What was the makeup of the group that came out of Bethel?

 

The passage uses two nouns (na’ar and yeled) and one adjective (qatAn) in describing this group.

 

Since I will be typing the words A LOT in this section, I will use abbreviations for these main words and their various forms, such as plurals:

·         [N] for na’ar ,

·         [Y] for yeled,

·         [Qa] for qatAn (in our passage)

·         [Qo] for qatOn (not in our passage, but related to Qa)

 

 

Translators routinely translate these terms as ‘children’ and even ‘small children’.

 

“He went up from there to Bethel, and while he was going up on the way, some small [Qa] boys [N] came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” And he turned around, and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys [Y].” [ESV]

 

But many of the commentators quickly make the statement that the [N] word refers to ‘young men’ not ‘young children’:

 

“The phrase וּנְעָרִים קְטַנִּים can refer to youths from twelve to thirty years old (cf. 1 Sam 16:11–12; 2 Sam 14:21; 18:5), i.e., old enough to show respect for God’s prophet.” [Paul R. House, 1, 2 Kings (vol. 8; The New American Commentary; Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995), 260–261]

 

“The unfortunate translation “little children” (KJV) has given a very wrong impression of this passage. The Hebrew literally means “young men.” [James E. Smith, The Books of History (Old Testament Survey Series; Joplin, MO: College Press, 1995), 553–554.]

 

"'Little children' is an unfortunate translation. The Hebrew expression neurim qetannim is best rendered 'young lads' or 'young men.' From numerous examples where ages are specified in the Old Testament, we know that these were boys from twelve to thirty years old. One of these words described Isaac at his sacrifice in Genesis 22:12, when he was easily in his early twenties. It described Joseph in Genesis 37:2 when he was seventeen years old. In fact, the same word described army men in 1 Kings 20:14-15...these are young men ages between twelve and thirty." [HSOBX]

 

 

In process of re-researching this, even the phrases ‘young men’ and ’12 to 30’ do not seem to apply closely at all to this group.

 

But since it was time to update this, I felt it incumbent upon me to do two things:

 

(1)    To see what kind of ‘children’ were even around to be included in such a group, and

(2)    To examine all the individuals/verses which used those terms (as well as the closely related qatOn) to see what type of agents and what ages of agents they were used of.

 

 

What kind of children were around to do something like this?

 

The first impression many of us get from the English translation choices is that these are probably kids between the ages of, say 10-11, and some teenagers. We make the assumption that the OT/ANE authors actually THOUGHT of children in this way—but they didn’t.

 

Strictly speaking, most of the ANE at this time did not even HAVE a defined category for humans between (1) being weaned and (2) being ‘of marriageable age’.

 

[The only precise age-connected term for ‘children’ is the taph of Deut 1.39 and the follow-on mentions. In Numbers 14:28-31, the ‘little ones’ are defined as individuals under 20 years of age. There is also a ‘valuation category’ of 5 years to 20 years in Leviticus 27, but there is no specific term for that age given there.]

 

Before we look at the two descriptions in our context, let’s make sure we adjust our understanding of ANE concepts of ‘childhood’:

 

If you survived birth, you were typically nursed until you were 3 or 4:

 

·         “Childhood is nonexistent as a class or separate period. … Because of the immediate tribalistic nature of life, most children grew up worldly wise and old before their years. While children were suckled up to three or four years old, they were considered mature at a very early age, boys at thirteen, and girls at their first menstrual cycle.” [Moisés Silva and Merrill Chapin Tenney, The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible, D-G (Grand Rapids, MI: The Zondervan Corporation, 2009), 538.]

 

·         “As in all societies, there was a time when children laughed and played together (Zec 8:5; Mt 11:16), although childhood and adolescence were not recognized as specific stages of development. Children were considered as sucklings if under three, but were regarded as boys or girls when they were able to take care of themselves.  …  As soon as a boy was old enough, he took his place in the family and accepted his appointed task. Among other things, children were expected to gather fuel (Jer 7:18). Young boys and girls tended the flocks. The sheep had to be protected from marauding wild beasts, guarded against their own folly when they wandered near crevices, steered toward good pasture and water, and carried home when sick or injured (Gn 29:6; Ex 2:16). The care of cattle was also the responsibility of children (1 Sm 16:11).” [Hazel W. Perkin, “Family Life and Relations,” Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988), 772.]

 

Then there might have been a year or two for some practical development, and then you joined the workforce.

 

·         “In addition, the labor of juveniles was essential to the household economy; many light but time-consuming tasks were undoubtedly assigned to children. --- As early as age five or six, both boys and girls might be assigned tasks of fuel gathering, caring for younger children, picking and watering garden vegetables, and assisting in food preparation. For the most part, children of that age eased the burden of female labor, which probably consumed more total hours per day than did the male-specific tasks. By the age of thirteen, children typically reached nearly full adult labor input in farm households, with workloads easily exceeding nine hours per day. These older children normally worked with same-sex adults, insofar as their adult tasks by then had become gender specific. Children under thirteen worked proportionately less; by age seven or eight, they may have labored up to four hours a day. Clearly, the labor value of children soon exceeded whatever cost in caloric intake they represented.” [Carol Meyers, “The Family in Early Israel”, in Families in Ancient Israel, L.G. Perdue, Blenkinsopp, John J. Collins, Carol Meyers, WJK: 1997, 27]

 

·         “Beginning as early as age five or six, all residents of the family household were bound together by their mutual goals, needs, and tasks. This family solidarity is what made it possible for the household unit to achieve its self-sufficiency and to withstand recurrent economic crises. Shortfalls arising from the various adverse environmental conditions to which the highland communities were subjected were characteristically met by some combination of increased efforts-intensifying the workloads of an already arduous life for some period-and reduced consumption. Willingness to participate in such taxing measures would not have been possible without a work ethic produced by the corporate solidarity of the family household. … The cross-generational interdependence, in which adults relied on a significant number of labor hours per day from their offspring, had the effect of making parents dependent on children in ways that western families virtually never experience. In industrialized nations, the words children and dependents are virtually synonymous. Not so in pre-modem agrarian households. Children were, of course, dependent on their parents; but the opposite was also true.” [Carol Meyers, “The Family in Early Israel”, in Families in Ancient Israel, L.G. Perdue, Blenkinsopp, John J. Collins, Carol Meyers, WJK: 1997, p32)

 

·         “Since the household was largely a self-sufficient unit, all members were expected to be productive, and therefore children were socialized into gender specific roles at the earliest possible opportunity. Once the male child had passed from the care of women and came under the harsher authority of the father, childhood was, in effect, over. … Little time would have been available for leisure activities for any members of the rural household. It is worth noting that Amos (6:4-7) condemns leisure activities not in themselves reprehensible, such as singing and playing musical instruments, as characteristic of urban living.” [Joseph Blenkinsopp, “The Family in First Temple Israel”, in Families in Ancient Israel, L.G. Perdue, Blenkinsopp, John J. Collins, Carol Meyers, WJK: 1997, p56]

 

·         “Children were generally well loved, but their childhood was short and they were often regarded as laborers for the house or fields.” [Hazel W. Perkin, “Family Life and Relations,” Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988), 771.]

 

·         “A second area of responsibility for the children in an ancient Israelite family involved the economy of the household. Five- and six-year-old boys and girls would begin to pick vegetables, gather fuel and clean up after a meal. The household would organize tasks according to gender by the time they reached adolescence, assigning the males labor that required greater strength and danger (hunting, handling domesticated livestock, and butchering cattle and sheep) and training females in the special skills needed to run a household (harvesting vegetables, preparing food, spinning yarn, knitting garments and caring for babies; cf. Prov 31:10-31). However, these divisions were not absolute; especially in harvest time men and women often worked side by side in the fields (Ruth 2).” [Marriage and Family in the Biblical World. Ken Campbell (ed). IVP:2003, page 93]

 

Meyers’ statement that workloads were ‘proportional’, means the workload would scale like this:

 

 

 

 

So, if you were living in a normal, ag-based household, by the time you were 7 or 8, you spent up to 4 hours in labor, and by the time you were 13, you were up to 9 hours of work in the fields/flocks – every day (except feast days and the Sabbath, if honored…)

 

So, what kind of people lived there in the city— what is Bethel at this point in history--that this crowd of folks ‘came out of’?

 

Bethel is a national cult site (the ancient sacrificial bald spot on the top of the mountain), established originally by Jeroboam, and which serves as an administrative central site for the cult. It is on established trade routes, and has—at the mountaintop—a temple, altar, ‘calf’ figure, residences for priests and assistants, and a military attaché to guard the site and maintain the protective walls.

 

“The presence of excellent springs of water near the top of the ridge of hills made the site desirable from early days. Bethel also occupied a key point on the E-W route from TRANSJORDAN by way of JERICHO to the Mediterranean. These circumstances are a partial explanation for the fact that Bethel is mentioned in Scripture more often than any other city except Jerusalem. The bare mountain top at Bethel served as a worship center for NOMADS through the millennia.” [Moisés Silva and Merrill Chapin Tenney, The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible, A-C (Grand Rapids, MI: The Zondervan Corporation, 2009), 566.]

 

The excavations at the top give evidence of military barracks for the contingent which would be responsible for guarding the walled sanctuary, set up by Jeroboam.

 

The residents would not have lived within the tiny area at the top of the mountain, but in the lower levels / steppes.

 

“A temple was built immediately above the high place and a town was constructed S of it.” [Moisés Silva and Merrill Chapin Tenney, The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible, A-C (Grand Rapids, MI: The Zondervan Corporation, 2009)]

 

It was larger in size prior to our period (the Iron Age), but ended up fairly small in comparison with its sister city Dan, and with most of the other OT cities of frequent mention. Using a sample of sizing methods, I still cannot get a population size of greater than around 1,000 folks. There were probably additional homesites out in concentric circles from the main city, and that is why went from the 500+ up to the 1000+. [Size / population estimate below.]

 

 

For our purposes here, our main question has to do with how the residents spend their time, and what their “OCCUPATIONS” were.

 

From all the data available, scholars are confident that most of the inhabitants lived by agriculture and animal husbandry. From The City in Ancient Israel, Volkmar Fritz, Sheffield Academic: 1995:

 

“The inhabitants of the cities were mostly farmers; it was only in the cities which had a limited administrative or military function that members of the standing army were accommodated in buildings especially constructed for the purpose.

 

“The main purpose of the stationing of troops is to maintain the security of an area and the borders; in particular they were used' on military expeditions, while the defense of the city in case of attack by an enemy was primarily the obligation of the inhabitants.

 

“As farmers, the inhabitants cultivated fields and gardens in the vicinity of the city. In order to carry out their agricultural activities, the men left the city in the morning, and returned in the evening within the protection of the walls. [TankNote: this is for cities with outer WALLS, obviously, and not for Iron Age Bethel.]

 

“In a land characterized by mountains, the fields for cultivation were situated in, the valleys and plains, while the vineyards and olive groves were positioned on the slopes, terraced for this purpose. The higher ranges of the mountains were forested and uninhabited.

 

“Farming was a full-time, all-year-round occupation, in which the inhabitants of the ancient Israelite city spent a large part of the day out of the house in the fields, the olive grove, and the vineyard or with the herds. The Israelite was a self-provider, who tilled the land in order to feed himself and his family. How far he was able to produce a surplus is unknown; yields definitely fluctuated from year to year. Although the farmer produced everything himself, he must have exchanged some of his produce for other goods that he could not produce himself, quite apart from having to deliver his dues to the royal court. Among such goods were pottery, tools and jewelry made from iron and bronze, which could only be obtained through barter.”

 

 

Overall—in aggregate--there just weren’t enough economic resources for the land to have much wealth at all.

 

“Economically the resources of the Hebrews were too limited to secure any continuous or solid prosperity. They had virtually no coast land and so could not profit from Mediterranean trade. The coast was in the hands of the Phoenicians and to some extent the Philistines. The caravan routes were in the hands of the desert nomads and Arabian kingdoms, so that the Hebrews could derive nothing from that source other than limited toll charges. The arable land on which the people depended was limited. There was some good land in the "Valley" ' of Jezreel and a few other narrow plains, and, some less productive hill country, adding up to very little agricultural land to support the population. Furthermore, the seasonal rainfall was precarious, and droughts brought famine as well as thirst. And even in years when the rain was sufficient, locust plagues and blights might ruin the crops. Sometimes the poor land underwent the worst of all calamities: a succession of famine years.” [The Bible and the Ancient Near East, Cyrus H. Gordon, WWNorton:1997,191.]

 

And what resources/wealth WAS available, was all but consumed by the government and elite. The Northern kingdom broke off from Judah due largely to the oppressive economic load under the monarchy—especially with Solomon’s large building projects. When his son/successor Rehoboam took the throne, he stated his plans to INCREASE the load, instead of LIGHTENING the load—the wise and common practice in the ANE:

 

“The narrative identifies the underlying causes for the revolt. A fundamental issue is the unfair treatment of the northern tribes, insofar as Solomon imposed upon them far greater responsibility for the support of the royal court and military establishment (1 Kgs 4:7–19), the labor corvée that built the temple and royal palace complex (1 Kgs 5:26–32), and the ceding of territory to Hiram of Tyre (1 Kgs 9:10–14).” [ Marvin A. Sweeney, I & II Kings: A Commentary (ed. William P. Brown, Carol A. Newsom, and Brent A. Strawn; 1st ed.; The Old Testament Library; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2013), 169.]

 

“Solomon had undoubtedly demanded greater performances from the people than they had previously been accustomed to, not only to meet the cost of maintaining the splendour of his court, but also and principally to carry out his large and numerous buildings.” [Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament (vol. 3; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 136.]

 

“Solomon’s harsh labor. Just as the Persian king Cyrus charges his Babylonian rival Nabonidus with inflicting “forced labor service” on his people, the elders of Israel ask for a reduction in this practice by Rehoboam’s administration. There is precedent in Mesopotamian documents for a new king to issue a mesharum decree manumitting a class of slaves or reducing the tax burden for a city or a district. Clearly there were grounds for discontent among the tribes, and a compromise was needed to hold the kingdom together.”  [Victor Harold Matthews, Mark W. Chavalas, and John H. Walton, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament (electronic ed.; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 2 Ch 10:4.]

 

“Lighten the harsh labor (10:4). The request of the representatives of the Northern Kingdom for a reduction of requisite national service or financial obligation (such as taxes) may have been similar to ancient Near Eastern Mišarum (justice) and Andurārum (liberation) edicts. These edicts referred to royal proclamations aimed at remedying economic and social hardship and might include freedom from slavery, forgiveness of debts, reduction or elimination of taxes, and respite from forced labor. Given that Mišarum and Andurārum edicts fostered good will and loyalty among the king’s subjects, they were especially common at the beginning of a monarch’s reign and might be accompanied with a public ceremony. Thus, the Kassite King Kurigalzu II (fourteenth century B.C.) referred to himself as “the one who established andurārum for the inhabitants of Babylon.” These royal edicts were part of a larger corpus of Mesopotamian royal edicts as early as Ur III (twenty-second century B.C.). Early examples include the Code of Lipit-Istar (twentieth century B.C.), the Code of Hammurabi (eighteenth century B.C.), and the Edict of Ammisaduqa (seventeenth century B.C.). Similar proclamations are reflected in the Assyrian colonies of Cappadocia (twentieth to nineteenth century B.C.), Hittite decrees of freedom, and in a number of Egyptian coronation hymns that celebrate the reversal of socioeconomic ills promulgated by a new pharaoh, such as those of Ramesses IV and Merneptah.” [John H Walton, Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary (Old Testament): 1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (vol. 3; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 325.]

 

So the northern kingdom broke off – hoping for a reduction in government expense load—but that was not to happen. Almost IMMEDIATELY, Jeroboam started his OWN building programs (temples and altars in every high place) and adding administrative and cultic staff – a new burden on the people!

 

“He also made temples on high places and appointed priests from among all the people … he offered sacrifices on the altar. So he did in Bethel, sacrificing to the calves that he made. And he placed in Bethel the priests of the high places that he had made. … (13:2) And the man cried against the altar by the word of the LORD and said, “O altar, altar, thus says the LORD: ‘Behold, a son shall be born to the house of David, Josiah by name, and he shall sacrifice on you the priests of the high places who make offerings on you”

 

“Besides constructing national shrines at Bethel and Dan, Jeroboam institutes local worship sites at “high places” throughout the land.^.” [Paul R. House, 1, 2 Kings (vol. 8; The New American Commentary; Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995), 185.]

 

“Jeroboam built shrines on high places and appointed priests (12:31). … The appointment of priests and the multiplication of high places were in keeping with the religious climate of the Canaanite and Israelite practices in the days of the judges.” [John H Walton, Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary (Old Testament): 1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (vol. 3; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 57.

 

“While some of these may have been open-air altars, the mention of “houses” suggests a more elaborate cultic installation associated with urban centers (2 Kings 17:9–11; 2 Chron 1:3).” [Victor Harold Matthews, Mark W. Chavalas, and John H. Walton, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament (electronic ed.; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 1 Ki 12:31.]

 

“Jeroboam, by this point, has received prophetic affirmation (11:37–38) and popular public acclaim (12:20). But he has no visible props necessary for the exhibit of royal authority, certainly nothing to compete with the well-established Jerusalem operation. For that reason, he must immediately undertake building projects that show him publicly acting the way kings act (12:25–33). First, he “builds” Shechem and Penuel, two old Israelite shrines that now are claimed as royal focal points (on Shechem, see Gen 35:4; Josh 24:1, 25, 32; 1 Kgs 12:1; on Penuel, see Gen 32:31).” [Walter Brueggemann, 1 & 2 Kings (ed. Samuel E. Balentine; Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary; Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, Incorporated, 2000), 160.]

 

 

“Amaziah, the priest of Bethel. The title is unique and indicates Amaziah was the ruling priest among the priests assigned to the shrine in Bethel. His role as the head or chief priest at Bethel is further supported by his action to send a message (presumably an official letter) to King Jeroboam.” [Richard D. Patterson and Andrew E. Hill, Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, Vol 10: Minor Prophets, Hosea–Malachi (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2008), 198.]

 

 

Although most of the economic data comes from the later accounts of Amos and Hosea (concerning Jeroboam II), the archaeological data indicates that the load increased and had impact on the kingdom.

 

“Evidence for the prosperity of the N kingdom under Jeroboam II is based principally on material in the books of Amos and Hosea which is believed to provide background information on the economic and religious affairs of the N kingdom. Both prophets, according to the superscriptions of their books, were active in Israel during his reign (Amos 1:1; Hosea 1:1). They present a picture of a prosperous urban elite living in comparative luxury based on the social inequalities of the monarchic system through widespread exploitation. The standard view couples this rise in prosperity with a decline in ethical standards and widespread apostasy (BHI, 257–66). The oracles of these prophets also attack the religious apostasy of the N kingdom. Amos 7:10–14 provides a direct condemnation of Jeroboam pronounced at the royal shrine of Bethel in which Amos predicts the violent death of Jeroboam, the destruction of the dynasty, and the exile of the N kingdom. The passage is extremely complex and involves manifold literary and interpretative problems. It is usually seen as the culmination of Amos’ rejection of the state religion of Jeroboam’s reign, a cult which maintained the status quo of social and religious inequality (Wolff 308–10). De Geus (1982), however, has produced a different assessment of the nature of Jeroboam’s reign with a study of archaeological data from the 10th century onward. He argues that the royal building programs of the 10th and 9th centuries imposed an increasing financial strain on the agrarian economy, which led to recession and stagnation in the 8th century. The architectural and pottery evidence, he argues, points to a period of decline following the 9th century. This economic analysis conflicts with the standard presentation of the reign of Jeroboam as a period of stability and economic prosperity.”  [Keith W. Whitelam, “Jeroboam (Person),” ed. David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 746.]

 

 

So, there were no breaks from this—unless you were the ‘elite’—of which there were only a few (again, Fritz):

 

“With the exception of the feasts, life was carried on under what were rather impoverished circumstances; a modest luxury was to be found in the palaces of the king and his official representatives. Apart from the small upper class, which was given security through the possession of large areas of land, the population of the cities appears as a relatively homogeneous agrarian society. The urban inhabitants are for the most part farmers, and soldiers or officials were only found in the cities with administrative or military functions. Thus as a rule, the city-dweller was involved in agriculture in order to feed his own family. As handicrafts and trade were only carried on to a modest extent, there was no differentiated social order within the city in ancient Israel, apart from the society in the capital cities and administrative centres.

 

“The numerically small upper class did not have to work for their upkeep and could afford to live a trouble-free life with certain luxuries. Apart from the royal house, this included families with considerable property, which because of their economic independence also provided candidates for the high offices of state and commanders of the armed forces.

 

“Israelite society thus consisted of only two classes. There was the rich upper class, and then there were the farmers, who possessed nothing apart from a house and a portion of land.

 

And Gordon:

 

“He [AMOS] speaks of the unethical practices of the day: how the merchants sit around waiting for the end of the Sabbath or the New Moon when they could again cheat the public "making small the ephah (measure) and making large the shekel (weight)"; that is to say, selling short quantities but overcharging the customer, who pays with weighed silver. Amos hated hypocrites who frequented the shrine and altar but accumulated ill-gotten gains and abused the poor. He had no time for the rich who were living in "houses of ivory" with both summer and winter homes, in luxury all year, while the poor who were ground down under them had to pay for that luxury and groaned under the oppression. [The Bible and the Ancient Near East, Cyrus H. Gordon, WWNorton:1997, 222-223]

 

 

So, even though it is not a ‘capital’ city (like Shechem or Tirzah), it WAS an administrative center (or sorts), connected with the national—and after Jeroboam—state-supported religious cult.

 

It had a temple (which functioned as a treasury), a protective military group, an altar, and a body of clerics (assembled from around the northern kingdom):

 

·         “So the king took counsel and made two calves of gold. And he said to the people, “You have gone up to Jerusalem long enough. Behold your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt.” And he set one in Bethel, and the other he put in Dan….  He also made temples on high places and appointed priests from among all the people, who were not of the Levites. And Jeroboam appointed a feast on the fifteenth day of the eighth month like the feast that was in Judah, and he offered sacrifices on the altar. So he did in Bethel, sacrificing to the calves that he made. And he placed in Bethel the priests of the high places that he had made.” [1 Kings 12]

 

·         “For the saying that he called out by the word of the LORD against the altar in Bethel and against all the houses of the high places that are in the cities of Samaria shall surely come to pass.” After this thing Jeroboam did not turn from his evil way, but made priests for the high places again from among all the people. Any who would, he ordained to be priests of the high places. [1 Kings 13]

 

And, although this priesthood would not be ‘as upper’ as the true ‘upper class’, they did have exemption from the grueling long-days farm/flock occupation. They were ‘national appointees’, supported by royalty (like Jezebel’s prophets who ‘ate at her table’) and from the gifts/offerings of worshippers. We get a glimpse of this economic condition in the later accusations of Amaziah the high priest of Bethel against Amos:

 

“An insult was implied, however, in the demand that Amos leave Israel immediately (ברח־לך) and earn his living (אכל לחם) in Judah. --- The probably derogatory “earn your living there” confirms this. The priest is insinuating that Amos preached at Bethel because the remuneration was better there than in Judah. Prophets certainly were supported by donations (1 Sam 9:7–9; Mic 3:5, 11) and the profitability of religion made it worthwhile to pay handsomely for priesthoods (2 Chr 13:9).” [Douglas Stuart, Hosea–Jonah (vol. 31; Word Biblical Commentary; Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1987]

 

Yet, such a privileged position easily lead to luxuries supported by social inequities.

 

 

What this means for us is that whatever the group that came out of Bethel consisted of, it DID NOT CONSIST of children of ordinary citizens – they just did not have the leisure time to do anything like this.

 

“The blatant difference between the private house and the palace clearly shows the gap between the two social classes in Israel. Only the members of the upper class were free of the burden of daily work and could enjoy life to a certain degree” [Fritz]

 

So, we will have to look at these terms closely, now that we know (1) that they are somehow ‘from the upper class’ and (2) that the upper class in that area consisted of cultic and military personnel, on the payroll of the king, and possibly some additional administrative types. When we connect this information with the knowledge that the official cult there was hostile to the YHWHistic prophets, and that there was a body of YHWHistic ‘sons of the prophets’ there (probably denouncing them on a consistent basis) we might can see where this is going…

 

 

 

What did those terms normally refer to, and what age ranges were reflected in those usages?

 

 

There was a lot of data here (examining every usage). I built a spreadsheet of every occurrence, looked for patterns, looked for indications of age, status, and role, and tweaked it as various hypotheses popped up in my head.

 

Here is the top of the table, with the columns I ended up with:

 

 

 

This is the legend of columns:

 

C – INDEX/Sequence number of all entries (for resorting after test-sorts); 365 rows, with 70 of them blank for simple spacing. [Thumbnail; CSV]

 

 

YELED section:

·         E – Sequence number of Yeled occurrences (total of 76)

·         F – Scripture location

·         G – English text with word location, if not obvious

·         H – Was there an indication that the relevant aspect of the word was about genealogy/DNA/lineage (my final theory about YELED)

·         I – Was there an indication of maturity in the passage (or elsewhere)

·         J – Was there an indication of youth in the passage (or elsewhere?)

·         K – Any special aspects? (E.g. figure of speech, elements that indicate level of age/maturity).

·         L – What was the name of the person(s) referred to, if named?

·         M – Individual indicator: a 1 if this was the first mention of the person (for counting individuals instead of passages)

 

Modifier indication

·         O – Does the passage contain one of the [Qa], [Qo] modifiers

 

NA’AR section:

·         Q – What was the name of the person(s) referred to, if named?

·         R -- Number of individuals referred to in the verse, if known and if FIRST MENTION

·         S -- Sequence number of Na’ar occurrences (total of 222)

·         T – Scripture location

·         U – English text with word location indicator, if not obvious

·         V – Y –markers of role-types, as part of my theory (not original with me)

o   V – Cultic role (e.g. priest, assistants, those in priestly lineages but not yet top-of-org)

o   W – Domestic servant role (whether top of an orgchart or bottom)

o   X – Public servant role: military, government, royal family, Hebrew AB—head of family line)

o   Y – UNK or indication of some kind of DEPENDENCY status (suggestive of subordination role or status)

·         Z – Was there an indication of maturity in the passage (or elsewhere?)

·         AA – Was there an indication of youth in the passage (or elsewhere)

·         AB – Any special aspects? (E.g. figure of speech, elements that indicate level of age/maturity).

 

 

I then collapsed the by-passage table into a by-name table:

 

 

After weeding out the figurative uses of the words, I went through each verse with the words or combination of the words, to see THE AGE OF THE PERSON(S) referred to.

 

 

This is the legend of columns:

 

·         D – INDEX / Sequence number for resort after tests

 

·         Referent

o   E – Name, title, or description of the referent

o   F – Estimated quantity of individual(s) referred to by the term indicated

 

·         Terminology markers

o   G – 1 if agent(s) are referred to by an [N] word

o   H – 1 if agent(s) are referred to by an [Y] word

o   I – 1 if agent(s) are referred to by a [Qo] word

o   J – 1 if agent(s) are referred to by a [Qa] word

o   K – SORT KEY – this is the sum of the words that occur in the passage. This is used (as in the example) to identify individuals who are referred to by multiple terms. For example, only Benjamin is referred to by all 4, but not in the same verse.

 

·         Age classification

o   M – 1 if it is clear or highly probable that the individual(s) in the passage is/are Pre-Adolescent.

o   N – 1 if it is clear or highly probable that the individual(s) in the passage is/are Young Adult.

o   O – 1 if it is clear or highly probable that the individual(s) in the passage is/are between 30 and 49.

o   P – 1 if it is clear or highly probable that the individual(s) in the passage is/are 50 and over

o   Q – Notes on where the data comes from and/or reasons for the classification

 

 

 

I have a number of charts summarizing this, starting with the passages in which MULTIPLE terms were used. 

 

 

Let’s start with the [Q] words – translated as ‘little’ in our passage, as a modifier to [N]

 

Here are all the times they are used outside of a merism or other figure of speech, with some allowance for personal description. Here are the solo references (Green column is Qo; Blue is Qa):

 

 

Notice:

·         When used alone, they never refer to a pre-Adolescent person, not even infants.

·         It is used 7 times of a ‘young adult’, 3 times of someone in the 30-49 age range, and once for an elderly Saul.

 

Here are the times they are paired with [N], [Y], or both:

 

 

Notice:

·         Apart from our passage under discussion, they never refer to a Pre-adolescent

·         Three individuals are Young Adult (at the time of reference), 1 in the 30-49 range, and 1 geriatric.

 

So, on the basis of actual individuals referred to, the use of a [Qx] word IN NO WAY SUGGESTS anything younger than Young Adult. No children allowed…

 

But [Qa] is a ranking, comparison, relative word—not an absolute one. It mostly is used to refer to the ‘least, in a group—in age, size, or importance’. And is used to refer to things ‘trifling’ or ‘insignificant’ – as compared to OTHER REALLY IMPORTANT things.

 

Examples:

·         “Then she said, “I have one small [Qa] request to make of you; do not refuse me.” And the king said to her, “Make your request, my mother, for I will not refuse you.”” [I Kings 2:20; small=insignificant, in comparison to bigger things of state…]

·         “Then Samuel said to Jesse, “Are all your sons here?” And he said, “There remains yet the youngest [Qa], but behold, he is keeping the sheep.” And Samuel said to Jesse, “Send and get him, for we will not sit down till he comes here.” [1 Sam 16:11; So David was a [Qa] + [N] when Samuel anointed him. The father referred to him as the ‘least in age’ even though David was already a young, powerful, adult (e.g., slaying a lion).

·         “These Gadites were officers of the army; the least [Qa] was a match for a hundred men and the greatest for a thousand.” [1^st Chronicles 12:14]

·         “For whoever has despised the day of small [Qa] things shall rejoice, and shall see the plumb line in the hand of Zerubbabel” [Zech 4.10; small=insignificant, in comparison to bigger things of the past or future]

 

If you wanted to say ‘small’ or ‘young’ (absolute sense, not relative like smaller/smallest, younger/youngest) you would use [Qo]:

 

Examples:

·         “So he went down and dipped himself seven times in the Jordan, according to the word of the man of God, and his flesh was restored like the flesh of a little child ([N] + [Qo]), and he was clean.” [2 Kings 5:14]

·         “The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together; and a little child ([N] + [Qo]) shall lead them.” [Isa 11:6]

 

[Qo] CAN MEAN YOUNGEST, in a group context:

·         “And they said, “We, your servants, are twelve brothers, the sons of one man in the land of Canaan, and behold, the youngest [Qo] is this day with our father, and one is no more.”” [Gen 42:13]

 

But [Qa] – our word—never means YOUNG or LITTLE per se. When it is translated ‘young’ it is ALWAYS in a group designation, sometimes with other words making that explicit. When it is translated “little” it always refers to something ‘little – in comparison to other bigger things’ – i.e. less significant.

·         “My lord asked his servants, saying, ‘Have you a father, or a brother?’ And we said to my lord, ‘We have a father, an old man, and a young [Qa] brother, the child [yeled] of his old age” [Gen 44.19-20; note” the “we” makes the “young” mean “younger”]

·         “The three oldest sons of Jesse had followed Saul to the battle. And the names of his three sons who went to the battle were Eliab the firstborn, and next to him Abinadab, and the third Shammah. David was the youngest [Qa]. The three eldest followed Saul, but David went back and forth from Saul to feed his father’s sheep at Bethlehem.” [1 Sa 17:13–15; true translation, ranking]

·         “And Elijah said to her, “Do not fear; go and do as you have said. But first make me a little [Qa] cake of it and bring it to me, and afterward make something for yourself and your son.” [1 Kings17.3 – a tiny, trivial, insignificant in size cake]

·         “And at the seventh time he said, “Behold, a little [Qa] cloud like a man’s hand is rising from the sea.” And he said, “Go up, say to Ahab, ‘Prepare your chariot and go down, lest the rain stop you.’ ”  [1 Kings 18:44 – so small as to be insignificant, but still real]

·         “Let us make a small [Qa] room on the roof with walls and put there for him a bed, a table, a chair, and a lamp, so that whenever he comes to us, he can go in there.” [2 Kings 4:10; small in comparison to normal rooms on the ground floor]

·         “How then can you repulse a single captain among the least [Qa] of my master’s servants, when you trust in Egypt for chariots and for horsemen?” [2^nd Kings 18:24, true translation – comparison]

·         “There was a little [Qa] city with few men in it, and a great king came against it and besieged it, building great siegeworks against it.” [Eccl 9:14; insignificant in comparison to overwhelming force]

 

This has major impact on how we understand our passage!

 

Whatever NA’AR is (below), the use of [Qa] instead of [Qo] is important.

1.     NA’AR plus [Qo] would mean “little/young” NA’ARIM (plural of NA’AR)

2.     NA’AR plus [Qa] would mean “littlest/youngest/least significant” NA’ARIM (plural of NA’AR)

Our passage uses [Qa], so it is NOT an absolute term – it is in comparison to OTHER NA’ARIM.

 

So, if NA’AR ends up (below) being ‘children’, then this would mean that the passage is talking about the smallest / youngest children there are (5-7 year olds?) – lol – running around the woods in packs… lol

 

So let’s see what those NA’ARIM might be…

 

 

Then NA’AR.

 

Numerically, there are three, large, multi-individual groups that are called by this term, which represent the (statistical) majority of the references. I excluded them from the charts since they are so numerically dominant. Here they are in descending order:

 

One: 400 Amalekites – 1 Samuel 30.17: “And David struck them down from twilight ... and not a man [ISH] of them escaped, except four hundred young men [N], who mounted camels and fled.”

 

These super-nimble, super-fast camel-riders are called with our [N] term, but since they are also called by the normal word for an adult male (ISH), they cannot be ‘children’ or even early-to-mid ‘teenagers’. Given their success in evading David’s also-nimble army, I place their age in the 30-49 year old category.

 

Our [N] word must mean something else other than an age description.

 

 

Two: 318 warriors – Genesis 14:14-16 – “When Abram heard that his kinsman had been taken captive, he led forth his trained men [chanik], born in his house, 318 of them, and went in pursuit as far as Dan. And he divided his forces against them by night, he and his servants, and defeated them and pursued them to Hobah, north of Damascus. Then he brought back all the possessions, and also brought back his kinsman Lot with his possessions, and the women and the people.” With 14:24 “I will take nothing but what the young men (plural of [N]) have eaten, and the share of the men who went with me. Let Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre take their share.”

 

The Chanik term for the 318 people (called [N] later in verse 24) refers to experienced fighting men. The lexical sources give these various translations for the word:

·         retainer

·         trained, tried, experienced

·         initiated; skilled; tried

·         retainer; a man who is trusted and trained, most likely in fighting

·         trained (and trusted person)

 

It is fairly safe to say that these were not ‘children’ in any sense of the word.

 

Our [N] word must mean something else other than an age description.

 

 

Three: Some of David’s Mighty Men – Described in 2 Sam 23. Here is an analysis by DeVaux:

 

“These soldiers, or a group of them, are sometimes called n"arim, literally, 'youngsters', but in the military sense of 'cadets'. When David fed for his life, they accompanied him (1 S 21: 3, $; 25: 5f.) and no one knows precisely what distinguished them from the rest of David's 'men' (1 S 25: 13, 20). Saul too had his cadets (1 S 26: 22). The 'cadets' of David and Ishbaal, Saul's son, faced each other at Gibeon (2 S 2: 14), and they are called the 'abadim of David and Ishbaal in the same passage (2 S 2: 12-13). The 'cadets' of 2 S 16: 2 seem to be the same as the soldiers of the guard who accompanied David on his flight, as the mercenaries of 15: 18, and the gibborim of 16: 6; cf. also 2 S 4: 12. Later, we meet the 'cadets' of the district commissioners, who were distinct from the national army (1 K 20: 14-19). Although they sometimes acted as squires or armour-bearers (1 S 20: 21f., 35 f.; 2 S 18: 15), they were not, apparently, young recruits in contrast to veterans, for when the term is to be taken in a strictly military sense, it means simply professional soldiers (cf. also Ne 4: 10). The word had a military sense in Canaanite, and passed into the Egyptian language, where na'aruna means an army corps, possibly recruited from Canaan.” [Ancient Israel, Volume 1: Social Institutions, Roland de Vaux, McGraw-Hill:1965, 220-221].

 Our [N] word must mean something else other than an age description

 

There several other places of unknown headcount that could be noted (e.g. the [N] harvesters of Boaz, instructed to not molest or harass Ruth], but I mention that passage here to remind the reader that these numbers are UNDERSTATED.

 

We now look at our table, focusing on passages in which [N] occurs in isolation from the other words:

 

 

Notice:

·         We have 64 individuals in this group (estimated low for a couple of passages).

·         Of the 64, only 3 are pre-adolescent, at the time of referring.

·         37 are Young Adult, 11 are in the 30-49 range, and 13 are in the 50-and-over range.

·         With the exception of Job’s family, ALL (including the infant Ichabod) are in some kind of official role (or are in hereditary status for such a role—e.g. Ichabod)—cultic, domestic or public service (e.g. military, royal family). This would include children of prophets who are named symbolically as part of the mission of their father (e.g. Isaiah and Hosea). These are not included in the counts since they are not acting agents in the narratives yet.

·         With only 3 of 64 (4.8%) of the uses being pre-adolescent, a reader would have to assume that the referent was NOT a child, unless there was a very clear indication in the context.

·         This would be case EVEN IF the [N] word was ‘only about a role’ (which it actually most likely is).

 

 

Of special note would be 1 Samuel 1:24, in which Hannah is delivering over the (probably) pre-adolescent Samuel to Eli to live/serve at the tabernacle. She has already promised Samuel to the Lord, before his birth, so he is—at some level—already in a cultic service status:

 

The man Elkanah and all his house went up to offer to the LORD the yearly sacrifice and to pay his vow. But Hannah did not go up, for she said to her husband, “As soon as the child [N] is weaned, I will bring him, so that he may appear in the presence of the LORD and dwell there forever.” Elkanah her husband said to her, “Do what seems best to you; wait until you have weaned him; only, may the LORD establish his word.” So the woman remained and nursed her son [ben] until she weaned him. And when she had weaned him, she took him up with her, along with a three-year-old bull, an ephah of flour, and a skin of wine, and she brought him to the house of the LORD at Shiloh. And the child [N] was young [N]. Then they slaughtered the bull, and they brought the child [N] to Eli. And she said, “Oh, my lord! As you live, my lord, I am the woman who was standing here in your presence, praying to the LORD. For this child [N] I prayed, and the LORD has granted me my petition that I made to him. Therefore I have lent him to the LORD. As long as he lives, he is lent to the LORD.” And he [Samuel] worshiped the LORD there. ... (2:11) Then Elkanah went home to Ramah. And the boy [N] was ministering to the LORD in the presence of Eli the priest.

 

In verse 24, Hannah says that ‘the [N] is [N]’. She didn’t say the child is SMALL, or the normal word for little child (taph). Some uses of [N] suggest inexperience (real or assumed – e.g. Solomon at this coronation), so Hannah might be explaining to Eli that the new cultic servant [N] Samuel is inexperienced in service (since he had not travelled with the family up to the worship site since his birth). Nevertheless, he is old enough to worship (1:28) and to minister directly to the LORD (2.11).

 

Later in chapter 2, the sexually-active and abusive sons of Eli are also called both [N] and ISH (the word for male adult] in 2:17:

 

Thus the sin of the young men [N] was very great in the sight of the LORD, for the men [ISH] treated the offering of the LORD with contempt.

 

So, even in the same passage, [N] cannot be about age per se, but something else.

 

Final notes on [N] by itself:

 

1.       There are several specialist works that point out that children and age are not involved in the usage of this term AT ALL.

2.       In spite of this, English bibles still seem to translate this as ‘child’ (although sometimes footnoting the issue).

 

We should note a couple of scholarly specialist works/comments here:

 

“naʿar is a traditional title known from pre-Israelite Canaan (nʿrn in Egyptian transcription; cf. ANET³, 256, n. 12) and has been compared to Akk. ṣuḫāru in Mari, Alalakh, and to the form nʿrm in Ugaritic. The word naʿar refers to a man of rank, serving in various capacities: as armsbearer (Judg 9:54; 1 Sam 14:1), steward and estate manager (e.g. 2 Sam 19:18), and personal attendant in nonmilitary contexts (Exod 33:11; 1 Kgs 18:43; Ruth 2:15. Note 2 Sam 13:17, where naʿărô mĕšārĕtô appear together, “his attendant who serves him”).”  [Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor, II Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (vol. 11; Anchor Yale Bible; New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 73.

 

“Just as we saw that, in general, a נער was an adult male and not one of the youngest persons in the community, the זקן has long been recognized to be a community leader and head of household, but not necessarily ‘elderly’.” [Carolyn S. Leeb, Away from the Father’s House: The Social Location of Na’ar and Na’arah in Ancient Israel (vol. 301; Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 152.

 

In reference to the [N] offering sacrifices in Ex 24:5, Sarna comments:

 

“young men . The strenuous task of slaughtering bulls and preparing them for the altar could only be performed by young men. It is likely, in light of the designation of Samuel the Ephraimite and of Eli’s sons in 1 Samuel 2:13–17 and 3:1, that the neʿarim constituted a class of subordinate cultic assistants. A guild of temple servitors named nʿrm existed at Ugarit. Rabbinic tradition identified the “young men” as the first-born males upon whom devolved cultic duties prior to the establishment of the priesthood in Israel.” [Nahum M. Sarna, Exodus (The JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1991), 151–152.]

 

We had already noted DeVaux’ observations that the term did not imply ‘young’ cadet (in contrast with veteran), but simply referred to ‘professional soldier’ (above, about David’s Mighty Men).

 

Before we get to the few passages which contain BOTH [N] and [Y], let’s look at Yeled.

 

Here are the individuals in passages that refer to them with only [Y] words:

 

 

Notice:

·         We have at least 25 individuals (the estimate for Rehoboam’s peers is probably low).

·         We have 3 that would fit in the pre-adolescent category (12%), with the other 22 (88%) being adults.

·         There are no uses of [Y] by itself referring to someone over 50.

·         There are twice as many YOUNG ADULTS as there are folks in the 30 – 49 YEARS OLD range.

 

This would indicate that our word is NOT a ‘pure’ reference to a child, but only ‘accidentally’ so.

 

Yeled is part of a group of words all around yalad (to beget), with the core meaning of ‘legal offspring’. In the 3 young-age cases above, two of them are clearly about biological offspring as a basis for parental love: the unnamed baby that did NOT get cut in half, because of the mom’s compassion; and the unnamed widow’s son.

 

The 3^rd case in Ruth 4 makes this perfectly clear: Naomi’s ‘son’ is not genetically related to her, but from her ex-daughter-in-law. The use of ben (SON) makes the legal connection explicit:

 

So Boaz took Ruth, and she became his wife. And he went in to her, and the LORD gave her conception, and she bore a son. Then the women said to Naomi, “Blessed be the LORD, who has not left you this day without a redeemer, and may his name be renowned in Israel! He shall be to you a restorer of life and a nourisher of your old age, for your daughter-in-law who loves you, who is more to you than seven sons, has given birth to him.” Then Naomi took the child [Y] and laid him on her lap and became his nurse. And the women of the neighborhood gave him a name, saying, “A son [ben] has been born to Naomi.”

 

In the 22 cases of adults, the genetic element is a bit broader, ranging from the looser (‘grew up with him’, Rehoboam’s ‘counselors’) to the wider ethnic connection of all exilic Jews (e.g. Daniel and compatriots). But no matter was the connection is, AGE is clearly not a core meaning of the word in these passages of mostly adults.

 

The case of Rehoboam’s peers – called [Y] in 1 Kings 12 and 2 Chronicles 10 – highlights that any nuance of this term about ‘YOUTH’ is a ‘radically relative’ one:

 

“Rehoboam rejected the advice of the elders and instead listened to the advice of “the young men” i.e., military advisors (1 Kgs 12:8, 10, 14), to make his reign even more oppressive for his subjects than was his father’s. Here is a derogatory use of yeledim. The “young men” may denote a regular council whom the king consulted in addition to the assembly of elders. Or it may designate an assembly of those of military age. Compare the Sumerian epic of the confrontation between Gilgamesh of Uruk and Agga of Kish. Gilgamesh, faced with an ultimatum, rejects the advice of his elders to capitulate to Agga king of Kish and turns for counsel to the assembly of “men,” i.e., arms-bearing males (ANET, 45, esp. lines 15–23).” [Willem VanGemeren, ed., New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997), 457.]

 

“[T]he youngsters who had grown up with him. That is, raised at court, educated in court etiquette; cf. Dan 1:3–5. N. Fox (1996) suggests taking the word “youngsters” as a technical term for a special group of youngsters raised at court, the sons of officials and courtiers, on the analogy of the ḫrdw n kȝp in Egypt. Whatever the case, the expression should not be taken literally, since the king himself was 41 years old (cf. 14:21); but this is not a sign of derogation (so Gray). The word “youngsters” is most apt in describing the essence of the contest between them and the rival “elders.”” [Mordechai Cogan, I Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (vol. 10; Anchor Yale Bible; New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), in. loc.]

 

The last item we need to think through are the passages which contain BOTH [N] and [Y].

 

We have already seen that if a passage contains [Qa] or [Qo], then NO pre-adolescent individuals are involved.

 

So these are the individuals that are referred to by BOTH [N] and [Y]:

 

 

Notice:

·         We have 7 individuals here, with 4 of them in the pre-adolescent category and 3 of them in the Young Adult category, with ages of 15-17.

·         This almost-even split of course indicates the combo of these words CANNOT MEAN ‘child’, without something in the context indicating that.

·         As for the [Y] words, all of the pre-adolescents are in passages emphasizing genetic connections to parents, with even Moses being connected to both mother as well as to ethnic ‘Hebrews’  (like the [Y] term was used of Daniel and friends). So those all fit with our conclusions above.

·         As for [N] words, in all but one of the cases, the individual is royalty (public servant) or in a pre-leadership (but announced or foreshadowed by the narrator) state – Abraham’s descendants and the infant Moses.

·         But what is most telling about this is OF THE 4 that I classified as pre-adolescent, at least 3 of them were entirely too young to be considered [N] in a sense that could fit in a passage like ours. We have two INFANTS (Moses and the child of David/Bathseba) and the fits-in-her-lap son of the Shunammite woman (toddler-through-9yo?). We don’t know the age of Abijah in I Kings 14, so he alone of these 4 might be of an age old enough to ‘roam around the woods in a pack’.

 

So, even if these 4 cases could be used to argue that [Y] meant ‘children of a certain age’, then it would prove ‘too much’—for the infants in this category show that the term would NOT BE AGE ‘restrictive enough’ to describe our crowd in our passage as being ‘young boys of a woods-roaming age’.

 

Let’s notice one other passage that might be helpful in understanding these terms.

 

In 2^nd Kings 9, we have the commissioning of Jehu by Elisha’s authority. Notice the terminology in the sending passage:

 

“Then Elisha the prophet called one of the sons [ben] of the prophets and said to him, “Tie up your garments, and take this flask of oil in your hand, and go to Ramoth-gilead. And when you arrive, look there for Jehu the son of Jehoshaphat, son of Nimshi. And go in and have him rise from among his fellows, and lead him to an inner chamber. Then take the flask of oil and pour it on his head and say, ‘Thus says the LORD, I anoint you king over Israel.’ Then open the door and flee; do not linger.” So the young man [N], the servant [N] of the prophet [Elisha], went to Ramoth-gilead. And when he came, behold, the commanders of the army were in council. And he said, “I have a word for you, O commander.” And Jehu said, “To which of us all?” And he said, “To you, O commander.” So he arose and went into the house. And the young man (young man is not in the text) poured the oil on his head, saying to him, “Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, I anoint you king over the people of the LORD, over Israel.”

 

What this text shows us – clearly—is that a ‘junior prophet’ (one of the sons of the prophet) could also be called an [N] and identified as such, with the hierarchy explicit ([N] of the (senior) prophet (Elisha)).

 

Okay, let’s summarize:

 

The understanding of [N] I have developed here is something like this:

1.       These are individuals in specific service roles, but often at the middle-management level.

2.       All individuals in hereditary public service roles (i.e. cultic or royalty/government) that are not at the top of the authority tree, can be called [N]—regardless of age-- since they are subordinate to the head [e.g. Ziba as father of 10 sons, and no doubt grandfather of more.]

3.       In some cases, they are considered ‘still learning’ and ‘somewhat inexperienced’ but they are entrusted with significant tasks and are fully functional in their roles.

4.       None of them are children, since all of the tasks described of them, and the various ranks assigned to them, require adult-level competency at a minimum.

5.       ALL of them are under the supervision and active direction of a superior – they do NOT act independently.

6.       Known service roles included military personnel, domestic servants, ‘assistant priests’, and ‘junior prophets’.

…………………………………………………. ………………………………………………..

 

This understanding easily and smoothly covers the vast majority of uses that I can find and have examined—EXCEPT ONE.

 

The case of the Shunammite woman’s son is complex, and unless Elisha calls the child [N] because he was given SPECIFICALLY as the first-born / only-child of an aged father, future protector of a widow, and sole heir of the aged father (like the rabbinic understanding of the [N] who offer sacrifices in Exodus 24:5), or for some other reason, this remains a hole (but a small one… smile) in my understanding.

 

But I need to mention an alternative understanding of [N] that DOES provide a reasonable account for this case. It overlaps VERY WELL with mine, and does a better job of several outlier cases.

 

It is presented and documented in:

 

Carolyn S. Leeb, Away from the Father’s House: The Social Location of Na’ar and Na’arah in Ancient Israel (vol. 301; Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000).

 

Here is part of the summary conclusion:

 

“After examining so many biblical texts, what have we discovered about the meaning of the Hebrew words נער and נערה? Consistently, the individuals so named in pre-exilic prose narratives are in some way separated from the בית אב into which they had been born. Most often, they are attached to another בית, the house of their master, and they perform service of a variety of types. … Sometimes the ‘household’ to which they were attached and in which they served was a shrine or temple or military encampment. In any case, the head of the house or camp served as their patron and surrogate father.

 

“Many of the נערים were unremarkable, performing the most mundane (and sometimes arduous) of tasks. A few were in intimate attendance on powerful persons in the stories and were able to exercise considerable influence. Influence, however, is only indirect power... this power was generally the power to accomplish the master’s goals, not one’s own. A נער might be in a position of considerable responsibility, but it was responsibility to build up the house of his master, not of himself or of his own father. … Their labors did not advance their own honor, but the honor of their masters.” [Carolyn S. Leeb, Away from the Father’s House: The Social Location of Na’ar and Na’arah in Ancient Israel (vol. 301; Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 190–191.

 

So far that overlaps with my understanding (low-to-middle management or skilled service worker under a superior). And it makes the subordinate role (acting for a superior’s benefit) a CRITICAL ASPECT of the terms meaning (and not just peripheral).

 

But Leeb draws out a few nuances and (perhaps) implications of ‘not being in the household and protection of their birth father’. One of these is being in the state of ‘at risk’ where the individual is in such duress that even physical residence in the father’s house, was not accompanied by the NORMAL ‘protection by the father, while in physical residence of the house’.

 

This extension of the term to such ‘at risk’ categories is how the Shunammite case is explained:

 

“Facing mortal danger or illness, too, takes one outside the protective sphere of the father’s house and conveys the status of נער. Thus the term is used for Moses ‘in the bulrushes’ (Exod. 2:6) and Joseph in an Egyptian prison (Gen. 41:12). When David is away from his father’s house at Saul’s military encampment, about to face the Philistine Goliath, he is repeatedly called נער (1 Sam. 17:33, 42, 55, 58).” [Carolyn S. Leeb, Away from the Father’s House: The Social Location of Na’ar and Na’arah in Ancient Israel (vol. 301; Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 106.

 

“In each of these cases, the father is powerless to provide the protection that could usually be expected from the head of a household. Even when the father is alive and powerful, he is unable to protect against fatal illness, a fact of life known only too well in a world in which fully half of a family’s children would die before reaching adulthood^{.” [}Carolyn S. Leeb, Away from the Father’s House: The Social Location of Na’ar and Na’arah in Ancient Israel (vol. 301; Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 107.]

 

[Another nuance mentioned was when the son was ‘estranged’ from the household WHILE STILL PHYSICALLY LIVING THERE.]

 

“Much of the confusion that has arisen about the meaning of נער and נערה has come from those texts in which persons are not functioning as servants and are sometimes not physically away from home. We have seen that these are נערים for whom the tie to the בית אב, the bond to the father, has been severed by extraordinary circumstances. Even while physically ‘at home’ they have become disembedded from the household, seen as a protective and controlling sphere.” [Page 191]

 

 

[One would have to research narrative sections which describe the SAME PHENOMENA, but without using the [N] words, to see if that understanding adequately discriminated between narrative cases. I don’t need to do that myself –thankfully—since her conclusion address the ‘youth/child terminology’.

 

“Just as we saw that, in general, a נער was an adult male and not one of the youngest persons in the community, the זקן has long been recognized to be a community leader and head of household, but not necessarily ‘elderly’.” [Page 152].

 

[She does allow for lexical drift and notes that poetic sources (which were not the subject nor core data for our study) ‘gradually’ became more generalized:

 

“This description of the נער which we derived from pre-exilic prose texts was also applicable to the use of the designation in postexilic prose writings as well, for the most part, although the frequency of use in later sources diminished substantially. In poetic sources, these words gradually lost this precise nuance and took on a more generalized sense of ‘youth’.” [Page 192]

 

……………………………………….  …………………………………………………………………………………..

 

 

To close off the research on the AGES of these people in all these passages, we should note the distribution of ages.

 

First, when we summarize by age classification, the 112 individuals looked at (apart from the 400+318+20+10(?)=748 Adult males called [N] not included in the chart), we get these charts:

 

 

And this breakdown of the Pre-adolescent class:

 

 

 

Observations:

·         Only 10 of the 112 are pre-adolescent (9%)

·         30% of the 112 are 30yo or older.

·         Of the 10 pre-adolescents, ONLY 1 would have been of POSSIBLE age (over 8 years of age) to have been able to ‘roam the woods’ – even in the company of older people. That is less than 1% of all the people called [N] and [Y] in the narrative/non-poetic passages of the Hebrew bible.

 

So, WHATEVER THESE WORDS MEAN (lol), they cannot be INTENDING to denote a group of ‘young children / boys’ of an age that would fit the general or common understanding of our passage, and they cannot even be ACCIDENTIALLY implying that the age-characteristics of our group of “employees” could be described as that of ‘young children/boys’.

 

…………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………….

So, rewording/restating some of the summary description of the group:

 

The understanding of [N] I have developed here is something like this:

1.       These are individuals in specific service roles, but often at the middle-management level.

2.       All individuals in hereditary public service roles (i.e. cultic or royalty/government) that are not at the top of the authority tree, can be called [N] —regardless of age-- since they are subordinate to the head.

3.       They are considered ‘still learning’ and ‘somewhat inexperienced’ (sometimes) but they are entrusted with significant tasks and are fully functional in their roles.

4.       None of them are children, since all of the tasks described of them, and the various ranks assigned to them, require adult-level competency at a minimum.

5.       ALL of them are under the supervision and active direction of a superior – they do NOT act independently.

 

We can add one final touch to the description of the group – the use of the [Qa] word…

 

We noted that it meant ‘least’, ‘least significant’, and even ‘insignificant’—when in an implied hierarchy.

 

So, applying this LEXICAL background to the opening part of our passage,

 

This:

 

“small boys came out of the city and jeered at (Elisha)”

 

Becomes something like this, in meaning:

 

“lowest-ranking employees were dispatched by their bosses from their workplaces in the city, to find/intercept and scorn/jeer at (Elisha)”

 

 

And then we note the HISTORICAL situation:

1.       There are no private, working-class individuals with enough ‘free time’ to do this on their own initiative.

2.       The only individuals that have daylight hours that could be used for this are members of the upper class.

3.       The only elite in the vicinity are government-supported anti-YHWHistic cultic personnel and government military personnel.

4.       The only elite in the area that would have motivation to send a large number of their employees to harass (but not arrest or do violence to) a YHWHistic prophet would be the head(s) of a RIVAL cultic group (state-funded priests and official prophets)—with military personnel perhaps only being sent for intimidation or protection.

5.       The only elite in the area that would be threatened by YHWHistic prophets would be the cultic leadership, since YHWHistic prophets were the ‘champions of the working class’-- oppressed by the heavy taxes required by the government—with a constant message of repudiation of the authority, status, and value of cultic observance (including the sacrifices and gifts which added to the income of the cultic leadership).

6.       Only such an elite might attempt to influence (via intimidation) Elisha to want to ‘hurry through’ Bethel without much speaking out against them, or confining his activities to the ‘sons of the prophets’.

 

“Elijah curses forty-two boys (10:14) “in the name of the Lord” for mocking him, apparently to keep him away from Bethel (because he might speak against the shrine there? See 1 Kings 12:28–33)” [Terence E. Fretheim, First and Second Kings (ed. Patrick D. Miller and David L. Bartlett; Westminster Bible Companion; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1999), 138–139.

 

 

7.       The actual temple area there (just above the main city) is quite small, and only the highest echelon cultic personnel might live there [at times], along with some part of the military force surrounding the temple area (barracks were found in some of the archeological digs). The rest of the cultic personnel would live ‘down’ in the city with the working-class, but would live in the temple-funded ‘luxury’ that Amos would decry 60-70 years later:

“I will punish the altars of Bethel, and the horns of the altar shall be cut off and fall to the ground. I will strike the winter house along with the summer house, and the houses of ivory shall perish, and the great houses shall come to an end,” declares the LORD. … ... Therefore because you trample on the poor and you exact taxes of grain from him, you have built houses of hewn stone, but you shall not dwell in them; you have planted pleasant vineyards, but you shall not drink their wine. … “Woe to those who lie on beds of ivory and stretch themselves out on their couches, and eat lambs from the flock and calves from the midst of the stall, who sing idle songs to the sound of the harp and like David invent for themselves instruments of music, who drink wine in bowls and anoint themselves with the finest oils, but are not grieved over the ruin of Joseph!”

8.       The ‘lowest-ranking employees’ are the people mostly likely to say and/or do STUPID THINGS, and the least likely to know how to avoid reprisal, for actions that A KING WOULD BE AFRAID TO DO and WOULD BE HORRIFIED if some of his subjects did!

 

[I should mention that all of the above elements show up in the OTHER NARRATIVES in the Elijah-Elisha cycle and several other recorded prophetic encounters—e.g. Amos-- in one form or another.]

 

 

And then, applying this HISTORICAL background to the opening part of our passage,

 

 This:

 

“small boys came out of the city and jeered at (Elisha)”

 

Becomes something like this, in meaning:

 

“lowest-ranking employees of the state-sponsored religion were dispatched by the religious establishment/leadership  from their workplaces or upper-class homes in the city, to find/intercept and attempt to intimidate (Elisha) away from his obvious ministry of challenge to the royal-funded cult (origin of their jobs and wealth and status…) and from his mission-focus on challenge to the king of Israel (about social justice and about a resource-wasting and suzerain-angering cult/temple/staff”)

 

But – given the relative sophistication of at least the religious elite—I strongly suspect that they did NOT give a script to the lowest-ranking employees which contained the rather bizarre (and infantile) “go up, baldy” (lol!). [“a couple of matzo balls short of a Seder, eh?”…]