In Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature, David M. Carr explores the ancient world of education and textuality as it was shaped by an orally dominant culture. Inspiring Carr’s exploration is the recognition that most scholarly approaches to Old Testament interpretation all presuppose a modern model of textuality. Carr suggests that interpretive clarity comes when considering the Hebrew Bible in light of its origins resting in an oral culture. Carr concludes that the texts of the Hebrew Bible served the same purpose as texts of surrounding cultures and peoples: enculturation of the student. Texts were aimed at shaping the mind and heart of the student who would then become an icon for his or her own culture.
Beginning Carr’s endeavor is the demonstration that the Mesopotamian model for education (which Carr titles “educational matrix”) was adopted by most neighboring cultures. The primary objective of ancient Mesopotamian education was the enculturation of students by rooting the identity of the scribe/student in the oral traditions that gave shape to the culture. The same traditions that shaped the culture would shape the identity of the individual via memorization. While accomplishing the objective of producing cultural icons, Mesopotamian education would also produce experts in a variety of domains making students and scribes invaluable to society.
These dynamics characterizing the educational matrix carry heavy implications on the nature of textuality in the ancient world. Carr writes:
The fundamental idea is the following: as we look at how key texts like the Bible and other classic literature function in ancient cultures, what was primary was not how such texts were inscribed on clay, parchment, or papyri. Rather, what was truly crucial was how those written media were part of a cultural project of incising key cultural-religious traditions, word for word, on people’s minds (8).
Enculturation of the student was accomplished through a two-phase curriculum. The first phased focused on the rudiments of the Sumerian language. The second phase guided students into more specific domains of politics, religion, mathematics, etc. The acquisition of knowledge came through copying, memorizing and expanding the texts. On textual expansion, Carr writes, “we have numerous documented cases of textual revision, growth, and appropriation. Generally, such literary creativity was probably exercised mostly by those higher up in the scribal/educational hierarchy” (34). However, Carr proves his point by citing the realities of textual sharing that scholars are already aware of. For example, Carr mentions Akkadian scribes borrowing from Sumerian traditions. Expanding already existing texts with freshly invented material is one matter, borrowing material from the neighbors is quite another. The major difference between these two rest in the implications of each. Carr mentions that Old Babylonian scribes “created a radical new whole out of earlier materials” (35). Again, evidence shows that it is usually the upper echelon of scribes that have authority for textual expansion or creation. This fact demonstrates that while textual expansion certainly occurred, it functioned within strict limits.
Once again, the primary thrust across the board is the fact that the objective of scribal schools moved beyond simply writing to student recitation, enculturation, and socialization. The more education and training a student had, the more “human” they would become. Their influence as cultural icons would be manifest in the domains of religion, government, and education.
Egyptian education is the most exceptional example of enculturation via the classroom. Egypt had a higher view of textuality and education than other peoples. The Egyptian curriculum went beyond the memorization by including a special emphasis on “wisdom instruction attributed to the sages” (83). Egyptians made wise men, not just transcribers. Also setting Egypt apart was an organized school that emerged earlier than the organized schools of Mesopotamian cultures.
Egyptian curriculum also included the teaching of general values which expanded on Mesopotamians’ limited emphasis on epic traditions, historical chronicles, and royal hymns. Like the Mesopotamian matrix, the goal of Egyptian scribal education was enculturation. Singing, chanting and public readings were the core of scribal practice in Egypt.
After considering the evidence from Mesopotamia, Egypt, and ancient Greece, Carr moves on to consider the evidence for orality and textuality in Israel. Evidence shows that Israel was influenced by both Mesopotamia and Egypt. However, Israel had a stronger connection to Egypt than Mesopotamia in its scribal practices. Carr establishes the corridor of connection between Egypt and Israel by identifying strong evidence both inside and outside of the Bible for Egypt’s interactions, and thus influence, on the land of Canaan. Carr’s evidence provides little room to doubt that Egypt would have exercised influence in Canaan. The concrete connection between Egypt and Canaan would have been Egypt’s periodical occupation of Canaan over the decades. There is evidence from a number of locations in Canaan of Egyptian educational influence. Those locations include, “Arad, Yabneh, Yam, Samaria, Meraba’at and possibly Gezer” (85).
While his attention is fixed on the Hebrew Bible, Carr also demonstrates that Mesopotamian influence would have flourished in the Bronze Age, not the Iron Age. The suggested historical period in which the educational matrix was being transferred and practiced throughout the Levant agrees with the Bible’s claims on its own textuality. While the late date for the writing and development of the Hebrew Bible is popular, evidence shows that the early date of the Bronze Age is a better match for much of the Hebrew texts. Carr demonstrates that Mesopotamia’s educational matrix had taken root well before the Iron Age.
Carr concludes his work by arguing that the central objective of student enculturation was carried down through the ages to eventually become the motivation behind the canonization of the Hebrew texts in the historical context of a growing Hellenism. The desire for a distinct Jewish identity would have supported a rabbinic movement with canonized texts at its center. What could be a more effective method of Jewish enculturation than the memorization of the inspired Word of Yahweh who’s authority reached far back into a pre-Hellenistic era? The end goal of textuality being enculturation throughout scribal history would have been suddenly more attractive amongst a Judaism being infiltrated by Gentiles. Carr constructs his argument by suggesting that the sacred pre-Hellenistic Hebrew texts were promoted by the Hasmonean royal priesthood in response to Greek educational texts in order to maintain Hebrew identity across a “culturally diverse kingdom” (253).
This book by David Carr is tremendously well done on a number of levels. Setting Carr’s work apart is his faithfulness in considering the evidence before drawing conclusions. Carr does not allow speculations, theories or unstable presuppositions to manipulate the evidence. With his contention regarding textuality’s purpose of enculturation, it seems Carr has his finger on the pulse of not only the purpose of the Hebrew Bible but the New Testament as well. Carr’s interpretation of the evidence which points to realities of oral culture and its effect on textuality has significant explanatory power in both historical and cultural domains.
There is one element, however, that Carr neglects when dealing with enculturation. Carr identifies memorization of texts as the primary method of enculturation. Would memorization alone produce the culture-changing results that schools would have sought? It seems as if the evidence indicates that there was more than simple memorization being used as the means of enculturation. A question to be pursued would be how would have oral cultures used texts to influence people beyond memorizing texts?
In dealing with ancient Greek education, Carr mentions the role of literature in society, specifically poetry, for public readings and scrips for public performances. Because of the role of orality in culture, it was probably the event or ceremonial activity connected to the text that gave transformative power to audiences. Transformation and cultural influence happen outside of the classroom/workshop. The phenomenon of enculturation occurs via a relational, or dialogical engagement. This could imply that scribal culture was at its best in achieving its goal of enculturation when texts were brought to life by the people from whom the traditions originated. That could be accomplished through the enactment of ceremonies or performances directly connected with the traditions recorded in the texts.
Another point of critique is Carr’s limited emphasis on the enculturation of the individual. A concept that integrates community would harmonize better with the patriarchal culture that characterizes the ancient Near East. While the formation of the individual was probably one of the objectives, the primary objective would probably have been collective enculturation; that is, the enculturation of groups of people that would secure the longevity of the culture. Because traditions preserved by texts belonged primarily to the community, an approach to understanding textuality in light of orality must integrate a communal dynamic. The focus on the individual student begins heading in that direction, but the thrust of the scribal workshop’s activities probably had an emphasized communal dynamic.
