Pahoran Revisited

[Olavarria]

“And it came to pass that he immediately sent an epistle to Pahoran, desiring that he should cause men to be gathered together to strengthen Helaman, or the armies of Helaman,”(Alma 59:3).

In Akkadian, paḫāru means potter(1). The same is true in Aramaic (Daniel 2:41). In Akkadian, the word also stands as a personal name: Paḫāru (1). As a verb, paḫāru also means to “to assemble, congregate, muster”, especially for military purposes (1). Although Pahoran seems to be Egyptian in origin, a Semitic origin can’t be ruled out either(2). As a scribe, it's possible that Nephi had training in Akkadian(3) and that his may have influenced the "Hebrew" used by Nephite historians(Mormon 9:3). In Lehi's day, Akkadian was the lingua franca of the ancient Near East. This may also just be a false cognate.

Sources

(1)The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of The University of Chicago, p, pg 22-24.

(2) H. Nibley, “Proper Names In The Book of Mormon,” An Approach To The Book of Mormon, www.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu.

(3)Inventing God's law: How the covenant code of the Bible used and revised the laws of Hammurabi, pg 394.

Edited January 8, 2012 by Olavarria

[Nevo]

As a scribe, it's possible that Nephi had training in Akkadian(3) and that his may have influenced the "Hebrew" used by Nephite historians(Mormon 9:3). In Lehi's day, Akkadian was the lingua franca of the ancient Near East. This may also just be a false cognate.

It is interesting that some preexilic Israelite scribes (and perhaps some other educated individuals who were not scribes) may have been exposed to Akkadian legal texts at some point in their education, but that hardly counts as evidence that Parhoron/Pahoran was derived from the Akkadian verb paḫāru—never mind that "Neo- and Late Babylonian paḫāru-names almost exclusively belong to the type DN-upaḫḫir," where a form of paḫāru constituted only one element of the name, and that in the final position (see Jan Tavernier, "Akkadian Personal Names with Paḫāru or Saḫāru as Initial Element," Journal of Cuneiform Studies 62 [2010]: 92).

Also, if Nephi was educated as a royal scribe, why did he claim to be not "mighty in writing" (2 Nephi 33:1)?

Edited January 8, 2012 by Nevo

[Olavarria]

Good catch, lots to think about.

[LeSellers]

if Nephi was educated as a royal scribe, why did he claim to be not "mighty in writing" (2 Nephi 33:1)?

"Scribes" are not "writers", they're "transcriptionists".

Writers create ideas, scribes/transcriptionists enscribe them.

It was not uncommon for kings to be illiterate, relying on scribes to read to them and write their thoughts, orders, etc. A scribe in such a position would run a serious risk or insubordination or worse were he to write anything the king (or other principle) did not say.

Further, Nephi's complaint, like Moroni's centuries later, was not that he could not write, but that his written word was not as effective as his spoken word—it did not have the same power to move men to action and repentance as when he spoke, but that the Brother of Jared's writings had that characteristic.

23 And I said unto him: Lord, the Gentiles will mock at these things, because of our weakness in writing; for Lord thou hast made us mighty in word by faith, but thou hast not made us mighty in writing; for thou hast made all this people that they could speak much, because of the Holy Ghost which thou hast given them; 24 And thou hast made us that we could write but little, because of the awkwardness of our hands. Behold, thou hast not made us mighty in writing like unto the brother of Jared, for thou madest him that the things which he wrote were mighty even as thou art, unto the overpowering of man to read them.

Lehi

Edited January 9, 2012 by LeSellers

[Nevo]

"Scribes" are not "writers", they're "transcriptionists".

Writers create ideas, scribes/transcriptionists enscribe them.

Old Testament-era scribes were also writers, if not exactly "authors" in the modern sense. According to Karel van der Toorn, "the scribes who manufactured the Bible were professional writers affiliated to the temple of Jerusalem.... The Bible was born and studied in the scribal workshop... of the Second Temple, active in the period between 500 and 200 B.C.E. ... The scribes ... were scholars and teachers: they wrote, edited, copied, gave public readings, and interpreted. If the Bible became the Word of God, it was due to their presentation. Both the production and the promotion of the Hebrew Bible were the work of the scribes" (Karel van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007], 1–2).

Now, it may be that Nephi belonged to the scribal elite but nevertheless believed that the written word was a weak substitute for the spoken word—but I think that would have been an unusual position for a scribe to take, particularly at a time when writing was widely thought to have "magical" or numinous power (see, e.g., William M. Schniedewind, How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004], 24–34).

[Robert F. Smith]

Old Testament-era scribes were also writers, if not exactly "authors" in the modern sense. According to Karel van der Toorn, "the scribes who manufactured the Bible were professional writers affiliated to the temple of Jerusalem.... The Bible was born and studied in the scribal workshop... of the Second Temple, active in the period between 500 and 200 B.C.E. ... The scribes ... were scholars and teachers: they wrote, edited, copied, gave public readings, and interpreted. If the Bible became the Word of God, it was due to their presentation. Both the production and the promotion of the Hebrew Bible were the work of the scribes" (Karel van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007], 1–2).

Now, it may be that Nephi belonged to the scribal elite but nevertheless believed that the written word was a weak substitute for the spoken word—but I think that would have been an unusual position for a scribe to take, particularly at a time when writing was widely thought to have "magical" or numinous power (see, e.g., William M. Schniedewind, How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004], 24–34).

That Lehi and Nephi had scribal training need not imply that they were "royal scribes," or that they had great literary skills. It is highly unlikely that either of them had training in cuneiform. There is only evidence to suggest that they had training in ancient Egyptian, something which Wm Schniedewind, Antonio Loprieno, and the late Anson Rainey argued was a feature of some professional Israelite scribal ability. Where and why Lehi and Nephi might have had such training is not explained. The Bible gives no hint of such activity.

[J Green]

Now, it may be that Nephi belonged to the scribal elite but nevertheless believed that the written word was a weak substitute for the spoken word—but I think that would have been an unusual position for a scribe to take, particularly at a time when writing was widely thought to have "magical" or numinous power (see, e.g., William M. Schniedewind, How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004], 24–34).

My take on the verse cited. Nephi merely says he is not mighty in writing in contrast to speaking prophetically by the Spirit. Nephi has been taught powerfully by the Spirit, including during his visions surrounding the Tree of Life. One example of this influence can be seen when he incorporates the idea of the condescension of God -- a concept introduced by the Spirit during this vision -- into his own psalm. Nephi's brother Jacob then uses the idea twice in his own writing, showing the influence this had in the wider family context. In other words, I don't think we can take Nephi's emphasis on the power of speaking by the Spirit to mean that he wasn't a scribe.

When you look at Nephi's product in light of ancient literacy, I think it's almost impossible that he didn't have scribal training. As Robert points out, unlikely at the royal courts, but more likely in a family priestly setting.

[Nevo]

I don't think we can take Nephi's emphasis on the power of speaking by the Spirit to mean that he wasn't a scribe. When you look at Nephi's product in light of ancient literacy, I think it's almost impossible that he didn't have scribal training. As Robert points out, unlikely at the royal courts, but more likely in a family priestly setting.

Thanks, Joey (and Robert), for your comments. I'm intrigued by this suggestion that Nephi received scribal training "in a family priestly setting." That hadn't occurred to me because I didn't think Lehi came from a priestly or a scribal family. But I'm sure you have thought more about this than I have. And I just noticed that you have a new blog post up that directly relates to this subject so I'll check that out.

---------------------

By the way, I'd be interested in getting your thoughts on an old thread of mine: "Is the Scribalization of Prophecy in the Book of Mormon Anachronistic?" (the same goes for Robert).

[volgadon]

When you look at Nephi's product in light of ancient literacy, I think it's almost impossible that he didn't have scribal training. As Robert points out, unlikely at the royal courts, but more likely in a family priestly setting.

I've had the notion for a while that they may have been scribes dealing mainly with the southern trade with Egypt.

[J Green]

Nevo,

Just read the thread on scribalization of phrophecy, and the point you raise is a good one. I need to think about it for a bit to see how I would react. As for the priestly family thing, I definitely see Lehi and Nephi showing indicators for scribal, priestly, and metal-working backgrounds. If true, it would be highly unsual for a family to be trained in all three of those professions. Hence my exploration of a Midianite/Kenite-type of background.

Volgadon,

I'd love to hear you flesh out your thoughts a little more if you're willing to share.

Cheers.

[J Green]

Nevo,

I went back and skimmed van der Toorn's work last night, focusing on the "Manufacturing the Prophets" chapter. Interesting stuff. I have some initial thoughts, but I'll start a separate thread later today as I get time so as not to hijack this thread.

Cheers.

[Robert F. Smith]

Thanks, Joey (and Robert), for your comments. I'm intrigued by this suggestion that Nephi received scribal training "in a family priestly setting." That hadn't occurred to me because I didn't think Lehi came from a priestly or a scribal family. But I'm sure you have thought more about this than I have. And I just noticed that you have a new blog post up that directly relates to this subject so I'll check that out.

---------------------

By the way, I'd be interested in getting your thoughts on an old thread of mine: "Is the Scribalization of Prophecy in the Book of Mormon Anachronistic?" (the same goes for Robert).

from J Green:

Nevo,

Just read the thread on scribalization of phrophecy, and the point you raise is a good one. I need to think about it for a bit to see how I would react. As for the priestly family thing, I definitely see Lehi and Nephi showing indicators for scribal, priestly, and metal-working backgrounds. If true, it would be highly unsual for a family to be trained in all three of those professions. Hence my exploration of a Midianite/Kenite-type of background.

Volgadon,

I'd love to hear you flesh out your thoughts a little more if you're willing to share.

Cheers.

I have read that entire 2008 thread, and, yes, when viewed from a KJV biblical perspective, scribalization of prophecy in the Book of Mormon does seem anachronistic.

First, because that scribal record (and the Brass Plates of Laban) is kept in Egyptian.

Second, because there is no hint that Lehi & Nephi are royal scribes, or priestly scribes (unlike Jeremiah and his scribes, they are not from a priestly family) -- unless they hailed from an refugee family of erstwhile royal scribes to the Court in Samaria (Northern Kingdom) a century earlier.

Third, such specialized training must have been relatively rare -- particularly in Egyptian -- although we now know that some professional Israelite scribes were trained in Akkadian (so David P. Wright) and Egyptian (so Rainey, Loprieno, and Schniedewind).

The Midianite/Qenite hypothesis is particularly intruiging. After all, the first destination of Clan Lehi in effecting an escape from Jerusalem is to the periphery of ancient Midian. What better place to go if the family had made their living at some recent time in the past by caravaneering as itinerant smiths (Qenites), thus combining their mercantile and metallurgical activity with far-flung trade in precious metals and gems. That would explain a lot!!

We do not have Lehi's own writings, and so have no idea what his early years were like, nor whether the family spent an extended period in ancient Egypt (where large communities of Semites had lived for thousands of years -- at one point ruling North Egypt).

What we do know is that the family was wealthy, that they had metallurgical and hunting skills, that they knew how to travel in the wilderness, and that Lehi immediately built a stone altar and offered an animal sacrifice in ancient patriarchal fashion. These are not the actions of newbies from a buying spree at REI.

[J Green]

The Midianite/Qenite hypothesis is particularly intruiging. After all, the first destination of Clan Lehi in effecting an escape from Jerusalem is to the periphery of ancient Midian. What better place to go if the family had made their living at some recent time in the past by caravaneering as itinerant smiths (Qenites), thus combining their mercantile and metallurgical activity with far-flung trade in precious metals and gems. That would explain a lot!!

We do not have Lehi's own writings, and so have no idea what his early years were like, nor whether the family spent an extended period in ancient Egypt (where large communities of Semites had lived for thousands of years -- at one point ruling North Egypt).

What we do know is that the family was wealthy, that they had metallurgical and hunting skills, that they knew how to travel in the wilderness, and that Lehi immediately built a stone altar and offered an animal sacrifice in ancient patriarchal fashion. These are not the actions of newbies from a buying spree at REI.

Robert,

The Kenite link is exactly the sort of thing I'm proposing. As you know, metallurgy wasn't really existent among the Israelites but rather among the Phoenicians or the Kenites/Midianites. These midianite clans intermarried among the tribes of Israel, and included families of scribes. They tended to be very clanish but at times intermarried, which to me creates the kind of situation where Lehi might consider himself part of the house of Israel (at some point in his line) but not really know his geneology.

This last point is more important if you look at them as a priestly family, since it would be unusual for a priestly family not to know their lineage in great detail. While the altar could be something of a simple patriarchal nature, the building of a temple and ordaining priests argues for something more. And many scholars have looked at Jacob's messages and King Benjamin's address in terms of cultic priestly functions. For example, if you look at terms related to Holy and Holy one of Israel in the BoM, the largest collection of these terms group around Jacob's writings in 2 Nephi 9 and his sermon in Jacob 2-4, which he delivers at the temple (likely durinig the fall festival that would split in the exile into the three festivals of Day of Atonement, Tabernacles, and New Year). This brings us into Leviticus territory, the holiness code, and the world of priests. When Jacob twice talks about shaking his garment free of blood, this is a priestly metaphor that refers to the blood from cultic sacrifice. And since he was likely the high priest, it could only have reference to the high priest entering the most holy place on the Day of Atonement and sprinkling blood on the mercy seat and on himself in the process. Etc.

H. H. Rowley develops a Midianite priesthood thesis that enjoyed a brief reception, and Frank Moore Cross (Canaanite Myth) talks about the priesthood rebellions that indicate the absence of a competing priesthood that has been edited out of the final levitical and exilic product. He speculates about the Midianite connection here but doesn't make bold claims like Rowley. But D&C 84 gives us a priesthood line for Jethro that in fact argues for a Midinate priesthood that would have been operating with the Melch. priesthood, and most LDS scholars have seen Lehi's clan as holding the Melch. priesthood. If so, from whence did it come?

If we're combining a Melch. priesthood line with skills in metallurgy along with scribal training, then the Midianite priesthood line of D&C 84 would make sense and account for all of these indicators.

As far as the anachronism part is concerned, I think that for the most part, van der Toorn's assessment places Nephi's texts into the right time and place for a scribal production that moves from pre-exilic Jerusalem into exile.

Cheers.

[J Green]

Nevo,

I started another thread on the scribalizatoin anachronism piece last night. I'll await your input before proceeding.

Cheers.