Rediscovering Zoram

There are several prominent figures in the opening chapters of the Book of Mormon whose roles, responsibilities, and titles may have eluded the modern reader. As more is learned about ancient Israelite laws, customs, and culture through archaeological successes and academic research, previous biblical scholarship is reworked, refined, or totally redesigned. So too with academic scholarship on the Book of Mormon. The way readers understand the central figures in the opening chapters of the Book of Mormon must be regularly reassessed as additional information is obtained. There is still a great deal more to discover about the people who played such a central role in the establishment of a new nation. Recent discoveries and scholarship may shed light on a man to whom very few verses are dedicated but whose legacy cannot be ignored: Zoram.

In light of additional insights into Israelite society gained by archaeological discovery and exceptional academic research in recent years, we can posit that Laban was a high-­ranking military commander assigned by the king to the fortress within Jerusalem. We can further conclude that Zoram’s position may have been of a military nature as well, specifically that of the naʿar of the commander of the fortress.¹ Historically, the translation of naʿar has been viewed as meaning “young lad” (or another similar definition), but an extensive examination of the Israelite use of the word naʿar in a military context is something quite different. If Zoram was the chief naʿar of the commander of the fortress, he would have been the right-­hand man of a highly important military leader. Additionally, Zoram would have been a man of noble birth, an elite military officer with extensive military training, and as such would have been an exceptional addition to Lehi’s family as they journeyed through the wilderness, crossed an ocean, and began life in the New World.

1. Reexamining Laban

Determining if Zoram was the naʿar of the commander of the fortress begins with an examination of Laban. Before Zoram’s position in the ancient Israelite society can be accurately determined, it is critical to understand Laban’s position. Much has been written about Laban, but with new discoveries and new research, possibilities relating to his position have come to light. John W. Welch has proposed that research done by William M. Schniedewind creates one such new possibility for understanding Laban’s role in Jerusalem.² Welch suggested that Laban’s proper role may have been the commander of the fortress, as examined below. As I reviewed Welch’s proposal, the possibility for a new understanding of Zoram’s position became apparent.

Research completed by Schniedewind revisits some previous assumptions about a limestone seal³ found at Tel Arad⁴ in 1967.⁵ The seal was excavated by Yohanan Aharoni, and the initial speculation was that it represented the fortress at Tel Arad itself.⁶ Schniedewind states:

Presumably, this would have been the seal of the commander of the fortress at [Tel] Arad. In this respect, it should be seen as the forerunner for later seals. The title “commander of (the) fortress” is first known from inscriptions at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud. . . . The excavators of Kuntillet ‘Ajrud found . . . a multitude of inscriptions on jars, stone, and plaster walls—including three storage jars with the inscription of le-­śar ʿir, which must be translated “belonging to commander of fortress.” Although this title is usually translated as “belonging to the governor of the city,” this translation does not at all fit at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, which was no city. . . . Recently, excavations in the Temple Mount area of Jerusalem unearthed a new seal impression with the title le-­śar ʿir, spelled in exactly the same way as on the Kuntillet ‘Ajrud storage jar inscriptions.⁷

The storage jar inscriptions match the inscription on the limestone seal. The Israel Museum has two impressions of this limestone seal on display (see figs. 1 and 2).

Figure 1. Impression of the seal found at Tel Arad (front). Courtesy The Israel Museum at Jerusalem.

Figure 2. Sketch of the seal found at Tel Arad. Courtesy William M. Schniedewind.

The two separate impressions allow us to make a good composite drawing of the original seal, which features two figures. The larger figure on the left is the king, standing on a platform and holding military symbols of power that include a composite bow and three arrows. The figure on the right reaches out to receive the military symbols of authority; he stands above the title “commander of the fortress.” . . . On the basis of iconography and paleography, we would date this seal to the late seventh century B.C.E. So it is the chronologically latest example of a seal with the title “commander of the fortress,” and it is significant. . . . The bow and arrows give the seal a clear military import. This is not simply a civilian governor, but rather a military commander.⁸

Based on the foregoing, Schniedewind presents a very convincing argument that the later seals bearing the Hebrew term le-­śar ʿir have all been translated incorrectly as belonging to “the governor of the city.” Instead, we can posit that the language could be translated to describe the owner as someone who protected a military outpost.⁹

In addition to ʿir, the meaning and translation of śar have also evolved. Rather than referring to a governor, “the word śar is a loanword from Akkadian, and it refers to a military commander or an officer. It seems likely, then, that the title in the seal impression from Jerusalem should be translated as ‘commander of the fortress.’ Indeed, it makes little sense to think of it as a civilian title since the king also resided in Jerusalem.”¹⁰ In other words, there would have been no governor in the city where the king ruled. Schniedewind then proposes, “The parallels for this title indicate that this was the military commander in charge of the fortified town of Jerusalem—or perhaps, more narrowly, a fortress within Jerusalem.”¹¹

From a seal impression dating to the late seventh century BC, we see an instance of the representation of le-­śar ʿir receiving authority from the king.¹² Schniedewind argues that “the pose of the ‘commander of the fortress,’ who stands above his title and receives the bow and arrows from the royal figure, suggests that the seal was given to this figure by the king—perhaps when he was appointed to his position.”¹³

The significance of the position held by the commander of the fortress is indicated by the lack of the commander’s name on the seal. Schniedewind proposes, “In these seals, the title is more important than a personal name. The seal impressions from Jerusalem mention no names, only the title, and the storage jars at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud are also for an unnamed commander.”¹⁴ A title without a corresponding name was found for one other position. “Almost all other seal impressions in ancient Israel mention their owner—with the exception of the royal LMLK seal inscriptions, meaning ‘(belonging) to the king.’ These, too, are unnamed and therefore transferable. In this respect, the ‘commander of (the) fortress’ title holds an exceptional place in the bureaucracy of ancient Judah.”¹⁵

Considering Schniedewind’s proposal that there may have been a position known as the commander of the fortress in Jerusalem (either responsible for the city of Jerusalem itself or perhaps commanding a fortress within the city of Jerusalem), together with the possibility that a seal referencing just such a commander corresponds to Lehi’s Jerusalem, we should look at Laban with a fresh perspective. Could Laban have been the commander of the fortress within Jerusalem, appointed by the king? Does it make sense that the treasury, including the brass plates, would have been a part of this internal fortress? Excluding Laban’s character traits, what do we know about him from Nephi’s description? Does what we know support the hypothesis that Laban was the commander of the fortress?¹⁶ Consider the following:

1. Laban was a commander of fifty (1 Ne. 3:31).
2. He carried an unusual and remarkable sword (1 Ne. 4:9).
3. He wore armor (1 Ne. 4:19).
4. He had servants (1 Ne. 3:25–26; 4:20) who would obey his command to kill (1 Ne. 3:25).
5. He was responsible for the plates of brass, which were kept in the treasury (1 Ne. 3:3–4; 4:20–24).
6. His servant carried the “keys of the treasury” (1 Ne. 4:20).
7. He met with “elders of the Jews” at night (1 Ne. 4:22).

Commander of Fifty

Laban’s command of fifty is acknowledged first by Laman and Lemuel (1 Ne. 3:31) but is also affirmed by Nephi (1 Ne. 4:1). Some have commented on the small number this seems to present for a city like Jerusalem.¹⁷ However, Hugh Nibley used information from comparable civilizations to explain this seemingly small number:

As to Laban’s garrison of fifty, it seems pitifully small for a great city. It would have been just as easy for the author of 1 Nephi to have said fifty thousand and made it really impressive. Yet even the older brothers, though they wish to emphasize Laban’s great power, mention only fifty (1 Nephi 3:31), and it is Nephi in answering them who says that the Lord is “mightier than Laban and his fifty,” and adds, “or even than his tens of thousands” (1 Nephi 4:1). As a high military commander Laban would have his tens of thousands in the field, but such an array is of no concern to Laman and Lemuel; it is the “fifty” they must look out for—the regular, permanent garrison of Jerusalem. The number fifty suits perfectly with the Amarna picture, where the military forces are always so surprisingly small and a garrison of thirty to eighty men is thought adequate even for big cities. It is strikingly vindicated in a letter of Nebuchadnezzar, Lehi’s contemporary, wherein the great king orders: “As to the fifties who were under your command, those gone to the rear, or fugitives return to their ranks.”¹⁸

Hugh Nibley is not the only scholar to find similar references to “fifty.” Joseph Offord said, “In these days it is interesting to note the indication here, that in the Babylonian army a platoon contained fifty men”;¹⁹ also, we might add that it was called a “fifty,” hence, “Laban and his fifty.” Thus, to a contemporary reader interpreting the situation through modern experiences, the command of fifty men may not seem to place Laban in an extremely important or powerful position. With that perspective, it seems unreasonable that Laman and Lemuel seem to ascribe such a great amount of power to Laban. However, as we learn more about the time and place of these events, Laban’s position is clearer. If Laban were the commander of the fortress with a permanent garrison of fifty but commanding tens of thousands of soldiers, it would be more understandable why Nephi and his brothers would have rightly feared his power and position²⁰ and why they would not seek recourse after Laban’s theft of their property.

Laban’s Sword

The uniqueness of Laban’s sword led many scholars to believe that Nephi’s description of it made it anachronistic to Lehi’s Jerusalem. No steel sword capable of severing a man’s head in one blow could possibly have existed at that time and place! Once again, scholarship must be reexamined because archaeological evidence bears out just such a sword existing contemporaneously with Laban. What is now called the “Jericho Sword”²¹ has brought credibility to Nephi’s description of a sword that was previously considered by scholars to be an impossible weapon for that time. Dating to the time of King Josiah (about 620 BC), a contemporary of Lehi, the sword found at Vered Jericho (which is roughly fifteen miles from Jerusalem) is clear proof that long steel swords did indeed exist during Nephi’s day. Avraham Eitan wrote, “Metallurgical analysis of a sample taken from the blade proves . . . that the iron was deliberately hardened into steel, attesting to the technical knowledge of the blacksmith.”²²

While we now know that steel swords did exist in the time of Nephi, it is also true that Laban’s sword was not ordinary. Nephi himself describes it as follows: “And I beheld the sword, and I drew it forth from the sheath thereof; and the hilt thereof was of pure gold, and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine, and I saw that the blade thereof was of the most precious steel” (1 Ne. 4:9). Jeffrey Chadwick discusses how rare this was: “To possess gold was very rare—gold was not used as a medium of common monetary exchange.”²³ An entire hilt made of “pure gold” would have been exceptionally rare, indeed. Rare is not impossible, though, and it isn’t hard to deduce that the cost, effort, and skill involved with such a sword would only have been invested in a sword of extraordinary significance.²⁴

One possible explanation for the uniqueness of Laban’s sword may be that it had been given to him by the king as a symbol of his position as commander of the fortress. Though the seal impressions discussed earlier display the king handing military symbols to the commander of the fortress in the form of a bow and arrows, Schniedewind acknowledges that seals such as these would likely have been passed down for generations (and perhaps even for centuries) to each new commander of the fortress.²⁵ It is possible that, originally, the military symbols given by the king to his commander of the fortress would have been a bow with arrows, but the seal did not change when the military symbol of authority given to the commander evolved and became a sword. It is also possible that the seal contained symbols that were not actually used. The way the Nephites used the sword of Laban, handing it down as a symbol of authority, may well be due to that particular sword actually having always been a symbol of authority—given by the king of Israel to one charged with protecting the Lord’s people.²⁶

Armor

We understand from Nephi’s story that not only did Laban have armor but that he was wearing that armor (and carrying his sword) when he went to meet with the “elders of the Jews” (1 Ne. 4:22). While certainly the night hours in Jerusalem were considered dangerous,²⁷ it is pos­sible that Laban wearing armor to meet with the elders of the Jews may have been expected only if his position was primarily a military one, such as the commander of the fortress.²⁸ Nephi does not seem to find it remarkable that Laban carried a sword. “And when I came to him I found that it was Laban. And I beheld his sword, and I drew it forth from the sheath thereof” (1 Ne. 4:8–9). Nor does he seem to find it odd that Laban wore armor: “And after I had smitten off his head with his own sword, I took the garments of Laban and put them upon mine own body; yea, even every whit; and I did gird on his armor about my loins” (1 Ne. 4:19). Possibly, Nephi presumes that the presence of the sword and armor would be understood without specifically noting their presence while writing his story.

Servants Who Would Obey Laban’s Orders to Kill

Understanding already that Laban, as a military leader, would have had a garrison of fifty that constituted his regular, permanent garrison at Jerusalem, it is easy enough to note that he would have had men ready and willing to obey his order(s) to kill. Is it possible that the servants commanded by Laban to kill Laman and his brothers were either distinct from or within that garrison of fifty? The English translation of the text does not refer to the men ordered to kill Laman, Lemuel, Nephi, and Sam as soldiers, bodyguards, or even members of Laban’s fifty. Instead, the word servants is used (1 Ne. 3:25–27). Laban’s order to kill, followed by servants who attempted to search out Nephi and his brothers with the intent to carry out that order, makes more sense if Laban is a military leader surrounded by soldiers capable of complying with his demand.²⁹

Interestingly, Schniedewind notes that “commander of the fortress” as a title “has also been constructed in an inscription on one of the fortress walls at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud. . . . Although most of the plaster has fallen off the walls, some partial inscriptions can be reconstructed. . . . In one fragmentary inscription, Biblical scholar Erhard Blum has reconstructed the expression na ʿarê śar ʿir.”³⁰ The plural of naʿar being neʿarim (though naʿarê is also used, as in the inscription), the prior analysis of śar and ʿir would lead one to translate this inscription as a reference to the servants of the commander of the fortress. Schniedewind, acknowledging that naʿar “means a servant,” seems to grasp that the meaning must be something more and instead translates the inscription as “apprentices of the commander of the fortress,” though he states that “it is possible they were young soldiers.”³¹

While Schniedewind grasps that naʿarê in the inscriptions refers to military males serving the commander of the fortress, it is John MacDonald’s in-­depth analysis that provides greater context to the role of a naʿar in a military capacity.³² MacDonald, whose analysis is explored in more detail in section 2 of this article, proposes that when naʿar is used in a military context, it refers to a “male of high birth,”³³ who “could serve in the elite corps of the army, being of full warrior status.”³⁴ MacDonald specifically notes that a naʿar “could be commanded to slay an individual or individuals at his lord’s command.”³⁵

Laban Had the Brass Plates in the Treasury

While biblical scholars believe that Jerusalem had multiple “treasuries,” it may be that “the treasury” (1 Ne. 4:20) Nephi referred to was the royal treasury (as opposed to the temple treasury, which would likely have had a priest as a guardian).³⁶ It is not unreasonable to believe that the royal treasury would have been inside “the fortress within Jerusalem” discussed by Schniedewind³⁷ and thus under the purview of the commander of the fortress. Thus, Nephi’s references to the “treasury of Laban” may have been a reference to the treasury kept by the commander of the fortress.

Further, Nephi’s narrative may indicate that he encountered Zoram prior to reaching the treasury. “I went forth unto the treasury of Laban. And as I went forth towards the treasury of Laban, behold, I saw the servant of Laban who had the keys of the treasury. And I commanded him in the voice of Laban, that he should go with me into the treasury” (1 Ne 4:20, emphasis added). It is not unreasonable to suppose that one dressed as (and appearing to be) the commander of the fortress, accompanied by his well-­known chief naʿar, would have had no difficulty entering the fortress in which the treasury may have been found. Additionally, the fact that the plates were inscribed on brass lends itself to the idea that they were not an ordinary Israelite’s copy but belonged to someone of great importance.³⁸ If Laban was indeed the commander of the fortress that housed a royal treasury, then a supposition that the plates of brass belonged to the king himself is not unreasonable.³⁹ Further, one may suppose that Nephi required Zoram to accompany him into the treasury because he needed Zoram’s assistance identifying where the plates of brass were kept. This may indicate that Laban’s treasury was a larger treasury than the treasury of a single individual.

The Servant of Laban Carried the Keys to the Treasury

Another interesting part of Nephi’s record is his first mention of Zoram. After Nephi has slain Laban and donned his clothing and armor, Nephi says, “I went forth unto the treasury of Laban. And as I went forth towards the treasury of Laban, behold, I saw the servant of Laban who had the keys of the treasury” (1 Ne. 4:20). There are many questions that result from this simple retelling. One obvious question is how Nephi knew that this servant carried the keys to the treasury. To answer this question, there are several possibilities that present themselves. Zoram could have been present during the meetings Nephi previously had with Laban, and perhaps something was said or seen that identified Zoram as the keeper of the treasury keys. If Laban was the commander of the fortress and well-known among the people, perhaps the servant responsible for the keys would have been well-known also.

There is yet another possibility. While we may not know the precise type of lock(s) used for the treasury, the use of locks and keys was well documented long before the time of Lehi.⁴⁰ “The Holy Scripture reveals that locks and keys were known long before the birth of Christ. The classics of that time refer to these devices [such as] the song of Solomon, chapter V, verse 5; . . . Nehemia, chapter III, verse 3; . . . [and] Judges, chapter III, verses 23 and 25.”⁴¹ After a description of a certain key found in the palace of Khorsabad, it is interestingly noted, “In Eastern countries even nowadays such keys are usually carried on the shoulder.” 1 Nephi 4:20 does indeed refer to Zoram carrying the “keys of the treasury” (emphasis added; note the plural reference). Perhaps Nephi knew exactly which servant carried the keys because they were worn, quite visibly, over the shoulder.⁴² For an additional examination of this topic, please see section 2 of this article.

Laban Met with the “Elders of the Jews” at Night

To understand the importance of Laban’s meeting with the “elders of the Jews” (1 Ne. 4:22), it is helpful to know who the “elders” actually were.⁴³ Hugh Nibley states, “Bible students recognize today that affairs at Jerusalem were completely under the control of the ‘elders.’ The word ‘elders’ has been understood to mean the heads of the most influential families of a city.”⁴⁴ However, in Lehi’s day, the ruling class that once advised the king had been altered. Nibley specifically states that “Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Lehi were themselves members of th[e] ruling class.”⁴⁵ However, Nibley agrees with Heinrich H. Graetz⁴⁶ when Graetz claims that “Jeremiah [w]as a wealthy and powerful man with important connections—though they were mostly Babylonian connections, highly obnoxious to the ruling clique at Zedekiah’s court.”⁴⁷ In fact, Nibley quotes Graetz as follows: “The natural nobility, that descended from the patriarchal conditions of old, was, so to speak, pushed aside by an artificial nobility of courtiers.” Nibley goes on to paraphrase, “‘Under Hezekiah, that is, the old-­fashioned “elders”’ of the first families were supplanted by the new crowd, composed of the younger sons of the kings and their families, an ‘appanage,’ along with the families of the favorites of favorites of former kings.”⁴⁸

This “new crowd” designated as elders were “denouncing Jeremiah to the king and demanding that he be executed because of his bad influence on the morale of the people.”⁴⁹ The fact that the elders were successful in such petitions is evidenced by the king taking action against Jeremiah as recorded in the Bible.⁵⁰ That these actions were directly responsible for Jeremiah’s death is recorded in extrabiblical sources.⁵¹ Readers can only speculate why Laban met with the elders at night. As the commander of the fortress, his interests and the interests of the elders would have intersected over security issues. It is possible that they met together to discuss the recent disruptions caused by the preaching and prophesying of Jeremiah,⁵² Lehi,⁵³ and other prophets that, unless the people repented, Jerusalem would be destroyed.⁵⁴

2. Rediscovering Zoram

Zoram, who is introduced after Laban’s death, figures prominently in only one chapter of the Book of Mormon (1 Ne. 4), even though he remains with Nephi throughout the rest of his life. Once Zoram has agreed to go into the wilderness with Lehi’s family, only a few additional verses give us information about him: (1) Nephi records that Zoram marries the eldest daughter of Ishmael (1 Ne. 16:7); (2) before his death, Lehi leaves a final blessing upon Zoram (2 Ne. 1:30–32); and (3) Nephi acknowledges that Zoram and his family depart with Nephi when he separates from his brothers (2 Ne. 5:6). Interestingly, while seemingly little information or attention is given to Zoram in the opening pages of the Book of Mormon, Zoram’s legacy lives on throughout the remainder of the Book of Mormon, with an entire people identifying themselves as “Zoramites”⁵⁵ and individuals being named after him.⁵⁶ Although Zoram has been called “a minor character,”⁵⁷ he certainly was not seen that way to the Nephite or Lamanite peoples.

One such example of his significance appears in the book of Alma. Zoram’s story obviously remained a source of strife between peoples for generations, since in Ammoron’s letter to Moroni, Ammoron, “king of the Lamanites” (Alma 54:16),⁵⁸ takes the time to specifically acknowledge that he is a descendant of Zoram: “I am Ammoron, and a descendent of Zoram, whom your fathers pressed and brought out of Jerusalem” (Alma 54:23). Despite what Ammoron argues happened to Zoram, Lehi claimed that Zoram was a “true friend” of Nephi’s “forever” (2 Ne. 1:30), and when Nephi left his brothers in the New World, Zoram willingly followed him (2 Ne. 5:6). What occurred with Zoram in Jerusalem was subject to interpretation or revisionist history, and the perceived injustice was used to justify anger and war against the Nephites.⁵⁹

For a man prominent enough to have his descendants called by his name, it seems odd that so little has been written about him. From the small number of verses actually devoted to this man, what do we know?

1. He was “the servant of Laban” (1 Ne. 4:20).
2. He carried the keys to the treasury (1 Ne. 4:20).
3. He willingly (and apparently without surprise) retrieved the plates and followed a man he assumed was Laban outside the walls of Jerusalem at night (1 Ne. 4:24–26).
4. He knew that his master had met with the elders at night (1 Ne. 4:22).
5. He felt free to speak to his master about the elders and his master’s communications with them (1 Ne. 4:27).
6. He understood the importance of the oath uttered by Nephi (1 Ne. 4:32–35).
7. Zoram was promised he would be “a free man” if he went with Nephi and his brothers (1 Ne. 4:33).
8. His name was given rather late in the telling of the story (1 Ne. 4:35).
9. He did not return to Jerusalem with Laman, Lemuel, Sam, and Nephi to get Ishmael and his family (1 Ne. 7:1–3).
10. He married the eldest daughter of Ishmael (1 Ne. 16:7).
11. He received an individual blessing from Lehi (2 Ne. 1:30–32).
12. He was a true friend to Nephi (2 Ne. 1:30).
13. He was faithful (2 Ne. 1:31).
14. Zoram’s early descendants appear to be a military people (see Alma 47–52).

The use of the word servant rather than slave is significant.⁶⁰ One compelling argument that servant is the correct word rather than slave is the plain use of the word servant in the original translation of the Book of Mormon.

A final and simple reason to believe that Zoram was likely a servant and not a slave pertains to the translation process of the Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith. If the Hebraic word can be translated to mean both “slave” and “servant,” should we assume that Joseph Smith chose at random which term to use when the word came up in translation? The term slave appears five times in the book of Mormon (Mosiah 2:13; 7:15; Alma 27:8; 27:9; 3 Nephi 3:7), showing that Joseph Smith could differentiate two meanings while translating. . . . If [Zoram] were a slave, the Book of Mormon would call him a slave.⁶¹

If one decides that the word servant” s correct, the next step is to examine how that word would have been understood in Lehi’s time. One fascinating clue is found when Lehi gives his final blessing to Zoram. Nephi interestingly records his father’s words as follows: “And now, Zoram, I speak unto you: Behold, thou art the servant of Laban” (2 Ne. 1:30, emphasis added). When Lehi addresses Zoram at this time, Lehi must know that Laban is dead. Lehi has already seen in a vision that Jerusalem has been destroyed (2 Ne. 1:4). Regardless of his prior status, Nephi had promised Zoram that he “should be a free man like unto us if he would go down in the wilderness with us” (1 Ne. 4:33). Yet Lehi still addresses Zoram, a free man, as the present-­tense servant of a dead man. When reviewing all references to Zoram, each one specifically states, “the servant of Laban,” notably not even “a servant.” Possibly, Lehi addressed Zoram by an important title—one that honored Zoram and remained with him throughout his life. Hugh Nibley articulated that Zoram “was himself an important official, and no mere slave.”⁶² What could possibly be meant by the term servant as applied to Zoram?

The Servant of Laban

ʿEbed

As with most aspects of the ancient world, modern ideas pertaining to servants and slaves are drastically different than the ancient Israelite and Near Eastern understanding. Two Hebrew words that would have been common in Lehi’s time, both of which would be translated into English as servant, should be examined when considering Zoram’s position: ʿebed and naʿar. These words are closely linked.

William F. Albright, in examining the stamp of a seal found on two different pottery handles dating to the last preexilic period, explores the “category of seals bearing the inscription ‘X servant (צבד) of Y,’ since the words צבב (ʿebed), ‘slave, servant, officer,’ and נצד (naʿar), ‘youth, attendant, steward,’ are roughly synonymous, and the formulae are thus parallel.”⁶³ Albright begins with a study of ʿebed and whether or not the translation as slave can be supported. Because Albright and other scholars⁶⁴ agree that seals could not belong to slaves, the word ʿebed, at least as it appears on seals, can never mean slave because “slaves were not legally entitled to execute documents in their own names, and consequently had no right to carry seals. Since the word ʿebed means ‘slave’ in the Bible, except where it is used of a servant of the king, i.e., a royal officer, it accordingly follows necessarily that it means ‘royal officer’ in the seals.”⁶⁵ This argument is further bolstered by the fact that “in no case does a name which is certainly not that of a king occur in the position Y.”⁶⁶

Russell examines the possibility of Zoram’s role being in line with an ʿebed and follows Hugh Nibley’s examination that it was more generally used to denote a “royal officer.”⁶⁷ But if ʿebed referred to a servant of the king, then this would refer to Laban—not Zoram. Neither Nibley nor Russell specifically examines the category of naʿar as it relates to Zoram. While ʿebed could be the original word used, if we follow the scholarship of Albright and others, the use of the term ʿebed for Zoram would have meant a slave or lowly servant, since the only context in which it did not was for a high official of the king. We know Zoram was the servant of Laban, and Laban was not the king. Could naʿar be the more appropriate term for Zoram?

Naʿar

General Use of the Term. The term naʿar, like so many words, has seen an evolution in meaning over time. Albright states, “The word means originally ‘child, youth,’ a sense in which it occurs repeatedly in the Bible. It then comes to mean ‘young attendant, armour-­bearer, confidential man,’ and ‘picked warrior,’ a sense of which occurs in Canaanite, as well as in the Bible. Finally, we find the word employed in the meaning ‘steward,’ i.e., ‘confidential attendant.’”⁶⁸ Additionally, Albright makes a point of noting, “It may be observed that na‘ar always appears to connote the freedom of the person to whom the designation is applied.”⁶⁹ Currently, after new research, it seems that Albright’s understanding of the meaning of naʿar, though probably advanced at the time written, is woefully insufficient. As noted previously, John MacDonald radically altered the category of naʿar when, after an intensive, in-­depth analysis of the meaning of naʿar in Israelite society, he published his findings. Upon concluding his research, MacDonald states, “The word naʿar is almost everywhere translated under two headings: (1) child, lad, young man; (2) servant. . . . [However,] these renderings are inadequate and produce a totally false impression of the person involved.”⁷⁰ If Laban was indeed the commander of the fortress, MacDonald’s research and analysis sheds important light on Zoram’s position in Jerusalem.

According to MacDonald, the term naʿar appears “more particularly in military contexts.”⁷¹ Whenever naʿar is used, it denotes a man “of high birth.”⁷² MacDonald argues that a naʿar was of much higher rank than a common servant or slave,⁷³ and in many (if not most) instances, a naʿar could not be referencing a young man.⁷⁴ MacDonald goes through a great deal of detail to note that neʿarim were very special servants, and the duties included warrior duties as well as serving their master in a very personal way.⁷⁵ The extraordinary status of a naʿar is described in 2 Kings, according to MacDonald: “That Naaman was a man of very high rank may be observed from 2 Kings 5:1 and 5:21. He was an army commander and a great warrior, and he was very wealthy. The naʿar Gehazi was high-­ranking enough for such a man as Naaman to alight from his chariot to greet him and receive Elisha’s message.”⁷⁶

MacDonald further goes on to discuss Ziba in the Israelite royal court. “According to 2 Sam. 9:2, [Ziba] was a ʿebed of the house of Saul. Ziba in addressing King David correctly refers to himself as a ʿebed (vv. 2, 11); but when David summoned Ziba (v. 9), Ziba was referred to as Saul’s naʿar. According to v. 10, this same Ziba had fifteen sons and twenty ʿabadim, obviously a man of substance and estate.”⁷⁷ MacDonald also clears up any confusion with the seeming interchangeable terms of ʿebed and naʿar, as Ziba is called both. “Any naʿar below the king himself is a ʿebed (subject) of the state (king) and of the royal house or palace.”⁷⁸ Therefore, “the reference to Ziba as a ʿebed in 9:2 is proper [when in reference to his place under the king], but it is equally proper to refer to him as a naʿar in terms of his specific function as a personal top servant of a great man.”⁷⁹

Elite Military Officer. The role of naʿar was one of great importance. The naʿar, “whose advice or suggestion was acceptable to kings and other great personages, existed as one of hierarchy, from royal palace to the household of the wealthy aristocracy, and may have belonged in some cases to a professional guild, perhaps including itinerant priests. If he was the son of [a] king or noble, he was himself in the ranks of nobility. The naʿar could hold property, be wealthy, receive gifts from famous persons or, in certain cases, be salaried. But his best-­known role in Israelite society was that of élite military officer.”⁸⁰ As stated earlier, even Schniedewind, who was using the simpler definition and understanding of naʿar, still tied it to a military position. Schniedewind states, “If we understand that naʿar can be a young person receiving military training, then this would account for its relationship to the title ‘commander of (the) fortress.’”⁸¹ Even if Laban was not the commander of the fortress, we do know he was at the very least a commander of fifty,⁸² so it is in the military context that we find the most reasonable understanding of Zoram’s position.⁸³ This fits precisely with MacDonald’s findings.

As mentioned previously, there are many assumptions Nephi makes as he records his account. Nephi says simply, “And as I went forth towards the treasury of Laban, behold, I saw the servant of Laban who had the keys of the treasury” (1 Ne. 4:20). This appears to be the first mention of Zoram (though, notably, not by his name). How would Nephi know that Zoram was the servant who carried the keys to the treasury? MacDonald believes that in the Old Testament, the writers assume the reader will grasp the significance of the position of the naʿar. These types of assumptions occur with all writers, and it is understandable that Nephi may have believed that a reader would be able to ascribe the same meaning to the status of the naʿar of Laban (as commander of the fortress or other military leader) as Nephi himself does.

If that were the case, Zoram’s place beside Laban during Lehi’s sons’ communications with Laban would have been assumed as fact.⁸⁴ The sons of Lehi knew of Laban before they were sent back to get the plates. As Laban’s naʿar, Zoram may very well have also been a person already known to them. Even if not previously known, however, Laban’s naʿar would have surely been present during Laban’s meeting with the sons of Lehi. Time and again in scriptural accounts, the naʿar doesn’t have to be mentioned for the author to believe the reader understands that he is there. MacDonald drives this point home by pointing out the mention of the naʿar in the story of Samson. “Samson, prisoner of the Philistine lords, [is] forced to stand between two pillars and endure the ‘sport’ of the Philistines with him. The significant part of the story for us is the fact that Samson addresses the naʿar ‘who held him by the hand’ (Samson being blind).”⁸⁵ No mention is made of the naʿar until Samson addresses him. No mention is made of him after Samson addresses him. As MacDonald states, “Once again a naʿar appears, almost inconsequentially, in a story and promptly disappears from the scene without further mention.”⁸⁶ But any ancient reader would have understood that the naʿar was always with his military lord, because “his place beside a great lord is taken for granted.”⁸⁷

A modern reader might also have difficulty understanding Zoram’s willingness to continue pressing with questions (believing Nephi to be Laban) about Laban’s meeting with the elders. As mentioned previously, others have surmised that Zoram himself was no mere servant. However, Zoram as Laban’s naʿar gives greater support to what “no mere servant” meant in this case. MacDonald, in reviewing the relationship between Saul, son of Kish, and his naʿar, relates an important exchange: “In vv. 5–8 there is a conversation between Saul and his naʿar such as could hardly be expected between a wealthy man’s son and a menial. It is the naʿar’s recommendation that is accepted. The important role of the naʿar is highlighted in 10:14, where Saul’s uncle addresses Saul and his naʿar, and Saul includes the naʿar with himself in making his reply.”⁸⁸ If a naʿar was able to speak with the full trust of his lord, such that a recommendation from a naʿar was adopted, then Zoram’s attempts to understand what had occurred between Laban and the elders would have been quite natural. Zoram would have expected to know what Laban knew so he could be of most use to his lord and, if needed, give recommendations as to action. However, if he were merely a servant, a young boy in training, or otherwise ignorant, would he have felt it was permissible to push Laban about what happened with the elders?

A naʿar was also commonly given stewardship over some portion of his lord’s estate. MacDonald theorizes that David was Saul’s naʿar after he was the naʿar of his own father, Jesse, in charge of the “sheep-­keepers” (meaning that he was responsible for the servants watching the flocks; 1 Sam. 17:15).⁸⁹ The naʿar of Boaz was in charge of the reapers (Ruth 2:5–6). If Zoram was the naʿar of the commander of the fortress, he may have been the keeper of the treasury—thus he would hold the keys to the treasury. If Zoram was a highly ranked naʿar to the commander of the fortress, he could have been entrusted with the keys to the treasury, of which Laban may have been the particular guard. There are still details we do not (and perhaps cannot) know, but Zoram’s unmentioned but assumed presence would explain how he was known to Nephi.

The extraordinary position of Zoram may not be fully realized without MacDonald’s analysis of how the commander’s naʿar ranked in comparison with other individuals below the king himself. MacDonald’s analysis includes the ability of the naʿar of a commander to kill a prince. (For example, in 2 Sam. 13:28, Absalom ordered his neʿarim to kill Amnon, a prince, when he became drunk. Also, the commander Joab ordered ten of his neʿarim to kill Absalom, a prince; 2 Sam. 18:15.)⁹⁰ The ability of the naʿar to lead, and even to possibly rule, is found in 1 Kings 20:14. “According to [scripture], King Ahab asked a prophet by whom the great multitude would be given into his hands, and the prophet replied that it would be ‘by the neʿarim of the governors of the districts.’ . . . The army followed the neʿarim (v. 19)! This statement confirms the role of the neʿarim as élite troops, professionals, who spearheaded advances against the enemy.”⁹¹ In fact, the very same neʿarim identified to King Ahab are referenced in the same chapter of 1 Kings: “Even the former governors’ neʿarim ‘lorded it over the people.’”⁹² MacDonald records an impressive list describing a naʿar:

[A naʿar] could serve in the élite corps of the army, being of full warrior status; he could serve as scout; he could pass on valuable information. He could be commanded to slay an individual or individuals at his lord’s command, provided the proper “knightly” code of behavior was observed. For a naʿar to slay a king (outside of actual battle) was an offense punishable by death at the hands of another naʿar. [A naʿar] would voluntarily die with his lord to prevent an ignoble consequence. The armor-­bearer of a senior military man, i.e., top ranking, was a naʿar, and he wore full battle accoutrements. A man of high rank, faced with death or torture, could have a naʿar with him. The task of watching enemy movements (or even a personal enemy of his lord in domestic circumstances) was given to a naʿar.

A naʿar would be expected to accompany his lord or his lord’s son on a variety of missions, including helping him in the search for a valuable animal (and assist his lord against attack). He could be senior enough in rank to make acceptable suggestions and offer helpful advice. He (or several) would attend upon his lord’s wife when her safety was involved. In actual combat a lord would have his (chief) naʿar close by him. A military lord and his naʿar armor-­bearer were inseparable in war and often outside the battlefield. . . .

A naʿar’s success as a military leader could lead to his elevation in rank and the captaincy of soldiers. A very high-­ranking naʿar, certainly, could have a place at court and eat at the royal table. . . .

In certain circumstances neʿarim could play political and civic roles.⁹³

Certainly, if Zoram was the chief naʿar to the commander of the fortress within Jerusalem, perhaps he was also one of the men commanded by Laban to kill Laman, Lemuel, Sam, and Nephi.⁹⁴ Or possibly that would have been a task for less high-­ranking neʿarim, and Zoram would have remained by his lord’s side. Zoram’s immediate response to Nephi’s command to get the plates by walking outside the walls of Jerusalem with him and freely asking questions about Laban’s meeting would be consistent with the role of at least a high-­ranking, if not the chief, naʿar.

Another clue to Zoram’s status may be inferred from Lehi’s last blessing to Zoram: “And now, Zoram, I speak unto you: Behold, thou art the servant of Laban; nevertheless, thou hast been brought out of the land of Jerusalem” (2 Ne. 1:30). The odd word here is nevertheless. More commonly, this is interpreted as a reference to the fact that Zoram served a wicked man but was brought out of Jerusalem. However, if Zoram is the chief naʿar of the commander of the fortress, one could see this as an acknowledgment of Zoram’s title (and thus his high position or rank) and that the Lord saw fit to bring Zoram out of Jerusalem in spite of that high position. Further, the very next comment from Lehi is “and I know that thou art a true friend unto my son, Nephi, forever” (2 Ne. 1:30). This seems somewhat disjointed from the immediately preceding fact. Perhaps this is a tantalizing clue that Zoram’s place by Nephi’s side fulfilled the Lord’s purpose, and it was for that reason Zoram was taken from a high and powerful position to wander with Lehi’s family in the wilderness. It is certainly possible that Zoram played a crucial role in helping the Nephites defend themselves in war, and his guidance and advice to Nephi may have been essential for the Nephites’ preservation and continuation.

As a Free Man

Zoram being Laban’s naʿar may be the best explanation for the many questions a modern reader might have—including Lehi addressing him so many years after leaving Jerusalem with “thou art the servant of Laban.” Zoram, as the naʿar of the commander of the fortress, would not have been just a freed servant who was lucky enough to be included in Lehi’s group but a significant and important addition to Lehi’s family. A nobleman of high military rank (including his vast military knowledge) would be a huge boon to the renegade party, worthy of marrying into Ishmael’s family and worthy of an entire people being named for him. However, if he was indeed the naʿar of the commander of the fortress, a modern reader must wonder how he changed loyalties so quickly.

Often, Nephi’s promise to Zoram, “that he should be a free man like unto us if he would go down in the wilderness with us” (1 Ne. 4:33), appears to be a compelling and attractive promise to a man in bondage who longs to be free.⁹⁵ However, what is such a promise if Zoram is a naʿar, who, according to all accounts, would have already been considered a free man of high birth? Russell’s previous analysis may be pertinent in this regard: “If we examine Nephi’s oath, it becomes apparent that he may not have implied a previous state of bondage. Nephi promises “that he need not fear; that he should be a free man like unto [Nephi and his family]” (1 Nephi 4:33). . . . In this light, Nephi does not promise to liberate Zoram from preexisting bondage, rather to free Zoram from entering bondage to Nephi himself.”⁹⁶

The possibility that Zoram left not only Jerusalem but a high place of position and power and all that the future held for him in Jerusalem must make one consider whether those actions are consistent with what one would expect from a loyal naʿar. Unfortunately, there are but few examples in Hebrew texts since, as was mentioned previously, the naʿar’s presence was often assumed and not directly discussed. One of these rare examples is found in Judges 7–8, where we read about the miracle God performed as the children of Israel stood against the Midianites. Gideon is commanded by God to go to the camp of the enemy, where he “caught a young man of the men of Succoth, and inquired of him: and he described unto him the princes of Succoth, and the elders thereof, even threescore and seventeen men” (Judg. 8:14, emphasis added). MacDonald identifies this verse as one in which naʿar was incorrectly translated to “young man.” MacDonald then explores what happened next. “The knowledge possessed by the naʿar is such that he is not only able to write but to set down the names of the officials and elders of Succoth—seventy-­seven names no less. He is evidently no mere lad or common servant.”⁹⁷

While MacDonald is using this story to affirm the idea that the definition of naʿar has been mistranslated and misunderstood, it gives us an idea about a naʿar who was captured. Are the actions of this naʿar very different than Zoram’s? MacDonald’s theory is supported by Nibley, who states that Zoram’s “relationship with Laban was not one of trust and affection. Zoram’s behavior is an even more eloquent commentary than that of his master of the true state of things in a society that had lost its balance and its faith and sought only after power and success, ‘the vain things of the world.’”⁹⁸ It is possible that Zoram was a trustworthy servant, but because Laban was an untrustworthy master, Zoram willingly followed a new path, just as the naʿar captured by Gideon did. Another possibility is that, just as the naʿar captured by Gideon had lost his master in battle and so no longer had a duty to a living commander, Zoram was no longer bound to be loyal to Laban after Laban’s death.

Named Late in the Telling of the Story

Before and after Nephi states Zoram’s name, Nephi refers to him repeatedly as “the servant of Laban” (1 Ne. 4:20, 30, 31, 38). Most of Nephi’s interactions with Zoram occur without Nephi using Zoram’s name, even though the name was known to Nephi when he recorded his history. The first time Nephi uses Zoram’s name, Nephi has already misled Zoram, had him get the brass plates, had Zoram walk with him outside of the city walls, and grabbed him to keep him from fleeing. Only after all these events does Nephi state, “And it came to pass that Zoram did take courage at the words which I spake. Now Zoram was the name of the servant” (1 Ne. 4:35). It certainly is possible that as Nephi is recalling the event, he gives the name of Zoram around the point Nephi himself learned his name. It is possible that Nephi did not know Zoram’s name until Zoram agreed to go with Nephi and his brethren into the wilderness, and Nephi’s use of Zoram’s name at this point is an unconscious reference to when he learned it.

However, it is also possible (if not likely) that, as previously discussed, Nephi and his brothers knew who Zoram was, just as they knew who Laban was, and Nephi emphasizes Zoram’s position as Laban’s naʿar because he believes that the position provides context for the events and, perhaps particularly, for Zoram’s actions. It is notable, though, that even after stating Zoram’s name, Nephi still refers to Zoram as “the servant of Laban.” Nephi wrote: “And it came to pass that we took the plates of brass and the servant of Laban, and departed into the wilderness, and journeyed unto the tent of our father” (1 Ne. 4:38, emphasis added). Another possible reason that Zoram was named so late in the story is that Nephi was using a title that Nephi felt was as appropriate a reference for Zoram as his name.

Zoram Remains in the Wilderness

One interesting item worth noting is an event in which Zoram is specifically not mentioned. After returning to the wilderness with the brass plates, Lehi is commanded to send his sons to Jerusalem once more to retrieve Ishmael and his family. The brothers obey and again return to Jerusalem. Zoram, however, does not go with them. One possible reason could be fear that Zoram would report all that had occurred, jeopardizing the lives of the Lehite clan. If Zoram was the naʿar of the commander of the fortress, he would be expected to report the events surrounding Laban’s death if questioned by the king, the new commander of the fortress, or some other elder or official. Another possibility is that suspicion for Laban’s death had fallen on Zoram, and Nephi had (intentionally or unintentionally) taken with him a scapegoat, though neʿarim were known for their loyalty, even to death, so this possibility seems highly unlikely.⁹⁹ Another ­possibility is that Nephi and his brothers were ­leaving their parents and other family members in the trust of one able to provide protection while they remained in the wilderness.

Zoram Married the Eldest Daughter of Ishmael

The fact that Zoram married Ishmael’s oldest daughter points to Zoram’s status as a naʿar, in the sense of a military leader rather than just a young boy. The marriage makes more sense if Zoram was a man of status and capable of marrying the oldest daughter. While we do not know the ages of Ishmael’s daughters, we do know that Ishmael’s daughters begin to bear children in the wilderness, and that ancient Israelite custom was for women to marry between twelve to fourteen years of age.¹⁰⁰ Other than Zoram, Nephi does not detail the birth order of the other daughters. Nephi felt it was important to specifically note the birth order for Zoram’s wife. It is possible that this is an indication of Zoram’s age relative to the sons of Lehi.¹⁰¹

Zoram’s Blessing

In Lehi’s blessings upon his children and Ishmael’s sons before he dies, it is notable that Lehi also blessed Zoram.¹⁰² Before examining the content of the blessing, it is interesting to note that Zoram’s blessing seems to have been performed in the middle of all Lehi’s final blessings.¹⁰³ Additionally, it appears that the blessing itself may have served to identify Zoram as the head of a distinct tribe. As the descendants of Lehi and Ishmael divided into tribes, Lehi’s final blessings do seem correlated to the perceived positions of the seven different tribes. “One of the many enduring legacies of Lehi’s last will and testament appears to be the organization of his descendants into seven tribes. After speaking to several of his sons collectively, Lehi spoke first to Zoram, second to Jacob, third to Joseph, fourth to the children of Laman, fifth to the children of Lemuel, sixth to the sons of Ishmael, and seventh to Nephi and Sam together. This seems to be the precedent that established the social and legal order that lasted among these people for almost one thousand years.”¹⁰⁴ In fact, “Three times in the Book of Mormon these seven [tribes] are mentioned, each time in the rigid order of ‘Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites’ (Jacob 1:13; 4 Ne. 1:38; Morm. 1:8). Significantly, these references come from the earliest as well as the latest periods of Nephite history.”¹⁰⁵ It should be noted that the descendants of Sam did not constitute a separate tribe. Lehi specifically tells his son Sam, “Blessed art thou, and thy seed; for thou shalt inherit the land like unto thy brother Nephi. And thy seed shall be numbered with his seed” (2 Ne. 4:11). Separate from the content of Lehi’s blessings, it appears that Lehi was acting in a foundational or organizational way. “In many ways, Lehi is acting here like Jacob of old. Both Jacob and Lehi pronounced their blessings to ‘all [their] household,’ who had gathered around them shortly before they died. The aim was to organize a household of God in a new land of promise. Both organized their posterity into tribal groups in the patriarchal tradition of ancient Israel.”¹⁰⁶ In fact, it has been proposed that “only the idea that Lehi originated this tribal organization can comfortably explain why it persisted so long and was recognized both by the Nephites and the Lamanites. This is evidence that Lehi’s last words to his sons were taken as being constitutionally definitive. Thus, there are Jacobites and Josephites, but never Samites, in the Book of Mormon.”¹⁰⁷ If Lehi chose Zoram to be the leader of one of the seven tribes he was establishing, such a decision may be an acknowledgement of (and would appear to be consistent with) Zoram being the naʿar of the commander of the fortress (particularly when highlighted against Lehi’s own son Sam not receiving such a distinction).¹⁰⁸

A True Friend to Nephi

There is nothing to indicate that Nephi told Zoram that he killed Laban, but Zoram likely knew or suspected. How else could Nephi have obtained Laban’s clothing, armor, and sword? The text does not provide Zoram’s feelings about what Nephi did. Additionally, it was Nephi who tricked Zoram into leaving the immediate safety of Jerusalem and its wall and prevented Zoram from fleeing back into the city.¹⁰⁹ It seems contrary to most human experience that Zoram would be a friend to Nephi rather than Laman and Lemuel (as the two older brothers regularly, and sometimes violently, opposed Nephi). However, Zoram’s devotion to Nephi is unquestioned, as Lehi, while blessing Zoram, takes the time to identify him as “a true friend unto my son, Nephi, forever” (2 Ne. 1:30). We also know that Zoram left the Lamanites with Nephi (2 Ne. 5:6).

However, an additional clue to Nephi’s close relationship with Zoram may be found in Nephi’s list of those who departed with him into the wilderness: “It came to pass that I, Nephi, did take my family, and also Zoram and his family, and Sam, mine elder brother and his family, and Jacob and Joseph, my younger brethren, and also my sisters, and all those who would go with me” (2 Ne. 5:6). Nephi lists Zoram before his own family, and Zoram is the only non-­blood-­relative who is specifically mentioned. For example, no sons of Ishmael are ever identified by name at any point.

In the event that Lehi fully adopted Zoram, as has been proposed by John W. Welch and explored in footnote 103 herein, such adoption may explain why Zoram would not initially be willing to use his military knowledge to fight Laman, Lemuel, and the sons of Ishmael when there were violent divisions. It is possible that out of deference to Lehi, Sariah, and Ishmael, Zoram may not have been willing to harm the eldest sons and adoptive brothers. Only when Lehi had passed and Zoram left with Nephi (to avoid Nephi’s murder) did wars commence,¹¹⁰ presumably with Zoram at Nephi’s side. In fact, Nephi states that he “did take the sword of Laban, and after the manner of it did make many swords, lest by any means the people who were now called Lamanites should come upon us and destroy us” (2 Ne. 5:14). While Nephi may have been readily able to make swords,¹¹¹ teaching the people to use them in defense would have been a different task. If Zoram was a naʿar with military experience, he could have been relied upon to teach the people how to properly wield such a sword.

This interpretation of the textual evidence suggests that Zoram, used to being the right-­hand man of an important official, transferred his loyalty to Nephi.¹¹² Additionally, Zoram took an oath: “And he promised that he would go down into the wilderness unto our father. Yea, and he also made an oath unto us that he would tarry with us from that time forth” (1 Ne. 4:35). We know that the family divided after Lehi’s death. Nephi was the individual who received Zoram’s oath (1 Ne. 4:32–33). It was Nephi who communicated to Zoram the righteousness of their cause—which, as he tells Zoram, the Lord commanded them to accomplish (1 Ne. 4:34). It is certainly possible that Zoram considered that his oath was made specifically to Nephi, rather than to the group generally, or to any of Nephi’s brothers.¹¹³ As stated previously, a naʿar was known for his loyalty, even unto death. In addition to Zoram’s righteousness (mentioned specifically by Lehi; 2 Ne. 1:31), Zoram’s loyalty to Nephi could be the result of Zoram seeing Nephi as the rightful ruler over the people. Lehi designated Nephi as the appropriate ruler over the family due to Laman and Lemuel’s unrighteousness.¹¹⁴ When leaving the Lamanites, Nephi takes with him the sword of Laban, a symbol of authority that Zoram would have recognized and respected.

“Thou Hast Been Faithful”

It is difficult to believe that Zoram shared in Laban’s extraordinary wickedness and was suddenly reformed upon hearing Nephi’s oath.¹¹⁵ Zoram, as far as we know, did not waver or ever side with Laman and Lemuel. There are no references to him expressing doubt or dismay. While we do not know the selection process for Zoram’s position, we can easily discern he must have been an officer of great distinction and trust. Whether or not his faithfulness played any role in determining whether he was the chief naʿar of the commander of the fortress, it is certainly a strong part of his legacy that cannot and should not be ignored.

Zoram’s Descendants Appear to Be a Military People

The descendants of Zoram were regularly noted as being great warriors or a warlike people, and it is not uncommon in the Book of Mormon to find military men bearing the name “Zoram.” For example, during the eleventh year of the reign of the judges, after a period of peace, the Lamanites surprise the Nephites with an attack: “For behold, the armies of the Lamanites had come in upon the wilderness side, into the borders of the land, even into the city of Ammonihah, and began to slay the people and destroy the city. And now it came to pass, before the Nephites could raise a sufficient army to drive them out of the land, they had destroyed the people who were in the city of Ammonhiah . . . and taken others captive into the wilderness” (Alma 16:2–3). The Nephites turn to their chief captain, a man named Zoram (Alma 16:5). Zoram and his two sons ask Alma where they should go to find the captive Nephites (Alma 16:5). Inspired by the Lord, Alma is able to direct Zoram where to go (Alma 16:6). Zoram and his sons, together with their armies defeat the Lamanite army and retrieve the captives (Alma 16:8). While we do not know this chief captain Zoram’s lineage, it is curious that the name was given to a great warrior and military leader.

John Tvedtnes argues convincingly that the Zoramites were indeed a separate tribal people from the other named tribes of the descendants of Lehi. In Alma 30, the people calling themselves Zoramites defected from the Nephite people. Tvedtnes proposes the possibility that these people “were really descendants of the Zoram of Nephi’s time. . . . The name of the sect’s leader may have been passed down in the family. The fact that the Zoramites all lived in the same geographical area . . . indicates that they may have been a tribe with . . . customs that differed from those of the Nephites.”¹¹⁶ This supposition appears to be confirmed when a specific point is made that Amalickiah and Ammoron, of those Zoramite defectors, are identified as direct descendants of Zoram.¹¹⁷

Additionally, the recounting of the wars of the Amalickiah period certainly hint at the Zoramites being of what Tvedtnes calls a “military caste.”¹¹⁸ The record states “the Nephites greatly feared that the Zoramites would enter into a correspondence with the Lamanites, and that it would be the means of great loss on the part of the Nephites” (Alma 31:4). It is certainly possible that the defection of the Zoramites was seen as dangerous simply because they would have inside knowledge of the Nephite people. However, it’s also possible that this great fear was due to the military capabilities of the Zoramites. Such capabilities seem to be confirmed when the violence breaks out and Zoramites are at the fore.

For example, when Amalickiah joins the Lamanites, the Lamanite king is quick to entrust Amalickiah with a portion of his army (Alma 47:3). One may reasonably presume that Amalickiah was either already known to possess or had demonstrated some military knowledge to be so entrusted. Thereafter, Amalickiah certainly shows military brilliance in the way he uses the men of Lehonti and orders them to surround his own army (Alma 47:13–15). Additionally, the chief captains of his army are all Zoramites: “And thus he did appoint chief captains of the Zoramites, they being the most acquainted with the strength of the Nephites, and their places of resort, and the weakest parts of their cities; therefore he appointed them to be chief captains over his armies” (Alma 48:5). These listed reasons for appointment imply that the Zoramites had military knowledge. Regular citizens may have information about the previous cities they inhabited and so on, but not necessarily where the weakest parts of defense would be. For those defectors without military knowledge, one might expect such to be informants but not necessarily military leaders.

In addition, Lamanite warriors might not have submitted to the Zoramite chief captains if they were seen as just mere citizens with valuable information. The genealogy of certain military leaders seems to be a particular point. “And it came to pass they sent embassies to the army of the Lamanites . . . to their leader, whose name was Jacob. . . . But behold Jacob . . . was a Zoramite.” And then again, “And it came to pass that Jacob, being their leader, being also a Zoramite, and having an unconquerable spirit, he led the Lamanites forth to battle with exceeding fury against Moroni” (Alma 52:20, 33). Tvedtnes states, “The Zoramites had likely been military leaders among the Nephites prior to the their defection to the Lamanites. . . . In [Alma], we learn that it was the Zoramite chief captains who had introduced shields, breastplates, and armor . . . to the Lamanites. These implements had aided the Nephites during previous battles against the Lamanites.”¹¹⁹ The apparent military tradition of the Zoramites as a people, relied upon by both the Nephites and the Lamanites, is consistent with the possibility of Zoram being the chief naʿar to the commander of the fortress at Jerusalem.

3. Conclusion

Laban’s position in ancient Israel may have been the commander of the fortress in Jerusalem. An elite military position such as this would very likely have included neʿarim. As one of the neʿarim usually outranked the rest of the group, the commander of the fortress would have had one particular naʿar that was his chief naʿar, or right-­hand man. The use of the word servant as it applies to Zoram aligns much more closely with the military definition of naʿar than with the more superficial and regularly used definition of a young boy. As chief naʿar, Zoram was entrusted with stewardship over a specific portion of one of Laban’s significant responsibilities—the keys to the treasury. Zoram felt comfortable discussing Laban’s nighttime meeting with the elders of the Jews, and he married the eldest of Ishmael’s daughters. All these facts incline one away from the idea that, as a naʿar, Zoram was just seen as a young boy.

Once he joined Lehi’s family, Zoram was still repeatedly and regularly referred to as “the servant of Laban,” which was most likely used to acknowledge his prior important position. If he was a man from a noble family with extensive military training, responsibilities, and high position, readers can see why an entire people were called after his name. The military legacy seen in Zoram’s descendants also points to his military position in Jerusalem. Since Nephi mentions that Zoram came with him when he separated from Laman and Lemuel, even before he mentions blood members of his own family, we can infer that Nephi held Zoram in incredibly high regard. For a man to whom so few verses were dedicated, his legacy looms large through the pages of the Book of Mormon. Whether or not Zoram was indeed the chief naʿar of the commander of the fortress, the thorough examination this article provides should result in an acknowledgement that, rather than being a minor character, Zoram was a man of knowledge, training, and position, who may have used his military background to assist in the preservation and continuation of the Nephite people. Thus, Zoram is a man worthy of an enduring legacy.