-critic,Inowlook“rsttotheprocessofeducationandotherformsofculturalreproductionastheimLeben(institutionalsettingŽ)fortheformationandtransmissionofalltexts„notjustwisdomtextsŽ„inthebiblicalstreamoftradition.Thoughsuchtextsoftenhadapreviousoralorwrittenprehistory,theyenteredthestreamofongoingwrittentraditionaspartofamatrixofsocialization-enculturationliterature,whetherforaspeci“coccupationalsubgroup(e.g.pre-formsofLeviticus1…7)orabroader(usuallymale)public(e.g.collectionsinProverbsortheDeuteronomicTorah).Ifthisistrue,itwouldsuggesttheparticularproductivityofthosesociologicalandanthropologicalapproachestotheBiblethatstressthesocialfunctionsoftextualityitself,thesocialsigni“-canceofthemasteryoflinguisticrepertoires(e.g.HebreworsubgroupidiomsrepresentedinDeuteronomicandPriestlyliteratures),andthesocialdimen-sionsofvisualandmaterialaspectsofsuchscripturaltexts„script,media(papyrusversusparchment,scrollversuscodex),andscribalpractices.Overall,Ihavefoundlittleevidencethatthesortsofbroaderideologicalstructuresfocusedoninbiblicaltheologywereofcentralconcerntothosewhoshapedandconsolidatedbiblicalliterature.SuchtheologicalpreoccupationsappearfarmoreimportanttoProtestantsseekingatheologyintheirsolascripturaothersbuildingontheirwork)thantheyweretotheearlyauthor-tradentswhoformedandusedtheBible.ThemodeladvocatedinthisbookalsohasimplicationsforapproachestotheBiblethatdrawonliterarystudiesoutsidetheBible,suchasnewŽliterarycriticism,structuralism,formalism,andnarratologicalapproaches.Thestrengthofsuchapproacheshasbeenthattheyhelpedfocustheattentionofscholarsonthepresentformofthetext,includingconcentricandotherpat-ternsthatmayhaveplayedaprominentroleintheirmemorizationandper-formance.Inaddition,theliteraryconceptofintertextualityŽoftenisamoreaccuratedesignationofscribalmastershighly”uiduseofprecedingtextualmaterialsthanolderconceptsofinner-biblicalexegesisŽorallusion.ŽAtthesametime,theoral-writteneducational-enculturationalmodeladvocatedherehighlightssomeimportantdifferencesbetweenancientliteratureliketheBibleandthecontemporaryliteraryworksthataretheoriginalfocusofliterarycrit-icism.AncientcorporaliketheBiblewereshapedfororal-writtenmemo-4.ThisphenomenonrendersproblematictheOxfordprojectofreconstructionofabroadereclectictextoftheHebrewBibleprecedingtheproto-Massoretictradition.
rizationandperformanceandeducation-enculturation.Contemporarylitera-ture,especiallynarrativeprose,isshapedforthepleasuresofapredominantlysilentandindividualreadingenvironment.Insofarasaliteraryapproachaimstouncoverliterarydimensionsthatwouldhavebeenrecognizabletoancientwriters,performers,orhearers,itmustbeattentivetotheoral-writtendimen-sionofsuchtextsandtheaestheticspeculiartosuchliterature.Finally,themodeladvocatedherelinksinparticularlyproductivewayswithtwostreamsofmorerecentscholarshipontheBible:postcolonialandgenderapproaches.ThelinkswithpostcolonialtheoryshouldbeevidentalreadyinmydepictionofvariousindigenousHellenisticliteraturesashybridŽactsofculturalresistancetoHellenisticcultureanddomination.Vis-a`-visgender,themodeladvocatedheresuggeststhebene“tsoffocusingmoreonhowscripturesliketheBiblewereshapedtoinstillaparticulargenderidentityinthe(predom-inantlymale)Jewishelitestheyhelpedtoform.Forexample,TeresaMorganhassuggestedthatahiddenelementofHellenisticGreekcurriculawasitstrainingof(predominantlymale)studentstosuppresstheirowninterestsandpassionsthroughforcingthemtomemorizetheeducationalcurriculumbyrote.Thisprocesspreparedmalestudentsforadministrativeandhigherpostsbyteachingthemtoruletheirpassionsandobeythestricturesofanimpersonalsystem.Giventherelativepaucityofexplicitevidencefororal-writteneducationofwomeninearlyJudaism,itappearsthattheHebrewBiblewaspartofanevenmoreexclusivelymaleprocessofeducationandenculturation.Agender-theoreticalapproachtotheBiblecouldexplorewaysinwhichitwasusedtoshapeandengendereliteJewishmen:bothdirectly,throughteachingthemcertainperspectivesonhonor,Jewishpractices,andsoon,andindirectly,throughteachingthemskillslikewritingandHebreworthroughinstillinginthemcertainaffectivedispositionsandcapabilities.TheforegoingisanincompletesamplingofsomewaysI“ndmyselflook-ingatmyowndisciplineofBiblicalstudiesdifferentlyinlightofthisstudyandthoseonwhichitbuilds.Thesearemorethesestowardfurtherexplorationthan“nishedthoughts.Suchfurtherexplorationisbestpursuedinothercon-texts,especiallyasthisapproachisevaluatedandfurtherre“ned.AncientandContemporaryEducationandEnculturationSofar,thisstudyhasfocusedprimarilyonancientdynamicsofeducationandenculturation.Inparticular,Ihaveemphasizedwaysinwhichancientencul-turationalliteratureoftenhearkensbacktoanearliertime,drawspowerfromitspatentlyarchaiclanguageandobscurethemes,andfrequentlyservesasawrittenbulwarkagainstcontemporaryculturalshifts.Morespeci“cally,IhavearguedthattheHebrewBible„initsoriginsandrepeatedusage„functionedasanuminous,(mostly)Hebrewwrittendepositofrevelationfromapre-HellenistictimewhentherewasstillprophecyŽinIsrael.Itsverypowerde-rivedfromthewaysitwasnotimmediatelyaccessibletoitsAramaic-speakingaudienceanddivergedfromitsGreekcounterparts.Bothearlierandlateroral-
writingonthetabletoftheheartwrittenenculturationliteraturesandscriptureshavesimilarlydrawntheirpowerfromtheirstatusasesoteric,archaicliterature,masteredparticularlybyeliteswhosurpassedtheirpeersintheirpossessionofculturalcapitalfromabygoneage.Thoughthereareimportantdifferences,manyofthesedynamicspersisttoday,includingtheuseofesoterictextstoformsocialelitesandsubgroups.ThisisnotjustanissueoffundamentalistsŽorotherswhoaredevotedtoparticularinterpretationsoftheTanach,ChristianBible,orKoran.WeseesimilaremphasisonmasteryofrestrictedculturalcapitalintheuseoftestsliketheSATforgatekeepingtoelitecolleges,teststhatmeasurestudentsmasteryofoftenesoteric,arcanevocabularyandmathconceptsrarelyusedineverydaylife.Suchdynamicsalsomaybere”ectedinthepushinsomequar-terstowardreshapingcollegeeducationaroundacorecurriculum,Žwherestudentsgainmasteryofanewcorpusofarchaicculturalclassics„onenowincludingamixofbiblical,Greco-Roman,andmorerecentEuropeanlitera-ture.Motivatedbyavarietyoffactors,thispushtowardanewformofculturalliteracyŽresemblesancienteffortstodistinguishelitesbytheirknowledgeoforal-writtenliteratures„whetherSumero-Akkadian,MiddleEgyptian,Ho-mericGreek,orpre-HellenisticHebrew.Apparentlytherewasandisamagicinmasteryofsucholder,esotericwrittenculturalartifactsthathaspersistedforoverfourthousandyears,fromtheemergenceofsuchoral-writtencurriculaintheMesopotamianandEgyptianculturestotoday.MyscholarlypeersandIarenotimmunetothismagic.Thiswholestudy,focusedasitisonrecoveryoftheoriginsandusesofancienttexts,betraysthefactthatItoohavebeenensorcelledbytheattractionofolderculturalartifacts.Indeed,myownguildofbiblicalscholarsisde“nedbyourmasteryofsuchesotericknowledge„commandofarangeofancientlanguagesandhistoricalmethodsandcontrolofmorerecentupper-leveldiscoursesofliteraryandide-ologicaltheory.Fromtimetotimeonehearscritiquesofbiblicalorotherschol-arshipforitsfrequentdistancefromthepracticesofcontemporarycommu-nities,itsinaccessibilitytothebroaderpublic,andthefrequentobscurityofitshistoricalandtheoreticaldiscourses.Yetthisstudysuggeststhatsuchdistancefromthecontemporaryworldisacentralpartoftheculturalphenomenonofmuchintellectualdiscourse,particularlyinthehumanities.Alreadyfourthou-sandyearsago,akeypartofthephenomenonofeliteenculturationwastheongoingworkbyspecialiststoenshrinearchaicandobscureliteratureandpreservethedistancebetweensuchliteratureandabroaderpublic.Tobesure,theresultingintellectualhierarchy(ancientorcontemporary)maybeparticu-larlyvalidatedandsupportedbythosewhopopulatethetopofit„whethertheintellectualelitewhowrotemanyofthetextsthatareourprimaryaccesstoantiquityorthosewhopopulateupper-levelinstitutionsnow.Yetthesedynam-icsofeducationandenculturationareimportanttotheextentthattheyorga-5.Bourdieu,ofcourse,tracesmanymoresubtlewaysinwhichculturalcapitalŽplaysakeyroleintheorganizationandinterplaybetweensocialgroups;Bourdieu,
nizebroadergroupsofpeopleintostrati“edelitesthroughinitiatingthem„ornotinitiatingthem„intoselectbodiesofinherentlyesotericandimpracticalMorespeci“cally,thedisciplineofhistorical-criticalstudyoftheBiblecanbeseenasawayinwhichmorerecentreligio-intellectualinstitutionshavecultivatedthearchaicandesotericcharacterofkeytexts,preservinganddeep-eningthedistancebetweenthemandthecontemporarysceneinwhichtheyareused.Theupperlevelsofmydisciplineofbiblicalscholarship„and,Iwouldargue,someotherdisciplinesinthehumanitiesaswell„arepopulatedbyintellectualeliteswhoplausiblycanclaimthepossessionofknowledgein-accessibletobroaderpublics,aknowledgethatthey/wethenmediatetovari-ous,carefullyde“nedsubgroups.Furthermore,thisstudyhasdocumentedtheparticularmagicofesotericinthestudyoftextsliketheBible.Thoughtherearevarioustypesofarcaneknowledge(e.g.,contemporaryscience,math,statistics,knowledgeofvariouslanguages),eliteknowledgeofconsistsofeliteknowledgeoftraditionsdistinguishedbytheirantiquityelementsofcontemporaryculture.Giventhis,itshouldbenosurprisethathistorical-criticalapproachestotheBiblethathighlightitsantiquityhaveper-sistedandaregainingreneweddominance,despitepastpronouncementsbysomethatsuchapproacheshadbeensupersededbyliterary,ideological,andothermethodsthatignoreorunderminethesupposedseparationoftheBiblefromcontemporarydiscourses.Thisisnotacontextwheresuchdynamicscanbediscussedindepth.Imentionthemhere,howeverbrie”y,becausetheirexistencepointstotheneedforabroaderstudyofBibleasscripture,andofscriptureasaparticularinstanceofdifferentusesofvariouswrittenresources,fromearlytimesonward,forsocialorganizationandstrati“cation.Themoreweknowaboutthedynamicssurroundingtheoriginsandongoinguseofsuchtexts,thelessunconsciousweneedbeaboutimperativesthatdrivescholarship,teaching,andinstitutionalandguildpolitics.Iwilltakemyowndisciplineofbiblicalstudiesasanexample,particularlybiblicalstudiesasitispracticedininstitutionsaidinginthetrainingofpastors,rabbis,andotherreligiousprofessionals.ManyprofessionalbiblicalscholarsreadilycritiquestudentsuseoftheKingJamesVersionoftheBible,oftenwithoutaconsciousnessofthewaythepoetic,olderEnglishlanguageofthattranslationrepresentsacrucialwayinwhichcontemporarycommunitiesoffaithexperiencetheancientothernessofthescripturaltext.SimilardynamicssurroundtheuseofHebrewinJewishsynagogues,LatininRomanCatholiccontexts,andGreekintheOrthodoxtradition.Aswehaveseeninthisstudy,theforeignnessandantiquityoflanguagehasoftenbeenacrucialcomponentintheuseofsuchtextsaseducational-enculturationalliterature.Yetthisexamplepointstoaproblem:howmuchshouldanyoneperpet-uateancientmodesofelevatingliteratureliketheBible,Greekclassics,orotherpurportedlyspecialeducationalcorpora?Shouldbiblicalscholarsen-couragetheirstudentstousetheKingJamesVersion?Shouldweencourageareturntomemorizationofbiblicaltexts,uncriticalaf“rmationoftheirdivine
writingonthetabletoftheheartinspiration,andsoon?I,forone,amnotreadytodoso.Nevertheless,thosebiblicalscholarslikemyselfwhoaim„atleastinpart„toservereligiouscommunitiescouldbecomemoreconsciousofandattentivetothedynamicssurroundingscripture.Wemightgivemoreattentiontotheoralperformancedimensionsoftexts,thefrequentimportanceofmusicasapartofsuchper-formance(ofteninapoetic-musicalidiompowerfultothereligiouspartici-pants),andtheprofoundimportanceofmultiplewaysinwhichacorpusofscriptureswiththeirancientresonancesfunctionstoshapethediscourseandpracticesofacommunity,includingpreachinginmanytraditions,butalsoliturgy.Intheend,thisworkhasgivenmeasmanyquestionsasanswers.Tobesure,“rstandforemosttherearemanyquestionstoberaisedaboutthisoral-writteneducation-enculturationmodelitself,particularlyinsofarasitmayover-emphasizethesocialfunctionsoflong-durationtextualcorporaandtheim-portanceofeducationandongoingculturalreproductionastheirsetting.Nev-ertheless,insofarasthismodelholdstrue,itraisessigni“cantquestionsforme.IcametomyprofessionandIstayinitbecauseofmyongoingfascinationwithandappreciationoftheHebrewScriptures.Iwouldbethe“rsttoaf“rmtheongoingvalueofstudyofsuchancientliterature.Nevertheless,therearepartsofthisstudythatchallengethatsenseofvocation.Iask,forexample,howmuchisthefocusedusageoftheBibleandothertextsforeducation-enculturationnecessarilypredicatedonmysti“cation„theaf“rmationofcen-tralthingsaboutthespecialnessofsuchtextsthatwenowknowtobefalse?Issuchusageinherentlylinkedtohierarchyandtheformationofelites,whetherelitesubgroupsinasocietyorabroaderpeoplewhounderstandsitselfasreligiouslysuperiortoothers?Towhatextentissuchuseoflong-durationtextsinherentlylinkedtoforcesofsocialconservatismandretrieval?Finally,thisstudyhasfocusedheavilyonthelinkbetweencognitivemas-teryandtheoral-musicaldimensionsoftextuality.Thisraisessomequestionsaboutthelargelynonmusical,nonoralcharacteroftextsinmanycontemporarycontexts,evenintheappreciationofmuchmodernpoetry.Thisinturnleadstoquestionsabouttheongoingroleoftheperformedoral-writtentextincon-temporaryenculturationandsocialization.Somehaveaskedmewhetherpeo-plearecapableofextensivememorizationinourcontemporarymediaculture.Inreply,Inotethatyouthssuchasmyteenagedaughterandherpeers„liketheirancientcounterparts„canreciteandsinghundreds,ifnotthousands,oflinesoftext,inhercasesongsshehaslistenedtorepeatedlyonherportableCDplayer(andwhoselyricsshehasoftenlearnedfromprintedCDinserts).Suchyouthsaresocializedintobroadergenerationalgroupsandsubgroupsbyhavingsuchcontents,rhythms,andmusicalidiomswrittenontheirhearts.Anycommunityor(early)educationalinstitutionaimingtoofferadifferentsortofformationmustreckonwiththeimmensepowerofjoinedmusicandtext(alongwithimage)toshapetheheartsoftheyoungandold.Itisasifmusicandpoetry(orpoeticized,cantedprose)istheindeliblemarkerforwrit-ingwordsontheheart,whilesilentreadingispencil.
So,inthissense,thisacademicbookis„asitshouldbe„aworkwritteninpencil.Itisapreliminaryattempttopulltogetheranumberofapproachesintoanoverallvisionoflong-durationliteratureliketheBible.Myhopeisthatthiswork„preliminaryasitis„willserveasaprodtowardfurtherexplorationofaveinofinquirythatIhavefoundtobeunusuallypro“table.
This page intentionally left blank
TheRelationofThisStudytoEarlierResearchThefootnotestotheprecedingstudyonlyincompletelyindicateitsrelation-shiptopreviousresearch.ThisappendixisintendedtopointtothemostimportantprecursorsofwhichIamawareandbrie”yindicatehowIseethisworkasbuildingonanddivergingfromthem.Sincetheworksbyau-thorsdiscussedherearelistedinthebibliographyandoftencitedinthefootnotes,Iwillnotgiveadditionalfootnotesformostofthemhere.TheexceptionswillbeplaceswhereIhighlightagivenworkinthisdiscussionorciteitbypage.IstartwithaparticularlybriefsurveyofhowIhavebuiltontheworkofscholarshipoutsidemyownareaofbiblicalstudies.Thesurveyisbriefbecausemymaindependenciesarealreadyindicatedinthefootnotesoftherelevantchapters,andthesechapterssynthesizetheworkofothers.Thatsaid,therearefourmainbodiesofscholarship,sometimesoverlapping,onwhichIhavedrawnforthesectionsofthisbookrangingbeyondbiblicalstudies.The“rstistheimportantbodyofworkonorality,textualityandtheirinterplay,forexample,WalterOng,EricHavelock,JackGoody,RuthFinnegan,JohnFoley,M.T.Clanchy,andtheauthorsofseveralshorterstud-iesrespondingtotheirwork.Asindicatedthroughout,Ihavebeenmostin-”uencedbythosepartsoftheworkbyGoody,Finnegan,andothersontheinterplayoforalityand(written)textuality,butIhavebeenmorein”uencedthanisexplicitlyevidentbyFoleysemphasisonperformance,word-power,andtheuseoforal-writtentextstoestablisharegisterŽofsharedsemioticelementsamidasocietyorsubgroupinit.1.SeeparticularlyJohnMilesFoley,TheSingerofTalesinPerformance(Bloomington:Indi-anaUniversityPress,1995),3…56.Mymainissuewithhisevocativediscussionhere(andelse-where)isitsfocusoncommunication.Aswehaveseen,oral-writtentextsoftenfunctionforsocialformationevenwhentheyarenotunderstoodbythoselearningtoperformthem.
MyseparatechaptersonMesopotamia,Egypt,andGreecebuildontheworkofanumberofspecialistsinthoseareaswhohaveadvancedthediscussionofeducation,textuality,orality,andrelatedmatters.Forexample,myemphasisonorality-textualityandsocialformationintheSumero-AkkadiansystemisbuiltontheworkofscholarslikeVanstiphout,Michalowski,JerroldCooper,BendtAlster,andNiekVeldhuis,whodrawexplicitlyonearlierscholarshipregardingtheseissues.MychapteronEgyptsim-ilarlydrawsonarangeofscholarsworkingthroughsimilarissues,“guressuchasAssmann,Baines,Eyre,andMorenz,amongmanyothers.AndIwasinitiallysetonthispathofstudyoforality,literacyandsocialformationbyreadingRosalindThomassOralityandLiteracyinAncientGreece.InmysubsequentworkontheGreekworldIbene“tedmuchfromworkonsocialformation,orality,literacy,andotherissuesbyclassicistslikeHarris,Cribiore,andMorgan,alongwithtwospeci“cworksfocusedonmemorizationintheGreekandmedievalperiods,CarrutherssBookofMemoryWaxTabletsoftheMindThisisonlyaselectionofscholarsdiscussingtheparticularcomplexofissuesemphasizedinthisbook.Asindicatedinthefootnotes,Ihavefoundamuchbroaderrangeofscholarlyworkindispensableinoutliningancienteducation,enculturation,andtextualityintheculturestheystudied.Atitsbest,Ihopetohavepresentedafairrangeofusefulworkdonealongsimilarlinesindifferentcultureareasandthusprovidedaresource„bothinmydiscussionandmynotes„thatmaybeusefulinfacilitatingmoredialogueacrossdisciplinarylines.Themainnewidea,thoughalreadysuggestedinAssmannsandVeldhuisswork,isthatcertaintypesoflong-durationtextsfoundinwrittenform„whetherontablet,papyrus,orparchment„wereintendedtobeusedprimarilyforwritingonthemindandheartsofelitestudents,amemorizationreinforcedthroughpoetryandmusicalmodesanddemonstratedandcorrectedthroughtheuseofwrittencopies.Myprecursorsinbiblicalscholarshiparenumerousandvaried.Indeed,enoughpeoplehavedoneworkontheBibleoverthelastcenturiesthatitisdif“culttoproposeaplausibleapproachthathasnotbeenadvocatedpreviouslyinsomeform.Thatistrueinthiscasetoo.AlreadywhenIwaswellintothisstudy,IfoundthataGermanscholar,LeopoldDu¨rr,proposedathesisquitesimilartomineoverseventyyearsago.Buildingonarangeofcomparativeevidenceavailabletohim,hearguedthatallbiblicalliteraturehaditsoriginsinfamilialorpseudofamilialformsofeliteeducationinthePersianandearlierperiods,withsucheducationbeingexpandedintheHellenisticperiodasindi-catedbyrabbinictraditions.Writinginthe1930s,hehadnoaccesstolaterdiscussionsoforality-literacy,andsohetalkslittleoftheinterplaybetweenperformance,memori-zation,andthenuminousqualitiesofwritinginalargelynonliterateculture.Moreover,IamlessdependentthanhewasonrabbinicdiscussionsofHellenisticeducation.Instead,inwritingthosesectionsofthisbook,IcoulddrawonabroadrangeofIsraeliteandnon-Israelitematerialsunavailabletohim.Thatsaid,Du¨rrrepresentsanimportantprecursortomanycentralideasinthisbook.Thefootnotestochapter6onlybegintoindicatethemuchbroaderrangeofschol-arshipthatwashelpfultomeinlocatingtexts,identifyingimportantepigraphicmate-rial,andproducinganoverallpictureofeducationandtextualityinancientIsrael.Much2.Carruthers,BookofMemory;Small,WaxTablets3.Iadmitsometrepidationinnotingthisintellectualprecursor,sinceIhavelittleaccesstoknowledgeofhisrelationshiptothenationalsocialistmovementinGermanyofthe1930sand1940s.Icitehimnottogiveauthoritytomyworkortoidentifyanearlyguidingforcebutasanactofintellectualhonestyinrecognizingthatkeyideasofminehadbeenpublishedbyascholarpriortomyself.
ofthisworkwasalreadydoneinstudiesbyscholarssuchasLudwigBlau,AaronDem-sky,Hans-Ju¨rgenHermisson,Crenshaw,PhilipDavies,MichaelFox,MenahemHaran,Lemaire,andPuech.ManyhavearguedinthepastforsituatingpartsoftheBibleinancientIsraeliteeducation,particularlywisdomliterature(e.g.BernhardLang,Hermis-son,Olivier,Shupak),butalsoprophets(e.g.Fichtner,Whedbee,andGevaryahu),Deu-teronomy(e.g.Weinfeld,Loh“nk,Fischer,Braulik,Sonnet),andPsalms(e.g.JosephReindl).Oftheseworks,InoteinparticulartheoftenoverlookedarticlebyGevaryahuonBaruch.BuildingoncomparativematerialsanddetailedworkwithIsraelitepropheticmaterial,hisessaypresentsthebookofJeremiahasanimportantexampleofearlyIsraeliteeducationandamodelofhowprophetictextsingeneralmighthavebeendevelopedinaschoolcontextmuchlikethatseeninMesopotamiaorEgypt.´Lemairesworkisanevenmoreimportantprecursortomine,representinganimportantrevivaloftheidea(seeninDu¨rr)thatIsraelsbiblicaltraditionsoriginatedinaprocessofeducation.Lemairesbookandongoingwork,however,gobeyondDu¨rrinofferingathoroughreviewofepigraphicevidencetodateandamorecomprehensiveandcriticalanalysisofrelevantbiblicalmaterials.Mystudyhasbene“tedimmeasurablyfromthiswork,evenasithasdivergedfromitonseveralpoints.Ilistfourhere.First,LemairesfocusonschoolsŽ(´coles)andoccasionaldiscussionofschooltuition,per-sonnel,andpotentialarchitecturehassometimesdistractedfromhisexplicitrecognitionthatsuchschoolswerenotseparatelyinstitutionalizedandthateducationwasintegratedthoroughlyintoothersocialprocesses.Asaresult,hisapproachhasbeencriticized,somewhatwronglyIbelieve,foradvocatinganachronisticviewsthathedoesnothold.Becauseofthis,inthisbookIhaveavoidedthetermsschoolŽorteachersŽandfocusedinsteadoneducationalpracticesandprocesses.Second,buildingonepigraphicevi-dence,LemairepositsalevelofgeneralliteracyinpreexilicIsraelthatisimplausibleforapremodernsociety.Inchapter6Ihaveagreedwithhimandothersthattheepi-graphicandotherevidencedoessuggestasigni“cantincreaseinliteracyamongadministrators,armyof“cers,andotherof“cialsduringthelatepreexilicperiods.Never-theless,Ihaveargued„largelyinlightofrecentstudiesofthesociologyofliteracy„thatsuchliteracywasrestricted,particularlythekindofliteracythatisofmostconcernhere:masteryofscripturescentraltoIsrael.InDeuteronomyandsomeothertextsweseeanemergentidealthatthenationasawholemightachievesuchliteracy,butitisnotuntillaterperiodsthatweseesigni“cantevidencethatbroaderswathesofnoneliteIsraelitesachievedsuchliteracyin(proto)biblicaltraditions.Third,onekeyperiodthatIemphasizemorethanLemaireisthelaterSecondTempleperiod,whenIarguethattheHebrewBiblewasconsolidatedaspartofaHellenistic-likereactiontoHellenismwithinthecontextoftheHasmoneansexpandingempire.Generalliteracywasnotachievedeveninthislaterperiod.Nevertheless,IarguethatolderIsraeliteidealsofgeneraleducationinScripturereceivedanewimpetusinreactiontosimilaridealsinHellenismandthatweseethere”ectionofthisinheretoforeunprecedentedassertionsofgeneraleducationinliteracyinanauthorlikeJosephus.Afourthsigni“cantdiffer-encefromLemairesworkliesintheincreasedemphasisinthisstudyonthecomplexdynamicssurroundingorality,literacy,performance,andsoon.Lemairedoesciteseveral4.Thisarticle,alongwithothersbytheauthoronthesubject,arenowcollectedinHaimGevaryahusThePracticeofBibleScribes(Jerusalem:GevaryahuFamily,2000).5.SeealreadyLemaire,LesEcoles6.HereIamthinkingofGolka,inparticularGolka,IsraelitischeWeisheitsschule,ŽtranslatedasGolka,IsraeliteWisdomSchool.Ž
relevanttextsinProverbsregardingmemorization.Thisstudy,however,goesfurtherinarguingthatwrittenbiblicaltextsingeneralwerebutthenuminous,writtenreferencepointsforapredominantlyprocessofwritingthetraditionsonthemindsofeliteIsraelites,andlaterIsraelitesingeneral.MovingtostudyoflaterIsraelite,Jewisheducation,Ihavebene“tedfromabroadrangeofworks.ManyscholarsinindividualcultureareashavepointedoutthewayindigenouseducationandtextualitywashousedintemplesintheHellenisticperiod,thoughthemainplaceIhaveseenanoverviewofsuchindigenouscultureasareactiontoHellenismisSamuelEddysolderstudyTheKingIsDeadAsindicatedinchapter8,Ihavebeenparticularlyhelpedin“llingouttheIsraelitesideofthistemple-centered,Hellenistic-periodindigenoustextualitythroughastill-unpublishedessaybyStevenFraade,whicharguesforthecenteringofthevastbulkofSecondTempleIsraelitetextualityinthetempleandvarioussubgroupsofitspersonnel.Mydetaileddepend-enciesonearlierworkonBenSira,thePseudepigrapha,Qumran,andotherworksareindicatedinthefootnotestotherelevantchapters.TheseindicatemyparticularrelianceonworkbyscholarssuchasTov,Lange,Collins,Newsom,Lemaire,andFraade.WorksbyCohenandSchwartzwereparticularlyimportantinprovidingthegroundworkfortheproposalinchapter11abouttheconsolidationofHebrewScriptureasapartoftheexpansionoftheHasmoneanempire.AndIbene“tedsigni“cantlyfromHezsersim-pressivesurveyofevidenceforlaterJewisheducation,alongwithBirgerGerhardssonsstillusefulexplorationoftheoral-writtendimensionsofearlyJewishtextualityandBothstudiesfocusprimarilyonearlyJewishmaterialspostdatingthetem-poralboundariesofthisstudy,andbothdivergesomewhatfromthisstudyinemphasis,withGerhardssonmoredependentthanmyselfonlaterrabbinicmaterialsandHezserarguingagainsttheexistenceofmuchinstructioninwriting.OntheChristianside,twootherimportant,againdifferent,worksthatprecededandanticipatemineareKelbersstudyoforalityandtextualityinearlyChristiantraditions,andKimHaines-Hetzonsstudyofearlyscribalnetworks.Theformertendstoworkwithamoreconsistentandstrongeroppositionbetweenoralityandtextualitythanmystudydoes.Moreover,partlybecauseofmyemphasisoncrossculturalanalysisoftheongoingculturalfunctionsofwritingperse,IhaveendedupfocusingmoreonwhatKelbertermsinarecentessaycoldmemorizationŽ„word-for-word„ratherthanonamoredynamicrecollectionandrecompositionoftraditions,hishotmemorization.ŽHaines-Hetzonsbookisdistin-guishedfromminebyherparticularlydetailedattentiontoearlyChristianepigraphic7.Lemaire,LesEcoles,61…62.8.Eddy,KingIsDead9.Fraade,Priests,Scribes,andSages.ŽHisdiscussionwasanticipatedbythebriefbutveryevocativecommentsinBaumgarten,FlourishingofJewishSects,118…23.Cf.alsothecomparisonofNewTestamentdepic-tionsofscribeswithothersourcesinM.D.Goodman,Texts,ScribesandPowerinRomanJudea,ŽinandPowerintheAncientWorld,ed.AlanK.BowmanandGregWoolf(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1994),103…7.10.GerhardssonsstudywasharshlycritiquedbyMortonSmithandJacobNeusnerforuncriticaluseofrabbinicmaterial.ButseenowJacobNeusnersretractionofhiscritiqueinJacobNeusner,ForwordtoBirgerMemoryandManuscript:OralTraditionandWrittenTransmissioninRabbinicJudaismandEarlyChristianity„withTraditionandTransmissioninEarlyChristianity(GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans,1997),xxv…11.ThestudyisTheTwo-SourceHypothesis:OralTradition,thePoeticsofGospelNarrativity,andMe-morialArbitration,Žunpublishedessay(2004).IthankProfessorKelberforpermissiontoreadandcitethisessayandawaititspublicationtoengageinfurtherdialoguewithit.
dataandwhatittellsusabouttheofteninformalnetworksofChristian,multipurposescribeswhotransmittedChristianwritings.AnotherbookfocusingonlaterJewisheducationandtextualityisPhilipDaviessScribesandSchools:TheCanonizationoftheHebrewScriptures,alongwithafollowupessay,TheJewishScripturalCanoninCulturalPerspective.ŽInthesepieces,Daviesfocusesonasimilarrangeofcomparativematerialstothatfocusedonhere,highlightsmanycharacteristicsofeducational-enculturationaltexts(antiquity,divineauthorship,andsoon)similartothosehighlightedhere,speaksoftheimportanceoftheschoolasalocusforthedevelopmentoftheHebrewcanon,ŽandevenfocusesontheHasmo-neanmonarchyasthecentrallocusfortheconsolidationofHebrewScriptures.YettheseideasaremixedinScribesandSchoolswithamultitudeofspeci“ctheoriesabouttheBibleandsurroundingculturesthatarelesscompellingtome.Someofthesein-cludehistreatmentofculturessurroundingIsraelinawaythatisnotattentiveenoughtodifferencesbetweenthemanddifferencesacrosstime,animplausiblylatedatingofthephenomenonofIsraelitetextualityandeducation,andanumberofspeci“cyetrelativelyundevelopedtheoriesregardingbiblicaltextsandvariousscribalcirclesthatdistractfromthemoreplausiblepartsofthebook.Moreover,ImaintainthatDaviesswork,likeasimilarproposalbyHaranbeforehim,confusesthedifferent,thoughover-lapping,purposesofarchive,library,andeducational-enculturationalcorpus.AsIhaveargued,withtheexceptionofAshurbanipalslibraryandlaterHellenisticexamples,archivesandlibrarieswerenotseparateintheancientworld.Whenweseeaprepon-deranceofworksthatwemighttermalibrary,Žitisusuallyacacheofthecultureseducational-enculturationalcorpus,meantfororal-writteninscriptionontheheartsandmindsofelitesubgroups(andlaterelitepeoplesŽ).TheHebrewBible,Iwouldargue,isanexampleofsuchaneducationalcorpus,nottheremnantsofalibrary.Daviesslackoffocusonthisdimensionoforal-cognitivemasteryofwrittentextsmeantthathemissedthecrucialdistinctionbetweenlibrary/archiveandscripture.Myworkhasbeeninformedbyarangeofstudiesthathavehighlightedtheoraldimensionofbiblicaltextsandcognitivemasteryofthem.ThisemphasisontheoralityofbiblicaltraditionisoftenassociatedwiththeScandinavianschooloftraditionhistory,where“gureslikeEngellandEduardNielsonarguedthatmuchoftheBiblicaltraditionwasoral,written,untilaverylatestage.Thisemphasisonexclusivelyoraltrans-missionhaslittleincommonwiththisstudy.Nevertheless,anotherScandinavian,GeoWidengren,anticipatedkeyaspectsoftheoral-writtenmodelinaverysuggestivestudyoforal-writtendynamicsinMesopotamia,earlyIslam,andtheBible,LiteraryandPsy-chologicalAspectsoftheHebrewProphetsLikewise,YehoshuaGitaynotedtheoral-writtencharacterofprophecyinanarticlepublishedin1980,andAntonyCamp-bellraisedsimilarpossibilitiesina1989article,TheReportedStory,Žinwhichheproposedthatbiblicaltextswerenotmeanttobereadorevenperformedasisbutinstead12.Davies,JewishScripturalCanon.Ž13.Thisisparticularlytrueofthebook,notofthearticle.14.OnHaran,IamthinkinginparticularofhisproposalinBiblicalBooks,Ž54…55.15.E.g.,EduardNielson,OralTradition:AModernProbleminOldTestamentIntroduction(Chicago:Allen-son,1954[orig.1952]).ForafullersurveyseeDouglasA.Knight,RediscoveringtheTraditionsofIsrael:TheDevelopmentoftheTraditio-HistoricalResearchoftheOldTestament,withSpecialConsiderationofScandinavian,SBLDS(Missoula,MT:ScholarsPress,1975),215…382.16.Widengren,HebrewProphets.Notealsothestillusefulstudy,HelmerRinggren,OralandWrittenTransmissionintheOldTestament:SomeObservations,ŽStudiaTheologica3(1949):34…59.17.YehoshuaGitay,Deutero-Isaiah:OralorWritten?Ž99(1980):185…197.SeealsohisProphecyandPersuasion:AStudyofIsaiah40…48,Forumtheologiaelinguisticae(Bonn:LinguisticaBiblica,1981),45.
werewrittennotestobeexpandedoninoralperformance.Inasuggestivearticle,Conradnotesthatliterarypresentationsofthewriting-readingprocessintheBibletendtostresstheintenseoralityofrevelatorydocuments,theyareheardandwrittendown,thenreadaloudtoaudiences,andhisworkwasextendedbyJamesWattssmoredetailedstudyofliterarydepictionsoflawreadings.Theseworkshintedatthewaywrittenbiblicalmaterialsmightfunctioninaprimarilyoralenvironment.Prideofplaceinrecentstudyoforalityandtextuality,however,goestoNiditch,whose1996bookWorldandWrittenWorddidmuchtointroducemeandotherbiblicalscholarstobroaderdiscoursesaboutoralityandliteracy.Icitethisworkhere,there,andelsewhere,in-adequatelyillustratingtheextenttowhichshehasraisedcrucialquestionsandgatheredintriguingevidencetoanswerthem.Yet,asmentionedintheintroduction,sheseemsambivalentinherworkabouttherelationshipbetweenoralityandtextuality.Sheisclearlyawareofinterplaybetweentheoralandwritten,butmuchofherbookstillseemstopartakeofanolderideaofintenseoppositionbetweenoralityandtextuality,oradividebetweenanoralmentalityŽandamoreliterateone.AsIwasmidwaythroughthiswork,IencounteredRaymondPersonsbookDeuteronomicSchool,whichwasmy“rstexposuretomaterials(nowinslightlyrevisedform)previouslypublishedaspartofhisdissertationonDeutero-Zechariah.Inthesebooks,PersonarguesforanexilicandpostexilicDeuteronomicschoolŽastheprobablecontextfortheoral-writtentransmissionanddevelopmentoftheDeuteronomistichis-tory,alongwithpropheticmateriallikeDeutero-ZechariahandJeremiah.Ihaveben-e“tedfromPersonswork,andmybookobviouslypursuesahypothesissimilartohis.ThemaindifferencesIpresentlyseeareasfollows.Mybookismorespeci“cinoutlininganddistinguishingbetweendifferentdynamicsofeducationandtextualityinvariouscultures,mytreatmentoftextualityandeducationinIsraelisbroaderinitschronologicalrange,Iapplymythesistomorebiblicalmaterials,andIfocusevenmorethanPersononthecognitiveandelite-formationdimensionsoftheoral-writteninterfaceinIsraelandelsewhere.Thesesortsofquestionsabouteducationontheonehandandorality-textualityontheotherappeartobeintheairŽinbiblicalandotherancientstudies.Scholarshipinthemoredistantpastwasexcessivelydeterminedbyunre”ectedassumptionsfromprintcultureandbyatooconsistentacontrastbetweenoralandwrittenformsofculturaltransmission.Thankstostudiesoftheinterplayoforalityandtextualityinavarietyofculturalcontexts,contemporaryscholarsofantiquityaremoreequippedthanbeforetoexplorewaysancienttextswereembeddedinbroadersocialprocesses:oral-cognitive18.SeeAntonyCampbell,TheReportedStory:MidwayBetweenOralPerformanceandLiteraryArt,Ž46(1989):77…85.Cf.therevisedversioninAntonyCampbell,TheStorytellersRole:ReportedStoryandBiblicalText,Ž64(2002):427…41.19.Conrad,RepresentationofOTBooks.Ž20.MostrecentlypublishedasJamesW.Watts,ReadingLaw,15…31(arevisionofhisPublicReadingsandPentateuchalLaw,Ž45[1995]:540…57).Notealsotheusefulremarksonorality,textualtransmission,andsocialprocessesinSimonParker,StoriesinScriptureandInscriptions(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1997),21.Niditch,OralWorldandWrittenWord22.ForanexampleofextendeddiscussionoftheinterplayofthesedimensionsseeNiditch,OralWorldandWrittenWord,99…107.FormorediscussionofNiditchsapprarentallegiancetooldermodelsofexclusiveoralityseeJohnVanSeters,ReviewofNiditch,OralWorldandWrittenWord118(1998):436…37.23.SeePerson,TheDeuteronomicSchool.SeethepublicationinearlierformofkeyportionsofthisbookSecondZechariahandtheDeuteronomicSchool,JSOTSup(Shef“eld:Shef“eldAcademicPress,1993),24…30,40…59,154…62,andScribeasPerformer.Ž
processesofgroupformation,culturalcirculation,andtheshapingofsocialidentities.Thisbookisoneattempttosurveysuchrecenteffortsandadvancethem.Inconclusion,IshouldemphasizethatIdonotseemymaincontributiontobeafocusontheoral-writteninterfaceperse.Rather,myemphasishasbeenonhowbothwritingandoralityarepartsofadeeperandmoreimportantwriting-supported,performance-orientedprocess:shapingelitesubgroups(andlaterbroadergroups)throughwriting(atleastinideal)certainancienttraditionsontheirhearts.Withthiskey,IhavegoneontoadvancesomeparticularhypothesesabouttheemergenceofprotoscripturaltraditionsinIsrael,andtheirhardeningintoananti-Hellenisticcon-structinthelaterSecondTempleperiod.Ileaveitnowtomyreaderstodecideontheusefulnessofboththisoverallapproachandthespeci“chypothesesadvocatedhere.
This page intentionally left blank
SelectBibliographyThefollowingisaselectbibliographyofcitedworks,focusedprimarilyonworkscitedacrossmultiplechaptersofthebook.Readersinterestedinthefullbibliographyofcitedworks(severaltimesthislength)mayconsultthelistpostedattheauthorswebsite(www.uts.columbia.edu/Alster,Bendt.InteractionofOralandWrittenPoetryinEarlyMesopota-mianLiterature.ŽInMesopotamianEpicLiterature:OralorAural?byM.VogelzangandH.L.J.Vanstiphout,24…69.Lewiston,NY:Mellon,Assmann,Jan.Fu¨nfStufenaufdemWegezumKanon:TraditionundSchriftkultureimaltenIsraelundfru¨henJudentum.ŽInReligionundkulturellesGeda¨chtni:.ZehnStudien,editedbyJanAssmann,81…100.Munich:Beck,2000.DaskulturelleGeda¨chtnis:Schrift,Erinnerung,undpolitischeIdentitainfru¨henHochkulturen.Munich:Beck,1992.„„„.KulturelleundliterarischeTexte.ŽInAncientEgyptianLiterature:HistoryandForms,editedbyA.Loprieno,60…82.Leiden:Brill,1996.Baines,John.LiteracyandAncientEgyptianSociety.Ž18(1983):572…Baines,John,andChristopherEyre.FourNotesonLiteracy.Ž¨ttinger61(1983):65…96.Barton,John.TheSpiritandtheLetter:StudiesinBiblicalCanon.SPCK,1997.Baumgarten,AlbertI.TheFlourishingofJewishSectsintheMaccabeanEra:AnInterpretation.JSJSupplements.Leiden:Brill,1997.Beckwith,Roger.TheOldTestamentCanonoftheNewTestamentChurchandItsBackgroundinEarlyJudaism.GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans,1985.Bickel,Susanne,andBernardMathieu.Le´crivainAmennakhtetsonen-BulletindelInstitutFranc¸aisdArche´ologieOrientale(1993):33…51.
selectbibliographyBickerman,EliasJoseph.TheGodoftheMaccabees:StudiesontheMeaningandOriginoftheMaccabeanRevolt.TranslatedbyHorstR.Moehring.Leiden:Brill,1979(orig.1937).Blau,Ludwig.Studienzumalthebra¨ischenBuchwesenundzurbiblischenLiteratur-undTextgeschichte.Strasbourg:KarlTru¨bner,1902.Botha,P.J.Greco-RomanLiteracyasSettingforNewTestamentWritings.Ž26(1992):195…215.Bourdieu,Pierre.Distinction:ASocialCritiqueoftheJudgementofTaste.MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1984(orig.1979).Braulik,Georg.DasDeuteronomiumunddieGeda¨chtniskulturIsraels:Redaktions-geschichtlicheBeobachtungenzurVerwendungvon.ŽInBiblischeTheologieundgesellschaftlucherWandel:Fu¨rNorbertLoh“nkSJ,editedbyGeorgBraulik,9…31.Freiburg:Herder,1993.Brunner,Helmut.¨gyptischeErziehung.Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz,1957.Bryan,Betsy.EvidenceforFemaleLiteracyfromThebanTombsoftheNewKing-BulletinoftheEgyptologicalSeminar6(1984).Bryce,GlendonE.ALegacyofWisdom:theEgyptianContributiontotheWisdomofIs-Lewisburg,PA:BucknellUniversityPress,1979.Burr,Victor.BibliothekarischeNotizenzumAltenTestament.Forschungsstellefu¨rBuch-wissenschaftanderUniversita¨tsbibliothekBonn,KleineSchriften.Bonn:H.Bouvier,1969.Cancik,Hubert.¨gederhethitischenundalttestamentlichenGeschichtsschrei-AbhandlungendesDeutschenPala¨stinavereins.Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz,Carr,DavidM.CanonizationintheContextofCommunity:AnOutlineoftheFor-mationoftheTanakhandtheChristianBible.ŽInAGiftofGodinDueSeason:EssaysonScriptureandCommunityinHonorofJamesA.Sanders,editedbyRich-ardD.WeisandDavidM.Carr,22…64.Shef“eld:JSOTPress,1996.TheEroticWord:Sexuality,SpiritualityandtheBible.NewYork:OxfordUni-versityPress,2003.FromDtoQ:AStudyofEarlyJewishInterpretationsofSolomonsDreamatSBLMS.Atlanta,GA:ScholarsPress,1991.„„„.MethodinDeterminationofDirectionofDependence:AnEmpiricalTestofCriteriaAppliedtoExodus34,11…26anditsParallels.ŽInGottesVolkamSinai:UntersuchungenzuEx32…34undDtn9…10,vol.18,editedbyMatthiasKo¨ckertandErhardBlum.Vero¨ffentlichungenderWissenschaftlichenGesellschaftfu¨rTheo-logie,107…40.Gu¨tersloh:Kaiser,Gu¨tersloherVerlagshaus,2001.ReadingtheFracturesofGenesis:HistoricalandLiteraryApproaches.KY:WestminsterJohnKnox,1996.Carruthers,Mary.TheBookofMemory:AStudyofMemoryinMedievalCulture.bridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1991.Chapman,Stephen.TheLawandtheProphets:AStudyinOldTestamentCanonForma-ForschungenzumAltenTestament.Tu¨bingen:MohrSiebeck,2000.Charpin,D.Leclerge´dUrausie`cledHammurabi(XIXe…XVIIIesie`clesav.J.-C.).´tudesorientales.Geneva:Droz,1986.Civil,Miguel.Lexicography.ŽInSumerologicalStudiesinHonorofThorkildJacobsen,editedbyS.Liebermann,123…57.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1975.Clanchy,M.T.FromMemorytoWrittenRecord.2nded.Oxford:Blackwell,1979.Cohen,Shaye.TheBeginningsofJewishness:Boundaries,Varieties,Uncertainties.ley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1999.
selectbibliographyCole,S.CouldGreekWomenReadandWrite?ŽInRe”ectionsofWomeninAntiquity,editedbyH.Foley,219…45.NewYork:GordonandBreachScience,1981.Collins,JohnJ.JewishWisdomintheHellenisticAge.OTL.Louisville,KY:WestminsterJohnKnox,1997.Conrad,E.W.HeardbutNotSeen:TheRepresentationofBooksintheOldTesta-54(1992):45…59.Cooper,Jerrold.BabblingonAboutRecoveringMesopotamianOrality.ŽInmianEpicLiterature:OralorAural?H.L.J.VanstiphoutandM.Vogelzang,103…22.Lewiston,NY:Mellon,1991.„„„.Cuneiform.ŽInvol.1,1212…18,1995.Crenshaw,JamesL.EducationinAncientIsrael:AcrosstheDeadeningSilence.ABRefer-ence.NewYork:Doubleday,1998.Cribiore,Raffaella.GymnasticsoftheMind.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,Writing,Teachers,andStudentsinGraeco-RomanEgypt.AmericanStudiesinPapyrology.Atlanta,GA:ScholarsPress,1996.Davies,AnnaMorpurgo.FormsofWritingintheAncientMediterraneanWorld.ŽInTheWrittenWord:LiteracyinTransition,editedbyGerdBaumann,23…50.Oxford:ClarendonPress,1986.Davies,Graham.WereThereSchoolsinAncientIsrael?ŽInWisdominAncientIsrael,editedbyJohnDayetal.,199…211.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,Davies,PhilipR.TheJewishScripturalCanoninCulturalPerspective.ŽInCanonDebate:OntheOriginsandFormationoftheBible,editedbyLeeMartinMcDonaldandJamesA.Sanders,36…52.Peabody,MA:Hendrickson,2002.ScribesandSchools:theCanonizationoftheHebrewScriptures.LibraryofAn-cientIsrael.Louisville,KY:WestminsterJohnKnox,1998.Demsky,A.Education,Jewish.ŽEncyclopaediaJudaica6(1971):381…98.„„„.TheEducationofCanaaniteScribesintheMesopotamianCuneiformTradi-tion.ŽInBar-IlanStudiesinAssyriologydedicatedtoPinhasArtzi,editedbyJacobKleinandAaronSkaist,157…70.RamatGan:Bar-IlanUniversityPress,1990.„„„.WritinginAncientIsrael(part1).ŽInMikra:Text,Translation,ReadingandInterpretationoftheHebrewBibleinAncientJudaismandEarlyChristianity,byMartinJanMulder,2…20.PhiladelphiaandMaastrich:FortressandVanGor-cumPress,1988.Denny,Peter.RationalThoughtinOralCultureandLiterateDecontextualization.ŽInLiteracyandOrality,editedbyDavidR.OlsenandNancyTorrance,66…89.Cam-bridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1990.Doane,AlgerN.TheEthnographyofScribalWritingandAnglo-SaxonPoetry:ScribeasPerformer.ŽOralTradition9(1994):420…39.¨rr,LorenzB.DasErzeihungswesenimAltenTestamentundimAntikenOrient.zig:J.C.Hinrichs,1932.Eddy,SamuelK.TheKingIsDead:StudiesintheNearEasternResistancetoHellenism334…31BC.Lincoln:UniversityofNebraskaPress,1961.Eyre,Christopher.TheSemnaStelae:Quotation,Genre,andFunctionsofLitera-ture.ŽInStudiesinEgyptologyPresentedtoMiriamLichtheim,vol.1,editedbySarahIsraelit-Groll,134…65.Jerusalem:Magnes,1990.Eyre,Christopher,andJohnBaines.InteractionsBetweenOralityandLiteracyinAn-cientEgypt.ŽInLiteracyandSociety,KarenSchousboeandMogensTrolleLarsen,91…119.Copenhagen:AkademiskForlag,1989.
selectbibliographyFalkenstein,Adam.DiebabylonischeSchule.Ž4(1953):126…37.Fichtner,Johannes.JesajaunterdenWeisen.ŽTheologischeLiteraturzeitung84(1949):Finnegan,Ruth.LiteracyandOrality:StudiesintheTechnologyofCommunication.ford:Blackwell,1988.OralPoetry:ItsNature,Signi“cance,andSocialContext.Cambridge:Cam-bridgeUniversityPress,1977.Fischer,Georg,andNorbertLoh“nk.DieseWo¨rtesollstdusummen:Dtn6,7¯ba:EinverlorenerSchlu¨sselzurmeditativenKulturinIsrael.ŽgieundPhilosophie62(1987):59…72.Fischer-Elfert,Hans-Werner.DiesatirischeStreitschriftdesPapyrusAnastasiI,vol.1,bersetzungundKommentargyptischeAbhandlungen.Wiesbaden:Harraso-witz,1986.Fishbane,Michael.BiblicalInterpretationinAncientIsrael.Oxford:ClarendonPress,Foley,JohnMiles.TheSingerofTalesinPerformance.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress,1995.Fowden,Garth.TheEgyptianHermes:AHistoricalApproachtotheLatePaganMind.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1986.Fox,MichaelV.TheSocialLocationoftheBookofProverbs.ŽInTexts,Temples,andTraditions:ATributetoMenahemHaran,editedbyMichaelV.Foxetal.,227…39.WinonaLake,IN:Eisenbrauns,1996.„„„.WisdomandtheSelf-PresentationofWisdomLiterature.ŽInReadingfromRighttoLeft:EssaysontheHebrewBibleinHonourofDavidJ.A.Clines,editedbyJ.CherylExumandH.G.M.Williamson.Shef“eld:Shef“eldAcademicPress,Fraade,StevenD.InterpretiveAuthorityintheStudyingCommunityatQumran.Ž44(1993):46…69.„„„.TheyShallTeachYourStatutestoJacob:Priests,Scribes,andSagesinSec-ondTempleTimes.ŽUnpublishedessay,2003.Gamble,HarryY.BooksandReadersintheEarlyChurch:AHistoryofEarlyChristianTexts.NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress,1995.Gerhardsson,Birger.MemoryandManuscript:OralTraditionandWrittenTransmissioninRabbinicJudaismandEarlyChristianity.TranslatedbyEricSharpe.Uppsala:AlmqvistandWiksells,1961.Gesche,PetraD.SchulunterrichtinBabylonienimerstenJahrtausendv.Chr.AOAT.¨nster:Ugarit-Verlag,2001.Gevaryahu,H.M.I.Baruch,theScribe[Heb.].ŽInZalmanShazarVolume,editedbyN.Avigad,198…243.Jerusalem:IsraelExplorationSociety,1971.Gitay,Y.Deutero-Isaiah:OralorWritten?Ž99(1980):185…197.Golka,F.W.TheIsraeliteWisdomSchool,orTheEmperorsNewClothes.ŽInLeopardsSpots:BiblicalandAfricanWisdominProverbs,editedbyF.W.Golka.Edinburgh:T.andT.Clark.„„„.DieisraelitischeWeisheitsschuleoderdeskaisersneueKleider.Ž(1983):257…70.Goodblatt,David.TheTalmudicSourcesontheOriginsofOrganizedJewishEduca-tion[Heb.].ŽStudiesintheHistoryoftheJewishPeopleandtheLandofIsrael(1980):83…103.Goody,Jack.TheInterfaceBetweentheWrittenandtheOral.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1987.
selectbibliographyGoshen-Gottstein,Alon.BenSirasPraiseoftheFathers:ACanon-ConsciousRead-ing.ŽInBenSirasGod:ProceedingsoftheInternationalBenSiraConference(Dur-ham2001),vol.321,editedbyRenateEgger-Wenzel.BZAW.Berlin:DeGruyter,Graham,WilliamA.BeyondtheWrittenWord:OralAspectsofScriptureintheHistoryofCambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1987.Greenberg,Moshe.TheStabilizationoftheTextoftheHebrewBible.Ž(1956):157…67.Greenstein,Edward.MisquotationofScriptureintheDeadSeaScrolls.ŽInFrankTalmageMemorialVolume,editedbyBarryWal“sh,71…83.Haifa:HaifaUniversityPress,1993.Gruen,ErichS.HeritageandHellenism:TheReinventionofJewishTradition.UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1998.Haines-Eitzen,Kim.GuardiansofLetters:Literacy,PowerandtheTransmittersofEarlyChristianLiterature.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2000.Hallo,WilliamW.TheConceptofCanonicityinCuneiformandBiblicalLiterature:AComparativeAppraisal.ŽInTheBiblicalCanoninComparativePerspective,itedbyK.L.Younger,W.W.Hallo,andB.F.Batto,1…19.Lewiston,NY:Mellon,„„„.TheExpansionofCuneiformLiterature.ŽProceedingsoftheAmericanAcad-emyofJewishResearch46…47(1980):307…22.„„„.TheSyrianContributiontoCuneiformLiteratureandLearning.ŽInNewHo-rizonsintheStudyofAncientSyria,editedbyMarkW.ChavalasandJohnL.Hayes,69…88.Malibu,CA:Undena,1998.„„„.TowardaHistoryofSumerianLiterature.ŽInSumerologicalStudiesinHonorofThorkildJacobsen,editedbyS.Lieberman,181…203.Chicago:UniversityofChi-cagoPress,1975.Haran,M.Archives,Libraries,andtheOrderoftheBiblicalBooks.ŽJournaloftheAncientNearEasternSocietyofColumbiaUniversity22(1993):51…61.„„„.BookScrollsinIsraelinPre-ExilicTimes.Ž33(1982):161…73.„„„.OntheDiffusionofLiteracyandSchoolsinAncientIsrael.ŽInCongressVol-ume:Jerusalem1986,VTSup,85…91.Leiden:Brill,1988.Hardmeier,Christof.WahrhaftigkeitundFehlorientierungbeiJeremia:Jer5,1unddiedivinatorischeExpertiseJer2…6*imKontextderzeitgono¨ssischenKontrover-senumdiepolitischeZukunftJerusalems.ŽInExegesevorOrt:Festschriftfu¨rPeterWeltenzum65.Geburtstag,editedbyChristlMaier,121…44.Leipzig:EvangelischeVerlagsanstalt,2001.Harris,W.V.AncientLiteracy.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1989.Havelock,EricA.PrefacetoPlato.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1963.Hengel,Martin.JudaismandHellenism:StudiesinTheirEncounterinPalestineDuringtheEarlyHellenisticPeriod.TranslatedbyJohnBowden.Philadelphia:Fortress,Hermisson,H.J.StudienzurisraelitischenSpruchweisheit.WMANT.Neukirchen-Vluyn:NeukirchenerVerlag,1968.Hezser,Catherine.JewishLiteracyinRomanPalestine.TexteundStudienzumantikenJudentum.Tu¨bingen:Mohr-Siebeck,2001.„„„.TheMishnahandAncientBookProduction.ŽInTheMishnahinContempo-raryPerspective,editedbyAlanJ.Avery-PeckandJacobNeusner,167…92.Leiden:Brill,2002.Hogan,David.EducationandClassFormation:ThePeculiaritiesoftheAmericas.Ž
selectbibliographyCulturalandEconomicReproductionthroughEducation:EssaysonClass,IdeologyandtheState,editedbyMichaelApple,32…78.London:Routledge,1982.Hurowitz,Victor.CanonandCanonizationinMesopotamia.ŽInProceedingsoftheTwelfthWorldCongressofJewishStudies:DivisionA„TheBibleandItsWorld,itedbyRonMargolin,1…12.Jerusalem:WorldUnionofJewishStudies,1997.„„„.SpanningtheGenerations:AspectsofOralandWrittenTransmissionintheBibleandAncientMesopotamia.ŽInFreedomandResponsibility,editedbyR.M.GeffenandM.B.Edelman,11…30.NewYork:KTAV,1999.Jamieson-Drake,DavidW.ScribesandSchoolsinMonarchicJudah:ASocio-ArcheologicalApproach.JSOTSup.Shef“eld:AlmondPress,1991.Kaplony-Heckel,U.Schu¨lerundSchulwesenindera¨gyptischenSpa¨tzeit.Žzuralta¨gyptischenKultur1(1974):227…46.Kelber,WernerH.TheOralandWrittenGospel:TheHermeneuticsofSpeakingandWritingintheSynopticTradition,Mark,PaulandQ.Bloomington:IndianaUni-versityPress,1983.Kenyon,F.G.BooksandReadersinAncientGreeceandRome.Oxford:OxfordUniver-sityPress,1951.Klinghardt,Matthias.GemeinschaftsmahlundMahlgemeinschaft:SoziologieundLiturgie¨hchristlicherMahlfeiern.TexteundArbeitenzumneutestamentlichenZeitalter.¨bingen:FranckeVerlag,1996.Kraus,F.R.VommesopotamischenMenschenundseinerWelt:EineReiheVorlesungen.Amsterdam:NorthHolland,1973.Krauss,Samuel.TalmudischeArcha¨ologie.Vol.3.Leipzig:GustavFock,1912.Krecher,J.SchreiberschulunginUgarit:DieTraditionvonListenundsumerischenTexten.ŽUgaritForschung1(1969):131…58.Lambert,W.G.Ancestors,AuthorsandCanonicity.Ž11(1957):1…14.„„„.ACatalogueofTextsandAuthors.Ž16(1962):59…77.„„„.TheConverseTablet:ALitanywithMusicalInstructions.ŽInNearEasternStudiesinHonorofWilliamFoxwellAlbright,editedbyHansGoedicke,337…39.Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1971.Landsberger,Benno.ScribalConceptsofEducation.ŽInTheCityInvincible,editedbyCarlH.KraelingandRobertM.Adams,94…102.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1960.Lang,B.SchuleundUnterrichtinaltenIsrael.ŽInLaSagessedelAncienTestament,editedbyM.Gilbert,186…201.Leuven:LeuvenUniversityPress,1979.Lange,Armin.FromLiteraturetoScripture:TheUnityandPluralityoftheHebrewScripturesinLightoftheQumranLibrary.ŽInOneScriptureorMany?CanonfromBiblical,Theological,andPhilosophicalPerspectives,editedbyChr.HelmerandChr.Landmesser.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2004.„„„.DieWeisheitstexteausQumran:EineEinleitung.ŽInTheWisdomTextsfromQumranandtheDevelopmentofSapientialThought,editedbyC.Hempel,A.Lange,andH.Lichtenberger,3…30.Leuven:LeuvenUniversityPress,2002.WeisheitundPra¨destination:WeisheitlicheUrordnungundPra¨destinationindenTextfundenvonQumran.StudiesontheTextsoftheDesertofJudah.Leiden:Brill,1995.Leipoldt,Johannes,andSiegfriedMorenz.HeiligeSchriften:BetrachtungenzurReli-gionsgeschichtederantikenMittelmeerwelt.Leipzig:Harrassowitz,1953.Lemaire,AndreLesEcolesetlaformationdelaBibledanslancienIsrae¨l.OBO.Fri-bourg:EditionsUniversitaires,1981.„„„.Lenseignementesse´nienetle´coledeQumran.ŽInHellenicaetJudaica:
selectbibliographyHommagea`ValentinNikiprowetzky,editedbyA.Caquotetal.,191…203.Leuven:PeetersandLeuvenUniversityPress,1986.„„„.TheSageinSchoolandTemple.ŽInTheSageinIsraelandtheAncientNeareditedbyJohnG.GammieandLeoG.Perdue,165…81.WinonaLake,IN:Eisenbrauns,1990.„„„.SchoolsandLiteracyinAncientIsraelandEarlyJudaism.ŽInTheBlackwellCompaniontotheHebrewBible,editedbyLeoPerdue,translatedbyAliouNiang,207…17.Oxford:Blackwell,2001.Liebermann,Saul.HellenisminJewishPalestine.NewYork:JewishTheologicalSemi-naryofAmerica,1950.Loh“nk,Norbert.DasJu¨discheamChristentum:DieverloreneDimension.Freiburg:Herder,1987.Lord,Albert.TheSingerofTales.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1960.TheSingerResumestheTale.Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress,1995.Mankowski,PaulV.AkkadianLoanWordsinBiblicalHebrew.HarvardSemiticStud-ies.WinonaLake,IN:Eisenbrauns,2000.Marrou,H.I.AHistoryofEducationinAntiquity.TranslatedbyGeorgeLamb.Madi-son:UniversityofWisconsinPress,1956(orig.1948).McDowell,A.StudentExercisesfromDeirel-Medina:TheDates.ŽInStudiesinHonorofWilliamKellySimpson,editedbyP.D.Manuelian,601…8.Boston:Mu-seumofFineArts,1996.„„„.TeachersandStudentsatDeirel-Medina.ŽInDeirel-MedinaintheThirdMillenniumAD.ATributetoJac.J.Janssen,editedbyR.J.Demare´eandA.Eg-berts,217…33.Leiden:NederlandsInstituutvoorhetNabijeOosten,2000.Mehl,Andreas.ErziehungzumHellenen„ErziehungzumWeltbu¨rger:Bemerkun-genzumGymnasionimhellenistischenOsten.Ž5(1992):43…73.Meier,S.A.WomenandCommunicationintheAncientNearEast.Ž111(1991):Michalowski,P.CharismaandControl:OnContinuityandChangeinEarlyMesopo-tamianBureaucraticSystems.ŽInTheOrganizationofPower.AspectsofBureauc-racyintheAncientNearEast,editedbyM.GibsonandR.D.Biggs,47…57.Chi-cago:OrientalInstitute,1987.Millard,A.AnAssessmentoftheEvidenceforWritinginAncientIsrael.ŽInArchaeologyToday,editedbyJ.Amitai,301…12.Jerusalem:IsraelExplorationSoci-ety,1985.Morenz,LudwigD.¨gezurSchriftlichkeitskulturimMittlerenReichundinder2.gyptenundAltesTestament.Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz,1996.Morgan,Teresa.LiterateEducationinClassicalAthens.ŽClassicalQuarterly(1999):46…61.LiterateEducationintheHellenisticandRomanWorlds.CambridgeClassicalStudies.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1998.Most,GlennW.CanonFathers:Literacy,Mortality,Power.Ž1(1990…91):36…Newsom,Carol.TheSageintheLiteratureofQumran:TheFunctionsofthe.ŽInTheSageinIsraelandtheAncientNearEast,editedbyJohnG.GammieandLeoG.Perdue,373…82.WinonaLake,IN:Eisenbrauns,1990.Niditch,Susan.OralWorldandWrittenWord:AncientIsraeliteLiterature.LibraryofAncientIsrael.Louisville,KY:WestminsterJohnKnox,1996.OKeefe,Katherine.VisibleSong:TransitionalLiteracyinOldEnglishVerse.CambridgeUniversityPress,1990.
selectbibliographyOlbricht,T.DeliveryandMemory.ŽInHandbookofClassicalRhetoricintheHellenisticPeriod330B.C.toA.D.400,editedbyS.Porter.Leiden:Brill,1997.Olivier,J.P.J.SchoolsandWisdomLiterature.ŽJournalofNorthwestSemiticLanguages4(1975):49…60.Ong,WalterJ.OralityandLiteracy:TheTechnologizingoftheWord.London:Routledge,Otto,Eckart.TownandRuralCountrysideinAncientIsraeliteLaw:ReceptionandRedactioninCuneiformIsraeliteLaw.Ž57(1993):3…22.Parker,Simon.StoriesinScriptureandInscriptions.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1997.Parkinson,RichardB.PoetryandCultureinMiddleKingdomEgypt:ADarkSidetoPer-AthlonePublicationsinEgyptologyandAncientNearEasternStudies.NewYork:Continuum,2002.Parpola,Simo.TheManWithoutaScribeandtheQuestionofLiteracyintheAssyr-ianEmpire.ŽIn¨gezualtorientalischenundmittelmeerischenKulturen:Fest-schriftfu¨rWolfgangRo¨llig,editedbyB.Pongratz-Leisten,H.Ku¨hne,andP.Xella,315…24.Neukirchen-Vluyn:NeukirchenerVerlag,1997.„„„.TheRoyalArchivesofNiniveh.ŽInCuneiformArchivesandLibraries:PapersReadatthe30eRencontreAssyriologiqueInternationale,Leiden,4…8,July1983,itedbyKlaasR.Veenhof,223…36.Leiden:NederlandsInstituutvoorhetNabijeOosten,1986.Perdue,Leo.WisdomandCult:ACriticalAnalysisoftheViewsofCultintheWisdomLiteraturesofIsraelandtheAncientNearEast.SBLDS.Missoula,MT:ScholarsPress,1977.Person,RaymondF.TheAncientIsraeliteScribeasPerformer.Ž117(1998):601…TheDeuteronomicSchool:History,SocialSetting,andLiterature.StudiesinBib-licalLiterature.Atlanta,GA:SocietyofBiblicalLiterature,2002.SecondZechariahandtheDeuteronomicSchool.JSOTSup.Shef“eld:Shef“eldAcademicPress,1993.Pfeiffer,Rudolf.AHistoryofClassicalScholarship:FromtheBeginningstotheEndoftheHellenisticAge.Oxford:ClarendonPress,1968.¨hlmann,Egert.Mu¨ndlichkeitundSchriftlichkeitgesternundheute.Ž¨rzburgerJahrbu¨cherfu¨rAltertumswissenschaft14(1998):7…20.Procksch,Otto.DerhebraischeSchreiberundseinBuch.ŽInVonBu¨chernundBib-liotheken,Abschiedsgabefu¨rE.Kuhnert,1…15.Berlin:VonStruppeandWinckler,Puech,E.LesEcolesdanslIsrae¨lpre´exilique:donne´ese´pigraphiques.ŽInVolume:Jerusalem1986,VTSup,189…203.Leiden:Brill,1988.¨inen,Ilkka.HolyBook:ATreasuryoftheIncomprehensible.ŽRainey,A.F.TheScribeatUgarit:HisPositionandIn”uence.ŽProceedingsoftheIs-raelAcademyofScienceandHumanities3(1969):126…47.Rappe,Sara.TheNewMath:HowtoAddandtoSubtractPaganElementsinChris-tianEducation.ŽInEducationinGreekandLatinAntiquity,editedbyYunLeeToo,405…32.Leiden:Brill,2001.Redford,DonaldB.ScribeandSpeaker.ŽInWritingsandSpeechinIsraeliteandAn-cientNearEasternProphecy,editedbyEhudBenZviandMichaelH.Floyd,145…218.Atlanta,GA:ScholarsPress,2000.
selectbibliographyReindl,J.WeisheitlicheBearbeitungvonPsalmen.ŽInCongressVolume:Vienna1980,VTSup,editedbyJ.Emerton,333…56.Leiden:Brill,1981.Rengstorff,KarlH.irbetQumranandtheProblemoftheLibraryoftheDeadSeaLeiden:Brill,1963.Reynolds,L.D.,andN.G.Wilson.ScribesandScholars:AGuidetotheTransmissionofGreekandLatinLiterature.3rded.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1991.Riesner,Rainer.JesusalsLehrer:EineUntersuchungzumUrsprungderEvangelien-WUNT.Tu¨bingen:Mohr-Siebeck,1981.Robson,Eleanor.TheTabletHouse:AScribalSchoolinOldBabylonianNippur.Ž95(2001):39…66.Rubin,David.MemoryinOralTraditions:TheCognitivePsychologyofEpic,Ballads,andCounting-OutRhymes.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1995.Runesson,Anders.TheOriginsoftheSynagogue:ASocio-HistoricalStudy.Biblica,NTS.Stockholm:AlmqvistandWiksellInternational,2001.Saggs,H.W.L.CivilizationBeforeGreeceandRome.London:Batsford,1989.Sanders,JamesA.TheIssueofClosureintheCanonicalProcess.ŽInTheCanonDebate:OntheOriginsandFormationoftheBible,editedbyLeeMartinMcDonaldandJamesA.Sanders,252…63.Peabody,MA:Hendrickson,2002.Schams,Christine.JewishScribesintheSecondTemplePeriod.JSOTSup.Shef“eld:JSOT,1998.Schlott,Adelheid.SchriftundSchreiberimAltenAMunich:Beck,1989.Schniedewind,William.HowtheBibleBecameaBook.Cambridge:CambridgeUniver-sityPress,2004.„„„.LinguisticIdeologyinQumranHebrew.ŽInDiggersattheWell:ProceedingsofaThirdInternationalSymposiumontheHebrewoftheDeadSeaScrollsandBeneditedbyT.MuraokaandJ.F.Elwolde,245…55.Leiden:Brill,2000.„„„.QumranHebrewasanAntilanguage.Ž118(1999):235…52.Schwartz,Seth.ImperialismandJewishSociety,200.to640Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,2001.„„„.Language,PowerandIdentityinAncientPalestine.ŽPastandPresent(1995):3…47.Shupak,Nili.CanonandCanonizationinAncientEgypt.ŽBibliothecaOrientalis(2001):535…47.„„„.TheSitzimLebenoftheBookofProverbsintheLightofaComparisonofBiblicalandEgyptianWisdomLiterature.Ž94(1987):98…119.WhereCanWisdomBeFound?TheSagesLanguageintheBibleandinAncientEgyptianLiterature.OBO.Go¨ttingen:VandenhoeckandRuprecht,1993.¨berg,A.W.TheOldBabylonianEdubba.ŽInSumerologicalStudiesinHonorofThorkildJacobsen,editedbyS.Liebermann,159…79.Chicago:UniversityofChi-cagoPress,1975.„„„.DerVaterundseinmissratenenSohn.Ž25(1973):105…69.Small,JocelynPenny.WaxTabletsoftheMind:CognitiveStudiesofMemoryandLiter-acyinClassicalAntiquity.London:Routledge,1997.Smith,Dennis.FromSymposiumtoEucharist:TheBanquetintheEarlyChristianWorld.Minneapolis:Fortress,2003.Snyder,H.Gregory.TeachersandTextsintheAncientWorld:Philosophers,JewsandChristians.ReligionintheFirstChristianCenturies.London:Routledge,Stock,Brian.TheImplicationsofLiteracy:WrittenLanguageandModelsofInterpretation
selectbibliographyintheEleventhandTwelfthCenturies.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,Thomas,Rosalind.LiteracyandOralityinAncientGreece.Cambridge:CambridgeUni-versityPress,1992.Tigay,Jeffrey.TheEvolutionoftheGilgameshEpic.Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsyl-vaniaPress,1982.Tinney,Steve.OntheCurricularSettingofSumerianLiterature.Ž61(1999):159…Tov,Emanuel.TheBiblicalTextsfromtheJudaeanDesert:AnOverviewandAnalysisofthePublishedTexts.ŽInTheBibleasBook:TheHebrewBibleandtheJudaeanDesertDiscoveries,editedbyEdwardD.HerbertandEmanuelTov,139…66.New-castle,DE:OakKnollPress,2002.„„„.ScribalPracticesRe”ectedintheTextsfromtheJudaeanDesert.ŽInDeadSeaScrollsafterFiftyYears,AComprehensiveAssessment,vol.1,editedbyPe-terW.FlintandJamesVanderkam,403…29.Leiden:Brill,1998.„„„.TheTextoftheHebrew/AramaicandGreekBibleUsedintheAncientSyn-agogues.ŽInTheAncientSynagoguefromItsOriginsuntil200C.E:PapersPre-sentedatanInternationalConferenceatLundUniversity,October14…17,2001,byBirgerOlssonandMagnusZetterholm.Stockholm:AlmqvistandWiksell,Ulrich,Eugene.TheNon-AttestationofaTripartiteCanonin4QMMT.Ž(2003):202…14.„„„.QumranandtheCanonoftheOldTestament.ŽInTheBiblicalCanons,itedbyJ-M.AuwersandH.J.DeJonge,57…80.Leuven:LeuvenUniversityPress,„„„.TheQumranBiblicalScrolls:TheScripturesofLateSecondTempleJuda-ism.ŽInTheDeadSeaScrollsinTheirHistoricalContext,editedbyTimothyH.Lim,67…87.Edinburgh:T.andT.Clark,2000.VanDeMieroop,Marc.CuneiformTextsandtheWritingofHistory.London:Rou-tledge,1999.vanderKooij,Arie.TheCanonizationofAncientBooksKeptintheTempleofJeru-salem.ŽInCanonizationandDecanonization,editedbyArievanderKooijandKarelvanderToorn,17…40.Leiden:Brill,1998.„„„.CanonizationofAncientHebrewBooksandHasmoneanPolitics.ŽInBiblicalCanons,editedbyJ-M.AuwersandH.J.DeJonge,27…38.Leuven:Leu-venUniversityPress,2003.vanderToorn,Karel.CuneiformDocumentsfromSyria-Palestine:Texts,ScribesandZeitschriftderdeutschenPala¨stina-Vereins116(2000):97…113.vanDijk,J.J.A.Lasagessesume´ro-accadienne,Recherchessurlesgenreslitterairesdestex-tessapientiaux.Leiden:Brill,1953.VanSeters,John.TheRedactorinBiblicalStudies:ANineteenth-CenturyAnachro-JournalofNorthwestSemiticLanguages29(2003):1…19.„„„.ReviewofNiditch,OralWorldandWrittenWord.118(1998):436…37.vanSoldt,W.H.StudiesintheAkkadianofUgarit:DatingandGrammar.AOAT.Neukirchen-Vluyn:NeukirchenerVerlag,1991.Vanstiphout,H.L.J.MemoryandLiteracyinAncientWesternAsia.ŽIn„„„.OntheOldEdubbaEducation.ŽInCentresofLearning:LearningandLocationinPre-ModernEuropeandtheNearEast,editedbyJ.W.DrijversandA.A.Mac-Donald,3…16.Leiden:Brill,1995.
selectbibliographyVeldhuis,Niek.ElementaryEducationatNippur:TheListsofTreesandWoodenObjects.Groningen:Styx,1997.„„„.MesopotamianCanons.ŽInHomer,theBibleandBeyond:LiteraryandReli-giousCanonsintheAncientWorld,editedbyMargaritFinkelbergandGuyG.Strousma,9…28.Leiden:Brill,2003.„„„.SumerianProverbsintheirCurricularContext.Ž120(2000):383…99.Volk,Konrad.EdubbaaundEdubbaa-Literatur:Ra¨tselundLo¨sungen.ŽWaetzoldt,H.KeilschriftundSchuleninMesoptoamienundEbla.ŽInundUnterrichtsmethodenimhistorischenWandel,editedbyLenzKriss-RettenbeckandMaxLiedtke,36…50.BadHeilbrunn:Linkhardt,1986.„„„.DerSchreiberalsLehrerinMesopotamien.ŽInSchreiber,Magister,Lehrer:ZurGeschichteundFunktioneinesBerufsstandes,editedbyJohannGeorgPrinzvonHohenzollernandMaxLiedtke,25…50.BadHeilbrunn:JuliusKlinkhardt,Watts,JamesW.ReadingLaw:TheRhetoricalShapingofthePentateuch.BiblicalSemi-nar.Shef“eld:Shef“eldAcademicPress,1999.Weinfeld,Moshe.DeuteronomyandtheDeuteronomicSchool.Oxford:ClarendonPress,Weitzman,Steven.SongandStoryinBiblicalNarrative:TheHistoryofaLiteraryCon-ventioninAncientIsrael.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress,1997.West,W.C.TextualCriticismandEditorialTechnique.Stuttgart:Teubner,1973.Whedbee,William.IsaiahandWisdom.Nashville,TN:Abingdon,1971.Widengren,Geo.LiteraryandPsychologicalAspectsoftheHebrewProphets.UniversitetsArsskrift.Leipzig:Harrassowitz,1948.Widman,H.HerstellungundVertriebdesBuchesindergriechisch-ro¨mischenWelt.ŽArchivfu¨rdieGeschichtedesBuchwesens8(1967):564…640.Williams,R.EducationinAncientEgypt.Ž92(1973):214…22.Wischmeyer,Oda.DieKulturedesBuchesJesusSirach.BZAW.Berlin:DeGruyter,Wise,MichaelO.ThunderinGemini:AndOtherEssaysontheHistory,LanguageandLiteratureofSecondTemplePalestine.JSPSup.Shef“eld:JSOT,1994.Wiseman,D.J.IsraelsLiteraryNeighborsintheThirteenthCenturyBC.ŽJournalofNorthwestSemiticLanguages5(1977):77…91.Yeivin,S.FamiliesandPartiesintheKingdomofJudah[Heb.].ŽTarbiz12(1941…42):Young,FrancesM.BiblicalExegesisandtheFormationofChristianCulture.CambridgeUniversityPress,1997.Young,M.IsraeliteLiteracy:InterpretingtheEvidence.Ž48(1998):239…53,408…Young,M.F.D.AnApproachtotheStudyofCurriculaasSocialOrganizedKnowl-edge.ŽInKnowledgeandControl:NewDirectionsfortheSociologyofEducation,itedbyM.F.D.Young,19…46.London:Collier-MacMillan,1971.Yunis,Harvey,ed.WrittenTextsandtheRiseofLiterateCultureinAncientGreece.bridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2003.Zumthor,Paul.Essaidepoe´tiqueme´die´vale.Paris:EditionsduSeuil,1972.
This page intentionally left blank
IndexofCitationsofPrimaryTextsThefollowingisarelativelycompleteindexofspeci“ccitationsofprimarytextsinthebook,orderedasfollows:OldandNewTestament,ApocryphaandPseudepigrapha,JewishInscriptionsandScrolls(outsideQumran),Qumrantexts,Philo,Josephus,RabbinicLiterature,andMesopotamian,Egyptian,andGreektexts.Moreprominentdiscussionsareindicatedbyboldfacepagenumbers.Citationsexclusivelyinfootnotesareindicatedbythepagenumberfollowedbyn,e.g.76n.Wheretheindexindicatesthediscussionofalargerswathoftext,therearenotadditionalentriesforspeci“ccitationsonthesamepagesofsectionsofthattext.TheindexofOldandNewTestamentbooksfollowstheorderoftheProtestantcanon.Otherindicesarebyalphabeticaland(inthecaseofnumberedQumrandocuments)numericorder.ForQumrandocuments,theindexstartswithmajornameddocumentsanddocumentswhereIcitedtextsfrommorethanonecave(e.g.Mysteries).TherestoftheQumranindexfollowstheorderofthenumber.Fullnamesofthelattertextsarenotincludedintheindex,butusuallyareincludedinthecitationonthegivenpage.Therabbinicsectionstartsalphabeticallyandthenproceedsbyorderofmishnahtractate.GreekandLatintexts(otherthanabove)arelistedalphabeticallybyauthor,withtheexceptionoftwopapyri,whicharelistedattheend.1…111532:4…3:242222:4153n5:1112n,153n16:1…619830:21165n34:1…31165n35:21…22a165n38165n398849165n15:1163n17:14112n,118,19:617218:13…2613620:22…23:33137,165,20:12129n24:3…4112n24:7112n,11824:12112n25:1616131:1812132:15…16112n32:16121,22234:1112n,12134:27…29112n34:2811839:301181…72925:1822311:24…28152n14:10…32152n14:49…53152n24:13…23152n5:23…28121
indexofcitationsofprimarytexts5:23118,1526:24…2616611:11…1713611:16117n11:24…3013617:16…28[ET17:1…13]12121:17163n30:6…152221:13…15119…20,1361:15117n4:2160n4:6…8137,1724:6a152,167,220,2264:13…14112n4:131215…261365:11375:16129n6:5…61406:5138,2076:6…71406:6137,148…9,1726:72376:9115,1217:9…101669:10…11112n9:1012110:1…516110:1112n10:2,412111:18…1914011:18137,148…9,17211:2012113:1[ET12:32]160n16:18117n17:9…12120,120n,138,152,16617:18…2014017:1813917:19117n,118,13918:913820:5…9117n20:1813821:18…20129…30n,22:9…1122224:1…4112,115,12124:813827:2…3112n,12127:8112n28:58,61112n29:9[ET29:10]117n30:10112n31:9…13120,138,,16131:9…11118,15231:9112n31:10…13120,15231:19…24112n31:19132…3,13831:22132…331:25…27145,16131:28117n31:30163n32:44…46132…333:120333:10120,120n,13834:10…12167Joshua1:8…92101:8112n,153,2181:10117n3:2117n8:32…35120,1618:32…34112n8:30…321218:33117n10:12…1316310:13112n18:411823:2117n23:6…1614023:6112n24:1…2714024:1117n24:26…27112nJudges5:14118,130,1638:14115,121,1Samuel8:51678:19…2016710:25112n,11816:16,23124n18:10124n2Samuel1:18…191311:18112n,1637:1…17878:16117n8:1787,117,13011:14…15112n,117n20:24117n20:2587,117,1301Kings2:3112n3:2…1587,1403:91274:387,117,117n,1304:2…61175:9…14[ET4:29…34]1405:12…13[ET4:32…33]1315:12[ET4:32]1318:9,211619:168511:14…408511:41112n11:20119,130128512:8119,13012:1013014:19,29112n15:7,23,31112n16:5,14,20,27112n21:8…11112n,12022:39,45112n2Kings1:18112n2:1…18144,1452:3,51644:38144,1455:5…7112n5:7117n6:1…7144,1456:1…21648:23112n10:1…1116410:1…8119,13010:1,5,6112n10:7117n10:34112n12:3119,13012:11…16[ET12:10…15]11712:19112n13:8,12112n14:6112n14:15,18,28112n15:6,11,15,21,26,31,36112n16:19112n17:7…2316717:13,23167
indexofcitationsofprimarytexts17:37112n,12118:18117,117n18:26123,125,156…718:37117,117n19:211719:14[9…13]112n,117n19:3525920:12112n20:20112n21:10…1516721:17112n21:19…2616621:25112n22…231662214122:214022:3…1411722:3…816123:1…3112,120,17223:2117n23:8…2016123:28112n24:216724:5112n24:1417225:19117…1825:11…121723KingdomsKingdoms8:53a1631Chronicles2:551189:1112n16:40112n18:15117n18:1687,11723:4117n24:611825:2…615226:29117n27:1117n29:29112n2Chronicles5:121529:29112n12:15112n13:22112n16:11112n19:8…11120,15220:34112n23:18112n24:1111724:27112n25:4112n26:22112n27:7112n28:26112n30:1112n32:17112n32:32112n33:18…19112n34:8…2111734:8117n34:13117n34:30117n35:4117n35:26…27112n36:8112n2:551183:2…4112n4:7…23112n7:61197:11…26112n7:111197:211197:261709:38112n6:1…9112n7:5112n,1217:72b…8:18[ET7:73b…8:18]112,120,171,1728:1,4117n8:8…9120n,1528:9117n8:13117n8:81189:312010:112110:36112n13:1112n1:21…22112n3:13…14112n8:8…9120n9:20…23,29112n10:2112nJob13:2612131:35112nn,12136:22129n3886n1:2153,2109…10125,15425125,15434125,15440:7…9[ET40:6…8]40:9[ET40:8]112n45:2[ET45:1]117,11971:151217815478:112779:2…3263n,26487:612110486n119125,154119:99129n145125,1541:11281:81292:21272:101273:11273:31274:3129,130n4:41274:211274:271385:1…231295:13129n5:141306:7117n6:20…211276:201296:21127,13572237:3127,1357:251389:9119…2010:1127,129n10:8119…20,12710:14119…2012:15119…2012:18119…2013:14119…2013:20119…2013:2412914:24119…2014:3312715:2119…2015:7119…2015:12119…2015:16127n15:20129n15:31119…20
indexofcitationsofprimarytexts15:3321016:21119…20,12716:23119…2018:15119…2019:26129n20:20129n21:11119…2021:22119…2022:1112722:15127,12922:17…24:348522:21…24:3412722:29117,11923:1512723:2612724:23119…2025:1127,128,131,140…1,16526:312927:1912729:11119…2029:15129n29:1712930:112830:6160n30:15…3112930:11129n30:17129n31:1128,13031:10…31125,129,129n7:41277:71279:7…106010:212712:9…12[13…14]144SongofSongs3:7…10155n8155n1:10…201455:1…71455:21…24119…20,143,1465:21131,1417:31448:1…41448:1118,1218:5…151438:16…22144,146,1518:1659…60,1518:19…201449:1…6[ET9:2…7]1459:5[ET9:6]8710:1…2115,11810:19115,12111:1…914519:11…12131n22:15…25117n,14329:1112129:14119…20,131n,141,143,30…3114530:8112n,,145n,15130:9…1114430:20129n,144…534:4112n31:1…2119…20,14331:2144…536…3914236:3117,117n36:11123,125,156…736:22117,117n37:211737:14[9…13]112n,117n37:3625938:9117n39:1112n44:512148:1715050:1112,12150:5127,13854:13150Jeremiah1:1…21411:11462…6146n2:18852:36853:81214:22131n7:251678:8…9131n,141,1468:8118,119…20,14110:7…9131n18:18119…20,141,146,15222:3012124:88526:4…616726:21…238526:24117,130,141n,14829112n29:3117,130,141n,14829:1916730:2112n31:3314932:10…14112n32:10…1211232:1416132:12…16118,120,12135:13…1516736118,36:1…315136:2112n,12036:4120,147,14936:10…19141n,14836:10117,13036:1211736:17…18147,14936:188736:20…2111736:2515036:27…32147,14936:32112n,120,14937:15,20117n39:14117,13040:1…41:10117,13040:1…16141n,14841:1…1011744:18544:416743:3,611845:1…511845:1120,14745:3,514750:35131n51:57131n51:60…61112n5214252:25117…1811252…41251:1214n1:31492:8…9112n3:4…111499:2879:3879:118711:1914911:2114913:10…1122214:3…514916:30149
indexofcitationsofprimarytexts18:3114921:28[ET21:23]117n24:1…2112n24:211833:30…3314936:2614937:16…2812138:1716740:414943:1114944:514944:714944:9149326662669:101674:6120,120n,1527:11858:12112n9:68514:10[ET14:9]3:71675:26…272331:2…11125n2:2…31512:2118,145,145n2:18129n1:61675:1112n11:111502:7213n6:27…8280…12:462134:16…2724312:25…7280…1John7:282138:22138:2021318:202136:924313:15224315:2124315:4111Jude14…15272apocryphyaand1:11193:9…4:4210n,2111Enoch12:3…4203n13:3…7203n14:1203n15:1203n39:2203n8120389:68…77203n90:17…20203n92:1203,203n98:7…8203n104:2,7,10…13203n1082032Esdras,261Jubilees4:17…192057:34…392058:2…420510:13…1420511:1620512:25…27205,25919:1420530:1820531:15,21…2620545:15205Let.Aris.46213176…1772131Maccabees1:112561:492571:56…82571:56…72622:12672:59…602663:46…60262…34:44…6261,2647:13…182547:16…17263n,2648:172549:27261,26410:2026711:2726712:5…23255n14:41261,26414:492132Maccabees1:72582:1…8259n2:14…152132:14268…9,2732:252584:10…172584:112546:12576:18…312597:82597:372598:1925911:225811:24258…911:27…33257n12:3725915:9259,26315:14…16259n15:22259,26315:392584Maccabees5:421318:10…19213,264
indexofcitationsofprimarytextsSirach(BenSira)1:262103:12083:21…24207…83:292086:232086:332086:352086:372107:29…31207,2118:920810:1921014:20…2121014:2620815:1210,210n15:11…2022215:3321016:520818:4…7207…819:2021021:1121023:720923:16…1720923:27210n2421224:120924:23…3321024:23…27210n24:33…3420824:3326525:1…220925:7…1120926:5…6209n26:28209n30:120930:3…420833:18…1920830:1820934:1…7207…836:1…2221137:2320838:2420839:1…520939:1…3209,211,26139:121039:4208,20939:12…3521139:3220841:8…9211,22342:15…43:3321143:6…8208n44…4921144:120944:16…45:2620946:1…49:1620945:6…2520745:1…5207,21145:5208,21145:1721147:8209…1047:17208,21049:921050:1…21206…750:1320750:25…26209n50:27…29208…951:1…1221151:13…30125n,20951:1320951:23201TestamentofLevi13:1…3205…6TestamentofReuben6:5…8206WisdomofSolomon2:22228non-biblical,jewishinscriptionsandscrolls(asidefrom991235324231663:8…13118,124n6:5,8…9,1311812:4118608…9782…78324210b,11,73,78…80242CommunityRule(1QSrecension)I,2…3234III,13…IV,26224III,13…18217,225III,139V,2…3216,218V,9218V,23…24217VI,6…8218VI,12…16217VI,13…23218nVI,18217,218VI,21…22218VII,18…21218nVIII,1…3220VIII,13218nVIII,10…16VIII,20…25218nIX,12…X,5217CommunityRule(4Q258)I,1217DamascusCovenantI,7217I,9…11217II,2…13225VI,7217VII,15…17,234VII,18217XIII,2…3216XIII,7…9219XIII,11…12218XIV,3…6220XIV,3…4235nXIV,6…8216,218,219nXIV,9…11219XX,4217XX,6236nXX,10,13217DamascusCovenantII,20…21236n7II,15236nEnoch,GiantsVIII,1…4203nII,14203nGenesisApocryphonV,20…29205HabakkukPesherII,8…9216II,7…10217VI,15…VII,5217VII,4…5216
indexofcitationsofprimarytextsatMaaseha-Torah(4QMMT;esp.4Q397andMysteries,Bookof1Q27VI,2…32234Q29955:52234Q29969:1…22234Q29979:6…72234Q300266n4Q300266nReworkedPentateuch(4QRP)230…14Q36523,I.6…8170nTempleScrollWarScrollX,10217217bynumber1QSa(1Q28a)I,1…2216I,3…16I,22…252191QSb(1Q28b)III,23…242162Q18(BenSira)223(4Q6)2304QJos(4Q47)2364QphylG(4Q134)2284QMezA(4Q149)228(4Q171)235III,152164QFlor(4Q174)I,112174QTestimonia(4Q175)22…23235numim(4Q176)238n1:14…15211,2251:152115:52114QSapientialWork(4Q185)223,225II,3235n4Q2281I,9…10235n4QExercitiumCalamiA(4Q234)2214Q247(Apoc.WeeksPesher)2354QpapcryptA(4Q249)232(4Q257)V…VI;2254Q264aHalachaB223n4QcryptA(4Q298)1…2,5I,32243…4II,72244QPapAdmonitoryParable(4Q302)2234QMeditationonCreation(4Q303…305)2244QExercitiumCalamiB(4Q360)221(4Q370)223nII,5…9235n4Qnon-CanonicalPsalms69,4…5234n4QSapientialHymn(4Q411)224(4Q412)2244Q413224(4Q416)2III,20…IV,6222(4Q416)2IV,7…10222(4Q417)2I,14211,219,222(4Q418)103II,6…92224QWaysofRighteousness(4Q420…21)223(4Q425)224(4Q426)2231:4223…44QBarkiNafshi(4Q435…438)2371I,4…54QTheTwoWays(4Q473)2231…2III,12…13234n4QBeat(4Q525)223,2253II,1…62118QPhyl(8Q3)22811QPsa(11Q5)XVIII,10…13211XVIII,1…16223,225XXI,11…17223XXII,1223XXVII,11235,264ContemplativeLife252461282442.123…29245115…7,155…7,311…13245GoodPerson82245…67.10…13244…57.132132.41…43245n2.216244OnthePreliminarySpecialLaws2.60…642442.642454.188…192213GoodPerson80…83244
indexofcitationsofprimarytexts1.602473.382134.2112474.302…3042134.3042135.512135.618(212)6.6621310.57…5821310.5721310.266…8826612.108…9248n12.225…7255n12.384…5256…714.19421316.4324620.263…4247AgainstApion1.28…29213,2612.1752462.1782472.1872132.2042471…2(1…9)2137…924739(198)213,247JewishWars1.32131.138218n2.136220,2462.142220,2462.289…922463.352213rabbinicliteratureAbotR.Nat.6,15214nLev.Rab.7:3214n214nmishnah,toseftaandm.Yoma7:1214,214nm.RosHas4.6266t.RosHas4.6266t.Meg.2:17243y.Ketub.8:11.32c271m.Sot7:82147:7214nb.B.Bat.14b…15a;23421a271m.Yad.3:5213…4nmesopotamiantextsAshurbanipalHymn(KAR105)21…2530IIIviii9…1630CT24,46a1…1138…9DescentofIshtarEnumaElishVII14530ErraEpicV54…5530(OldBabylonian)Xiii6…1460IshtarHymnxiv301…829280…28129UET6:340…48egyptiantextsIII:9…1074III:13…1474XXVII:674(pKairoCG58042)20.4…57522.15…1675BookoftheHeavenlyCow261…26480ChesterBeattyPapyrusVerso3,9672.4…5743,9…4,179357450…5167NefertiProphecy66…6884PapyrusBM100595174SatiricLetter10/9…11/38,63,73Wenamun2,45…46842,6984othergreekandlatintexts
indexofcitationsofprimarytextsPrometheusBound788…789[cf.460…461]98AgainstTimarchus9…1296n,97nFrogs1114…111993961…968959641019731011353…1374100188…18995Wasps958…960961337b23ff.97X.453d18049180ClementofAlexandria,VI,4196DiodorusofSicily,LibraryofHistory40:3,5213nDionysiusofHalicarnassus,25179DionysiusofHalicarnassus,52179Frag.506N.(Aulus)Gellius,AtticNightsXIII.31180XIII.17190n31813:30…36180HistoryIV.7894nHomer,1,11074212Homer,1.11071.101078.4811078.48810718197n261…26597n,99n266…26797n296…7188n47…51188n51188nPindar,OlympianOdes10.1…398,127407b…c97n276a96…7228b…c102769c…e96n795d96809b…c97810e…811a96,99,10094b96n274e64274e…275b64n274c…275c97275e64n325d…326a97326a101376e…377d97n376e95…6377d100521d…e96nPlinytheyounger,7.9.15182IV.181809e…f180I.1.25…26179I.3180I.8.5…6180X.1.19180XI.2180Frag.59798Laec.Constitution1.1097nIII.5101other[papyri]P.Col.Zen.19,21188nP.OxyXX(1952)2256frag.9a2198P.Yale,46col.i,l.13188n
This page intentionally left blank
IndexofSelectSubjectsAcrostic,73,125,129,209Alphabeticculture,13,54…6,99…104,112…22,268(note268),270…literacy,extentatoutsetofeducationde“ningthenumberofbooksintheJewishcanon,249…51Amenemope,Israeliteadaptationof,85,127,127n,163Amennakht,theEgyptianscribe,70,145AncientLanguage,centraltoScripture,184…85,259…60,263…64,295…Baruch(Jeremiahsscribe),118,147,151BenSira,206…212Bilingualandmultilingualeducation,52…6,156…7,195,242…43Bipartite(Jewish)Bible,209…210,234…36,234n,248…49,251,259,260…62,264…67,Canon,12,18,158,185…86,276,289…90Chiasm98,152Collectivemeals,99…100,238…39,284Corecurriculum,294CulturalMemory,10…11,CulturalTexts,64…65,101…Curricula,99…102,179…186Alla,151,161Editions,ancient,37…38Empire,9,33…34,162,165,170…171,267…69,275,283…84,285socializationofeliteExercises,student,17…19,48…58,65…67,85,91,123n,242…243Family,centerofeducation,12…13,20…21,65…67,129…130,143…44,203,205…6,208,277,284Graphicelementsoftextuality,289Hittitehistoriography,didacticuseof,50,142Hybridity,197…98,211…12,238…39,254…60,264…65,269…70,274…75,Iconographyandtextuality,40,92…94,114,124ImpracticalityofEducation,21…22,32,53…55,69,82,99…101Indigenousculture,resistance,194…95,212…13,262…63,268…69Intertextuality,35…37,79,160,292…93Josephus,246…51KadeshBarnea,exercises,85,122…3Levites,118,120n,138…9,152,161,169,205…6Library,18…19,79…81,107…108,195…96,239,263,conceptsof,13,103,116,extentof,13,20,70…71(n.43),102…104,115…122,165…66,172…73,187…91,247,271,278idealofuniversalliteracy,137,172,187…90,247,269…70,271,278,287
indexofselectsubjectsLiterature(versusScripture)Lucian,185Marksofscripture,29…30,81…82,70…74,79,107,158,167,237,289…91Memorization,indicatorsof,6…7,27…28,40,64…65,71…74,79,96…101,125,134…136,137,142,152,155…56,180…81,205,209,223…4,228…9,230…34,236…37,247…48,258,280…82Memorytechniques,73,98…99,125,128…29,137,209.acrostic,chiasmMindatcenter,6Music,28,124,152,181,289Oral-written,overlap,73…74,95…96,104…106,126…128,132…33,138,144…45,146…147,149,303…304Oral-writtencontinuum,4…8,Parry-Lordschooloforal-traditionalcomposition,6…8,104…106Pedagogyofsubmission,32,76,129,149…150,182PhiloofAlexandria,198,244…46Priestsandtextuality,152,165…6,169…70,202…6,216…217,219…20,226…27,241.templesandtextuality.Prophecyandeducation,151Prophets,ascategoryofbooks,167,209…210,213,234…36,Revision,textual,34…46,78…79,137…138,142,146…147,159…161,162…172,231…32Schools,12…13,66…68,101,113…115,134,178,283…84,301Scripturalcriticism,289…91BenSira.Socializationofelite,31…35,55,101…104,114…115,118…119,130…131,190…93,278,304…Templesandtextuality,76…77,79,81,108,119,160…61,169…170,172,194…95,198…99,201…214,267…69,274,Testamentgenre,133n,203…206Theology,Biblical,289…92Theognis,212Torahfocus,166,207…211,218…19,222,225,228…34,269…70,272,274…75,278Tripartite(Jewish)Bible,209…10,245…246,248,249(note28),261,264…65,261…62,Seealso(Jewish)BibleWisdomliterature,distinctivefunctionineducation,22…3,126,132…134,132n,156…57,222…25,280…82Womenandliteracy,11…12,94,129…30,190…91,192…93