Elephantine Revisited: New Insights into the Judean Community and Its Neighbors 9781646022083

Citation preview

Elephantine Revisited

Elephantine Revisited New Insights into the Judean Community and Its Neighbors

Edited by Margaretha Folmer

Eisenbrauns   |  University Park, Pennsylvania

Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data Names: Folmer, M. L., editor. Title: Elephantine revisited : new insights into the Judean community and its neighbors / edited by Margaretha Folmer. Other titles: New insights into the Judean community and its neighbors Description: University Park, Pennsylvania : Eisenbrauns, [2022] | Includes bibliographical references and index. Summary: “A collection of essays examining the fifth-​century BCE Judean community in Elephantine in southern Egypt. Provides new insights into the origin and identity of the community as well as archaeology, criminal and family law, religious life, the Bible, and the Aramaic language”—Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2021059857 | ISBN 9781646021635 (hardback) Subjects: LCSH: Jews—Egypt—Elephantine—History—To 1500. | Aramaic language— Egypt—Elephantine. | Elephantine (Egypt)—Antiquities. | Elephantine (Egypt)—Social life and customs. | LCGFT: Essays. Classification: LCC DS121.5 .E44 2022 | DDC 932​/​.004924—dc23/eng/20211215 LC record available at https://​lccn​.loc​.gov​/2021059857 Copyright © 2022 The Pennsylvania State University All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America Published by The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA 16802–1003 Eisenbrauns is an imprint of The Pennsylvania State University Press. The Pennsylvania State University Press is a member of the Association of University Presses. It is the policy of The Pennsylvania State University Press to use acid-​free paper. Publications on uncoated stock satisfy the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Material, ansi z39.48–1992.

This book is dedicated to the memory of Ada Yardeni ‫ז״ל‬

Contents

List of Illustrations ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ix Preface������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������xi Margaretha Folmer

List of Abbreviations������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������xiii

Chapter 1.  On the Archaeological Background of the Aramaic Papyri from Elephantine in the Light of Recent Fieldwork���������������������������������������������������1 Cornelius von Pilgrim

Chapter 2.  Family Life and Law at Elephantine �������������������������������������������������17 Annalisa Azzoni

Chapter 3.  Some Aspects of Family Bonds in the Judean Community of Elephantine���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 24 Hélène Nutkowicz

Chapter 4.  Law in Elephantine: Crimes and Misdemeanors������������������������������ 36 Alejandro F. Botta

Chapter 5.  The Ostraca of Elephantine: A Further Light on the Judeans in Elephantine���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 45 André Lemaire

Chapter 6.  Elephantine and Ezra–Nehemiah������������������������������������������������������ 55 Lester L. Grabbe

Chapter 7.  Aḥiqar and Bisitun: The Literature of the Judeans at Elephantine���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 67 Reinhard G. Kratz

Chapter 8.  On Aḥiqar and the Bible�������������������������������������������������������������������� 86 Ingo Kottsieper

Chapter 9.  The Identity of the People at Elephantine�����������������������������������������106 Bob Becking

viii

Contents

Chapter 10.  The Contribution of Elephantine Aramaic to Aramaic Studies���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������124 Margaretha Folmer

Chapter 11.  Personal Names in New Aramaic Ostraca from Syene�������������������142 Bezalel Porten and André Lemaire, with contributions by Beatrice von Pilgrim and Ran Zadok and handcopies by Ada Yardeni ‫ז״ל‬ List of Contributors��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������169 Ancient Source Index����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������173 Subject Index����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 181

Illustrations

Figures 1.1. Sketch map of Elephantine in the Late Period  3 1.2. Map of investigated areas in Syene (Aswan) with indicated outline of Persian fortification wall  5 1.3. Southeastern corner of the fortified town of Syene (Area 2). Preliminary plan of Persian period with indicated findspots of Aramaic ostraca  7 1.4. Development of House M—the property of Dargamana  10 11.1. Yardeni’s drawing of ostracon 9-46-139-7/2  146 11.2. Yardeni’s drawing of ostracon 12-2-4-6/5  147 11.3. Yardeni’s drawing of ostracon 12-2-130-23/2  147 11.4. Yardeni’s drawing of ostracon 12-2-130-23/1  148 11.5. Yardeni’s drawing of ostracon 12-2-4-5/1a  149 11.6. Yardeni’s drawing of ostracon 12-2-130-22/1 (concave)  150 11.7. Yardeni’s drawing of ostracon 12-2-130-22/1 (convex)  150 11.8. Yardeni’s drawing of ostracon 12-2-4-6/3  151 11.9. Yardeni’s drawing of ostracon 12-2-4-6/1  152 11.10. Yardeni’s drawing of ostracon 12-2-4-6/4  153 11.11. Yardeni’s drawing of ostracon 12-2-130-21/3  154 11.12. Yardeni’s drawing of ostracon 12-2-4-6/2a  154 11.13. Yardeni’s drawing of ostracon 12-2-130-21/2  155 11.14. Yardeni’s drawing of ostracon 13-2-38-2/1  156 Plates 1. Ostracon 9-46-139-7/2  160 2. Ostracon 12-2-4-6/5  160 3. Ostracon 12-2-130-23/2  161 4. Ostracon 12-2-130-23/1  161 5. Ostracon 12-2-4-5/1a  162 6. Ostracon 12-2-130-22/1 (concave)  162 7. Ostracon 12-2-130-22/1 (convex)  162 8. Ostracon 12-2-4-6/3  163 9. Ostracon 12-2-4-6/1  164 ix

x

10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

Illustrations

Ostracon 12-2-4-6/4  165 Ostracon 12-2-130-21/3  165 Ostracon 12-2-4-6/2a  166 Ostracon 12-2-130-21/2  166 Ostracon 13-2-38-2/1  167 Ostracon 12-2-56-10/13  168

Preface

This collection of essays has its origins in a special session of the Society of Biblical Literature conference held in St. Andrews, Scotland, July 7–10, 2013. The session itself, was held in honor of Bezalel Porten and was organized by Kristin de Troyer. It took place on July 7–8. The essays collected here stem from the desire of the participants to make their papers available to a wider public of students and scholars. For unforeseen reasons, the publication of this volume took longer than I hoped. All the papers that were read over the two days of the session are published in this volume, with one exception. The essays in this volume bring together a wide array of approaches and subjects: archaeology (Cornelius von Pilgrim), criminal law (Alejandro Botta) and family law (Annalisa Azzoni and Hélène Nutkowicz), ostraca as an invaluable source of information for the religious life of the Elephantine Judean community (André Lemaire), Elephantine and the Bible (Lester L. Grabbe), literary works (Reinhard Kratz and Ingo Kottsieper), identity (Becking), and the Aramaic language (Margaretha Folmer). The volume also includes an article with the publication of fourteen new ostraca from Aswan (Bezalel Porten and André Lemaire, with contributions by Beatrice von Pilgrim [descriptions of the pottery], Ran Zadok [comments on the names], and Ada Yardeni ‫[ ז״ל‬handcopies]). Elephantine scholars are as diverse a community as the fifth century inhabitants of that island. While some speak of Judeans from Elephantine, others refer to them as Yehudites or Jews. Their approach to the divine name also varies. In this book, the name (as found in the Elephantine papyri) is rendered as yhw (in several cases yhh). I have tried as much as possible to avoid vocalized renderings of the divine name, except in cases where the author insisted on a vocalized version of the name for a specific reason (von Pilgrim). As to the spelling of personal names from Elephantine, I have adopted the standardized spelling used in B. Porten and J. Lund’s book Aramaic Documents from Egypt: A  Key-​Word-​in-​Context Concordance (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002). With regard to the spelling of other divine names, the SBL Handbook of Style has been followed as much as possible. Further names have generally been spelled according to the conventions of Eisenbrauns and SBL. Readers of this volume also have access to an interview that Margaretha Folmer conducted with Bezalel Porten in London on November 18, 2014. The interview xi

xii

Preface

can be found on the Eisenbrauns website (https://‌www‌.eisenbrauns‌.org‌/books​​ /titles‌/978‌-1‌-64602‌-163‌-5‌.html). In this interview, “Mr. Elephantine” speaks freely about his youth, his education, and his long career in Elephantine Studies. I would like to express my gratitude for their support to Jim Eisenbraun, former Publisher at Eisenbrauns, who immediately put his faith in this project, to his successor, Jen Singletary (Acquisitions Editor, Eisenbrauns), and to Alex Ramos (Production Editor, PSU Press). I am grateful to Kees Koomen and Paul Folmer, who filmed and edited the interview with Porten. I am also thankful to Daniel Waller, who helped with corrections to the English of several contributions. Last but not least, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Ada Yardeni ‫ז״ל‬. This book is dedicated to her memory. I know that I speak on behalf of all the contributors to this volume when I say that a book such as this could never have seen the light of day without her priceless contributions to Northwest Semitic epigraphy. We miss her every day. —Margaretha Folmer, spring 2020

Abbreviations

Grammatical and Other Abbreviations and Sigla < derives from > develops into // parallel to [  ] damaged or reconstructed text mid. middle voice obv. obverse P. papyrus pers. person pf. perfect pl. plural pref. conj. prefix conjugation r. reign rev. reverse sf. conj. suffix conjugation sg. singular sub. subject Abbreviations of Ancient Texts 1QapGen Genesis Apocryphon 4Q242 Prayer of Nabonidus A2Pa people list on the tomb inscription of Artaxerxes II Clermont-​Ganneau Elephantine ostraca in the Clermont-​Ganneau collection DB Trilingual inscription of Darius I at Bisitun DNb lower register of the Naqš-​i-​Rustam tomb inscription of Darius I DNe people list of the Naqš i-​Rustam tomb inscription of Darius I DSf Susa foundation charter of Darius I GI short Greek recension of Tobit GII long Greek recension of Tobit Hist. Herodotus, Histories LXX Septuagint xiii

xiv

PF Strom.

Abbreviations

Persepolis Fortification texts Clement of Alexandria, Stromata

Bibliographical Abbreviations AbB 12 W. H. van Soldt. Letters in the British Museum, Transliterated and Translated. Part 1. Altbabylonische Briefe in Umschrift und Übersetzung 12. Leiden: Brill, 1990. AbB 13 W. H. van Soldt. Letters in the British Museum, Transliterated and Translated. Part 2. Altbabylonische Briefe in Umschrift und Übersetzung 13. Leiden: Brill, 1994. ABD D. N. Freedman, ed. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. ABL R. F. Harper, ed. Assyrian and Babylonian Letters Belonging to the Kouyunjik Collections of the British Museum. 14 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1892–1914. AbrNSup Abr-​Nahrain Supplement Series AfO Archiv für Orientforschung AHw W. von Soden. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. 3 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1965–81. AJEC Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament AP A. E. Cowley. Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. Oxford: Clarendon, 1923. ASAE Annales du service des antiquités de l’Égypte ATANT Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments AVDAIK Archäologische Veröffentlichungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo ÄW 2 R. Hannig. Ägyptisches Wörterbuch II: Mittleres Reich und zweite Zwischenzeit. 2 vols. Mainz: von Zabern, 2006. BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research BBS L. W. King. Babylonian Boundary-​Stones and Memorial Tablets in the British Museum. London: Longmans, 1912. BE 6/1 H. Ranke. Babylonian Legal and Business Documents from the Time of the First Dynasty of Babylon, Chiefly from Sippar. The Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania 6/1. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1906. BIN 7 J. B. Alexander. Early Babylonian Letters and Economy Texts. Babylonian Inscriptions in the Collection of James B. Nies 7. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1943. BN Biblische Notizen BSOAS Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies BZAR Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

Abbreviations

CAD

CBET CHANE CIS I

COMES COS CRAI DAE DCPA DDD

DJBA

DJPA DJPA3

DMOA DNWSI DSA EAO EPE

FAT FRLANT GEA

xv

I. J. Gelb et al., eds. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. 21 vols. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1956–2010. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology Culture and History of the Ancient Near East Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum, pars prima: Inscriptiones phoenicias. Paris: Academia Inscriptionum et Litterarum Humaniorum. Paris: Reipublicae, 1881. Civitatum Orbis Mediterranei Studi W. W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger Jr., eds. The Context of Scripture. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997–2016. Comptes rendus de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-​lettres P. Grelot. Documents araméens d’Égypte. LAPO 5. Paris: Cerf, 1972. M. Sokoloff. A Dictionary of Christian Palestinian Aramaic. OLA 234. Leuven: Peeters, 2014. K. van der Toorn, B. Becking, and P. W. van der Horst, eds. Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. 2nd rev. ed. Leiden: Brill, 1999. M. Sokoloff. A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods. Dictionaries of Talmud, Midrash and Targum 3. Ramat-​Gan: Bar Ilan University Press; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. M. Sokoloff. A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic. Ramat-​Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 1990. M. Sokoloff. A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic. 3rd rev. and exp. ed. Ramat-​Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 2017. Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui J. Hoftijzer and K. Jongeling. Dictionary of the North-​West Semitic Inscriptions. 2 vols. HdO 21. Leiden: Brill, 1995. A. Tal. A Dictionary of Samaritan Aramaic. HdO 50. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Égypte Afrique & Orient B. Porten, J. J. Farber, C. J. Martin, G. Vittmann, L. S. B. MacCoull, S. Clackson, S. Hopkins, and R. Katzoff. The Elephantine Papyri in English: Three Millennia of Cross-​ Cultural Continuity and Change. DMOA 22. 2nd rev. ed. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Forschungen zum alten Testament Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments T. Muraoka and B. Porten. A Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic. HdO 32. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill, 2003.

xvi

Abbreviations

HALAT

HALOT

HAR HdO Hh

HSK IEJ JA JAOS JBL JEA JEN 6

JESHO JHS JNES JNSL JRAS JSem JSHRZ JSJ JSJSup JSOTSup JSS JSSSup KAI

Kt Hahn KUSATU LÄ LAPO

L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner. Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament. 2 vols. 3rd rev. ed. by J. J. Stamm and B. Hartmann. Leiden: Brill, 1967–95. L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated by M. E. J. Richardson. 5 vols. Rev. ed. by W. Baumgartner and J. J. Stamm. Leiden: Brill, 1994–2000. Hebrew Annual Review Handbuch der Orientalistik B. Landsberger. The Fauna of Ancient Mesopotamia. Second part, Ḫar-​ra = ḫubullu Tablets XIV and XVIII. Materialien zum sumerischen Lexikon 8/2. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1962. Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft Israel Exploration Journal Journal Asiatique Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Egyptian Archaeology E. R. Lacheman. Joint Expedition with the Iraq Museum at Nuzi, volume 6, Miscellaneous Texts. New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1939. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient Journal of Hebrew Scriptures Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society Journal of Semitics Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-​römischer Zeit Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement H. Donner and W. Röllig. Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften, volume 1, Texte. 5th enl. and rev. ed. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2002. J. Lewy. Die Kültepetexte aus der Sammlung Frida Hahn. Berlin. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1930. Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt W. Helck, E. Otto, and W. Westendorf, eds. Lexikon der Ägyptologie. 7 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1975–92. Littératures anciennes du Proche-​Orient

Abbreviations

Leš LOS MAIBL MD MDAI MDAIK MDOG NAWG.PH NIDOTTE

NRSV OBO OLA OMRO Or OTS PIHANS PLAL RA RB REJ RES

RHR RIMA 2

RlA RSO SAA 1

SAA 3

SAA 19

xvii

Lešonenu Lehrbücher orientalischer Sprachen Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-​Lettres E. S. Drower and R. Macuch. A Mandaic Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon, 1963. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-​Gesellschaft Nachrichten (von) der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philologisch-​Historische Klasse W. A. Van Gemeren, ed. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. 5 vols. Carlisle: Paternoster; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997. New Revised Standard Version Orbis biblicus et orientalis Orientalia lovaniensia analecta Oudheidkundige Mededelingen uit het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden Orientalia Oudtestamentische Studiën Publications de l’institut historique et archéologique néerlandais de Stamboul Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale Revue biblique Revue des études juives C. Clermont-​Ganneau and J.-B. Chabot, eds. Répertoire d’épigraphie sémitique. 4 vols. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1905–19. Revue de l’histoire des religions A. K. Grayson. Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC I (1114–859 BC). The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods 2. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002. E. Ebeling et al., eds. Reallexikon der Assyriologie. 15 vols. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1932–2018. Rivista degli studi orientali S. Parpola. The Correspondence of Sargon II. Part 1, Letters from Assyria and the West. State Archives of Assyria 1. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1987. A. Livingstone. Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea. State Archives of Assyria 3. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1989. M. Luukko. The Correspondence of Tiglath-​pileser III and Sargon II from Calah/Nimrud. State Archives of Assyria 19. Helsinki: Neo-​Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2012.

xviii

SAA 20

SAACT SAIS SAOC SBL SDAIK SEL SHR SJLA SyrLex

TAD TAD A

TAD B

TAD C

TAD D

TAOI 2

TAOI 3

TDOT

ThLZ TSAJ UBL

Abbreviations

S. Parpola. Assyrian Royal Rituals and Cultic Texts. State Archives of Assyria 20. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 2017. State Archives of Assyria Cuneiform Texts Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization Society of Biblical Literature Sonderschrift des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo Studie epigrafici e linguistici Studies in the History of Religions Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity M. Sokoloff. A Syriac Lexicon: A Translation from the Latin, Correction, Expansion, and Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2009. B. Porten and A. Yardeni. Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt. 4 vols. Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1986–99. B. Porten and A. Yardeni. Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt, Newly Copied, Edited and Translated into Hebrew and English, volume 1, Letters. Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1986. B. Porten and A. Yardeni. Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt, Newly Copied, Edited and Translated into Hebrew and English, volume 2, Contracts. Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1989. B. Porten and A. Yardeni. Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt, Newly Copied, Edited and Translated into Hebrew and English, volume 3, Literature, Accounts, Lists. Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1993. B. Porten and A. Yardeni. Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt, Newly Copied, Edited and Translated into Hebrew and English, volume 4, Ostraca and Assorted Inscriptions. Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1999. B. Porten and A. Yardeni. Textbook of Aramaic Ostraca from Ancient Idumea, volume 2. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2016. B. Porten and A. Yardeni. Textbook of Aramaic Ostraca from Ancient Idumea, volume 3. University Park, PA: Eisenbrauns, 2018. G. J. Botterweck, H.-J. Fabry, and H. Ringgren, eds. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Translated by J. T. Willis, G. W. Bromiley, and D. E. Green. 8 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974–2006. Theologische Literaturzeitung Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum Ugaritisch-​biblische Literatur

Abbreviations

UF VAB VOK VT VTSup VWGTh WÄS

WMANT WUNT ZÄS ZAW ZPE

xix

Ugarit-​Forschungen Vorderasiatische Bibliothek Veröffentlichungen der Orientalischen Kommission Vetus Testamentum Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie A. Erman and W. Grapow, eds. Wörterbuch der aegyptischen Sprache. 7 vols. Leipzig: Hinrichs; Berlin: Akademie-​Verlag, 1926–63. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik

Chapter 1

On the Archaeological Background of the Aramaic Papyri from Elephantine in the Light of Recent Fieldwork Cornelius von Pilgrim It is a rare case in historical research when epigraphic data can be directly linked with archaeological structures on site. Various disciplines may then inevitably benefit from each other when inscrutable expressions are contrasted with local conditions and archaeological features, whereas silent witnesses such as layers, bricks, and walls regain life through their historically known context. It is the wealth of information provided by the Aramaic Elephantine papyri that offers this unique opportunity for a better understanding of the town of Elephantine in the Persian period and some of its inhabitants. Corrupt letters and illegible words, however, impede proper readings of the texts similarly, as it is the poor state of preservation that hinders the full reading of the soil and the interpretation of archaeological features. The ancient town of Elephantine has particularly suffered a loss from destruction in ancient as well as in modern times. It is represented today by an irregular mound with a maximum height of 12 m. The upper layers containing all building periods down to the first millennium BCE have been almost entirely destroyed by the search for rich, fertilizing soil in the ruins. A steep, almost vertical cut marks the spot where sebakhin activity ceased and gives now a general impression of the superimposed settlement layers. But already in ancient times building layers of entire periods were cleared away in order to prepare the ground for new construction projects. When Elephantine eventually lost its importance in the Byzantine period, the temples in the town were destroyed, and the building material was reused in new constructions at Syene. The deplorable condition of the site is the main reason it was virtually neglected by early researchers who in those days were mainly interested in temples and tombs, inscriptions, and objects for collections. Only after the discovery of Aramaic papyri at the beginning of the twentieth century, two missions started excavations on the search for the reported Jewish temple and further documents of the Jewish and Aramean mercenaries.1 However, neither mission fulfilled their expectations, although they made many collateral discoveries, such as the cemetery of the sacred rams and a pyramid of the Third Dynasty, which was erroneously interpreted as the substructure of the Jewish temple by the French excavators. In retrospect, however, the inadequately recorded work contributed much to a further loss of information. Scientific excavation only started in 1954, when the Swiss Institute for Architectural and Archaeological Research on Ancient Egypt began to work at the late Temple of Khnum. Finally, in 1969 the German Archaeological Institute and the Swiss Institute started a longterm 1.  An overview on the research history of Elephantine and Syene is given in von Pilgrim 2011, 63–96.

1

2

Elephantine Revisited

project to investigate the town site in all its aspects, a project that continues until today.2 A further search for the historically reported buildings of the Persian period was not among the main objectives of the mission. Only in the framework of a broader study of the structure and development of the town did this question again become the focus of attention. The initial point was the discovery of a short segment of an enclosure wall to the north of the late Khnum Temple that was tentatively dated to the Twenty-​Seventh Dynasty. Excavations on the southwestern side of the temple, however, were confronted with a sequence of thick layers ranging from the Ptolemaic period to the ninth century CE that superimposed structures to be correlated with the same enclosure wall. Excavations conducted between 1996 and 2003 contributed to a better understanding of the topographical information provided by the Aramaic Elephantine papyri and eventually led to the identification of the Yahu Temple (von Pilgrim 1998, 485–97). Further research, however, had to await the completion of all excavations in the superimposing strata that was not achieved until 2013. Work in the Late Period strata was resumed in spring 2014 and focused on the sequence and chronology of enclosure walls of the Khnum Temple precinct and its relation to the Jewish temple. The current work further demonstrates that the settlement of the Persian period and the quarter of the mercenaries in particular are only to be understood in the context of the general urban development of Elephantine.

The General Structure of the Town The formative presuppositions reaches back to earliest times, as the town is located on the southern tip of an elongated island that is the result of a long geomorphological process. At the beginning of historic times, the island consisted of several granite ridges forming separate islands, and the ancient town developed at first on the isle to the southeast. The starting point of the long-​lasting urban history of Elephantine was the foundation of a fortress during the First Dynasty. Not before the Second Dynasty the settlement area outside the fortress—and subsequently the northern tip of the island—was enclosed with a town wall. Its course was clearly determined by the topography and followed an irregular line. On a western island, a royal complex was built in the Third Dynasty, followed by a necropolis and temporary domestic installations. As early as the Third Dynasty, an extramural settlement developed, and as soon as the valley between both islands filled up, this settlement reached a size twice as large as the formerly fortified town in the east. During the second millennium, when Elephantine had lost its status as a border town, the town extended as an open settlement. A town wall was only built during the reign of Sesostris III and disappeared again at the beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty. However, until the end of the Pharaonic period, the general town structure of Elephantine was strongly determined by these historic roots, and the earlier development on two separate islands or mounds. Due to the persistence of the major temples and institutions on their original locations, the town was divided into two major sectors. On one side existed what 2.  References on all publications related to the project are given in the latest report (see Seidlmayer et al. 2016, 197; see also http://​www​.swissinst​.ch​/html​/elephantine​.html.

Archaeological Background of the Aramaic Papyri

3

Figure 1.1.  Sketch map of Elephantine in the Late Period. Graphics: C. von Pilgrim, © Swiss Institute Cairo.

could be interpreted as an official district with the temples and royal institutions on the eastern mound. This sector included the temenos of the Satet Temple, the newly founded temple for the god Khnum, located in the center of this old part of the town, the governor’s palace to the south of it, a constantly growing sanctuary for a deified governor of the Old Kingdom named Heqaib, and other cult installations such as the Nile Festival Courtyard of the Satet Temple to the north of it. The residential quarters, however, spread on the western mound and in the valley between the two mounds, respectively. These sectors were separated by the town’s central main street (fig. 1.1), which runs on the line that corresponds with the western edge of the former eastern island (von Pilgrim 2010, 257–65).

4

Elephantine Revisited

The persistence of this street is extraordinary and lasted for about two thousand years. The street dates back to the Sixth Dynasty and was kept on the same line until the Thirtieth Dynasty when the enlarged rebuilding of the Khnum Temple caused a major change of the general town structure. The significance of this main street is also evident from its growing width. Whereas in the Old Kingdom a width of 2 m is attested, it was widened up to 3 m in the Middle Kingdom. In the Ramesside period, it was widened again to a width of 5 m and might have been a central processional route in the town. Only at the beginning of the Third Intermediate Period, when the Nubian Kingdom of Kush again threatened Egypt, was Elephantine refortified. The ruins of the fortifi­ cation have long been misdated to the Byzantine period. This led to an odd contradiction that, although a strong garrison including mercenaries was well known from the Elephantine papyri in the Late Period, no traces of any fortification appear to have survived. Based on a recent reinvestigation of the chronology of the town walls, we may now correct this earlier assessment. In fact, a much stronger wall replaced the older one of the Twenty-​First Dynasty and was built on top of it, and all subsequent phases of repairs and additional buttresses are to be dated to the Late Period (von Pilgrim 2013, 203–8). Evidence for limited restoration measures of the fortification during the Persian period can be found at the steep eastern edge of the town—and here it might be assumed that the work was executed by non-​Egyptian builders, most probably by those foreign mercenaries who were themselves garrisoned in Elephantine. This is because the wall is repaired with square bricks, which are alien in Egyptian architecture but commonly used in Mesopotamian and Iranian architecture.3

Syene Elephantine primarily monitored the river access into Egypt. But it was almost impossible to control the land route, which was hardly visible from the island. As early as the Middle Kingdom, a twin town on the mainland developed, well known in the Late Period as the fortress of Syene. No proper archaeological research has ever been conducted in Aswan, for the ancient town was overbuilt by the modern town during the late nineteenth century. In addition to their investigations on Elephantine, the Swiss Institute started in 2000 a joint archaeological mission with the local Inspectorate of the Ministry of Antiquities on the east bank of Aswan.4 The project’s focus is to make not only a thorough investigation of the few protected antiquities areas (Area 1–Area 3) but also systematic salvage excavations in all current construction sites in the modern town 3.  Spencer 1979, 50, 143. A square brick of same dimensions (36 × 36 × 12 cm) was recently found in the backfill of the robber’s trench of the northern wall of Enclosure D, indicating buildings in Persian construction methods also in the center of the town. 4.  The project is headed by the author and the acting Director General of the Aswan inspectorate of the Ministry of Antiquities. Work is directed in the field by Wolfgang Müller to whom I owe further details on the findspots of the newly discovered Aramaic ostraca. Annual reports of the excavations are available online at http://​www​.swissinst​.ch​/html​/forschung​_neu​.html.

Archaeological Background of the Aramaic Papyri

5

Figure 1.2.  Map of investigated areas in Syene (Aswan) with indicated outline of Persian fortification wall. Graphics: W. Müller, © Swiss Institute Cairo.

(fig. 1.2). In respect to the subject of this essay, the following results may be of particular importance. In a rescue operation in 2005, the glacis wall of a fortress dating to the Persian period (at the latest) was encountered in a deep sondage (Area 13a: fig. 1.2). It indicates clearly the location of a separate fortress to the south of the town. A large number of arrowheads of various shapes found in the layers above the rampart as well as in all other layers of the Persian period in the town further confirm a strong military presence at Syene. Unfortunately, the main part of the fortress today lies deep beneath a major road and is inaccessible for any further excavation (von Pilgrim et al. 2008, 313–14).

6

Elephantine Revisited

The town proper spread farther north and was fortified during the Persian period. The southeastern corner of the fortification is well preserved in one of the few protected antiquities zones of Aswan (Area 2). The town wall had a width of up to 9 m and was constructed in an exceptional technique. The lower part was built with undressed pieces of granite, the upper part with mudbricks (Müller 2012, 5–12). Another segment of the wall was uncovered in two rescue excavations (Areas 36 and 46) and proves the extent of the fortified town toward the north (Müller 2009, 11–13; 2010, 198–99). The eastern limit of the fortified town was located in a salvage excavation (Area 15) in the center of the town and indicates an elongated trapezium shape of the whole fortification (von Pilgrim et al. 2008, 315–18). Recent investigations in Area 2 have shown that the fortification was built in the Persian period, and the uncommon construction technique may be taken as an indication for a non-​Egyptian nature of this building project. The houses of Stratum G in Area 2—as well as in Stratum J in Area 15—correspond widely in shape and layout to the houses of the so-​called Aramean quarter in Elephantine (Bauschicht 4) and may have been built for a similar group of inhabitants (Müller 2015, 7–8). Direct evidence for the presence of the Persian army and foreign mercenaries were met in the domestic quarter of the earliest stratum (G) contemporary to the fortification wall in Area 2 (fig. 1.3). Fourteen Aramaic ostraca inscribed with single names prove the presence of Assyrians, Phoenicians, Iranians, and other foreigners among the inhabitants of the town. One of these provides also a direct link to the contemporary and well-​known Aramean community in the twin fortress at Elephantine island.5 The majority of ostraca were found in two groups in aeolian sand accumulations along the outside of the eastern town wall (findspot nos. 12-2-130 and 12-2-4). Two additional pieces were found in the context of Building 4, the southeasternmost house inside the fortified area (12-2-5610/13 and 13-2-38-2/1). Only one piece (9-46-139-7/2) comes from another excavation area in the town. It was found in debris on the inside of the fortification wall in Area 46, a findspot that may further emphasize the link between the fortification of Syene and the Persian army in this period (Müller 2009, 11–12). Excavations in Area 2 were completed in April 2015. Numerous Aramaic ostraca from the same quarter may provide further information about the houses and their inhabitants in Stratum G. Of utmost significance, however, is a group of folded papyri discovered in Building 2 in the spring of 2014. The Aramaic script and an associated Achaemenid sealing place them in the same context as the ostraca from the same stratum (von Pilgrim and Müller 2014, 3, 7).6

The Houses of the Persian Period The houses of the Persian period (Bauschicht 4) in Elephantine are located in the center of the town to the (north)west of the Khnum Temple of the Thirtieth Dynasty. 5.  Cf. the discussion of the ostraca by Bezalel Porten and André Lemaire in chapter 11. 6.  According to the expertise of a conservator with special knowledge, however, the extremely fragile condition of the papyri does not allow us to unfold the rolls, leaving us to wait for virtual methods of deciphering. I am grateful to the director of the Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung Berlin Friederike Seyffried for their support and especially to the conservator Myriam Krutzsch for her careful evaluation of the archive.

Archaeological Background of the Aramaic Papyri

7

Figure 1.3.  Southeastern corner of the fortified town of Syene (Area 2). Preliminary plan of Persian period with indicated findspots of Aramaic ostraca. Graphics: W. Müller, © Swiss Institute Cairo.

They were discovered by Otto Rubensohn and properly investigated during the late 1980s by Achim Krekeler (1990, 214–17). If we compare these houses of the Persian period with those in the preceding building layer (Bauschicht 5), the difference in the organization of the urban setting and in the type of houses becomes obvious. Since the Old Kingdom, houses in the domestic quarters of Elephantine were usually grouped together in larger blocks, each house sharing its walls with neighboring houses. The blocks were not arranged in a regular pattern, so that the streets do not follow the same line for more than two blocks. The houses differ in size and shape, but there are two basic types of houses: courtyard houses (Hofhäuser) and tripartite houses (Dreistreifenhäuser; von Pilgrim 2003, 190–204). In Bauschicht 4, the urban pattern is different, and a new type of house dominates the architecture. Houses with a comparably small floor space were erected as solitary

8

Elephantine Revisited

buildings on separate building lots. They were built wall to wall or were separated from each other by small alleys, which were not public ground. Staircases and the thickness of the walls as well as the limited number of rooms in the ground floor leave no doubt about that the houses had several stories. Such tower houses reflect not only a new organization of urban space but a completely different concept of housing. A separation of storage rooms and work areas in the basement and living rooms in the upper floors as well as a lack of inner courtyards are two of the characteristic features. Compared to the rural origin of typical Egyptian houses, these are true town houses. Since it was evident that some of these houses were inhabited by foreigners, it was always taken for granted that this new house type was also introduced by them. This assumption, however, causes serious problems since we cannot trace any comparable contemporary house types elsewhere, which might serve as a prototype. In fact, in the ancient Near East the courtyard house also continues to be the most common type of house. It is a given fact that the advantage of tower houses is that they provide the same living space on a reduced building area.7 The preference for this type of house may therefore be caused by a radical increase of population, which may be directly linked with the influx of foreign mercenaries in the Late Period. The number of the foreign troops garrisoned at Elephantine and Syene, for instance, has been estimated at about five hundred households at minimum (Porten 1968, 31–32). All of them had to be accommodated in a short period of time. As we can see in Elephantine, they were given houses in which to take up residence with their families not in an isolated precinct but in the middle of the town. This was not possible without a radical intervention in the growth of the urban structures. It required a totally new parceling out of the living quarters, ignoring the older pattern of properties and building lots, in order to increase the number of separate building lots and thus provide each family with its own plot of land. The layout of the “Aramean quarter,” however, does not show any planned, state-​organized building program. The houses are not uniform in their plan and were apparently built to meet the needs of the individual family, but the limited area did not leave more space than for a very modest house for each owner. On a closer look, however, one can see that not all houses were tower houses from the beginning. In fact, we can trace back most of the houses to the most typical plan of an Egyptian house of small size, known since the age of the pyramids: the so-​called “Dreiraumgruppe” or “three-​room house.”8 In the course of time, however, some of them were divided to provide further apartments. The lack of floor space, however, could not be compensated by an enlargement of the house—only by a vertical extension. Accordingly, staircases were then installed and multi-​story houses came into being in order to increase the living space. A good example of this process can be shown by the development of House M. At the beginning, the house consists of three rooms showing a simple Egyptian type of house. Later on, the house was divided into two separate parts, both equipped with a staircase now indicating a multi-​story building (Krekeler 1988, 171–74). It is interesting to note that the Egyptians gradually adopted this new kind of house and that tower houses became the standard during the Ptolemaic period. Although it 7.  On the Egyptian townhouse and its later development, see Arnold 2003, 186–91. 8.  See Type B in Bietak 1996, 23–43.

Archaeological Background of the Aramaic Papyri

9

was not the mercenaries who imported the idea of this new type of house, the massive influx of foreign groups to be settled in the restricted space of fortified towns acted in a sense as a catalyst for this change that finally led to a new appearance of Egyptian towns and a new concept of housing. The main source of information about the mercenaries—who lived in these houses—and about the cosmopolitan society on Elephantine in general is provided by the Aramaic papyri from Elephantine. In the deeds and conveyances, the urban context of the houses is well defined and the houses are located according to their four boundaries. These are designated “east” and “west,” and “above” and “below.” All attempts to produce a schematic reconstruction of the specific town quarter suffered for a long time from the unresolved meanings of above and below, specifically whether above means north or south. Accordingly, a number of differing sketches were offered. It was Bezalel Porten who at first took into consideration the orientation of the available structures on the island and presented a most reliable proposal (Porten 1961, 38–42). Moreover, since the orientation of the settlement is diagonal to the compass points, it became clear that the scribes were as confused as some archaeologists in the past, who sometimes designated the northwestern side of a house as “north” and sometimes as “west.”9 The general structure is clear: the houses of the Aramaic mercenaries were located on the northwestern and northeastern side of the Jewish temple, separated from each other by a public street. The temple in turn was situated on the northwestern side of another public street that served as a processional way and possibly was bordered by the temenos of the Khnum Temple. However, at the beginning the small number of archaeologically attested buildings of the Persian period made it impossible to correlate the rich data with the fragmentary archaeological town plan—all the more since the location of the contemporary Temple of Khnum in the Late Period was unknown. Only after the investigation of the older history of the temple precinct began did the town plan of the Late Period settlement gradually become apparent and led to an identification of many structures mentioned in the papyri, including the Temple of Yahu (von Pilgrim 1998). The contemporary Temple of Khnum—of which mainly the sand-​filled foundation pits and trenches have survived—was located much farther to the east, beneath the courtyard of the Greco-​Roman temple (von Pilgrim 2005, 38–43). It was surrounded by an enclosure wall, which ran only at a short distance from the temple. During the New Kingdom, the administration of the temple and the economic institutions with large granaries and magazines extended to the south and to the west of the temple as far as the central main street, which had divided the town for about one thousand years. The localization of the temple precinct of Khnum and of the most significant main street of the town was the key to correlating the schematic plan produced from the descriptions in the documents with the actual town plan. Accordances in archaeological features and details provided by textual evidences are suitable to confirm this general correlation. Since the documents span a period of several decades they also reflect the changes of boundaries and property holders and the urban setting of the whole quarter. 9.  To simplify reading, in the excavation reports (and in this paper) the northwestern side is conventionally designated west.

10

Elephantine Revisited

Figure 1.4.  Development of House M—the property of Dargamana. Graphics: C. von Pilgrim, © Swiss Institute Cairo, after Krekeler 1988, fig. 12.

The houses mentioned in the documents of both family archives group into three separate clusters, one around the house of Ananyah, and two around the houses inherited by Mibṭaḥyah. The close vicinity of all clusters is indicated by the attested relation of some houses to the Temple of Yahu and to the so-​called “way/town of Khnum.” The houses dealt with in the archive of Ananyah, north of the Yahu Temple, are no longer preserved, but the reconstructed arrangement, which takes account of the mentioned dimensions of some of the houses, fits perfectly in the available space between the town’s main street and the preserved part of House G. The houses of the uncovered Aramaic Quarter to the west of the Yahu Temple are to be identified with those dealt with in the archive of Mibṭaḥyah. The documents cover a period of fifty-​four years from 471 until 416 BCE, representing two generations. The house of Mibṭaḥyah herself is to be identified with House MA. Although no more than the outer walls are preserved at the steep edge of the mound, the identification is beyond any doubt. The dimensions of the house are given in two documents—13 cubits and 1 handbreadth by 11 cubits—and correspond exactly with the dimensions of the preserved remains of the house. Moreover, another piece of evidence derives from the attested development of the house. In the older documents related to this property, the house was disused and probably partly collapsed. Twelve years later, however, when Mibṭaḥyah received the house from her father Maḥseyah, it was mentioned that the northern house belonging to Dargamana now adjoined it—a change that indeed reflects the archaeologically attested development. After an internal modification of the northeastern House M, it was extended to the south and overbuilt the little alley that originally separated both houses (fig. 1.4; see Krekeler 1988, 170–74).

The Yahu Temple On the eastern side of the street along this cluster of houses we find the temple precinct of Yahu (fig. 1.1: F). It was surrounded by an enclosure wall, of which the lower part on

Archaeological Background of the Aramaic Papyri

11

its western side was constructed as a retaining wall, in order to consolidate the higher level nearer the houses. The temple was built in the traditional Egyptian way with sun-​dried mud-​bricks and stood on a slightly raised platform of which the western limit is still preserved. Not much is left of the temple proper. A brick-​paved floor limited by one-​meter wide walls is the main feature. Some additional bricks and traces of walls were uncovered between the deep foundations of the later Khnum Temple, indicating at least one more room to the north. The walls of the temple were carefully built with newly made large rectangular bricks. In the pavement, however, numerous square bricks are used. Most of them seem to be fragments of formerly rectangular bricks deliberately reused in the pavement of the new temple. The courtyard’s surface consisted of a well-​made mud-​floor. Two distinct phases can be discerned, both covered with a layer of pure windblown sand. It is very possible that the accumulation of sand may be connected with both periods when the temple was abandoned: the first after its destruction in 410 BCE and the second after its final abandonment sometime after 399 BCE. A religious function for the building is a priori indicated by some specific architectural features, such as the dimensions of the walls and the overall setting within a wide courtyard. Furthermore, the litho-​stratigraphy, consisting only of floors and windblown sand without any accumulations of debris, waste, and discarded objects also strongly points to a nondomestic function. The scant architectural remains, however, impede any typological classification of the temple plan. Nevertheless, the general plan shows a certain resemblance to a Syrian “Langraumtempel” type, known for example from the temple buildings II and XVI at Tell Tayinat in northwestern Syria (Harrison and Osborne 2012, 125–43), which occasionally are taken as a basis for the hypothetical reconstructions of the Solomonic temple at Jerusalem. However, it should be emphasized that none of the salient features of this Syrian temple type have survived in the building in Elephantine, neither the distinctive columned-​porch entryway nor the flanking antae, the projecting ends of the lateral walls. Initially, the uncovered temple remains were identified with the one rebuilt in the year 406 BCE.10 However, the latest investigations revealed that they in all probability represent the original building. The reported destruction of the temple left most likely the main structure intact and did not require a complete rebuilding from scratch. A layer consisting of brick rubble and drifting sand inside the sequence of well-​made mud floors in the courtyard might have been accumulated after the destruction of the original temple in 410 BCE.

The Urban Setting The northeastern cluster of houses attested from the archive of Ananyah was located not only along a public street (“street of the king”) but also opposite a much-​debated 10.  This assumption was favored by a thick burned layer directly underneath the temple pavement. This layer, however, must now be seen in a different context.

12

Elephantine Revisited

topographical point of reference, a loanword from demotic translated either as “way of Khnum” or “town of Khnum” (Kraeling 1953, 79, 160; Porten 1968, 309). In previous analyses of the topographical data and the archaeological record, the latter meaning was preferred (von Pilgrim 2003, 302–17). This was not only due to the consideration that “town of Khnum” would be an appropriate designation for the extended precinct of the Khnum Temple but also in order to avoid the otherwise peculiar situation of a street located beside a way. Since an enclosure wall of the Khnum Temple precinct is archaeologically attested along the main street not far from the Aramaic houses, it seemed quite plausible that this term alludes to the walled temple area. In a recent article, however, Joachim Quack strictly refused this equivalence for linguistic and semantic reasons (Quack, forthcoming). The thorough argumentation requires a new model in order to explain the close relation of a street and a way. It is obvious that the “way of Khnum” corresponds to the expression “way of the god” attested in another document, and similarly refers to a processional route in the town. Quack suggests this processional route is inside the walled temple area right behind the enclosure wall. However, it is not very likely that a topographical point of reference is given that is not even visible and that a construction that dominates the district was neglected as determinant of plot boundaries. If the “street of the king” and the “way of Khnum” were each on either side of the enclosure wall, it is this wall that would have been the logical point of reference. Therefore, at present it seems to be the only solution to take the phrase literally and to deduce that both routes laid side by side. And indeed, it is not so far off to assume that a part of the public main street was marked-​off as a processional route. The structuring of public space in such a way was already attested in the northern continuation of the same street but about 1,400 years earlier (von Pilgrim 1996, 124–26, fig. 43). In one phase of Bauschicht 13, the center of the main street in front of the sanctuary of Heqaib (as well as in front of the Nile Festival courtyard) was delimited on either side with narrow walls. The confined space in the middle was equipped with a sequence of exceptionally well-​made mud floors that gives evidence to understand this section of the street as a processional way. The significance of the main street as a determinant of the town structure is evident. Therefore it is vitally important to understand the development and appearance of the street in relation to the adjacent buildings and constructions in the Late Period. The limited access to the relevant strata, however, hampered a complete investigation during the first phase of excavation. Any further investigation of the layers of the Late Period had to await the completion of the excavation of the well-​preserved Late Roman houses superimposing the area in question to the south of the late Khnum Temple. After this task had been achieved, work was resumed in the western precinct of the Late Period Khnum Temple in spring 2014. The archaeological record, however, is extremely fragmentary. The earlier layers of the Late Period had suffered extensive destructions during the construction of the Khnum Temple in the time of Nectanebo II. Only bits and pieces of foundations from various enclosure walls have survived, lacking any floor levels and other layers contemporary to the walls. A meticulous analysis of the available stratigraphy and new results, however, produced new data that now allow for the correction of some previous assumptions even though final conclusions must await the end of still ongoing investigations.

Archaeological Background of the Aramaic Papyri

13

In search of an eastern wall of the enclosure of the Yahu Temple a puzzling situation was met when a first sondage was dug in 1999 and remains of three thick enclosure walls were uncovered side by side (von Pilgrim 2003, 302–17). The easternmost one (M329) is in alignment with the southwestern corner of an enclosure that extends to the east. This enclosure is clearly connected to the Khnum Temple and thus was interpreted as a western extension of the Khnum Temple precinct. Scarce remains of another thick wall are preserved along its western side (M500). The building technique and the wall’s appropriate distance to the Yahu Temple reasoned the assumption that this wall may be identified as the eastern sector of the temple’s enclosure wall. Finally, there is a massive wall at the western end of the trench (M495). It shows traces of a second construction phase (M490) and borders the eastern limit of the main street. Further segments of the same wall show up at a distance of 30 m to the north indicating its enormous length (fig. 1.1: C). In a first model of explanation, this wall was correlated with the so-​called “protection wall” (hanpana) mentioned in two Aramaic documents (von Pilgrim 2003, 302– 17). New investigations at the eastern side of the wall, however, let us now correct this interpretation. The preserved lower part of the wall (M495) shows clearly that it was built as a retaining wall indicating a higher level at its west side. There, all layers are cut by the construction of the wall. At the other (eastern) side, however, a sequence of muddy surfaces deriving from the construction of the wall, and subsequently dumped layers of debris adjoin the wall. Accordingly, a street must not be assumed at its eastern side but at its western side where actually the main street was located ever since. If one additionally considers the significant width of the wall and its enormous length, the wall must hence be explained as an earlier perimeter wall of the quarter to the east— that is, the precinct of the Khnum Temple. The enclosure’s date of construction can be deduced from its stratigraphic position as well as from a first assessment of pottery shards and mud sealings collected from the debris adjoining the wall. Accordingly, the enclosure was built in the Twenty-​Sixth Dynasty but not earlier than during the reign of Amasis. It presumably not only surrounded the Temple of Khnum but also included the Satet Temple in a large sacred district. It is tempting to assume that the advent of larger contingents of soldiers and mercenaries in the town created the impetus to wall in the temple precincts, but due to the lack of contemporary settlement layers any connection between these events must be left open for the moment. The identification of a walled temple area to the east of the central main street in the Saite period is a major step forward in understanding the basic structure and development of the town and has inevitably serious implications to earlier considerations regarding the spatial relationship between the Khnum Temple and the “Aramean quarter” further to the west. Provided that the Saite temple enclosure was not destroyed before the new temple project of Nectanebo II had started, all uncovered structures of the Late Period to the east of the main street were buildings inside the temenos of Khnum. This is particularly true for the remains of a broad wall (M500) next to the Saite enclosure wall, which so far had been taken as possible relics of an eastern enclosure of the Yahu Temple. The same also accounts for the enclosure initially taken as a western extension of the Khnum Temple precinct (M329; von Pilgrim 2003, fig. 1). This enclosure

14

Elephantine Revisited

was evidently built later than the Saite temenos and actually surrounded only a limited district to the southwest of the Khnum Temple (fig. 1.1: D). Whereas the northern corner was clearly identified during targeted investigations in spring 2015, only a short segment of the northeastern side of the enclosure escaped the destruction in the time of Nectanebo II. Most of the deep-​reaching wall foundations were entirely robbed for the recovery of bricks as raw material, so that only the foundation trench (or robbers’ trench, respectively) indicates the former line of the wall. Since no contemporary layers are preserved inside the enclosure, the function of this separate precinct remains unclear. Another separate enclosure inside the walled temenos was located farther to the north (fig. 1.1: E). As the only preserved wall segment is in the line of the western wall of the southern enclosure, it had been previously interpreted as its northern continuation. Further excavation, however, revealed a much larger wall thickness. Hence, it is most unlikely that both wall segments were part of the same structure. A stone foundation at its northern and eastern side proves that the wall ended here with a gate (von Pilgrim 1999, 118–24). A gate at its eastern side, however, may now be excluded since in the same line farther to the east the foundation pit of a small Saite temple was discovered (fig. 1.1: B). On the other hand, a gate at its northern end would well correspond to a second gate farther to the east at the western corner of the Satet temenos. A processional route, 5 m wide and well paved with stone slabs, is already attested on the same line in a preceding building layer of late Twenty-​Fifth / early Twenty-​Sixth Dynasty date (von Pilgrim 2016, 27). It may be assumed that this processional route was branching off the central main street so that also in the Saite enclosure (C) a gate must be expected. The function of this enclosure (E) can be at best explained in the light of the earlier development in this quarter. It replaces an older enclosure that walled in a separate temple of the New Kingdom located to the west of the main Temple of Khnum (fig. 1.1: A). An enlargement of this separate precinct was necessary after further construction works had been conducted at the front of this temple during the reign of Psametik II (fig. 1.1: B). Due to the most recent fieldwork the basic development of the Khnum Temple precinct gradually begins to emerge. Since the New Kingdom, the precinct reached to the west as far as the central main street and was walled in during the Twenty-​Sixth Dynasty. The “Aramean quarter” and the Yahu Temple were located on the other, western side of the main street. As a matter of fact, the east wall of the Yahu Temple corresponds to the western limit of the central main street, as it overbuilds a house wall that evidently defines the street in an older stratum. Provided that the Jewish temple precinct did not expand into the street, the temple enclosure would have joined the temple proper. However, it appears quite unusual that the actual temple directly borders on public space. Therefore, it may be assumed that once the area of the former temple, which was reportedly destroyed in 410 BCE, was possibly larger and extended into the street. Any enclosure wall east of the temple would have been reducing the width of this most important street or even blocking it completely. A legal dispute would have been the logical consequence. Even if we are lacking explicit archaeological evidence, the destruction of the Yahu Temple may be at best

Archaeological Background of the Aramaic Papyri

15

explained by a litigation as already deduced from the texts by Pierre Briant (1996, 115–31; 2002, 604–5). Final conclusions, however, must await further completion of ongoing excavations. Only a thorough analysis of all available archaeological data will provide sufficient evidence for a conclusive evaluation.

References Arnold, F. 2003. Elephantine XXX: Die Nachnutzung des Chnumtempelbezirks: Wohnbebauung der Spätantike und des Frühmittelalters. AVDAIK 116. Mainz: von Zabern. Bietak, M. 1996. “Zum Raumprogramm ägyptischer Wohnhäuser des Mittleren und Neuen Reiches.” Pages 23–43 in Haus und Palast im Alten Ägypten. Edited by M. Bietak. Vienna: ÖAW. Briant, P. 1996. “Une curieuse affaire à Élephantine en 410 av.n.è.: Widranga, le sanctuaire de Khnum et le temple de Yahweh.” Pages 115–31 in Égypte pharaonique: Pouvoir, société. Edited by B. Menu. Méditerranées 6/7. Paris: Harmattan. ———. 2002. From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire. Translated by P. D. Daniels, from French. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Harrison, T. P., and J. P. Osborne. 2012. “Building XVI and the Neo-​Assyrian Sacred Precinct at Tell Tayinat.” JCS 64:125–43. Kraeling, E. 1953. The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri. New Haven: Yale University Press. Krekeler, A. 1988. “VIII. Untersuchungen im Stadtgebiet nordwestlich des späten Chnumtempels.” Pages 170–74 in W. Kaiser et al., “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine: 15​.​/16. Grabungsbericht.” MDAIK 44:135–82. ———. 1990. “IV. Stadtgebiet nordwestlich des späten Chnumtempels: Späteres neues Reich bis Spätantike.” Pages 209–24 in W. Kaiser et al., “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine: 17./18. Grabungsbericht.” MDAIK 46:185–249. Müller, W. 2009. “4. Area 46: Ptolemaic Domestic Structures and the Late Period City Wall.” Pages 9–15 in C. von Pilgrim and W. Müller, “Report on the Ninth Season of the Joint Swiss-​Egyptian Mission in Syene / Old Aswan (2008/2009).” http://​www​.swissinst​.ch​ /downloads​/Report​%209th​%20Season​_2008​-2009​.pdf. ———. 2010. “VI. Ptolemaic and Late Period Structures at the Eastern Limit of Syene (Area 36).” Pages 198–99 in C. von Pilgrim and W. Müller, “The Town of Syene: Report on the 7th Season in Aswan.” MDAIK 66:179–223. ———. 2012. “2. Investigation of the Town Wall of Syene (Area 2).” Pages 5–12 in C. von Pilgrim, W. Müller, and H. Schwaiger, “Report on the Twelfth Season of the Joint Swiss-​ Egyptian Mission in Syene / Old Aswan (2011/2012).” http://​www​.swissinst​.ch​/downloads​ /SwissInst​_Report​%20Aswan​%202012​.pdf. ———. 2015. “2. Completion of the Archaeological Investigation of the Birket Damas Area (Area 2).” Pages 5–10 in C. von Pilgrim, M. Maree, and W. Müller, “Report on the 15th Season of the Joint Swiss-​Egyptian Mission in Syene / Old Aswan (2014/2015).” http://​ www​.swissinst​.ch​/downloads​/Swiss​%20Institute​%202014​_2015​.pdf. Pilgrim, C. von. 1996. Elephantine XVIII: Untersuchungen in der Stadt des Mittleren Reiches und der Zweiten Zwischenzeit. AVDAIK 91. Mainz: von Zabern. ———. 1998. “Textzeugnis und archäologischer Befund.” Pages 485–97 in Stationen: Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte Ägyptens. Edited by H. Guksch and D. Polz. Mainz: von Zabern. ———. 1999. “X. Die Wirtschaftsbezirke des Chnumtempels im Neuen Reich und der Spätzeit.” Pages 118–24 in W. Kaiser et al., “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine: 25./26./27. Grabungsbericht.” MDAIK 55:63–236. ———. 2003. “Tempel des Jahu und “Straße des Königs”—Ein Konflikt in der späten Perserzeit auf Elephantine.” Pages 302–17 in Ägypten—Tempel der gesamten Welt /

16

Elephantine Revisited

Egypt—Temple of the Whole World: Studies in Honour of Jan Assmann. Edited by S. Meyer. Numen Book Series 47. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2005. “V. Der Chnumtempel des Neuen Reiches: Grabungsbefund und Architektur.” Pages 38–44 in G. Dreyer et al., “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine: 31​.​/32. Grabungsbericht.” MDAIK 61:13–138. ———. 2010. “Elephantine—(Festungs-)Stadt am Ersten Katarakt.” Pages 257–70 in Cities and Urbanism in Ancient Egypt. Edited by M. Bietak, E. Cerny, and I. Forstner-​Müller. Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 60. Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo des ÖAI 35. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. ———. 2011. “ ‘Anyway, We Should Really Dig on Elephantine Some Time’: A Short Tour Through the Research History of the Towns Along the First Cataract.” Pages 63–96 in Between Worlds: Finds from Tombs on Egypt’s Southern Border. Edited by L. D. Morenz, M. Müller-​Höveler, and A. El-​Hawary. Rahden: Leidorf. ———. 2013. “Die ‘Festung’ von Elephantine in der Spätzeit—Anmerkungen zum archäologischen Befund.” Pages 203–8 in In the Shadow of Bezalel: Aramaic, Biblical, and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Bezalel Porten. Edited by A. F. Botta. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2016. “3c) The Spatial Development of the Khnum Temple Precinct Before the 30th Dynasty.” Pages 26–30 in S. J. Seidlmayer et al., “Report on the Excavations at Elephantine by the German Archaeological Institute and the Swiss Institute from Autumn 2015 to Summer 2016.” https://​www​.dainst​.org​/projekt​/​-​/project​-display​/25953. Elephantine— Report on the 45th Season (English). Pilgrim, C. von, et al. 2008. “The Town of Syene: Report on the 5th and 6th Season in Aswan.” MDAIK 64:305–56. Pilgrim, C. von, and W. Müller. 2014. “Report on the 14th Season of the Joint Swiss-​Egyptian Mission in Syene / Old Aswan (2013/2014).” http://​www​.swissinst​.ch​/downloads​/Report​ %2014th​%20Season​%202013​_2014​.pdf. Porten, B. 1961. “Structure and Orientation of the Jewish Temple at Elephantine—A Revised Plan of the Jewish District.” JAOS 81:38–42. ———. 1968. Archives from Elephantine. Berkeley: University of California Press. Quack, J.-F. Forthcoming. “Stadt des Chnum oder Weg des Chnum? Zu einem Problem der historischen Topographie Elephantines.” In Essays on Elephantine. Edited by V. Lepper. Seidlmayer, S. et al. 2016. “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine: 39​.​/40​.​/41. Grabungsbericht.” MDAIK 72:197–226. Spencer, A. J. 1979. Brick Architecture in Ancient Egypt. Warminster: Aris & Phillips.

Chapter 2

Family Life and Law at Elephantine Annalisa Azzoni

The Aramaic private archives from Elephantine reveal in some detail certain facets of human life that are generally not easily accessible to the modern scholar who attempts to envision and reconstruct how ordinary people lived in the ancient world. Through these documents it is possible to get a small glimpse at the lives of a group of people in that tiny but strategically important island on the Nile. The papyri concern the lives of ordinary people, mostly connected with the military colony stationed on the island during the Persian period, and portray a multicultural and multilayered community. In this essay, I will offer an overview of their family lives, as seen through the legal documents in the archives. In the ancient world, as well as in the modern, family life and life in general depended on multiple factors, such as one’s class, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and legal status. At Elephantine we are in luck, since the documents concern different people from different walks of life, and some variations of these factors can be exposed and analyzed. The two major private family archives of Mibṭaḥyah and Ananyah are a crucial source of information in this regard, and within them the documents of wifehood are essential in understanding how marriage functioned in the establishment of families. These documents specify not only the rights and duties of the spouses vis-​à-​vis one another but also their web of interaction with families of origin and their own offspring. Through these and other legal documents in these archives, we can paint the picture of family life at Elephantine and, as expected, this picture is varied and multifaceted.

Mibṭaḥyah’s Family In Mibṭaḥyah’s archive,1 her family of origin appears to be composed by her father Maḥseyah son of Yedanyah, a member of the Judean military enclave belonging to the degel, “military unit” of Varyazata,2 his wife, who was probably also the mother of Mibṭaḥyah, a son, and Mibṭaḥyah herself. The unnamed mother and presumably adult son are mentioned in TAD B2.2 (January 2, 464 BCE), in which, together with 1.  With regard to her name, it is attested as Mibṭaḥyah and Mipṭaḥyah. I will use Mibṭaḥyah throughout for the sake of consistency. 2.  He is described as a Judean of Elephantine or an Aramean of Aswan in different documents. For a discussion of the implications, see Azzoni 2013, 107.

17

18

Elephantine Revisited

Maḥseyah, they swear an oath to yhw regarding a house plot, the ownership of which was disputed by a certain Dargamana son of Xvaršaina.3 That the three of them took an oath together, even though Maḥseyah was the only party mentioned by name at the top of the document, is an unusual occurrence, for which a few explanations may be postulated. It is possible that his wife and son were relevant in contributing testimony in support of the oath, that they were co-​owners, or that they needed to be part of the oath as interested parties in quality of future heirs. I think that the first possibility is unlikely, as in all other cases of judiciary oaths at Elephantine this was not an attested practice, and the oath was in fact presented as evidence by the person who took it, who was usually a party in the document.4 It is also unlikely that Maḥseyah’s wife and son were co-​owners of the property, since in another case where co-​ownership is attested, both co-​owners were listed as parties at the beginning of the document. In this case, in TAD B3.12 (December 13, 402 BCE), Ananyah5 and Tapmet jointly sold their house—portion of which Ananyah had previously given to Tapmet as a gift in TAD B3.5 (October 30, 434 BCE)—to their son-​in-​law. In light of this, it should be expected that, if co-​ownership was in place in the scenario envisioned in TAD B2.2, then the wife, and probably also the son, should have been listed as parties in the document. Thus, it is possible that they took the oath not as present owners but as future heirs, so that they would not be forced to dispute again the property with Dargamana after Maḥseyah’s death. If that were the case, it would be likely, and possibly even expected, that a son would inherit, and the fact that the unnamed son would be part of the oath seems unremarkable. It is different for the wife, however, as it would reflect a different possibility from the one envisioned in the attested documents of wifehood, where a wife can inherit (more specifically “have legal rights”) over her deceased husband’s property if there are no heirs from the couple. Here clearly there is a son and heir, so it is peculiar—though not impossible—that the wife would be considered a future heir. A further complicating factor is that Mibṭaḥyah was probably alive at the time when this oath was taken, as we know that this plot would be given to her just four years later in TAD B2.3 (December 1, 459 BCE), on the occasion of her presumed first marriage to Yezanyah son of Uriyah. Nevertheless, she is not mentioned in TAD B2.2, and did not participate in the oath. It is generally assumed that daughters could inherit in the Aramaic documents from Elephantine, given that “son or daughter” is generally included in waiver clauses regarding heirs, thus implying that daughters should expect to inherit like sons (Azzoni 2013, 83). Similarly, the death of a childless spouse clause in the documents of wifehood also clarifies “male or female” with regard to the children, thus implying that both male and female children should expect to inherit property. If that was indeed the case at Elephantine, then why was Mibṭaḥyah not mentioned here, while her brother, or at least half-​brother, was? I think this may be a case of discrepancy of theory versus 3.  Text numbers and dates are given here following Porten et al. 2011. 4.  For an overview of the oaths used as evidence for litigation at Elephantine, see Porten 2003, 869. 5.  As with Mibṭaḥyah, the documents alternate the spelling of their names, respectively, as Ananyah and Anani, and Tapmet and Tamet. However, in order to avoid confusion, in this essay I will use Ananyah and Tapmet, the longer and presumably full forms, throughout.

Family Life and Law at Elephantine

19

practice. Even though, as stated, in theory daughters could inherit based on the above clauses, all the attested cases of women owning immovable property occur in the Elephantine archives by bequest rather than inheritance, thus raising the possibility that the practice may not necessarily coincide with the theory, at least when real estate was involved. In one such example, as I mentioned, Mibṭaḥyah eventually became the actual owner of this house plot in anticipation of her marriage to Yezanyah, through a bequest from her father (TAD B2.3; December 1, 459 BCE). In a separate document drawn on the same day (TAD B2.4), Maḥseyah grants usufruct of the plot to Yezanyah and defines the limits of his access to the property. In this instance, it is also noteworthy that the marriage is matrilocal, rather than patrilocal, as the newlyweds will reside in the new house, ostensibly after it was fixed up and made habitable. After 459, nothing more is known about Mibṭaḥyah’s mother, her unnamed brother,6 and even her presumed first husband Yezanyah, as they are never mentioned again in the archive, but Mibṭaḥyah’s relationship with her father Maḥseyah continues to be documented. In 446 (TAD B2.7), Maḥseyah gave her a house as a bequest in repayment for goods she gave him while he was garrisoned in the fortress. At the time, Mibṭaḥyah had already been married for a second time, as attested in TAD B2.6 (October 14, 449 BCE), ten years after her first marriage with Yezanyah, who in all probability had died. That Mibṭaḥyah could and would take care of her father, presumably on economic grounds, while she was married and thus under her husband’s authority, makes it clear that she had certain latitude to act on her own, and that her ties to her family of origin were still quite strong even after her wedding. Mibṭaḥyah’s second husband was an Egyptian “builder of the king,” named Esḥor son of Djeḥo. One could speculate that the choice of an Egyptian husband, outside of the Judean military enclave, may have been determined by her status as a widow, and this could possibly also explain Mibṭaḥyah’s remarkable contractual power vis-​ à-​vis Esḥor (Azzoni 2013, 40). In this light, it is also noteworthy that both sons born out of this marriage were given Yahwistic names. They bore the names of Yedanyah and Maḥseyah, respectively, after their maternal great-​grandfather and grandfather, thus showing continuance of the family names via Mibṭaḥyah. Not only that, but it appears that at some point in his lifetime Esḥor adopted a Judean name, Natan, since this is the name by which he is called in TAD B2.10 (December 16, 416 BCE). This document yields some important information regarding inheritance, as Mibṭaḥyah’s children appear to have received a house belonging to her first husband, Yezanyah, which would have belonged to her if the death of a childless spouse clause would be followed, even though in this case there was not a document of wifehood. Once Maḥseyah and Yedanyah acquired possession of Yezanyah’s property at the death of Mibṭaḥyah, a nephew of her deceased husband tried to dispute this ownership, but had to withdraw from it, as only children of Yezanyah could claim his inheritance.7 It is noteworthy that in absence of claims from natural children, the children from a woman’s second husband could inherit from her first husband over his own relative. It is difficult to determine whether these occurrences were customary or not, but a hint 6.  It is possible that this may be Gemaryah, father of the famous Yedanyah, known for the communal correspondence regarding the Temple of yhw at Elephantine. 7.  As specified in TAD B2.10:13, 16, 17.

20

Elephantine Revisited

in favor of the latter is the fact that indeed their inheritance was questioned. Similarly, Mibṭaḥyah was also sued regarding property in connection with her second marriage, most likely by a relative of her husband Esḥor, with regard to goods connected with her document of wifehood (TAD B2.8; August 26, 440 BCE). In this case, she took an oath, remarkably not by yhw but by Satet, the Egyptian goddess of Elephantine, which settled the matter in her favor.8 The case of Mibṭaḥyah’s family is clearly that of a prominent family within the military enclave, and even though it appears that her second husband did not originally belong to this group, the documents suggest that he may have been accepted into it by virtue of his marriage to Mibṭaḥyah, and clearly their children were included in it.

Tapmet’s Family Tapmet’s family is quite different from that of Mibṭaḥyah. Tapmet was a slave of Mešullam son of Zakkur, a soldier belonging to the degel of Varyazata (just like Maḥseyah). Her status as a slave is peculiar—as she could marry and set up a family with her husband. Also exceptional is that she was given an actual document of wifehood (TAD B3.3; August 9, 449 BCE), albeit only after she had given birth to her male child, named Pilṭi. In all likelihood, the document was in fact also drawn to clarify who would have legal rights over this child. Amazingly, it is not the owner Mešullam but Ananyah son of Azaryah, a servitor of the Temple of yhw, the husband of Tapmet and the acknowledged father of Pilṭi and his sister Yehoyišmaʿ. In this unusual scenario, the woman Tapmet and her children, while being slaves of Mešullam, still formed a family unit with Ananyah. Moreover, according to the documents, the legal rights over the male child belonged to the natural father, as I just mentioned, while the rights over the female child, Yehoyišmaʿ, belonged to the mother’s owner, Mešullam, who also still had legal rights over the mother. The document of wifehood concerning Tapmet is the shortest of the three almost complete documents of wifehood in the Elephantine archives, but in some respects it is the most exceptional, as it shows a slave wife who can divorce her husband without cause and whose jointly owned property with her husband would fully revert to her in case of her husband’s death, not to her owner. Some details of this papyrus do show a difference between the status of Tapmet and that of Mibṭaḥyah and Tapmet’s daughter Yehoyišmaʿ, who, as I will explain shortly, was a free woman at the time of her marriage. Tapmet’s document does not record a mohar “bride-​price”—her dowry is of course much more meager than the dowries of the other two women—and even though she could stand up and declare “I hate my husband” in order to divorce him, she was not to do that in an assembly like her husband and the other two women could (TAD B3.3:9). Regardless, she never divorced Ananyah, and in fact she also ended up owning a portion of the house of her husband, who gave it to her as a gift to make sure she would be protected in case he should die an untimely death. The unusual status of Tapmet is further complicated by the fact that she and her daughter Yehoyišmaʿ would later be freed in a testamentary manumission document 8.  For a discussion of the reasons and implications of this oath, see Azzoni 2013, 111–19.

Family Life and Law at Elephantine

21

(TAD B3.6; June 12, 427 BCE), in which Mešullam stipulated that the two women would have to behave toward him and his son like they would toward a father and brother. This complex web of familial relationships is in the background of the document of wifehood concerning Tapmet’s daughter Yehoyišmaʿ (TAD B3.8; October 2–30, 420 BCE). In this papyrus it was her “brother” Zakkur son of Mešullam who acted as her guardian, since the groom asked him for Yehoyišmaʿ in marriage, and he is the one who gave her a dowry. While her natural father Ananyah later gave her a house—originally as a testamentary bequest in TAD B3.10 (November 25, 404 BCE) and then as a “dowry addendum” in TAD B3.11 (March 9, 402 BCE)—the legal role of giving her away is Zakkur’s, thus showing that the status of emancipated slave/ adoptee was not just pro forma. This unusual set of circumstances may be at the basis of a unique clause in this document of wifehood, in which Zakkur declares that he will not be able to change his mind about the goods he gave to Yehoyišmaʿ as a dowry and will not be able to reclaim them from her (TAD B3.8:41–42). The papyrus actually reiterates that “he is obligated” (TAD B3.8:42), thus protecting her from a possible later dispute, which would probably not have been envisioned had she been given her dowry by her father. On the other hand, Yehoyišmaʿ’s full mohar (1 karsh) and the richest dowry, even richer than Mibṭaḥyah’s, show that though her legal status may have been more delicate, and her contractual power may have been lower than Mibṭaḥyah’s, her economic value—in all likelihood determined by the fact that she was a virgin—was estimated, accordingly, to be higher than Mibṭaḥyah’s. As I have very briefly highlighted here, Tapmet’s family is of lower legal and socioeconomic status than Mibṭaḥyah’s, given that the wife is a slave and the husband a servitor of the temple. Regardless of this, both of them seem to have a remarkable range of legal protection and ability to act sui iuris, even though certain nuances can be detected in the legal clauses and ascribed to this particular status. In the case of Yehoyišmaʿ, it is notable that the connection between legal status and economic factors can also be nuanced and complicated.

Tabi’s Family Still within the realm of legal implications of the status of slave, a rather different scenario seems to be in the background for the lives of Tabi and her children (known from just one document), whose life and legal rights are closer to what we would expect for a person of this legal position. Being an Egyptian slave of Mibṭaḥyah, Tabi is never mentioned in Mibṭaḥyah’s documents during Mibṭaḥyah’s lifetime. She is only mentioned when Mibṭaḥyah’s children Maḥseyah and Yedanyah divide Tabi’s children between themselves as inheritance, about six years after Mibṭaḥyah’s death (TAD B2.11; February 10, 410 BCE). Since these slaves were never included in Mibṭaḥyah’s legal papyri, not even in her dowry, it is not clear how Mibṭaḥyah acquired Tabi and her children; it is unlikely that she bought them, as one would expect her to have evidence of the purchase. It is possible that they came to her as inheritance from her father or mother. Regardless of how they ended up becoming Mibṭaḥyah’s slaves, as far as can be discerned from the only document in which they are mentioned, Tabi and her

22

Elephantine Revisited

children’s lives must have been quite different from Tapmet’s. Tabi had three male children of whom two, Peṭosiri and Belle—both carrying a mark on their arm saying “of Mibṭaḥyah”—were divided between the two children of Mibṭaḥyah. Even though Tabi and her presumably youngest son Lilu were not divided in this document—in all likelihood because of the young age of Lilu—the papyrus announces that when the time would be right they would also be divided up, and a new document would be written regarding the arrangement. In this case, only Tabi is mentioned as a parent, and there is no mention of the paternity of the children, and the rights over them are clearly only their owners’. Even though one should be very cautious in comparing data from quite different documents, it seems evident that the status of slave impacted the families of Tapmet and Tabi in quite a different manner. While Tapmet was allowed to marry the father of her children and could with her husband have rights over her male child, she was by all accounts able to set up a family unit with her husband and children even while a slave. The latter was apparently not the case for Tabi. Furthermore, Tapmet and Yehoyišmaʿ were manumitted by their owner in a testamentary manumission (TAD B3.6), thus avoiding being transferred to Mešullam’s son Zakkur as inheritance, even though they remained connected to him as quasi adoptees. Instead, Tabi and her children were in fact separated upon their owner’s death.

Conclusions The examples above show, I think, that one must be very careful in advancing generalizations about family life at Elephantine and in assuming that what appears to be the case in one instance should be taken as a rule. The evidence from the documents is limited to specific cases and, as I hope to have briefly outlined here, certain variations surface immediately, so that one cannot discuss “family life” without accounting for nuances and differences. To make things more complicated, I think that it is likely that at Elephantine marriage documents were only necessary in atypical situations, which explains why, for example, Mibṭaḥyah’s first marriage is not recorded in the archive (Azzoni 2013, 21). Even though they follow the same format, record similar formulas, and display some similar general traits, they also present nuances and peculiarities, in many cases determined by the legal and socioeconomic status of the people involved. Some general traits can be discerned. Thus, for example, that intermarriage was commonly accepted, though some differences in social standing may be discerned between Judeans and Egyptians across gender lines. Also, all three attested marriages appear to be monogamous and reinforced by antipolygamy stipulations in two out of the three most complete documents.9 The papyri also attest that women of all socioeconomic strata and legal status could divorce their husbands without cause—even though we do not have recorded cases of one who did—and by and large they appear to allow women more rights than generally expected in an ancient Near Eastern context. 9.  TAD B2.6 and TAD B3.8. The absence of the stipulation in TAD B3.3 may be due to the particular status of slave of the bride. Nevertheless, there is hardly any doubt that this marriage was monogamous.

Family Life and Law at Elephantine

23

Having said this, it is not as apparent as commonly claimed that daughters could inherit just like sons, despite the formulas, at least insofar as real estate is concerned. Remarkably, at least in one instance sons could inherit from their mother’s deceased first husband. Furthermore, the status of slave or manumitted slave would have implications regarding the legal rights of a bride, but her status of (presumed) virgin could have a different impact on her economic “value” as a bride. And even within the same legal status, differences are apparent, as a male slave child could be released to his father—unlike his sister in one case—and all the male children in another case are left to their owners, without consideration or mention of their natural father. Thus, even though it is natural to discuss family life and legal rights of women in light of these endlessly fascinating documents, I think it is also important to remind ourselves that family life at Elephantine may have been very differentiated, depending on the family in which one was born, and that the multifaceted nature of life in this complex community may have had an impact on the lives of these ancient people. However, their lives may not necessarily be taken as a paradigm for everyone else. References Azzoni, A. 2013. The Private Lives of Women in Persian Egypt. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Porten, B. 2003. “Elephantine.” Pages 864–81 in volume 2 of A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law. Edited by R. Westbrook. HdO 72/2. Leiden: Brill. Porten, B., J. J. Farber, C. J. Martin, G. Vittmann, L. S. B. MacCoull, S. Clackson, S. Hopkins, and R. Katzoff. 2011. The Elephantine Papyri in English: Three Millennia of Cross-​Cultural Continuity and Change. DMOA 22. 2nd rev. ed. Leiden: Brill.

Chapter 3

Some Aspects of Family Bonds in the Judean Community of Elephantine Hélène Nutkowicz

In this contribution, I will try to shed light on some distinctive social and anthropological features of the Judean family at Elephantine and raise certain questions as to the substance, constituents, and social aims of this structure. The Judean family unit is known through different papyri from Elephantine, in particular the archives of Mibṭaḥyah daughter of Maḥseyah and Ananyah son of Azaryah. Sources that reveal certain family bonds include documents of wifehood (of which only three complete examples have come down to us),1 bequests of houses to wives or daughters, grants of usufruct, bequests in anticipation of death, documents of adoption and testamentary manumission, administrative lists of family units, and a collection account. The choice of brides seems to suggest a society where the majority of alliances occurred in the same geographical, social and/or familial, and professional milieu (where religious affiliation was not necessarily a factor). However, there are exceptions. There is evidence for exogamic unions between Judeans and Egyptians, but no exact rate of occurrence can be given, as the information given in the documents we possess is scarce and not always detailed enough. There seems to have been no obstacle to intermarriage between Judeans and Egyptians. Endogamy is evident from the union of Mibṭaḥyah and Yezanyah (TAD B2.4), and the unions of Abihi and Šelomam (TAD B6.3) and Salluʾah and Hošaʿyah (TAD B6.4). Yehoyišmaʿ daughter of Ananyah marries the Judean Ananyah son of Ḥaggai, who was probably a nephew of Zakkur son of Mešullam, master of Tapmet (TAD B3.8). Their union took place in a kind of newly created familial circle. No consanguineous marriage is known. Exogamy is also evident from several examples. Mibṭaḥyah, after having married a Judean, takes as her second husband the Egyptian Esḥor son of Djeḥo (TAD 2.6). The Judean Ananyah son of Azaryah marries the Egyptian handmaiden Tapmet (TAD B3.3). There is also onomastic evidence for exogamy (Nutkowicz 2008, 125–39; 2007, 211–25; 2015, 29–31). About fifteen persons from Elephantine and Syene do not bear a Hebrew name, while their children do: Aṭer father of Zakkur (TAD B2.7:3), for instance, or Mešullam son of Busasa (TAD B3.11:8) and Mardu father of Ḥaggai (TAD B3.10:26). Their mothers were probably Judeans. In the twelve cases where the father, but neither son or daughter, bears a Hebrew name, some of these instances may result from exogamic marriages—for example, Sinkišir son of Šabbetai (TAD B3.9:10) or Eswere sister of Lady Mibṭaḥyah, both daughters of Gemaryah. Eswere has an Egyptian name and her sister a Judean name (TAD B5.5:2); it would seem their mother was Egyptian 1.  TAD B2.6 (October 14, 459); TAD B3.3 (August 9, 449); TAD B3.8 (October 2–30, 420).

24

Family Bonds in the Judean Community of Elephantine

25

(TAD B5.5:2; see Porten 1968, 148–49). Anani son of Ḥaggai son of Mešullam son of Busasa (TAD B3.12:2)—the son-​in-​law of Tapmet and Ananyah—is another example of exogamy (Cohen 1966–67, 97–106; Greenfield 1981, 118; Fitzmyer 1979, 250). His great-​grandfather Busasa probably arrived in Egypt during the Persian conquest. The name Busasa is unknown in the Hebrew onomasticon, but his son Mešullam has a Hebrew name. Tapmet’s identity evolves through a series of different contracts. At first Patou’s daughter, she later becomes “Lady Tapamet, his wife, a servitor of yhw” (TAD B3.12:1–2), this sentence thus expressing her assimilation into the Judean community despite her Egyptian birth. The Egyptian Esḥor changes his name to Natan, also showing his integration into the Judean community (TAD B2.10:3). His two sons with Mibṭaḥyah have Judean names: Yedanyah and Maḥseyah sons of Esḥor/Natan. There are different ways to explain exogamy; they are not mutually exclusive. The first is affection. As Judeans lived among Egyptians, and neither population group was large, this naturally led to exogamous unions (Merton 1941, 363; Mayer 1961, 91). (The relatively peaceful political climate under the satrap Aršama before the tensions of the last decade of the fifth century also undoubtedly played a role in this regard.) Second, the Judean mercenaries could not have been aware of Ezra and Nehemiah’s reforms because of the laws’ late promulgation and because they were applicable only to the population living in Judah (Knoppers 1994, 138; Cohen 1983, 31–34). Third, the Judeans of Elephantine were probably familiar with the laws of Deuteronomy and Exodus concerning the peoples with whom exogamic marriage was forbidden (Deut 7:1–3; 25:17–19; Exod 34:11–16); this rule, however, was limited to Egyptians in the course of time, as their children were acknowledged as part of the Lord’s congregation after three generations (Deut 23:9). The validity of these exogamic unions was thus never questioned (Nutkowicz 2015, 128–29). Marriages between mercenaries and their family members seem to have been quite frequent. It appears that Mibṭaḥyah’s father and first husband were mercenaries, and so were Yehoyišmaʿ’s husband and master. Most of the Judeans stationed at Elephantine and/or Syene were mercenaries, and were also married there. Exceptions are Ananyah, who was a servitor of yhh/yhw, and Mibṭaḥyah’s second husband Esḥor, an Egyptian builder for the king. We cannot determine whether these unions were based on affection, or familial, social, and/or economic dispositions. Regardless, some unions may have been love matches. Tapmet and Ananyah’s union likely reflects this, and this may also have been true of Mibṭaḥyah and Esḥor’s union (not the fact that she was a rich widow), though familial assent and financial and economic arrangements were doubtless also additional factors. The union of a free man and a handmaiden is evidenced by the marriage of Ananyah and Tapmet. She was an Egyptian handmaiden, not yet manumitted (TAD B3.3), though her document of wifehood differs from those of free women only by way of her identification as “Tapmet by name” (TAD B3.2:3). The absence of the mohar is the sole variant; her status of handmaiden does not otherwise appear in the contract and probably did not affect her life as a married woman. Documents show that she was allowed to build an official family through marriage, to receive a bequest, to transmit her goods to her children, and eventually to divorce. Her status of handmaiden seems to have applied in relation to her master but not in other situations. The fact that she benefits from a marriage contract and other rights seems to reveal a status similar to

26

Elephantine Revisited

that of a free woman; she seems only to have been compelled to a level of servanthood in her relations to her master. The first formal procedure of any union is the marriage proposal. The bridegroom proposes marriage to the bride’s father or representative. At this time, he pronounces a formula that speaks to a degree of formalism and that sometimes contains the expression “ask for wifehood” (TAD B3.2:3; 3.8:3) or another formula, such as “give me your daughter” (TAD B2.6:3; 3.3:3) or “you gave her to me” (TAD B3.8:3). The use of the verb “to give” emphasizes the power of bestowal that lies with the father, while the verb “to ask” shows that the final decision is not in the bridegroom’s hands. The first verb also signifies that the father entrusts his daughter to the husband and transmits a kind of responsibility toward her. It might seem from these examples that women had nothing to say concerning their choice of husband, but it is more probable that the documents of wifehood contain reminiscences of older times and that women gave their consent before entering into marriage. In fact, the Egyptian bridegroom could propose to his future spouse in the Persian period (Nutkowicz 2015, 56–57). Nothing specific is known about the cultural and symbolic aspects of marriage festivities at Elephantine, but feasts are known from both Egypt and the Bible. On such occasions, brides received presents. In Egypt, the union was never religious and was built on other social foundations (the first of which was free consent, as evidenced by the content of the contract). Following marriage, the new social position of both spouses is attested to by a legal formula pronounced by the husband: “She is my wife and I am (her) husband from this day forever” (TAD B2.6:4; 3.2:3–4; 3.8:4; 6.1:3–4). This formula reflects both new social, juridical, and economic realities, and their consequences, namely, the creation of a new family. Of course, this juridical formula does not reflect any feeling; it is solely legal. It seems quite probable that this (or another) expression was pronounced before witnesses in order to inform the community. Contracts would have been written either at the time of marriage or subsequently. Tapmet and Ananyah’s contract of wifehood was written after their marriage and the birth of their son Pilṭi (TAD B3.3). It seems that, in the Judean community, written documents were intended to organize the most important events in a family’s life, as well as their social and economic concerns; in the case of marriages, these documents register the new bond and the social rites linked to it. It is interesting, however, that following their wedding, the great majority of women within the community kept their name, remaining “daughter of ” for the remainder of their life. Mibṭaḥyah, for example, remains daughter of Maḥseyah until she dies (TAD B2.8:2; 2.9:3; 2.10:3). This suggests that her continuing bond with her existing family is, in some way(s), more important than the new bonds of marriage. Also remaining “daughter of ” after their marriages are Tubla daughter of Mešullam (TAD A4.4:6), Salluʾah daughter of Qenayah (TAD B5.5:1), Yehoʾur daughter of Šelomam (TAD B5.1:2), Eswere and Mibṭaḥyah daughters of Gemaryah (TAD B5.5:1– 2), and Yehoḥen daughter of Mešullak (TAD B3.1:2). In the Collection Account (TAD C3.15), which registers the names of those who gave money to yhw the God, there are numerous further examples that confirm the custom of referring to married women as “daughter of ” (all the women in cols. i, v, vi, vii [?]). Sometimes the lists add to this information by giving the name of these women’s father’s father—for example, “Mešull(em)et daughter of Gemar(yah) son of Maḥseyah” (TAD C3.15 col. i:2) and

Family Bonds in the Judean Community of Elephantine

27

“Yehošamaʿ daughter of Hošeaʿ son of Zakkur” (TAD C3.15 col. v:101). In fact, the Collection Account shows that all the women who gave money to the temple were named after their father; there is no distinction drawn between those who are married and those who are not (TAD C3.15 cols. v–vi). This implies a symbolic distance between the married women and their new families (Nutkowicz 2015, 59). It seems that the father-​daughter bond was more important than the bond created by marriage. This manner of maintaining one’s original name instead of adopting a new one subtly underscores the desire to remain a daughter above anything else, while the status of a married woman seems to have been less important than the status of daughter. These women thus keep their original identity regardless of their changed social situation. In this manner, sons who keep their father’s name, and daughters who do likewise, symbolically create a kind of enduring link between past, present, and future (Dadoun 1983, 5–8). In some very rare cases, however, wives took their husband’s name—for example, Rami wife of Hodo (TAD A4.4:5), Eserešut wife of Hošeaʿ (TAD A4.4:5), Pallul wife of Yislaḥ (TAD A4.4:5), and Abihi wife [of Šelomam] (TAD B6.3:10). Titles borne by handmaidens may also reflect distinct social realities and the evolution of their status. In her marriage document, Tapmet bears the title “Tapmet by name.” The noun phrase “by name” indicates that she is a handmaiden (TAD B3.3:3). In a later document—the manumission document by Mešullam—she is referred to as “Lady Tapmet by name” (TAD B3.6:2). Her daughter Yehoyišmaʿ is also referred to as “by name” in this document (TAD B3.6:2–4). After her marriage, Tapmet becomes “Lady Tapmet his wife” (TAD B3.5:2, bequest of part of Ananyah’s house); Yehoyišmaʿ also bears this title in TAD B3.7:2–3 (a life estate of usufruct) and is again referred to as “Lady Yehoyišmaʿ by name, your sister” in her document of wifehood (TAD B3.8:3), as well as “Lady Yehoyišmaʿ his daughter” in TAD B3.10:2. In another document, she is referred to as “Yehoyišmaʿ his daughter” (TAD B3.11:2, 21). These two women are no longer referred to as “by name” upon Mešullam’s death and their manumission. The final contract in this archive witnesses ably to how Tapmet’s social identity developed: “Lady Tapmet, his wife, a servitor of yhw” (TAD B3.12:1–2).2 Women within the Elephantine papyri usually bear the title “lady”—for example, “Yehoḥen daughter of Mešullak, a lady of Elephantine” (TAD B3.1:2) or “Lady Mibṭaḥyah” (TAD B2.3:2). The title is applied to every free woman, to freed women like Tapmet (TAD B3.12:1), and to handmaidens (TAD B3.6:2). In a fragmentary administrative list of family units, some women are called “great lady,” a title that indicates a lady of means (TAD C3.9 col. ii:12; restored in col. i:6; Porten 2003b, 871–72). Though supposed to last “forever,” marriages could be dissolved, either by divorce or death. The term “forever” indicates a desire on the part of both the spouses and their families that the marriage be unbreakable, for once created, a new family’s destruction might entail serious social and economic consequences; who, for example, would take care of the wife and children, and where and how they would live? The documents available to us show that the Judeans anticipated such situations and reveal how they tried to resolve them. 2.  Tapmet’s title lḥnh is the feminine form of her husband’s title lḥn, “servitor of yhw” (Porten 2003b, 875). This Aramaic word has a Neo-​Assyrian parallel, laḫḫinu, a word that denotes a temple official (see Porten 1968, 200–201; 2002, 170 n. 5).

28

Elephantine Revisited

In documents of wifehood, financial and economic details are very important. They come right after the formal marriage proposal and agreement, and the objective of their rehearsal in these documents is the protection of both spouses, particularly the wife. These documents thus record the dowry brought by the bride but never any real estate (Azzoni 2013, 6). They first record the money given by the bride to her husband (the amount of course varies: one karsh and two shekels in TAD B2.6:6; one karsh and five shekels in TAD B3.3:16; two karsh, two shekels, and five hallurs in TAD B3.8:6). Then follows a list of personal items, along with their value: garments (indicating their size and specifying whether they are new or worn), shoes, and household goods, such as mirrors, bowls, jugs, chests, trays, and ladles (see TAD B3.8:13–19). Different kinds of oil—for light, food, perfumes, and medicine—are also accorded an important place in these documents; their quantities are indicated, but their value is not. In like manner, the value of some objects is not given, either because the scribe did not know their value or because he deemed it unimportant. The total amount that figures in the marriage contract was added to the mohar’s value and was at the wife’s disposal during their union,3 though the husband probably had the use of it. The value of the dowry varies from seven shekels and seven and a half hallurs for Tapmet (TAD B3.3:4–7) to six karsh, five shekels, and twenty hallurs for Mibṭaḥyah (TAD B2.6: 6–14) to seven karsh, eight shekels, and five hallurs for Yehoyišmaʿ (TAD B3.8:6–15). The latter’s brother, Zakkur son of Mešullam, spoils her particularly with a handsome dowry. The new husband also gave some money as a mohar to his bride’s father, and the bride’s father or representative subsequently acknowledges receipt of the money returned to the wife (Porten et al. 2011, 179 n. 12). The sum given varies from five (TAD B2.6:5) to ten shekels (TAD B3.8:4–5), while Ananyah does not give anything to Mešullam, his wife’s master, perhaps because of Tapmet’s status (TAD B3.3).4 The documentation of these objects and money is necessary in case of divorce, in which circumstances the husband has to return them immediately and unaltered. Husband and wife never bring personal real estate into their union and administer their own separate properties. Such exchanges are material, economic, and financial, as well as symbolic. Gifts and exchanges are the necessary obligations of giving and receiving.5 Money and other objects given and/or brought into the union by the bride and bridegroom are dependent upon their wealth, while also demonstrating the spouses’ agreement to the union (Nutkowicz 2015, 75–106). All these ritual exchanges—which create social and financial family bonds—are unique and differ from each other (Caillé 2000, 198). Both brides and bridegrooms have duties toward their spouse, as the following clause in a document of wifehood indicates:

3.  Fitzmyer 1979, 248; Szubin and Porten 2001, 54. Ginsberg (1954, 156) raises the possibility that the mohar was divorce money. 4.  According to Yaron (1961, 57), there are reasons to believe that a payment had already been made by Ananyah to Mešullam, but this would not have been the mohar. After the contract’s sealing, Mešullam perhaps returned the money to the couple, meaning the dowry of Tapmet might have amounted to fifteen shekels. According to Porten (Porten et al. 2011, 212 n. 32), the amount of one karsh and five shekels is “an addition of cash to Tapmet’s dowry written after the document had been all but tied and sealed.” Verger (1965, 178) notes that the mohar is an essential part of the contract of a free woman. 5.  Mauss (1950, 161–64) distinguishes between the obligations of giving, receiving, and reciprocating.

Family Bonds in the Judean Community of Elephantine

29

And moreover, Ananyah shall not be able not to do the law of (one) or two of his colleagues’ wives to Yehoyišmaʿ his wife. And if he does not do thus, hatred (it is). He shall do to her the law of hatred. And moreover, Yehoyišmaʿ shall not be able not to do the law of one or two (of her colleagues’ husbands) to Ananyah her husband. And if she does not do (so) for him, hatred (it) is. (TAD B3.8:37–40) This passage may refer to conjugal duties, but is probably more complex and may refer to mutual help, faithfulness, and upkeep (Nutkowicz 2015, 95–96).6 In fact, for the Egyptians among whom the Judeans lived at Elephantine, these duties were essential for a union (Menu 2001, 22; Allam 1996, 204–6); the concept of marriage also extended far beyond conjugal duties in Judah, and it is thus all the more probable that this clause reflects a more complete vision of marriage, incorporating mutual help, faithfulness, and upkeep (Nutkowicz 2015, 96–97). Conjugal duties, moreover, are never mentioned in written documents from the ancient Near East (Paul 1969, 50–52). This clause specifies the spouses’ duties and, as it follows the prohibition against taking another husband or wife, it provides a strong protective framework both for the new couple and against the dissolution of their marriage. And even if not all contracts include this passage, its content may in these cases be implied. In addition to this passage, a kind of guarantee is given by the husband, who states under penalty that he will not give away the goods and properties that originally come from his spouse (TAD B2.6:35–36). During their union, in order to secure her maintenance, the wife has to give consent to the alienation of his personal goods. A contract between Mibṭaḥyah’s father and her husband Yezanyah brings another everyday aspect of married life—cohabitation—to our attention (TAD B2.4). In this document, Maḥseyah gives in usufruct to his son-​in-​law Yezanyah a house that he had bequeathed to his daughter on the occasion of their marriage; as this house is in a bad state, Maḥseyah asks Yezanyah to improve the home in order that the new couple can live there. The document specifies that Yezanyah is not allowed to sell the house on (Szubin and Porten 1982, 3–9); this further suggests that Yezanyah was to live in his wife’s house. On the other hand, Tapmet—still a handmaiden—lives with her husband in his house; her daughter Yehoyišmaʿ and her husband Ananyah live in her father’s house. In most cases, however, the bride most likely left her house and family in order to set up home in a new social and familial environment, and a father of means may have offered his daughter (part of) a house on the occasion of her wedding. It is especially important to note that, in these cases, this gift became property of the daughter. Thus, Maḥseyah offers Mibṭaḥyah a bequest in anticipation of his death (TAD B2.3), with possession inter vivos of a house (that Yezanyah has to improve; Szubin and Porten 1983, 35–46). Ananyah gives his daughter in usufruct part of his house (TAD B3.7; Szubin and Porten 1988, 29–45). Later on, as an addendum to her dowry, he decides to give her “in affection” (TAD B3.11) the same part of the house he had previously offered to her in usufruct as a bequest in anticipation of his death (TAD B3.10; Szubin and Porten 1988, 23–38). Usually a bequest of real estate was transmitted to one’s children (TAD B3.11:9). These gifts belong to the daughter, though their 6.  Ginsberg (1954, 159) considers this clause to relate to the refusal of conjugal rights, as do Szubin and Porten (2001, 71). According to Rabinowitz (1956, 58), this euphemism might mean cohabitation.

30

Elephantine Revisited

husbands may have had disposal of them during their union. They reflect a kind of marriage settlement under which husband and wife possess and administer their own properties. These bequests are important for the protection of married women. A clause inserted in Yehoyišmaʿ and Ananyah’s marriage settlement poses a special problem. It states that neither he nor she is allowed to take another husband or wife (TAD B3.8:33–34, 36–37); in case of a breach of this clause, the “law of hatred” is stated to apply.7 The same kind of clause probably appears in Salluʾah and Hošaʿyah’s marriage contract as well (TAD B6.4:1). The formula most likely reflects a sixth-​century Egyptian custom known to the Judeans from Elephantine (Allam 1981, 134; Nutkowicz 2007, 223). It provides for the possibility of either spouse to renounce the marriage, in a kind of “mutual consent,” given in advance. This possibility of divorce came into effect upon preparation of the marriage document and was designed to facilitate a marriage to another spouse; it meant that neither husband nor wife could interfere with any subsequent marriage. Taking a probable Egyptian practice for its precedent, the purpose of this Aramaic document was to protect each of the spouses from a too-​easy divorce/separation (Nutkowicz 2015, 56). Regardless, it is evident from the marriage contracts and their economic and inheritance clauses that marriage at Elephantine was monogamous; it would also seem impossible to guarantee the whole of one’s estate to different wives. Furthermore, marriage in Egypt was also monogamous (Menu 2001, 17–24; Toivari-​Viitala 2002, 613–19; Nutkowicz 2008, 138). Contracts further specify certain (customary) rights and responsibilities regulating these new families, and children play an important role in this regard. As a general rule, the number of children seems to have been two. Mibṭaḥyah has two sons who appear in three contracts (TAD B2.9:3; 2.10:3; 2.11). Tapmet also has two children, Pilṭi and Yehoyišmaʿ (TAD B3.5:18). Fragmentary lists of family units further confirm family or home situations where the number of “souls” varies from two to four (TAD C3.9 cols. i:5; ii:12; iv:5). Only rarely do five persons share the same home. Documents reveal couples at the center of families, living in the same house with their young children. Such families may be defined as elementary or nuclear (Zonabend 1986, 77; Lévi-​Strauss 1948, 71). Mibṭaḥyah and her husband Yezanyah live in the same house (TAD B2.4). Tapmet, Ananyah, and their two children Pilṭi and Yehoyišmaʿ live in the home improved by the head of family (TAD B3.7). Fragmentary lists of family units provide further proof of this social arrangement. They indicate the number of persons living in the same home, and give their name, familial status, and number. Some examples are: four souls, numbering two great ladies, a man, and a daughter (TAD C3.9 col. i:6); four souls, numbering one man, a great lady, and two sons (TAD C3.9 cols. ii:12; iv:5); a simple couple, numbering a man and a great lady (TAD C3.9 col. ii:15). In the first instance, the two great ladies are referred to as “his wife.” This may reflect an Egyptian practice according to which the husband kept his barren first 7.  Yaron (1961, 60) considers this a stipulation against bigamy. For Fitzmyer (1979, 267), it also represents a kind of protection against bigamy, since Ananyah’s long absence might provide occasion to meet another man (leading to divorce as a consequence). Szubin and Porten (2001, 67) also note the prohibition against taking another spouse, while Rabinowitz (1956, 58) considers the possibility that the clause refers to possible misconduct on the part of Yehoyišmaʿ. Hugenberger (1994, 228) sees in this formula a reference to palingamy and not to polygamy or adultery; Volterra (1955, 359) shares this hypothesis.

Family Bonds in the Judean Community of Elephantine

31

wife in his home.8 As it is, all known cases concern simple family households, which vary according to the age of the couple, the arrival of children, and new marriages. Manumission and/or adoption are also attested in the papyri, and are known from two different examples. The first instance is that of Tapmet and her daughter Yehoyišmaʿ. Twenty-​two years after Tapmet and Ananyah’s marriage, Yehoyišmaʿ and Tapmet’s master Mešullam released both mother and daughter in a document of testamentary manumission upon his death, simultaneously adopting them both in the same contract (TAD B3.6). When Mešullam wrote this document he was growing old and probably had rewards in mind. Through this juridical action, Tapmet and her daughter became his adoptive children and sisters to Mešullam’s son Zakkur; they could never be a handmaiden again. Both committed themselves in a special clause to take care of Mešullam: “We shall serve you as a son or daughter supports his father in your lifetime” (TAD B3.6:11). The document goes on with the promise to take care of Zakkur, now Yehoyišmaʿ’s brother, “like a son supports his father” (TAD B3.6:12). A heavy penalty of fifty karsh is imposed in case of breach of promise. This considerable sum suggests that neither Tapmet nor her daughter intended to break their promise. The second instance of manumission and adoption is that of Yedanyah son of Taḥe (TAD B3.9). In this document, Uriyah declares that Yedanyah will be his son (TAD B3.9:9 “my son he shall be”) and that no one will be able to make him a servant again. The intention in this case is likely identical to that of the preceding, and Uriyah, possibly Yedanyah’s father (Porten 1968, 206), is certainly expecting his (new) son’s care and the fulfilment of his filial duties (just as Mešullam expected this of Tapmet and Yehoyišmaʿ). Adoption creates new family bonds and concomitant filial duties. Manumission followed by adoption aims at filial support and care for the aging. What this filial support comprises is not made explicit in the second document (TAD B3.9), but it is probable that such support is this document’s most important purpose. As only two contracts of manumission and adoption are known to us, it is not possible to conclude that simultaneous manumission and adoption was the usual practice (Nutkowicz 2015, 202–11). The papyri, however, do attest to some aspects of the concrete social and moral requirements demanded of the men and women party to the agreements; such moral rules, as well as social and familial duties, are impossible to escape. In both natural filiation and adoption (which leads to new family bonds), such duties are customary, and so are their compensations. In cases of adoption, bonds are recast (servants and handmaidens become family members) and cannot subsequently be broken. Several documents refer to the moral duties of filiation and its rewards. The contract concerning the manumission of Tapmet and her daughter, for example, brings to light their promise to “serve” and “take care” of both Mešullam during his lifetime and (upon his death) his son Zakkur (TAD B3.6:11–15). The question is what the formula “to support like a daughter or a son” means (Rabinowitz 1956, 27). One answer may be found in the motivation behind Ananyah’s bequest to his daughter Yehoyišmaʿ in 8.  De Cenival (1984, 53) mentions the case of a soldier who owned his own house and lived there with two women referred to as “his wife” (no. 101, col. iv:30). He proposes that one of these two wives might have been a barren first wife kept at home.

32

Elephantine Revisited

anticipation of his death: “because she supported me while I was old of days. I was unable (to use) my hands and she supported me. Moreover, I gave (it) to her at my death” (TAD B3.10:17). A second answer may be found in what Mibṭaḥyah daughter of Gemaryah says to Eswere her sister: “(the) support (with) which you supported me” (TAD B5.5:3–4, 7–8). Finally, there is the case of Mibṭaḥyah daughter of Maḥseyah who gave her father certain goods when he was in need (TAD B2.7:4–6). Different kinds of bequests to daughters are known to have been offered on special occasions, lightening their filial duties. Yehoyišmaʿ receives in anticipation of death (TAD B3.10) the part of her father’s house that he had previously bequeathed to her in usufruct upon her marriage (TAD B3.7). Mibṭaḥyah daughter of Maḥseyah receives another house from her father in exchange for goods given that he could not repay (TAD B2.7:4–6). Mibṭaḥyah daughter of Gemaryah gives her sister Eswere six shekels “in affection,” as well as her ration from the store-​house of the king (TAD B5.5:3–4, 7–8). Though none of the texts that have survived detail precisely the types of moral care and material support they are concerned with, it is plain that men and women, rich or poor, benefited from such contracts, and that documents of adoption bore filial duties in mind; these duties, when fulfilled, always implied money and/or real estate in return. One of the central preoccupations of the Elephantine families was the transfer and transmission of goods and real estate to their heirs; their goal was the patrimonial retention of these assets. But this was not their sole motive. A husband, for example, might offer his wife (part of) a house. Thus, Ananyah gives his wife Tapmet “in love” (perhaps on the occasion of Yehoyišmaʿ’s birth) “half of the large room and its chamber” of the house they lived in (TAD B3.5:3; see Porten 2003a, COS 3.73:176–77). His aim was clearly to preserve it as a family estate. The document further stipulates that their two children, Yehoyišmaʿ and Pilṭi, were to control the property after the death of their mother (TAD B3.5:18). A childless widow “has right” to her husband’s goods and property upon his death, but she does not inherit these goods and property (TAD B2.6:17–20; 3.8:27–30; 3.3:10– 11).9 This means that her rights are limited to a kind of usufruct. A special clause in her marriage document provides for this right; otherwise her husband’s estate would immediately return to her husband’s family. On the other hand, a widowed man inherited all his wife’s goods,10 money, personal items, and real estate. However, there are exceptions to this rule. In Tapmet and Ananyah’s document of wifehood, both “have right” to each other’s goods (TAD B3.3:11–13). These facts reveal that the wife—who in principle does not inherit from her husband, since personal items and real estate were passed on to the children—may keep these possessions during her lifetime. These possessions were to remain within the family patrimony, but the different bequests offered to women circumvent the usual 9.  Nutkowicz 2015, 268–71; 2010, 237–38; Porten and Szubin 1987, 179–92. Concerning the origins of this clause, see Botta 2006, 193–209; 2009, 89–95. 10.  In Yaron’s view (1963, 15), a husband’s rights are defined by law, while those of widows are created through marriage contracts. This difference might explain the use of two different words: šlyṭ, “to have right” in reference to the wife (TAD B2.6:17–20) and yrt, “to inherit” in reference to the husband (TAD B3.8:35–36). Porten suggests that, if Tapmet had been completely manumitted, Ananyah would have inherited her share (the part of the house he had offered her in TAD B3.5), but since she is not yet manumitted, Ananyah leaves Tapmet’s share to Mešullam and “has only right” to his half of his share (Porten et al. 2011, 211 n. 23).

Family Bonds in the Judean Community of Elephantine

33

customs by adopting the guise of material protections for wives and daughters. Women thus become householders through these kinds of bequests, though there are limits to their rights, and their ownership is hereditary and inalienable; these possessions are only transmittable to their children (Nutkowicz 2015, 271). So, while women are the beneficiaries of these real estates, the family keeps and preserves them. An exception is the grant of a house to Mibṭaḥyah that authorizes alienation to persons outside the family (Porten 2003a, COS 3.64:159 n. 34). Sons could also be donees, as the case of Pilṭi demonstrates. Like his sister Yehoyišmaʿ, he benefits, during his father’s lifetime, from part of Ananyah’s house and courtyard (TAD B3.7:11–12). There was probably a contract of usufruct—now lost—specifying this bequest of his father. There are also specific inheritance clauses in legal documents that anticipate the passing on of patrimony. In the bequest to Tapmet of a part of her husband Ananyah’s house, both their children are mentioned as their heirs: they “have right” to their parents’ possessions (TAD B3.5:16–22). Other contracts bear the formula “and your children have right after you” (TAD B3.11:9), or the formula “and your children after you and to whomever you love you may give it” (TAD B2.7:7–8). From these formulas, it seems that alienation of property is limited to heirs. In one text, however, the formula “to whomever you desire give it” (TAD B2.7:16) is added. In this case, the father authorizes further alienation to any person his daughter sees fit. In addition to different kinds of bequests, marriage documents also contain clauses concerning the passing on of personal goods and real estate to children. Thus: “should Esḥor die not having a child male or female from his wife” (TAD B2.6:17–18), which formula is identical to the formula concerning Esḥor’s wife (TAD B2.6:20–21). The same formula is known from the documents of wifehood of Yehoyišmaʿ and Ananyah (TAD B3.8:28–29, 34–35). The meaning of this formula is obvious: it confirms the organized bequeathal, to the couple’s children, by law and/ or custom, of the couple’s assets. In cases of childlessness, the estate passes on to the husband and/or his family. At the same time, these formulas underline the freedom of women to own their own property, though this freedom is frequently limited such that they may not sell it on. Bequests can be given to daughters and sons alike. Bequests to daughters aim at their material protection. Based on assent, cohabitation, and economic exchange, marriage at Elephantine takes shape as a juridical and social act and condition. It is a kind of synthetic social project that not only involves economic and financial obligations, but further affective and concrete aspects. Among its peculiarities are the sustainment of wives’ names (“daughter of ”) and bequeathals to daughters and/or wives. These characteristics highlight the maintenance of a certain financial, material, and symbolic distance between spouses. Conjugal ties are based on affection and conjugal duties (such as help, mutual attendance, and fidelity). Married women are both juridically and financially independent from their husbands. Distance is maintained from the couple’s families in both material and symbolic realms. One of the motivations of family is the birth of offspring in order to keep the family name and ancestral memory alive, as well as the preservation of real estate within the hereditary patrimony (Nutkowicz 2015, 268–71). In some cases, manumission and adoption are used to resolve certain social and economic problems. Parents expect much of their children and filial as well as familial duties and aid are often mentioned

34

Elephantine Revisited

in the documents. Children play an important role, especially daughters. They preserve their families’ memory through their name, and they perform filial duties. But both sons and daughters bear the responsibility of taking care of their parents when needed. In return, they benefit from bequests, which aim to protect daughters in particular, irrespective of their social situation. The relations between parents and children involve solid, affectionate bonds; these are reinforced by material, financial, and symbolic particulars, as well as the hope that the family’s lineage endures. References Allam, S. 1981. “Quelques aspects du mariage dans l’Égypte ancienne.” JEA 67:116–35. ———. 1996. “Aspects de la vie sociale, juridique et municipale à Deir-​el-​Medineh.” Pages 195–231 in Égypte pharaonique: Pouvoir, société. Edited by B. Menu. Paris: L’Harmattan. Azzoni, A. 2013. “Women of Elephantine and Women in the Land of Israel.” Pages 3–12 in In the Shadow of Bezalel: Aramaic, Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Bezalel Porten. Edited by A. F. Botta. Leiden: Brill. Botta, A. F. 2006. “The Legal Function and Egyptian Background of the ‫ שליט‬Clause: A Reevaluation.” Maarav 13:193–209. ———. 2009. The Aramaic and Egyptian Legal Tradition at Elephantine. LSTS 64. London: T&T Clark. Caillé, A. 2000. Anthropologie du don: Le tiers paradigme. Paris: Desclée de Brouwer. Cenival, F. de. 1984. Papyrus démotiques de Lille. Volume 3. Le Caire: Institut français d’archéologie orientale. Cohen, N. J. 1966–67. “Historical Conclusions Gleaned from the Names of the Jews of Elephantine.” Leš 31:97–106. [Hebrew] Cohen, S. J. D. 1983. “From the Bible to the Talmud: The Prohibition of Intermarriage.” HAR 7:23–39. Dadoun, R. 1983. “A Babel qu’en fut-​il?” Corps écrit 8:5–8. Fitzmyer, J. A. 1979. A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press. Ginsberg, H. L. 1954. “The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri.” JAOS 74:153–62. Greenfield, J. C. 1981. “Aramaic Studies and the Bible.” Pages 110–30 in Congress Volume Vienna 1980. Edited by J. A. Emerton. VTSup 32. Leiden: Brill. Hugenberger, G. P. 1994. Marriage as a Covenant: A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics Governing Marriage Developed from the Perspective of Malachi. Leiden: Brill. Knoppers, G. N. 1994. “Sex, Religion and Politics: The Deuteronomist on Intermarriage.” HAR 14:121–41. Lévi-​Strauss, C. 1948. Anthropologie structurale. Reprint, Paris: Plon, 1985. Mauss, M. 1950. Sociologie et anthropologie. Reprint, Paris: PUF, 1993. Mayer, J. E. 1961. Jewish-​Gentile Courtships: An Exploratory Study of Social Process. New York: Free Press of Glencoe. Menu, B. 2001. “Le mariage en Egypte ancienne.” EAO 20:17–24. Merton, R. K. 1941. “Intermarriage and the Social Structure.” Psychiatry 4:361–74. Nutkowicz, H. 2007. “Concerning the Verb ‫ שנא‬in Judaeo-​Aramaic Contracts from Elephantine.” JSS 52:211–25. ———. 2008. “Les mariages mixtes à Éléphantine à l’époque perse.” Transeuphratène 36:125–39. ———. 2010. “Les formulaires d’Éléphantine: Contrats de mariage et donations successorales.” Pages 225–59 in Trois millénaires de formulaires juridiques. Edited by S. Démare-​ Lafont and A. Lemaire. Geneva: Droz. ———. 2015. Destins de femmes à Éléphantine au Ve siècle avant notre ère. Paris: L’Harmattan.

Family Bonds in the Judean Community of Elephantine

35

Paul, S. M. 1969. “Exodus 21:10: A Threefold Maintenance Clause.” JNES 28:48–53. Porten, B. 1968. Archives from Elephantine: The Life of a Military Jewish Colony. Berkeley: University of California Press. ———. 2003a. “Egyptian Aramaic.” COS 3:59–81:141–98. ———. 2003b. “Elephantine.” Pages 863–81 in volume 2 of A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law. Edited by R. Westbrook. HdO 72/2. Leiden: Brill. Porten, B., J. J. Farber, C. J. Martin, G. Vittmann, L. S. B. MacCoull, S. Clackson, S. Hopkins, and R. Katzoff. 2011. The Elephantine Papyri in English: Three Millennia of Cross-​ Cultural Continuity and Change. DMOA 22. 2nd rev. ed. Leiden: Brill. Porten, B., and H. Z. Szubin. 1987. “An Aramaic Deed of Bequest (Kraeling 9).” Pages 179– 92 in Community and Culture: Essays in Jewish Studies in Honor of the Ninetieth Anniversary of the Founding of Gratz College, 1895–1985. Edited by N. M. Waldman. Philadelphia: Seth. Rabinowitz, J. J. 1956. Jewish Law: Its Influence on the Development of Legal Institution. New York: Bloch. Szubin, H. Z., and B. Porten. 1982. “ ‘Ancestral Estates’ in Aramaic Contracts: The Legal Significance of the Term MHḤSN.” JRAS 114:3–9. ———. 1983. “Testamentary Succession at Elephantine.” BASOR 252:35–46. ———. 1988. “A Life Estate of Usufruct: A New Interpretation of Kraeling 6.” BASOR 269:29–45. ———. 2001. “The Status of a Repudiated Spouse: A New Interpretation of Kraeling 7 (TAD B3.8).” Israel Law Review 35:46–78. Toivari-​Viitala, J. 2002. “A Case Study of Ancient Egyptian Marriage Practices in the Workman’s Community at Deir-​el-​Medina During the Ramesside Period.” Pages 613–19 in Sex and Gender in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 47th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Helsinki, July 2–6 2001. Edited by S. Parpola and R. M. Whiting. Helsinki: Neo-​Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Verger, A. 1965. Ricerche giuridiche sui papiri aramaici di Elefantina. Studi semitici 16. Rome: Centro di Studi Semitici, Istituto di Studi del Vicino Oriente, Università. Volterra, E. 1955. Review of The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri, by E. G. Kraeling. Iura 6:349–60. Yaron, R. 1961. Introduction to the Law of the Aramaic Papyri. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 1963. Gifts in Contemplation of Death in Jewish and Roman Law. Oxford: Clarendon. Zonabend, F. 1986. “De la famille: Regard ethnologique sur la parenté et la famille.” Pages 19–96 in Histoire de la famille. Edited by A. Burguière, C. Klapish-​Zuber, M. Segalen, and F. Zonabend. Paris: Colin.

Chapter 4

Law in Elephantine: Crimes and Misdemeanors Alejandro F. Botta

During the past fifty years, the study of the law of the Aramaic papyri from Elephantine has benefited from several monographs, dissertations, and articles covering almost every aspect of it. In particular, the study of Elephantine legal corpus has benefited from the studies by Reuven Yaron (1961a), Alessandro Verger (1963), Bezalel Porten (1968, 2003), Yohanan Muffs (2003), Andrew Gross (2008), Alejandro Botta (2009), and a number of articles by Porten and Szubin that have elucidated and/ or reinterpreted the law at work in Elephantine, the legal formulas of the documents, and possible connections between the Aramaic documents and the legal traditions of the Hebrew Bible, ancient Egypt, and Mesopotamia. One of the few aspects that has received little or no attention by scholars is the various kinds of criminal behavior that are mentioned in the papyri. In the introduction to his work History of Ancient Near Eastern Law, Raymond Westbrook (2003a, 75) describes contemporary legal systems approach to delicts (unlawful wrongs) as divided in two categories, crimes and civil wrongs (torts); he states: “Crimes are considered wrongs against society as a whole; it is the public authority that pursues the offender through litigation and the principal aim is to punish. Torts are considered wrongs against an individual, on whose initiative litigation depends, and the principal aim is to compensate. The same act may be a crime and a tort.” Westbrook (2003a, 75) challenges the usefulness of such division for the study of ancient societies. According to him, the sources suggest an alternative differentiation of wrongs, and he proposes three categories: 1. wrongs against a hierarchical superior 2. serious wrongs against the person, honor, or property of an individual 3. and minor harm to an individual’s person or property Under the category of wrongs against a hierarchical superior, he includes offenses against the gods, the king, and offenses compromising the social order, such as disobeying judges and officials, adultery, cursing, striking, or disobeying a parent (Westbrook 2003a, 76–77). Under serious wrongs against the person, honor, or property of an individual he includes homicide, injury, adultery, rape, perjury, slander, and theft. Under minor harm to an individual’s person or property he lists nonpermanent injury, negligent damage to property, crimes such as homicide, wounding or rape— when the victim is another’s person slave—and the special case of the seduction of an unbetrothed maiden (Westbrook 2003a, 78–82). 36

Law in Elephantine

37

It comes as no surprise that a survey of the literature covering ancient Near Eastern delicts and crimes shows that the documentation of such behavior that has reached us is quite sparse. As expected, wrongs against kings and temples are more widely attested among our ancient Near Eastern sources than wrongs against individuals of lower status, the dominant characteristic of the settlers of Elephantine-​Aswan. What follows is a list and concise analysis of wrongful actions attested in the Elephantine Aramaic corpus, with some references to relevant ancient Near Eastern parallels.

Bribes The sender (his name is not preserved) of the letter addressed to “Yedanyah, Maʿuziyah, Uriyah, and the garrison” (TAD A4.2:4;1 late fifth century BCE, Yedanyah communal archive) is informing about complaints and legal proceedings in which he claimed the Egyptians influenced the proceedings by bribing the officials. The sentence mentioning the bribe reads: mṣryʾ šḥd lhn yhbn, “the Egyptians gave them a bribe.”2 The Aramaic word šḥd, “bribe” or “gift,” is widely attested in Biblical Hebrew (‫שֺ ׁחַ ד‬, “gift intended to secure favor”),3 also in a context involving legal proceedings. We read in Isa 5:23, ‫“( מַ צְ ִדּיקֵ י ָרשָ ׁע עֵקֶ ב שֹ ׁחַ ד וְ צִ ְדקַ ת צַ ִדּיקִ ים י ִָסירּו ִמּמֶ ּנּו‬who acquit the guilty for a bribe, and deprive the innocent of their rights!”; NRSV). Cases of officials receiving/being accused of receiving gifts/bribes are ubiquitous in the ancient Near East.4 In societies where the principle of reciprocity operates (Mauss 2002), gift-​giving was considered an integral part of doing business. As Michael Goldberg points out: “In the judicial setting, the principle of reciprocity takes three characteristic forms: (1) one gives a judge a gift and he in turn gives attention to one’s case; (2) one hands the judge a gift and then he, for his part, hands down a verdict in one’s favor; (3) the judge delivers the decision one desires, there being the implicit expectation that one will later deliver to him something he will find equally desirable.” (Goldberg 1984, 17) The use of gifts/bribes in Egypt follows a similar pattern. P. Turin 1887 (ca. 1150 BCE; EPE no. A5 [Hieratic]) records charges against several officials. In one case, a priest who was prohibited from entering the temple, “gave ‘his things’ ” to a prophet (that is, “bribed him”) and was allowed to enter.5 P. Berlin 13543 (219 BCE; EPE no. C11 [demotic]) records the promise of payment in return for an appointment as Lesonis.6 1.  AP no. 37:4; DAE no. 97:4; EPE no. B14, with n. 13. 2.  The TAD translation reads “the Egyptians give them a bribe,” but EPE’s translation reads “since the Egyptians a bribe to them give,” explaining in the footnote that “the broken context does not allow for full reconstruction of the circumstances of our situation.” (EPE no. B14 n. 13). 3. Exod 23:8; Deut 10:17; 16:19; 27:25; 1 Sam 8:3; Isa 1:23; 5:23; 33:15; Ezek 22:12; Mic 3:11; Ps 15:5; 26:10; Job 15:34; Prov 6:35; 17:8–23; 2 Chr 19:7. See HALOT, s.v. “‫שֺׁ חַ ד‬.” See also Beyse 2004, 14:555–58; Grisanti and McCann 2012, 4:75–76; DJPA, s.v. “‫ ;”שחד‬DJBA, s.v. “‫שחד‬.” 4.  For Akkadian, see CAD 18, s.v. “ṭātu, ṭaʾtūtu”; Egyptian ḏbꜢw, “payments,” “reward,” “compensation” (ÄW 2, 2832, s.v. “Bestechung”); Vernus 2003, 72–74, 152–53; Wilcke 2003, 151; Jasnow 2003, 346; Westbrook 2003b, 676; Frymer-​Kenski 2003, 992–93. 5.  See EPE no. A5 (p. 49 n. 34). 6.  See EPE no. C11 (pp. 310–11). Cf. Egyptian: fḳꜢ, “gift,” “bribe”; ẖsy, “bribe”; ẖt, “bribe.” See Théodo­ ridès 1975, 1:477.

38

Elephantine Revisited

Theft and Misappropriation Theft of property in the ancient Near East was not considered a crime but fell under the category of tort “resulting in an action for damages by the injured party.”7 “To Act Thievishly,” “Stolen” Gnbyt ʿbd, “to act thievishly,” TAD A4.2:5 (= EPE no. B14); gnyb, “stolen,” TAD A4.3:4 (= EPE no. B15)8 The above-​mentioned letter mentioning bribes (TAD A4.2) also records the expression gnbyt ʿbd, “to act thievishly.” As Porten points out, the lack of context makes it hard to elucidate its precise meaning in this letter.9 The expression gnyb, “stolen,” occurs in the letter from Maʿuziyah to Yedanyah, and the priests Mattan and Berekyah in connection with a dyer stone that was found gnyb byd rklyʾ, “stolen in the hand of the merchants” (TAD A4.3:4). The receiving of stolen goods was punishable in the ancient Near East. During the Old Babylonian period, the native terminology for theft (verb šarāqum) is used not only for taking away but also for misappropriation of goods entrusted to one’s care and for receiving goods that one knew or ought to have known were stolen.10 But the penalties varied.11 In the case of Egyptian tomb robberies (that is, wrongs against kings), the punishment (aggravated by the status of the tombs owners) was mutilation and impalement.12 In legal contexts, the Hebrew Bible classifies theft under two categories: “‫ ָּגנַב‬carries the sense of secretive stealing and cheating (for example Gen 31:27; 2 Sam 19:3), as opposed to taking something by force.”13 In the case of our letter, there is no mention of any punishment of the merchants, but Maʿuziyah was imprisoned by Vidranga, the troop commander (TAD A4.3:4). The letter tells us that Maʿuziyah was later released after the intervention (ʾštdrw, an Ithpaal form of the verb šdr) of Djeḥo and Ḥor (the servants of Anani) and Ḥarmufi, without mentioning repayment or restitution for the stolen goods. “To Take and to Make One’s Own” Lqḥ ʿbd lnpšh, TAD A6.15:6, Aršama correspondence; wlqḥt lnpš[k] ʿbdt, TAD B7.2:6; lqḥw lnpšhwm ʿbdw, TAD A4.7:12–13 [reconstructed in TAD A4.8:11 on 7.  Phillips 1970, 131; see also Jackson 1972; Paul 1970, 85–87; Greengus 2011, 215–25. 8. Cf. Hebrew ‫ ַּגּנָב‬, “thief,” in Exod 22:1, 6–7; Deut 24:7; Isa 1:23; Jer 2:26; 48:27. For ‫גנב‬, “to steal,” see HALOT, s.v. “‫גנב‬.” Cf. Domeris 2012, 1:863. 9.  EPE no. 15 (p. 128 n. 14). 10.  Westbrook 2003c, 419. Cf. CAD 17, s.v. “šarāqum”; Milgrom 1976, 93 n. 334. 11.  Westbrook 2003c, 422; Leemans 1957, 661–66; Westbrook and Wilcke 1974–77, 111–21. See also Slanski 2003, 518; Oelsner et al. 2003, 963 n. 229; 964–65. 12.  See Jasnow 2003, 345; Lorton 1977, 2–64. Cf. Egyptian ḥʿḏꜢ, “robbery”; ḥwrʿ, “robbery”; ʿwꜢi, “to steal,” “to rob”; ʿwꜢt, “robbery”; iṯꜢ, “to take,” “to steal,” “to confiscate”; iṯi, “to take,” “to plunder”; ṯꜢw, “to rob,” “to steal”; ini, “to bring,” “to steal”; dꜢr, “to steal goods”; ẖnp, “to snatch,” “to steal.” 13. For which ‫ ָּגזַל‬is used. See Domeris 2012, 1:863. See also Milgrom’s criticism of Jackson 1972 (Milgrom 1976, 89–95).

Law in Elephantine

39

the basis of TAD A4.7]; lqḥw lnpš[hwm ʿbdw, TAD A4.5:18;14 lqḥ, “to take [illegally],” TAD A6.15:8–9; A5.2:4 As Porten notes, it was “a recurrent idiom for appropriating stolen goods.”15 With five occurrences, this is the most attested expression for misappropriation in Elephantine. It is a compound expression combining the common verb lqḥ, “to take,” widely attested in Elephantine,16 and the unusual expression ʿbd lnpšh (TAD A6.15:6). In his 1954 editio princeps of the Aršama letters, Godfrey Driver identified ʿbd lnpšh as “a verbal translation of the Phl. ō Xuēš kartam ‘to make for oneself’ = ‘to appropriate.’ ”17 As later noted by Émile Benveniste (1954, 305), this represents an anachronism; that is, a fifth-​century Aramaic expression cannot represent a translation of Pahlevi, first attested in the second century BCE. In his 1957 revised and abridged edition, Driver corrected the statement and accepted the following suggestion by Benveniste: “The Aram. ‫ לנפשה עבד‬as here used [. . .] is a verbal translation of the O.-Pers. (h)uvāipašiyam akunauš.”18 The idiom is built with akunauš, the impf. 3rd pers. sg. of kar-, “to do, make, build,”19 and the adjective uvaipašiya (acc.), “belonging to self.”20 Benveniste did not provide any reference to the expression. What remains from Old Persian literature is not very extensive and the only case of a similar expression comes from the Darius Bisitun inscription where an equivalent of the full Aramaic compound expression including the verb lqḥ, “to take,” and ʿbd lnpšh, “he made for himself,” (TAD A6.15:6) was indeed attested. The full quotation from Bisitun reads: hauv āyasatā uvāipašiyam akutā, “He took (them). He made (them) to himself (and) made (them) his own (property)” (DB §12 col. i:47; see Schmitt 1991, 52).21 This certainly confirms the Aramaic calque from Old Persian. A closer examination of the rest of the occurrences, however, shows that they do not follow the same word order that is displayed in the Aršama correspondence (lqḥ ʿbd lnpšh, TAD A6.15:6):

14.  Driver 1954, 34; 1957, 83; Whitehead 1974, 107, 251; 1978, 119–40. 15.  EPE no. B17 (p. 138 n. 33). 16.  Legally: TAD A2.3:9; 2.4:9; B1.1:9; 2.3:15, 17; 2.4:9, 11; 2.5:2; 2.9:6; 3.1:9, 13, 17; 3.8:36; 3.13:10; C1.1:108. Illegally: TAD A4.4:8: “they surely returned to their owners the goods which they took”; TAD A4.5:18: “the fittings they took (and) [made (them) their] own [. . .]”; TAD A4.7:12–13: “all (of these) they took and made their own”; TAD A4.8:11–12: “all of these they took (and)] made [their own]”; TAD A5.2:4: “]I ploughed the [fiel]d (but) did n[ot] take . . . from them”; TAD A4.5:6–7 (unclear); TAD A6.3:5: “took my property and fled from me”; TAD A6.15:6: “Nakhtḥor has taken (and) made his own”; TAD A6.15:6–7: “anythin[g] else which you took, all of it”; TAD A6.15:8: “you will pay damages for what you took”; TAD A6.15:9: “and taken goods from her/them”; TAD A6.15:9–10: “and what you took (in) good[s] from the domestic staff ”; TAD B7.2:5: “took out goods from my house by force”; TAD B7.2:6: “and took (and) made (them) your own”; TAD B7.2:9: “did not take goods from your house by force”; TAD B8.4:4: “who by force came to my house which is in Persekhmet, and did me harm, and took from me.” 17.  Quoting Nyberg 1928–31; Driver 1954, 34. 18.  Driver 1957, 83. Followed by Whitehead 1974, 251. 19.  See Kent 1953, 179a. 20.  Kent 1953, 177a; Meillet 1931, §§261, 298. In Old Persian “L’apposition formée par un adjectif prédicat précède le verbe” (Meillet 1931, §379). 21.  DB §36 col. iii:4 has: vištāspa āyasatā, “Hystaspes took that army to himself ” (expression omitted in the Elamite and Aramaic version). The verb form āyasatā is an impf. middle voice 3rd. pers. sg., “to reach out,” “to take as one’s own” (see Bae 2001, 288).

40

Elephantine Revisited

wlqḥt lnpš[k] ʿbdt (TAD B7.2:6; 401 BCE, obligation to make judicial declaration) lqḥw wlnpšhwm ʿbdw (TAD A4.7:12–13; 407 BCE, first draft petition) lqḥw lnpš[hwm ʿbdw (TAD A4.5:18; 410 BCE, draft petition) Akkadian parallels, which have passed unnoticed in previous treatments of the idiom, can provide some background to the different word order in the other occurrences of the idiom in Aramaic. In the Akkadian version of Bisitun, the Old Persian hauv āyasatā uvāipašiyam akutā reads: ana ša ramanišu uttēr “he took for himself ” (§11, line 19; see von Voigtlander 1978, 15 [transliteration], 17 [translation]).22 The Akkadian version of Bisitun did not produce a calque of the Old Persian but used instead the standard Akkadian expression târu, “to take possession of something” + ramanu, “self.”23 So, for example, in PN ina libbi unqi issaṭar ana ra-​ma-​ni-​šú ut-​te-​e-​ri (various possessions), “PN wrote into a document and (thereby) took them for himself ” (ABL no. 177:9 [Neo-​Assyrian]). This difference between the Old Persian and the Akkadian form of the idiom might help to explain the Aramaic version of it. For example, TAD B7.2 (401 BCE) is an obligation to make a judicial declaration as a result of a complaint by [Ar]tafrada son of A[rvastah]mara (a Persian name). In the document, Malkiyah son of Yašobyah is quoting the complaint: 4. [ʾ]nt qb[lt ʿly] bnpʾ ʾnt [ʿl]t [bbyty] 5. kḥsn wktšt lʾntty wnksn kḥsn hnpqt mn byty 6. wlqḥt lnpš[k] ʿbdt 4. [Y]ou com[plained against me] in npʾ: “Yo[u brok]e [into my house] 5. by force and struck my wife and took out goods from my house by force 6. and took (and) made (them) your own.” It would not be farfetched to assume that the original complaint by [Ar]tafrada son of A[rvastah]mara included the Aramaic calque of the Persian idiom in the right order (lqḥ lnpšh ʿbd), but—because it was foreign to the speaker of Aramaic—the word order was altered by Malkiyah or his scribe reflecting the, perhaps, better-​known Akkadian expression târu ramanu. The oath that Malkiyah was imposed to make (wnksn mn bytk kḥsn lʾ lqḥt, “And by force from your house goods I did not take”) uses the common Aramaic verb lqḥ instead of the Aramaic calque from the Old Persian idiom that we saw in TAD A6.15 (Aršama correspondence). A demotic letter to Thoth dated by George Hughes on July 502 BCE exemplifies a similar situation of violence, theft, and “taking for himself ”: 5. iw⸗f ṯꜢy n.im(⸗y) n ḳns n ṯꜢy ḥꜢ.t-​sp 17 ṯꜢw⸗f nꜢy(⸗y) ḥd nꜢy(⸗y) sw di⸗f ẖdb⸗w nꜢy(⸗y) ẖr.w ṯꜢw⸗f n⸗f nty nb nty mtw(⸗y), “He has been doing me violence since year 17. He has taken my money and 22.  See Malbran-​Labat 1994; CAD 18, s.v. “târu,” 11h; also CAD 18, s.v. “târu,” 11g2ʹ: eqlam šuati ana idika te-e​ r-š​ u-​ma (AbB 12, no. 69:20, 32); ša nidinti šuatu . . . ana idi ramanišu ú-​tar-​ru, “whoever appropriates this grant for himself ” (BBS no. 10 r. 34); also BBS no. 10 r. 5 (Neo-​Babylonian kudurru): “I handed out booty to my people (ana idi ramanišunu ú-​tir-​ru) and they took it for their own use”; Oriental Institute Publications 2, no. 83:47 (Sennacherib): ša . . . ana ram-​ni-​šú GUR-​ru, “whoever takes (the field) as his own” (BBS no. 36 vi 41 [Neo-​Babylonian]); PN ina libbi unqi issaṭar ana ra-​ma-​ni-​šú ut-​te-​e-​ri (various possessions ), “PN wrote into a document and (thereby) took them for himself ” (ABL no. 177:9 [Neo-​Assyrian]). 23.  CAD 18, s.v. “târu,” 11g2ʹ; CAD 14, s.v. “ramanu,” c3ʹcʹ2ʹʹ.

Law in Elephantine

41

my wheat. He has had my servants slain. He has taken for himself everything that I possessed.” (Hughes 1958, 1–12).24 The letter TAD A6.15 actually includes references to two complaints by Masapata against Nakhtḥor. In the first (using the idiom discussed above), Misapata accuses Nakhtḥor of having “taken (and) made his own (lqḥ ʿbd lnpšh) the wine which is in Papremis (?) and the grain of the lands, all of it” (TAD A6.15:5–6). In the second complaint, Nakhtḥor is accused of having “assaulted (ktš) the domestic staff of my lady and taken (lqḥ) goods from her/them” (TAD A6.15:8–9). The verb lqḥ is also used with the meaning “to take illegally” in the Petition for Rectification of Injustice (TAD A5.2:4): “I ploughed the [fiel]d (but) did n[ot] take (lqḥt) . . . from them.” “To Take Away Forcefully,” “To Take Forcefully” kḥsn hnpqt, TAD B7.2:5; kḥsn lqḥ, TAD B7.2:9 Both expressions occur only once. The verb hnpq (haphel pf.) is also attested in Biblical Aramaic (Dan 5:2.3; Ezra 5:14; 6:5), where it refers to the utensils that Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple in Jerusalem. The adverb kḥsn is also attested in the idioms kḥsn ʿll b, “to break into by force” (TAD B7.2:4–5, 8 [= EPE no. B50]; TAD B8.4:4). The Hebrew Bible attests ‫לקח בְ ּחָ זְקָ ה‬, “to take by force” in 1 Sam 2:16: ‫לֹא כִּ י‬ ‫“( עַתָּ ה ִתתֵּ ן וְ ִאם־ל ֹא לָקַ חְ ִתּי בְ חָ ז ָ ְֽקה‬No, you must give it now; if not, I will take it by force”; NRSV). The Aramaic noun ḥsn, “strength,” occurs in Dan 2:37 (‫ )חִ ְסנָא‬and Dan 4:30 (‫ ;חִ ְסנִ י‬see Wakely 2012, 2:217); in Isa 1:31 the noun ‫ חָ סֹ ן‬occurs (‫הֶ חָ סֹ ן‬, “the strong,” possibly an Aramaism; see HALOT, s.v. “‫)”חָ סֹ ן‬. It is not unexpected that similar Akkadian expressions are attested using emūqa, “by force” (adverbial)25 or ina emūqu, “with violence,” for example: 1 UDU u 1 enzu e-​mu-​qa PN ilqi, “PN has taken by force one sheep and one goat”; ana e-​mu-​qí-​im uterrûma šeʾam, “they used force and took the barley away” (BE 6/1, no. 103:19 [Old Babylonian]) or eqla . . . ana e-​mu-​qí-​im-​ma ina qātīni itekmu, “they have taken the field from our hands by force” (JEN 6, no. 662:38).26 Misappropriation hḥsn, TAD B2.9:7 The withdrawal from goods in TAD B2.9:7 (420 BCE) is the outcome of a suit brought by the brothers Menaḥem and Ananyah against the brothers Yedanyah and Maḥseyah regarding some goods that Menaḥem and Ananyah’s grandfather Mešullam had left on deposit with Esḥor, the father of Yedanyah and Maḥseyah. Apparently, Esḥor held on (hḥsn, “he held in possession”) to the goods, instead of returning them, which led to the claim by Menaḥem and Ananyah. The preposition b after the phrase “you 24.  Hughes (1958, note n) suggests the reading ṯꜢw⸗f as an early demotic writing of ṯꜢwi, “to steal” (see WÄS 5:350) and therefore translates ṯꜢw⸗f as “stolen” (see also Yaron 1961b, 128; Botta 2014, 7–11). 25.  CAD 4, s.v. “emūqa”; CAD 4, s.v. “emūqu,” 3a. 26.  CAD 4, s.v. “emūqu,” 3a.

42

Elephantine Revisited

have satisfied my heart” points to what the defendant delivers to the plaintiff in order to satisfy him. In this case, the phrase “you satisfied our heart with those goods” means that the goods, which were left on deposit by Šeloman with Esḥor, were now to be given back to the plaintiffs, the sons of Šeloman (Botta 2009, 129–31). The remedy for the party whose rights had been injured was “to be restored as far as possible to the position he was before the damage of which he complains occurred” (Phillips 1970, 132). Restitution was therefore expected in such cases. In TAD A6.15, Nakhtḥor was expected to return the stolen goods or pay damages (zyny) and in TAD A4.4:8, the culprits who stole goods from several houses had to return them to their owners. “To Break into (by Force)” ʿll b- TAD A4.7:9 (= EPE no. B19); TAD A4.8:8 (= EPE no. B20); ʿll kḥsn b- TAD B7.2:4.8 (= EPE no. B50), and perhaps TAD A6.7:727 This expression always occurs in the context of theft, namely, burglary—a very common crime in the ancient Near East (Westbrook 2003c, 421; Slanski 2003, 517; Zaccagnini 2003, 613; Oelsner et al. 2003, 963–64; Frymer-​Kenski 2003, 1038). We find a similar expression in Akkadian using the verbs palāšu, “to break into,” and tabālu, “to take away”: bītam iplušuma 6 ṣubāti i-​ta-​áb-​blu, “they broke into the house and took away six pieces of textiles” (Kt Hahn no. 3:18).28 An example of an expression using the verbs palāšu, “to break into,” and leqû, “to take,” is: šaddaqdim šarrāqū bītī ip-​lu-​šu-​ma mimmūja iltequ, “last year thieves broke into my house and took my property” (AbB 13, no. 12:9).29

“To Inflict Injury” ktš, “to beat,” TAD A6.15:9, Aršama correspondence; TAD B7.2:5, 9; 8.4:5; 8.6:10 (fragmentary); D2.32:2, 4 The expression occurs seven times in the Aramaic texts, three of them in very damaged documents (TAD D2.32:2, 4, fragment of a court record); another two in the obligation to make a judicial declaration (TAD B7.2:5, 9), which records the complaint by Artafrada and the exculpatory oath that Malkiyah is promising to make. Another example comes from Memphis (TAD B8.4). This fragmentary text is described by Porten and Yardeni as a court record of assault and battery reporting that PN struck PN in the palm ten times and on the sole of the foot six times (wktšwny) and beat him (wšqpwny) in the leg twice. Such punishment, however, seems more fitting for an interrogation procedure rather than the result of a burglary. The mention at the 27.  See EPE no. B16 (p. 135 n. 22). 28.  CAD 18, s.v. “tabālu,” 2a2. 29.  CAD 12, s.v. “palāšu,” 1a. For biblical legislation, see Jackson 1972, 154–64; for Egypt, see O. Ashmolean Museum 1945.37 and 1954.33 (Hieratic; Allam 1973, 18–21); see Boochs 1993, 120.

Law in Elephantine

43

beginning of the document that “[PN] and his colleagues the judges were ill-​willed” (TAD B8.4:2) seems to prelude an appeal to a different court narrating the wrongs that the petitioner suffered at the hands of other judges (cf. TAD A5.2). Two clearer cases of the expression (TAD A6.15; B7.2) show that an exculpatory oath sufficed to be cleared of the crime in one case (TAD B7.2) and restitution of the stolen goods was sufficient in the other (TAD A6.15), without additional penalties for the personal assaults adduced to have been caused in the commission of the crime.30 References Allam, S. 1973. Hieratische Ostraka und Papyri aus der Ramessidenzeit. Tübingen: Self-​published. Bae, C.-H. 2001. “Comparative Studies of King Darius’s Bisitun Inscription.” Ph.D. diss., Harvard University. Benveniste, E. 1954. “Éléments perses en Araméen d’Égypte.” JA 242:297–310. Beyse, K.-M. 2004. “‫שָ ׁחַ ד‬.” TDOT 14:555–58. Boochs, W. 1993. Strafrechtliche Aspekte im altägyptischen Recht. Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag. Botta, A. F. 2009. The Aramaic and Egyptian Legal Traditions at Elephantine: An Egyptological Approach. LSTS 64. London: T&T Clark. ———. 2014. “Die Terminologie von Diebstahl und Raub in einem demotischen Brief an Thot (P. Chicago 19422) und ihre aramäischen Entsprechungen.” Pages 7–11 in Gehilfe des Thot: Fs. für Karl-​Theodor Zauzich zu seinem 75. Geburtstag. Edited by S. L. Lippert and M. A. Stadler. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Domeris, W. R. 2012. “‫ ׇּגנַב‬.” NIDOTTE 1:863–64. Driver, G. R. 1954. Aramaic Documents of the Fifth Century B.C. Oxford: Clarendon. ———. 1957. Aramaic Documents of the Fifth Century B.C. Rev. ed. Oxford: Clarendon. Frymer-​Kenski, T. 2003. “Israel.” Pages 975–1046 in volume 2 of A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law. Edited by R. Westbrook. HdO 72/2. Leiden: Brill. Goldberg, M. 1984. “The Story of the Moral: Gifts or Bribes in Deuteronomy.” Interpretation 38:15–25. Greengus, S. 2011. Laws in the Bible and in Early Rabbinic Collections. Eugene, OR: Cascade. Grisanti, M. A., and J. C. McCann. 2012. “‫שָ ׁחַ ד‬.” NIDOTTE 4:75–76. Gross, A. D. 2008. Continuity and Innovation in the Aramaic Legal Tradition. JSJSup 128. Leiden: Brill. Hughes, G. R. 1958. “A Demotic Letter to Thoth.” JNES 17:1–12. Jackson, B. S. 1972. Theft in Early Jewish Law. Oxford: Clarendon. Jasnow, R. 2003. “New Kingdom.” Pages 289–359 in volume 1 of A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law. Edited by R. Westbrook. HdO 72/1. Leiden: Brill. Kent, R. G. 1953. Old Persian: Grammar, Texts, Lexicon. 2nd rev. ed. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society. King, L. W. 1912. Babylonian Boundary-​Stones and Memorial-​Tablets in the British Museum. London: Longman. Leemans, W. F. 1957. “Some Aspects of Theft and Robbery in Old-​Babylonian Documents.” RSO 32:661–66. Lorton, D. 1977. “The Treatment of Criminals in Ancient Egypt Through the New Kingdom.” JESHO 20:2–64. Malbran-​Labat, F. 1994. La version akkadienne de l’inscription trilingue de Darius à Behistun. Documenta Asiana 1. Rome: Gruppo Editoriale Internazionale. 30.  For the treatment of assault and battery in the ancient Near East, see Zaccagnini 2003, 612; Oelsner et al. 2003, 962; Frymer-​Kenski 2003, 1033.

44

Elephantine Revisited

Mauss, M. 2002. The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies. Translation of Essai sur le don: Forme et raison de l’échange dans les sociétés archaïques. London: Routledge. Meillet, A. 1931. Grammaire du vieux-​perse. Edited by E. Benveniste. 2nd rev. ed. Paris: Champion. Milgrom, J. 1976. Cult and Conscience: The Asham and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance. SJLA 18. Leiden: Brill. Muffs, Y. 2003. Studies in the Aramaic Legal Papyri from Elephantine, with Prolegomenon by Baruch A. Levine. HdO 66. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill. Nyberg, H. S. 1928–31. Hilfsbuch des Pehlevi. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Oelsner, J., B. Wells, and C. Wunsch. 2003. “Neo-​Babylonian Period.” Pages 911–74 in volume 2 of A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law. Edited by R. Westbrook. HdO 72/2. Leiden: Brill. Paul, S. P. 1970. Studies in the Book of the Covenant in Light of Cuneiform and Biblical Law. Leiden: Brill. Phillips, A. 1970. Ancient Israel’s Criminal Law: A New Approach to the Decalogue. New York: Schocken. Porten, B. 1968. Archives from Elephantine: The Life of an Ancient Jewish Military Colony. Berkeley: University of California Press. ———. 2003. “Elephantine.” Pages 863–81 in volume 2 of A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law. Edited by R. Westbrook. HdO 72/2. Leiden: Brill. Schmitt, R. 1991. The Bisitun Inscriptions of Darius the Great: Old Persian Version. Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum 1/1. London: Humphries. Slanski, K. 2003. “Middle Babylonian Period.” Pages 486–520 in volume 1 of A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law. Edited by R. Westbrook. HdO 72/1. Leiden: Brill. Théodoridès, A. 1975. “Bestechung.” LÄ 1:765. Verger, A. 1965. Ricerche giuridiche sui papiri aramaici di Elefantina. Rome: Università di Roma. Vernus, P. 2003. Affairs and Scandals in Ancient Egypt. New York: Cornell University Press. Voigtlander, E. N. von. 1978. The Bisitun Inscription of Darius the Great: Babylonian Version. Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum 1/2. London: Humphries. Wakely, R. 2012. “‫חָ סֹ ן‬.” NIDOTTE 2:217–20. Weissbach, F. H. 1911. Die Keilinschriften der Achämeniden. VAB 3. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Westbrook, R. 2003a. “The Character of Ancient Near Eastern Law.” Pages 1–90 in volume 1 of A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law. Edited by R. Westbrook. HdO 72/1. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2003b. “Emar and Vicinity.” Pages 657–91 in volume 1 of A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law. Edited by R. Westbrook. HdO 72/1. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2003c. “Old Babylonian Period.” Pages 361–430 in volume 1 of A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law. Edited by R. Westbrook. HdO 72/1. Leiden: Brill. Westbrook, R., and C. Wilcke. 1974–77. “The Liability of an Innocent Purchaser of Stolen Goods in Early Mesopotamian Law.” AfO 25:111–21. Whitehead, J. D. 1974. “Early Aramaic Epistolography: The Arsames Correspondence.” Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago. ———. 1978. “Distinctive Features of the Language of the Aramaic Arsames Correspondence.” JNES 37:119–40. Wilcke, C. 2003. “Early Dynastic and Sargonic Periods.” Pages 141–81 in volume 1 of A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law. Edited by R. Westbrook. Leiden: Brill. Yaron, R. 1961a. Introduction to the Law of the Aramaic Papyri. Oxford: Clarendon. ———. 1961b. “Notes on Aramaic Papyri II.” JNES 20:127–30. Zaccagnini, C. 2003. “Nuzi.” Pages 565–617 in volume 1 of A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law. Edited by R. Westbrook. HdO 72/1. Leiden: Brill.

Chapter 5

The Ostraca of Elephantine: A Further Light on the Judeans in Elephantine André Lemaire

In addition to the Aramaic papyri and a few ostraca contained in the four volumes of the Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt by Bezalel Porten and Ada Yardeni (TAD A–D), the study of the Judean community at Elephantine must also take into account the many Aramaic ostraca in the Clermont-​Ganneau collection, finally published in 2006 (roughly a century after their discovery) by Hélène Lozachmeur.1 Besides these ostraca, Wolfgang Röllig’s publication of the Aramaic ostraca discovered during the German Swiss excavations of 1987–92 (Röllig 2013) must also be taken into consideration, as well as Élisabeth Delange’s study of the French excavations at Elephantine (Delange 2012). Of some three hundred Aramaic ostraca in the Clermont-​Ganneau collection, a few of the best preserved among them had previously been published by André Dupont-​ Sommer.2 Before Lozachmeur’s publication, a total of nine ostraca from this collection had been published (nos. 16, 44, 70, 125, 152, 169, 186, 228, 277).3 As is usual with fragmentary ostraca—and practically all the Elephantine ostraca are fragmentary— their documentation is fascinating but sometimes thankless work.4 What we have in the Clermont-​Ganneau collection are short, everyday messages that furnish a window onto daily life (Lemaire 2011). The reference to everyday life is obvious from the frequency of the words YWM, “day” (twenty times: Clermont-​Ganneau nos. 11, 12, 36, 44, 48, 49, 75, 98, 118, 131, 154, 157, 186, 189, 191?, 213, 226, 237?, 255, X13), YWMʾ ZNH, “this day”/“today” (nine times: Clermont-​Ganneau nos. 1 conc. 3 [corrected], 18, 126, 138, 139, 169, 244, J5?, J8), ʾTML, “yesterday” (seventeen times: Clermont-​ Ganneau nos. 52, 55, 57, 71, 78, 79, 82, 99, 125, 165?, 167, 226, 263, X7, J3, J4, J6), and MḤR, “tomorrow” (twenty-​one times: Clermont-​Ganneau nos. 18, 20, 37, 42, 45, 57, 69, 89, 98, 102, 110, 121, 152, 157, 187, 189, 203, J2, J3, J5, J7; see Lemaire 2011, 365). The language of these ostraca is probably very close to the everyday speech of the time; it is certainly much less formal than the contents of the documents, letters, and contracts that we find in the papyri. This difference is evinced both by the salutations This essay has been adapted and updated from an earlier published version. © The British Academy 2015. Material reproduced by permission from André Lemaire, Levantine Epigraphy and History in the Achaemenid Period (539–322) (London: Oxford University Press, 2015). 1.  Lozachmeur 2006, 2013; see also Lemaire 2007. The reading of Clermont-​Ganneau no. 253:1 (Lozachmeur 2013, 154) could well be LBDMLKT BN GRBʿL. 2.  Dupont-​Sommer 1944; 1942–45; 1945a; 1945b; 1946–47a; 1946–47b; 1948a; 1948b; 1949a; 1949b; 1950–60; 1957; 1963; 1964; 1976. 3.  See TAD D7.2; 7.5; 7.7; 7.10; 7.16; 7.21; 7.30; 7.35; 7.44. 4.  Only seventeen ostraca are complete (Dupont-​Sommer 1949, 109).

45

46

Elephantine Revisited

used in the ostraca, as well as their profanity. Following a preliminary survey by Porten (1993), the ostraca’s epistolographic formulas were studied in detail by Dirk Schwiderski (2013). As is to be expected, these formulas are generally shorter and simpler than in the Aramaic letters written on papyrus or leather (Fitzmyer 2000, 91–240): 1. The praescriptio or initial address appears infrequently and takes two forms: • Type 1: ʾL + title [MR(ʾ)Y/ʾḤ] + name of the addressee/recipient + name of the sender possibly preceded by the title ʿBDK or ʾḤWK (Clermont-​ Ganneau nos. 70, 87, 269, 277). This formula appears similar to the formula used in the Hebrew ostraca around 600 BCE. It might be linked with the Judean scribal tradition, but one should note that it is also well attested in other early Aramaic letters. • Type 2: MN + name of the sender + ʿL + name of the addressee (Clermont-​ Ganneau nos. 144:1, 228, X7:1). This type is well known from official Achaemenid correspondence: the Aršama (Driver 1957) and Bagavanta correspondence (Naveh and Shaked 2012). 2. The initial greeting is frequently used as an initial address with the formula ŠLM + name of the addressee.5 Sometimes we find more developed, and probably more polite formulas, such as ŠLM . . . YHH ṢBʾT YŠʾL BKL ʿDN (Clermont-​Ganneau nos. 167, 186:1) or ŠLM WḤYN ŠLḤT LK, “welfare and life I sent to you” (Clermont-​Ganneau no. 70:2),6 followed by a blessing: BRKTK LYHH WLḤ⟨N⟩M, “I blessed you by Yaho and by Kh⟨nu⟩m”7 (Clermont-​Ganneau no. 70:3) and a reminder in the conclusion: LŠLMK ŠLḤT SPRʾ, “I sent you this letter for your welfare.” 3. Finally, a transitional phrase occurs: WKʿ(N)(T), “and now,” possibly followed by ḤZY/Hʾ/ZY, “look.” This introduces the content of the main body of the message. The shorter initial greeting was probably used in daily life, especially in the streets (where one might, for example, hear ŠLM NTN, “Šalam/Greetings Natan!”). The longer formulas were probably atypical (with a clear religious and ethnic connotation). The name of the Judean God forms the profane formula ḤY LYHH, “by the life of YHH,”8 which appears ten times in the Clermont-​Ganneau ostraca (nos. 14, 20, 41, 56, 152 [twice], 174, 185, 214, X16, J8 [see Lozachmeur 2006, 528–29]). Such profanity was probably often heard in the streets of Elephantine, too (Dupont-​Sommer 1947, 188). This formula might be compared to the Hebrew ḤY YHWH, “by the life of YHWH,” 5.  Clermont-​Ganneau nos. 4:1, 14:1, 17:1, 33:1, 36:1, 37:1, 44:1, 45:1, 47:1, 48:1, 50:1, 53:1, 71:1, 75:1, 78:1, 81:1, 97:1, 125:1, 126:1, 133:1, 135:1, 136:1, 138:1, 152:1, 154:1, 164:1, 169:1, 173:1, 200:1, 202:1, 203:1, 214:1, 223:1, 233:1, 239:1, 247:1, 255:1, X6:1, X19:1, J3:1, J4:1, J5:1. This formula is followed by MN + name of the sender in BM 45035 recto and verso (= TAD D7.20). 6.  Clermont-​Ganneau no. 87:3 may be restored with a similar formula: [ŠLM] WŠRRT [HWŠRT LK]. 7.  The reading “Khnum” (the Egyptian god) is uncertain and problematic. TAD D7.21:3 has LḤNWM with a W above the line; Cowley and Dupont-​Sommer read only ḤN (Lozachmeur 2006, 236), and the picture and facsimiles in Lozachmeur (2006: pls. 138–139) are not clear. One should probably read LḤM, which could be corrected to LḤ⟨N⟩M (discussed in n. 11 below). 8.  The ostraca always use the spelling YHH, while the papyri generally use YHW, except in TAD B2.7:14. At Elephantine, the spelling YHH was likely older than YHW (Dupont-​Sommer 1947, 175–77).

The Ostraca of Elephantine

47

which appears three times in the Lachish ostraca (nos. 2:9, 6:12, 12:3). The Hebrew formula was also well known in the Bible, especially in the books of Samuel and Kings. In this regard, we might recall that the Judeans at Elephantine were soldiers, and soldiers are famed for their swearing. In fact, that the Judeans at Elephantine were soldiers may also partially explain the use of the appellation YHH ṢBʾT, “YHH Zebaoth / of the armies” (Clermont-​Ganneau nos. 167 conc. 1, 175=J8 conc. 9, 186 conc. 1–2). This phrase is well known from the Hebrew Bible, especially in the book of Isaiah (O’Kennedy 2007, 79; Lemaire 2010, 127–30), and from paleo-​Hebrew inscriptions from Khirbet el-​Qom (Naveh 2001, 198–207; Lemaire 2006, 233–34; Aḥituv 2008, 229). This is probably a new example of the continuation of First Temple Judean traditions among the Judean community at Elephantine. However, one should emphasize that ḤY LYHH as well as YHH ṢBʾT are not mentioned in the papyri that represent the written language at Elephantine. A similar difference is apparent between the papyri and the ostraca regarding the Judean feasts of the Sabbath and Passover (Grabbe 2013, 129–32). The word “Sabbath” is not mentioned in the papyri but does appear in the ostraca (ŠBH, “Sabbath”), as was emphasized by Dupont-​Sommer in several papers (1949b; 1950; 1957; 1963). The phrase YWM ŠBH, “the day of Sabbath” occurs three times (Clermont-​Ganneau nos. 44 conc. 5, 49 conc. 8 [corrected reading], 186 conv. 1) and is comparable to MḤR BŠBH, “tomorrow, on Sabbath” (Clermont Ganneau no. 152 conc. 2). The word is also mentioned on three other ostraca from Elephantine (TAD D7.12:9; 7.28:4; 7.48:5?). From all these fragmentary ostraca it is clear that the Sabbath was a special day. It may have been connected with cooking (TAD D7.12) and salt, unless MLḤ means “boatman” (Clermont-​Ganneau no. 186 conc. 5). However, Clermont-​Ganneau no. 169 (and perhaps also nos. 186 and X6) seems to suggest that salt (to put in the flour) could be bought from the boat (Porten 2003a, COS 3.87H:215). Dupont-​Sommer (1949b) translated ostracon Clermont-​Ganneau no. 152:2 as “tie the boat tomorrow, on Sabbath” (on the basis that people did not work on the Sabbath), but according to Porten and Yardeni ʿRQY ʾLPʾ MḤR BŠBH is better translated “Meet the boat tomorrow on Sabbath” (TAD D7.16:2; Porten 2003a, COS 3.87F:214). It is difficult to specify exactly what is meant by ʿD ʿRWBH in Clermont-​Ganneau no. 204:5. Dupont-​Sommer (1950– 60, 68–71) and Lozachmeur (2006, 353) translate it as “avant vendredi,” but ʿRWBH refers more generally to “evening, eve,” and not necessarily to “Friday.” More broadly, the ostraca leave us with no certainty as to what the “day of Sabbath” refers to, and we can only wonder whether it meant the feast of the full moon, as was probably the case during the First Temple period (Lemaire 1973; Doering 1999), or whether it referred already to the seventh day of the week, as specified in the Pentateuch. Because of the Elephantine community’s connection with the First Temple tradition, “the first interpretation looks historically more probable,” but “the text of the ostraca does not confirm it” (Lemaire 2011, 370; see also Becking 2008). Passover is indirectly attested in ostracon Clermont-​Ganneau no. 62 conv. 4, in the word PSḤḤNTY, which is translated by Lozachmeur as “my Passover gift” (2006, 230; however, on p. 538, she raises the possibility of PSḤ as a personal name). Regardless, “Passover” as a festival is clearly attested in two other ostraca: in TAD D7.6:9–10, in the sentence “Send (word) to me when you make (= observe) the Passover” (TʿBDN PSḤʾ; see also Porten 2003a, COS 3.87A:208–9), and in TAD D7.24:5, in a fragmentary

48

Elephantine Revisited

context. Now, as is well known, the so-​called “Passover Papyrus” is highly fragmentary; in its present state, it does not explicitly mention “Passover” (TAD A4.1), and its interpretation is still much debated (see, for instance, Gass 1999). Regardless, it is safely datable to 419/418 BCE, which date may have some bearing on the problem of the Ezra mission as presented in the Bible (Lemaire 1995, 56–61). I emphasize here only that there was apparently a problem regarding how to celebrate Passover, and most certainly one regarding the celebration of the Unleavened Bread festival. In the Passover Papyrus, the injunction “to be pure” seems clear in line 5 (DKYN HWW, “be pure”). The problem of purity and impurity is not new and is already well attested in the ostraca. The phrase BṬHR, “in purity” is probably to be read in Clermont-​Ganneau no. 107:4, while the verb ṬMʾ, “to be impure” should probably be read in Clermont-​Ganneau nos. 97, 125, and 137. Clermont-​Ganneau no. 125 is the best instance (see also TAD D7.44): Recto 1. [Greetings, PN] from [PN.] 2. [No]w I 3. [sen]t to you, saying: 4. “Do not dispatch to me 5. food without it Verso 1. being sealed.” Lo, every jar [corrected to: all the jars] 2. are impure. Behold, 3. the food that [you] dispatch[ed] 4. to me yesterday is im[pure]. 5. Now, do not [dispatch] 6. to me [. . .] f [ood?] From this ostracon it seems that impurity was especially associated with food kept in jars/pots (Clermont-​Ganneau no. 97:2–3) and that it was possible to protect against impurity by sealing such pots (Lozachmeur 2008).9 It is harder to appreciate the possible connection between the problem of impurity and castor oil (TQM) (D7.33.14; Clermont-​Ganneau nos. 58, 82(?), 130, 136, and esp. no. 137; see Grelot 1964). In this context, one may note that BṢWMʾ, “in the fast” is also attested in the fragmentary ostracon Clermont-​Ganneau no. 200 (line 3), but it would be hazardous to see here a reference to either a day of fasting or the Day of Atonement. The verb KPR (“to pardon, to give compensation”), however, is attested in two ostraca (Clermont-​Ganneau nos. X8 conv. 1; J8 conc. 10–11). In the first of these ostraca, one also reads the sentence Lʾ YḤṬʾ LYHH , “he will not sin to YHH ” (X8 conv. 4 [corrected reading]). The second ostracon bears the phrase Y]WM ZY ʾMWT, “[the d]ay when I die” (Clermont-​Ganneau no. J8 conc. 8), followed by YBLKY YHH ṢBʾ[T, “YHH Ṣebaʾot will bring you” (line 9). The last word of this ostracon is QRB, 9.  The usual translation “bread” does not accord with the mention of “sealed” jars. The presence of “food” (LḤM) in jars ought to be compared to a paleo-​Hebrew inscription (LḤM) on a jar (ca. 600 BCE; see Lemaire and Yardeni 2006, 220, no. 16).

The Ostraca of Elephantine

49

perhaps “he offered,” to be compared to ZY YQRB ʿL yh[h, “that he will offer to yh[h]” in Clermont-​Ganneau no. 103 conv. 2.10 All these words are very suggestive, but their fragmentary context means that their interpretation can only be conjectural. In her conclusion about the religion attested in the ostraca, Lozachmeur (2006, 533) writes: “On ne trouve . . . dans nos ostraca pas la moindre trace des syncrétismes que suggèrent clairement certains textes sur papyrus antérieurement édités. . . . Nous n’avons lu nulle part . . . à côté du nom de YHH, le nom de Anath-​Yahô, ni celui des deux divinités araméennes de Ashimbethel et de Anathbethel.” Lozachmeur also notes, however, that the god ḤNM is mentioned twice in the ostraca: once in connection with Memphis (Clermont-​Ganneau no. 203: LḤNM BMNPY), which probably does not reflect the situation in Elephantine, and once in the greeting that opens Clermont-​Ganneau no. 70: Ḥ⟨N⟩M11 (corrected reading). In this ostracon, the double greeting ŠLM WḤYN (line 2) probably reflects a strong Egyptian cultural influence. This exceptional mention of a blessing by both YHH and Khnum need not imply real syncretism (pace Dupont-​Sommer 1945b), but may instead be understood as reflecting an association between the local Egyptian god and the ethnic Judean god. In fact, ostracon Clermont-​Ganneau no. 277 seems a priori to provide a better argument for Judean syncretism, as proposed by Dupont-​Sommer (1944a, 1944b). This ostracon appears complete and its reading is certain: 1. To my brother Ḥaggai, your brother 2. Yarḥu. Šalam/Greetings, my brother. 3. Bel and Nabu, Shamash and Nergal.12 As Lozachmeur (2006, 410) notes, the script of this palimpsest ostracon is unusual in that it presents vertical strokes. It is probably a scribal exercise containing “two independent parts: lines 1–2 are an example of a formula for the beginning of a message [. . .] and line 3 is another small scribal exercise with a list of Babylonian deities” (Lemaire 2011, 370). Furthermore, Ḥaggai is a common Northwest Semitic name; Yarḥu looks Aramean or North Arabic. This ostracon thus does not seem of one piece with the local Judean culture, but is most likely a scribal exercise best placed within the context of the Aramean scribal tradition. Like the proverbs and story of Aḥiqar (Niehr 2007; Weigl 2010; Quack 2011, 375–89; Toloni 2013; see also Ingo Kottsieper, chapter 8 in this volume), it should not be used as a window onto the religion of the Elephantine Judean community; it should instead be taken as a representation of the community’s literacy in Aramaic. In this context, one may note that, among the 130 witnesses that appear in the Elephantine papyri, only five did not write their own signatures (Knauf 2002, 182).13 Finally, there is no meaningful indication in the 10.  QRB may also be read in Clermont-​Ganneau nos. 179 conv. 1 and X9 conv. 4. 11.  From a good color photograph, and setting aside the tentative reading ḤN and ḤNWM. 12.  TAD D7.21 proposes “The welfare of my brother may Bel and Nabu, Šamaš and Nergal (seek after at all times),” but such a restoration is not justified, as the ostracon is, by all appearances, complete. 13.  The proverbs and story of Aḥiqar, as well as the Aramaic version of the Bisitun inscription of Darius I, are typical of an Aramaic school. By contrast, we have no evidence for a Hebrew school at Elephantine. We dealt elsewhere in detail with the problem of an Aramaic school in Elephantine (Lemaire 2014).

50

Elephantine Revisited

Elephantine ostraca of real religious syncretism among the Judeans at Elephantine.14 One may wonder whether this relates to the paleographic dating of these ostraca (to approximately the first quarter of the fifth century BCE), while most of the papyri with possible evidence for religious syncretism are later. What is clear is that these people were fully aware of their Judean ethnicity, as distinct from their Aramean culture. The ethnic YHWDY appears three times in these ostraca (Clermont-​Ganneau nos. 135, 182, X11) and at least twice in the plural (probably a good indication that the Judeans were viewed as a special group), in ostracon Clermont-​Ganneau no. 135 conv. 2(?)–3, and more clearly in no. X11: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Those (are) the Judeans (YHWDYʾ) who received (their) portion/payment/salary (PRS[): Maki son of Gemaryah Yedanyah son of Makiyah Ananyah son of Hošaʿyah [PN] son of Šelomam

Lozachmeur translates the word YHWDY as “Jew,” but it is clearly an ethnic designation and does not carry a religious connotation. It is probably better to translate “Judean” here. In fact, as Porten argues, this community probably had its origin in seventh century BCE Judah (Letter of Aristeas §13; Porten 1968, 451–61; 2003c, 459–560; Kahn 2007) and emigrated during the Saite Dynasty; their temple to YHW would thus already have been there “when Cambyses entered Egypt” (TAD A4.7:18–19; 4.8:17–18) in 525 BCE. This date may explain two main aspects of their culture. First is the lack of reference to a written law, as they probably arrived in Egypt before the discovery and promulgation of the law during Josiah’s reign (2 Kgs 22–23). Second is their use of the Aramaic language and script alone.15 They were probably unable to write anything in Hebrew, so that even the letter addressed to “Bagavahya governor of Judah,” as well as the letters sent to “Delayah and Šelemyah sons of Sanballat governor of Samaria” (TAD A4.7:29; 4.8:28), and “to Yehoḥanan the High Priest and his colleagues the priests who are in Jerusalem” (TAD A4.7:18–19; 4.8:17–18), were written in Aramaic.16 This is one of the great paradoxes of the Judean community at Elephantine: while apparently fully Judean and wholly Yahwistic, it was also totally Aramaicized after nearly two centuries and several generations. The use of Hebrew is thus not attested in Elephantine (so already Dupont-​Sommer 1949a, 110) and, in fact, it is often thought that “it usually takes about two generations for a language to die out” (Schniedewind 2013, 131). The fact that this Judean community appears to have been living in accordance with the First Temple tradition of the seventh century BCE (Dion 2002), while still maintaining contacts with Jerusalem and Samaria, represents a further paradox. Following the syntheses of Porten (1968) and Grelot (1972), these and other aspects 14.  Ostracon TAD D7.38–40 probably mentions “Khnum,” while TAD D7.41 perhaps mentions “Bethel.” Their content, however, does not seem to be connected with the Judean people. 15.  Note, however, a tiny possible Hebrew stone inscription (ca. 600 BCE: Lemaire 2016). 16.  See also the memorandum of Bagavahya and Delayah’s answer in TAD A4.9.

The Ostraca of Elephantine

51

of this community have continued to form the object of many studies over the past twelve years; nevertheless, there are always new details to discover or emphasize.17 References Aḥituv, S. 2008. Echoes from the Past: Hebrew and Cognate Inscriptions from the Biblical World. Jerusalem: Carta. Azzoni, A. 2013. “Women of Elephantine and Women in the Land of Israel.” Pages 3–12 in In the Shadow of Bezalel: Aramaic, Biblical, and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Bezalel Porten. Edited by A. F. Botta. CHANE 60. Leiden: Brill. Becking, B. 2003. “Die Gottheiten der Juden in Elephantine.” Pages 203–26 in Der eine Gott und die Götter: Polytheismus und Monotheismus im antiken Israel. Edited by M. Oeming and K. Schmid. ATANT 82. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag. ———. 2005. “Temple, Marzeaḥ, and Power at Elephantine.” Transeuphratène 29:37–47. ———. 2008. “Sabbath at Elephantine.” Pages 177–89 in Empsychoi Logoi—Religious Innovations in Antiquity: Studies in Honour of Pieter Willem van der Horst. Edited by A. Houtman, A. de Jong, and M. Misset-​van de Weg. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2011. “Yehudite Identity in Elephantine.” Pages 403–19 in Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period. Edited by O. Lipschits, G. N. Knoppers, and M. Oeming. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Botta, A. J. 2009. The Aramaic and Egyptian Legal Traditions at Elephantine: An Egyptological Approach. LSTS 64. London: T&T Clark. ———. 2013. “Three Additional Aramaic-​Egyptian Parallel Legal Terms/Formulae.” Pages 29–38 in In the Shadow of Bezalel: Aramaic, Biblical, and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Bezalel Porten. Edited by A. F. Botta. CHANE 60. Leiden: Brill. Cussini, E. 2013. “The Career of Some Elephantine and Murašû Scribes.” Pages 39–52 in In the Shadow of Bezalel: Aramaic, Biblical, and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Bezalel Porten. Edited by A. F. Botta. CHANE 60. Leiden: Brill. Delange, E., ed. 2012. Les fouilles françaises d’Éléphantine (Assouan) 1906–1911. MAIBL 46. Paris: de Boccard. De la Vallée-​Poussin, F. 2008. “La pénalité dissuasive à Éléphantine: Réflexions sur le scribe, la politique judiciaire perse et la communauté judéo-​araméenne.” Transeuphratène 36:57–78. Dion, P.-E. 2002. “La religion des papyrus d’Éléphantine: Un reflet du Juda d’avant l’exil.” Pages 243–54 in Kein Land für sich allein: Studien zum Kulturkontakt in Kanaan, Israel/ Palästina und Ebirnâri für Manfred Weippert. Edited by U. Hübner and E. A. Knauf. OBO 186. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Doering, L. 1999. Schabbat: Sabbathalacha und -praxis im antiken Judentum und Urchristentum. TSAJ 78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Driver, G. R. 1957. Aramaic Documents of the Fifth Century B.C. Oxford: Clarendon. Dupont-​Sommer, A. 1942–45. “Un ostracon araméen inédit d’Éléphantine adressé à Aḥuṭab.” Revue des études sémitiques et Babyloniaca: 65–75. ———. 1944a. “ ‘Bêl et Nabû, Shamash et Nergal’ sur un ostracon inédit d’Éléphantine.” RHR 128:28–39. ———. 1944b. “Quatre ostraca araméens d’Eléphantine.” CRAI: 259–61. ———. 1945a. “La Pâque dans les documents araméens d’Éléphantine.” CRAI: 174–76.

17.  Dion 2002; Kottsieper 2002; 2013; Knauf 2002; Becking 2003; 2005; 2008; 2011; Meinhold 2003; Porten 2003b; 2003c; Fried 2004, 86–107; Grätz 2004, 240–51; Kratz 2004; 2007; 2010; 2011; Nutkowicz 2004a; 2004b; 2008; 2011; Kuckherz 2006; De la Vallée-​Poussin 2008; Joisten-​Pruschke 2008; 2009; Botta 2009; 2013; Becking 2011; Lemaire 2011; Azzoni 2013; Cussini 2013; Grabbe 2013.

52

Elephantine Revisited

———. 1945b. Le syncrétisme religieux des Juifs d’Éléphantine d’après un ostracon araméen inédit. RHR 130:17–28. ———. 1946–47a. “ ‘Maison de Yahvé’ et vêtements sacrés à Éléphantine d’après un ostracon araméen du musée du Caire.” JA 235:79–87. ———. 1946–47b. “Sur la fête de la Pâque dans les documents araméens d’Eléphantine.” REJ NS 7/107:1–15. ———. 1947. “ ‘Yahôʾ et ‘Yahô-Ṣebaʾôt’ sur des ostraca araméens inédits d’Éléphantine.” CRAI: 175–91. ———. 1948a. “Ostraca araméens d’Éléphantine I. Collection Clermont-​Ganneau no 16.” ASAE 18:109–16. ———. 1948b. “Ostraca araméens d’Éléphantine II. Musée de Berlin P. 1137.” ASAE 18:117–30. ———. 1949a. “La collection des ostraca araméens recueillis par Clermont-​Ganneau à Éléphantine.” Pages 109–11 in Actes du XXIe Congrès international des Orientalistes. Paris 23–31 juillet 1948. Paris: Société Asiatique; Imprimerie Nationale. ———. 1949b. “L’ostracon araméen du Sabbat (collection Clermont-​Ganneau no 152).” Semitica 2:29–39. ———. 1950–60. “Sabbat et Parascève à Éléphantine d’après des ostraca araméens inédits.” Pages 67–88 in Mémoires présentés par divers savants à l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-​Lettres 14​/15​.1. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. ———. 1957. “Un ostracon araméen inédit d’Éléphantine (collection Clermont-​Ganneau no 186).” RSO 32:403–9 (= Scritti in onore di G. Furlani I). ———. 1963. “Un ostracon araméen inédit d’Éléphantine (collection Clermont-​Ganneau no 44).” Pages 53–58 in Hebrew and Semitic Studies Presented to G.R. Driver. Edited by D. Winton Thomas and W. D. Mc Hardy. Oxford: Clarendon. ———. 1964. “Note sur le mot TQM dans les contrats araméens d’Éléphantine.” Semitica 14:71–72. ———. 1976. “Les dieux et les hommes en l’île d’Éléphantine, près d’Assouan, au temps de l’empire des Perses.” CRAI: 648–60. Fitzmyer, J. A. 1981. “Aramaic Epistolography.” Semeia 22:25–27. Fried, L. S. 2004. The Priest and the Great King. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Gass, E. 1999. “Der Passa-​Papyrus (Cowl 21)—Mythos oder Realität.” BN 99:55–68. Grabbe, L. L. 2013. “Elephantine and the Torah.” Pages 125–35 in In the Shadow of Bezalel: Aramaic, Biblical, and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Bezalel Porten. Edited by A. F. Botta. CHANE 60. Leiden: Brill. Grätz, S. 2004. Das Edikt des Artaxerxes. BZAW 337. Berlin: de Gruyter. Grelot, P. 1964. “L’huile de ricin à Eléphantine.” Semitica 14:63–70. ———. 1972. Documents araméens d’Égypte. LAPO 5. Paris: Cerf. Joisten-​Pruschke, A. 2008. Das religiöse Leben der Juden von Elephantine in der Achämenidischen Zeit. Göttinger Orientforschungen 3: Iranica n.s. 2. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ———. 2009. “Über den wissenschaftlichen Umgang mit den aramäischen Papyri und Ostraka von Elephantine.” BN 142:79–98. Kahn, D. 2007. “Judean Auxiliaries in Egypt’s Wars Against Kush.” JAOS 127:507–16. Knauf, E. A. 2002. “Elephantine und das vor-​biblische Judentum.” Pages 179–88 in Religion und Religionskontakte im Zeitalter der Achämeniden. Edited by R. G. Kratz. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus. Kottsieper, I. 2002. “Die Religionspolitik der Achämenidien und die Juden von Elephantine.” Pages 150–78 in Religions and Religionskontakte im Zeitalter der Achämeniden. Edited by R. G. Kratz. VWGTh 22. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus. ———. 2013. Review of Das religiöse Leben der Juden von Elephantine in der Achämenidischen Zeit, by A. Joisten-​Pruschke. JNES 72:299–306. Kratz, R. G. 2004. “Der Zweite Tempel zu Jeb and zu Jerusalem.” Pages 60–78 in Das Judentum im Zeitalter des Zweiten Tempels. Edited by R. G. Kratz. FAT 42. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

The Ostraca of Elephantine

53

———. 2007. “Temple and Torah: Reflections on the Legal Status of the Pentateuch Between Elephantine and Qumran.” Pages 77–103 in The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance. Edited by G. N. Knoppers and B. M. Levinson. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. ———. 2010. “Zwischen Elephantine und Qumran: Das Alte Testament im Rahmen des antiken Judentums.” Pages 129–46 in Congress Volume Ljubljana 2007. Edited by A. Lemaire. VTSup 133. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2011. “Judean Ambassadors and the Making of Jewish Identity: The Case of Hananiah, Ezra, and Nehemiah.” Pages 421–44 in Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period. Edited by O. Lipschits, G. N. Knoppers, and M. Oeming. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Kuckherz, J. 2006. “Schuhe aus der persischen Militärkolonie von Elephantine, Oberägypten, 6–5 Jhdt. v. Chr.” MDOG 138:109–56. Lemaire, A. 1973. “Le sabbat de l’époque royale israélite.” RB 80:161–85. ———. 1995. “La fin de la première période perse en Égypte et la chronologie judéenne vers 400 av. J.-C.” Transeuphratène 9:51–61. ———. 2006. “Khirbet el-​Qôm and Hebrew and Aramaic Epigraphy.” Pages 231–38 in Confronting the Past: Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of William G. Dever. Edited by S. Gitin, J. E. Wright, and J. P. Dessel. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. ———. 2007. Review of La Collection Clermont-​Ganneau: Ostraca, épigraphes sur jarre, étiquettes de bois, by H. Lozachmeur. Transeuphratène 34:177–83. ———. 2010. “YHWH ṢEBAʾOT dans Isaïe à la lumière de l’épigraphie hébraïque et araméenne.” Pages 127–30 in Isaiah in Context: Studies in Honour of Arie van der Kooij. Edited by M. N. van der Meer, P. van Keulen, W. T. van Peursen, and B. ter Haar Romeny. VTSup 138. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2011. “Judean Identity in Elephantine: Everyday Life According to the Ostraca.” Pages 365–73 in Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period: Negotiating Identity in an International Context. Edited by O. Lipschits, G. N. Knoppers, and M. Oeming. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. ———. 2014. “Aramaic Literacy and School in Elephantine.” Maarav 21:295–307. ———. 2015. Levantine Epigraphy and History in the Achaemenid Period (539–322). Schweich Lectures on Biblical Archaeology 2013. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lemaire, A., and A. Yardeni. 2006. “New Ostraca from the Shephelah.” Pages 197–223 in Biblical Hebrew and Historical Perspectives. Edited by S. E. Fassberg and A. Hurvitz. Jerusalem: Magnes; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. ———. 2016. “Notes d’épigraphie sémitique 2: Un fragment paléo-​hébreu à Éléphantine?” Semitica 58:243–46. Lozachmeur, H. 2006. La collection Clermont-​Ganneau: Ostraca, épigraphes sur jarre, étiquettes de bois. 2 vols. MAIBL 35. Paris: de Boccard. ———. 2008. “La vie quotidienne à Eléphantine au Ve siècle avant notre ère: De l’usage de la racine ḤTM.” Pages 167–76 in D’Ougarit à Jérusalem: Recueil d’études épigraphiques et archéologiques offert à Pierre Bordreuil. Edited by C. Roche. Orient et Méditerranée 2. Paris: de Boccard. ———. 2013. “Clermont-​Ganneau 253: Une revisite et un reclassement obligés.” Pages 151–58 in In the Shadow of Bezalel: Aramaic, Biblical, and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Bezalel Porten. Edited by A. F. Botta. CHANE 60. Leiden: Brill. Meinhold, A. 2003. “Vergleichbar-/Unvergleichbarkeit des Wiederaufbaus der Tempel von Jerusalem und Elephantine in persischer Zeit.” Orientwissenschaftliche Hefte 6:35–59. Naveh, J. 2001. “Hebrew Graffiti from the First Temple Period.” IEJ 51:194–207. Naveh, J., and S. Shaked. 2012. Aramaic Documents from Ancient Bactria (Fourth Century BCE.) from the Khalili Collections. London: Khalili Family Trust. Niehr, H. 2007. Aramäischer Ahiqar. JSHRZ n.s. 2/2. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus. Nutkowicz, H. 2004a. “Note sur une institution juridique à Éléphantine, ʿdh, ‘La cour.’ ” Trans­euphratène 27:181–85.

54

Elephantine Revisited

———. 2004b. “A propos du verbe śnʾ dans les contrats de mariage judéo-​araméens d’Éléphantine.” Transeuphratène 28:165–73. ———. 2008. “Les mariages mixtes à Éléphantine à l’époque perse.” Transeuphratène 36:125–39. ———. 2011. “Eléphantine, ultime tragédie.” Transeuphratène 40:185–98. O’Kennedy, D. F. 2007. “The Use of the Epithet YHWH ṢBʾWT in Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.” JNSL 33:77–99. Porten, B. 1968. Archives from Elephantine: The Life of an Ancient Jewish Military Colony. Berkeley: University of California Press. ———. 1993. “A Survey of Aramaic Ostraca Letters.” Pages 164–74 and 237* in Eretz-​Israel 24 (Avraham Malamat volume). Edited by S. Aḥituv and B. A. Levine. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. ———. 2003a. “Aramaic Ostraca.” COS 3.87–88:207–17. ———. 2003b. “Elephantine and the Bible.” Pages 51–84 in Semitic Papyrology in Context: A Climate of Creativity: Papers from a New York University Conference Marking the Retirement of B.A. Levine. Edited by L. H. Schiffman. CHANE 14. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2003c. “Settlement of the Jews at Elephantine and the Arameans at Syene.” Pages 451–70 in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-​Babylonian Period. Edited by O. Lipschits and J. Blenkinsopp. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Quack, J. 2011. “The Interaction of Egyptian and Aramaic Literature.” Pages 375–401 in Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period: Negotiating Identity in an International Context. Edited by O. Lipschits, G. N. Knoppers, and M. Oeming. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Röllig, W. 2013. “Neue phönizische und aramäische Krugaufschriften und Ostraka aus Elephantine.” Pages 185–203 in The First Cataract of the Nile: One Region—Diverse Perspectives. Edited by D. Raue, S. J. Seidlmayer, and P. Speiser. SDAIK 36. Berlin: de Gruyter. Schniedewind, W. M. 2013. A Social History of Hebrew: Its Origins Through the Rabbinic Period. Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library. New Haven: Yale University Press. Schwiderski, D. 2000. Handbuch des nordwestsemitischen Briefformulars. BZAW 295. Berlin: de Gruyter. ———. 2013. “Epistolographische Elemente in den neuveröffentlichten aramäischen Ostrakon-​briefen aus Elephantine (Sammlung Clermont-​Ganneau).” Pages 159–82 in In the Shadow of Bezalel: Aramaic, Biblical, and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Bezalel Porten. Edited by A. F. Botta. CHANE 60. Leiden: Brill. Toloni, G. 2013. “Ahiqar tra leggenda e rielaborazione letteraria: Una tradizione e i suoi riflessi.” Sefarad 73:7–30. Weigl, M. 2010. Die aramäische Achikar-​Sprüche aus Elephantine und die alttestamentliche Weisheitsliteratur. BZAW 399. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Chapter 6

Elephantine and Ezra–Nehemiah Lester L. Grabbe

When we talk about the Jews in the Persian period, some of the first sources likely to come to mind are Ezra–Nehemiah and the Elephantine texts. Yet there is little connection between these writings: perhaps only two figures are mentioned in common in the two sets of texts—and this only in passing—the high priest Yoḥanan, who appears in Nehemiah only as a name on a list (Neh 12:22), and Sanballat, the governor of Samaria (TAD A4.7:29). The first part of Ezra (1–6) covers a time for which we have no texts from Elephantine. The earliest Elephantine text (TAD B5.1) is dated to the 27th year of Darius (about 495 BCE), whereas Ezra 1–6 is ostensibly dated to the reigns of Cyrus and the early part of Darius’s reign (Cambyses is strangely missing). I say “ostensibly” because there are statements in these chapters that refer to later Persian kings: Xerxes (Ezra 4:6) and Artaxerxes (I? [Ezra 4:7]). The alleged Persian documents in Ezra 1–7 are of special interest. None of them could be a product of the Achaemenid period in their present form, yet it is also possible that some or even all of them could have their origin in genuine Persian documents (Grabbe 2006). Making comparisons is particularly difficult because among these supposed Persian documents in Ezra are several royal decrees, yet we have not a single contemporary letter or decree from the Persian king among the documents that have come down to us. Yet, having said this, I then have to recognize that Ezra–Nehemiah has a number of themes in common with the Elephantine archive. Among the most important of these are the temple and cult, but there are also others. The rest of this essay will look at some of these and compare the two sets of writings, the Elephantine texts and Ezra–Nehemiah.1

Temple and Cult The building of the temple is the main theme of Ezra 1–6, and aspects of the cult and worship crop up elsewhere in the book. In Elephantine the temple was evidently 1.  A more detailed discussion of this whole period and many of the issues addressed here, with extensive bibliography, can be found in Grabbe 2004. The classic treatments of Porten (1968) and Grelot (1972) are presupposed throughout this essay.

55

56

Elephantine Revisited

a central focus of the community and became a vital preoccupation when it was destroyed. Leaders of the community wrote to the high priest Yoḥanan (Yehoḥanan) in Jerusalem. Surprisingly, the Elephantine community seems to have been well informed about things in Jerusalem, including knowing who the current high priest was (TAD A4​.7:​18​ /​/ A4​.8:​17). The Elephantine texts and Ezra 4–6 are parallel in that they both had problems with getting approval for rebuilding their temple. According to Ezra, approval was initially given to rebuild the temple (Ezra 1:2–4), the altar was set up and began to operate (Ezra 3:1–6), building began on the temple (Ezra 3:7, 10), but then “enemies” managed to get the work on the temple stopped (Ezra 4). Work began again without authorization, search was made for the original decree of Cyrus (which was finally found), Darius confirmed the permit, and the temple was completed (Ezra 5–6). There are historical problems with this account in Ezra 1–6 (Grabbe 2004, 269–88; 2006), but my concern at this point is to note the literary parallels of Ezra 1–6 and the situation in Elephantine. According to the Jewish version (which is the only one we have—nothing from the Egyptian side of this event has survived) the priests of the ram-​headed god Khnum instigated an attack on the Temple of yhw and effected its destruction in about 410 BCE (after it had apparently stood for more than a century [TAD A4.7 // A4.8]). The community then wrote to various officials for permission to rebuild this temple: Bagavahya, the governor of Judah; the Jerusalem high priest Yoḥanan; Avastana, an important figure among the Jerusalem nobles; and Delayah and Šelemyah, the sons of the Samarian governor Sanballat. For some strange reason, they did not write to Aršama, or at least no such communication has been preserved (though the memorandum [TAD A4.9] may have been sent to Aršama). Much has been made of the lack of a reply to their letter to the Jerusalem high priest, often with the conclusion that the priest did not reply because Jerusalem disapproved of the Elephantine temple. That is of course possible, but there are many other possibilities. Perhaps the letter never reached its destination in Jerusalem. It may be that the high priest received the letter, consulted his advisors, and then replied. But there are a considerable number of swamps, bars, and brothels between Jerusalem and Elephantine: the high priest’s reply might have failed to reach the Elephantine community. These are all possibilities; we simply do not know. Finally, the community sent a proposal with two new aspects (TAD A4.10): holocausts (animal sacrifice) would not be offered, only incense and meal offerings; also, the community would pay silver (the amount is now lost in a damaged part of the papyrus) and a thousand measures of barley (perhaps about fifty-five thousand liters [Martin 2007, 778–79]). Whether these were the necessary concessions to secure agreement is a matter of speculation, but it was after this offer was made that approval came in the form of a memorandum (TAD A4.9) from Bagavahya (governor of Judah) and Delayah (governor of Samaria?). Yet animal sacrifice seems to have been a major point of contention and was, perhaps, one of the reasons the Khnum priesthood wanted the temple destroyed in the first place. The proposal on behalf of the Jews not to carry out this sort of offering was evidently an important factor in getting approval for rebuilding the destroyed temple. What follows are the relevant documents. One document authorizes the rebuilding of the Jewish temple that had been destroyed (TAD A4.9):

Elephantine and Ezra–Nehemiah

57

Memorandum of Bagohi and Delaiah. They said to me: Memorandum: Let it be said in Egypt before Arsames concerning the altar-​house of the God of Heaven which was built in Yeb the fortress before Cambyses (came), which that wicked Vidranga destroyed in year 14 of Darius the king, that it be built in its place as it was formerly, and they shall offer up cereal and incense offerings on that altar as was previously done.2 It is useful to compare this official authorization to rebuild the temple and reestablish its cult with the original request (TAD A4.7 // A4.8; translation from TAD, though for ease of reading, the insertions between lines or other corrections have not been indicated): Now, your servant Jedaniah and his colleagues say thus: . . . If it please our lord, take thought of that temple to (re)build (it) since they do not let us (re)build it. Regard your obligees and your friends who are here in Egypt. Let a letter be sent from you to them about the Temple of yhw the God to (re)build it in Elephantine the fortress just as it was formerly built. And they will offer the meal-​offering and the incense, and the holocaust on the altar of yhw the God in your name and we shall pray for you at all times—we and our wives and our children and the Jews, all (of them) who are here. If they do thus until the Temple be (re)built, you will have a merit before yhw the God of Heaven more than a person who offers him holocaust and sacrifices worth silver, one thousand talents. A further document to compare is an offer of payment for the expenses if the temple is allowed to be rebuilt (TAD A4.10): Your servants: Jedaniah son of Gem[ariah] by name 1 Mauzi son of Nathan by name [1], Shemaiah son of Haggai by name 1 Hosea son of Jathom by name 1 Hosea son of Nattun by name 1: total 5 men, Syenians, who are heredi[tary property-​hold]ers in Yeb the fortress say thus: If our lord [. . .] and the Temple of yhw our God be rebuilt in Yeb the fortress as it was former[ly bu]ilt, and sheep, ox, and goat will [n]ot be offered there but incense (and) cereal offerings [will be offered there.] (If) our lord gives an order [. . .] we shall give to the house of our lord si[lver . . . and] a thousa[nd] ardabs of barley. We now know from archaeology that the temple was rebuilt (see the contribution by Cornelius von Pilgrim, chapter 1 of this volume). But the papyri relating to the Jewish

2.  Note that translations of the Elephantine documents are my own if no translation is indicated, though some are taken from Porten and Yardeni 1986–99; translations of biblical passages are my own.

58

Elephantine Revisited

community cease shortly after this. The temple was apparently abandoned, long lay empty, and gradually deteriorated. A number of priests are named in Ezra–Nehemiah, including several high priests: Joshua son of Jozadak (Ezra 3:2), Eliashib (Neh 13:28), and probably Joiada (Neh 13:28). The priests of the Temple of yhw are referred to by the term khn (as opposed to kmr, which is used of pagan priests, such as the priests of Nabu, Baal, and Khnum [TAD A4.5:3, 8; D18.1:1; 21.17:2]). We also have the names of some of these priests at Elephantine. The most important is Yedanyah son of Gemaryah (the name is partially destroyed [TAD A4.10:1]), who was clearly a community leader, as indicated by many of the ten documents in the “Yedanyah archive” (esp. TAD A4.8:1). He is the main figure writing to Bagavahya, the governor of Judah, about the destruction of the Yeb temple and the desire of the community to have it rebuilt. Other named priests are Joḥanan and Šelem[yah?] (TAD C3.28:85, 113). In addition to priests, there are references to the office of lḥn, which seems to be some sort of “temple servant” in the Temple of yhw (for example, TAD B3.3:2), perhaps the manager of the temple, including responsibility for general upkeep and maintenance. If so, it would be analogous to the Levites in the Jerusalem temple though, interestingly, the term used is not “Levite” or any other term found in the biblical text. Most of the twenty or so occurrences of this term are to Ananyah (or Anani) son of Azaryah, the man who married the slave Tapmet (see below under “Intermarriage”). The office lḥn is mentioned as a way of defining Anany(ah), but no elaboration of the term or its meaning can be found in the extant texts at Elephantine. One has the impression that, while there were a number of priests, there was only one lḥn in the Temple of yhw. His wife Tapmet (or Tapamet) is also a “temple servant” (lḥnh) of the Temple of yhw (TAD B3.12:2). A rather fragmentary memorandum (TAD C3.33:45, 48) mentions “Azaryah the lḥn,” which leads one to conjecture that this was the father of Ananyah and that the office of lḥn was hereditary or at least tended to be passed from father to son by those making the formal appointment. This can only be speculation, however, since the data are too sporadic to be at all certain. Finally, an ostracon that cannot be dated more precisely than within two or three centuries has the inscription “Belonging to Šarah the lḥn” (TAD D21.2).

Promulgation of the Torah The promulgation of the Torah is a central theme to Ezra 7–10.3 This is in contrast to Elephantine where we find no indication of the written Torah being known by the community. In the Elephantine texts, there is no reference to the written law: the word tôrâ does not occur; nor is there is mention of Levites, Aaron, or even Moses. This does not mean that the community had no law or Jewish customs, but you can have religious law, customs, and practices without a written law. We know that the Sabbath, as well as at least some of the holy days or festivals, was known and observed in some sense because it is mentioned in several texts, as the next section indicates.

3.  For a full discussion of this question, see Grabbe 2013, 125–35.

Elephantine and Ezra–Nehemiah

59

Festivals and Holy Days The weekly Sabbath is mentioned several times in the Elephantine texts, though the broken context makes it difficult to interpret some of the references (TAD D7.10:5; 7.12:9; 7.28:4). One ostracon from the early fifth century tells of sending some legumes by boat, and the boat is to be met by the recipient on the Sabbath to take charge of the cargo (TAD D7.16:2). Another ostracon of about the same time asks for goods (including salt) to be dispatched, apparently before the Sabbath (TAD D7.35:7). Finally, an ostracon of a similar date seems to ask for something to be sent, apparently on the Sabbath, though the word in question is damaged (TAD D7.48:5). The impression is that the Sabbath was known and given a particular designation but was not observed in any strict sense. This might fit a transition period in which the place of the Sabbath was being very much debated. Likewise, we hear of the Passover. The Passover is mentioned in passing in a number of ostraca, indicating that it was a normal celebration (TAD D.7.6:9–10; 7.24:5). The most famous text is the so-​called Passover Papyrus (TAD A4.1), yet this is a very curious text. It does not in fact contain the word “Passover” (pasḥāʾ), but the text is fragmentary. In any case, the content of the sections preserved are about unleavened bread, removal of leavening, and other aspects of Passover observance, though nothing about the Passover lamb. Only the left hand side is preserved, making reconstruction of the original text problematic. The following portion of the text is preserved (quoted here with a minimum of restoration): Recto Je]daniah and his colleagues the ga[rrison] of the Jews, your brother Hanan[i]ah. May God/the gods [seek after] the welfare of my brothers [ And now, this year, year 5 of Darius the king, it has been sent from the king to Arsa[mes] . . . Now, you thus count four[ ob]serve and from the 15th day until the 21st day of [ ] be pure and take heed. [Do] n[ot do] work [ ] Do not drink [. . .] not [eat] anything of leaven Verso in] the evening at sunset until the 21st day of Nisa[n b]ring into your chambers and seal up during [these] days. [ (External address) To] my brothers Jedaniah and his colleagues the garrison of the Jews, your brother Hananiah s[on The purpose of the text is unclear, partly because a key section of the text is missing. The letter comes from a man named Ḥananyah, a Jew, but he claims some sort of communication from King Darius (II) to Aršama the satrap of Egypt. What does the Passover have to do with the Persian emperor? Was he commanding them to observe the Passover? In the absence of the complete text, we can never be absolutely certain, but it seems unlikely that the Persians would have taken it upon themselves to make pronouncements about the religion of a subject people.

60

Elephantine Revisited

Although this was a theoretical possibility, it is in fact difficult to find actual Persian decrees about religion. The few that we have seem in most or all cases to be a response to a local initiative. For example, in Egypt a priest was appointed in the Khnum Temple by the local Egyptians (for full information and discussion, see Grabbe 2004, 113–14, 213). They inform Pherendates the Persian satrap of this fact, apparently with the expectation that their decision will be accepted as a matter of course. Of course, the Persians could have vetoed their decision, but there is no evidence that they did this (except perhaps in very unusual circumstances). Similarly, in Xanthos the building of a temple and the establishment of a religious cult was decreed by the Persian governor of the region; however, this was not a Persian initiative. Rather, the Persians simply approved a request from local people who petitioned for this religious site and had raised money to pay for it (see Grabbe 2004, 107–9, 213–14). Thus, it seems to me that the most likely reason for the Passover Papyrus is that the Elephantine community petitioned the Persian government with regard to celebrating the Passover. Why would they petition the Persian administration about one of their own religious celebrations? One reason might be that the celebration of the Passover was threatened, perhaps by local opposition, such as the Khnum priesthood (which, incidentally, also ended up being behind the destruction of the Temple of yhw). Telling the exodus story (if this was done—nothing of it appears in any of the extant texts) and, especially, offering lambs that were sacred to Khnum might well have been very offensive to the local Egyptian priesthood. If so, they would have had reason to ask the Persian government for its sanction to carry on their annual celebration. As was often the case, the Persian scribes simply repeated parts of the original request in their authorization document.4 Interestingly, the preserved parts of the Passover Papyrus envisage removal of leaven and deleavening of the households, but it says nothing about offering the lamb. Perhaps the lamb was mentioned in the missing part of the text, but it is also possible that offering the lamb was not permitted by this document, just as the offering of animal sacrifice was not authorized when the destroyed altar of yhw was approved for rebuilding and resumption. The Festival of Weeks (Lev 23:15–21; Deut 16:9–12) was on an uncertain date, and different groups calculated it differently (Grabbe 2000, 141). It is not mentioned in Ezra–Nehemiah, nor explicitly in the Elephantine papyri. However, Bezalel Porten has suggested that a particular document (the collection list of silver for the temple [TAD C3.15]) might have dealt with donations at the Festival of Weeks, since the date of the document is very close to that time (Porten 1968, 162–63). The Day of Trumpet Blasts (Lev 23:23–25; Num 29:1–6), for many centuries, has been considered the Jewish New Year, but this is probably not the case in the Persian period when the year probably began in Nisan. One would have expected some reference to the Day of Trumpet Blasts in Neh 8:1–12, yet the text makes no allusion to the day. 4.  See the example of this in TAD A4.7 // 4.8 (which requests resumption of the sacrificial cult), TAD 4.10 (which drops the request for animal sacrifice), and TAD A4.9 (which authorizes the rebuilding and resumption of the cult, except the request for animal sacrifice). It appears that the scribe simply copied out parts of the original request in the response.

Elephantine and Ezra–Nehemiah

61

The Day of Atonement (Lev 16; 23:26–32) does not appear to be mentioned in the Elephantine papyri. The question is when it became an important Jewish commemoration. A passage such as Lev 16 suggests that it had been observed in Israel for a long time. It is true that Zech 7:5 mentions a fast of the fifth month and a fast of the seventh month, while Zech 8:19 speaks of fasts of the fourth, fifth, seventh, and tenth months. The “fast of the seventh month” could be the Day of Atonement, but the context suggests a fast associated with the destruction of the temple. Also, no such holy day is mentioned among the events of the seventh month in Neh 8–9. Sukkot or the Festival of Tabernacles (Lev 23:33–43; Deut 16:13–15) is one of the most frequently mentioned festivals in the biblical sources relating to this time (Ezra 3:4; Neh 8:14–18; Zech 14:16–19; cf. 2 Chr 8:13). There are some potential differences between the requirements of the festival as laid down in P (Lev 23:34–36, 39–43) and the description found in Nehemiah (Neh 8:14–18). According to Leviticus, the Israelites were to build temporary shelters or booths to live in during the festival. They were also to take certain products of trees (four types are specified) and “rejoice before yhwh your God” (Lev 23:40), but no specific connection is made between the types of vegetation and the booths. The text of Neh 8:14–18 refers to what was “written in the Torah that yhwh had commanded by Moses” as a requirement to dwell in booths. The people were sent to gather the products of trees (the list differs in part from that in Lev 23:40) to make these booths. In summary, the traditional festivals and holy days known from the Elephantine papyri are the weekly Sabbath, Passover, and possibly the Festival of Weeks. Sukkot appears in Neh 8:14–18 but not in the Elephantine texts. The Day of Trumpet Blasts and Yom Kippur do not appear to occur in either set of texts, though whether this is accidental or indicates their nonobservance at the time is impossible to say (note that neither the Day of Trumpet Blasts nor the Day of Atonement appears in the list of festivals in Deut 16).

Deities Other Than yhw Much debated has been the question of deities other than yhw. A list of contributors to the cult indicates that other divinities also had a place: specifically listed are Eshem-​ Bethel and Anat-​Bethel (TAD C3.15:127–28). In another text, a man swears by Herem and Anat-​Yahu (TAD B7.3:3).5 Bethel was once a separate deity but may have been identified with yhw by the temple participants at Elephantine (cf. Van der Toorn 1992, 94, 97). As far as Anat-​Bethel and Anat-​Yahu are concerned, they originated no doubt as goddess figures or consorts of yhw, but is this their position in the Elephantine texts? It seems significant that they are not mentioned in texts that refer to yhw or to his temple. It has been suggested that these were actually only hypostases of yhw by this time (Porten 1968, 179; cf. Niehr 1990, 48). From the contents of the texts currently 5.  Van der Toorn 1986, 282–85. Van der Toorn argued that Herem was probably not a deity but a piece of temple property, but he indicated at the SBL meeting in St. Andrews that he has since abandoned that identification.

62

Elephantine Revisited

available, no definitive answer can be given. The existence of the deities’ names in a list, and the fact that “Bethel” is an element in some personal names (though Porten suggests these are names of Arameans [1968, 328–33]), could indicate that these were worshiped as separate deities. Yet all references to deities as such in the Elephantine texts relating to the Jewish community are to yhw, and the temple is the “Temple of yhw.” That these other names are known only from lists might suggest only a small place in the cult. It may be, therefore, that no pantheon—or even “triad” of Bethel, Eshem-​Bethel, and Anat-​Bethel (Röllig 1999, 174)—of deities existed at Elephantine but that they were seen only as aspects of yhw. With such a brief mention, it is hard to come to any certain conclusions, but I find it harder to conclude (as I once did, though not in print) that Elephantine was a polytheistic community.

Dissolving Marriages One of the most curious incidents in Ezra–Nehemiah is the breaking up of marriages described in Ezra 9–10. Those familiar with the biblical text are perhaps not aware of how strange this would seem to an outside reader. The idea of dissolving marriages for no reason other than a supposed religious objection is without precedent in the ancient world—at least, I have seen none in either the primary or the secondary literature. Supposedly, a number of Jewish men had taken wives who were not Jewish, and this was contrary to Jewish law. These women and—astonishingly—their children were all to be sent away from their husbands. Why this was a good thing for any of those involved is nowhere clearly explained. What one certainly cannot imagine is such an event in the Elephantine community. Although the names of Jews in Judah in the Persian period appear to come from a variety of sources, including Babylonian, Persian, and Aramaic, the names of Jews at Elephantine are much more monolithic, being mainly preexilic Hebrew and showing little Aramaic influence (Porten 1968, 147). The Jewish community does not appear to have borrowed non-​Hebrew names to any extent (Porten 1968, 149). Most of those who had divine elements other than forms of yhw in their names (for example, Herem, Anat, Bethel) were likely non-​Jews; the same applies to individuals for whom both their name and the patronymic were non-​Hebrew. The community was small and, as it turned out, surrounded by potential enemies. The community in Judah and Jerusalem was much larger, but it was also a self-​ contained unit as well. The idea that it would tear itself apart by sending away wives and children of prominent individuals sounds like madness. This is why the scenario described in Ezra 9–10 appears unlikely. In any case, one cannot imagine this happening at Yeb, where we know that some Jewish men had married local women, and we also know of Jewish women married to Egyptians. For example, the woman Mibtaḥyah had a Hebrew name, as did her father Maḥseyah son of Yedanyah (TAD B2.3:1–3). She first married a Jew Yezanyah son of Uriyah (TAD B2.4:1–4). Then she married the builder Esḥor son of Djeḥo, an Egyptian (TAD B2.6). Of particular interest is Ananyah (or Anani) son of Azaryah, a lḥn or temple servant (see above under “Temple and Cult”), who married the Egyptian slave Tapmet (TAD B3.3).

Elephantine and Ezra–Nehemiah

63

Sanballat Sanballat appears briefly in the Elephantine texts, but only as a patronymic for Delayah and Šelemyah. Indeed, not even the whole of his name is present, since the final letter is partially missing (TAD A4.7:29). Yet this and other evidence indicates that Sanballat was indeed a historical personage and associated with Samaria. There is no certain reference to Sanballat’s being governor, apart from the book of Nehemiah, though the reference to “governor” in TAD (A4.7:29) and in a seal impression from Wadi ed-​Daliyeh (Wadi ed-​Daliyeh Seal Impression no. 226) may apply to Sanballat (most likely in the former case, though probably “governor” applies to the name “[Is]aiah” in combination with “Sanballat” in Wadi ed-​Daliyeh Seal Impression no. 22). Yet the accumulation of data strongly supports this identification of Sanballat as governor of Samaria.7 The negative view of Sanballat given by Nehemiah is not necessarily a fact, however, but may only represent Nehemiah’s personal bias. Notice the data of the Elephantine documents. Yedanyah and his colleagues wrote on behalf of the Elephantine community to Bagavahya the governor of Judah, even though they were in Egypt, but they also wrote to Sanballat’s sons Delayah and Šelemyah (TAD A4​.7​ /​/ 4​.8). This suggests two things: first, the Jewish community in Syene regarded both the governor of Judah and also the sons of Sanballat (one or both of whom now acted as governor of Samaria?) as potential friends or at least allies in the task of getting the Elephantine temple restored. Second, the community was unaware of any conflict between the sons of Sanballat, Delayah and Šelemyah, and Bagavahya, the governor of Judah. What is more, their perspective proved to be correct, in that Bagavahya and Delayah together issued a memorandum authorizing the rebuilding of the temple and the resumption of the (non-​animal) cult in it (TAD A4.9). This indicates what was already obvious from reading the book of Nehemiah: much or perhaps even all of Nehemiah’s animosity against Sanballat was unjustified. Nehemiah claims that Sanballat was plotting against him (Neh 4; 6). Yet nothing in Sanballat’s concrete actions was hostile to Nehemiah. On the contrary, Sanballat at one point offered to meet Nehemiah on neutral ground for a talk, but to no avail (Neh 6:1–4). Nehemiah reports various statements that Sanballat and his colleagues were supposed to have made. There may or may not have been truth in these assertions, but the idea that Sanballat was about to attack Jerusalem is absurd (Neh 4:1–8): no satrap worth his salt is likely to have countenanced one of his Persian provinces actually attacking a neighboring province! If Sanballat was really hostile to Nehemiah, any talk of invasion would have been just that: talk. But Nehemiah is so prejudiced against Sanballat and the other officials (governors?) that it is hard to know whether there was really mutual detestation or whether it was mainly on Nehemiah’s side.

Conflict with Local People We know from the Elephantine papyri that the Jewish community at Yeb was surrounded by other ethnic groups, not least the native Egyptian community but also the 6.  Discussed in Grabbe 2004, 57–58. 7.  See in general the discussion in Grabbe 2004, 155–59.

64

Elephantine Revisited

Arameans of Syene. There is often friction between a garrison—even a garrison of “friendly” troops—and the local people, but any conclave of “outsiders” can create friction (for example, the well-​known dichotomy of “town” and “gown” in a university town). What the normal relations were between the Jewish community and the Egyptians and Arameans is difficult to say, though the Jews were often identified (or identified themselves) with the Arameans. Regardless of the regular day-​to-​day relationship, we know that hostilities arose and boiled over with the Egyptian cult of Khnum after the community had existed for more than a century. According to the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, there was frequent conflict between the Jewish community and other “local peoples.” Ezra 4–6 describes how “enemies of Judah and Benjamin” (Ezra 4:1) at first sought to join them in helping build the Jerusalem temple but, when the Jews refused their help, they then attempted to thwart this rebuilding. These people are further described as “people of the land” (Ezra 4:4). A further conflict is described in Ezra 7–10, which is the Ezra story. The designation here is “peoples of the land(s)” (Ezra 9:2, 11), but it is equally an attempt to associate the “opponents” with the Canaanites. The Canaanites are explicitly mentioned in Ezra 9:1–2, even though the Israelites had dominated the land for many centuries. The same applies to the “foreign” wives (Ezra 10:2, 10, 18, 44) that some had married (Ezra 9–10). The situation was that, although the population evidently lessened because of war, and perhaps disease and famine after the Babylonians conquered Jerusalem, many Jews remained in the land (see especially Barstad 1996), while it was not the Babylonian policy to bring other populations in as the Assyrians did.8 The alleged opponents of the gôlâ community in Judah in the Persian period were simply the Jews who had remained in the land. This is further confirmed by the book of Haggai, which gives as the reason for the delay in building the temple the simple fact that the people were trying to build their houses and get on with making a living (Hag 1:2–8). Neither Haggai nor Zechariah suggests any sort of opposition from local adversaries. Nehemiah also had conflicts, but they were mainly identified as either Sanballat and the Samarians (discussed in the previous section) or fellow Jews. With regard to Jews, he clearly distrusted the local leadership, not consulting them about his survey of the walls when he first arrived (Neh 2:12–16). He also found that the Judean nobles continued to communicate with Tobiah even while trying to work with Nehemiah (Neh 6:17–19). He dealt violently with some individual Jews who had married with women from Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab, and drove out the son of the high priest who had married a daughter of Sanballat (Neh 12:23–28). All in all, Nehemiah seems to have treated many of his fellow Jews as though they were opponents. He certainly had his opponents, though to what extent he could have won them over if he had tried is a question (cf. Neh 6:10–14). He ultimately blames Sanballat, but it looks more like the local people found Nehemiah problematic as a leader, even though some tried to 8.  Ezra 4:9–10 mentions “the Erechites, the Babylonians, the Shushanites (or Elamites) and other peoples whom the great and glorious Osnappar deported and settled in the city of Samaria and the rest of Ebir-​Nari.” This passage is difficult because there was no King Osnappar, nor is any such deportation known. However, it has been suggested that “Osnappar” is a corruption of Assurbanipal, and it is possible that some sort of deportation to the region took place under Assurbanipal; however, these are alleged to have been settled in Samaria. No suggestion is made that these people were brought into Judah for settlement and, thus, could not have been the “people(s) of the land” living alongside the Jewish gôlâ community.

Elephantine and Ezra–Nehemiah

65

work with him in spite of his suspicions. In sum, much of the alleged conflict with local people looks like a dramatic invention, rather than a historical fact.

Conclusions This survey of Ezra–Nehemiah and the Elephantine papyri has addressed a number of themes common to the two sets of writing. We summarize the main themes below. First, temple and cult are central to both sets of documents; indeed, the building of a temple is central to both. In Ezra–Nehemiah, Ezra 1–6 is about the restoration of the destroyed Jerusalem temple. Likewise, the Elephantine community devoted a lot of material and emotional energy to getting approval for their temple to be rebuilt after it was destroyed by the local Khnum priesthood. Second, references to priests are found in both Ezra–Nehemiah and the Elephantine texts. The priests of yhw are called khn, just as they are in the Bible (as opposed to pagan priests, called kmr, also as in the biblical text). However, we have the additional term of lḥn, who was evidently a temple servant, though he may have had the important task of being general manager of the temple and responsible for its upkeep and maintenance. The main person with this title (Ananyah son of Azaryah) was evidently assisted by his wife Tapmet who is called lḥnh. Third, the Torah is very important in Ezra 7–10 and Neh 8–10, especially the promulgation of the written book. However, although the Elephantine community embraced a variety of traditional observances in both the homes and the temple, they most likely had not seen the written Torah. Fourth, traditional observances known at Elephantine included the weekly Sabbath and several of the annual festivals, including Passover. Ezra–Nehemiah knows these, as well as Sukkot (Festival of Tabernacles). Surprisingly, the Day of Atonement is not clearly referred to in either set of writings. Fifth, a question that has come up in an acute fashion is whether the Elephantine community worshiped deities in addition to yhw. Several others are named, including Eshem-​Bethel and Anat-​Bethel. Just as the kingdoms of Israel and Judah had worshiped deities alongside yhwh, including a consort of yhwh, so these Elephantine divine names probably had their origin in a polytheistic environment. But with the passage of time, it may well be that these divine figures represented hypostases or aspects of yhw, so that the community could be labeled monotheistic by this time. Sixth, one of the most curious episodes in Ezra–Nehemiah, related in Ezra 9–10, is the notion that a number of leading figures had to divorce their “foreign” wives and send them and their children away. There are a number of reasons this looks like an idealized creation rather than a historical event, but one could not imagine such a scenario in the Yeb community. We know that some Jewish men had married non-​ Jewish wives and some Jewish women had taken non-​Jewish husbands, but there is no indication that these people were ostracized or otherwise treated badly by others in the Jewish community. Seventh, Sanballat is a central figure in the account of Nehemiah, who treats him as an enemy and an evil person. Yet Sanballat’s sons are mentioned in the Elephantine papyri without any indication of animosity from the Jewish community or of any

66

Elephantine Revisited

hostile relations with the governor of Judah, Bagavahya. It looks suspiciously like the hostility was primarily on Nehemiah’s side, and that Sanballat himself would have cooperated with the inhabitants of Yehud if he had had a chance. In fact, the indication is that many in the Jewish community centered on Jerusalem were happy to have good relations with Tobiah, a friend of Sanballat. As literary texts, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah cannot always be trusted from a historical point of view.9 On the other hand, the Elephantine papyri, as contemporary documents from the Persian period, are valuable historical sources and help us to interpret Ezra–Nehemiah in certain areas. Taken together, the two sets of writings— which are quite different in many ways—throw light on an important period in Jewish history. References Barstad, H. M. 1996. The Myth of the Empty Land: A Study in the History and Archaeology of Judah During the “Exilic” Period. Symbolae Osloenses 28. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press. Grabbe, L. L. 2000. Judaic Religion in the Second Temple Period: Belief and Practice from the Exile to Yavneh. London: Routledge. ———. 2004. A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period, volume 1, Yehud: A History of the Persian Province of Judah. LSTS 47. London: T&T Clark. ———. 2005. “Pinholes or Pinheads in the Camera Obscura? The Task of Writing a History of Persian Period Yehud.” Pages 157–82 in Recenti tendenze nella ricostruzione della storia antica d’Israele. Edited by M. Liverani. Contributi del Centro Linceo Interdisciplinare “Beniamino Segre” 110. Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. ———. 2006. “The ‘Persian Documents’ in the Book of Ezra: Are They Authentic?” Pages 531–70 in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period. Edited by O. Lipschits and M. Oeming. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. ———. 2013. “Elephantine and the Torah.” Pages 125–35 in In the Shadow of Bezalel: Aramaic, Biblical, and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Bezalel Porten. Edited by A. F. Botta. CHANE 60. Leiden: Brill. Grelot, P. 1972. Documents araméens d’Égypte. LAPO 5. Paris: Cerf. Martin, T. R. 2007. “Appendix J: Ancient Greek Units of Currency, Weight, and Distance.” Pages 773–80 in The Landmark Herodotus: The Histories. Edited by R. B. Strassler. London: Quercus. Niehr, H. 1990. Der höchste Gott: Alttestamentlicher jhwh-Glaube im Kontext syrisch-​ kanaanäischer Religion des 1. Jahrtausends v. Chr. BZAW 190. Berlin: de Gruyter. Porten, B. 1968. Archives from Elephantine: The Life of an Ancient Jewish Military Colony. Berkeley: University of California Press. Porten, B., and A. Yardeni. 1986–99. Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt. 4 vols. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. Röllig, W. 1999. “Bethel.” DDD 173–75. Toorn, K. van der. 1986. “Ḥerem-​Bethel and Elephantine Oath Procedure.” ZAW 98:282–85. ———. 1992. “Anat-​Yhw, Some Other Deities, and the Jews of Elephantine.” Numen 39:80–101.

9.  A detailed attempt to interpret Ezra and Nehemiah for historical purposes is found in Grabbe 2004 (see the table of contents and the indexes).

Chapter 7

Aḥiqar and Bisitun: The Literature of the Judeans at Elephantine Reinhard G. Kratz

Literature from Elephantine What I would like to investigate in this essay are the pieces of literature found among the Aramaic papyri from Elephantine: the composition headed The words of one named Aḥiqar and the Aramaic version of the Bisitun inscription of Darius the Great.1 More precisely, I would like to address whether these two pieces of literature are significant examples of the literature known to the Jewish (or, rather, Judean) colony and, if they were, how they fit into the historical and cultural context of the colony. Though evidently not of Jewish origin, from the very beginning of their publication both pieces of literature were reckoned to belong to the archives of the Jewish colony. In his 1911 edition of the Elephantine material, Eduard Sachau divided the material into four categories: letters, lists, legal documents, and literary documents (among them Aḥiqar and Bisitun, and a third fragmentary work that is, however, no longer counted as a literary work but seems to be a contract).2 Arthur E. Cowley also speaks in his 1923 edition of the Elephantine material of “three literary pieces” and writes: “The literary pieces, it is true, are evidently of non-​Jewish origin, but they show nevertheless the kind of literature which was current in the community.”3 Bezalel Porten, too, thinks that “the piece of Wisdom literature [Aḥiqar] may have been read by Jedanyah in his free moments.”4 However, the connection of these literary pieces with the Judean colony is not as evident as one might like. Unfortunately, we can no longer reconstruct precisely where the German archaeologists discovered the papyri.5 According to the archaeologists’ In its present form, this essay is adapted from the volume Elephantine in Context, ed. R. G. Kratz and B. U. Schipper (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, forthcoming). 1.  AP 204–48 (Aḥiqar), 248–71 (Bisitun); TAD C1.1 (Aḥiqar); C2.1 (Bisitun). If not otherwise stated, text and translation are quoted according to TAD. A further edition of the Bisitun inscription can be found in Greenfield and Porten 1982; on Aḥiqar, see Ginsberg 1955, 427–30; Lindenberger 1983; Kottsieper 1991, 320–47; Niehr 2007, 1–55. 2.  Sachau 1911; cf. Ungnad 1911. The text in question is Sachau 1911, no. 60 (= AP no. 69 = TAD B8.5). See Sachau 1911, 183–84, with pl. 52; Ungnad 1911, 82–83. 3.  AP xiv. Cowley does not specify “three pieces” here; he may have had—besides Aḥiqar and Bisitun—the rest of the tale in mind (see AP no. 71 = TAD C1.2). 4.  Porten 1968, 263, with regard to Yedanyah son of Gemaryah, who was a leader of the Jewish colony at Elephantine; see also Porten 1968, 146. This seems to be the basis for the suggestion that the Aḥiqar text was found in the house of Yedanyah, see Knauf 2002, 180. 5.  See Niehr 2007, 2–4; Weigl 2010, 19–22. On the excavations, see Honroth, Rubensohn, and Zucker 1910, 14–61; Müller 1980, 75–88; 1982; 1984; on the recent archaeological campaigns on Elephantine, see von Pilgrim 1998, 485–97; 2002, 192–97; 2003; Porten 2003, 51–54, 73–84.

67

68

Elephantine Revisited

report and Otto Rubensohn’s diary (Grabungsbuch), the fragments of Aḥiqar and Bisitun were found during the second campaign (December 10, 1906, to February 22, 1907; see Honroth, Rubensohn, and Zucker 1910, 14–43; Müller 1980, 80–88, esp. pp. 82–83). The exact findspot is not clear; the report says only that the papyri were found in the “other Aramaic quarter” (das andere aramäische Quartier), either within or outside houses m and n. The description of the findspot is both imprecise—“am Abhang des Koms vor Mauer m 1, die größere Menge aber ist an der Mauer m 2 und an der späten Mauer m 3 aufgedeckt worden”—and also a bit suspicious: “Die Papyri lagen hier kaum ½ m unter der modernen Oberfläche im losen Schutt” (Honroth, Rubensohn, and Zucker 1910, 28–29, with table 3). Some scholars thus tend to follow Giovanni Garbini (2006, 152–53) in his suspicion that the papyri may have come from elsewhere and been deposited there by smugglers (clandestini) for the Germans, who themselves were under some pressure by a German papyrus cartel to achieve success in this “papyrus hunt.”6 The archaeological context of the findings is thus unclear. Our two literary pieces, however—Aḥiqar and Bisitun—wherever they were originally unearthed, were discovered or transmitted together with other Aramaic papyri that evidently come from the Jewish colony at Elephantine. In terms of language and content, the two literary pieces belong to the group of Arameans at Syene and Elephantine, but one has to take into account that the Arameans and Judeans were very close in terms of language and identity; Judeans are occasionally also called Arameans in the documents (Kratz 2020). Neither did they strictly distinguish or separate themselves in regard to culture and religion from their neighbors. There seems to me enough ground to conjecture that the Aḥiqar and Bisitun texts found at Elephantine were read and (also) taught in the Jewish colony and that they are significant examples of their literature. I would thus like to undertake an experiment in what follows and read the Words of Aḥiqar and the Aramaic version of the Bisitun inscription as though they were the literature of the Judeans of Elephantine, asking how well these documents sit with this Judean cultural and religious context. This, however, raises the question of the relationship between Elephantine and the Hebrew Bible. In Der Papyrusfund von Elephantine, Eduard Meyer argued that Aḥiqar belonged to the books read by the Jews from Elephantine, and that it is only by (historical) accident that it is not to be found in our Bibles (Meyer 1912, 98–128, esp. pp. 98, 106–7, 119). Cowley, by contrast, is a bit more cautious and finds it problematic that Aḥiqar and Bisitun were the only literary pieces found at Elephantine. He thinks that “their interest consists not only in what they say but in what they omit: in the light they give and in the darkness in which they leave us.”7 And both Aḥiqar and Bisitun are, indeed, of great significance. They are part of a corpus of literature of non-​Jewish origin, widespread in oriental antiquity, and that possess a long reception history. The original version of Darius’s inscription was written in three languages: Elamite, Persian, and Babylonian.8 In addition, it was published throughout the empire. We know of a further Babylonian version on a fragment of a stela, as well as the Aramaic translation 6.  On the historical background, see Primavesi 1996, 173–87. 7.  AP xiv–xv. 8.  Schmitt 1991; von Voigtlander 1978; German edition in Borger and Hinz 1984, 419–50.

Aḥiqar and Bisitun

69

from Elephantine (written in the official language of the Persian Empire in the West). The Words of Aḥiqar are even wider spread. Like the Hebrew Bible, but independent from it, the Aḥiqar tradition became part of the canon of world literature: we have a series of translations and paraphrases of the work in several ancient languages from the common era, among them Syriac and Arabic versions (Conybeare, Rendel Harris, and Smith Lewis 1913a, 715–84; 1913b; a new online edition of the Syriac and Arabic manuscripts will be published in 2021 by Simon Birol and Aly Elrefaei on a platform of the Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek [SUB], Göttingen). Traces of the Aḥiqar tradition are also to be found in several different cultures, in the book of Tobit, for example, and possibly in the Luqman-​Surah of the Qurʾan (Surah 31), as well as some manuscripts of the Arabian Nights (Küchler 1979, 319–413; Niehr 2007, 1–32). In short, alongside the Hebrew Bible—which was translated into Greek in Alexandria—nonbiblical and non-​Jewish writings such as the Words of Aḥiqar and the Darius inscription from Bisitun formed part of the literature of the Jewish diaspora in Egypt of the Persian and Hellenistic times. They were not only read there in addition to the books of the Hebrew Bible, but—especially at Elephantine—possibly instead of the books of the biblical tradition. I will now try to shed a little light on this argument and go through these two works as though they were significant examples of the literature of the Judeans at Elephantine.

The Words of Aḥiqar: The Narrative Column 1 of the Aḥiqar fragments from Elephantine begins with a superscription: “These are the words of one named Aḥiqar, a wise and skillful scribe, which he taught his son.” The fragments of this palimpsest should be dated to the fifth century BCE on paleographic and material grounds. They consist of two parts: a narrative about the fate of the sage Aḥiqar, and a collection of proverbs attributed to this sage. Both narrative and proverbs form a single composition here, but they did not originally belong together. Linguistic evidence shows that the proverbs are older than the narrative.9 In general, scholars assume that both parts were independently attributed to Aḥiqar and only secondarily joined together. For my part, I believe it more likely that the figure of Aḥiqar was originally connected to either the (older) collection of proverbs or the (younger) narrative and that his authorship was then subsequently transferred to the other (formerly anonymous) part of the Words of Aḥiqar.10 The title Words of 9.  See Kottsieper 1990, and more recently, Weigl 2010. 10.  It seems likely that the name is genuine to the narrative portion of the composition. This argument is bolstered by the fact that, throughout the course of the tradition’s transmission, up to to the late oriental versions, the narrative remains stable; the proverbs, by contrast, are much more variable and were changed and adapted according to one’s own tradition. On the other hand, it is equally possible that the narrative was created in response to an existing collection of proverbs and that both parts were then received differently. It is highly likely that both narrative and proverbs were subjected to extensive redaction and numerous recensions before the Elephantine version; this aspect of the composition can, however, be neglected here. On this problem, see the discussion in Kottsieper 1991; 2009, 145–67; Weigl 2010, 691–722. It is not yet certain, and is still to be evaluated, whether the composition history of the Aḥiqar material is best explained by assuming a source- or a supplementary hypothesis (or even a combination of both).

70

Elephantine Revisited

One Named Aḥiqar (mly ʾḥyqr šmh) fits both the narrative and the proverbs.11 I begin with the narrative. Two famous German scholars of Arabic studies, Franz Altheim and Ruth Stiehl, have characterized the Aramaic version of the Aḥiqar narrative as the gamete of the ancient novel, and thus of the novel in general.12 The narrative is formulated in the first person singular, which means that Aḥiqar tells his story. The plot of this story is easily summarized: Aḥiqar was a high official—scribe, counselor and keeper of the seal—of the Assyrian kings Sennacherib and Esarhaddon, and all Assyria listened to his counsel. Since he himself had no sons, he adopted Nadin, the son of his sister, and raised him as his own, teaching him everything he knew. When Aḥiqar grew old, he designated Nadin as his successor and “installed him in the palace gate,” that is, he introduced him as counselor and keeper of the seal of King Esarhaddon. As soon as he takes office, Nadin begins to defame his uncle and spread the rumor that Aḥiqar was planning an uprising against the Assyrian king. As a result, Esarhaddon orders his official Nabusumiskun to kill Aḥiqar. The reader also learns that Nabusumiskun himself once fell from grace and was sentenced to death by Sennacherib, but that he was saved by Aḥiqar (who hid him and sought out an opportunity to introduce him once more to the court). Nabusumiskun agrees to do the same for Aḥiqar. A slave is thus killed in Aḥiqar’s place, and Aḥiqar is hidden in Nabusumiskun’s house until an opportunity for his rehabilitation should present itself. At this point in the narrative, the fragmentary Aramaic version of the story from Elephantine breaks off. From the later (Syriac and other Christian) versions, however, we learn how the story ends. These tell how the Egyptian Pharaoh challenged the Assyrian king with a series of riddles, as well as challenging him to send a wise man capable of supervising the construction of a palace between heaven and earth. Neither Nadin, Aḥiqar’s nephew, nor any of the Assyrian king’s other counselors could meet the challenge. It is at this moment that Nabusumiskun reveals Aḥiqar to still be alive. The king is delighted by the news and asks Aḥiqar to solve the riddles of the Egyptian king and to safeguard his rights. This Aḥiqar does. He is rehabilitated, and his nephew Nadin is punished and killed. This is the story, but how should we interpret it, and how would a member of the Judean colony at Elephantine in the late fifth century BCE have read it? Sennacherib, Esarhaddon and Nabusumiskun (in Akkadian: Nabu-​šumu-​iškum) are historical figures who lived during the late eighth and early seventh-​century BCE Neo-​Assyrian Empire. This was a period during which the sustained symbiosis of Arameans and Assyrians in northern Syria and Mesopotamia reached its peak. For this reason, scholars have spent a good deal of time discussing whether Aḥiqar was a historical figure and whether or not his fate might reflect historical events. Neither his existence nor his story can be proven, and both are rather unlikely, as Cowley has already noted.13 11.  See Weigl 2010, 699–701. Despite the arguments in Küchler (1979, 175), the heading mly ʾḥyqr šmh (“The words of one named Aḥiqar”) does not necessarily have to refer solely to the collection of proverbs; as the examples in Neh 1:1 or 4Q242 (Prayer of Nabonidus) show, such a heading might refer equally to a first person narrative; the same has to be said of the formulation “before his words” in col. i:2, a reading that is not certain (see Kottsieper 1991, 324; Niehr 2007, 38). 12.  See Küchler 1979, 320 n. 4, referring to Altheim and Stiehl 1963, 183. 13.  AP 207–8. On the historical value of certain evidence from Uruk, see Niehr 2007, 9–10, 28.

Aḥiqar and Bisitun

71

The question of historicity, however, is irrelevant to the interpretation of the Aḥiqar narrative. There are indeed certain reminiscences of the historical situation around the year 700 BCE, but this historical coloring serves to produce a certain literary type, the topos of a member of an ethnic minority who rises in status (to the role of counselor, scribe, keeper of the seal, cupbearer, etc.) and gains influence and honor at the foreign court because of his special gifts and unwavering loyalty to the foreign king.14 This genre or literary topos—which can be defined as a sapiential teaching in narrative form—is perfectly fitted to the circumstances of the Judeans at Elephantine. The aim of the genre is to provide a hero for people who are in a situation similar to what is narrated; these people are then able to identify themselves with the hero and use his fate as a model for themselves and as a blueprint for how to behave as a member of an ethnic minority in the service of foreign rulers. Aḥiqar thus serves as an example of the suffering righteous person who is threatened by the intrigues of either his own family members or fellow officials. The suffering of the righteous person is a central topic of much ancient Near Eastern, and especially Mesopotamian and biblical, wisdom literature—we have only to think of biblical figures such as Job, Joseph, Daniel, or Esther. The story of Aḥiqar (like these other stories) seeks to reassure those that are suffering in a similar manner that their virtue will prevail in all situations. Such reassurance reinforces a central concern of international wisdom: the connection between acts and consequences. Whoever acts justly will, in spite of their obstacles, be rewarded in the end (just like Aḥiqar); whoever acts unjustly or wickedly will be punished (just like Aḥiqar’s nephew Nadin). We must thus ask what particular virtues define the hero of these sapiential narratives and will be tested by his suffering? Such virtues are exemplified in different ways. Job and Daniel embody religious steadfastness, while Joseph (like Daniel, too) possesses extraordinary mantic abilities that help him to survive. Esther, in turn, is an example of ethnic responsibility. But how about the Aramean Aḥiqar? As far as he is concerned, his virtue is first and foremost his humanity as embodied in his behavior toward the official Nabusumiskun. Aḥiqar says to Nabusumiskun, who has been ordered by the king to kill Aḥiqar, and whom Aḥiqar had previously saved from death: “Now, you, just as I did for you, so, then, do for me” (kʿn ʾnt lqbl zy ʾnh ʿbdt lk kn ʾpw ʿbd ly; TAD C1.1:51–52). This request follows the basic principle of just retribution (“as I have done to you, so do to me”) and is a precursor to the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Porten (1968, 270–71) found a striking parallel to this rule in the correspondence of the Arameans from Syene in one of the Hermopolis letters Makkibanit wrote to his sister Reʿia: And now, it is well for Ḥarudj here. Do not be concerned about him; as you could do for him, I am doing for him (kdy tkln tʿbdn lh ʿbd ʾnh lh). Both Tapamet and Aḥatsin are supporting him (msbln lh) . . . now as much as I am doing for Ḥarudj thus may Banit do for me (kʿt mlw kzy ʿbd ʾnh lḥrwṣ kwt tʿbd bnt ʿly). Verily, is not Ḥarudj my brother?! (TAD A2.3:3–8) 14.  Similarly Weigl (2010, 704–9), who thinks to deduce insights about the literary origin of Aḥiqar from this literary topos; Niehr (2007, 7–12) proceeds more carefully.

72

Elephantine Revisited

This is exactly how Aḥiqar treated Nabusumiskun when he was in danger, and it is how Nabusumiskun should now treat the endangered Aḥiqar: “Now, you, just as I did for you, so, then, do for me” (verb ʿbd). This same fraternal ethic is also to be found in the letters of the Judeans of Elephantine (Porten 1968, 272–77). In addition to the fellow feeling embodied by Aḥiqar, there is another aspect of his narrative that scholars tend to neglect when interpreting the story. I am thinking of his relationship to the king. Aḥiqar’s virtue is expressed above all by his unwavering loyalty to the Assyrian monarchs Sennacherib and Esarhaddon. In the Aḥiqar narrative, the Assyrian king is painted in almost godlike strokes: Aḥiqar bows down before him as before a god, the king loves a human being or is angry with him, he lets his face shine upon a person, he is benevolent, and he is lord over life and death. Even in his greatest distress, having been accused of subverting the land against the king and sentenced to death, Aḥiqar remains loyal to the king. Furthermore, even the failure to observe royal orders—as when Aḥiqar saves Nabusumiskun under Sennacherib, and Nabusumiskun saves Aḥiqar under Esarhaddon—ultimately serves as proof of loyalty (and is rewarded in the end). The moral of the story is thus not simply that he who acts righteously will be rewarded. Rather, the narrative also transmits a political message to officials at foreign courts: survival is built not just on one’s own abilities but also on unwavering political loyalty. This loyalty to the king can be observed in many of the documents from the Jewish colony at Elephantine. In particular, one sees such demonstrations of loyalty––be it just out of diplomatic courtesy, or be it (also) meant seriously––in the official correspondence regarding the rebuilding of the destroyed temple (Kratz 2006, 247–64). The greeting at the beginning of the famous letter from the Judean officials of Elephantine to Bagavahya, the Persian governor of Yehud, is revealing: To our lord Bagohi governor of Judah, your servants Jedaniah and his colleagues the priests who are in Elephantine the fortress.15 May the God of Heaven seek after the welfare of our lord abundantly at all times, and grant you favor before King Darius and the princes a thousand times more than now, and give you long life, and may you be happy and strong at all times. (TAD A4.7:1–3; cf. A4.8:1–3) The letter itself also expresses absolute loyalty to the king, referring to the beginning of Persian rule over Egypt under King Cambyses and promising Bagavahya offerings, as well as the prayers of the whole community: And during the days of the king(s) of Egypt our fathers had built that Temple in Elephantine the fortress and when Cambyses entered Egypt he found that Temple built. And they overthrew the temples of the gods of Egypt, all (of them), but one did not damage anything in that Temple. (TAD A4.7:13–14; see also A4.8:12–13) . . . Now, your servants Jedaniah and his colleagues and the Jews, all (of them) citizens of Elephantine, say thus: If it please our lord, take thought of that Temple 15.  TAD A4.8 adds “and the Jews all of them.”

Aḥiqar and Bisitun

73

to (re)build (it) since they do not let us (re)build it. Regard your obligees and your friends (bʿly ṭbtk wrḥmyk) who are here in Egypt. Let a letter be sent from you to them about the Temple of yhw the God to (re)build it in Elephantine the fortress just as it was formerly built. And they will offer the meal-​offering and the incense, and the holocaust on the altar of yhw the God in your name and we shall pray for you at all times—we and our wives and our children and the Jews, all (of them) who are here. If they do thus until that Temple be (re)built, you will have a merit before yhw the God of Heaven more than a person who offers him holocaust and sacrifices (whose) worth is as the worth of silver, 1 thousand talents and [[about]] gold. (TAD A4.7:22–28; see also A4.8:21–27) The famous Passover letter (TAD A4.1) demonstrates that even King Darius II himself was involved in the matters of the Judeans, making political loyalty to be in their own best interest. In sum: personal integrity and political loyalty are the two virtues propagated by the Aḥiqar narrative, virtues that are handed down to its readers as teachings for life. Both teachings were needed, and obviously taken to heart, by the Judeans at Elephantine.16

The Words of Aḥiqar: The Proverbs The collection of proverbs is also supposed to be a teaching for life. On linguistic grounds, it can be dated to the eighth century BCE. Its origin, however, is debated, since we can trace both West Semitic (that is, Canaanite and Aramaic) and Mesopotamian influences in the form and content of the proverbs. Ingo Kottsieper proposed—on the basis of language and content—that the proverbs originated in southern Syria; several experts dispute this hypothesis, though, and argue that they originated in northern Syria, where contacts with Mesopotamia during the Assyrian period were most intense.17 Regardless, the tradition history of the proverbs in the Aḥiqar literature has proven flexible. In later versions we find different collections with various provenances. In the Fables of Aesop, for example—which seem to have absorbed the Aḥiqar tradition—we find typical Greek gnomoi, while in the Syriac (Christian) tradition we find more biblical proverbs, mostly influenced by the book of Ben Sira (Küchler 1979, 338–47, 358–63, 380–85, 411–12). The exact order of the proverbs is a further difficulty. At Elephantine, several individual sheets of papyrus were discovered containing one or two columns of smaller thematic compositions of proverbs (Weigl 2010, 718–22). The original order of the sheets and the exact placement of the proverbs in relation to the narrative has yet to be determined. In the later Syriac and Arabic versions, the proverbs and the narrative are interwoven; as such, they appear first as Aḥiqar’s instruction to his nephew Nadin before Nadin’s intrigue and, toward the end of the story, as a philippic against Nadin. As to the Aramaic version, most scholars assume that the proverbs followed the 16.  For a similar concept in Daniel, Ezra, and Esther, see Kratz 1991. 17.  See Kottsieper 1990; 1991, 323; contrast Niehr 2007, 13–14, and Weigl 2010, esp. pp. 657–69.

74

Elephantine Revisited

narrative and were not yet integrated into the story. Here, too, however, Kottsieper offers a fresh explanation based on his own material reconstruction of the fragments.18 There is no need to solve all these problems here. Instead, I would like to highlight the intertextual connections between the narrative and the proverbs. In some cases, such connections are made explicit through certain self-​referential proverbs that reflect the relationship between Aḥiqar and the nephew that he raised as his son (TAD C.1.1:138–40): [A person w]ho does not exalt in the name of his father and in the name of his mother, may [(the)] su[n] (OR: Sham[ash]) not shine [for him] for he is a bad person. [From] my [hou]se went out my bad (situation) and (so) with whom shall I win (= be found innocent)? * The son of my belly spied out my house and (so) what shall I say to the strangers? [My son] was to me a malicious witness and who, then, (will) let me win will (= judge me innocent)? * From my house went out my wrath; with whom shall I dispute and be wearied (OR: be firm and flourish)? It is evident that these proverbs reflect the poor relationship between Aḥiqar and the adopted Nadin. There are good reasons to assume that such a connection was made, or at least stressed, during the process of redaction that fused the narrative with the proverbs.19 The same is probably true of those proverbs with a royal focus (TAD C1.1:84–92) that reflect the narrative’s theme of political loyalty: Do not cover (= ignore) the word of a king; let it be healing [for] your hea[rt]. Soft is the speech of a king (yet) it is sharper and mightier than a [double-] edged knife. See before you a hard (= severe) thing: [against] the face of a k[in]g do not stand. His rage is swifter than lightning. You, watch yourself. Let him not show it (= his rage) because of your sayings (= utterances) and you go (= lest you die) not in your days (= prematurely). See the go]od of a king. If (something) is commanded to you it is a burning fire. Hurry, do it.

18.  For the consensus, see TAD C 23; Niehr 2007 follows TAD C 23, as does Weigl 2010. Contrast Kottsieper 1990; 1991; see also the detailed discussion in Kottsieper 2009. The central question here is the value of the (preserved or conjectured) datings of the fiscal list (originally written on the palimpsest) for the reconstruction of the fragments (Porten and Yardeni have to assume exceptions too!). One also has to consider whether the original arrangement of the narrative and the proverbs can, or should, be determined solely on the basis of a material reconstruction (Kottsieper). Both approaches have their difficulties, such as the uncertain readings on which arguments are based (for example, Porten’s col. ii:25 [TAD C1.1] is col. ii:9 according to Kottsieper 1991). The problem of the text’s reconstruction thus remains unsolved. 19.  Weigl 2010, 697 (with a reference to Lindenberger 1983).

Aḥiqar and Bisitun

75

Do not kindle (it) against you and (do not) cover your palms (= “sit on your hands”). [More]over, (do) the word of the king with heat/delight of the heart (= eagerly).* [H]ow can wood contest with fire, flesh with knife, a man with k[ing]? . . . Soft is the tongue of a k[ing] (OR: A tongue is softer than [. . .]) but the ribs of a dragon it will break like death which is [n]ot seen.* . . . A king is like (the) Merciful (OR: indeed merciful); moreover, his voice i[s] high. Who is there who can stand before him (= serve him) but (he) with whom El is? Beautiful is the king to see like (the) sun (OR: Shamash) and precious is his glory to (them that) tread the earth (as) f [ree] men (OR: in tran[quility]). These proverbs are an exception in so far as they no longer occur in the later versions. They seem to represent a very early redaction that sought to connect the narrative and the proverbs; the later (Syriac, Arabic, etc.) versions accentuated the text’s moral and religious focuses, whereas the proverbs with a royal focus were apparently no longer needed.20 However, in the context of the Aramaic composition—consisting of both narrative and proverbs—the sayings with a royal focus echo the narrative. In them, we find reference to the word of the king that both kills and gives life; to his orders, which one should follow with his whole heart and whole soul. We hear of the king’s anger, which one should not provoke; of his face, which one should not resist; of his godlike appearance; and of his mercy. As in the narrative, so in the proverbs: unwavering loyalty toward the king is recommended as sapiential teaching. In both contexts, the king is compared to God— implicitly in the narrative and explicitly in the proverbs (to El and Shamash), where the gods play an important role. Reference to a “lord of the holy ones” (bʿl qdyšyn) is made immediately before the proverbs with a royal focus; this “lord” is probably to be identified with the highest “God of heaven,” Baal-​shamayn or Hadad, who rules over the hosts of heaven. The “lord of the holy ones” would seem to be the highest god of the Aramean pantheon. In the context of the narrative, he was probably identified with Assur, the state god of the Assyrian Empire. In addition, we encounter in the proverbs both El, who is mentioned as a protective god of the individual, as well as the sun-​god Shamash, who is seen—as was common in Mesopotamia—as the god of justice. Finally, an anonymous group of “gods” (ʾlhyn) are mentioned, who interfere in manifold ways with life on earth—a life for which the proverbs seek to provide the right teaching.

20.  See Weigl 2010, 701–3, though his naive historical conclusions should be ignored here. The proverbs in themselves can refer either to the kings of the Aramean city-​states of the ninth-​eighth centuries BCE or to the Assyrian king (as the Aramean states were vassals of Assyria until they were dissolved and integrated into the Assyrian provincial system). In connection with the narrative, however, the proverbs can refer only to the Assyrian king. See the interesting historical hypothesis in Niehr 2007, 13–14.

76

Elephantine Revisited

It is plain that the proverbs reflect some aspects of the narrative in religious terms. Taken together, the narrative and proverbs not only demand unconditional loyalty toward the (Assyrian) king, but also unconditional loyalty toward the gods, who are seen as forming a unity with the king. If one wanted to characterize the overall teaching of the narrative and proverbs that comprise the composition entitled Words of Aḥiqar, we might say that the composition proclaims “Fear God (or: the gods) and the king!” Again, this teaching fits perfectly with the evidence from the Judean colony at Elephantine. The world of the gods in the Words of Aḥiqar possesses a polytheistic structure and is mainly of Aramean and Mesopotamian origin. If we survey the references to the gods in this text, we see that these references are identical to the pantheon that is reconstructable from Aramaic inscriptions of the ninth and eighth centuries BCE (Niehr 2007, 18–20). Both the Aramaic inscriptions and the Words of Aḥiqar stem from the same period and from the same geographic region; they reflect the Assyrian-​ Aramaic symbiosis of northern Syria at that time (Weigl 2010, 667–69, 677–90). This historical situation reminds us of the cultural, sociological, and religio-​historical situation on the island of Elephantine, as well as Syene, during the late fifth century BCE (Kratz 2006; 2007; 2011; 2015; 2020; also Becking 2011, esp. pp. 128–42). Here the Judeans lived alongside other ethnicities (especially Arameans), were connected with their neighbors through intermarriage, and worshiped (or at least respected) several other Canaanite and Aramean deities alongside the Israelite or Samaritan deity yhw. Among these deities were Herem, Bethel, Herem-​Bethel, Eshem-​Bethel, Anat-​Bethel, and Anat-​Yahu. There is also evidence that they respected Mesopotamian (Bel, Nabu, Shamash, and Nergal) and Egyptian (Satet, Khnum) gods.21 This evidence consists of papyri, which are undoubtedly of Judean provenance, and which provide authentic insights into the life of this ethnic group on the island: the list of benefactions for the god yhw as well as for the gods Anat-​Bethel and Eshem-​Bethel (TAD C3.15), for instance, or the greeting formulas in private and official letters, or the oaths taken before other gods besides yhw. All this attests to a religious pluralism (or polytheism) of Yahwism within the Judean or Jewish community of Elephantine (Granerød 2016).22 In light of all the above, the Words of Aḥiqar look like a significant—if not normative—piece of the literary canon, which may well have been used by the Judean elite at Elephantine as part of the scribal education curriculum. As instructions for living one’s life, the Words of Aḥiqar are literally timeless. They are not only appropriate to the historical context of Assyrian times but are also valid during the time of other imperial powers, such as the Persian Empire (whose representatives, incidentally, often referred to their Assyrian predecessors). From the Words of Aḥiqar, the Judeans and the Arameans on the island could learn how to “fear God (or the gods) and the king.” 21.  See the full evidence in Porten and Lund 2002, 425–27; see also Van der Toorn 1992, 80–101; Becking 2003. 22.  Greeting formulas: TAD A3.5; 3.7; 4.1; 4.2; 4.4 (as in TAD A3.9; 3.10, etc.); TAD D7.21; 7.30; oaths: TAD B2.8; 7.2; 7.3; collection account: TAD C3.15. See also Porten 1968, 151–86.

Aḥiqar and Bisitun

77

The Bisitun Inscription of Darius the Great “Fear God and the king” is also the motto of the Bisitun inscription of Darius the Great.23 The papyrus found at Elephantine appears to be a copy of an older manuscript of the Aramaic version and was later reused for accounts, which were written in the blank space following the last column of the text of the Bisitun inscription. The dates of these accounts imply a terminus ad quem for the copy and support a paleographic dating to the last quarter of the fifth century BCE, during the rule of Darius II. The Aramaic text is very close to the Akkadian version of the Bisitun rock, and especially to the Babylon fragment of the inscription. Both the Babylon fragment and the Aramaic version seem to be a “slightly variant and abridged version of the original” (Greenfield and Porten 1982, 16). Of special interest is the end of the Aramaic version (TAD C2.1:64–73), where we find a composite text consisting of both Bisitun and a passage from another Darius inscription from Naqš-​i-​Rustam (= DNb; see Greenfield and Porten 1982, 3, 5, 47; Sims-​Williams 1981, 1–7; Tavernier 2001, 161–76). The function of the inscription and its translations into the different languages of the empire was, first and foremost, royal propaganda. The Aramaic version may in fact have been produced or recopied on the occasion of the centennial celebrations of the accession of Darius I to the throne (522/1 BCE), which happened to coincide more or less with the accession of Darius II (423 BCE). The personal admonition at the end of the inscription, taken from Naqš-​i-​Rustam (DNb), supports this hypothesis. The copy, however, also had meaning for its Aramaic-​speaking recipients. As Greenfield and Porten have suggested, the recopying “would have been a reaffirmation of the loyalty of the Elephantine Jews to the Persian crown,” and may also have been copied for the Arameans settled at Syene, who had likewise to demonstrate their loyalty—to Darius II in particular—as the official letters of the Yedanyah archive show (Greenfield and Porten 1982, 3). All the Aramaic speaking colonies at Syene and Elephantine were expected to adhere to the Achaemenid imperial ideology as expressed in the Bisitun and other Persian royal inscriptions.24 In their inscriptions, the Persian kings state their expectation for unconditional loyalty and integrity from the lands and nations they have conquered. The kings’ sayings—orders, as well as “laws”—were to be respected as though they were divine law. The Persian term for this is dāta-, used, for instance, in the original inscription (col. i:23). In the Babylonian version (line 9, §8), the word is rendered di-​na-​a-​tú: “under the protection of Ahura Mazda I made my laws effective within these lands” (von Voigtlander 1978, 13, 54). The Aramaic version is not preserved at this point, but the Persian loanword dāt was probably used here, just as in Ezra 7. Furthermore, the Persian kings call on the nations to uphold the divine order of the world—an order created by the Persian god Ahuramazda. Loyalty to the king is therefore at the same time loyalty to Ahuramazda. “Fear God and the king” is thus also part of the royal ideology published in the western parts of the empire and taught to the conquered peoples, not least through the Aramaic version of the Bisitun inscription. 23.  For the edition of the Aramaic text, see Greenfield and Porten 1982; TAD C2.1; for the other versions, see the editions above in n. 8. 24.  For the royal ideology expressed in these inscriptions, see Kratz 1991, 197–260; Frei and Koch 1996; Mathys 2010; Granerød 2013, 445–80.

78

Elephantine Revisited

This royal inscription—which is, in fact, a solid piece of literature—is very close to the Words of Aḥiqar. It shares with the narrative the idea of loyalty to the foreign king, while, with the proverbs, it shares the idea of loyalty to both god (or the gods) and the king. The similarities are particularly pronounced in the final sections of the Aramaic version of the Bisitun inscription, with its reference to the Naqš-​i-​Rustam inscription (DNb). These final sections invoke blessings and curses, respectively, on those (successors of the king) who listen to lies and those who love the truth (TAD C2.1:64–73 = DB Akkadian lines 97–98/105–6; DNb lines 50–60; DB Akkadian lines 102–3): [Darius the King thus says: Whoever yo]u are O King who will be after me, a man who lies (ʾyš zy ykdb) [. . . withdr]aw from great lies (mn kdbn śgyʾn). Take heed (OR: . . . [withdr]aw. From great lies guard yourself). A li[a]r who lies (k[d] yb zy ykdb) [. . . Abundantly] make known how you are made (= what is your nature) and how your conduct is. [Let not that be good before you which in] your[ e]ar one may say. Hear what openly one will say. [Moreover, let not that be good before you which a nobleman will d]o. What a poor man will do— that see (= observe). Moreover, before you [. . . and do not in] your well-​being be remiss. . . . [Believe] what I did. To [the people tell the truth. Do not hide . . .] [If  ] you do not hide (it), Ahuramazda will b[less you (and) love you and your seed will be ab]undant and your days will be longlasting. But if you do conceal it, Ahuramazda will c[urse you and you will not have (any) seed]. This admonition could easily be adopted into the individual ethics of any given person, reminding us of both the plot, and some sayings, of the Words of Aḥiqar: for the favor of a person is his trustworthiness (hymnwth) and his hatefulness are the lies of his lips (kdbt śpwth). [Moreover, if ini]tially the throne is set up for the liar (lkdbʾ), then fina[lly] they [shall] perceive his lies (kdbth) and spit in his face. [A man who] lies (mkdb), his neck is cut (OR: face [and say], Liar. May his neck be cut) like a Yemenite virgin (kbtwlh tymnh) who[. . .] . . . face, like a man who will do the bad [with hi]s [hands] and from gods it did not go out (= not caused by the gods).* (TAD C1.1:132–35) . . . El will twist the mouth of the twister (= treacherous) and tear out the tongue of [. . .]. Let good eyes not be darkened and [good] ears [not be . . .] the upright (kšyṭʾ) and he will say it. (TAD C1.1:156–58) The Bisitun inscription, too, might thus have been read from the perspective that we have already seen in the Words of Aḥiqar, where personal integrity and political loyalty are virtues that ought to be taught, and taken to heart, as a teaching for life.

Elephantine and the Hebrew Bible The Hebrew Bible, too, is teaching for life; at least, it was supposed to be a teaching for the life of Judaism in Persian and Hellenistic-​Roman times. It is therefore

Aḥiqar and Bisitun

79

surprising that no part of the Hebrew Bible was found at Elephantine. One may, of course, suggest that religious practices, such as mourning, fasting, or celebrating the festivals of Mazzot, Pesach, and Sabbath, presuppose knowledge of the Torah, and that the Hebrew (Israelite) onomasticon proves the influence from biblical psalms.25 However: “The only piece of literature found at Elephantine was the Wisdom of Aḥiqar. It is not known, therefore, whether the Elephantine Jews had collections of Psalms” (Porten 1968, 146). Furthermore, all the religious notions and rites attested in the material from Elephantine can be easily explained through the lens of the traditions and customs of the traditional yhwh-religion, which—while it encompasses both the Bible and religious practice at Elephantine—does not necessarily take knowledge of either the Torah of Moses or the biblical psalms of David as a prerequisite.26 Because of this, I still tend to think that the Judeans at Elephantine were not yet aware of the biblical writings. In my view, the literature of the Judean colony at Elephantine reflects a prebiblical stage of Israelite and Judean religion that can also be detected in the Bible itself.27 There are many parallels between the literature from Elephantine and the Bible: the narrative of Aḥiqar recalls Job, Joseph, Daniel, and Esther (including the additions in the Septuagint), while the proverbs of Aḥiqar offer a multitude of parallels to Proverbs, Qoheleth, and Ben Sira.28 The proverbs with a royal focus in particular are very close to a similar group of sayings in Prov 16:10–15, as well as other passages in Prov 14:35; 19:12; and 24:21–22.29 These parallels—both in the narrative and in the proverbs—are found not only in the Hebrew text, but also in the Septuagint, though the Greek translation differs in several passages from the Hebrew (Masoretic) original. Even the motto that we have used to describe both the Words of Aḥiqar and the Bisitun inscription is derived from a biblical parallel in Prov 24:21, where we read: “Fear yhwh, my son, and the king!” Such features that are shared by the Elephantine and biblical literature belong to a pre- or nonbiblical stage of the Israelite and Judean tradition that only later became part of canonical biblical literature. The material was reinterpreted, reshaped, and transformed within the context of biblical literature, and it is the religious standpoint in the Hebrew Bible that makes the difference between Elephantine and the later biblical traditions: in the biblical narratives, the virtue of the protagonist is delineated in theological terms; his virtue finds its clearest expression in his faith in the true God. God and the king are not equal in Proverbs; just like any other human being, the king is subordinated to the one and only God (Scherer 1999, 189–210). It is this difference that allows us to recognize the transformation from nonbiblical to biblical Judaism that is apparent not just in comparisons of nonbiblical with biblical texts but in the Hebrew Bible itself. A critical analysis of the Hebrew Bible shows that older (non- or 25.  Porten 1968, 105–50; 2003. For the onomasticon, see Silverman 1969; 1970; 1985. 26.  A relic of (prebiblical) cultic literature may be preserved in the fourth-​century BCE P. Amherst 63. The reading and interpretation of this papyrus, however, are still debated. See Steiner 2003, COS 1:309–28; Wesselius 1991; Kottsieper 2001, 200–202; Rösel 2000, 81–99; Van der Toorn 2018. 27.  See Knauf 2002; Kratz 2006, 2007, 2011, 2015; furthermore Becking 2011, esp. pp. 128–42; Granerød 2016. 28.  Niehr 2007, 24–25; in detail Weigl 2010, esp. pp. 733–56. 29.  Weigl 2010, 740, 742–43; in detail on pp. 110–85.

80

Elephantine Revisited

prebiblical) traditions, comparable to the Words of Aḥiqar, were transformed by later reworkings and recensions of the Hebrew and Greek texts that introduced the supremacy of the true God.30 On an analogy with the shift from Greco-​Roman paganism to Christianity, or pre-​Islamic paganism to Islam, Judaism, too, underwent a change from a prebiblical “paganism” to an exclusively monotheistic biblical faith (Wellhausen 1897; Kratz 2004, 25–65). This can be seen both when we compare the religious practice of the Judeans of Elephantine with the theological concepts of the Hebrew Bible, and when we differentiate between the literary strata within the Hebrew Bible itself (Kratz 2006; 2007; 2010; 2011; 2013; 2015; Becking 2011, esp. pp. 128–42). The literature from Elephantine had obviously not yet been transformed in this way. The process of transformation and integration of this kind of literature into the biblical tradition, however, took place in the book of Ezra and in Dan 1–6. In these books, we find the adoption and transformation of Persian imperial ideology and language into the biblical concept of pure loyalty—loyalty of both the people and the foreign king—to the one true God, his temple, and his law.31 In the case of the Aḥiqar tradition, we can trace such a change even more clearly when we look to the transformation of the fifth-​century BCE Aramaic Words of Aḥiqar into a Jewish version as it is found in the book of Tobit. With Tobit we make a rough leap in time of approximately two hundred years to arrive in the Hellenistic period. This was a time when the literature of the Hebrew Bible and Greek Old Testament was widespread among the Judeans in Palestine and the Egyptian diaspora. We learn from Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Greek sources that the nonbiblical and non-​Jewish Aḥiqar tradition continued to circulate alongside this literature (Niehr 2007, 28–29). It is possible that this tradition continued to be read and taught by Judeans (be they in Palestine or in the Egyptian diaspora) that did not yet feel bound by the biblical commitment to the one true God and his law.32 The motto “Fear God (or: the gods) and the king” was now—depending on political circumstances, as well as personal interests—simply transferred from the Persian to the Seleucid (Syrian) or Ptolemaic (Egyptian) king. Things are different in the book of Tobit. Tobit is a piece of biblical literature from the third or second century BCE known to us in two Greek versions, as well as from the Dead Sea Scrolls, where two recensions—one Hebrew and one Aramaic—are attested in fragments (Hanhart 1983; Fitzmyer 1995, 1–76; 2003). The fictitious narrative of the sage Tobit is set in the distant Neo-​Assyrian past of the Israelite people. This was a time when Samaria, the capital of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, was conquered by the Assyrians, under the rule of King Shalmaneser V and King Sargon II. As a result of this conquest, a large portion of the Samarian population was exiled to Assyria and Media, where they continued to live under Sargons’s successors Sennacherib 30.  Wilke 2006, esp. pp. 158–79, 284. In the case of biblical narratives, such changes can be seen best in the tradition history of Dan 4–5 and 4Q242 (Prayer of Nabonidus), as well as in the additions to Daniel and Esther in the Septuagint; see Kratz 1991, 77–160; 2002. 31.  See Kratz 2006; 2008; 2011. A different view is found in Porten 2003, where no distinction is made between Elephantine and the biblical tradition; the similarities in language and style, however, which also Meyer (1912) used as an argument, do not prove the authenticity and historicity of the Aramaic documents in the book of Ezra. 32.  This could apply, for example, to the Judeans of the military colony at Leontopolis; see Kratz 2013.

Aḥiqar and Bisitun

81

and Esarhaddon. The plot of the Tobit narrative is thus set in the same period as the story of Aḥiqar, and it is little surprise that Aḥiqar appears as a marginal figure in some passages of Tobit.33 From these passages in Tobit, we can reconstruct almost in its entirety the story of Aḥiqar and of his nephew Nadin (called Nadab). As in the later versions of the story, though, narrative variants (already) present themselves: the house of Nabusumiskun, where Aḥiqar hides until he is rehabilitated, is a dark hole in the ground in Tobit, and Aḥiqar’s salvation is seen as a deliverance from darkness into light. Like his house, Nabusumiskun himself—the Assyrian counselor who was once saved by Aḥiqar, and who subsequently saves Aḥiqar from death—has vanished; his role is partly transferred to Aḥiqar, who now saves Tobit from Sennacherib and enables his return to Nineveh, the Assyrian capital. The proverbs of Aḥiqar are also distributed differently in Tobit: they are placed in Tobit’s mouth (Tob 4; 14) and serve as an exhortatory speech directed toward his children. Above all, Aḥiqar takes on a new identity in the book of Tobit. Here, he is a relative of Tobit (and thus a member of the Israelite tribe of Naphtali) who was exiled by the Assyrians. Aḥiqar and Nadin (Nadab) are no longer Arameans but have become Israelites. As a result, Aḥiqar’s charity toward members of the Aramean people, and toward his own family is now limited to a family that is identical with the people of Israel. The Aḥiqar story that paired the charity of the protagonist with loyalty toward the gods and king is transformed into an exemplary narrative of the biblical ideal of compassion (eleosyne in Greek) for the members of one’s own people. Tobit’s reinterpretation of Aḥiqar’s rescue is also motivated differently. Aḥiqar remains a high official at the Assyrian court in the book of Tobit, but loyalty toward the Assyrian king, in contrast to the Aramaic version from Elephantine, is no longer a significant topic in the book. The same can be said of loyalty toward the gods of the Aramean or Mesopotamian pantheon. In the book of Tobit, Aḥiqar’s rescue is no longer the result of his loyalty toward gods or king, or his charitable behavior toward Nabusumiskun. Rather, it is the one, true God of the biblical tradition who delivers him, and who demands compassion and righteousness from his followers (and rewards them for it).34 It is thus no longer the actions of Aḥiqar, or the gods, or the godlike king,35 but simply an act of the one, true God—who alone decides matters of life and death—that rescues Aḥiqar. Like any other pious person from the people of Israel, God leads Aḥiqar from darkness into light. Aḥiqar becomes in the book of Tobit an exemplary believer in the one, true God. These changes in the book of Tobit—especially the ethnic absorption of Aḥiqar, and his rescue by the one, true God—reflect a significant step from pre- or nonbiblical, Aramaic-​Judean paganism toward biblical monotheism. This step was also a prerequisite for the Christian reception of the story in the Syriac and Arabic versions. These versions also attribute the narrative’s course of events to the one, true God, while toward the end of the Syriac version, Aḥiqar says to his nephew Nadin: 33.  Tob 1:21–22; 2:10; 11:18–19; 14:10–11 (and 14:15); see Küchler 1979, 364–79. 34.  Thus, according to Tob 14:10 GII; in GI we find a passivum divinum (Hanhart 1983). 35.  All three motifs still resonate in Tobit and later versions of the story, but are subsequently anchored in a new monotheistic interpretative context; see, e.g., Conybeare, Rendel Harris, and Smith Lewis 1913a, 751 (gods), 758 (a king like the sun), 769 (compassion and righteousness with, and without, divine assistance).

82

Elephantine Revisited

My son, I taught thee that there is a God; and thou risest up against good servants, and beatest those that have not sinned; and like as God has kept me alive on account of my righteousness so hath He destroyed thee for thy works. . . . But God is He that hath kept me alive, and He will judge between us.36 The Arabic versions formulate this sentiment as follows: O my boy! he who doeth good shall meet with good; and he who doeth evil shall meet with evil, for the Lord requireth a man according to the measure of his work. (Conybeare, Rendel Harris, and Smith Lewis 2013a, 776) If it is true that the figure of Aḥiqar also lurks behind the pre-​Islamic sage in Surah 31 of the Qurʾan who teaches his son, then Islamic tradition, too, connects seamlessly—but with its own accentuation—to the Jewish and Christian interpretation of the Aḥiqar tradition: And call to mind when Luqman said to his son, while exhorting him: “My son, do not associate others with Allah in His Divinity. Surely, associating others with Allah in His Divinity is a mighty wrong.” References Altheim, F., and R. Stiehl. 1963. Die aramäische Sprache unter den Achaimeniden, volume 1, Geschichtliche Untersuchungen. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann. Becking, B. 2003. “Die Gottheiten der Juden in Elephantine.” Pages 203–26 in Der eine Gott und die Götter: Polytheismus und Monotheismus im antiken Israel. Edited by M. Oeming and K. Schmid. ATANT 82. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag. ———. 2011. Ezra, Nehemiah, and the Construction of Early Jewish Identity. FAT 80. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Borger, R., and W. Hinz. 1984. “Die Behistun-​Inschrift Darius’ des Großen.” Pages 419–50 in Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments, volume 1/4, Historisch-​Chronologische Texte. Edited by O. Kaiser et al. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus. Conybeare, F. C., J. Rendel Harris, and A. Smith Lewis. 1913a. “The Story of Aḥiḳar.” Pages 715–84 in volume 2 of The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, with an Introduction and Critical and Explanatory Notes to the Several Books. Edited by R. H. Charles. Oxford: Clarendon. ———. 1913b. The Story of Aḥiḳar, from the Aramaic, Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Old Turkish, Greek and Slavonic Versions. 2nd rev. ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fitzmyer, J. A. 1995. “Tobit.” Pages 1–76 in part 2 of Qumran Cave 4, XIV: Parabiblical Texts. Edited by M. Broshi et al. DJD 19. Oxford: Clarendon. ———. 2003. Tobit. Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature. Berlin: de Gruyter. Frei, P., and K. Koch. 1996. Reichsidee und Reichsorganisation im Perserreich. OBO 55. 2nd ed. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Garbini, G. 2006. Introduzione all’epigrafia semitica. Studi sul Vicino Oriente Antico 4. Brescia: Paideia. 36.  Conybeare, Rendel Harris, and Smith Lewis 1913a, 775–76; for the Armenian version, see p. 775.

Aḥiqar and Bisitun

83

Ginsberg, H. L. 1955. “Aramaic Proverbs and Precepts: The Words of Ahiqar.” Pages 427–30 in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Edited by J. B. Pritchard. 2nd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Granerød, G. 2013. “ ‘By the Favour of Ahuramazda I Am King’: On the Promulgation of a Persian Propaganda Text Among Babylonians and Judaeans.” JSJ 44:445–80. ———. 2016. Dimensions of Yahwism in the Persian Period: Studies in the Religion and Society of the Judaean Community at Elephantine. BZAW 488. Berlin: de Gruyter. Greenfield, J. C., and B. Porten. 1982. The Bisitun Inscription of Darius the Great: Aramaic Version. Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum 1/5. London: Humphries. Hanhart, R. 1983. Tobit. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum 8/5. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Honroth, W., O. Rubensohn, and F. Zucker. 1910. “Bericht über die Ausgrabungen auf Elephantine in den Jahren 1906–08.” ZÄS 46:14–61. Knauf, E. A. 2002. “Elephantine und das vor-​biblische Judentum.” Pages 179–88 in Religion und Religionskontakte im Zeitalter der Achämeniden. Edited by R. G. Kratz. VWGTh 22. Munich: Kaiser. Kottsieper, I. 1990. Die Sprache der Aḥiqarsprüche. BZAW 194. Berlin: de Gruyter. ———. 1991. “Die Geschichte und die Sprüche des weisen Achiqar.” Pages 320–47 in Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments: Weisheitstexte, volume 3/2, Mythen und Epen. Edited by O. Kaiser et al. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus. ———. 2001. “Zwei aramäische Texte aus dem Papyrus Amherst 63.” Pages 200–202 in Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments. Supplementary volume. Edited by O. Kaiser et al. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus. ———. 2009. “ ‘Look, Son, What Nadab Did to Ahikaros . . .’: The Aramaic Ahiqar-​Tradition and Its Relationship to the Book of Tobit.” Pages 145–67 in The Dynamics of Language and Exegesis at Qumran. Edited by D. Dimant and R. G. Kratz. FAT 2/35. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Kratz, R. G. 1991. Translatio imperii: Untersuchungen zu den aramäischen Danielerzählungen und ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Umfeld. WMANT 63. Neukirchen-​Vluyn: Neukircherner Verlag. ———. 2002. “From Nabonidus to Cyrus.” Pages 143–56 in Ideologies as Intercultural Phenomena: Proceedings of the Third Annual Symposium of the Assyrian and Babylonian Intellectual Heritage Project, Held in Chicago, USA, October 27–31, 2000. Edited by A. Panaino and G. Pettinato. Melammu Symposia 3. Milano: Mimesis. German version: “Nabonid und Kyros.” Pages 40–54 in Das Judentum im Zeitalter des Zweiten Tempels. FAT 42. 2nd ed. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. ———. 2004. “Reste hebräischen Heidentums am Beispiel der Psalmen.” NAWG.PH 2:25–65. ———. 2006. “The Second Temple of Jeb and of Jerusalem.” Pages 247–64 in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period. Edited by O. Lipschits and M. Oeming. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. German version: “Der Zweite Tempel zu Jeb und Jerusalem.” Pages 60–78 in Das Judentum im Zeitalter des Zweiten Tempels. FAT 42. 2nd ed. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. ———. 2007. Temple and Torah: Reflections on the Legal Status of the Pentateuch Between Elephantine and Qumran. Pages 77–103 in The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance. Edited by G. N. Knoppers and B. M. Levinson. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. ———. 2008. “Ezra: Priest and Scribe.” Pages 163–88 in Scribes, Sages, and Seers: The Sage in the Eastern Mediterranean World. Edited by L. G. Perdue. FRLANT 219. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 2010. “Zwischen Elephantine und Qumran: Das Alte Testament im Rahmen des Antiken Judentums.” Pages 129–46 in Congress Volume Ljubljana 2007. Edited by A. Lemaire. VTSup 133. Leiden: Brill.

84

Elephantine Revisited

———. 2011. “Judean Ambassadors and the Making of Jewish Identity: The Case of Hananiah, Ezra, and Nehemiah.” Pages 421–44 in Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period: Negotiating Identity in an International Context. Edited by O. Lipschits, G. N. Knoppers, and M. Oeming. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. German version: “Judäische Gesandte im Achämenidenreich: Hananja, Esra und Nehemia.” Pages 377–98 in From Daēnā to Dîn: Religion, Kultur und Sprache in der iranischen Welt, Festschrift für Philip Kreyenbroek zum 60. Geburtstag. Edited by C. Allison, A. Joisten-​Pruschke, and A. Wendtland. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009. ———. 2013. “Elephantine und Alexandria: Nicht-​biblisches und biblisches Judentum in Ägypten.” Pages 193–208 in Alexandria. Edited by T. Georges, F. Albrecht, and R. Feldmeier. COMES 1. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. ———. 2015. Historical and Biblical Israel: The History, Tradition, and Archives of Israel and Judah. Translated from German by P. M. Kurtz. Oxford: Oxford University Press. German version: Historisches und biblisches Israel: Drei Überblicke zum Alten Testament. 2nd rev. and enl. ed.Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. ———. 2020. “Arameans and Judeans: Ethnography and Identity at Elephantine.” Pages 56–85 in Israel in Egypt: The Land of Egypt as Concept and Reality for Jews in Antiquity and the Early Medieval Period, ed. A. Salvesen et al. Leiden: Brill, 2020. German version: “Aramäer und Judäer: Zur Ethnographie Elephantines in achämenidischer Zeit.” Pages 163–84 in Persische Reichspolitik und lokale Heiligtümer. Edited by R. Achenbach. BZAR 25. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2019. Küchler, M. 1979. Frühjüdische Weisheitstraditionen: Zum Fortgang weisheitlichen Denkens im Bereich des frühjüdischen Jahweglaubens. OBO 26. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Lindenberger, J. M. 1983. The Aramaic Proverbs of Ahiqar. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ———. 1985. “Ahiqar: A New Translation and Introduction.” Pages 479–507 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, volume 2, Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-​ Hellenistic Works. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. London: Darton, Longman & Todd. Mathys, H.-P. 2010. Der Achämenidenhof im Alten Testament. Pages 231–308 in Der Achämenidenhof / The Achaemenid Court: Akten des 2. Internationalen Kolloquiums zum Thema “Vorderasien im Spannungsfeld klassischer und altorientalischer Überlieferungen,” Landgut Castelen bei Basel, 23.–25. Mai 2007. Edited by B. Jacobs and R. Rollinger. Classica et Orientalia 2. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Meyer, E. 1912. Der Papyrusfund von Elephantine: Dokumente einer jüdischen Gemeinde aus der Perserzeit und das älteste Buch der Weltliteratur. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Müller, W. 1980. “Die Papyrusgrabung auf Elephantine 1906–1908: Das Grabungstagebuch der 1. und 2. Kampagne.” Forschungen und Berichte der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin 20:75–88. ———. 1982. “Die Papyrusgrabung auf Elephantine 1906–1908: Das Grabungstagebuch der 3. Kampagne.” Forschungen und Berichte der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin 22:7–50. ———. 1984. “Die Papyrusgrabung auf Elephantine 1906–1908: Nachtrag zum Grabungstagebuch der 1. und 2. Kampagne.” Forschungen und Berichte der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin 24:41–44. Niehr, H. 2007. Aramäischer Aḥiqar. JSHRZ n.s. 2/2. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus. Pilgrim, C. von. 1998. “Textzeugnis und archäologischer Befund: Zur Topographie Elephantines in der 27. Dynastie.” Pages 485–97 in Stationen: Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte Ägyptens, Rainer Stadelmann gewidmet. Edited by H. Guksch and D. Polz. Mainz: von Zabern. ———. 2002. “VI. Das aramäische Quartier im Stadtgebiet der 27. Dynastie.” Pages 192–97 in G. Dreyer et al., “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine 28​.​/29​.​/30. Grabungsbericht.” MDAIK 58:157–225. ———. 2003. “Tempel des Jahu und ‘Straße des Königs’—Ein Konflikt in der späten Perserzeit auf Elephantine.” Pages 303–17 in Egypt—Temple of the Whole World: Studies in Honour of Jan Assmann. Edited by S. Meyer. SHR 97. Leiden: Brill.

Aḥiqar and Bisitun

85

Porten, B. 1968. Archives from Elephantine: The Life of an Ancient Jewish Military Colony. Berkeley: University of California Press. ———. 2003. “Elephantine and the Bible.” Pages 51–84 in Semitic Papyrology in Context: A Climate of Creativity; Papers from a New York University Conference Marking the Retirement of Baruch A. Levine. Edited by L. H. Schiffman. CHANE 14. Leiden: Brill. Porten, B., and J. A. Lund. 2002. Aramaic Documents from Egypt: A Key-​Word-​in-​Context Concordance. Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon Project: Text and Studies 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Primavesi, O. 1996. “Zur Geschichte des Deutschen Papyruskartells.” ZPE 114:173–87. Rösel, M. 2000. “Israels Psalmen in Ägypten? Papyrus Amherst 63 und die Psalmen XX und LXXV.” VT 50:81–99. Sachau, E. 1911. Aramäische Papyrus und Ostraka aus einer jüdischen Militär-​Kolonie zu Elephantine. Altorientalische Sprachdenkmäler des 5. Jahrhunderts vor Chr. 2 vols. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Scherer, A. 1999. Das weise Wort und seine Wirkung: Eine Untersuchung zur Komposition und Redaktion von Proverbia 10:1–22:16. WMANT 83. Neukirchen-​Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Schmitt, R. 1991. The Bisitun Inscriptions of Darius the Great: Old Persian Version. Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum 1/1. London: Humphries. Silverman, M. H. 1969. “Aramean Name-​Types in the Elephantine Documents.” JAOS 89:691–709. ———. 1970. “Hebrew Name-​Types in the Elephantine Documents.” Or 39:65–91. ———. 1985. Religious Values in the Jewish Proper Names at Elephantine. AOAT 217. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-​Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Sims-​Williams, N. 1981. “The Final Paragraph of the Tomb-​Inscription of Darius I (DNb, 50–60): The Old Persian Text in the Light of an Aramaic Version.” BSOAS 44:1–7. Steiner, R. C. 2003. “The Aramaic Text in Demotic Script.” COS 1.99:309–28. Tavernier, J. 2001. “An Achaemenid Royal Inscription: The Text of Paragraph 13 of the Aramaic Version of the Bisitun Inscription.” JNES 60:161–76. Toorn, K. van der. 1992. “Anat-​Yahu, Some Other Deities, and the Jews of Elephantine.” Numen 39:80–101. ———. 2018. Papyrus Amherst 63. AOAT 448. Münster: Ugarit-​Verlag. Ungnad, A. 1911. Aramäische Papyrus aus Elephantine: Kleine Ausgabe unter Zugrundelegung von Eduard Sachau’s Erstausgabe. Hilfsbücher zur Kunde des Alten Orients 4. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Voigtlander, E. N. von. 1978. The Bisitun Inscription of Darius the Great: Babylonian Version. Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum 1/2. London: Humphries. Weigl, M. 2010. Die aramäischen Achikar-​Sprüche aus Elephantine und die alttestamentliche Weisheitsliteratur. BZAW 399. Berlin: de Gruyter. Wellhausen, J. 1897. Reste arabischen Heidentums gesammelt und erläutert. 2nd ed. Berlin: Reimer. Wesselius, J. W. 1991. “Gebet aus dem demotisch-​aramäischen Papyrus Amherst 63.” Pages 930–35 in Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments, volume 2/6, Religiöse Texte: Lieder und Gebete II. Edited by O. Kaiser et al. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus. Wilke, A. F. 2006. Kronerben der Weisheit: Gott, König und Frommer in der didaktischen Literatur Ägyptens und Israels. FAT 2/20. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

Chapter 8

On Aḥiqar and the Bible Ingo Kottsieper

The Proverbs of Aḥiqar: A Wisdom Tradition from Israel’s Neighborhood “The Words of Aḥiqar . . . is the only literary text to emerge from the excavations at Elephantine.”1 This scroll, found in 1906 during the German campaign at Elephantine, has been in fact a thrilling piece of literature despite its quite fragmentary condition. It contains a collection of proverbs and the story of the sage Aḥiqar, who was known already from the book of Tobit (1:21–22; 2:10; 11:18; 14:10)2 and later sources. As a matter of fact, Aḥiqar had already attracted scholarly attention shortly before the excavations on Elephantine. In 1898 Frederick C. Conybeare, James Rendel Harris, and Agnes Smith Lewis had published the Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Greek, and Slavonic sources that were known at the time. Eleven years later, François Nau (1909) published a translation based mainly on the Syriac versions and a comparison with the Arabic, Armenian, Greek, Modern Aramaic, and Slavonic. But with the new fragments of the scroll found at Elephantine and published in 1911 by Eduard Sachau (1911, 147–82, with pls. 40–50), the scholarly world had been given a far more ancient version of the story and the proverbs dated to the second half of the fifth century BCE. Since the scroll is not an autograph, it witnesses an earlier tradition or even multiple traditions.3 My thanks go to Dr. Bronson Brown-​deVost, who kindly agreed to read my manuscript and to correct my English. 1.  TAD C 23. The Aḥiqar text is not the only Aramaic literary text from the first millennium BCE found in Egypt. Already before the excavations at Elephantine, the famous P. Amherst 63, a long scroll with poetic texts written in the Aramaic language but using the demotic script (see now Van der Toorn 2018), and the fragments of the Bar Puneš narrative (TAD C1.2) had been discovered. In addition, a literary inscription was found in 1921–22 in a cave near the village of Sheikh Fadl (TAD D23.1; first published by Lemaire in 1995; see Kottsieper 2009a, 429–30). On the other hand, one might ask whether the Aramaic version of the Bisitun inscription (TAD C2.1), which obviously was published in the Persian Empire as a political-​propagandistic text, could be deemed literature. That an exemplar of this text was found at Elephantine may be explained by the fact that it was sent there by the Persian administration; there is no evidence that it was read as literature by the inhabitants of the island. 2.  See Kottsieper 2009b for the relationship between the Aḥiqar narrative(s) preserved in the Aramaic scroll from Elephantine and the tradition taken up in the book of Tobit. 3.  Since only fragments of the scroll are preserved, the reconstruction of the scroll is a matter of debate (see Kottsieper 2009a, 110; 2009b, 152–56). Thus, different systems of counting columns and lines exist. In this essay, I shall give references to the text using the sequence of columns as established by me based only on material observations. This sequence differs from the reconstruction of the sequence of columns by Bezalel Porten and Ada Yardeni in TAD C1.1, which is based on their reconstruction of the heavily damaged

86

On Aḥiqar and the Bible

87

Already in the Elephantine version, the Aḥiqar tradition consists of two parts: a wisdom story about the Assyrian sage Aḥiqar (hereafter called “the Story”) and a collection of proverbs (hereafter “the Proverbs”) which is presented as the teaching of Aḥiqar given to his son or nephew Nadin.4 The Elephantine version was considered by most scholars to be part of the literature of the Judeans from Elephantine, though in fact, there is no real proof for this assumption.5 But already the earliest scholars were aware that the Assyrian setting of the Story need not to be taken as an historical fact. But since also Greek traditions provide us with hints of a Babylonian background of Aḥiqar, most scholars preferred the assumption that the Proverbs are to be understood against a Mesopotamian background.6 This assumption was challenged by several linguists who pointed to the fact that, in contrast to the Imperial Aramaic language used for the Story, the Proverbs exhibit a clear different dialect, which has to be located in the west. Already in 1964, Jonas C. Greenfield adduced the fact that, in contrast to the Story, Akkadian loanwords are missing in the Proverbs and referred to some observations by Eduard Y. Kutscher that prove the difference between the dialect of the Story and the dialect of the Proverbs

account lists originally written on the sheets of the scroll; this text was partially erased and the sheets were reused for the Aḥiqar text. To facilitate the use of the edition found in TAD C, the line numbers given there are added to our references in brackets. A synopsis of the different reference systems used in the literature (including Lindenberger 1983; AP) can be found in Weigl 2010, 851–60. 4.  It is important to note that the Story as presented in the Elephantine version is a redactional unit created from two separate sources that, besides other divergences, differ in the way they connect Nadin with Aḥiqar. Thus, col. ii:2 (18) introduces Nadin as his son, but col. i:6 (6) presents him as Aḥiqar’s nephew; see Kottsieper 2009a, 423–25; 2009b, 156–58. 5.  For this assumption, see Sachau 1911, 182. The scarce archaeological documentation of the findings (Honroth, Rubensohn, and Zucker 1909, esp. pp. 28–29) is not enough to ascertain that the fragments of the Aḥiqar scroll were found at the same spot where the documents were found that are certainly connected with the Judean community on Elephantine. Given the fact that various groups lived in the quarter of the town where the documents were found, we cannot exclude the possibility that the Aḥiqar text belonged to a person that was not a member of the Judean community. But even if the fragments were found together with texts belonging to the Judean community, it would still be possible that this connection is only secondary, for example, because the spot was a dump where manuscripts from different locales had been deposited, just as in North-​Saqqara (Segal 1983, 2; see Kottsieper 2013, 175–76; it should be noted that Greek papyri were also found in the same area; on this, see Rubensohn 1907, 46). One cannot rule out the possibility that they have been put there by locals in modern times (see Garbini 2006, 152–53). 6.  For the Babylonian background, see especially Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 1.15.69.4, where it is mentioned that Democritus included in his ethical teachings a translation of a stela of Aḥiqar, who is presented there as a Babylonian. Also, the fact that the Vita Aesopi (version G, chs. 101–23; see Ferrari 1997, 214–40) takes up the Aḥiqar tradition (including the wisdom sayings) and connects this with Babylonia was taken as an argument for a Mesopotamian background of the Proverbs. Ungnad (1911, 62) hesitated to connect the Proverbs with Mesopotamian wisdom traditions, though he was aware of the Babylonian Democritus tradition. Meyer, on the other hand, thought it was impossible “daß eine Jude im sechsten Jahrhundert ein literarisches Werk nicht in hebräischer, sondern in aramäischer Sprache geschrieben hätte, und daß die weite Verbreitung des Werks . . . undenkbar wäre, wenn es jüdischen Ursprungs wäre” and postulated a Babylonian background on the basis of the Greek tradition (Meyer 1912, 114, 126). Meißner (1917, 26) assumed an Assyrian background hinting to the god Shamash, who would better fit into an Assyrian environment. Cowley (AP, 206–7) also takes up the Greek tradition and advocates (like Meyer) for a Babylonian background but sees the Aramaic version as a translation of a Persian version that was based on a Babylonian tradition. Ginsberg (1950, 427) again adduced Shamash as an argument for a Mesopotamian background. Schmid (1966, 92) also took the Proverbs to be “mit größter Wahrscheinlichkeit” an Aramaic witness of Mesopotamian wisdom. Most of biblical scholars followed this track (see, e.g., Schipper 2018, 37).

88

Elephantine Revisited

(Greenfield 1964, 312).7 The linguistic analysis of the Proverbs carried out by James M. Lindenberger (1983, esp. pp. 279–304) and myself (Kottsieper 1990) corroborated the western character of the Proverbs’ dialect and argues for searching their origin somewhere in Syria, as already proposed by Greenfield (1964, 312). Both point to a strong Canaanite influence on the lexicon of the Proverbs and the probably complete, but in any case significant, absence of Akkadian loanwords that “point to a geographical area in which Aramaic and Canaanite were in close contact, i.e. some region of Syria where the Canaanite cultural influence was stronger than the Mesopotamian.”8 “The parallels with Old Aramaic,” which are “the significant features in the language of Ahiqar,” prove that “the language of the proverbs is typologically more archaic than standard IA [Imperial Aramaic]. Taken along with the evidence for textual transmission, we are justified in stating with some confidence that it is chronologically earlier as well.” (Lindenberger 1983, 296). The main difference between Lindenberger’s and my results, which are based on a more detailed linguistic comparison of the dialect of the Proverbs with other Aramaic dialects, can be found in the fact that, according to my analysis, the dialect of the Proverbs contains several features that hint to southern Syria/Lebanon of the late eighth or early seventh century BCE as the background of the proverbs.9 7.  See also Greenfield 1968, 364–65; 1978, 97; Kutscher 1971, 365–66. 8.  Lindenberger 1983, 290. Lindenberger (1982, 117; 1983, 296; 1985, 482) also proposed a northern Syrian background of the Proverbs, because of the gods mentioned in this text. However, he did not “claim that the provenance of the sayings had been proven.” (Lindenberger 1982, 117). In fact, Shamash is a common god in the whole ancient Near East, and El is found in the whole Levant. In addition, it should be taken seriously that the Proverbs do not mention Baal-​shamayn but bʿl qdšn, “lord of the holy ones” (col. x:1 [79]). Even if one identifies this bʿl qdšn with Baal-​shamayn—who is also known all over Syria—one should still face the fact that the Proverbs name him differently from the Zakkur-​inscription (KAI no. 202 B:23–24). This does not fit well with the assumption that the Proverbs originated in northern Syria, where the title Baal-​ shamayn was already established in the early eighth century BCE. Since none of the gods mentioned in the Proverbs can be taken as typical for a certain Aramaic area in the west, the only information we gain from the pantheon of the Proverbs is that, if the bʿl qdšn were to be identified with Baal-​shamayn, we should look for an area where this god was not (yet) known under the latter designation. That the “Canaanite parallels point to a locale in northern Syria” (Lindenberger 1983, 296) is wrong, since we do not know how far into the north the Canaanite dialects were still used in the eighth and seventh centuries BCE. However, one can be sure that they were thriving in Phoenicia (along the Lebanon) and in Palestine. 9.  Lindenberger’s aim was primarily to present a new edition of the Proverbs; my aim was an in-​depth description of the language of the Proverbs, though this led me to reassess and correct some readings proposed by my predecessors. The new readings are based on an examination of the fragments housed in Berlin and new regular and infrared photos I took for private use. For my analysis, see Kottsieper 1990, 240–45; the main linguistic arguments for a southern dialect are the infinitives with prefixed m in the G-​stem, which is not attested in older Aramaic dialects from northwestern Syria (though we do find it in the northeast), and infinitives with prefixed m in all other stems, in contrast to all instances of those infinitives in Old Aramaic from northern Syria (Kottsieper 1990, §222a–h, l–q). Additionally, the Proverbs show no instances of [n] assimilated to a following consonant, and are thus clearly distinguished from the northwestern sources in which a preconsonantal [n] is not written, though this is probably a question of orthography (Kottsieper 1990, §§56–62; Degen 1969, §20 n. 1). For the probability of a date in the late eighth century BCE (rather than a date after 700 BCE), see also Kottsieper 2000, 381. By the way, the undisputed fact that the Proverbs are written in a different and more ancient dialect than the Story, and therefore are older than the Story, excludes the possibility that the Proverbs would refer to the Story—even in those cases where this would fit well. Such a notion would be ahistorical. One might speculate that the Proverbs have been chosen because several units could complement certain contours of the Story, but given the fact that no single unit relies upon the Story to render it comprehensible—all are self-​evident—the connection between the Proverbs and the Story is most easily viewed on the level of a common ideology found in wisdom literature. In any case, the idea that the redactional unit of the Story and the Proverbs would be unbreakable (Weigl 2010,

On Aḥiqar and the Bible

89

Even if one takes knh, “comrade” (cols. vii:5 [99]; ix:2 [185]) as an Akkadian loanword, which would be the only one in the Proverbs, this word, which is found in both Western and Eastern Aramaic dialects, would not be a sufficient argument for an eastern provenience of the Proverbs—especially since in the eighth century BCE an Akkadian influence had already exerted itself even on Aramaic in the west. But in fact, the often alleged Akkadian origin of this word is by no means sure.10 Already Wolfram von Soden questioned this assumption (AHw, s.v. “kinattu”). The reason is obvious: Akkadian kinattu/kinātu appears in two forms and with two different meanings. Originally, it had a masculine plural form and designated a subordinate person. Only from the end of the second millennium at the earliest did it start to develop the meaning “comrade” and take up also a feminine plural form.11 Thus, one might ask whether the development in Akkadian happened under Aramaic influence.12 The western origin of the Proverbs is fostered by the appearance of an Egyptian loanword,13 which around 700 BCE would have had a higher probability of being adopted in the south than in the north of Syria. Only one word, which is found twice in the Proverbs, seems to betray an Eastern Aramaic influence: ʿmmʾ, which appears in col. vii:4 (98) in a parallellismus membrorum to ʾnšʾ (“humans”) and in col. ix:16 (189) in contrast to the gods (ʾlhyʾ). It thus denotes something like “people” in the sense of “(all) human beings.” Syntactically, it is treated as a plural. This has led many scholars to the assumption that it would be the Eastern Aramaic determinate plural [ʿamamē] of the singular [ʿamm], “people.” But such a form would be exceptional for the language of the Proverbs for two reasons:14 first, the earliest undisputed instance of such a plural form ending with -[ē] occurs only from the second century BCE on. Thus, one would need to deal with a form that has no parallel either before, nor at the time of, nor after the proverbs had been written. Second, no other noun of the derivation /qall/ found in the Proverbs uses /qatal/ as the base for its plural forms. The obvious exceptionality of this word when understood as a determinate plural is illustrated by Beyer, who explains it as an unintentional remainder that was overlooked when—according to the interpretation of Beyer—the 696) is wrong with respect to the Proverbs, which want for nothing when divorced from the Story. This also remains true for the units “which appear to be inspired by the narrative” (Lindenberger 1985, 484, referring to cols. v:14–15 [139–40]; vii:11–12 [105–6]; viii:3–4 [111–12]). Lindenberger tried to solve the historical problem that the Proverbs are older by assuming that those few would have been added later by the redactor, though they do not show any indication of later language. But the question remains unanswered why those supposed additions are randomly scattered across the collection. And given the fact that the transition from the Story to the Proverbs is not preserved, the assumption that they would be an unbreakable unit is not proven even for the Story. In fact, there are indications that the Story used at least one source that contained the Story of Aḥiqar but not the Proverbs (see Kottsieper 2009b, 156–58). 10.  E.g., Kaufman 1974, 64. 11.  See especially AHw, s.v. “kinattu.” CAD 8 (s.v. “kinattu”) cites some earlier instances of the meaning “comrade,” but none of these are certain, and most of them are better understood with the meaning “servant,” “subordinate” (see Kottsieper 1990, 243); the earliest attestation of the meaning “comrade” would be Ludlul bēl nēmeqi i:87, from the end of the second millennium BCE (1300–1026 BCE in Annus and Lenzi 2010, xviii); this text abounds with (at the time) “rare and learned words” (Annus and Lenzi 2010, xxvi). 12.  See now also Beyer 2004, 418. If this is the case, one might consider to date Ludlul bēl nēmeqi to the very end of the second millennium BCE (in the late eleventh century or even at the beginning of the tenth century). 13.  On ḥnt col. ix:5 (178), see Kottsieper 1990, 244–45; Görg 2002. 14.  For the following discussion, see especially Kottsieper 1990, §190.

90

Elephantine Revisited

Proverbs were cast from an alleged original East Aramaic literary language into Imperial Aramaic (Beyer 1984, 89; 1991, 733; 1994, 50). But in fact, when later scribes of the Proverbs introduced their own orthographic rules (Kottsieper 1990, §§12–13, 103), they did this quite consistently. This makes it unlikely that they failed to do so not once, but at every occurrence of the word ʿmmʾ, which—according to the interpretation as a plural of [ʿamm]—would have been a very common lexical item. This argues in favor of the assumption that the scribes who transmitted the text understood the form of the word differently from modern Aramaicists who parse it as the well-​known determinate plural of [ʿamm]. One should not be surprised to find in literary genres such as wisdom literature words uncommon in other genres—and especially in the nonliterary genres of our Old and Imperial Aramaic sources. Thus, it would seem wise to avoid speculations about a strange form of /ʿamm/ and to posit instead that ʿmm in the Proverbs is another noun derived from the root ʿMM, which has a meaning “common people,” “all people,” or the like; this noun—which is morphologically a singular—is construed ad sensum as a plural. This can be compared with the noun ʿamam, “complete, collected” in Arabic.15 This interpretation is now confirmed by an Idumean wisdom text found in Maresha (Palestine; Eshel, Puech, and Kloner 2007, 41–47; Kottsieper 2015, 476– 77), which can hardly be labeled Eastern Aramaic. In line 7ʹ of this text one finds the noun phrase bt16 ʿmmʾ which obviously denotes a “woman from (common) people” (pl.), more specificly in the sense of “a foreign woman,” in contrast to a woman from her own family or group. This might be compared with later Palestinian Aramaic br ʿmmyʾ, “one of the people” (pl.), in the sense of “a foreigner”17 or “a stranger.”18 In addition to these linguistic data, the western—and more precisely the southern Syrian/Lebanese—origin of the Proverbs is fostered by the observation that all realia mentioned in the Proverbs fit entirely within this region and that, by contrast, some of them are not commonly found in Mesopotamia.19 Thus, we meet the leopard (nmr; 15. See already Kottsieper 1990, §190; see also Folmer 1995, 707. Muraoka (1997, 206–7) gives a different explanation. According to him, /ʿamam/ would be the original singular stem for (later) Aramaic [ʿamm] which lost the short vowel before the last consonant. Thus, he points to the fact that in Imperial(!) Aramaic, nominal forms of geminate roots showing only one of the geminated consonants sometimes alternate with forms showing both geminated consonants. But given the fact that the /qall/ form [ʿamm] is common Semitic and the form [ʿamam-] follows the well-​known shift from singular /qatl = qall/ to plural / qatal = qalal/, this seems to be a less-​likely explanation. From a formal point of view, it could also be a back formation of the plural stem, as in Samaritan Aramaic (DSA, s.v. “‫עמם‬,” “nation”), Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (DJPA3, s.v. “‫עמם‬,” “gentile”), and Christian Palestinian Aramaic (DCPA, s.v. “[ʿmm],” “gentile”), but a singular meaning does not fit well in the given context; a plural meaning is demanded. 16.  This is obviously a mistake for brt. Since this word stands directly in contact with the rim of the bowl on which this scribal exercise is written, the difficulty the narrow place caused here to the student may have produced the error. 17. See Eshel, Puech, and Kloner (2007, 47), who point to ‫ בנת עממיא‬in a gloss in Targum Neofiti to Lev 20:2. 18. For ‫ בר עממאי‬in Samaritan Aramaic, see DSA, s.v. “‫( ”עמם‬see also for the plural form ‫ ;עממאי‬see also Tal 2013, §5.1.3.3.4). 19.  See Kottsieper 1990, 245–46, and in more detail Kottsieper 1996, 132–39. Since my arguments have been harshly criticized by Weigl 2010, I take the opportunity to present an evaluation of his arguments, which at no place are convincing but abound with misleading and sometimes even incorrect data (for an evaluation of the manner of Weigl’s argumentation in respect to a different subject, see already Kottsieper 2014, 47). Weigl’s general remark that my observations add nothing new to the discussion about the cultural background of the Proverbs “außer auf Allgemeinplätzen und Banalitäten beruhenden Einsichten (etwa,

On Aḥiqar and the Bible

91

col. xii:8–9 [166–67]) and the bear (db; col. xii:10 [168]) as a common threat for goats or sheep, which they had not been in Mesopotamia.20 With respect to common drinks, the Proverbs mention only wine (cols. ix:14–15 [187–88]; xvi:2 [208]; probably also in col. ix:1 [174]), but never beer, which was the common drink in Mesopotamia, where wine needed to be imported.21 Col. viii:3 (111) mentions the cedar in a broken context: “I left you in the shelter of the cedar.” Though probably this is meant metaphorically, the use of this metaphor fits well in the Levant and especially in the Lebanon with its well-​known cedars, which grow neither in Mesopotamia nor in the Jezirah.22 Also a dass der Wein Kulturgetränk Südsyriens oder der Bär in den dortigen Wäldern beheimatet sei)” (Weigl 2010, 38) illustrates the author’s unawareness of the methodological value of these data. It is obvious that those realia and phenomena mentioned in a proverbial text, which are neither introduced as exotic nor used in an exceptional way, probably reflect the real background of its authors and addressees. Of course, phenomena found throughout the ancient Near East are not significant in this respect. But if a text refers to a whole group of different phenomena that are not commonly found in a certain area, one possesses cumulative evidence that this text was not authored in that area—as is the case with the Proverbs and Mesopotamia. But if at the same time all those phenomena are typical (though maybe not exclusive) for a certain different area, then this area is a good candidate for the assumption that the text was authored there—as is the case with the Proverbs and the Lebanon or adjacent areas. And finally, if other observations, such as the linguistic details presented above, also fit best in this area, then it is indeed methodologically sound to put all this evidence together. It is simply a matter of where the whole set of evidence from different observations fits best—regardless of whether one or another single phenomenon may fit in other areas too. 20.  Leopards do not appear in northern Syrian and Mesopotamian art of the first millennium BCE (see Williams-​Forte 1980–83, 6:601–4). “In den Tieromina fehlen L[eopard] and Gepard. Sie werden gewöhnlich nicht beobachtet. In den lit[erarischen] Texten werden sie gelegentlich zusammen genannt, besonders wenn die weite Welt der Schauplatz ist” (Heimpel 1980–83, 6:600; emphasis added). The appearance of a live leopard floating down the river Euphrates was so exceptional that it was noted in a chronicle (Grayson 1975, 135, lines 9–11). And though the Neo-​Assyrian kings sometimes boast that they would have killed or captured leopards, this always appears in connection with their great deeds done abroad, especially in the west (RIMA 2 A.0.89.7 iv 22 [cf. 1–6]; A.0.101.2:37 [cf. 25b–31a]). Also, the appearance of a cultic object called namru in Neo-​Assyrian texts (SAA 1.77 obv. 5; 1.78 obv. 6; 1.140 obv. 4; 20.55 obv. 3) does not argue in favor of the existence of the leopard as a common wild animal in Mesopotamia. Weigl (2009, 386) simply skips the information about time, period, and context regarding the appearance of the leopard in Mesopotamian sources provided in the articles of Williams-​Forte and Heimpel. Thus, he informs his readers only that the sources mention the leopard as a trophy but neglects to mention the important fact that it is a trophy gained outside Mesopotamia (and especially in connection with the west). What is more, he quotes Heimpel (1980–83, 6:600; without marking it as a verbal quotation) as “Seine [scil. the leopard’s] Beute ist die Wildziege (šeg9),” but withholds the information that this is said about a leopard from the mountains, as Heimpel clearly states: “Nach ‘Enmerkar und Suḫkešdaʾana’ Z. 242 . . . ist ausdrücklich von einem ‘Bergleoparden’ (pirig-​tur-​bur-​sag (-ga)) die Rede. Seine Beute ist die Wildziege (šeg9) und das unidentifizierte šeg9-bar (cf. Z. 241, 243)” (Heimpel 1980–83, 6:600). By the way, even in this Sumerian myth from the late third millennium BCE, the leopard from the mountain is not depicted as a common beast in Mesopotamia; together with the šeg9 (whose exact meaning is not clear, maybe a deer, mountain goat, or wild sheep; see the online version of the Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary, http://​psd​.museum​.upenn​.edu​/nepsd​-frame​.html), he is conjured from a river by a sorcerer and immediately retreats to the mountains after having seized its prey. Thus, also this Sumerian text from southern Mesopotamia locates the leopard in a mountainous area, outside Mesopotamia. That the bear who prefers mountainous areas and woods as his habitat was not a common animal in Mesopotamia is well known (see already Hilzheimer 1932, 1:398–99). Thus, this animal appears like and sometimes even in connection with the leopard in the Mesopotamian literature as an exotic animal that, for instance, one might meet on long journeys as, for example, Gilgamesh on his journey to Utnapishtim (Gilgamesh epic X v 24–26.30). 21.  Cf. Nabonid’s notion of wine: “wine, the beer of the mountains, which does not exist in my country” (Tarif-​Stela 10 = BBS no. 37:10 = Schaudig 2001, 531–32). See also the list of places from where wine was imported—including the area of Damascus—in Stol 2016–18, 15:39. Accordingly, Akkadian wisdom texts admonish the reader to satisfy people with beer (Counsels of Wisdom 61 = Lambert 1960, 102–3). 22.  This botanic evidence is also reflected in the Akkadian sources that name the Lebanon, the Amanus, and the Hermon as the area where cedars grow (CAD 4, s.v. “erēnu A,” a1ʹ; Streck 2016–18, 15:237).

92

Elephantine Revisited

storm that endangers solid buildings (col. vii:10 [104])23 fits well in southern Syria/ Lebanon where storms destroying buildings are a well-​known phenomenon mentioned not only in the Bible but also in folklore.24 On the other hand, the motif of such a destroying wind is, as far as I see, uncommon in Mesopotamian literature, in contrast, for instance, to the motif that the stance of the king’s enemy is like the wind.25 Of course, the proverb “Do not show an Arab the sea and a Sidonian [the paths in the desert] for their work is different” (col. xvi:1 [207]) fits best in an area where the addressees were in close contact with both the Arab and the Phoenician. The information about the different functions of Arabs and Phoenicians in travel or trade was surely known at many places in the ancient Near East.26 But would one use this information for a proverb to express that different people have different functions and that it would be unwise to teach them something for which they are not well-​suited if the In Mesopotamia, the cedar was found only as an exotic tree planted in gardens (CAD 4, s.v. “erēnu A,” a3ʹ). The motif of someone sitting in the shadow of the cedar appears in an incantation asking Shamash to take place there, which plainly alludes to the sunset in the west (K. 256 [4IV R 17]:9 = Schollmeyer 1912, 47, 49). Nevertheless, a Mesopotamian background cannot be totally excluded in the light of BIN 7 41:18, an Old Babylonian letter of unknown provenance (possibly from Nippur; see Edzard 1970, 19), in which a woman calls her brother a cedar, whose shadow should protect her from being burned by the sun (see Oppenheim 1967, 92). This instance proves that the shadow of a cedar would be understood as a metaphor for shelter also in Mesopotamia. However, in contrast to this letter where the “brother” is compared to a cedar, the instance in the Proverbs presupposes the knowledge of who is symbolized by the cedar. In Neo-​Assyrian poetry, another instance is found in the Love Lyrics of Nabu and Tashmetu (SAA 3.14 obv. 9–11). In this text the “shade of the cedar” (which is also called the king but not vice versa) is mentioned—besides the juniper—as a shelter for the gods in love. This probably refers to luxurious parks as fine places for love, where cedars might also be grown. In any case, the information given by Weigl (2010, 257) that especially Mesopotamian literature throughout all epochs and literary genres would testify to the use of the cedar as a metaphor for the kings, who would often themselves boast of being a cedar, is wrong. Weigl points to Widengren 1951 as his main source for this astonishing statement. In fact, Widengren deals with the Tree of Life or Sacred Tree, which cannot simply be identified as a cedar, as York states: “In essence the sacred tree cannot be comprehended as a specific botanical species.” (York 1972–75, 4:270). The few references to Mesopotamian texts given in Widengren (1951, 42–43), where a cedar—besides other plants—appears as a symbol for the king, are taken from early Sumerian sources only. Brunner 1980, to which Weigl refers as a second source, deals with a Middle Persian (!) dialogue between a date palm and a goat, which does not even mention a cedar. 23. “The town of wicked men—on the day of wind it staggers and by the storms its gates incline.” The first colon clearly speaks about a destroying wind (rwḥ) and the parallelism membrorum suggests a meaning “storms” for šhynn. We possibly find here a noun derived from the root ŠHY, a by-​form of the root ŠʾY, “to roar,” which is found in Hebrew and probably also in Akkadian. The interchange of the root consonants /ʾ/ and /h/ is known from other words too, especially ŠHW = Hebrew ‫ = שאה‬Aramaic šhy, “to lay waist.” Since in Aramaic a noun that derives from a root III-w and has the derivational form /qvtlān/ should show a waw, šhyn probably does not derive from the root ŠHW, “to lay waist”; see Kottsieper 1990, §17. 24.  Ezek 13:11–14, for instance, speaks of a wall torn down by a heavy storm, and there are also sayings from Palestine such as “Storm during the time of harvest throws down the mountains” or “The wind throws stones” (Dalman 1928a, 238; 1928b, 315). Also, in Lebanese fairy tales heavy storms are a well-​known motif (see, for instance, Assaf and Assaf 1978, 12, 24). 25.  SAA 3.11 rev. 14; see Kottsieper 1996, 136. Of all the data and information given there, Weigl (2010, 211–12) only refers to the fact that at the Phoenician coast and in the Lebanon mountains storms are significantly more frequent but skips the main point of my argumentation: such storms are known in this area as a phenomenon that affects even solid buildings, but in Mesopotamian literature this motif is not found, in contrast to the storm as a sign of instability by itself, instead of causing instability. 26.  The references given in Parpola (2005, 105) only prove that Arabs and Sidonians had been known to the Assyrian scribes, something that nobody would deny, but these sources do not mention Arabs and Sidonian together. Thus, Parpola misses the important fact that they are mentioned together as possible addressees of the Proverbs’ readers.

On Aḥiqar and the Bible

93

author of such a proverb and his addressee would not be in contact with both Arabs and Phoenicians? The question would be how one could teach a Sidonian and an Arab, except if one lived in an area where both are present. In a place like Damascus, for example, where both Phoenician and Arab traders would be present, it would be apt to comment on the folly of trying to persuade a Phoenician to change his role with an Arab in international trading or vice versa. In any case, this proverb shows that in the Proverbs ymʾ, “the sea” refers to the Mediterranean Sea, which is mentioned again in col. xii:7 (165): “There is no lion (ʾryh) in the sea; therefore they call the/a qp/r(ʾ) (eagre?) a lion (lbʾ).” The proverb tells why a certain phenomenon of the Mediterranean Sea is called by the nickname “lion.” Since one would not expect people living hundreds of miles away from the Mediterranean Sea (as it would be the case in the Jezirah or in Mesopotamia) to give a nickname to a maritime phenomenon, this proverb shows knowledge of a local dialect in the Levant. This is corroborated by the fact that lbʾ is obviously not Aramaic but taken from Canaanite lbʾ, “lion”—exactly the group of languages one would expect at the shores of the Mediterranean Sea.27 Though the exact phenomenon called here “lion” remains the subject of debate,28 the proverb obviously has been coined in a circle of sages who were familiar with a local Canaanite name for this maritime phenomenon and, well aware of its meaning, explained it with the observation that those locals were able to call it “lion,” because there was no other phenomenon in the sea called “lion.” Given the cumulative force of all this evidence, a western provenance for the Proverbs cannot seriously be doubted, and any argument that they represent a specimen 27.  The alternative to take it as a loanword from Akkadian labbû as the name of a sea monster (thus, for instance, Lindenberger 1982, 106) does not convince, especially if one follows the etymology of Lindenberger, who connects it with lawûm, “to encircle,” which should appear in our text as lby(ʾ). According to Lindenberg, this phenomenon would be called by the name of a monster only because there is no lion in the sea. In fact, the punch-​line of the saying is the fact that lbʾ is also a word for “lion,” as ʾryh. Nor would Akkadian lābu/labbu, “lion” be a good candidate. Who would nickname a phenomenon of the Mediterranean Sea with an Akkadian word? And since Akkadian lābu/labbu has lost its original final ʾ (which is only preserved in Old Akkadian and Old Assyrian), one would have to interpret the ʾ as the article (“the lion”), but nothing speaks for the assumption that a singular entity is referred to in this text. Given the fact that, for nicknaming a phenomenon in the Mediterranean Sea, a word from the local Canaanite dialects would be the natural candidate, there cannot be any serious doubt that we are dealing here with a Canaanite word. 28.  It might be connected with the root QPP (or QPʾ) and designate an “eagre.” This would give good sense, especially since even today the rage of the sea is compared with the rage of a lion in Palestinian folklore, as I was told by my colleague Mohammad Maraqten (see Kottsieper 1996, 133–34). Several observations speak against the assumption that this is a loanword from Akkadian kuppû that designates an eel-​like fish (see, for instance, Lindenberger 1982, 106). First, the word is known in Jewish Aramaic as kup(p)yā, which in fact is the form one would expect in an Akkadian loanword whose Akkadian source begins with [k] and ends with a long vowel. Weigl’s (2010, 410) argument that nbʾ = Nabu in KAI no. 222 A:8 proves that already in Old Aramaic such long vowels would have been written with ʾ is not conclusive. He overlooks the fact that the original spelling of the name Nabu was na-​bi-​um (= [nābiʾum]), which is preserved in all periods (for Neo-​Assyrian, for example, see the references given in SAA 3, 158, s.v. “Nabû”). The spelling nbʾ in Sfire (KAI no. 222) probably reflects this Akkadian spelling (and proves its connection with the root NBʾ). Second, “lion” is not the word one might expect to refer to an eel-​like fish (see Landsberger 1934, 46; Civil 1961, 171). Finally, kuppû seems to be “a river fish, eaten at Mari” (Landsberger 1962, 87). Weigl (2010, 410) argues against this, that “ubi.GU KU6” in Hh 18:14 would appear in connection with sea and sweet-​ water fishes. But, as every scholar familiar with the basics of the Mesopotamian languages will quickly notice, Weigl simply caught the wrong fish: we are dealing not with a certain type of the ubiku6 = abūtu presented in lines 11–14 but with Akkadian kuppû = Sumerian gubi (gú.bíku6), which is mentioned in line 2. He also overlooked that the information about the kuppû being a river-​fish is based not on its occurrence in this lexical list but on the additional data presented by Landsberger, in particular that it was eaten at Mari.

94

Elephantine Revisited

of Mesopotamian wisdom literature and are to be located in Mesopotamia—including the Jezirah—would be unfounded.29 One would need to give very good reasons not to locate the proverbs into this region given the fact that: (1) an Aramaic society flourished in the vicinity of Damascus, which controlled areas in southern Lebanon and was adjacent to the Phoenician coast, (2) Damascus was a city where Arabs and Sidonians would meet to exchange goods for export either through the desert to Mesopotamia or across the sea, (3) this area was surrounded by Canaanite-​speaking people, some of whom were probably still living in the area of Damascus, (4) the Lebanon is well known for its wine and cedar and is a home of bear and leopard, and (5) everything else in the Proverbs fits the profile of this area. This result corresponds to the close relationship between the Proverbs and biblical wisdom texts, which has been observed long ago by scholars.30

The “Fables”: A Genre Shared Between the Proverbs and the Bible This close relationship is illustrated by the use of a certain genre found in the Proverbs and in the Bible that is absent from the Mesopotamian wisdom literature. Thus, in the Proverbs one finds at least six units of a kind of fable, which follow a strict format.31 1. The protagonist is an animal or plant that is approached with a question or suggestion by a different, normally antagonistic animal, plant, or a human being: I. The [bramb]le dispatched to [the] pomegranate saying, II. The leopard met the goat and she was naked (= fleeced). The leopard answered and said to the goat, III. The bear came upon (or: attacked, ʾzl ʿl) [the] lamb[s and said,] 29.  The Jezirah was proposed by Weigl (2010, 677–88). But also Weigl cannot deny the strong western impact on the Proverbs. He tries to explain this impact by the assumption that it may have been brought in by deportees, such as those from Samaria. Nevertheless, those western people would have had a heavy influence especially on the lexicon of the Proverbs—in contrast to the local Akkadian culture—and what is more, the fables in the Proverbs, which are central in Weigl’s argument for Mesopotamian influence, are markedly different from the dispute-​fables found in Mesopotamia (discussed below) but appear to be quite similar to those found in the Bible. The assumption that so many western elements can be nothing more than insertions into a local Mesopotamian tradition is an unlikely hypothesis, which can only be ascertained if we can find undisputable evidence for the stronger influence of Mesopotamian traditions on the lexicon, motifs, and genres of the Proverbs. Even if the Proverbs would have been written down first in the Jezirah—but within the context of deportees from the west—they would reflect a western wisdom tradition that was not fundamentally influenced by the tradition of the new environment—and we would be back in the southwest as the place of origin of the Proverbs. The localization in western Mesopotamia-​ Palmyra by Beyer (1991, 733; 1994, 50) also does not explain the heavy Western Canaanite influence and the total absence of any Akkadian influence on the language. 30.  See, for instance, Meyer 1912, 119: “Daß die Sprüche Achiqars sich auch im einzelnen in Form und Inhalt mit den im Alten Testament erhaltenen aufs engste berühren, haben wir schon gesehen; die weitere Erforschung des Textes von Elephantine wird gewiß noch manche weitere Übereinstimmungen aufdecken. . . . So würde es gar nicht wunderbar sein, ja es ist eigentlich ein Zufall, daß sich in den ‘Sprüchen Salomos’ nicht auch ein Kapitel findet: ‘Worte des Achiqar, die er seinem Sohne einschärfte.’ ” Later works, such as Lindenberger 1983 and especially Weigl 2010, provide the reader with many parallels between the Proverbs and the Bible. 31.  I: col. vii:7–8 (101–2); II: col. xii:8–10a (166–68); III: col. xii:10b–13 (168–70); IV: col. xv:13b–14 (203–4); V: col. xvi:3–4 (209–10); VI: col. x:16 (94).

On Aḥiqar and the Bible

95

IV. (probably a human being) [. . . said] one [da]y to the wild ass, V. [To] the [goat] it was said, VI. The lion went, approached the wa[tering placer of the ass] saying, 2. The question or suggestion is absurd given the natural relationship between the protagonist and his opposite: I. “The bramble to the pomegranate:32 ‘What good is the abu[nd]ance of your thorns? [Who] touches you [will be] caught in you!’ ” II. “Come and I will cover you with my fur (mšk).” III. [“Come and I] shall be silent.” IV. “[Allow to r]i[de ]on you33 and I shall support you [and I shall feed you.”] V. “Revive34 a dead (= mortally ill one?)” VI. “Peace be to you!” 3. The protagonist reacts with a short answer that unmasks the absurdity of the question or suggestion: I. [But] the po[me]granate [an]swered and said to the bramble, “You, all of you is thorns for him who touches you.” II. The goat [answered] and said to the leopard, “To what end would your covering be for me? My hide (gldy) do not take from me.”35 III. The lambs answered and said to him, “Carry (away) what you [will] carry from us. We [. . .] . . . For it is not in your hands to lift up your foot to lower it.” IV. [The wild ass answered and said to the . . . , “Kee]p your support and your fodder36 and (=for) I shall not see (=tolerate) your riding.” V. And the goat answered[ and said, “Behold, I] know who will come after him [and this one] will tear out ??? from my hide.” (unclear) VI. The ass answered and said to the lion, [“. . .”]. (unclear) Comments have been added to two of these fables. In col. xii:10a (167–68) the line “For a leopard does not greet the gazelle except to suck its blood” was added at the end, and in col. xii:12–13 (170) the line “For, without the gods, it is not given into the hands of humans to lift up their foot and to lower it to do something” was inserted before the last clause. These added comments shed light on the ideological 32.  The message is styled as a kind of letter. 33.  hr]k[b; the common restoration ʾr]k[b, “I shall ride” is possible, but the following wʾn[h ]ʾsblnk, “and I shall support you” seems to signal the change of subject (wʾnh). This would correspond to the change in the answer given by the wild ass (discussed below), in which there is a similar switch from the second person singular (and probably an imperative) to the first person singular, using the same wʾnh to signal the change of subject. 34.  hḥ{t}yy; the first letter could be gimel or heh. The next two strokes cannot be read as dy (with TAD C1.1) but seem to belong to het; the upper horizontal stroke of this letter has flaked off. At the end of the word, the scribe started to write a tav but overwrote it with a yod (see already Lindenberger 1983, 211), followed by a second yod. Thus, the reading gdyky (TAD C1.1), which leads to the translation “your kid has died,” seems to be less probable. 35.  The punch line is that the only way for a leopard to cover a goat with his fur is to tear it apart and to devour it. 36. kstk, “your fodder”; ksh [kessā] as a word for “fodder” is well known in Aramaic: Samaritan Aramaic (DSA, s.v. “‫ ;)”כסה‬Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (DJPA3, s.v. “‫ ;)”כסה‬Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (DJBA, s.v. “2 ‫ ;)”כיסתא‬Syriac (SyrLex, s.v. “[kst’]”).

96

Elephantine Revisited

background of the fables. The difference or relationship between the protagonist and antagonist reflects a natural order that to ignore would simply be absurd. Thus, the question about the thorns of the pomegranate posed by a bramble (I) denies the main difference between both plants by restricting the pomegranate to being a thorny plant, which is an absurd effrontery. And even if the suggestions of the beasts of prey (II–III) would have been intended seriously, they still would have been absurd—or devious. The beasts are not able to act against their nature or to the divine will. The wild ass (IV) is a symbol of the uncultivated world outside human communities (Job 39:5; Dan 5:21), which renders any attempt of a human to use the wild ass as a domesticated donkey an absurdity. In the Hebrew Bible this genre is found in 2 Kgs 14:9 and Judg 9:8–15, both in the context of a political dialogue. Jehoash answers Amaziah’s declaration of war (2 Kgs 14:8) with the following fable concerning all three elements of this genre (v. 9): 1. The thistle in Lebanon sent this message to the cedar in Lebanon, 2. “Give your daughter to my son in marriage.” 3. But the wild beast in Lebanon went by and trampled down the thistle. The answer is replaced by an action of the wild beast that simply tramples down the thistle. In any case, this action is to be taken as an “answer” exactly in the sense of the reactions in the aforementioned fables that hang on the real natural difference of the relationship between the protagonist and its opponent. Of course, one might see in this action a mere coincidence—though the use of the narrative does not favor this suggestion—which alone would unmask the absurdity of the thistle’s suggestion: it is so totally powerless that even lower members of Lebanese “society” could trample it down by simply passing by. Nevertheless, it was probably meant as a reaction of the cedar’s subordinates—which dwell under its protection (Ezek 31:6)—to the absurdly brash suggestion of the thistle.37 The well-​known Fable of Jotham (Judg 9:8–15) uses the form of this genre four times: 1. 8a: Once the trees went to anoint a king over themselves. They said to the olive tree, 10a: Then the trees said to the fig tree, 12a: Then the trees said to the vine, 14a: Then all the trees said to the thorn bush, 2. 8b: “Be king over us.” 10b = 12b = 14b: “Come on and be king over us.” 3. 9: But the olive tree replied, “Have I given up my fatness with which God and men are honoured through me, that I should go and wave above the trees?” 11: But the fig tree replied, “Have I given up my sweetness and my fruit, that I should go and wave above the trees?” 13: But the vine replied, “Have I given up my must, which gladdens God and men, that I should go and wave above the trees?” 37.  In Judg 9:15, to seek shelter in the shade of a plant is a metaphor for subordination to a king.

On Aḥiqar and the Bible

97

15: And the thorn bush said to the trees, “If you are rightly anointing me king over you, come and take shelter in my shade; but if not, fire will issue from the thorn bush and consume the cedars of Lebanon!” The narrator uses this genre to express the idea that crowning a tree or plant that was not created to be king (note that the cedar is not asked) would be against the natural order of things and thus an inappropriate suggestion. In fact, the cedar (that is not asked) would be the natural royal tree. Thus, such a suggestion is rejected by any decent tree because it means to give up the purposes for which it was created. Since a thorn bush has no real purpose, the narrator uses this example to go one step further: were it right to make the thorn bush king, then all other trees should hide themselves in his shelter—an absurd image given the fact that the thorn bush in the mountain is a short plant. But if this suggestion is against the order, then its fulfilment would destroy even the natural royal trees, the cedars.38 It is obvious that this genre was well known in Israel and used in political argumentations. By the way, this illustrates two things: first, the importance of wisdom traditions for arguments in a political discussion and, second, that the typical wisdom literature of the Bible is only part of a broader literary tradition available to the ancient scribes. Lindenberger (1983, 167) and Weigl have tried to draw a closer connection between the fables in the Proverbs and the Mesopotamian dispute-​fables.39 But the dispute-​ fables clearly belong to a different genre, as even a short glimpse at the well-​known dispute between the tamarisk and the palm40 reveals, which both Lindenberger (1983, 167) and Weigl (2010, 234–36) compare especially with col. vii:7–8 (101–2). Like many other Mesopotamian dispute-​fables,41 this text starts with a mythological setting:42 it describes how the gods appointed a king who made a garden in which he planted both trees to make a banquet in their shadows. At this point, the tamarisk begins to boast about its own usefulness; this starts a debate between both trees about which would be the most useful and noble tree. And indeed, both trees are useful in many respects, leading to a long debate in which the two opponents again and again answer the arguments given by the other. A second example of this genre is the debate between the ox and the horse,43 which also starts with a kind of mythological explanation of how agriculture began and how both animals became friends. Accordingly, the debate about their different values, which again is a real debate with several speeches from both sides, is explicitly called a friendly debate. Probably those texts are a kind of didactic poems that teach the different characteristics of comparable things like the tamarisk and the palm, the ox and the horse, but also the fox, the dog, and the wolf, along with their values in the form of lengthy disputes, often including a judgment at 38.  See Kottsieper 1996, 149–54. 39.  Especially for Weigl (2010, 729), the alleged Mesopotamian background of those fables is one of the main arguments for a Mesopotamian background of at least a part of the traditions taken up in the Proverbs. 40.  For a general description, see Bottéro 1991; Vanstiphout 1990; 1991; 1992. Already Lambert (1960, 150) pointed to the difference between the dispute-​fables and other types of fables. For the dispute, see, Lambert 1960, 151–64; von Soden 1990, 184–87. 41.  See Lambert 1960, 150–212; von Soden 1990, 180–88. 42.  Von Soden 1990, 184; Bottéro 1991, 14–15. 43.  See Lambert 1960, 175–85.

98

Elephantine Revisited

the end.44 Consequently, they have nothing to do with the genre found in the Proverbs of Aḥiqar, which lack a narrative introduction and a judgment at the end, and are in no way a debate about the different values of the partners in dialogue. Accordingly, the antagonists of the fables in the Proverbs are in no way comparable to the protagonists, such that they could seriously compare their merits (as is the case in the dispute-​fables from Mesopotamia). On the contrary, there is a clear opposition between the two parties as “useful :: useless” or “beast of prey :: prey,” “cultivated human being :: undomesticated animal.”

Between Unit and Book: Small Collections The Proverbs also throw light on how a collection of wisdom sayings could have been composed. Thus, a closer look at col. v:1–6 (126–31; see table 8.1) shows an interesting mixture of themes: lines 1 and 3 have in common the admonition not to attack a righteous person. The shared topic of lines 2 and 4 is completely different: they deal with the question how one should act when in need. Lines 5–6 take up the idea of lines 2 and 4 in the way they warn against taking loans. In fact, lines 5–6 look like a small collection of single admonitions connected by “and,” “moreover,” or “also.” Since the Proverbs otherwise clearly demarcate single units from each other either by an archaic ‫ א‬or by leaving the rest of the line blank,45 this group of admonitions had been a small collection of its own, which was taken by the redactor as a single unit. On the other hand, the redactor does not place line 3 before line 2, though it would fit better there. The sequences 1 + 3 and 2 + 4 + 5–6 would have followed the idea that redactors would group together original independent units with similar subjects or shared catch-​words. This leads to the conclusion that lines 1–4 have not been taken by the redactor(s) as four independent units but as two fixed pairs, each of which share the same subjects. Even if one takes lines 3–4 as a kind of paraphrastic commentary to lines 1–2,46 one has to conclude that the redactor hesitated to break up the original sequence of lines 1–2. But obviously he placed lines 5–6 after lines 3–4 because they fit there well sharing the topic “loan.” The assumption of small collections that the redactor would not break up can explain also the astonishing change of subjects in col. x. It starts with a saying about the gods and, probably, wisdom (col. x:1 [79]) exercising power together with the “lord of the holy ones.” Then follows an admonition not to judge prematurely (col. x:2 [80]), followed by several sayings about the danger of incautious speaking (col. x:3–5 [81–83]). The next section admonishes the reader to follow the commands of the king because of the dangerous power of his words (col. x:6–10 [84–88]). Leaving this subject, col. x:11–12 (89–90) speaks about the hardship of poverty and how to react to a large number of children. But in the middle of this small group of three sayings,

44.  For the texts, see, Lambert 1960, 186–209; von Soden 1990, 181–84. On the lengthy disputes, see Bottéro 1991, 8; Vanstiphout 1991, 25. 45.  See Kottsieper 2003, 150–56. 46.  Such a commentary is also found in col. ix:15b–16a (188–89). On commentaries, see also Kottsieper 2008, 114–16; 2009b, 420.

On Aḥiqar and the Bible

99

Table 8.1.  Column v:1–6 (126–31) Behavior Toward a Righteous Person Col. v:1 (126)

[Do not bend] your [b]ow and do not mount your arrow at a righteous (man) lest the gods proceed to his help and turn it back against you

Col. v:2 (127)

Col. v:3 (128)

Economic Sayings

[If ] you [are in need], O my son, then harvest any harvest and do any work. Then, you will eat and be satisfied and give to your children. [Why did] you [b]end your bow and mount your arrow at (one more) righteous than you? It is a sin against (= in the eyes of) the gods.

Col. v:4 (129)

[If ] you [are hungry], O my son, then borrow (only) the grain and the wheat that you can eat and be satisfied and give to your children with you.

Col. v:5–6 (130–31)

[Do not take] the heavy [l]oan! And: From a bad person do not borrow. Moreover: [I]f you take the loan, rest to your soul do not put (= give) until [you repay] the [l]oan! [Also: The giving] outa of the loan is sweet as honeyb and its repaying fills the house.

Read mzl, from ZWL, “to put aside,” “to put away” > “to give out.” Read kmšyr, from ŚWR, “to collect honey” (cf. Arabic šawr, “honey”).

a

b

a saying about the power of the tongue of the king appears.47 Col. x:13–14 (91–92) returns to the subject of the king and speaks about his godly quality, while col. x:15 (93) returns to the subject of righteous speaking, including an admonition against uttering things that should be concealed (cf. col. x:4 [82]). Though lines 6–10 are connected to lines 3–4 by the topic “speaking/speech” and lines 11–13 are connected to lines 6–10 by the topic “king,” lines 11–12 nevertheless interrupt this topical unit. But given the fact that one element in this interrupting group takes up the topic “speaking” and—probably—also “king” there would be a rationale for putting it here if a redactor used small collections of sayings that could have varying subjects. Obviously, he was free to choose one of the subjects of such a small collection as reason for putting the whole small collection at a place where that subject would fit best. Thus, the redactors of the collections used not only single proverbial units but also small collections. And though such small collections could consist of single units sharing the same topic (see col. v:5–6 [130–31]), there also existed small collections containing units with different subjects, which were preserved by the redactors as they had found them. This easily explains also the complex picture of column x that is probably the result of several redactional steps: as a kernel we can posit col. x:2–8 (80–88) 47.  The reconstruction m[lk] is preferable (against m[n . . .] in Kottsieper 1990, 12).

100

Elephantine Revisited

as an initial combination of two collections that are connected by the topic “speaking.” To this collection two further small collections have been added: col. x:11–12 (89–90), by using the link provided by its second unit, which speaks about the “tongue of a king,” and col. x:13–14 (91–92), two sayings about king and gods. Finally col. x:15 (93) leaves the topic “king” but refers to the topic “speaking.” The whole new collection was finally added at a place where the theme “gods” and “reign” were already mentioned.48 A comparable method of redaction can clearly be observed in the biblical book of Proverbs, which itself is a collection of collections. But even these subcollections contain smaller collections. First of all, this could be an explanation of the phenomenon of the so-​called twice-​ told proverbs that appear also in one and the same subcollection.49 They could have been part of different smaller collections that were taken up by later redactors as fixed units. The collection Prov 23:23–34 provides a good example of the combination of two small collections discussing the same themes in the same order: vv. 23–25 speak about right behavior in a law suit and especially toward those who justify the culprit. It is followed by v. 26, which advocates a friendly and open way to deal with each other: answering in a right and appropriate way is like “kissing lips.” By the term ‫נכח‬, which is often used in the context of righteousness, one could in fact draw a connection to vv. 23–25, but the motif of kissing lips would not fit into the environment of a law suit. Verse 27 deals with a completely different topic: first do your work and then build your house or start your family. But v. 28 returns to the subject of vv. 23–25 by warning against false accusations and alludes to v. 26 by referring to “lips.” Verse 29 gives advice not to act vindictively, which is complementary to v. 26. And like v. 27, vv. 30–34 now switch to the subject of doing one’s own work diligently, but again in a complementary way: v. 27 teaches that doing the work is a prerequisite to acquire for building one’s own house, vv. 30–34 teach that not doing the work will lead to ruin. And probably not by chance, all related parts are complementary in their genre: vv. 23–25 and v. 26 are statements, but the parallel vv. 28 and 29 are admonitions. Conversely, v. 27 is an admonition, but the parallel sayings in vv. 30–34 are statements. It looks as if the second part (vv. 28–34) was deliberately created as a complementary collection to vv. 23–27; it adds appropriate admonitions that can be derived from the statements made in the first collection and, vice versa, statements that substantiate the admonitions of the first collection. Crucial for the discussion about how redactors could work with already existing small collections is the simple fact that the redactor of Prov 24:23–34 made no attempt to break up the sequence of vv. 23–27 and to put the corresponding verses together. He also made no attempt to order the single units according to topic. Thus, he also preserved a small collection as a given unit. Another example would be Prov 15:33–16:15, which, like col. x in the Proverbs of Aḥiqar, is a cluster of sayings that mentions God and the king and that likewise does 48.  One need not assume that this has been the work of several redactors—though this is surely possible—but one might consider that a single redactor first created smaller sections by joining single units and previously existent small collections and afterward combined those bigger sections into one large collection. 49.  See the list given in Snell 1993, 35–40.

On Aḥiqar and the Bible

101

not follow a logical order but includes at least one saying with a totally different subject. Thus, Prov 15:33–16:7 contains nine sayings about God, followed by Prov 16:8 which does not mention God at all but is an admonition about the precedence of justice over richness. Prov 16:9 refers to God as the one who directs the steps of people, but Prov 16:10 takes up the topic “justice” again but now with a focus on the king as the righteous judge. Prov 16:11 returns to God as the one who loves righteousness, whereas Prov 16:12–15 switches again to the king as the one who loves righteousness (Prov 16:12–14) but also as the one whose wrath is destroying yet whose favor is life for his subordinates (Prov 16:15). Obviously, at this place in the collection, the redactor assembled sayings about God and the king—and, given the well-​known function of the king as the representative of the (state) god, this would be natural. Nevertheless, the redactor “failed” to put them into proper order, which would have been quite easy if he had left out Prov 16:8 and placed Prov 16:10 after Prov 16:11. This “shortcoming” can be explained by the assumption that the redactor dealt not with single sayings but with small collections that involve multiple subjects. This would explain (1) the appearance of sayings with different subjects in a cluster that is largely characterized by a certain topic that is not shared by all sayings, and (2) the disorder in the sequence of the sayings.

The Place of God(s) and the King As seen in the preceding paragraph, both the Proverbs of Aḥiqar and the first collection in the biblical book of Proverbs (Prov 10:1–22:16) contain a section about the gods and the king. In the Proverbs of Aḥiqar, the king appears only in the section discussed above; in Prov 10:1–22:16 he appears outside of the cluster in Prov 16 only several times scattered across the other parts of this proverbial collection (Prov 14:28, 35; 19:12; 20:2, 8, 26, 28; 21:1; 22:11). It is probably not by chance that the god/king-​cluster is placed in the middle of Prov 10:1–22:16.50 Also the other old collections in the biblical book of Proverbs show the tendency to place sayings about god and king in conspicuous positions at the beginning or end.51 Thus, we observe the tendency to place sayings about the king at prominent places in a collection and to connect them with sayings about the gods. The fact that those clusters may also contain other sayings can be explained by the habit of not breaking up smaller collections used by the redactor(s). With regard to the Proverbs of Aḥiqar, we already saw that in this collection the sayings mentioning the king also appear in such a cluster. If my reconstruction of 50.  There are 183 verses before and 196 after the cluster; in fact, the main king-​cluster (Prov 16:12–15) would stand exactly in the middle of the collection. 51.  Thus, in Prov 22:17–24:22 there is only one verse that combines God and king and that is placed at the end (Prov 24:21); the king is mentioned again in Prov 22:29 (and the ruler in Prov 23:1) and God in Prov 22:19, 23; 23:17; 24:18. In Prov 25–29 the king appears at the beginning of a cluster (Prov 25:1–6) and again twice in the last chapter (Prov 29:4, 14; additionally the ruler in Prov 28:15; 29:12, 26). Nevertheless, this collection ends with a cluster of three proverbs (Prov 29:25–27), of which two mention God and one the ruler.

102

Elephantine Revisited

the scroll is correct,52 then (1) this cluster would have started already in col. ix:14 (187) with a saying about proper religious behavior in front of Shamash, and (2) it would be positioned in the middle of the collection.53

Conclusion In sum, because of their linguistic profile and the observations about the world they presuppose, the Proverbs of Aḥiqar should be placed into a southern Syrian area— most probably in the Aramaic society of Damascus or its vicinity. They date to the late eighth or early seventh century BCE at the latest. The Proverbs show a close relationship with biblical wisdom traditions not only on the level of motifs and ideology but also on the level of genre and the methods by which such collections were created by redactors. Thus, they corroborate the assumption that the redactors could use small, preexisting collections, which were not necessarily collected according to theme or style, and that they hesitated to break up these units. This neatly accounts for the apparent disorder of the collections for which no single or consistent set of organizational criteria has been found to the present day. The Proverbs and the early collections of the biblical book of Proverbs witness a common method of assembling proverbial traditions handed down in both single units and in small collections: the tendency to place sayings about the king or small collections containing such sayings at a marked position within the new larger collection—be it at its middle, beginning, or end—and to connect those proverbs with sayings about the gods (and their reign), thus reflecting the ideological view of the strong connection between god and king. References Annus, A., and A. Lenzi. 2010. Ludlul bēl nēmeqi: The Standard Babylonian Poem of the Righteous Sufferer. SAACT 7. Helsinki: Neo-​Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Assaf, U., and Y. Assaf. 1974. Märchen aus dem Libanon. Düsseldorf: Diederichs. Beyer, K. 1984. Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer samt der Inschriften aus Palästina, dem Testament Levis aus der Kairoer Genisa, der Fastenrolle und den alten talmudischen Zitaten. Volume 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 1991. Review of Die Sprache der Aḥiqarsprüche, by I. Kottsieper. ThLZ 116:733–34. ———. 1994. Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer samt der Inschriften aus Palästina, dem Testament Levis aus der Kairoer Genisa, der Fastenrolle und den alten talmudischen Zitaten. Supplementary volume. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 2004. Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer samt der Inschriften aus Palästina, dem Testament Levis aus der Kairoer Genisa, der Fastenrolle und den alten talmudischen Zitaten. Volume 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Bottéro, J. 1991. “La ‘tenson’ et la réflexion sur les choses en Mésopotamie.” Pages 7–22 in Dispute Poems and Dialogues in the Ancient and Mediaeval Near East: Forms and Types 52.  It should be stressed that this reconstruction is entirely based on material observations such as the sequence of cracks, holes, and the like (see Kottsieper 2009a, 110; 2009b, 152–56). 53.  The collection would have started in col. iii—about 6.5 columns earlier—and would have ended with col. xvi, a little more than six columns later. Because of the fragmentary state of the scroll we are not able to calculate the exact center of the collection by counting the single units.

On Aḥiqar and the Bible

103

of Literary Debates in Semitic and Related Literature. Edited by G. J. Reinink and H. L. J. Vanstiphout. OLA 42. Leuven: Peeters. Brunner, C. T. 1980. “The Fable of the Babylonian Tree.” JNES 39:191–202, 291–302. Civil, M. 1961. “The Home of the Fish: A New Sumerian Literary Composition.” Iraq 23:154–75. Conybeare, F. C., J. Rendel Harris, and A. Smith Lewis. 1898. The Story of Aḥiḳar, from the Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Greek and Slavonic Versions. 2nd rev. ed. London: Cambridge University Press. Dalman, G. 1928a. Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina, volume 1, Jahresablauf und Tagesablauf, part 1, Herbst und Winter. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann. ———. 1928b. Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina, volume 1, Jahresablauf und Tagesablauf, part 2, Frühling und Sommer. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann. Edzard, D. O. 1970. “Die bukānum-​Formel der altbabylonischen Kaufverträge und ihre sumerische Entsprechung.” ZA 60:8–53. Eshel, E., É. Puech, and A. Kloner. 2007. “Aramaic Scribal Exercise of the Hellenistic Period from Maresha: Bowls A and B.” BASOR 345:37–62. Ferrari, F. 1997. Romanzo di Esopo: Introduzione e testo critico. Milan: Biblioteca universale Rizzoli. Folmer, M. L. 1995. The Aramaic Language in the Achaemenid Period: A Study in Linguistic Variation. OLA 68. Leuven: Peeters. Frahm, E. 2011. Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries: Origins of Interpretation. Guides to the Mesopotamian Textual Record 5. Münster: Ugarit-​Verlag. Garbini, G. 2006. Introduzione all’ epigrafia semitica. Studi sul Vicino Oriente Antico 4. Brescia: Paideia. Ginsberg, H. L. 1950. “Aramaic Proverbs and Precepts.” Pages 427–30 in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Edited by J. B. Pritchard. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Görg, M. 2002. “Zu einem Lehnwort in Achiqar IX (53) 5.” BN 114/115:38–39. Grayson, A. K. 1975. Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. Texts from Cuneiform Sources 5. Locust Valley, NY: Augustin. Greenfield, J. C. 1963–64. “‫בחינות לשוניות בכתובת ספירה‬.” Leš 27–28:303–13. ———. 1967–68. “‫קווים דיאלקטיים בארמית הקדומה‬.” Leš 32:359–68. ———. 1978. “The Dialects of Early Aramaic.” JNES 37:93–99. Heimpel, W. 1980–83. “Leopard (und Gepard*). A Philologisch.” RlA 6:599–601. Hilzheimer, M. 1932. “Bär.” RlA 1:398–99. Honroth, W., O. Rubensohn, and F. Zucker. 1909. “Bericht über die Ausgrabungen auf Elephantine in den Jahren 1906–1908.” ZÄS 46:14–61. Kaufman, S. A. 1974. The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic. Assyriological Studies 19. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kottsieper, I. 1990. Die Sprache der Aḥiqarsprüche. BZAW 194. Berlin: de Gruyter. ———. 1996. “Die alttestamentliche Weisheit im Licht aramäischer Weisheitstraditionen.” Pages 128–62 in Weisheit außerhalb der kanonischen Weisheitsschriften. Edited by B. Janowski. VWGTh 10. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus. ———. 2000. “Der Mann aus Babylonien: Steuerhinterzieher, Flüchtling, Immigrant oder Agent? Zu einem aramäischen Dekret aus neuassyrischer Zeit.” Orientalia 69:368–92. ———. 2003. “Zu graphischen Abschnittsmarkierungen in nordwestsemitischen Texten.” Pages 121–61 in Unit Delimitation in Biblical Hebrew and Northwest Semitic Literature. Edited by M. Korpel and J. Oesch. Pericope 4. Assen: Van Gorcum. ———. 2008. “The Aramaic Tradition: Ahikar.” Pages 109–24 in Scribes, Sages, and Seers: The Sage in the Eastern Mediterranean World. Edited by L. G. Perdue. FRLANT 219. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 2009a. “Aramaic Literature.” Pages 339–441, 487–92 in From an Antique Land: An Introduction to Ancient Near Eastern Literature. Edited by C. S. Ehrlich. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

104

Elephantine Revisited

———. 2009b. “ ‘Look, Son, What Nadab Did to Ahikaros . . .’: The Aramaic Ahiqar Tradition and Its Relationship to the Book of Tobit.” Pages 145–67 in The Dynamic of Language and Exegesis at Qumran. Edited by D. Dimant and R. Kratz. FRLANT 2/35. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. ———. 2014. “Das Aramäische als Schriftsprache und die Entwicklung der Targume.” Pages 17–53 in The Targums in the Light of Traditions of the Second Temple Period. Edited by T. Legrand and J. Joosten. JSJsup 167. Leiden: Brill. Kutscher, E. Y. 1971. “Aramaic.” Pages 347–412 in Linguistics in South West Asia and North Africa. Edited by T. A. Sebeok. Current Trends in Linguistics 6. The Hague: Mouton. Lambert, W. G. 1960. Babylonian Wisdom Literature. Oxford: Clarendon. Landsberger, B. 1934. Die Fauna des Alten Mesopotamien nach der 14. Tafel der Serie ḪAR-​ ra = ḫubullu. Abhandlungen der philosophisch-​historischen Klasse der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 52/6. Leipzig: Hirzel. ———. 1962. The Fauna of Ancient Mesopotamia. Second Part: Ḫar—ra = ḫubullu Tablets XIV and XVIII. Materialien zum sumerischen Lexikon 8/2. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Lemaire, A. 1995. “Les inscriptions araméennes de Cheikh-​Fadl (Égypte).” Pages 77–132 in Studia Aramaica: New Sources and New Approaches. Edited by M. J. Geller, J. C. Greenfield, and M. P. Weitzman. JSSSup 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lindenberger, J. M. 1982. The Gods of Ahiqar. UF 14:105–17. ———. 1983. The Aramaic Proverbs of Ahiqar. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ———. 1985. “Ahiqar.” Pages 479–507 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, volume 2, Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-​Hellenistic Works. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. London: Darton, Longman & Todd. Meyer, E. 1912. Der Papyrusfund von Elephantine: Dokumente einer jüdischen Gemeinde aus der Perserzeit und das älteste erhaltene Buch der Weltliteratur. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Muraoka, T. 1997. “Notes on the Aramaic of the Achiqar Proverbs.” Pages 206–15 in Built on Solid Rock: Studies in Honour of Professor Ebbe Egede Knudsen on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday April 11th 1997. Edited by E. Wardini. Instituttet for Sammenlignende Kulturforskning. Serie B: Skrifter 98. Oslo: Novus. Nau, F. 1909. Histoire et sagesse d’Aḥikar l’Assyrien (fils d’Anael, neveu du Tobie): Traduction des versions syriaques avec les principales différences des versions arabes, arménienne, grecque, néo-​syriaque, slave et roumaine. Paris: Letouzey et Ané. Oppenheim, A. L. 1967. Letters from Mesopotamia: Official, Business, and Private Letters on Clay Tablets from Two Millennia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Parpola, S. 2005. “Il retroterra assiro di Ahiqar.” Pages 91–139 in Il saggio Ahiqar: Fortuna e transformazioni di uno scritto sapienziale; Il testo più antico e le sue versioni. Edited by R. Contini and C. Grottanelli. Studi biblici 148. Brescia: Paideia. Rubensohn, O. 1907. “Fundbericht.” Pages 45–46 in E. Sachau, Drei aramäische Papyrusurkunden aus Elephantine, aus den Abhandlungen der Königl. Preuss. Akademie der Wissenschaften vom Jahre 1907. Berlin: Verlag der Königl. Akademie der Wissenschaften. Sachau, E. 1911. Aramäische Papyrus und Ostraka aus einer jüdischen Militär-​Kolonie zu Elephantine. Altorientalische Sprachdenkmäler des 5. Jahrhunderts vor Chr. 2 vols. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Schaudig, H. 2001. Die Inschriften Nabonids von Babylon und Kyros’ des Großen samt den in ihrem Umfeld entstandenen Tendenzschriften: Textausgabe und Grammatik. AOAT 256. Münster: Ugarit-​Verlag. Schipper, B. U. 2018. Sprüche (Proverbia), volume 1, Proverbien 1,1–15,33. Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament 17/1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Schmid, H. H. 1966. Wesen und Geschichte der Weisheit: Eine Untersuchung zur altorientalischen und israelitischen Weisheitsliteratur. BZAW 101. Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann. Schollmeyer, P. A. 1912. Sumerisch-​babylonische Hymnen und Gebete an Šamaš. Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums. Supplementary volume 1. Paderborn: Schöningh.

On Aḥiqar and the Bible

105

Segal, J. B. 1983. Aramaic Texts from North Saqqâra: With Some Fragments in Phoenician. Texts from Excavation: Sixth Memoir. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Snell, D. C. 1993. Twice-​Told Proverbs and the Composition of the Book of Proverbs. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Soden, W. von. 1990. “ ‘Weisheitstexte’ in akkadischer Sprache.” Pages 110–88 in Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments, volume 3/1: Weisheitstexte I. Edited by O. Kaiser et al. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus. Stol, M. 2016–18. “Wein. A. Mesopotamien.” RlA 15:37–43. Streck, M. P. 2016–18. “Zeder.” RlA 15:236–39. Tal, A. 2013. Samaritan Aramaic. LOS 3/2. Münster: Ugarit-​Verlag. Toorn, K. van der. 2018. Papyrus Amherst 63. AOAT 448. Münster: Ugarit-​Verlag. Ungnad, A. 1911. Aramäische Papyrus aus Elephantine: Kleine Ausgabe unter Zugrundelegung von Eduard Sachau’s Erstausgabe. Hilfsbücher zur Kunde des Alten Orients 4. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Vanstiphout, H. L. J. 1990. “The Mesopotamian Debate Poems: A General Presentation, Part I.” Acta Sumerologica 12:271–318. ———. 1991. “Lore, Learning and Levity in the Sumerian Disputations: A Matter of Form, or Substance.” Pages 23–46 in Dispute Poems and Dialogues in the Ancient and Mediaeval Near East: Forms and Types of Literary Debates in Semitic and Related Literature. Edited by G. J. Reinink and H. L. J. Vanstiphout. OLA 42. Leuven: Peeters. ———. 1992. “The Mesopotamian Debate Poems: A General Presentation, Part II.” Acta Sumerologica 14:339–67. Weigl, M. 2010. Die aramäischen Achikar-​Sprüche aus Elephantine und die alttestamentliche Weisheitsliteratur. BZAW 399. Berlin: de Gruyter. Widengren, G. 1951. The King and the Tree of Life in Ancient Near Eastern Religion (King and Saviour IV). Uppsala Universitets Årsskrift 4. Uppsala: Lundequistska Bokhandeln; Leipzig: Harrassowitz. Williams-​Forte, E. 1980–83. “Leopard. B. Archäologisch.” RlA 6:601–4. York, H. 1972–75. “Heiliger Baum.” RlA 4:269–82.

Chapter 9

The Identity of the People at Elephantine Bob Becking

In the Persian period, the island of Elephantine, as well as the nearby settlement on the bank of the Nile in Syene, were inhabited by numerous groups of people. The papyri and ostraca from Elephantine, exemplarily edited by Bezalel Porten and Ada Yardeni (1986–99), and by Karl-​Theodor Zauzich (1978), indicate the presence of four major ethnic groups: Persians, Egyptians, Yehudites, and Syrians/Arameans. In addition, a few references to Bactrians, Carians, Cilicians, Khwarezmians, Phoenicians, and Caspians are to be found. Evidence for the presence of persons from Sidon and Arabia also exists. One document probably refers to an anonymous member of the Lybian tribe of the Meshwesh. Scholarly reconstructions of this late fifth-​century BCE community on the southernmost border of the Persian Empire have paid a comparatively large amount of attention to the Yehudite population at Elephantine. This imbalance is understandable in light of two facts: first, the majority of the scholars studying these texts have a background in biblical studies and, second, the texts give evidence of a religious identity that appears to represent a heterodox and heteroprax form of early Judaism. The role of this religious identity in the emergence of early Judaism has often been hypothesized from a conceptual point of view.1 In my view, its role can only be properly defined by reading the pertinent documents from Elephantine in light of their contextual connections. This essay will thus examine this textual material from a standpoint that regards Elephantine and Syene as a compound, but coherent, society. My working hypothesis is that the various groups at Elephantine did not live in isolation from each other. This seems a sound hypothesis based on an initial reading of the available texts: they contain diverse suggestions of interaction between the various groups at Elephantine on the level of economy (trade), family (intermarriage), and religion (many letters contain a multicultural greeting formula). There is, however, a possible problem with this hypothesis. The very fact that persons from the various subgroups at Elephantine were identified by an “ethnic” indicator is evidence for the fact that these groups kept their identities apart to some degree. To see the whole population of Elephantine and Syene as some sort of multiethnic melting pot in which the boundaries between groups faded away is potentially hazardous. An important question, then, is whether these groups should be construed along “ethnic” lines. There is much discussion in the social sciences about the label “ethnic group.” John Hutchinson and Anthony Smith (1996, 6–7), in my view, have managed to construct 1.  To mention two extreme positions: Porten 1968; Knauf 2002, 179–88.

106

The Identity of the People at Elephantine

107

an operable multidimensional matrix by which to establish a group of persons as an ethnicity: 1. 2. 3. 4.

a common proper name a myth of common ancestry shared historical memories one or more elements of common culture, which need not be specified (but normally include religion, customs, or language) 5. a link with a homeland 6. a sense of solidarity I will look for the features of this matrix only in the papyri and ostraca that were found in Syene and Elephantine. Evidence from outside this corpus will occasionally be considered but is not critical to my discussion.

Remarks on the Various Ethnic Groups Yehudites This is the most comprehensively studied group at Elephantine/Syene. Time and again, this group is labeled “Jewish.” Stephen Rosenberg, for example, wrote a representative article in this regard, claiming to be able to trace the remains of a Jewish temple at Elephantine (Rosenberg 2004). This classification of the Yehudites as Jewish, however, is problematic and merits further discussion. In several texts on papyrus and ostraca, this group is both labeled—and labels themselves—yhwdy (pl. yhwdyn). This Aramaic noun can be rendered as either “Jewish” (for example, Korpel 2005) or “Yehudite.” A question of definition, not just identity, is at stake here. The classification “Jewish,” however, yields a problem as regards the continuation of its meaning. “Jewish”—referring to formative, normative, or rabbinic Judaism—appears anachronistic in the light of fifth-​ century BCE Yahwism. On the other hand, the texts from Elephantine do not indicate a religion—or religious identity—that is commensurate with Yahwism as we know it from the Hebrew Bible. Following Shaye Cohen and Diana Edelman, I prefer to use “Jewish” for the religion that emerged in Hellenistic times and to construe the Persian period as a time of transition from Yahwism to Judaism (Cohen 1999, 25–106, 109–39; Edelman 1995; see also Nodet 2004). In sum, I understand the yhwdyn to be Yehudites and not Jews. I will now look at the Yehudites in light of the six dimensions of ethnicity as outlined above. 1.  A common proper name.  Throughout the various archives, collections, and diverse textual genres from Elephantine, members of this group are called yhwdy, “Yehudite,” fairly often with the qualifier zy yb, “of Elephantine,” and sometimes with zy swn, “of Syene.” They are referred to as yhwdy both by themselves and by others.2 The indicator thus functions in group-​internal as well as group-​external communication. 2.  Self-​reference, for example, in TAD B2.4:2; outside reference, for example, in TAD B2.2:3.

108

Elephantine Revisited

2.  A myth of common ancestry.  In the pertinent inscriptions, no awareness of a common ancestry is indicated. Personal names drawn from the central story of Israel (such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, or David), and which might hint at such a shared tradition, do not occur in the onomasticon. On the other hand, the Yehudites refer to each other as “brother” and “sister” in many texts; this might be seen as indicating a shared awareness of a common bloodline.3 Also indicative of this awareness is the reference to “our fathers” in the petition to rebuild the temple (TAD A4.7). 3.  Shared historical memories.  Here I would like to make the following three remarks: a. Within the inscriptions, there is only one clear reference to a shared historical memory. In the famous request for the rebuilding of the devastated Temple of yhw, the Yehudites claim that “when Cambyses came to Egypt, he found this temple built” (TAD A4.7:14; 4.8:13). Although this claim might be classified as an example of a “claimed tradition,”4 this remark nevertheless functioned for the Yehudites to express the identity of their group. b. In the final decades of the fifth century BCE, the Yehudites corresponded with various political and religious leaders in Samaria and Jerusalem, primarily about (1) the rebuilding of the devastated temple5 and (2) regulations concerning the Passover/Mazzot festival.6 I suggest that this long-​distance dialogue reveals an implicit shared historical memory. The disavowal of their religious identity by the acts of the wicked Vidranga, might have led the Yehudites to renegotiate their religious roots and their historical memory. c. Over the last century, numerous and sometimes contradictory proposals have been formulated as to the origin and provenance of the Yehudites in Elephantine and Syene. I will not enter here into a full discussion of all the proposals and their implications. Suffice it to say that all these proposals should be seen as contem­ porary reconstructions of the past that do not articulate the self-​awareness of the Yehudites. I currently tend to think that the Yehudites arrived in Elephantine in waves: during the reign of King Manasseh of Judah, after the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem, and during the Persian period (as recruits from the province of Yehud and from the city of Āl-​Yāhūdu in southern Mesopotamia). 4.  One or more elements of common culture.  I see the following four elements of a common culture among the Yehudites at Elephantine: a. A handful of texts refer to the institution of the Sabbath.7 These tiny pieces of evidence for the Sabbath allow only a small glimpse into the reality of ancient 3.  See for example, TAD B2.10:3 (brother); TAD B5.1:2 (sister). 4.  I prefer this concept to the idea of the “invented tradition” (as coined by Hobsbawm and Ranger 1983). 5.  TAD A4.7; 4.8; 4.9. See, for example, Briant 1996, 620–23; Schäfer 1997, 121–36; Frey 1999, 175–80; Lindenberger 2001, 134–57; Bedford 2001, 149–51; Kratz 2006, 247–64. 6.  See also Segal 1963, 221–28; Porten 1968, 122–31; Grelot 1985, 163–71; Kratz 1991, 251–52; Gass 1999, 55–68; Kottsieper 2002, 150–78; Joisten-​Pruschke 2008, 151–57. 7.  See TAD D7.10; 7.16; 7.12; 7.28; with Porten 1968, 122–33, 150, 173, 281, 312. See also Porten 1969, 116–21; Grabbe 2004, 221; Becking 2008, 177–89. On the origin of the Sabbath-​institution, see Grund 2011.

The Identity of the People at Elephantine

109

Elephantine, but this much is clear: that the Sabbath was not yet, as in early Judaism, the weekly day of rest. Indications of a seven-​day scheme are absent from the Elephantine texts. This lack of evidence, however, is not evidence of absence. It should be noted that no mention is made of days like the “New Moon” either, which might indicate that the weekly scheme was present in this postexilic Yahwistic community. The suspension of almost all activities on the Sabbath—as is so important in later Jewish tradition—is not attested; nor is worship (in the form of celebrations or ritual) attested in the texts. In other words, the Sabbath was known, but no strict observation is attested (Grabbe 2004, 221). b. It is interesting to note the presence of a marzēaḥ at Elephantine, though it is attested in just one document (TAD D7.29:3): To Ḥaggai I spoke to Ashian about the silver for the marzēaḥ Thus he said to me:   There isn’t any.   Now I shall give it to Ḥaggai or Yigdal Get to him that he may give it to you!8 The institution of the marzēaḥ implies the existence of an elite group within the Yehudite community that was apparently in need of a specific identity.9 I have argued elsewhere that the so-​called “Collection Account” from Elephantine—which records the donation of two shekels for the Temple of yhw by 128 Yehudites—reflects the administrative activities of the upper Yehudite echelon at Elephantine (Becking 2005). I assume that this group roughly corresponds to the group that attended the marzēaḥ. c. A sanctuary for the main God of a community can be seen as a local expression of common culture. A temple for yhw had been erected, destroyed, and rebuilt on the island of Elephantine. As a sacred space, a temple reflects the limitation of space and thereby qualifies a specific divine presence (in this case, yhw). The Elephantine temple for yhw is first referred to in the prescript of an early fifth-​century letter written by Ošeaʿ to his brother Šelomam: “[. . . to the (?) T]emple of yhw in Yeb.” 10 The correspondence between Yedanyah and Bagavahya regarding the rebuilding of the temple, following its destruction by the wicked Vidranga and a coalition of the priests of Khnum, also makes clear the existence, destruction, and rebuilding of this temple.11 Archaeological clues would also seem to corroborate the existence of this temple.12 In several Aramaic letters it is stated that “yhw dwells in the temple of Yeb.”13 This phrase, which resembles ancient Near Eastern terminology, expresses the identity of the temple. The divine indwelling sanctions this secluded space as a 8.  TAD D7.29; see, for example, Porten 1968, 179–86; McLaughlin 2001, 36–37. 9.  On this institution, see McLaughlin 2001. 10.  P. Padua no. 1 = TAD A3.3:1. For other references to this temple, apart from the Yedanyah correspondence, see TAD B2.7:13–14; D7.18. See also Ayad Ayad 1997, 37–50; Hobson 2011, 1–15. 11.  These texts were discussed by Kratz (2006). See also Nutkowicz 2011, 185–98. 12.  See von Pilgrim 1998, 485–97; Rosenberg 2004, 4–13. See also the contribution by Cornelius von Pilgrim in chapter 1 of this volume. 13.  For example, TAD B3.12:2.

110

Elephantine Revisited

sanctuary, and it can be assumed that cultic gatherings functioned as a boundary marker for the group. The cult of yhw was, however, not completely monotheistic; the deities Eshem-​Bethel and Anat-​Bethel are also referred to in the so-​called “Collection Account” for the Temple of yhw.14 Comparable divine names are Anat-​Yahu and Herem-​Bethel. d. At the end of the Collection Account, Eshem-​Bethel and Anat-​Bethel are mentioned as deities for whom money is collected (TAD C3.15 col. vii:126–128). The identity and the provenance of these divine beings have been discussed by several scholars (see Becking 2003). Eshem-​Bethel is not mentioned elsewhere in the texts from Elephantine; Anat-​Bethel might correspond to Anat-​Yahu, who is mentioned in an oath-​text from Elephantine.15 In the request to restore the Temple of yhw written by Yedanyah to Bagavahya, the Persian governor in Yehud, mention is made of the demolition of the ʿmwdyʾ zy ʾbnʾ, “the stone pillars” that were there (TAD A4​.7:​9 ​/​/ A4​.8:​ 8). This detail suggests that the Israelite divinity was represented by a standing stone in the temple at Elephantine. It should be noted that the Aramaic noun ʿmwdyʾ is in the plural and that the pillage of several standing stones is thereby implied. George Athas has suggested that these “pillars of stone” were “sacred Bethel-​stones representing the five deities mentioned specifically as revered by the Judean community at Elephantine.”16 In what follows, I would like to bring together these two observations about the veneration of Anat-​Bethel and Eshem-​Bethel at Elephantine and the presence of “standing stones” in the Temple of yhw. The institution of the marzēaḥ was often, though not always, connected with the cult of the dead and ancestral veneration (McLaughlin 2001), while protective deities were fairly often part of the inventory of a marzēaḥ. It is possible that Anat-​Bethel and Eshem-​Bethel were the protective deities of the marzēaḥ of Elephantine and were represented there by the ʿmwdyʾ zy ʾbnʾ, “the stone pillars.” e. For group-​internal as well as group-​external communication, the Yehudites made use of the Aramaic language. No documents in Hebrew have been found, nor do Hebraisms occur in texts that can be specifically assigned to this group.17 Phrased differently, the Hebrew language was not a marker of identity or ethnicity among the Yehudites. 5.  A link with a homeland.  As referred to above, the “homeland” only came under consideration in the course of the Vidranga affair. The texts do not mention a longing for return to Israel/Yehud/southern Palestine. 6.  A sense of solidarity.  Many letters give evidence of a group-​internal solidarity (for example, TAD D7.30). These expressions of solidarity, however, are not 14.  TAD C3.15 col. vii:126–128. See Porten 1968, 160–64; Becking 2005, 37–47. 15.  TAD B7.3. See Porten 1968, 109, 154–56; 1983, 563–75; Van der Toorn 1986, 282–85; 1992, 80–101; Efthimiadis-​Keith 2011, 300–322. 16.  Athas 2003, 315. Athas argues that yhw, Anat-​Bethel/Yahu, Eshem-​Bethel, Herem-​Bethel, and Bethel were the five deities venerated by the Yehudites at Elephantine. 17.  The few possible cases of Hebrew influence that Folmer discusses either cannot be labeled as full-​ blown Hebraisms or occur only in texts outside of Elephantine (see Folmer 1995, 70, 639, 686).

The Identity of the People at Elephantine

111

fundamentally different from expressions of solidarity with non-​Yehudites (for example, TAD B2.6; Joisten-​Pruschke 2008, 135–47). Put differently, in daily contacts and interactions, there was a sense of solidarity among the Yehudites with all groups in Elephantine and Syene. The exception, again, was the turbulence that resulted from Vidranga’s measures. In conclusion, the Yehudites can be construed as an ethnic group with some self-​ awareness, but they did not live in isolation from the greater community. Arameans The classification “Aramean” in the papyri and ostraca enjoyed a rather broad meaning. The word ʾrmy could refer to a member of an (ethnic) group, to a person speaking the Aramaic language, as well as to someone originating from Babylonia.18 1.  A common proper name.  Throughout the various archives, collections, and diverse textual genres from Elephantine, members of this group are called ʾrmy, almost always with the qualifier “of Syene” (for example, TAD B2.1:2–3), but sometimes with the qualifier “of Elephantine” (TAD B2.2). They are referred to as such both by themselves and by others. The indicator thus functions in group-​internal as well as group-​external communications. Its interpretation is complicated by the fact that at least three persons with a Yahwistic personal name—Maḥseyah, Mešullam, and Ananyah—are presented in some documents as an “Aramean,” but in others as a “Yehudite” (see Botta 2009, 51–54). Various attempts to solve this difficulty have proven inconclusive—at least to my mind.19 2.  A myth of common ancestry.  There is no sign of any awareness of a common ancestry in the relevant texts. 3.  Shared historical memories.  It still remains uncertain why and when the Arameans came to Elephantine and Syene. There are no traces in the pertinent texts of any historical memory shared by members of this group. 4.  One or more elements of common culture.  It is not easy to ascertain the character of the Arameans’ religious identity. Three features should be noted: a. In the onomasticon from Elephantine and Syene, several personal names occur with Aramean or Babylonian deities as theophoric elements: for example, Nabukaṣir; Attarmalki; Naburaʿi. It is, however, difficult to deduce from these names any specific form of veneration (Silverman 1969, 691–709). b. Some of the deities named in certain documents seem to be Aramean divinities, but this classification is questionable in each case: • In a private letter (TAD D7.30:2–3), Yarḥu wishes his brother Ḥaggai well in the “name of Bel and Nabu, Shamash and Nergal.” These deities are clearly of Mesopotamian origin, but they were venerated by people from different ethnicities during the Persian period and beyond, leading to the conclusion that these four names were simply indicators for the divine in general (Becking 2017, 30–43). 18.  Note, in this connection, that the witness Hadadnuri is labeled “the Babylonian” in TAD B2.2:19. 19.  See, for example, Porten 1969, 116–21; Van der Toorn 1992, 80–101; Porten 2003b, 451–70.

112

Elephantine Revisited

• Hermopolis Papyrus no. 1 (= TAD A2.120) contains a letter that was sent from Memphis to Syene. The letter opens with greetings for the temple: “Greetings for the Temple of Bethel and for the Temple of the Queen of Heaven.” Both these deities have been construed as Aramean divine beings,21 but I am not certain in this regard, for both these deities also appear in the Hebrew Bible and should be seen as inhabitants of the general West Semitic pantheon. According to Porten, the deities Herem-​Bethel, Eshem-​Bethel, and Anat-​ Yahu/Bethel—known from oath formulas in several Elephantine texts—are to be construed as deities of the Aramean group.22 In favor of Porten’s view is the fact that Malkiyah son of Yašobyah is indicated as an Aramean in spite of his Hebrew name and lineage in TAD B7.2:2 (where he is taking an oath). I have argued in detail elsewhere that these deities are to be connected to the Yehudite group (Becking 2003, 203–26), but I am now no longer certain of this. They should perhaps be seen as divine beings functioning within the West Semitic household religion. My conclusion is that Eshem-​Bethel, Anat-​ Bethel, and Herem-​Bethel cannot be seen as “pure” Aramean deities or as deities connected solely to the Yehudites. c. For group-​internal as well as for group-​external communication, the Arameans made use of the Aramaic language. 5.  A link with a homeland.  There are no traces of a link with a homeland. 6.  A sense of solidarity.  Some letters give evidence of a group-​internal solidarity. This solidarity, however, is not fundamentally different from the solidarity expressed in such documents with non-​Arameans. In other words, a sense of solidarity was sustained in daily interactions with all groups in Elephantine and Syene. All in all, the evidence suggests that the Arameans did not construe themselves as a separate group within the communities of Elephantine and Syene. They were aware of their own religious identity, but this awareness did not prevent them from participating fully in the military, economic, and marital affairs of the community as a whole. Persians It stands to reason that a Persian population formed part of the broader community of Elephantine and Syene: a border garrison for the Persian Empire was sited in the area. 1.  A common proper name.  It is remarkable that the indicator “Persian” is absent from all our extant texts from Elephantine, even in documents that deal with persons of Persian descent or persons in positions of power, and even though the documents contain a large variety of Persian names (Porten 2003a, 165–86; Tavernier 2007, 43–68). The absence of the indicator, however, is easily explained by the power dynamics that attained in Elephantine and Syene: the Persian elite were in a position to classify the other groups, while they themselves did not need any qualification or title. 20.  See also Bresciani and Kamil 1966, no. 4 (editio princeps). 21.  Beginning with Porten 1968, 164–73. 22.  See Porten 1968, 109, 154–56; Winter 1983, 497–98; Porten 1983; 1984, 391, 393–94; Van der Toorn 1986, 282–85. See also TAD B7.2; 7:3.

The Identity of the People at Elephantine

113

2.  A myth of common ancestry.  There is no sign of any awareness of a common ancestry in the relevant texts. 3.  Shared historical memories.  The presence at Elephantine of an Aramaic copy of the famous Bisitun inscription of Darius I is of great importance in this regard (TAD C2; see also Greenfield and Porten 1982). The Bisitun inscription from Iran was written in three languages: Old Persian, Babylonian, and Elamite. The text narrates the victory of Darius I over nineteen rebels who contested his claim to the throne in 522/521 BCE.23 The narrative presents the Persian view on the events and functions in Elephantine and Syene as a type of charter myth. The writing of this text—probably part of the scribal education at Elephantine—inscribed this piece of Persian history into the minds of the scribes at Elephantine, reinforcing for the local Persians whose empire they were defending. 4.  One or more elements of common culture.  A few things need to be said here: a. The extant letters and legal documents from Elephantine are dated in an interesting way (Botta 2009, 45–49). The oldest texts are dated according to the local Egyptian system (for example, TAD B1.1). After the reign of Cambyses, when Egypt came under Persian rule, the Babylonian calendar was adopted (which had in its turn been adopted by the Persians; see Stern 2012, 167–91). As Persian power began to fade in the final decades before the reinstallation of Egyptian rule, documents were dated using both Egyptian and Persian/Babylonian systems (for example, TAD C3.12:29; 3.14). Documents after 404 BCE are dated according to the Egyptian calendar. b. It is a striking fact that, but for one (important) exception, there are no mentions in the entire corpus of Elephantine texts of any Persian divine beings. The exception is the Bisitun inscription, in which it is stated that Darius lived, acted, and ruled under “the divine favor of Ahuramazda” (Kuhrt 2007, 141–57; Granerød 2013). But this absence of references to Persian deities in the day-​to-​ day correspondence and legal transactions of Elephantine is difficult to explain. It is hard to believe that the Persians remained silent about their religious worldview, or that they entered into some sort of innere Migration. It is more likely that the Persians at Elephantine adopted the veneration of the Babylonian deities Nabu, Bel, Shamash, and Marduk. c. For both group-​internal and group-​external communication, the Persians used Aramaic, the main language of communication across their empire. No documents in Old Persian have been found at Elephantine. In the various Aramaic documents from Elephantine, a great number of Persian loanwords and Persianisms are attested.24 It is remarkable that many Persian loanwords are of an administrative nature (see Folmer 2011, 157–58).

23.  For a good introduction, see Wiesehofer 1994, 33–43; Kuhrt 2007, 135–41. Babylonian version: von Voigtlander 1978; Elamite version: Weissbach 1911; Old Persian version: Schmitt 1978. Translations: Lecoq 1997, 187–217; Kuhrt 2007, 141–57. For the historical context, see Briant 1996, 119–50. 24.  See Porten and Greenfield 1969, 153–57; Folmer 1995, 307, 729; 2011, 128–58; Tavernier 2007, 11–41.

114

Elephantine Revisited

5.  A link with a homeland.  A link with the homeland is clear from three aspects of the relevant texts: a. Almost all letters and legal documents are dated to the reign of the various Persian kings; I give only a few examples:25 Amasis26 Darius I (TAD B5.1)27 Xerxes I (TAD B2.1) Artaxerxes I (TAD B2.2; 2.7) Darius II (TAD A4.8; B2.10; 2.11) Artaxerxes II (TAD B3.13; 5.5, uncertain) This dating system is a clear indication of the sense of a link with the homeland. b. In a document authorizing a boat repair, it is stated that a set of commodities will be supplied according to the “Persian weight” (TAD A6.2). This indicates that goods were quantified according to the measures of the homeland. c. The well-​known request for the restoration of the devastated Temple of yhw narrates that the demolishment under Vidranga took place when “Aršama had departed and gone to the king” (TAD A4.7:4–5 // A4.8:4). This short note indicates that the local authorities in Elephantine and Syene were aware of the Persian kings as their supreme masters. 6.  A sense of solidarity.  This is not easily inferred from the texts. It is clear that the Persian elite were in charge of the local administration. All important functions were held by persons with Persian names but no signs of interaction between them are signaled in the texts. In sum, the existing evidence indicates the presence of a powerful group of Persians in Elephantine that, while they were aware that they represented the imperial interest, did not isolate themselves from other groups at Elephantine and Syene. Egyptians It stands to reason that various Egyptians lived on the island of Elephantine, as well as in Syene. It was, after all, their homeland (albeit occupied). Many Egyptians appear in the papyri and the ostraca. This indicates that they belonged to the local population or served in and around the Temple of Khnum. Many of them were free agents; some, however, were enslaved, such as the four Egyptian slaves of Mibṭaḥyah (TAD B2.11). 1.  A common proper name.  The Elephantine texts contain a great number of Egyptian names (Porten 2002), but in none of these cases is the label “Egyptian” applied to the person in question; only their personal name is used.28 In demotic texts 25.  Cambyses is referred to only in retrospect in the request for the restoration of the Temple of yhw. 26.  P. Berlin 13616. This demotic document about a strike of quarrymen has been dated to the thirteenth year of Amasis on paleographic grounds. See Cruz-Uribe and Hughes 1979, 21–26. 27.  He is referred to as “Darius (the) Pharaoh” in a demotic document from 492 BCE. See Spiegelberg 1928, 4–10. On the orthography of the name Darius, see Cruz-​Uribe 1992, 5–10. 28.  See, for instance, Peṭekhnum the father of Hošea ʿ in TAD B2.2:17. The Yehudite name of Peṭekhnum’s son may indicate that Peṭekhnum was married to a Yehudite woman. See also Eswere daughter

The Identity of the People at Elephantine

115

from fifth-​century BCE Elephantine, persons with Egyptian names are mentioned. They are never labeled “Egyptian.” This can be explained by the simple fact that, in Egypt, even in the Persian period, it was evident when someone was an Egyptian. 2.  A myth of common ancestry.  The texts do not contain any reference to a common Egyptian ancestry. Other than the well-​attested two-​generation indicator “x father/mother of y,” genealogies are also absent from the texts. 3.  Shared historical memories.  The texts do not refer to such memories. 4.  One or more elements of common culture.  A common culture among the Egyptians at Elephantine can be assumed. The Temple of Khnum at Elephantine, dating back to the Old Kingdom era, was still in use in the fifth century BCE (Dreyer et al. 2002, 157–225), indicating that the ancient Egyptian religion persisted at Elephantine. The priests of this temple collaborated with Vidranga in his attack on the Temple of yhw. In three demotic documents from the early fifth century BCE, we read about a quarrel between the wab-priests of Khnum at Elephantine and the Persian satrap Pherendates. Pherendates was unamused by the appointment of a certain Eskhnumpemet by these priests as the new Lesonis of the temple.29 Khnum was probably not the only divinity venerated by the Egyptians at Elephantine. Although both earlier and later documents refer to some twelve Egyptian gods, texts from the fifth century BCE mention only the goddess Satet (TAD B2.8:5). Two other common cultural elements among the Egyptians need to be noted here. Despite the overwhelming proportion of texts in the lingua franca of the Persian Empire, some texts from Elephantine—mainly for group-​internal communication— were written in demotic. Botta (2009) has also clearly demonstrated that Egyptian legal customs were in force at Elephantine. 5.  A link with a homeland.  Such a link is absent in the texts. 6.  A sense of solidarity.  As a whole, the documents depict the Egyptians as a group with clear group-​internal solidarity. However, they did not live in isolation from the other groups at Elephantine. This is evidenced especially by the fact that quite a large number of Egyptians were married to people of other ethnicities. It is only at the end of the fifth century, when Egypt began to strive for independence, that references to antagonisms between Egyptians and other groups at Elephantine begin to appear in the texts. Minor Groups I will now turn my attention to some minor groups present in Elephantine. These can be divided into four categories: people from the eastern satrapies, people from West Asian satrapies, Phoenicians, and a few persons from neighboring areas. Since only a few members of these groups appear in the textual evidence, I abandon the use of my matrix here.

of Gemar[y]ah in TAD B5.5:2 and Pakhnum son of Besa in TAD B3.13:2. The latter, however, is presented as an Aramean. 29.  Spiegelberg 1928; Zauzich 1978. Lesonis was the title of an important Egyptian functionary who was in charge of a temple’s economic activities.

116

Elephantine Revisited

Medes The Medes were a formerly independent and powerful Iranian people. After the conquest of their territories by Cyrus the Great in 550 BCE, the Median area in the Zagros mountains became a satrapy within the Persian Empire (Briant 1996, 23–40; Wiesehofer 2003). The Persians also appear to have relocated people from Media to their military outpost in Egypt. Only once in the documents from Elephantine is someone indicated as a “Mede” (Atrfarna son of Nisaya in TAD B3.6:16–1730). Khwarezmians The Khwarezmians were the ancient inhabitants of Khwarezm or Chorasmia, a province in the eastern part of the Persian Empire. It is clear that this area was part of the Persian Empire already before 522 BCE, as it is listed in the Bisitun inscription as one of the areas over which Darius reigned (DB §6; see Kuhrt 2007, 141). The area was famous for its lapis lazuli (Ferrier 1972). The trilingual Susa foundation charter of Darius I mentions that the turquoise stones in his palace were brought there from Chorasmia (DSf §10; see Kuhrt 2007, 492). Greek and Persian sources do not indicate any reason for the relocation of Khwarezmians to the border garrison at Elephantine. Two interesting legal documents from the Mibṭaḥyah archive refer to “Dargamana son of Xvaršaina, a Khwarezmian” (TAD B2.2; 2.3; Botta 2009, 123–26). His name, as well as the name of his father, is Old Persian.31 The two documents refer to a quarrel between Dargamana and the Yehudite Maḥseyah son of Yedanyah about a piece of land. Dargamana had complained that Maḥseyah had laid hold of his property. Maḥseyah was then ordered by the judge—the Persian Damidata—to swear an oath. He swore an oath by “yhw, the god in Elephantine, the fortress,” following which Dargamana relinquished his claim (TAD B2.2). Five years later, the ownership of the plot of land was still contested. Maḥseyah then had a registerial document made, claiming that the plot of land belonged to him and that it would be given to his daughter (TAD B2.3, bequest of house). This document refers to the fact that Dargamana dropped his claim following Maḥseyah’s oath. This little glimpse into daily life at Elephantine reveals two interesting things: (1) persons from different backgrounds could live next to each other, and (2) Dargamana accepted yhw as divine guarantor of the oath sworn by Maḥseyah. This does not imply that the Khwarezmian had become a devotee of yhw but hints at the mutual acceptance of each other’s religious worldviews. Only one other text refers to a Khwarezmian. It is a fragment of an account (TAD D3.39 frag. b, line 3). Its text is so badly damaged that a reconstruction of the name of this person or his role in the community is impossible. Caspians Caspians are mentioned on a few occasions in the documents from Elephantine and Syene. These were a group of people living to the south and southwest of what is now 30.  He is mentioned as one of the witnesses to the document; see Skjærvø 1983, 241–59; Tavernier 2007, 62. 31.  Tavernier 2007, 168: “long-​minded.”

The Identity of the People at Elephantine

117

the Caspian Sea. Caspians paying tribute to Darius are mentioned in Herodotus (Hist. 3.92–93). In Herodotus’s view, the Caspians lived in the territory of the 11th and the 15th satrapies. They are not mentioned in the Persian lists of nations (A2Pa; DNe; see Kuhrt 2007, 483–84, 486–87). In a document of sale of an abandoned property from Elephantine (TAD B3.4), the sellers are mentioned as Caspians (see Porten and Szubin 1982, 123–31; Botta 2009, 108–11). Their names are clearly Iranian: Bagazušta son of Bazu and Wybl daughter of Šatibara. Other Caspians are mentioned as witnesses: “Vyzb[l(w)] son of ʾtrly, a Caspian” and “Barbari son of Dargi(ya), a Caspian” (TAD B2.7). No information is to be found in the texts from Elephantine as to why these Caspians were brought to Elephantine. From TAD B3.4 it is clear that they were mercenaries in the border garrison. No signs of problematic relations with other groups are in evidence. Bactrians Bactrians were the inhabitants of Bactria, a satrapy east of the Persian Empire in the present day region of Afghanistan (Shaked 2003). The area was incorporated into the empire by Cyrus the Great and is first mentioned in the Bisitun inscription in the list of territories over which Darius became ruler (DB §6; see Kuhrt 2007, 141). The Greek and Persian sources are silent on the reasons behind the recruitment of these Bactrians to serve in the border garrison at Elephantine. As far as I can tell, only one Bactrian is mentioned in the texts. In the beginning of a contract dated to 403 BCE, one of the parties is stated to be “[Ba]rznavara son of Artabazana, a Bactrian” (TAD D2.12:2; see also Hoftijzer 1988). Not much can be inferred from this single reference. Carians Caria was a Persian satrapy in southwestern Anatolia. Herodotus (Hist. 2.30:1–3, 2.154:1) remarks that there were Carians settled in Daphne, Migdol, and later—during the Saite Dynasty (Twenty-​Sixth Dynasty, 672–525 BCE)—in Memphis. Carian graffiti have been found throughout Egypt (Peden 2001). Carians are mentioned in a document from Elephantine concerning the authorization of a boat repair (TAD A6.2). It is clear from this text that a group of Carians—their names are unknown—were the users of a boat that they held in hereditary lease. The maintenance of this boat was overdue, and these Carians received not only right of repair on the boat but also necessities for its restoration such as copper (Stieglitz 2004). I will not discuss here whether Carians are referred to in the Hebrew Bible.32 Cilicians Cilicia was a Persian satrapy in southeastern Anatolia. The area was brought under Persian authority by Cyrus the Great and subsequently governed by tributary native 32.  2 Sam 8:18; 15:18; 20:23; 2 Kgs 11:4; 11:19. See Masson 1975, 406–14, and Avishur and Heltzer 2008, 87–90.

118

Elephantine Revisited

kings. The Greek and Persian sources are silent on the reasoning behind the recruitment of Cilicians to serve in the border garrison at Elephantine. In his correspondence from the end of the fifth century,33 Aršama, the satrap of Egypt, requests from Artavanta, an important official, the release of a group of thirteen Cilician slaves who were taken captive during the Egyptian uprising (TAD A6.7). The names of these thirteen people are all Luwian. In another letter, Aršama requests from Mrdk the delivery of rations to—among others—“two Cilician persons (and) one artisan” who are his servants. He hopes that they will receive a daily ration of one handful of flour per caput (TAD A6.9). Mrdk is to be understood not as the Babylonian deity but as the personal name of a Persian official.34 In a third letter, Virafša orders Nakhtḥor to return five Cilician slaves to Aršama (TAD A6.15). Finally, TAD D6.7, a broken and highly fragmented text, mentions Cilicians, but nothing further can be deduced from this document. Phoenicians Already in pre-​Pharaonic times, trade contacts existed between the Phoenician harbor cities and Egypt (Joffe 2000; Elayi 2013, 39–95). Phoenician ships brought their cargo not only to the Delta but—over the ages—farther and farther up the Nile. There is some evidence of the presence of Phoenicians in Elephantine and Syene. As early as 1911, Sachau published a set of inscribed jar handles, the majority of which bore a Phoenician inscription; others were written in Aramaic (Sachau 1911, 244; see Lidzbarski 1912). These fragmentary inscriptions, bearing Phoenician and Egyptian names, should be connected to the administration of the jars’ contents. Various hints at Phoenician trade with Elephantine are to be found in the erased Customs Account found at Elephantine (TAD C3.7), which served as writing surface for the Aḥiqar story and proverbs. The customs were collected from Ionian and Phoenician ships. Two types of Phoenician ships are mentioned: dwgy qnd/rtʿʾ and dwgy qnd/rtšyry. Their cargo contained goods such as Sidonian wine, various sorts of (cedar) wood, oars, iron, and wool (Yardeni 1994, 67–78; Tal 2009, 1–8). Both sets of evidence are best read as indicators of a Phoenician trade presence at Elephantine, but not as a presence within the border garrison itself. At the meeting in St. Andrews, Cornelius von Pilgrim presented a set of ostraca discovered in the spring of 2013 during excavations at Syene.35 One of the ostraca (no. 12-2-4-6/4) bears an inscription of only four letters: ṣdny, “Sidonian” (see chapter 11 in this volume, fig. 11.10, plate 10). This word can be interpreted either as a gentilic or as a personal name derived from the gentilic. In either case, the inscription would refer to a Sidonian, though it provides no clues as to the role this person played at Syene. Lybian Tribes I now turn to consider persons belonging to territories adjacent to ancient Egypt. As far as I can tell, there is one reference in the Elephantine texts to the Lybian tribe of the 33.  On these letters, see Whitehead 1974. 34.  Like Mordecai in the book of Esther, Marduka in the Murashu archive, and Mardu/aku in the Persepolis Fortification Texts (PF 81, 412, 489, 1858, for example). See Yamauchi 1992, 272–75; Henkelman 2008, 244. 35.  For the publication of these ostraca, see chapter 11 of this volume by Bezalel Porten and André Lemaire.

The Identity of the People at Elephantine

119

Meshwesh, a tribe that was probably of central Berber origin.36 In a demotic letter written in October 486 BCE by Khnumemahket to the Persian official Farnava about a problematic delivery of grain, mention is made of an anonymous Ma or Meshwesh who functioned at the quay where the grain was to be delivered (Spiegelberg 1928, 13–21). During the Third Intermediate Period, the Lybian Meshwesh were in control of greater parts of Egypt. In later periods, their descendants became members of the upper lower-​class, working as policemen and controllers on quays. Wilhelm Spiegelberg originally read nf.w, “sailors” here. Günter Vittmann (1999, 123–24) correctly proposed that we read M.w. The role of this subordinate person in the letter is limited. He is only spoken to. Arabians Arabians are mentioned infrequently in the documents from Elephantine—a few witnesses in the legal documents bear an Arabic name, such as Ausnahar son of Dumaʾ (TAD B2.8:13)—but the fact that they could act as witnesses indicates that they had attained a certain level of acceptance within the society of Elephantine and Syene.

Arguments for an Intertwined Community The groups discussed above, though they show some awareness of separation, ought primarily to be seen as intertwined components of the society of Elephantine and Syene. In addition to the arguments that I provide in the analysis above, I would also like to mention a few points. First, Aḥiqar—both novella and proverbs—cannot be assigned to one specific group. Aḥiqar is neither a Yahwistic nor a Jewish text, nor does it reflect a specific Aramean or Persian tradition. The text represents a more general kind of ancient Near Eastern wisdom. According to Herbert Niehr (2007), the wisdom of Aḥiqar was rooted in the Assyro-​Aramean kingdoms of northern Syria. At Elephantine, this text was probably used as a school-​text for the training of scribes and officials of all local ethnic groups. Aḥiqar possesses qualities of loyalty, prudence, modesty, and adaptability. This might suggest that the “upper classes” of the various ethnic and/or religious groups at Elephantine were trained in a worldview characterized by an acceptance of Persian power and an openness toward negotiating one’s identity with “the other.” Second, the list of witnesses in adoption document TAD B3.9 contains names of various origins: Aramean, Babylonian, Persian, Yehudite, and Egyptian. Third, the texts show many examples of what might be mistaken for “identity change.” The personal names in the indicators PN1 son of PN2 often have their basis in different languages and/or ethnicities.37 I do not view this phenomenon as indicating the adaptation of a different ethnie by a subsequent generation, but as a sign of the open interface between different groups. 36.  See Wainwright 1962, 89–99. They might be equated with the Maxyes mentioned in Herodotus, Hist. 4.191 (see Anderson 2013, 111). 37.  For example, Naburaʿi son of Vištana (Aramean—Persian).

120

Elephantine Revisited

In sum, the various groups of people in Elephantine and Syene did not construe themselves as separate ethnic groups. Interaction between the groups and acceptance of each other’s customs did not extend as far as full and complete integration, however.38 Except for the period of the Vidranga-​incident, there are no traces in the Elephantine documents of an us-​versus-​them attitude. Although there was a sense of “otherness,” the “other” was not construed as an outsider. Having reconstructed the character of the society in Elephantine and Syene, the role this community played in the emergence of early Judaism can now be reopened. We can begin again to ask at what point we ought to place the Yehudites in the complex transition from Yahwism to Judaism. That question, however, is beyond the scope of this essay.39 References Anderson, R. 2013. “Warfare in Ancient Egyptian Poetry.” Pages 99–118 in Warfare and Poetry in the Middle East. Edited by H. Kennedy. London: Tauris. Athas, G. 2003. The Tel Dan Inscription: A Reappraisal and a New Interpretation. JSOTSup 360. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Avishur Y., and M. Heltzer. 2008. “Carians as Skilled Masons in Israel and Mercenaries in Judah in the Early I Millennium BCE.” Kadmos 42:87–90. Ayad Ayad, B. 1997. “From the Archive of Ananiah Son of Azariah: A Jew from Elephantine.” JNES 56:37–50. Becking, B. 2003. “Die Gottheiten der Juden in Elephantine.” Pages 203–26 in Der eine Gott und die Götter: Polytheismus und Monotheismus im antiken Israel. Edited by M. Oeming and K. Schmid. ATANT 82. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag. ———. 2005. “Temple, marzēaḥ, and Power at Elephantine.” Transeuphratène 29:37–47. ———. 2008. “Sabbath at Elephantine: A Short Episode in the Construction of Jewish Identity.” Pages 177–89 in Empsychoi Logoi—Religious Innovations in Antiquity: Studies in Honour of Pieter Willem van der Horst. Edited by A. Houtman, A. de Jong, and M. Misset-​van de Weg. AJEC 73. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2017. “Exchange, Replacement, or Acceptance? Two Examples of Lending Deities Among Ethnic Groups in Elephantine.” Pages 30–43 in Jewish Cultural Encounters in the Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern World. Edited by M. Popović. JSJSup 178. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2020. Identity in Persian Egypt: The Fate of the Yehudite Community of Elephantine. University Park, PA: Eisenbrauns. Bedford, P. R. 2001. Temple Restoration in Early Achaemenid Judah. JSJSup 65. Leiden: Brill. Botta, A. 2009. The Aramaic and Egyptian Legal Traditions at Elephantine: An Egyptological Approach. LSTS 64. London: T&T Clark. Bresciani, E., and M. Kamil. 1966. Le lettere aramaiche di Hermopoli. Atti dell’Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Memorie della classe di science morali, storiche e filologiche VIII 12/5. Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Briant, P. 1996. Histoire de l’Empire perse: De Cyrus à Alexandre. Paris: Fayard. Cohen, S. J. D. 1999. The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties. Berkeley: University of California Press. Cruz-​Uribe, E. 1992. “The Writing of the Name of King Darius.” Enchoria 19:5–10. Cruz-Uribe, E., and G. R. Hughes. 1979. “A Strike Papyrus from the Reign of Amasis.” Serapis 5:21–26.

38.  See also Johnson 1999; Kaplan 2003, 1–31. 39.  For a further elaboration of this subject, see now also Becking 2020.

The Identity of the People at Elephantine

121

Dreyer, G., H.-W. Fischer-​Elfert, C. Heitz, A. Klammt, M. Krutzsch, C. von Pilgrim, D. Raue, S. Schönenberger, and C. Ubertini. 2002. “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine: 28​.​/29​.​/30. Grabungsbericht.” MDAIK 58:157–225. Edelman, D. V. 1995. “Editor’s Note.” Page 7 in The Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms. Edited by D. V. Edelman. CBET 13. Kampen: Kok Pharos. Efthimiadis-​Keith, H. 2011. “On the Egyptian Origin of Judith, or Judith as Anat-​Yahu.” JSem 20:300–322. Elayi, J. 2013. Histoire de la Phénicie. Paris: Perrin. Ferrier, R. W. 1972. “Persepolis.” Asian Affairs 3:23–27. Folmer, M. L. 1995. The Aramaic Language in the Achaemenid Period: A Study in Linguistic Variation. OLA 68. Leuven: Peeters. ———. 2011. “Old and Imperial Aramaic.” Pages 128–59 in Languages from the World of the Bible. Edited by H. Gzella. Berlin: de Gruyter. Frey, J. 1999. “Temple and Rival Temple—The Cases of Elephantine, Mt. Gerizim and Leontopolis.” Pages 173–80 in Gemeinde ohne Tempel—Community Without Temple. Edited by B. Ego, A. Lange, and P. Pilhofer. WUNT 118. Tübingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Gass, E. 1999. “Der Passa-​Papyrus (Cowl 21)—Mythos oder Realität?” BN 99:55–68. Grabbe, L. L. 2004. A History of Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period, volume 1, Yehud: A History of the Persian Province of Judah. LSTS 47. London: T&T Clark. Granerød, G. 2013. “By the Favour of Ahuramazda I Am King: On the Promulgation of a Persian Propaganda Text Among Babylonians and Judaeans.” JSJ 44:455–80. Greenfield, J. C., and B. Porten. 1982. The Bisitun Inscription of Darius the Great: Aramaic Version. Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum 1/4. London: Humphries. Grelot, P. 1985. “Sur le ‘Papyrus Pascal’ d’Eléphantine.” Pages 163–71 in Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Mathias Delcor. Edited by A. Caquot, S. Légasse, and M. Tardieu. AOAT 215. Neukirchen-​Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Grund, A. 2011. Die Entstehung des Sabbats: Seine Bedeutung für Israels Zeitkonzept und Erinnerungskultur. FAT 75. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Henkelman, W. F. M. 2008. The Other Gods Who Are: Studies in Elamite-​Iranian Acculturation Based on the Persepolis Fortification Texts. Achaemenid History 14. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Hobsbawm, E. J., and T. Ranger. 1983. The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hobson, R. 2011. “Jeremiah 41 and the Ammonite Alliance.” JHS 10/7:2–15. DOI: 10​.5508​/jhs​ .2010​.v10​.a7. Hoftijzer, J. 1988. “An Unpublished Aramaic Fragment from Elephantine.” OMRO 68:45–48. Hutchinson, J., and A. D. Smith, eds. 1996. Ethnicity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Joffe, A. H. 2000. “Egypt and Syro-​Mesopotamia in the 4th Millennium: Implications of the New Chronology.” Current Anthropology 41:113–23. Johnson, J. H. 1999. “Ethnic Considerations in Persian Period Egypt.” Pages 211–22 in Gold of Praise: Studies on Ancient Egypt in Honor of Edward Wente. Edited by E. Teeter and J. A. Larson. SAOC 58. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Joisten-​Pruschke, A. 2008. Das religiöse Leben der Juden von Elephantine in der Achämenidenzeit. Iranica n.s. 2. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Kaplan, P. 2003. “Cross-​Cultural Contacts Among Mercenary Communities in Saite and Persian Egypt.” Mediterranean Historical Review 18:1–31. Knauf, E. A. 2002. “Elephantine und das vor-​biblische Judentum.” Pages 179–88 in Religion und Religionskontakte im Zeitalter der Achämeniden. Edited by R. G. Kratz. VWGTh 22. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus. Korpel, M. C. A. 2005. “Disillusion Among Jews in the Postexilic Period.” Pages 135–57 in The Old Testament in Its World. Edited by R. P. Gordon and J. C. de Moor. OTS 52. Leiden: Brill. Kottsieper, I. 2002. “Die Religionspolitik der Achämeniden und die Juden von Elephantine.” Pages 150–78 in Religion und Religionskontakte im Zeitalter der Achämeniden. Edited by R. G. Kratz. VWGTh 22. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus.

122

Elephantine Revisited

Kratz, R. G. 1991. Translatio imperii: Untersuchungen zu den aramäischen Danielerzählungen und ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Umfeld. WMANT 63. Neukirchen-​Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. ———. 2006. “The Second Temple of Jeb and of Jerusalem.” Pages 247–64 in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period. Edited by O. Lipschits and M. Oeming. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Kuhrt, A. 2007. The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period. 2 vols. London: Routledge. Lecoq, P. 1997. Les inscriptions de la Perse achéménide. Paris: Gallimard. Lidzbarski, M. 1912. Phönizische und aramäische Krugaufschriften aus Elephantine. Abhandlungen der Königlichen Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Berlin: Reimer. Lindenberger, J. M. 2001. “What Ever Happened to Vidranga? A Jewish Liturgy of Cursing from Elephantine.” Pages 134–57 in The World of the Arameans III: Studies in History and Archaeology in Honour of Paul-​Eugène Dion. Edited by P. M. M. Daviau, J. W. Wevers, and M. Weigl. JSOTSup 326. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Masson, O. 1975. “Le nom des Cariens dans quelques langues de l’Antiquité.” Pages 406–14 in Mélanges linguistiques offerts à Émile Benveniste. Collection linguistique 70. Paris: Société de linguistique de Paris. McLaughlin, J. L. 2001. The Marzēaḥ in the Prophetic Literature: References and Allusions in Light of the Extra-​biblical Evidence. VTS 86. Leiden: Brill. Niehr, H. 2007. Aramäischer Aḥiqar. JSHRZ n.s. 2/2. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus. Nodet, E. 1997. A Search for the Origin of Judaism: From Joshua to the Mishnah. JSOTSup 248. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Nutkowicz, H. 2011. “Eléphantine, ultime tragédie.” Transeuphratène 40:185–98. Peden, A. J. 2001. The Graffiti of Pharaonic Egypt: Scope and Roles of Informal Writings (c. 3100–332 BC). Probleme der Ägyptologie 17. Leiden: Brill. Pilgrim, C. von. 1998. “Textzeugnis und archäologischer Befund: Zur Topographie von Elephantine in der 27. Dynastie.” Pages 485–97 in Stationen: Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte Ägyptens; Rainer Stadelman gewidmet. Edited by H. Guksch and D. Polz. Mainz: von Zabern. Porten, B. 1968. Archives from Elephantine: The Life of an Ancient Jewish Colony. Berkeley: University of California Press. ———. 1969. “The Religion of the Jews of Elephantine in Light of the Hermopolis Papyri.” JNES 28:116–21. ———. 1983. “An Aramaic Oath Contract: A New Interpretation.” RB 90:563–75. ———. 1984. “The Jews in Egypt.” Pages 372–400 in volume 1 of The Cambridge History Judaism. Edited by W. D. Davies and L. Finkelstein. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 2002. “Egyptian Names in Aramaic Texts.” Pages 283–327 in Acts of the Seventh International Conference of Demotic Studies. Edited by K. Ryholt. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen. ———. 2003a. “Persian Names in Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt.” Pages 165–86 in volume 5 of Irano-​Judaica: Studies Relating to Jewish Contacts with Persian Culture Throughout the Ages. Edited by S. Shaked and A. Netzer. 7 vols. Jerusalem: Ben Zvi Institute. ———. 2003b. “Settlement of the Jews at Elephantine and the Arameans at Syene.” Pages 451–70 in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-​Babylonian Period. Edited by O. Lipschitz and J. Blenkinsopp. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Porten, B., and J. C. Greenfield. 1969. “The Guarantor at Elephantine-​Syene.” JAOS 89:153–57. Porten, B., and H. Z. Szubin. 1982. “ ‘Abandoned Property’ in Elephantine: A New Interpretation of Kraeling 3.” JNES 41:123–31. Porten, B., and A. Yardeni. 1986–99. Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt. 4 vols. Jerusalem: Hebrew University.

The Identity of the People at Elephantine

123

Rosenberg, S. G. 2004. “The Jewish Temple at Elephantine.” NEA 67:4–13. Sachau, E. 1911. Aramäische Papyrus und Ostraka aus einer jüdischen Militär-​Kolonie zu Elephantine. Altorientalische Sprachdenkmäler des 5. Jahrhunderts vor Chr. 2 vols. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Schäfer, P. 1997. Judeophobia: Attitudes Towards the Jews in the Ancient World. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Schmitt, R. 1978. The Bisitun Inscription of Darius the Great: Old Persian Version. Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum 1/1. London: Humphries. Segal, J. B. 1963. The Hebrew Passover from the Earliest Times to A.D. 70. London Oriental Series 12. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shaked, S. 2003. Le satrape de Bactriane et son gouverneur: Documents araméens du IVe s. avant notre ère provenant de Bactriane. Persika 4. Paris: de Boccard. Silverman, M. H. 1969. “Aramean Name-​Types in the Elephantine Documents.” JAOS 89:691–709. Skjærvø, P. 1983. “Farnah: Mot Mède en Vieux-​Perse?” Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 78:241–59. Spiegelberg, W. 1928. Drei demotische Schreiben aus der Korrespondenz des Pherendates, des Satrapen Darius’ I., mit den Chnumpriestern von Elephantine. Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften. Stern, S. 2012. Calendars in Antiquity: Empires, States, and Societies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stieglitz, R. R. 2004. “Copper Sheathing and Painting with Orpiment at Elephantine Island (Fifth Century B.C.E.).” BASOR 336:31–35. Tal, O. 2009. “On the Identification of the Ships of kzd/ry in the Erased Customs Account from Elephantine.” JNES 68:1–8. Tavernier, J. 2007. Iranica in the Achaemenid Period (ca. 550–330 B.C.): Lexicon of Old Iranian Proper Names and Loanwords, Attested in Non-​Iranian Texts. OLA 158. Leuven: Peeters. Toorn, K. van der. 1986. “Herem-​Bethel and Elephantine Oath Procedure.” ZAW 98:282–85. ———. 1992. “Anat-​Yahu, Some Other Deities, and the Jews of Elephantine.” Numen 39:80–101. Vittmann, G. 1999. “Kursivhieratische und frühdemotische Miszellen.” Enchoria 25:111–27. Voigtlander, E. N. von. 1978. The Bisitun Inscription of Darius the Great: Babylonian Version. Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum 1/2. London: Humphries. Wainwright, G. A. 1962. “The Meshwesh.” JEA 48:89–99. Weissbach, F. H. 1911. Die Keilinschriften der Achämeniden. VAB 3. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Whitehead, J. D. 1974. “Early Aramaic Epistolography: The Arsames Correspondence.” Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago. Wiesehofer, J. 1994. Das antike Persien von 550 v. Chr. bis 650 n. Chr. Zürich: Artemis & Winkler. ———. 2003. “The Medes and the Idea of the Succession of Empires in Antiquity.” Pages 391–96 in Continuity of Empire: Assyria, Media, Persia. Edited by G. B. Lanfranchi, M. Roaf, and R. Rollinger. History of the Ancient Near East Monographs 5. Padova: S.A.R.G.O.N. Winter, U. 1983. Frau und Göttin: Exegetische und ikonographische Studien zum weiblichen Gottesbild im alten Israel und in dessen Umwelt. OBO 53. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Yamauchi, E. M. 1992. “Mordecai, the Persepolis Tablets, and the Susa Excavations.” VT 42:272–75. Yardeni, A. 1994. “Maritime Trade and Royal Accountancy in an Erased Customs Account from 475 B.C.E. on the Aḥiqar Scroll from Elephantine.” BASOR 293:67–78. Zauzich, K.-T. 1978. Demotische Papyri aus den Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin. Issue 1, Papyri von der Insel Elephantine. Berlin: Akademie-​Verlag.

Chapter 10

The Contribution of Elephantine Aramaic to Aramaic Studies Margaretha Folmer

In this contribution, I will outline the impact of Elephantine Aramaic on our understanding of Aramaic, both within the context of the Achaemenid Empire and within the broader context of the continuous three-thousand-year-​long history of Aramaic. Several problems present themselves at the outset. The first is how Elephantine Aramaic should be defined. In this respect, it is necessary to address important questions that pertain to the relevant written sources. What does the label “Elephantine Aramaic” embrace? Should it include texts unearthed on the island alone, or should it be extended to texts from Aswan on the nearby mainland? In addition to texts that were discovered during legal excavations, should it include texts that were obtained illegally? What about texts whose alleged origin is Elephantine, in addition to texts whose provenance is certain? And what about letters? Should we include only those letters written and found at Elephantine—drafts or copies—or should we also include letters that were sent to Elephantine from other places? And if we include the latter, should we include only those written by members of the Elephantine community, or also those written by others? And what should we do with compositions that presumably originate in other locales, such as the story and proverbs of Aḥiqar, or the Aramaic translation of the Bisitun inscription of Darius the Great? For practical reasons, I will use Elephantine Aramaic in what follows to refer to an idiom of written Aramaic that is found in texts that were unearthed on the island of Elephantine, regardless of whether or not these texts were recovered in controlled excavations (including texts whose alleged origin is Elephantine). The second problem that presents itself is the impossibility of comprehending the long and complex history of Aramaic within the ambit of a single scholar: an in-​depth knowledge of each individual dialect of Aramaic is simply not possible. In addition, there is no absolute consensus among scholars about the classification of Aramaic dialects, nor has a comprehensive historical grammar of Aramaic been written, though several initial steps toward this goal have been taken (discussed in the section below on contributions to the historical grammar of Aramaic).1 With these preliminary remarks in mind, it is easier to imagine the difficulties inherent in outlining the contribution of Elephantine Aramaic to Aramaic Studies.

1.  The work of Pat-​El (2012) on the historical syntax of Aramaic is a particularly welcome addition to the field. Historical syntax is a relative newcomer to the study of the Semitic languages.

124

The Contribution of Elephantine Aramaic to Aramaic Studies

125

Beginnings of Elephantine Aramaic Studies Even though incidental Aramaic finds from Egypt were known from the early eighteenth century onward,2 it was only in the early nineteenth century that the island of Elephantine became known as a findspot for Aramaic texts. The first known acquisitions of Elephantine Aramaic documents were made by Giovan Battista Belzoni during his travels in Egypt in 1815–19.3 Also known as the Padua letters,4 these documents were published almost 150 years later by Edda Bresciani (1960). These early finds aside, the real dawn of Elephantine studies occurred only in 1893. It was in this year that the Ananyah archive was acquired by Charles E. Wilbour (together with four other unrelated documents). Despite the fact that the texts bought by Wilbour were published by Emil G. Kraeling only sixty-​odd years later (Kraeling 1953, 53), a distinct interest in Elephantine was aroused by these acquisitions. Another important landmark in the study of Elephantine Aramaic was the acquisition of the Mibtaḥyah archive by Lady William Cecil and Robert Mond in 1904. The archive was published shortly after its purchase by Archibald H. Sayce and Arthur E. Cowley (1906), together with some ostraca. It was with this publication that the study of Elephantine Aramaic truly began. The acquisition of these documents, alongside the acquisition of other isolated items and random finds from Elephantine around the turn of the twentieth century (Porten 1992, 446),5 furnished an incentive for a number of French and German excavations at the beginning of the twentieth century. The French excavations were led by Gaston Maspero (1902), Charles Clermont-​Ganneau (1906–7; 1907–8), Joseph-​Étienne Gautier (1908–9) and Jean Clédat (1910–11), while the German excavations were led by Otto Rubensohn (two campaigns in 1906–7) and Friedrich Zucker and Walther Honroth (1907–8). During the excavations by Rubensohn in 1906–7, important (collections of) texts were unearthed: the communal archive of Yedanyah son of Gemaryah (TAD A4.1–4; 4.6–10),6 an Aramaic version of the Bisitun inscription (TAD C2.1), the Aḥiqar text (TAD C1.1), and several legal documents, lists, and accounts (TAD C3.3; 3.13–15; 4.4–8; see Porten 1992, 446–47). These texts were subsequently published by Eduard Sachau (1911). Sachau’s publication also gave impetus toward text editions, grammatical descriptions, and discussion of the classification of Aramaic dialects. Many well-​known scholars are numbered among the pioneering students of Elephantine Aramaic, including (in random order) Arthur E. Cowley, Archibald H. Sayce, Eduard Sachau, Pontus Leander, Arthur Ungnad, Paul Joüon, Mark Lidzbarski, Eduard Meyer, Julius Euting, Charles Clermont-​Ganneau, Walther Baumgartner, and Harold L. Ginsberg. In 1939, Franz Rosenthal detailed the early years of Elephantine Aramaic scholarship in the period before World War II in his renowned work Die aramaistische Forschung (Rosenthal 1939; see also Rosenthal 1978, 81–91). These early years were characterized by text editions, descriptive phonological and morphological studies, studies of specific words and phrases, and ongoing discussion about 2.  The earliest known Aramaic text from Egypt is the so-​called Carpentras stela, a funerary inscription (CIS no. 141). It was published in 1704 by Rigord (see Rosenthal 1939, 26). 3.  See Bresciani 1960, 12. See also Porten 1992, 2:446. 4.  Two letters (TAD A3.3–4), with fragments of a third. 5.  See Porten 1992, 446. 6.  TAD A4.5 had already been acquired in 1898 by W. Spiegelberg.

126

Elephantine Revisited

the character and function of Official Aramaic and its relation to Biblical Aramaic. In 1978, Rosenthal wrote a brief update to his earlier statement, covering the first decennia of Aramaic Studies in the period following World War II. This later publication attests to the fact that Aramaic Studies in this period witnessed an increased interest in the linguistic diversity of Aramaic, both Old and Official Aramaic and later Aramaic, and in the individual linguistic profiles of, and interrelationship between, these varieties of Aramaic (Rosenthal 1978, 85). The diversification and classification of Aramaic remains a topic of discussion; it is fed by the constant increment of new Aramaic sources in every phase of the language. In recent years, the intensified study of Neo-​Aramaic has contributed a great deal to the awareness that Aramaic (with its long and uninterrupted history) is particularly suited to study from a historical perspective, and this indeed may prove to be one of the most important directions for future Aramaic scholarship. More than ever before, scholars are conscious of the pivotal role of Official Aramaic—with Elephantine as its focal point—in the unbroken three-thousand-year-​long history of Aramaic dialects. In sum, the Aramaic finds from Elephantine did not only furnish a strong impetus toward the study of so-​called Official or Imperial Aramaic, but also contributed to the interest in Aramaic Studies in general. In what follows, I will give some examples of the contribution that Elephantine has made to Aramaic Studies, both within the context of Achaemenid Official Aramaic and the context of Aramaic Studies in general.

Imagine a World Without Elephantine Aramaic In order to emphasize the importance of Elephantine Aramaic to Aramaic Studies, I will briefly reflect on what our picture of Aramaic from the Achaemenid period would look like without the Elephantine documents. Let us therefore try to imagine a world— more precisely, an Achaemenid Empire—without the Elephantine Aramaic documents. In this alternative world, our Aramaic sources from Egypt would shrink considerably. Nevertheless, we would still possess an impressive number of Aramaic texts from Egypt in the Achaemenid period; our crown jewels in this respect comprise the Aršama correspondence, the Hermopolis papyri, and the texts from North-​Saqqara / Memphis, with texts from other places in Egypt—mostly graffiti—all contributing to our picture of widespread Aramaic usage in the satrapy of Egypt. This material is naturally supplemented by Aramaic texts from other parts of the empire, such as Palestine (administrative ostraca from several places; legal documents including slave sales from Wadi ed-​Daliyeh), Persia (administrative tablets from Persepolis), Babylonia (administrative tablets from several places), the Arabian peninsula (ceremonial, votive, and funerary inscriptions from Teima), Bactria (the official Akhvamazda letters, together with several other administrative texts), and Asia Minor (dedicatory, funerary, and other inscriptions from several places in Lydia, Lycia, Cilicia, and Phrygia, just for instance), to mention some of our more important texts and sizeable text corpora.7 However, the nature of the preserved material would give a very different 7.  Palestine, Wadi ed-​Daliyeh: Gropp 2001; Dušek 2007. For ostraca from Palestine: see in n. 14. Iran, Persepolis: see Azzoni 2017 and her contribution in chapter 2 of this volume. Babylonia: see the overview of

The Contribution of Elephantine Aramaic to Aramaic Studies

127

picture of Aramaic usage in the Achaemenid period. At Elephantine, a wide variety of genres is attested: both official and private letters (on papyrus and ostraca), legal documents, administrative texts (including name-​lists), literary and historical texts, and short inscriptions of a diverse nature (often names) written on objects in public spaces (graffiti).8 Nowhere else in the empire is this variety encountered; not in Egypt, and not in any other satrapy. Without the Elephantine documents, certain text genres would be under-​represented or even entirely absent from our surviving documentation. Official letters would be represented principally by the satrapal chancelleries in Egypt and Bactria (Aršama [TAD A6.3–16]; Akhvamazda) but not by local administrations.9 The genre of private letters would essentially be limited to the Hermopolis papyri (TAD A2.1–7)—which clearly carry an Aramean signature—and some fragments of letters from Saqqara and El-​Hibe.10 Our surviving legal documents would comprise the Bauer Meissner papyrus drawn up at Korobis (near el-​Hibe; TAD B1.1; 515 BCE), some judicial documents from Saqqara,11 and the much later slave sales from Wadi ed-​Daliyeh (near Samaria, Palestine; middle of the fourth century BCE), which align at times with the formulas and words used in Elephantine legal documents as well as later Jewish and Nabatean Aramaic legal documents from the Dead Sea region (Gross 2008). The literary genre would be represented solely by the fragmentary tale of Ḥor son of Puneš (TAD C1.2).12 The genre of historical texts (or: royal inscriptions) would not be represented at all

tablets with Aramaic epigraphs in Oelsner 2006; Rieneke Sonnevelt, a Ph.D. student at Leiden University, is preparing her dissertation on these texts; her work will include many unpublished Aramaic epigraphs. Arabian peninsula (Teima in particular): see the catalog in Schwiderski 2014, 410–13. Bactria: Naveh and Shaked 2012. Asia Minor: there is no comprehensive edition of these texts, but most of the inscriptions known today can be found in Schwiderski 2014, 34, 71, 191, 195, 202, 291, 293–95, 364, 408 (with references; this work is obviously not meant as a text edition and, as such, can be very difficult to search and consult). 8.  Funerary inscriptions from Elephantine are represented only by a single mummy label: šbh br hwšʿ, TAD D19.7 (the names are Hebrew; see also the sarcophagus from Aswan with the Hebrew name šbty [TAD D18.18]; other Aramaic funerary inscriptions were found in neighboring Aswan). Dedicatory and votive inscriptions are not represented among the Elephantine Aramaic texts. 9.  The Akhvamazda letters were published by Naveh and Shaked in 2012. These letters were probably written by the satrap of Bactria. But as Akhvamazda’s function is nowhere mentioned, this is not certain. Another official letter from the Achaemenid period was found in a dump in North Saqqara (Segal 1983, no. 26). Little is known about the context of this document (see Segal 1983, 1–11). For the texts from Bactria, see Naveh and Shaked 2012, 15–22. Two older letters in Aramaic that should also be mentioned are the Assur ostracon, written by an Assyrian official to an Assyrian colleague (KAI no. 233; middle of the seventh century BCE; written from southern Babylonia and found in Assur), and the letter by Adon, king of Ekron, to the Pharaoh (TAD A1.1; end seventh century BCE; the oldest Aramaic letter on papyrus; found at Saqqara). Both texts witness to the use of Aramaic in official correspondences in an (inter)national context under the Neo-​Assyrian and Neo-​Babylonian administrations. 10.  A fragmentary letter on papyrus from el-​Hibe (TAD A3.11) and some fragmentary letters from Saqqara on papyrus (TAD A5.1, “semi-​official”; Segal 1983, no. 59; TAD D1.15; 1.16). 11.  Segal 1983. The state of preservation of these documents is very fragmentary. The best among them were included in TAD B: TAD B4.7 (deed of obligation), TAD B5.5 (conveyance), and the so-​called court records (TAD B8.1–4; 8.6–12), a genre that is not known from Elephantine. See also TAD D2.29–34 (court records from Saqqara; collection N. Aimé-​Giron). 12.  See also the very fragmentary Aramaic version of an Egyptian narrative written on the walls of a burial cave near Sheikh Fadl (TAD D23.1; beginning fifth century BCE; see Lemaire 2005; Holm 2007) and P. Amherst 63, a composite literary text written in Aramaic in demotic script (fourth century BCE; on this text, see now Van der Toorn 2018).

128

Elephantine Revisited

(the Aramaic translation of the Bisitun inscription found at Elephantine is the only one of its kind). As is apparent, the surviving materials—discounting Elephantine—paint a primary picture of Aramaic as an official language promoted by the central and satrapal Achaemenid authorities for the purpose of communication and administration. This picture is wealthy in administrative texts of all kinds from across the empire (Egypt, Palestine, Persia, Babylonia, Bactria) and is supplemented by a large amount of graffiti and a sizeable amount of dedicatory and funerary inscriptions. However, it includes limited information on the use of Aramaic as a literary language, a language of law, and a language of private written communications. Without Elephantine, the evidence for Aramaic as a spoken language would be demonstrable only by the Hermopolis papyri, meaning that we could conclude with some confidence only that Aramaic was the spoken language of the Arameans—who are clearly the people behind these letters. In short, without the evidence of the Elephantine documents, our image of the role of Aramaic in the Achaemenid period would be incomplete. We would not be able to reconstruct the multifaceted character of Aramaic usage in this period to the same degree that we are now capable of doing. Another related issue is that—without Elephantine Aramaic—twentieth-​century scholarship would only slowly have become fully aware of the extent of Aramaic usage in the Achaemenid period, as well as its role in the formation of later dialects of Aramaic. Of course, scholars were cognizant of the role of Aramaic as the language of communication in the successive Neo-​Assyrian, Neo-​Babylonian, and Achaemenid Empires long before the important discoveries of the nineteenth century, and they built their ideas in part around the famous passage in 2 Kgs 18:17–37 (in particular 18:26) and the biblical passages written in Aramaic. Only later were these inferences confirmed by the discovery of texts in several source languages (notably Aramaic, Akkadian, demotic, and Persian).13 In this respect, the early finds from Elephantine played a major role, though many important Aramaic corpora from other locations were also discovered and published in the second part of the twentieth century: the Aršama correspondence in 1954, the Hermopolis papyri in 1966, the texts from North Saqqara in 1983, the Wadi ed-​Daliyeh papyri in 2001, the parchments and wooden sticks from Bactria in 2012, and the ostraca from Idumea.14 Many texts still await final publication, notably the collections of ostraca from Idumea and the tablets from the Persepolis Fortification Archive; each of these collections comprises a number of individual items whose amount surpasses the number of Aramaic texts from Elephantine.15

13.  See Rosenthal 1939, 57–60. Rosenthal describes developments in Aramaic Studies from ca. 1870 onward. 14.  Aršama correspondence: Driver 1954; 1957; Hermopolis papyri: Bresciani and Kamil 1966; North Saqqara documents: Segal 1983; Wadi ed-​Daliyeh papyri: Dušek 2007; Gropp 2001; Bactria: Naveh and Shaked 2012; Idumea: Porten and Yardeni 2014; 2016; 2018; 2020 (a fifth volume is scheduled); Yardeni 2016. In the works by Porten and Yardeni one also finds references to earlier publications of ostraca from Idumea. 15.  According to recent estimates, there are some two-thousand ostraca from Idumea (Lemaire 2017, 474), while the Persepolis Fortification Archive includes some 830 monolingual Aramaic tablets, 250 Aramaic epigraphs on Elamite tablets, and a few dozen Aramaic legends on seals (Azzoni 2017, 455).

The Contribution of Elephantine Aramaic to Aramaic Studies

129

Elephantine, a Linguistic Land of Cockaigne What else makes Elephantine Aramaic so special, and why does Elephantine represent a linguistic Land of Cockaigne? The answer to this has to do with a unique combination of several factors: the antiquity of the material (fifth century BCE), the vast extent and relative state of preservation of the texts, the wide range of attested genres, and the fact that many of the Elephantine documents—in particular legal documents—are dated.16 The fact that the legal documents are dated means that it is possible to pursue specific orthographic, linguistic, and lexical features within legal documents over a period of almost one hundred years. Many changes in orthography, as well as linguistic changes and changes in the use of words and phrases, can thus be detected. In addition, the names of many of the scribes who wrote these documents are also attested.17 This makes it possible to recognize orthographic peculiarities and idiolectal traits of individual scribes, and to identify specific linguistic traits that are shared by several scribes.18 Add to this the fact that many Elephantine documents can be linked to the Judean/Jewish population on the island, and the fact that Achaemenid Egypt—like other satrapies—was an ethnically diverse and multilingual society, and we can easily form a clearer picture of the intricate linguistic situation at Elephantine and its direct surroundings.19 Nor should it be difficult to imagine the challenges that the linguistic situation at Elephantine presents to the linguist. At the same time, the immense value of the Elephantine documents for synchronic and historical linguistics should be immediately apparent. They also represent a treasure-​trove for the study of languages in contact.

Different Varieties of Aramaic At Elephantine, we are witness to the intricate interplay of different varieties of Aramaic. In the first place, we encounter the official, standardized form of Aramaic that was used in the chancelleries of the Achaemenid administration: the so-​called 16.  Legal documents cover the period 495–400 BCE (TAD B5.1 and TAD B4.6 represent the earliest and latest legal documents). Some administrative texts and letters from Elephantine also carry a date. For the dating of these documents, see Porten 1990, 13–32. The latest dated document from Elephantine is a letter dated to 399 BCE (TAD A3.9). 17.  The following scribal names are known from the Elephantine legal documents: Gemaryah bar Aḥio (TAD B4.2), Hošeaʿ bar Hodavyah (TAD B4.4; 4.3), Pelaṭyah bar Aḥio (TAD B2.1), Itu bar Abah (TAD B2.2), Attaršuri bar Nabuzeribni (TAD B2.3; 2.4), Natan bar Ananyah (TAD B2.6; 2.7; 3.1; 3.3), Bunni bar Mannuki (TAD B3.2), Peṭeese bar Nabunatan (TAD B2.8), Maʿuziyah bar Natan bar Ananyah (TAD B3.5; 2.9; 3.8; 2.10), Ḥaggai bar Šemaʿyah (TAD B3.4; 3.6; 3.10; 3.11; 3.12), Rauxšana bar Nergalušezib (TAD B3.9), Nabutukulti bar Nabuzeribni (TAD B2.11), and Šaweram bar Ešemram bar Ešemšezib (TAD B3.13). 18.  On the specific traits of late fifth-​century documents written by “eastern” scribes (with Akkadian or Aramaic patronymics), see Folmer 1995, 718–22. 19.  On the multitude of ethnicities referred to in the Elephantine papyri, see Porten 1968, 29; see also the contribution by Bob Becking in chapter 9 of this volume. On the ethnicon “Bactrian” (bḥtry) in a legal document from Elephantine, see Hoftijzer 1988, 45–48; this document is also of interest with regard to the newly published documents from Bactria (see Naveh and Shaked 2012). On the possible use of ʾrmy (“Aramean”) to indicate the vernacular of Elephantine Judeans/Jews, see Porten 1968, 17. On the cosmopolitan character of Memphis, see Segal 1983, 8.

130

Elephantine Revisited

(Achaemenid) Imperial Aramaic or Official Aramaic. This is the variety of Aramaic that was adopted and propagated by the central Achaemenid administration for the purpose of communicating with speakers of different mother tongues across the Achaemenid Empire (538–332 BCE). It was used alongside a multitude of languages around the empire (there is written documentation for languages that include Old Persian, Babylonian Akkadian, Elamite, Egyptian [demotic], Lydian, Lycian, Phrygian, Phoenician, Greek, Hebrew, and Eastern Iranian; see Folmer 2011, 590). This variety of Aramaic betrays clear evidence of being a standard language: it displays both a resistance to change and a high degree of uniformity in its orthography. There is, for instance, almost no variation in the spelling of */ð/ with {z} in pronouns, such as znh, zk, zyl-, and so on, nor in the spelling of the relative marker zy, even though the merger with dental /d/ was already a fact.20 In the field of the lexicon, even a superficial glimpse at the evidence is enough to recognize the signature of its propagators, the Achaemenid kings. As is well-​ known, the lexicon is reputed for its sensitivity to influence from other languages, and the lexicon of Official Aramaic is jam-​packed with loanwords from Old Persian. These Old Persian loanwords are often of an administrative nature (titles of functionaries, terms for diverse documents). And though it is not as immediately apparent, the imprint of Old Persian is also noticeable in the field of syntax (discussed in the section below on the contribution of Elephantine Aramaic to the historical grammar of Aramaic). A good example from Elephantine of the Official Aramaic used in the satrapal chancelleries is the letter order by Aršama written on papyrus (TAD A6.2). This letter order is very similar to the letter orders by Aršama on parchment that derive from an unknown location in Egypt (end fifth century BCE; probably written in one of the capitals in the east, either Babylon or Susa), as well as the letter orders by Akhvamazda on parchment that were found among the materials from Bactria (datable to the middle of the fourth century BCE).21 Despite their differences, one is struck when reading these letters by the uniformity of their orthography, their language, and their style; this is particularly amazing when one considers the chronological and spatial distance between the letters. This is another clear sign that the higher echelons of the Achaemenid administration used a variety of Aramaic that was not regionally bound and that was—by and large—resistant to changes. Achaemenid Official Aramaic was also used in local chancelleries, such as the one at Elephantine. In these local chancelleries, however, the standard of Official Aramaic was not always met, and it is possible to speak in these instances of an imitation of Official Aramaic. The letters belonging to the Yedanyah archive (among them the famous letters that concern the rebuilding of the Temple of yhw at Elephantine) are a good example of this.22 The Elephantine Aramaic sources also witness to the conservative and formulaic character of legal documents.23 In the dated Elephantine legal documents—which 20.  This is visible in spellings from the seventh century onward. See Folmer 2012, 133. 21.  Letters A1–8 in Naveh and Shaked 2012. For a discussion of the letter formulas in these letters, see Folmer 2017. 22.  Yedanyah archive: TAD A4.1–10. Not all of these letters were written at Elephantine: TAD A4.1 (the letter by Ḥananyah concerning Passover), for instance, was clearly not written at Elephantine. The same is true for TAD A4.2–4. 23.  This is not the right place to enter into discussion on the origin of the legal terms and formulas in the Aramaic documents from Elephantine. Several approaches have been adopted to this question: one that looks at these documents as a self-​contained system, another that looks at them from the perspective of the

The Contribution of Elephantine Aramaic to Aramaic Studies

131

range from 495 until 398 BCE—it is possible to observe that the language of these legal documents lags behind in several aspects with respect to the changes that we see reflected in less formal contemporary documents—such as private letters on papyrus and ostraca—as well as in the official variety of Aramaic. This is particularly true of syntactic and lexical features within fixed formulas. Consider, for instance, the formula ktb PN sprʾ znh, “PN wrote this document.” Both the Old Aramaic word order VerbSub and the Old Aramaic lexeme spr, “written document,” are uncommon outside fixed formulas in Aramaic texts from the Achaemenid period. Turning to the letter ostraca from Elephantine, one observes that a more informal, local idiom also seems to have been used for private communication.24 This idiom was probably used not just for written communication, but for oral communication as well. Occasionally, glimpses of a spoken variant of Aramaic used at Elephantine can be detected in the sources. Some spellings, for instance, betray the influence of the spoken language. Consider the following instances of assimilation, which should be understood as reflections of a phonetic reality: ʿl dbr > ʿdbr /‘addabar/, “on account of ” (TAD B7.1:3); yldty > ylty /yalatti/, “you have given birth” (TAD B3.6:5, 8). The same is true for ʿznh /ʿaddena/ in the draft version of the famous petition (TAD A4.7:20). This was corrected above the line to the standard phrase ʿd znh ywmʾ, “until this day,” which is also preserved in the second draft of the petition (TAD A4.8:19). In sum, Elephantine Aramaic adds considerably to our understanding of various dimensions of Aramaic usage in the Achaemenid period. While many other important contemporary sources of Aramaic attest to the use of Aramaic as an official language of the central Achaemenid administration, Elephantine Aramaic makes clear that Aramaic was also used locally for private communications (in addition to official letters and administrative texts). It also makes clear that Aramaic was used not just for written purposes but as a spoken language, too.

Linguistic Diversity Within Aramaic from the Achaemenid Period Elephantine Aramaic also contributes to our understanding of linguistic diversity within the Aramaic of the Achaemenid period. A good example is provided by the Aḥiqar story and proverbs (TAD C1.1). As is well known, there are linguistic differences between the story and the proverbs.25 In this respect, one of the more remarkable features of the proverbs is the infinitive form of the derived conjugations prefixed with m- rather than with h-/ʾ- (aphel ). This feature of the proverb materials is shared later Aramaic legal tradition, and two additional approaches that adopt an Assyriological and Egyptological perspective. For an overview, see the introductions in Cussini 1993; Botta 2009; see also the preface by Levine in the new edition of Muff’s classic Studies in the Aramaic Legal Papyri from Elephantine (Muffs 2003). In recent years, more attention has been paid to the Egyptological approach. In particular, Botta (2009, 95, 201) argues that the Egyptian legal tradition influenced the Akkadian use of legal formulas through the mediation of the Aramean scribes; this challenges the assumption that the legal tradition in the Elephantine Aramaic papyri was of Mesopotamian origin. For this view, see the preface by Levine in Muffs 2003. 24.  For these documents, see TAD D 7.1–52; Lozachmeur 2006. Lozachmeur distinguishes several scribal hands in the ostraca from the Clermont-​Ganneau collection (Lozachmeur 2006, 145–68). Unfortunately, however, her work lacks a complete paleographic study. 25.  Folmer 1995, 731–41.

132

Elephantine Revisited

not just with Achaemenid Official Aramaic,26 but also with the administrative text that was (mostly) erased in order to make way for the Aḥiqar text (TAD C3.7, Customs Account).27 Both the Aḥiqar proverbs (mnḥtwthm, “bringing them down,” TAD C1.1:170; lmnḥtwth, “to bring it down,” TAD C1.1:171) and the partly erased administrative text underneath it (mnpqh in ksp mnpqh lymʾ, “silver of bringing to the sea,” TAD C3.7 E cols. i:15; ii:6) share this feature with the Hermopolis papyri (lmtyh, “to bring,” TAD A2.4:11; lmytyt, “to bring,” TAD A2.4:11; lmḥth, “to bring down,” TAD A2.5:6; lmwšrthm, “to send them,” TAD A2.2:13). The Hermopolis papyri probably derive from the Memphis area (lh mns ʾnh lh mn mpy, “I will not let him leave Memphis,” TAD A2.2:3) and clearly exhibit some distinctive linguistic characteristics (Folmer 1995, 730–31). It is possible that we are dealing with an older form of the infinitive here, one that most likely derived from a dialect of Aramaic for which we as yet have no documentation.28 Within Aramaic of the Achaemenid period, this infinitive was pushed out by Official Aramaic. Later on, this infinitive resurfaces in many dialects of eastern and western Aramaic (Folmer 1995, 194–95; Fassberg 2007, 250). By then, the older form (without the prefix m-) was largely restricted to the verbal noun (Fassberg 2007, 250).

From a Synchronic to a Diachronic Study of Aramaic As indicated above (see the foregoing section Elephantine, a linguistic Land of Cockaigne), the Elephantine Aramaic legal documents in particular lend themselves to investigation from a diachronic perspective. A good example is supplied by the evidence for the synonymous suppletive verbs yhb and ntn (both “to give”). In order to avoid making things unnecessarily complicated, I will limit the discussion here to the sf. conj. From the Elephantine legal documents, it appears that the distribution of yhb and ntn was not yet settled in the early fifth century BCE. (In later periods, yhb was used for the peal sf. conj., imperative, and participle, and ntn for the peal pref. conj. and infinitive.) In Elephantine legal documents from the early fifth century BCE, both sf. conj. forms of ntn and yhb were used, sometimes even in the same document; in later documents from the fifth century, only the sf. conj. of yhb is used.29 Even though the material is complicated, this is by and large congruent with the evidence from Old Aramaic and the evidence from pre-​Achaemenid Official Aramaic used in Neo-​Assyrian territories. 26.  There is no unequivocal evidence for m- in other derived stem-​formations. 27.  See Folmer 1995, 192–93. Muraoka and Porten assume that the form mnpqh in the Customs Account is an aphel participle; they discuss the form in the context of the alternation of aphel and haphel forms and the assimilation of nun in verbs (GEA 114, 126). Fassberg does not refer to mnqph in his article on the infinitive (Fassberg 2007, 239–56). On the Customs Account, see Folmer 2021. 28.  Fassberg assumes that the infinitive of the derived conjugations with the prefix m- is secondary and was either modeled on the peal infinitive (mqtl) or on the participle of the derived conjugations (Fassberg 2007, 250). 29.  Sf. conj. of ntn: TAD B4.2:1 (dated to 488 BCE); TAD B4.3:12 (dated to 483 BCE). Sf. conj. of yhb: TAD B4.3:1; 5.1:3–6 (dated to 495 BCE). In TAD B4.3, the sf. conj. of yhb and ntn co-​occur. After 483 BCE, the sf. conj. of ntn is no longer used in Elephantine legal documents (Folmer 1995, 641). The sf. conj. of ntn is also found in the oldest known Aramaic legal document from Egypt: TAD B1.1:2, 11–12 (from Korobis; dated to 515 BCE). For a more detailed discussion, including the evidence for the pref. conj. and the evidence for older Aramaic, see Folmer 1995, 641–48.

The Contribution of Elephantine Aramaic to Aramaic Studies

133

Elephantine Aramaic can at times also clarify difficult forms in other texts from the Achaemenid period. For instance, it can help with the interpretation of certain difficult forms of yhb and ntn found in the slightly older Hermopolis letters (end sixth century BCE). On the basis of the Elephantine evidence, a form such as nttn in one of the Hermopolis letters (TAD A2.2:6) can be interpreted with some confidence as a sf. conj. 2nd pers. pl., in addition to forms that can be identified as sf. conj. forms of yhb. The Hermopolis letters thus also demonstrate the co-​occurrence—in the early Achaemenid period—of the sf. conj. of yhb and ntn.

Linking Elephantine Aramaic to Older and Younger Aramaic The complexity and diversity of Elephantine Aramaic—taken alongside other Aramaic texts from the Achaemenid period—is key to the demarcation of Old Aramaic and the Aramaic of the Neo-​Assyrian and Neo-​Babylonian periods. It is also key to the demarcation of Achaemenid and post-​Achaemenid Aramaic (as manifested in Middle Aramaic dialects such as Nabatean, Palmyrene, Hatran, Edessene, and Judean Desert Aramaic). There is not much consensus among scholars as to where the lower limits of Old Aramaic lie; nor is there agreement on the limits of the Neo-​Assyrian and Neo-​ Babylonian varieties of Aramaic; nor is there complete consensus on which texts should be included in our analyses (Fales 2011, 555–73). There is also discussion as to how these varieties of Aramaic developed into the Aramaic varieties attested in the Achaemenid period. Many efforts are geared toward linking the Aramaic of the Achaemenid period to a previous variety of Official Aramaic, and scholars have searched for the precursor to Achaemenid Official Aramaic in the lingua franca and administrative language of either the Neo-​Assyrian period (from the middle of the eighth century until 612 BCE) or the Neo-​Babylonian period (626–538 BCE). It is impossible to consider these theories within the framework of the present contribution, but fundamental to a proper understanding of this discussion is the idea that the linguistic diversity attested in the Achaemenid period already existed in the earliest phases of Aramaic. So far, proposals based on the linguistic evidence for a direct link between these earlier and later phases of Aramaic have not proven convincing and it is necessary to reckon with the possibility that Achaemenid Official Aramaic should be linked to a variety of Aramaic that is at present unknown to us.30 The ongoing discovery of new textual materials also continues to feed discussions about the origins of different Aramaic varieties and the delimitation of the earliest phases of Aramaic.31 Achaemenid period Aramaic is of major importance to understanding the processes that underlay the ramification of Aramaic in the period of Middle Aramaic. To understand the distribution of typical Middle Aramaic morphological innovations (as opposed to retentions of Achaemenid Official Aramaic features, particularly in 30.  See also Beyer (1984, 25, 28), who assumes that Imperial Aramaic arose in the same territory as southeastern Aramaic and “is based on an otherwise unknown form of Ancient Aramaic from Babylonia.” Gzella (2015, 162–63), on the other hand, seems to have no doubts as to the origin of Imperial Aramaic; however, see Folmer 2020, 387. 31.  For a detailed overview, see Fales 2011; see also Folmer 2020.

134

Elephantine Revisited

the field of pronouns and the relative marker) is a true challenge (see especially the endeavors by Edward Cook [1992, 1–21; 1994, 142–56], who sought to understand these innovations using the perspective of a dialect continuum). The retention of Achaemenid Official Aramaic features in Middle Aramaic dialects offers an interesting insight into the perseverance of Official Aramaic as promoted by the Achaemenid rulers deep into the period of Middle Aramaic. This can also be seen in the orthography of these dialects, which preserve the conservative spelling of the Achaemenid administration to different degrees (notably the representation of */n/ before a consonant, dissimilation of doubled consonants through nun, and to a much lesser degree, the archaic spelling {z} for */ḏ/). Among these dialects, Nabatean Aramaic is the closest in spelling and morphology to Achaemenid Official Aramaic (Gzella 2015, 216).

Contribution to the Historical Grammar of Aramaic We have seen that the Aramaic material from Elephantine lends itself to the study of the Aramaic language from a synchronic angle: the material is extensive, it is diverse, and the documents stem from a period of approximately one hundred years. These circumstances make Elephantine Aramaic an invaluable source for the historical grammar of Aramaic. On the basis of Elephantine Aramaic, it is possible to give full-​fledged descriptions of select phonological, morphological, and syntactic features that are of importance both to the history of Aramaic and to the subdivision of Aramaic into dialects. Examples from the field of morphology and (morpho)syntax include: the form of the nota objecti, the infinitives of the derived conjugations, the way in which verbs are linked to their pronominal and direct objects (with a pron. sf. or through l ), determination (as a semantic category, too), word order; the verbal system, the function of the nota objecti l, and the internal structure of noun phrases (attributive noun phrases, as well as genitival constructions, encompassing both the analytical construction, or the so-​called “dī-phrase,” and the synthetic construction, or the so-​called “construct noun phrase”).32 All of these examples are important to the study of the historical grammar of Aramaic, and a fairly large body of research has developed in this field in recent years.33 We are able to observe, for instance, the development of the participle from a nominal form to an integral part of the verbal system. Important work in this area was done by David Cohen in his pioneering study of the nominal clause and the development of the verbal system in the Semitic languages (Cohen 1984). In his chapter dealing with the restructuring of the verbal system—which uses Aramaic as an example—Cohen demonstrates how verbalized participles caused a rearrangement of the verbal system in Neo-​Aramaic. Over the course of time, verbalized participles encroached upon other tenses (perfect and imperfect), laying claim to and limiting their functions. This finally led to the development of a new participle-​based tense (preterite) in dialects of Neo-​Aramaic.34 It is generally acknowledged that this construction 32.  Some of these topics are treated in Folmer 1995; see also Folmer 2008, 131–58. 33.  See, for example, Pat-​El 2012; Grassi 2013. 34.  See Kapeliuk 2011, 745. On the restructuring of the verbal system in Neo-​Aramaic, see Hopkins 1989, 413–32. Hopkins deals in particular with the extension of the preterite qtīl-​lī, “I killed” (< “is killed

The Contribution of Elephantine Aramaic to Aramaic Studies

135

in Aramaic can be attributed to contact with Old and Middle Persian (which share this feature). The first known example of this in Aramaic comes from a letter found at Elephantine (TAD A3.3:13; dated to the second quarter of the fifth century BCE; written from Migdol in the delta).35

Elephantine Aramaic and the Official Documents in the Biblical Book of Ezra The Yedanyah communal archive of official letters (TAD A4.1–10) has had a pronounced influence on how we look at the official letters included in the biblical book of Ezra. Many scholars today (if not most) are in agreement that the letters in the biblical book reflect originals from the Achaemenid period—though heavily edited and with a Masoretic punctuation appended.36 This editing process has affected—among other things—the spelling of the letters in Ezra. It is clear, for instance, that the spelling was updated: {ʿ} for */ś/;̣ {d} for */ð/; {t} for */θ/; {ṭ} for */θ�/. (The older spellings {q} for */ś ̣/; {z} for */ð/; {š} for */θ/ and {ṣ} for */θ̣/ were banished from Biblical Aramaic, though they still occur in the Elephantine documents from the fifth century.) Further points of interest are provided by the pron. sf. of the 3rd pers. pl. m. In this respect, the Biblical Aramaic of Ezra witnesses to both older (-hm) and younger spellings (-hwn), but the relative frequency of the older form -hm is significantly higher in the official documents (eight) than in the narrative portions of Ezra (three), while the younger form -hwn occurs with greater frequency in the narrative (eleven) than in the quoted documents (four).37 In addition to the spelling, the wording of the letters was amended by the early editors of these documents. The documents are not quoted in their entirety, while the letter formulas found in the Biblical Aramaic documents betray certain oddities when compared with the letters from Elephantine.38 As such, the biblical letters cannot be original in their present form, though they probably go back to original documents or prototypes written in Aramaic.39

by me”; based on the passive participle of a transitive verb) to intransitive verbs in Jewish Neo-​Aramaic dialects of Iranian Kurdistan (Eastern Neo-​Aramaic). 35.  Sophisticated refinements and adjustments were later made to Cohen’s initial description by Rubin in his work on grammaticalization in the Semitic languages (Rubin 2005) and Li in his description of the verbal system of Daniel (Li 2009). Li also incorporates the notion of grammaticalization into his work. (Grammaticalization is the process by which lexical items and constructions come to serve new linguistic functions.) In recent years, the participle-​based tense (preterite) in Neo-​Aramaic has been the subject of several studies, both from a historical perspective (Coghill 2016) and from a more synchronic perspective (Noorlander 2018). On the verbal system in Imperial Aramaic in general, see also Gzella 2004. 36.  Proponents of this view include Porten 1978–79, while its opponents include Schwiderski 2000, 343–82. For an overview and critical discussion of the different scholarly positions, see Steiner 2006, 641–85. 37.  See Folmer 1995, 150–51. The evidence for the 2nd pers. pl. m. pronoun is insufficient at this point; its spelling is usually -km in the book of Ezra (Ezra 5:3, 9; 7:17, 18, 24). In Ezra 7:21, -kwn occurs as an object sf. 38.  See Folmer 1995, 627–28, 754–55. 39.  This is witnessed by their inclusion in the first volume of TAD (Porten and Yardeni 1986). See also Grabbe 2006, 531–70.

136

Elephantine Revisited

To What Extent Did the Elephantine Judeans Know Hebrew? It is well known that the bilingual character of many classical works of Judaism is tied up in the vicissitudes of Hebrew and Aramaic in the Neo-​Assyrian, Neo-​Babylonian, and Achaemenid periods. The decline of Hebrew is more or less inversely proportional to the rise of Aramaic, and especially so in the period of the Babylonian captivity. Our earliest direct witnesses to the use of both Hebrew and Aramaic in writing are represented by the small body of Aramaic literature in the Hebrew Bible (especially in the books of Ezra and Daniel; see also Jer. 10:11). This raises the question: to what degree did the Elephantine Judeans possess a working knowledge of Hebrew? Were they bilingual? Did they read Hebrew? And were they familiar with parts of the religious literary tradition in Hebrew? It is difficult—perhaps even impossible—to point to a substantial Hebrew influence on Elephantine Aramaic.40 The infinitive form lʾmr, whose expected Official Aramaic form would be lmʾmr, appears in legal documents and in letters. And though this form is sometimes accounted for with reference to Hebrew influence, lʾmr is easier to explain as a relic of an older phase of Aramaic (Folmer 1995, 190; see also Folmer 2020). The Official Aramaic lʾmr functions to introduce direct speech (see Folmer 1995, 189–90).41 If in fact Hebrew had any influence on Elephantine Aramaic, it may have been primarily lexical—as in Qumran Aramaic—in the form of loanwords.42 Muraoka and Porten, however, do not list a single Hebrew loanword in their grammar of Egyptian Aramaic (GEA, 342–54). This may be because Hebrew loanwords in Aramaic are often difficult to recognize.43 Nevertheless, there are several nouns in the Elephantine documents that could be considered Hebrew borrowings. As with Qumran Aramaic, these possible Hebrew loanwords are all religious terms:44 mnḥh, “meal-​offering” (TAD A4.7:25 mḥtʾ; A4.9:9 mnḥtʾ), psḥ, “Pesach,” and the Aramaicized form šbh, “Sabbath.”45 In Elephantine Aramaic, the last two words are only found in ostraca.46 In addition to the preceding lexemes, we also encounter an instance of a static form 40.  As far as I know, Hebrew influence on Elephantine Aramaic has not been investigated in any systematic fashion. Stadel (2008) has investigated possible Hebrew loanwords in Qumran Aramaic. 41.  An advocate for Hebrew influence on this point is Miller (2006, 123). Her position has been criticized by Pat-​El (2012, 160). The latter points to a functional parallel in Egyptian where the infinitive of r-ḏd, “to say” is likewise used as a marker of direct speech. 42.  Stadel (2008, 126) points to the fact that most of the influence of Hebrew on Qumran Aramaic takes the form of loanwords. In many cases, these lexical borrowings are religious terms. There is relatively little evidence for Hebrew influence on the syntax and morphology of Qumran Aramaic (Stadel 2008, 138). 43.  See also Stadel 2008, 5–9. 44.  mrzḥ, “religious guild, confraternity” (TAD D7.29:3) is almost certainly not a Hebrew loanword: in addition to Jewish Aramaic, it is also found in Palmyrene and Nabatean Aramaic (see DNWSI, s.v. “mrzḥ”). 45. Stadel (2008, 126) identified mnḥh in Qumran Aramaic (1QapGenar cols. x:16; xxi:2.20; Fitzmyer 2004, 16, 104) as a Hebrew loanword. Cook (2015, 144) doubts Stadel’s conclusion, however, and points to non-​Jewish Aramaic attestations of the word; unfortunately, he does not refer to any source. The noun šbtʾ, both “Sabbath” and “week” (and in the specifically Christian context of the week before Easter) is also attested outside Jewish Aramaic: in Syriac (SyrLex, s.v. “[šbtʾ]”), in Christian Palestinian Aramaic (DCPA, s.v. “[šbtʾ]”), and in Mandaic (MD, s.v. “šapta 1”). The noun psḥ, “Passover of the Jews” is found in Syriac (SyrLex, s.v. “[psḥ]”; < πάσχα and Hebrew ‫ )ּפֶסַ ח‬and in Christian Palestinian Aramaic (DCPA, s.v. “[psḥ]”). The denominative verb pṣḥ, “to jump over, cross over,” “to celebrate Passover, Easter” is also attested in these varieties of Aramaic (SyrLex, s.v. “[psḥ] 1”; < Hebrew). 46.  DNWSI, s.v. “psḥ1” and “šbh2.”

The Contribution of Elephantine Aramaic to Aramaic Studies

137

borrowed from Hebrew: the noun ṣbʾt in the noun phrase yhh ṣbʾt (Clermont-​Ganneau nos. 167, 175 [=J8], 186). This noun phrase mirrors the Hebrew noun phrase ‫יהוה צבאות‬, with the spelling of the divine name adapted to local practice.47 The word ṣbʾt is obviously a Hebrew lexeme with the Hebrew inflectional element -t that was borrowed in its entirety from Hebrew into Aramaic. All of the foregoing cases concern nonbasic nouns (content words), which are the easiest linguistic items to be borrowed (Thomason 2011, 69). Nor should it come as a surprise that all the lexical items borrowed from Hebrew belong to the semantic domain of religion. Nevertheless, the presence of these Hebrew loanwords does not provide us with any information about the extent to which the Judean population of Elephantine possessed an active or a passive command of spoken or written Hebrew idioms. One morphosyntactic feature that does need to be considered here is the noun phrase that appears in the oath formula ḥy lyhh, “by (the) life of yhh.” Because the only evidence for this phrase in Elephantine Aramaic is found in ostraca, André Lemaire may be right that it was typical of spoken language at Elephantine (see chapter 5 in this volume; see also Dupont-​Sommer 1947, 188).48 In Biblical Hebrew and in Hebrew ostraca from the First Temple period, the construct noun phrase is found instead (ḥy yhwh in Lachish ostraca nos. 2:9; 6:12 [ḥyhwh]; 12:3).49 The genitive construction with the preposition l in the Elephantine Aramaic letter ostraca (ḥy lyhh) was probably modeled on the Hebrew construction and adapted (ḥy aside) to Aramaic (genitive construction with l; divine name yhh).50 Because of this adaptation, however, ḥy lyhh cannot be interpreted as a case of (intra-​sentential) code-​switching, a possible indicator of a bilingual situation. It is telling that not a single fragment of Hebrew has been discovered among the numerous Aramaic papyri. In my view, the evidence at present does not permit a nuanced response to questions about the extent to which the Judeans of Elephantine knew Hebrew. It is possible to imagine that, for ordinary Judeans at Elephantine, knowledge of Hebrew did not extend much further beyond a basic knowledge necessary to the performance of religious duties. The question of the origin of the Elephantine Judean community (in terms of both time and place) would also have a bearing on any answer to these queries. Future discoveries will hopefully illuminate these matters. 47.  yhh is the regular spelling of the divine name in the Elephantine letter ostraca (Lozachmeur 2006, 519). Outside these ostraca, yhh is only found twice in Elephantine Aramaic, in two legal documents written by the scribe Nathan bar Ananyah (TAD B2.7:14 [446 BCE]; TAD B3.3:2 [449 BCE]). The more common spelling of the divine name in Elephantine Aramaic is yhw. 48.  Clermont-​Ganneau nos. 14, 20, 41, 56, 152 (twice), 174, 185, 214, X16, J8; see Dupont-​Sommer 1947; Lozachmeur 2006, 528–29. These oaths differ from the assertory oaths found in legal documents from Elephantine. 49.  For a recent discussion of the construction ḥy yhwh in Biblical Hebrew, see Conklin 2011, 24–30 (with references to previous literature). Despite its vocalization, Biblical Hebrew ḥy yhwh is a construct noun phrase (Conklin 2011, 25–26). Conklin does not remark on the different construction of the phrase in the Elephantine letter ostraca. 50.  It is unlikely that hn lʾ, which occurs in several oath formulas in letter ostraca from Elephantine, reflects Hebrew ʾm lʾ. The appearance of conditional formulations in oaths is not only typical of Biblical Hebrew but also occurs in Ugaritic (RS 94.2284:12–13) and in the Hadad inscription from ancient Samʾal (KAI no. 214:29). For obvious reasons, personal names of Hebrew origin neither prove nor disprove an active or passive command of spoken or written Hebrew on the part of the Elephantine Judeans. On the absence of Hebrew texts among the Elephantine sources, see the contributions by André Lemaire (chapter 5) and Bob Becking (chapter 9) to this volume.

138

Elephantine Revisited

Concluding Remarks I have tried above to show how Elephantine has contributed to Aramaic Studies, though a comprehensive overview was by no means within the purview of this contribution. The foregoing represents a single scholar’s personal impression, larded with examples. I like to picture Elephantine Aramaic as a precious stone strung along the three-thousand-year-​old bracelet of Aramaic. It is as though we were examining this gem through a magnifying glass; the gem exposes itself through the glass in beautiful detail. At times, new gems are added to the bracelet. Sometimes the gems of old surprise us with something new. All of these precious stones deserve our attention, and from time to time the whole bracelet needs to be reassessed in all of its complexity. References Azzoni, A. 2017. “The Empire as Visible in the Aramaic Documents from Persepolis.” Pages 455–68 in Die Verwaltung im Achämenidenreich: Imperiale Muster und Strukturen. Akten des 6. Internationalen Kolloquiums zum Thema “Vorderasien im Spannungsfeld klassischer und altorientalischer Überlieferungen” aus Anlass der 80-Jahr-​Feier der Entdeckung des Festungsarchivs von Persepolis, Landgut Castelen bei Basel, 14.–17. Mai 2013. Edited by B. Jacobs, W. F. M. Henkelman, and M. W. Stolper. Classica et Orientalia 17. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Beyer, K. 1984. Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer samt der Inschriften aus Palästina, dem Testament Levis aus der Kairoer Genisa, der Fastenrolle und den alten talmudischen Zitaten. Volume 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 1994. Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer samt der Inschriften aus Palästina, dem Testament Levis aus der Kairoer Genisa, der Fastenrolle und den alten talmudischen Zitaten. Volume 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 2004. Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer samt der Inschriften aus Palästina, dem Testament Levis aus der Kairoer Genisa, der Fastenrolle und den alten talmudischen Zitaten. Supplementary volume. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Botta, A. F. 2009. Aramaic and Egyptian Legal Traditions at Elephantine: An Egyptological Approach. LSTS 64. London: T&T Clark. Bresciani, E. 1960. “Papiri aramaici egiziani di epoca persiana presso il Museo Civico di Padova.” RSO 35:11–24. Bresciani, E., and M. Kamil. 1966. Le lettere aramaiche di Hermopoli. Atti dell’Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Memorie della classe di science morali, storiche e filologiche VIII 12/5. Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Coghill, E. 2016. The Rise and Fall of Ergativity in Aramaic: Cycles of Alignment Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cohen, D. 1984. La phrase nominale et l’évolution du système verbal en Sémitique: Études de syntaxe historique. Leuven: Peeters. Conklin, B. 2011. Oath Formulas in Biblical Hebrew. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Cook, E. M. 1992. “Qumran Aramaic and Aramaic Dialectology.” Pages 1–21 in Studies in Qumran Aramaic. Edited by T. Muraoka. AbrNSup 3. Leuven: Peeters. ———. 1994. “A New Perspective on the Language of Onqelos and Jonathan.” Pages 142–56 in The Aramaic Bible: Targums in Their Historical Context. Edited by D. R. G. Beattie and M. J. McNamara. Sheffield: JSOT Press. ———. 2015. Dictionary of Qumran Aramaic. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Cussini, E. 1993. “The Aramaic Law of Sale and the Cuneiform Legal Tradition.” Ph.D. diss., Johns Hopkins University. Driver, G. R. 1954. Aramaic Documents of the Fifth Century B.C. Oxford: Clarendon.

The Contribution of Elephantine Aramaic to Aramaic Studies

139

———. 1957. Aramaic Documents of the Fifth Century B.C. Rev. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dupont-​Sommer, A. 1947. “ ‘Yahôʾ et ‘Yahô-Ṣebaʾôt’ sur des ostraca araméens inédits d’Éléphantine.” CRAI: 175–91. Dušek, J. 2007. Les manuscrits araméens du Wadi Daliyeh et la Samarie vers 350–332 av. J.-C. Leiden: Brill. Fales, F. M. 1986. Aramaic Epigraphs on Clay Tablets of the Neo-​Assyrian Period. Rome: Università Degli Studi “La sapienza.” ———. 2011. “Old Aramaic.” Pages 555–73 in Semitic Languages: An International Handbook. Edited by S. Weninger, G. Khan, M. P. Streck, and J. C. E. Watson. HSK 36. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. Fassberg, S. E. 2007. “Infinitival Forms in Aramaic.” Pages 239–56 in Historical Linguistics 2005: Selected Papers from the 17th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Madison, Wisconsin, 31 July–5 August 2005. Edited by J. C. Salmons and S. Dubenion-​ Smiths. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Fitzmyer, J. A. 2004. The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1 (1Q20): A Commentary. Biblica et Orientalia 18/B. 3rd ed. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Folmer, M. L. 1995. The Aramaic Language in the Achaemenid Period: A Study in Linguistic Variation. OLA 68. Leuven: Peeters. ———. 2008. “The Use and Form of the Nota Objecti in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic Inscriptions.” Pages 131–58 in Aramaic in its Historical and Linguistic Setting. Edited by H. Gzella and M. L. Folmer. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ———. 2011. “Imperial Aramaic as Administrative Language of the Achaemenid Period.” Pages 587–98 in Semitic Languages: An International Handbook. Edited by S. Weninger, G. Khan, M. P. Streck, and J. C. E. Watson. HSK 36. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. ———. 2012. “Old and Imperial Aramaic.” Pages 128–59 in Languages from the World of the Bible. Edited by H. Gzella. Boston: de Gruyter. ———. 2017. “Bactria and Egypt: Administration as Mirrored by the Aramaic Sources.” Pages 413–54 in Die Verwaltung im Achämenidenreich: Imperiale Muster und Strukturen; Akten des 6. Internationalen Kolloquiums zum Thema “Vorderasien im Spannungsfeld klassischer und altorientalischer Überlieferungen” aus Anlass der 80-Jahr-​Feier der Entdeckung des Festungsarchivs von Persepolis, Landgut Castelen bei Basel, 14.–17. Mai 2013. Edited by B. Jacobs, W. F. M. Henkelman, and M. W. Stolper. Classica et Orientalia 17. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ———. 2020. “Aramaic as Lingua Franca.” Pages 373–99 in A Companion to Near Eastern Languages. Edited by R. Hasselbach-​Andee. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. ———. 2021. “Taxation of Ships and Their Cargo in an Aramaic Papyrus from Egypt (TAD C3.7).” Pages 261–99 in Taxation in the Achaemenid Empire. Edited by K. Kleber. Classica et Orientalia 26. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Grabbe, L. L. 2006. “The ‘Persian Documents’ in the Book of Ezra: Are they Authentic?” Pages 531–70 in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period: Negotiating Identity in an International Context. Edited by O. Lipschits and M. Oeming. Winnona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Grassi, G. F. 2013. “Analytical and Synthetic Genitive Constructions in Old, Imperial and Epigraphic Middle Aramaic.” Pages 375–434 in Schrift und Sprache. Edited by R. G. Lehmann and A. E. Zernecke. KUSATU 15. Kamen: Spenner. Gropp, D. 2001. Wadi Daliyeh II: The Samaria Papyri from Wadi Daliye. DJD 28. Oxford: Clarendon. Gross, A. D. 2008. Continuity and Innovation in the Aramaic Legal Tradition. JSJSup 128. Leiden: Brill. Gzella, H. 2004. Tempus, Aspekt und Modalität im Reichsaramäischen. VOK 80. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ———. 2015. A Cultural History of Aramaic. HdO 111. Leiden: Brill. Hoftijzer, J. 1988. “An Unpublished Aramaic Fragment from Elephantine.” OMRO 68:45–48.

140

Elephantine Revisited

Holm, T. 2007. “The Sheikh Fadl Inscription in Its Literary and Historical Context.” Aramaic Studies 5:193–224. Honroth, W., O. Rubensohn, and F. Zucker. 1909–10. “Bericht über die Ausgrabungen auf Elephantine in den Jahren 1906–1908.” ZÄS 46:14–61. Hopkins, S. 1989. “Neo-​Aramaic Dialects and the Formation of the Preterite.” JSS 34:4 13–32. Kapeliuk, O. 2011. “Language Contact Between Aramaic Dialects and Iranian.” Pages 738–47 in Semitic Languages: An International Handbook. Edited by S. Weninger, G. Khan, M. P. Streck, and J. C. E. Wattson. HSK 36. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. Kraeling, E. G. 1953. The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri: New Documents of the Fifth Century B.C. from the Jewish Colony at Elephantine. New Haven: Yale University Press. Lemaire, A. 1995. “Les inscriptions araméennes de Cheikh-​Fadl (Égypte).” Pages 77–132 in Studia Aramaica: New Sources and New Approaches. Edited by M. J. Geller, J. C. Greenfield, and M. P. Weitzman. JSSSup 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 2017. “The Idumaean Ostraca as Evidence of Local Imperial Administration.” Pages 469–88 in Die Verwaltung im Achämenidenreich: Imperiale Muster und Strukturen. Akten des 6. Internationalen Kolloquiums zum Thema “Vorderasien im Spannungsfeld klassischer und altorientalischer Überlieferungen” aus Anlass der 80-Jahr-​Feier der Entdeckung des Festungsarchivs von Persepolis, Landgut Castelen bei Basel, 14.–17. Mai 2013. Edited by B. Jacobs, W. F. M. Henkelman, and M. W. Stolper. Classica et Orientalia 17. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Li, T. 2009. The Verbal System of the Aramaic of Daniel: An Explanation in the Context of Grammaticalization. SAIS 8. Leiden: Brill. Lozachmeur, H. 2006. La collection Clermont-​Ganneau: Ostraca, épigraphes sur jarre, étiquettes de bois. 2 vols. MAIBL 35. Paris: de Boccard. Miller, C. L. 2006. “Variation of Direct Speech Complementizers in Achaemenid Aramaic Documents from Fifth Century B.C.E. Egypt.” Pages 119–43 in Variation and Reconstruction. Edited by T. D. Cravens. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Muffs, Y. 2003. Studies in the Aramaic Legal Papyri from Elephantine, with Prolegomenon by Baruch A. Levine. HdO 66. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill. Muraoka, T. 2012. An Introduction to Egyptian Aramaic. LOS 3/1. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Naveh, J., and S. Shaked. 2012. Aramaic Documents from Ancient Bactria (Fourth Century BCE) from the Khalili Collections. London: Khalili Family Trust. Noorlander, P. 2018. “Alignment in Eastern Neo-​Aramaic Languages from a Typological Perspective.” Ph.D. diss., Leiden University. Oelsner, J. 2006. “Aramäische Beischriften auf neu- und spätbabylonische Tontafeln.” WO 36:27–71. Pat-​El, N. 2012. Studies in the Historical Syntax of Aramaic. PLAL 1. Piscataway: Gorgias. Porten, B. 1968. Archives from Elephantine: The Life of an Ancient Jewish Military Colony. Berkely: University of California Press. ———. 1978–79. “The Documents in the Book of Ezra and Ezra’s Mission” (Hebrew). Shnaton 3:174–96. ———. 1990. “The Calendar of Aramaic Texts from Achaemenid and Ptolemaic Egypt.” Pages 13–32 in volume 2 of Irano-​Judaica: Studies Relating to Jewish Contacts with Persian Culture Throughout the Ages. Edited by S. Shaked and A. Netzer. 7 vols. Jerusalem: Ben Zvi Institute. ———. 1992. “Elephantine Papyri.” ABD 2:445–55. Porten, B., J. J. Farber, C. J. Martin, G. Vittmann, L. S. B. MacCoull, S. Clackson, S. Hopkins, and R. Katzoff. 2011. The Elephantine Papyri in English: Three Millennia of Cross-​Cultural Continuity and Change. DMOA 22. 2nd rev. ed. Leiden: Brill. Porten, B., and A. Yardeni. 1986–99. A Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt. 4 vols. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. ———. 2014. Textbook of Aramaic Ostraca from Idumea, volume 1, Dossiers 1–10: 401 Commodity Chits. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

The Contribution of Elephantine Aramaic to Aramaic Studies

141

———. 2016. Textbook of Aramaic Ostraca from Idumea, volume 2, Dossiers 11–50: 265 Commodity Chits. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. ———. 2018. Textbook of Aramaic Ostraca from Idumea, volume 3, Dossiers 51–255a and fragments: 488 Commodity Chits. University Park, PA: Eisenbrauns. ———. 2020. Textbook of Aramaic Ostraca from Idumea, volume 4, Dossiers B–G. University Park, PA: Eisenbrauns. Rosenthal, F. 1939. Die aramaistische Forschung seit Th. Nöldeke’s Veröffentlichungen. Leiden: Brill. Reprint, Leiden: Brill, 1964. ———. 1978. “Aramaic Studies During the Past Thirty Years.” JNES 37:81–91. Rubin, A. D. 2005. Studies in Semitic Grammaticalization. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Sachau, E. 1911. Aramäische Papyrus und Ostraka aus einer jüdischen Militär-​Kolonie zu Elephantine. Altorientalische Sprachdenkmäler des 5. Jahrhunderts vor Chr. 2 vols. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Sayce, A. H., and A. E. Cowley. 1906. Aramaic Papyri Discovered at Assuan. London: Moring. Schwiderski, D. 2000. Handbuch des nordwestsemitischen Briefformulars: Ein Beitrag zur Echtheitsfrage der aramäischen Briefe des Esrabuches. Berlin: de Gruyter. ———. 2004. Die alt- und reichsaramäischen Inschriften, volume 2, Texte und Bibliographie. Berlin: de Gruyter. Segal, J. B. 1983. Aramaic Texts from North Saqqâra, with Some Fragments in Phoenician. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Stadel, C. 2008. Hebräismen in den aramäischen Texten vom Toten Meer. Schriften der Hochschule für Jüdische Studien Heidelberg 11. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter. Steiner, R. C. 2006. “Bishlam’s Archival Search Report in Nehemiah’s Archive: Multiple Introductions and Reverse Chronological Order as Clues to the Origin of the Aramaic Letters in Ezra 4–6.” JBL 125:641–85. Thomason, S. G. 2001. Language Contact. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Toorn, K. van der. 2018. Papyrus Amherst 63. AOAT 448. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Yardeni, A. 2016. The Jeselsohn Collection of Aramaic Ostraca from Idumea. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-​Zvi Press.

Chapter 11

Personal Names in New Aramaic Ostraca from Syene Bezalel Porten and André Lemaire

with contributions by Beatrice von Pilgrim and Ran Zadok and handcopies by Ada Yardeni ‫ז״ל‬ In a stretch of three seasons (ninth, twelfth, and thirteenth), fourteen Aramaic ostraca were discovered at Syene (see the contribution by Cornelius von Pilgrim in chapter 1 of this volume). They fall into five groups, some found alone and some together. Found alone were nos. 1, 14, and 15. Found together in two groups were nos. 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, and 12 in one group and nos. 3, 4, 6/7, 11, and 13 in another. These ostraca are unique for several reasons. First, all but one (no. 13) are written on the convex (outer) side, whereas most of the Elephantine ostraca were begun, or wholly written, on the concave (inner) side. Second, with a couple of exceptions (nos. 1, 15), the ostraca all contain personal names, mostly just a single name (nos. 2–5, 8–12, 14), two with a name and presumably a patronymic (nos. 7 and 13), and one with names written on both sides (nos. 6/7). Of some 420 Aramaic ostraca found at Elephantine (TAD D7–TAD D11; Lozachmeur 2006; see also Röllig 2013), a bare handful contain just a name and patronymic. These names are written either on a single line—Yedanyah son of Hoš[ayah]/Hošeaʿ (ydnyh br hwšʿ[, TAD D9.7) and Gemaryah son of M[. . .] (gmryh br m[, TAD D9.8)—or they are written on two lines—Islaḥ son of Gaddul (yslḥ br gdwl, TAD D9.6), Yedanyah son of Yešaʿyah (ydnyh br yšʿyh, Lozachmeur 2006, no. X12), and Peṭekhnum son of Micah (pṭḥnm br mykh, Lozachmeur 2006, no. 259), with br coming at the beginning of the second line (Lozachmeur 2006, no. 259) or at the end of the first line (TAD D9.6; Lozachmeur 2006, no. X12). Third, the names on our ostraca are Neo-Assyrian (nos. 2–6), NeoBabylonian (no. 7), Persian (nos. 8–9), Phoenician (nos. 10–12), and West Semitic (nos. 13–14). While the latter names may be Jewish, the presence of Phoenician names—otherwise unknown in the Elephantine papyri and ostraca—as well as the presence of Neo-Assyrian names, which must go back to the decade of Assyrian rule in Egypt in the middle of the seventh century, is striking. Fourth, one of the ostraca (no. 1) contains a formula not found in any other ostracon. To understand this text fully, we must undertake a complete survey of the terms used to describe the various ethnic groups at Elephantine and Syene.1

1.  The most recent, comprehensive treatment of the question of ethnicity at Elephantine is Van der Toorn 2019, 30–41.

142

Personal Names in New Aramaic Ostraca from Syene

143

1. Ostracon 9-46-139-7/2 (Figure 11.1; Plate 1) Fragment of amphora—height 4.1 cm; width 7.6 cm; thickness 0.6 cm—inscription at the outside—Marl A41—semi-hard—section: 2.5YR7/6—surface outside:10YR8/3, slightly wet smoothed; inside: 5YR8/3, untreated.2 Line 3′: . . .]y zy yb ldgl wryzt, “] . . . , of Elephantine of the detachment of Varyazata” The Aramaic papyri from Elephantine speak of “Jew of Elephantine” (yhwdy zy yb) and “Aramean of Syene” (ʾrmy zy swn). This indicates that the Jewish garrison was stationed on the island, where indeed there existed a temple to the Jewish God yhw, and the Aramean garrison on the mainland. However, these terms were fluid, and we have several examples of a Jew being called an “Aramean of Syene.” In fact, one and the same person might be called both. Moreover, a person was identified not only by his place of residence but also by his detachment. Thus, Maḥseyah son of Yedanyah, the father of the well-to-do woman Mibtaḥyah, bore several designations over a period of twenty-five years: 1. In 471  BCE, he  is designated “Aramean of Syene of the detachment of Varyazata” (ʾrmy zy swn ldgl wryzt, TAD B2.1:3). 2. In 464 BCE, he is designated “Jew in the fortress of Elephantine of the detachment of Varyazata” (yhwdy zy bbyrt yb ldgl wryzt, TAD B2.2:3–4). 3. In 459 BCE, he is still designated Jew but of a different detachment: “Jew, hereditary-property-holder in Elephantine the fortress of the detachment of Haumadata” (yhwdy mhḥsn byb byrtʾ ldgl hwmdt, TAD B2.3:1–2); “Jew of Elephantine of the detachment of Haumadata” (yhwdy zy yb ldgl hwmdt, TAD B2.4:1–2). 4. Then in 449 and 446 BCE he reverts to “Aramean of Syene of the detachment of Varyazata” (ʾrmy zy swn ldgl wryzt, TAD B2.6:2–3; 2.7:1–2). 5. Six years later (440 BCE), his daughter Mibtaḥyah bears the same designation as her father, namely, “Aramean of Syene of the detachment of Varyazata” (ʾrmyʾ zy swn ldgl wryzt, TAD B2.8:2–3). 6. Finally, in 410 BCE, Mibtaḥyah’s sons Maḥseyah and Yedanyah, are likewise designated “Arameans of Syene of the detachment of Var[yaza]ta” (ʾrmyn zy swn ldgl wr[yz]t). Apparently they are the grandsons of their namesake Maḥseyah bar Yedanyah (TAD B2.11:2). There are also five distinct examples of Jews being called “Aramean of Elephantine the fortress of the detachment of PN” (ʾrmy zy yb byrtʾ ldgl . . .) or “Aramean hereditary-property- holder in Elephantine the fortress” (ʾrmy mhḥsn byb byrtʾ). The earliest example dates to the year 446 BCE (TAD B6.1:2 [no name]); the others date between 420 and 400 BCE (TAD B2.10:2; 3.8:1–2; 3.12:2–3; 4.6:2; 7.2:2–3). 2.  Description of shards provided by Beatrice von Pilgrim. Fabric classification after Aston 1999, 2–9.

144

Elephantine Revisited

Finally, we note how Syene (swn) can appear as a gentilic and goes hand in hand with both Aramean and Elephantine in the gentilic forms swnkn / swnknn.3 There are two pertinent texts. One is a fragmentary contract that designates the Jew Mattan son of Yašobyah as “an Aramean, a Syenian of the detachment of [PN]” (ʾrmy swnkn ldgl [. . .], TAD B5.2:2). The other is a list of five leaders of the Jewish community who are called “Syenians who are heredi[tary-property-hol]ders in Elephantine the fortress” (swnknn zy byb byrtʾ mh[ḥs]nn, TAD A4.10:6). Returning now to our text—“. . . of Elephantine of the detachment of Varyazata” (. . .]y zy yb ldgl wryzt)—the question arises, “How should we restore the preceding ethnicon, preserved only with the final letter yod? Jew (yhwdy) or Aramean (ʾrmy)?” There are five Jews tagged “Aramean of Elephantine” and ten persons tagged “Aramean of Syene” (Porten and Lund 2002, 439). Of these latter, only two are nonJews—Pakhnum son of Besa and PN son of Nanaišuri (TAD B3.13:2; 4.7:1 [papyrus from Saqqarah]). But five more ethnic groups also appear; three are parties to contracts (Caspians, Khwarezmians, and Bactrians) and two appear merely as witnesses (Babylonians and Medians). In 437 BCE, Bagazušta, “a Caspian of the detachment of Namasava” (kspy ldgl nmsw) and his wife Wbyl, “a Caspian of Syene of the detachment of Namasava” (kspyh zy swn ldgl nmsw) are mentioned (TAD B3.4:2). In 434 BCE, both appear together as “Caspians of Elephantine the fortress” (kspyn zy yb byrtʾ, TAD B3.5:3–4). Though Wbyl was the daughter of Šatibara, who had a house in Elephantine (TAD B3.4:2, 8), she was located in Syene, but three years later she joined her husband’s location in Elephantine. The Khwarezmians and Bactrians also inhabited Elephantine. Both were affiliated to a detachment and both have a similar designation for locus: “Dargamana . . . a Khwarezmian whose place is made (= fixed) in Elephantine the fortress of the detachment of Artabanu” (drgmn . . . ḥrzmy zy ʾtrh byb byrtʾ ʿbyd ldgl ʾrtbnw (TAD B2.2:2–3; 464 BCE), and “[Ba]rznarava . . . a Bactrian whose place is made (= fixed) in Elephantine the fortress of the detachment of Marya” ([b]rznrw . . . bḥtry zy ʾtrh byb byrtʾ ʿbyd ldgl mry, TAD D2.12:2–3; 403 BCE). The texts were written sixty years apart, but the formula remained the same. Finally, in that contract drawn up for Dargamana in 464 BCE (in Syene!), one of the eight witnesses is Hadadnuri (TAD B2.2:19). Though his name is Aramaic, he is designated “the Babylonian” (bblyʾ). And in a contract drawn up in Elephantine in 427 BCE (TAD B3.6:16–17), one of the four witnesses is Atrfarna son of Nisaya, a Mede (mdy). Given all these parallels, the missing ethnicon could either be Jew (yhwdy), Aramean (ʾrmy), or Caspian (kspy). But if Aramean, the bearer would doubtless be a Jew. He would not be a Khwarezmian or a Bactrian. Moreover, we do not know the detachment affiliation of the Babylonians and Medes. It needs to be noted that all these formulas appear in only one spot: in the second line of a contract, the first line being taken up by the date. So we suggest that our line, appearing at the bottom of an ostracon, was a draft for a contract by a Jew of Elephantine to be drawn up in Syene. One of the contracts cited above (TAD B2.2:3–4, 16–17) would fit the bill almost perfectly—it was drawn up by the Aramean scribe Itu son of Abah in Syene in 464 BCE between the Jew Maḥseyah and Dargamana the 3.  For the non-Aramaic ending -kn, see Folmer 1995, 213, with n. 143; GEA 63 n. 302.

Personal Names in New Aramaic Ostraca from Syene

145

Khwarezmian. The former was designated “Jew in the fortress of Elephantine of the detachment of Varyazata” (yhwdy zy bbyrt yb ldgl wryzt). There are seven contracts for Jews drawn up in Syene, six of which were drawn up by Aramean scribes, usually because the other party was non-Jewish. Thus, Peṭeese son of Nabunatan wrote for the Egyptian Pia and Mibtaḥyah in 440 BCE (TAD B2.8), Rauxšana son of Nergal(u)šezib wrote for Uriyah and Zakkur in 416 BCE (because the transaction took place in the presence of Vidranga the garrison commander stationed in Syene and all the witnesses were non-Jews [TAD B3.9]), and Šaweram son of Ešemram son of Ešemšezib wrote in 402 BCE for Anani and an Aramean bearing the Egyptian name Pakhnum son of Besa (TAD B3.13). In one instance the Aramean Attaršuri son of Nabuzeribni drew up two contracts in 459 BCE in Syene for a house owned by Maḥseyah in Elephantine (TAD B2.3; B2.4), and a contract was written in Syene in 411 BCE by the Jewish scribe [Mauziyah son of Natan son of ] Anani (TAD B7.1). Yet, from a paleographic point of view, the late Ada Yardeni has noted that the letters waw, yod, and reš of our ostracon resemble most those letters in a contract drawn up in Elephantine in 401 BCE by a Jew designated “Aramean hereditary-property-holder in Elephantine the fortress” (ʾrmy mhḥsn byb byrtʾ, TAD B7.2). That script has been defined as a “semi-extreme hand of the late fifth century BCE” (Naveh 1970, 34, fig. 8:4). Elaborating, we conclude that the contract underlying our ostracon was to be drawn up in Syene at the end of the fifth century BCE because the scribe was Aramean, as was the second party. Alternately, the matter being adjudicated required the presence of a functionary stationed in Syene. There are illegible traces of a line written above (line 2ʹ) and below the line just discussed (line 4ʹ), as well as, with much space intervening, another line (line 1ʹ) partly legible but not wholly intelligible. It is written along the upper edge and at a small angle to our line. It reads [b]gw l . . r // . . k, tentatively read by Lemaire as [b]gw lšʾr // \\ k. The first word means “within,” “including,” and is regularly used to indicate an item or items that is/are contained in something larger (Porten and Lund 2002, 43). The following r // \\ k could mean “2 q(uarters, probably of a shekel) 2 (oboles?).” But what would be the meaning of the kaf standing alone at the end? Is it an abbreviation for k(sp) “s(ilver)”? Could the piece be a palimpsest? However much a Jew of Elephantine could be called “Aramean of Syene” and the leaders of the community could identify themselves as “Syenians,” there is no doubt that on the mainland, in Syene, there existed what was called “the Syenian garrison” (ḥylʾ swnknyʾ) and that it consisted essentially of non-Jews, with a mix of names (Aramaic, Arabian, Egyptian, and possibly Akkadian), among whom was a single Jew, the prominent scribe Ḥaggai son of Šemaʿyah (TAD C3.14, esp. lines 3 and 32). It is probably to this unit that we may attribute the personal names that appear on a halfdozen or so of our ostraca. Assyrian rule in Egypt lasted for barely a decade, but in that period Esarhaddon managed to occupy and destroy Memphis in 671 BCE, and his son Assurbanipal put Thebes to ruins in 663 BCE (Pritchard and Zwettler 1969, 292–97; Kitchen 1986, 391–95). An echo of that destruction still reverberated a half-century later when the prophet Nahum told of a similar fate for Nineveh (Nah 3:8). At least five of our ostraca contain Assyrian names (nos. 2–4, 6/7), while one name is Aramaic, with Assyrian coloring (no. 5). The bearers of these names may have been descendants

146

Elephantine Revisited

Figure 11.1.  Yardeni’s drawing of ostracon 9-46-139-7/2.

of those soldiers stationed by the two conquering kings. Nos. 2 and 5 were found in the same findspot (12-2-4), and nos. 3, 4, 6/7 were found in another findspot (12-2-130). Two Persian names (nos. 8 and 9) and two Phoenician names (nos. 10 and 12) were found in the former findspot, and two Phoenician names (nos. 11 and 13) were found in the latter findspot. The one Hebrew name (no. 14) and the Egyptian (?) names (no. 15) were found in two different seasons at two distinct findspots (13-2-38 and 12-2-56, respectively).

2. Ostracon 12-2-4-6/5 (Figure 11.2; Plate 2) Fragment of amphora—4.0 × 3.7 cm—thickness 0.8 cm—inscription at the outside— mixed clay fabric 2—semi-hard—section: 2.5YR5/8, grayish core 7.5YR6/1—surface outside: 10YR8/3, uncoated, smoothed; surface inside: 7.5YR8/3, untreated. nbwdnq Nabudanqu (“Nabu is good”) The name is Akkadian. Nabû-danqu < Nabû-damqu, “Nabu is good/fine.” Mq > nq is an Akkadian (not an Aramaic) shift that is recorded since the Middle Babylonian period (von Soden 1995, §31f.; cf. dunqu < dumqu). This shift did not take place in Old Aramaic, given the fact that the Neo-Assyrian toponym Unqu is the equivalent of Aramaic ʿmq (the Neo-Hittite kingdom Patina). This Aramaic form is the source of modern ʿAmūq, which proves that it has never undergone the shift mq > nq. The interchange is also extant in the Neo-Assyrian rendering Amqarruna < Anqarruna for ʿqrn, LXX Ακκαρων (Ran Zadok).

Personal Names in New Aramaic Ostraca from Syene

147

Figure 11.2. (left)  Yardeni’s drawing of ostracon 12-2-4-6/5. Figure 11.3. (below)  Yardeni’s drawing of ostracon 12-2-130-23/2.

3. Ostracon 12-2-130-23/2 (Figure 11.3; Plate 3) Fragment of amphora—height 3.3 cm; width 5.8 cm; thickness 0.7 cm—inscription at the outside—Marl A41—hard—section: 10YR6/6—surface outside: 10YR7/2, untreated; surface inside: 10R6/6, untreated. ṣbwdnq Ṣabudanqu (“the troops are fine”) The name may be compared to Neo-Assyrian Ṣabu-damqu, “the troops are fine” (Tallqvist and Johns 1914, 204; Åkerman 2002, 1162–63; SAA 19.20 obv. 11ʹ).

148

Elephantine Revisited Figure 11.4.  Yardeni’s drawing of ostracon 12-2-130-23/1 .

4. Ostracon 12-2-130-23/1 (Figure 11.4; Plate 4) Fragment of jar—height 5.4 cm; width 4.4 cm; thickness 1.3–1.4 cm—inscription at the outside—imported ware—semi-hard—section: 10YR8/3; surface outside: 10YR8/3, untreated; surface inside: 10YR8/3, untreated. ṣbw Ṣabu[. . .] This ostracon is cut off at the left edge; only the first three letters are preserved. It was found in the same findspot as the above ostracon and appears to have been written by the same scribe. It should be restored in the same way as the previous ostracon.

5. Ostracon 12-2-4-5/1a (Figure 11.5; Plate 5) Fragment from base of amphora—height 5.4; width 6.1 cm; thickness 0.7 cm—inscription at the outside—imported ware—hard—section: 7.5YR6/3; slightly overfired— surface outside: 7.5YR7/3, slipped and slightly smoothed; inside: 10YR7/2, untreated. zbyhb Zabyahab (“Zab gave”) The name is Aramaic, as attested by the verb yhb, “to give.” The theophorous element is the well-known deified river Zab, flowing in Assyria, an Aramaic-speaking region at that time. The element is also extant in Akkadian names from Assyria, such as Zāba-aḥa-iddina, Zāba-iqīša, and Zāba-bēlet (“Zab is the mistress,” rivers being

Personal Names in New Aramaic Ostraca from Syene

149

Figure 11.5.  Yardeni’s drawing of ostracon 12-2-4-5/1a.

feminine in Akkadian; Åkerman 2002, 1425–26). It can be compared to the name zbʿdry (TAD B3.2:14). The theophorous element zb has nothing to do with the Mesopotamian male deity whose initial consonant is ṣ rather than z (Ṣababa). A personal name beginning with the theophorous element ṣbb occurs in an Aramaic endorsement from the Murashu archive.4

6. Ostracon 12-2-130-22/1 Concave (Figure 11.6; Plate 6) Fragment of amphora or jar—height 3.8 cm; width 4.8 cm; thickness 0.9 cm—inscription on both sides: two lines inside, one line outside—Nile B22—semi-hard—section: 2.5YR6/6; surface outside: 2.5YR7/4, slightly wet smoothed; surface inside: 2.5YR7/4, untreated. ʿbdšr Abdiššar (“servant of Ishtar”) Iššar is the Assyrian form of Ishtar. Written with ʾalef (ʿbdʾšr Abdi-Iššar), our name is found on an Aramaic clay tablet (O. 3673) from Maʿlānā in Assyria (ca. 665–635 BCE), and the editor of that text posited that the goddess was Ishtar of Arbel.5 The date accords with the brief Assyrian occupation of Egypt. Below the name Abdiššar is written another name, of uncertain reading. Lemaire proposes to read wbd/rspkq/l. 4.  Stolper 1985, 260, no. 63: ṣbbšw[ʾ]dn. 5.  Lipiński 2010, 68, 117–18, 221–22; reproduced in Lemaire 2001, 138, no. 17.

Figure 11.6.  Yardeni’s drawing of ostracon 12-2-130-22/1 (concave).

Figure 11.7.  Yardeni’s drawing of ostracon 12-2-130-22/1 (convex).

Personal Names in New Aramaic Ostraca from Syene

151

Figure 11.8.  Yardeni’s drawing of ostracon 12-2-4-6/3.

The ostracon is a palimpsest, and a third name was first written vertically from top to left. Lemaire would read zbdn6 br ʾzbw, the last two words being uncertain. The first he explains as Aramaic “(god) gave.” Yardeni read the first name as ʿbdn.

7. Ostracon 12-2-130-22/1 Convex (Figure 11.7; Plate 7) Convex (the reverse of the ostracon above). ʾrdy šrndnḥ, “Ardiya (son of) Šarru-nādin-aḥi” Ardiya is a hypocoristicon based on Akkadian ardu, “slave, servant.” The word br, “son of ” is implicit. The patronymic is a Neo-Babylonian name common in the first millennium, meaning “The king is the donor of a brother.”

8. Ostracon 12-2-4-6/3 (Figure 11.8; Plate 8) Fragment of amphora—5.4 × 4.4 cm—thickness 1.3–1.4 cm—inscription at the outside—Marl A2—semi-hard—section: 5YR7/3—surface outside: 5YR7/3, slightly wet smoothed; surface inside: 5YR7/3, untreated. nsy, “a man from Nisa” 6.  Compare the initial zayin in no. 5 above.

152

Elephantine Revisited Figure 11.9.  Yardeni’s drawing of ostracon 12-2-4-6/1.

The word has the gentilic ending, “a man from Nisa” (a plain in Media). A document written in Elephantine in 427 BCE (TAD B3.6:16–17) has a witness named Atrfarna son of Nisaya, a Mede (ʾtrprn br nysy mdy). The final yod in the name nsy indicates a diphthong.7

9. Ostracon 12-2-4-6/1 (Figure 11.9; Plate 9) Fragment of amphora—height 6.5 cm; width 5.8 cm; thickness 0.7 cm—inscription at the outside—mixed clay fabric 2—semi-hard—section: 7.5YR6/3—surface outside: 10YR8/3, slipped, smoothed and slightly burnished; surface inside: 5YR7/4, untreated. ʾd/rbwg Arbauga (?) The second element of the name may reflect an Iranian verb.8 This ostracon is from the same findspot as the previous ostracon.

10. Ostracon 12-2-4-6/4 (Figure 11.10; Plate 10) Fragment of amphora—5.5 × 4.5 cm—thickness 1.4 cm—inscription at the outside— Nile C1/B2—soft—section: 2.5YR5/6, grayish core—surface outside: 2.5YR7/4, light wash, slightly smoothed; surface inside: 2.5YR6/6, untreated. ṣdny, “Sidonian” 7.  Tavernier (2007, 62) cites an Elamite parallel: Na-a-šá-a-ia. 8.  See, for example, Tavernier 2007, 580.

Personal Names in New Aramaic Ostraca from Syene

153

Figure 11.10.  Yardeni’s drawing of ostracon 12-2-4-6/4.

The word ṣdny is apparently a noun with a gentilic ending. There were no Sidonians at Elephantine, but there were at Saqqarah. The gentilic ending occurs in two papyrus scraps from there. One reads “Azarbaal, a Sidonian” (ʿzrbʿl ṣydny, TAD D3.40:1). While the spelling of the PN follows “Phoenician” orthography, that of ṣydny follows “Aramaic” orthography, with medial yod (Aimé-Giron 1931, 45). The second occurrence is a fragment of an account with Aramaic, Egyptian, and Akkadian names and the name of the Persian detachment commander Mar[ya] (mr[y]). At the end of that text is a personal name identified as “Sidonian” (ṣdny, TAD D3.39:4–5). It has the same Phoenician spelling as in our ostracon and in a variety of Phoenician texts (Harris 1936, 140).

11. Ostracon 12-2-130-21/3 (Figure 11.11; Plate 11) Fragment of amphora—height 5.0 cm; width 4.9 cm; thickness 0.8–0.9 cm—inscription at the outside—Canaanite fabric P16—semi-hard—section: 7.5YR5/1; surface outside: 10YR8/4, smoothed; surface inside: 7.5YR6/2, untreated. ʾdnḥl Adoniḥel (“my lord is strength”) Parallels include Hebrew Yehoḥayil (yhwḥyl) and Abiḥayil (ʾbyḥyl), and West Semitic Šamašḥayil (Deutsch 2003, 400–401; Zadok 1977, 98). The epithet ʾd(w)n “Lord,” however, does not appear in the Elephantine onomasticon, nor is it found among the postexilic names in Ezra and Nehemiah,9 but it was popular in Phoenician names (Harris 1936, 74; Benz 1972, 55–59, 260–61), so our fellow was probably a Phoenician. 9.  Adonijah (= Adonikam) represents families of returnees (Ezra 2:13 = Ezra 8:13 = Neh 7:18; 10:17).

154

Elephantine Revisited Figure 11.11. (left)  Yardeni’s drawing of ostracon 12-2-130-21/3. Figure 11.12. (below)  Yardeni’s drawing of ostracon 12-2-4-6/2a.

12. Ostracon 12-2-4-6/2a (Figure 11.12; Plate 12) Fragment of amphora—5.3 × 6.1 cm; thickness 0.8 cm—inscription at the outside—Marl A41—hard—section: 5YR7/6—surface outside: 2.5YR8/2, slightly wet smoothed; inside: 5YR8/3, untreated. ʿkbr Akbor (“mouse”) Written with scriptio plena (ʿkbwr) this name appears as patronymic of an Edomite king (Gen 36:38), as an officer at Josiah’s court (2 Kgs 22:12; Jer 26:22; 36:12), and as a commodity recipient in two Idumean ostraca (TAOI 2, no. A33.7 [?]; TAOI 3,

Personal Names in New Aramaic Ostraca from Syene

155

Figure 11.13.  Yardeni’s drawing of ostracon 12-2-130-21/2.

no. 229.1). Written with scriptio defectiva, as here, it appears on Hebrew and Ammonite seals, and on numerous Punic inscriptions.10 One of these—from Sardinia—reads “Akbor the builder, man of Sidon” (ʿkbr hbnʾ ʾš ṣdn, KAI no. 65:11). At Elephantine, the name occurs only in a Phoenician jar inscription with an Egyptian praenomen, Aḥmen son of Akbor (ʾmn bn ʿkbr, TAD D11.5:3). Thus, while the name might belong to a Jew, given the Sidonian affiliation in the Sardinian inscription and its Phoenician context at Elephantine, it probably belongs to a Phoenician at Syene.

13. Ostracon 12-2-130-21/2 (Figure 11.13; Plate 13) Rim fragment of bowl or beaker (rim ø 30 cm)—height 3.5 cm; width 6.8 cm; thickness 1.5 cm—inscription inside along the rim—Nile B22—hard—section: 7.5YR6/1; surface outside: 10R5/4 and 10YR8/2, heavily weathered with traces of original selfslip; surface inside: 5YR6/1, uncoated, smoothed. šlm ʾby, “Šallum/Šillem (son of) Abi” The name šlm, written without medial wāw, is borne by more than a dozen Jews at Elephantine (Porten and Lund 2002, 413), but it also appears on an ostracon with an illegible patronymic at the head of a list of non-Jews (TAD D9.10:1), in a fragmentary papyrus with non-Jewish names from the end of the seventh century BCE (TAD C3.2:3), and in three Phoenician graffiti found in the temple at Abydos (RES nos. 1311, 1336, 1337). The name ʾby occurs as a hypocoristicon in Hebrew (2 Kgs 18:2) and in the midseventh-century Aramaic Assur ostracon (vocalized Abai; see Gibson 1975, no. 20:10), 10.  Hebrew and Ammonite seals: Avigad and Sass 1997, nos. 133, 166, 312, 602, 963. Punic inscriptions: Benz 1972, 171, 377.

156

Elephantine Revisited

Figure 11.14.  Yardeni’s drawing of ostracon 13-2-38-2/1.

but does not appear in the Elephantine onomasticon. Names compounded with ʾb, however, do appear among Hebrew names (Abiʿošer [ʾbʿšr], TAD C3.15:107) and elsewhere in Egypt among Aramaic names (Abiṭab [ʾbyṭb], TAD D20.1:2; Abyete [ʾbyty], TAD D8.4:25, etc.). Moreover, the element is frequent in Phoenician names (Benz 1972, 257). Besides, this ostracon was found in the same findspot as no. 11 above (ʾdnḥl).

14. Ostracon 13-2-38-2/1 (Figure 11.14; Plate 14) Fragment of amphora—height 11.5 cm; width 7.2 cm; thickness 0.9–1.1 cm—inscription at the outside—Marl A41—semi-hard—section: 2.5YR7/6 and 10YR7/2; surface outside: 10YR8/2, untreated; surface inside: 7.5YR7/3, untreated. lšmʿn, “belonging to Šimʿon (Simeon)” A jar inscription. Attested already in Ugaritic (Gröndahl 1967, 414) and among the sons of Jacob in the Bible (Gen 29:33), this name appears once in postexilic Yehud

Personal Names in New Aramaic Ostraca from Syene

157

(Ezra 10:31), almost ten times on third-century BCE ostraca from Edfu (Porten and Lund 2002, 415), and over 250 times—mostly in Greek—in the land of Israel in late antiquity (Ilan 2002, 218–35). With but a few exceptions in the latter group (nos. 106, 244, 249), the name is always written with scriptio plena (šmʿwn). It occurs once on an Elephantine ostracon with a list of names (Lozachmeur 2006, no. 181:2), also written with scriptio plena.

15. Ostracon 12-2-56-10/13 (Plate 15) Fragment of amphora—8.0 × 13.7 cm—thickness 0.8–0.9 cm—inscription at the outside—Marl A41—semi-hard—section: 2.5YR7/8—surface outside: 10YR8/2; slightly wet smoothed; surface inside: 7.5YR7/2, untreated. “This large ostracon could present the traces of six lines but they seem to be practically illegible.” (Lemaire). Two names are possibly Egyptian: in line 4, Lemaire would tentatively read ptm/t br . . . and in line 5 bgt br pḥnm. Pakhnum is a name frequently found in Elephantine (Porten and Lund 2002, 394). According to Yardeni, however (personal communication), the first name in line 5 might be pḥnm and the second might be pḥns, which would either be the month Pakhons or the personal name Pa-ḫnsw, “he of Khons” (Lüddeckens et al. 2000, 406). Alternately, Vittmann has suggested (personal communication) that the second might also be pḥnm. He says further: “The first name (at the beginning of line 4) p.ym is presumably likewise Egyptian but I am uncertain about the letter after the p. If it were a somewhat broad taw it would be ptym = demotic pa-tm, spoken patêm.” At the beginning of line 6, Lemaire proposes the uncertain reading: ly. . . .

Table 11.1. Table of Texts Number

Findspot

Inscription

Ethnos/Language

1

9-46-139-7/2

Aramean?

2 3 4 5 6 7

12-2-4-6/5 12-2-130-23/2 12-2-130-23/1 12-2-4-5/1a 12-2-130-22/1 (conc.) 12-2-130-22/1 (conv.)

“] . . . of Elephantine of the detachment of Varyazata” (. . .]y zy yb ldgl wryzt) Nabudanqu (nbwdnq) Ṣabudanqu (ṣbwdnq) Ṣabu[. . .] (ṣbw[) Zabyahab (zbyhb) Abdiššar (ʿbdšr) Ardiya (son of) Šarru-​nādin-​aḥi (ʾrdy šrndnḥ) Nisaya (nsy) Arbauga (?) (ʾrbwg) Sidonian (ṣdny) Adoniḥel (ʾdnḥl) Akbor (ʿkbr) Šallum/Šillem (son of) Abi (šlm ʾby) Šimʿon (Simeon) (lšmʿn) Egyptian names (?)

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

12-2-4-6/3 12-2-4-6/1 12-2-4-6/4 12-2-130-21/3 12-2-4-6/2a 12-2-130-21/2 13-2-38-2/1 12-2-56-10/13

Assyrian Assyrian Assyrian Aramean Assyrian Babylonian Persian Persian Phoenician Phoenician Phoenician Phoenician? Hebrew Egyptian

158

Elephantine Revisited

References Aimé-Giron, N. 1931. Textes Araméens d’Égypte. Le Caire: Institut français d’archéologie orientale. Åkerman, K. 2002. “Ṣabu-damqu.” Pages 1162–63 in The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, volume 3/1, P-Ṣ. Edited by H. D. Baker. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Aston, D. A. 1999. Elephantine XIX: Pottery from the Late New Kingdom to the Early Ptolemaic Period. Archäologische Veröffentlichungen 95. Mainz: von Zabern. Avigad, N., and B. Sass. 1997. Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Benz, F. L. 1972. Personal Names in the Phoenician and Punic Inscriptions: A Catalog, Grammatical Study and Glossary of Elements. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Deutsch, R. 2003. Biblical Period Hebrew Bullae: The Josef Chaim Kaufman Collection. Tel Aviv: Archaeological Center Publications. Folmer, M. L. 1995. The Aramaic Language in the Achaemenid Period: A Study in Linguistic Variation. OLA 68. Leuven: Peeters. Gibson, J. C. L. 1975. Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, volume 2, Aramaic Inscriptions. Oxford: Clarendon. Gröndahl, F. 1967. Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit. Studia Pohl 1. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Harris, Z. S. 1936. A Grammar of the Phoenician Language. New Haven: American Oriental Society. Ilan, T. 2002. Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity, part 1: Palestine 330 B.C.E.–200 C.E. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Kitchen, K. A. 1986. The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650 B.C.). Warminster: Aris & Phillips. Lemaire, A. 2001. Nouvelles tablettes araméennes. Geneva: Droz. Lipiński, E. 2010. Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics, volume 3, Maʾlana. OLA 200. Leuven: Peeters. Lozachmeur, H. 2006. La collection Clermont-Ganneau: Ostraca, épigraphes sur jarre, étiquettes de bois. 2 vols. MAIBL 35. Paris: de Boccard. Lüddeckens, E., H.-J. Thissen, W. Brunsch, G. Vittmann, and K.-T. Zauzich, eds. 2000. Demotisches’ Namenbuch Gesamtband. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Naveh, J. 1970. The Development of the Aramaic Script. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Porten, B., and J. A. Lund. 2002. Aramaic Documents from Egypt: A Key-Word-in-Context Concordance. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Pritchard, J. B., and M. Zwettler. 1969. The Ancient Near East: Supplementary Texts and Pictures Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Röllig, W. 2013. “Neue phönizische und aramäische Krugaufschriften und Ostraka aus Elephantine.” Pages 185–203 in The First Cataract of the Nile: One Region—Diverse Perspectives. Edited by D. Raue, S. J. Seidlmayer, and P. Speiser. SDAIK 36. Berlin: de Gruyter. Soden, W. von. 1995. Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik. Analecta Orientalia 33. 3rd ed. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Stolper, M. P. 1985. Entrepeneurs and Empire: The Murašû Archive, the Murašû Firm, and Persian Rule in Babylonia. PIHANS 54. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Tallqvist, K. L., and C. H. W. Johns. 1914. Assyrian Personal Names. Helsinki: Finnish Society of Sciences and Letters. Tavernier, J. 2007. Iranica in the Achaemenid Period (ca. 550–330 B.C.): Lexicon of Old Iranian Proper Names and Loanwords, Attested in Non-Iranian Texts. OLA 158. Leuven: Peeters.

Personal Names in New Aramaic Ostraca from Syene

159

Toorn, K. van der. 2019. Becoming Diaspora Jews: Behind the Story of Elephantine. New Haven: Yale University Press. Zadok, R. 1977. On West Semites in Babylonia During the Chaldean and Achaemenian Periods: An Onomastic Study. Jerusalem: Wanaarta.

Plate 1.  Ostracon 9-46-1397/2. Photo: A. Krause, © Swiss Institute Cairo. Plate 2.  Ostracon 12-2-46/5. Photo: A. Krause, © Swiss Institute Cairo. 160

Plate 3.  Ostracon 12-2-13023/2. Photo: A. Krause, © Swiss Institute Cairo. Plate 4.  Ostracon 12-2-13023/1. Photo: A. Krause, © Swiss Institute Cairo.

161

Plate 5. (top)  Ostracon 12-2-4-5/1a. Photo: A. Krause, © Swiss Institute Cairo. Plate 6. (bottom left)  Ostracon 12-2-130-22/1 (concave). Photo: A. Krause, © Swiss Institute Cairo. Plate 7. (bottom right)  Ostracon 12-2-130-22/1 (convex). Photo: A. Krause, © Swiss Institute Cairo.

162

Plate 8.  Ostracon 12-2-4-6/3. Photo: A. Krause, © Swiss Institute Cairo.

163

Plate 9.  Ostracon 12-2-4-6/1. Photo: A. Krause, © Swiss Institute Cairo.

164

Plate 10.  Ostracon 12-2-46/4. Photo: A. Krause, © Swiss Institute Cairo. Plate 11.  Ostracon 12-2-13021/3. Photo: A. Krause, © Swiss Institute Cairo. 165

Plate 12.  Ostracon 12-24-6/2a. Photo: A. Krause, © Swiss Institute Cairo. Plate 13.  Ostracon 12-2130-21/2. Photo: A. Krause, © Swiss Institute Cairo.

166

Plate 14.  Ostracon 13-2-38-2/1. Photo: A. Krause, © Swiss Institute Cairo.

167

Plate 15.  Ostracon 12-2-56-10/13. Photo: A. Krause, © Swiss Institute Cairo.

168

Contributors

Annalisa Azzoni is Senior Lecturer in Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University. Her research concentrates on the Persian Empire and legal and administrative Aramaic documents. Azzoni is the coeditor (with D. A. Knight, D. Owen, and A. Kleinerman) of From Mari to Jerusalem and Back: Assyriological and Biblical Studies in Honor of Jack Murad Sasson. Bob Becking is Emeritus Senior Research Professor of Bible, Religion, and Identity at the University of Utrecht. He researched the Hebrew Bible as part of the general ancient Near Eastern culture. He is the author, most recently, of Identity in Persian Egypt: The Fate of the Yehudite Community of Elephantine. Alejandro F. Botta is Associate Professor of Hebrew Bible at the Boston University School of Theology. He is the author of The Aramaic and Egyptian Legal Traditions at Elephantine: An Egyptological Approach and coeditor (with A. Pilarski) of Introducción al Pentateuco en perspectiva latinoamericana. Margaretha Folmer is Senior Lecturer of Biblical Hebrew at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and Lecturer in Aramaic and Hebrew at Leiden University. Her research interests include Aramaic language and linguistics, Elephantine Aramaic, and Achaemenid-​period Aramaic in particular. Recent publications include Aramaic as Lingua Franca and Characteristics of the Aramaic of the Akhvamazda Letters from Ancient Bactria (forthcoming). Lester L. Grabbe is Emeritus Professor of Hebrew Bible and Early Judaism at the University of Hull. He has published extensively on the history of ancient Israel and Second Temple Judaism, including Ezra–Nehemiah and Ancient Israel: What Do We Know and How Do We Know It? as well the four-​volume History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period. Grabbe founded the European Seminar in Historical Methodology and edited eleven volumes of its proceedings. Ingo Kottsieper is Associate Professor of Hebrew Bible at the University of Münster. He researches Northwest Semitic languages and literatures. He is the coeditor (with 169

170

Contributors

R. Kratz and A. Steudel) of the two-​volume dictionary Hebräisches und aramäisches Wörterbuch zu den Texten vom Toten Meer, einschließlich der Manuskripte aus der Kairoer Genizah. He is also a coeditor of and contributor to the series Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments, n.s. Reinhard G. Kratz is Professor of Old Testament at the Georg-​August-​Universität Göttingen. His research interests include the history and literature of the Hebrew Bible and Judaism in the Persian and Hellenistic periods. He is the author of Historical and Biblical Israel: The History, Literature, and Archives of Israel and Judah, editor of Interpreting and Living God’s Law: Miqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-​Torah, Some of the Works of the Torah (4QMMT), and coeditor (with A. Steudel and I. Kottsieper) of the two-​ volume dictionary Hebräisches und Aramäisches Wörterbuch zu den Texten vom Toten Meer, einschließlich der Manuskripte aus der Kairoer Geniza. André Lemaire is Emeritus Professor at the École Pratique des Hautes Études, Paris-​ Sorbonne, where he taught Hebrew and Aramaic philology and epigraphy. He specializes in the fields of Northwest Semitic epigraphy and biblical studies in the context of the history of the ancient Near East. He is the author of Nouvelles tablettes araméennes, Nouvelles inscriptions araméennes d’Idumée, The Birth of Monotheism, and Levantine Epigraphy and History in the Achaemenid Period (539–332 BCE). Hélène Nutkowicz is a researcher at CNRS/Paris IV, the École Pratique des Hautes Études, and LESA, in Paris. She is the author of Égypte: Éléphantine au Vè siècle avant notre ère: Fragments d’histoire et de quotidien and Le Dieu d’Israël et les hommes (forthcoming). Beatrice von Pilgrim is a Near Eastern archaeologist and a research assistant at the Swiss Institute for Architectural and Archaeological Research on Ancient Egypt in Cairo. She is a longtime member of the Elephantine excavations and works on the pottery of the Late Period. Cornelius von Pilgrim is an Egyptologist and the Director of the Swiss Institute for Architectural and Archaeological Research on Ancient Egypt in Cairo. He has conducted excavations at Elephantine since 1986. In 2000, he founded the Swiss-​Egyptian Archaeological Mission at Syene (Aswan). Von Pilgrim is the author of many contributions to the history and archaeology of Elephantine and Aswan in the first and second millennia BCE and is the coeditor of From the Delta to the Cataract: Studies Dedicated to Mohamed el-​Bialy. Bezalel Porten is Emeritus Professor of Jewish History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He specializes in research on Aramaic ostraca and, with Ada Yardeni, recently completed the publication of the fourth volume of Textbook of Aramaic Ostraca from Idumea. Ada Yardeni (‫ )ז״ל‬was an epigrapher and member of the Department of Jewish History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Her most recent publications include

Contributors

171

The Jeselsohn Collection of Aramaic Ostraca from Idumea and the multivolume Textbook of Aramaic Ostraca from Idumea, with B. Porten. Ran Zadok is Emeritus Professor of Mesopotamian, Iranian, and Judaic Studies at Tel Aviv University. He is an expert in Semitic and non-​Semitic onomastics in secondand first-​millennium BCE sources from Mesopotamia, western Iran, and the Levant. His groundbreaking work is On West Semites in Babylonia During the Chaldean and Achaemenian Periods: An Onomastic Study.

Ancient Sources Index

Aramaic Texts from Egypt Aḥiqar (References according to Kottsieper 1990; line numbers TAD C1.1 bracketed) Col. i:6 (6) ​87n4 Col. ii:2 (18) ​87n4 Col. iii ​102n53 Col. v:1–6 (126–31) ​98, 99 Col. v:5–6 (130–31) ​98, 99 Col. v:14–15 (139–40) ​ 89n9 Col. vii:4 (98) ​89 Col. vii:5 (99) ​89 Col. vii:7–8 (101–2) ​ 94n31, 97 Col. vii:10 (104) ​92 Col. vii:11–12 (105–6) ​ 89n9 Col. viii:3 (111) ​91 Col. viii:3–4 (111–12) ​ 89n9 Col. ix:1 (174) ​89 Col. ix:2 (185) ​89 Col. ix:5 (178) ​89n13 Col. ix:14 (187) ​102 Col. ix:14–15 (187–88) ​ 91 Col. ix:15b–16a (188–89) ​ 98n46 Col. ix:16 (189) ​89 Col. x ​98–99 Col. x:1 (79) ​88n8, 98 Col. x:2 (80) ​98

Col. x:2–8 (80–88) ​99 Col. x:3–4 (81–82) ​99 Col. x:3–5 (81–83) ​98 Col. x:4 (82) ​99 Col. x:6–10 (84–88) ​ 98–99 Col. x:11–12 (89–90) ​ 98–100 Col. x:11–13 (89–90) ​99 Col. x:13–14 (91–92) ​ 99–100 Col. x:15 (93) ​99–100 Col. x:16 (94) ​94n31 Col. xii:7 (165) ​93 Col. xii:8–9 (166–67) ​91 Col. xii:8–10a (166–68) ​ 94n31 Col. xii:10 (168) ​91 Col. xii:10a (167–68) ​95 Col. xii:10b–13 (166–70) ​ 94n31 Col. xii:12–13 (170) ​95 Col. xv:13b–14 (203–4) ​ 94n31 Col. xvi ​102n53 Col. xvi:1 (207) ​92 Col. xvi:2 (208) ​91 Col. xvi:3–4 (209–10) ​ 94n31 Ostraca Clermont-​Ganneau Collection 4:1 ​46n5 11 ​45 12 ​45 14 ​46, 137n48

14:1 ​46n5 16 ​45 17:1 ​46n5 18 ​45 20 ​46, 137n48 33:1 ​46n5 36 ​45 36:1 ​46n5 37:1 ​46n5 41 ​46, 137n48 44:1 ​46n5 44 ​45 44 conc. 8 ​47 45:1 ​46n5 47:1 ​46n5 48 ​45 48:1 ​46n5 49 ​45 49 conc. 8 ​47 50:1 ​46n5 52 ​45 53:1 ​46n5 55 ​45 56 ​46, 137n48 57 ​45 58 ​48 62 conv. 4 ​47 70 ​45–46, 49 70:2 ​46 70:3 ​46 71 ​45 71:1 ​46n5 75 ​45 75:1 ​46n5 78 ​45 78:1 ​46n5 173

174

Ancient Sources Index

Ostraca Clermont-​Ganneau Collection (cont’d) 79 ​45 81:1 ​46n5 82 ​45, 48 87 ​46 97 ​48 97:1 ​46n5 97:2–3 ​48 98 ​45 99 ​45 103 conv. 2 ​49 107:4 ​48 118 ​45 125 ​45, 48 125:1 ​46n5 126 ​45 126:1 ​46n5 130 ​48 131 ​45 133:1 ​46n5 135 ​50 135:1 ​46n5 135 conv. 2–3 ​50 136 ​48 136:1 ​46n5 137 ​48 138 ​45 138:1 ​46n5 139 ​45 144:1 ​46 152 ​46, 137n48 152:1 ​46n5 152:2 ​47 154 ​45 154:1 ​46n5 157 ​45 164:1 ​46n5 165 ​45 167 ​45–46, 137 167 conc. 1 ​47 169 ​45 169:1 ​46n5 173:1 ​46n5 174 ​46, 137n48 175 ​137 179 conv. 1 ​49n10 181:2 ​157 182 ​50 185 ​46, 137n48 186 ​45, 137 186 conc. 1–2 ​47 186:1 ​46 186 conc. 5 ​47 186 conv. 1 ​47

189 ​45 191 ​45 200:1 ​46n5 200:3 ​48 202:1 ​46n5 203 ​49 203:1 ​46n5 204:5 ​47 213 ​45 214 ​46, 137n48 214:1 ​46n5 223:1 ​46n5 226 ​45 228 ​45–46 233:1 ​46n5 237 ​45 239:1 ​46n5 244 ​45 247:1 ​46n5 255 ​45 255:1 ​46n5 259 ​142 263 ​45 269 ​46 277 ​45–46, 49 277:1–2 ​49 277:3 ​49 J3 ​45 J3:1 ​46n5 J4 ​45 J4:1 ​46n5 J5 ​45 J5:1 ​46n5 J7 ​45 J8 ​45–46, 137, 137n48 J8 conc. 8 ​48 J8 conc. 9 ​47 J8 conc. 10–11 ​48 X6:1 ​46n5 X7 ​45 X7:1 ​46 X8 conv. 1 ​48 X8 conv. 4 ​48 X9 conv. 1 ​49n10 X11 ​50 X12 ​142 X13 ​45 X16 ​46, 137n48 X19:1 ​46n5 Papyrus Amherst ​63, 79n26, 127n12 TAD A (Letters) A1.1 ​127n9

A2.1 ​112 A2.1–7 ​127 A2.2:6 ​133 A2.2:13 ​132 A2.3:3–8 ​71 A2.3:9 ​39n16 A2.4:2 ​107n2 A2.4:11 ​132 A2.5:6 ​132 A3.3–4 ​125n4 A3.3:1 ​109n10 A3.3:13 ​135 A3.5 ​76n22 A3.7 ​76n22 A3.9 ​76n22, 129n16 A3.10 ​76n22 A3.11 ​127n10 A4.1 ​48, 59, 73, 76n22 A4.1:5 ​48 A4.1–4 ​125 A4.1–10 ​135, 130n22 A4.2 ​38, 76n22 A4.2:4 ​37 A4.2:5 ​38 A4.3:4 ​38 A4.4 ​76n22 A4.4:5 ​27 A4.4:6 ​26 A4.4:8 ​39n16, 42 A4.5 ​125n6 A4.5:3 ​58 A4.5:6 ​39n16 A4.5:6–7 ​39n16 A4.5:18 ​39, 39n16, 40 A4.6–10 ​125 A4.7 ​39, 56, 60n4, 57, 63, 108, 108n5 A4.7:1–3 ​72 A4.7:4–5 ​114 A4.7:9 ​42, 110 A4.7:12 ​40 A4.7:12–13 ​38, 39n16 A4.7:13–14 ​72 A4.7:14 ​108 A4.7:18 ​56 A4.7:18–19 ​50 A4.7:20 ​131 A4.7:22–28 ​73 A4.7:25 ​136 A4.7:29 ​50, 55, 63 A4.8 ​56–57, 60n4, 63, 72n15, 108n5, 114 A4.8:1 ​58 A4.8:1–3 ​72 A4.8:4 ​114

Ancient Sources Index A4.8:8 ​42, 110 A4.8:11 ​38 A4.8:12–13 ​72 A4.8:13 ​108 A4.8:17 ​56 A4.8:17–18 ​50 A4.8:19 ​131 A4.8:21–27 ​73 A4.8:28 ​50 A4.9 ​50n14, 56, 60n4, 63, 108n5 A4.9:9 ​136 A4.10 ​56, 57, 60n4 A4.10:1 ​58 A4.10:6 ​144 A5.1 ​127n10 A5.2 ​43 A5.2:4 ​39, 39n16, 41 A6.2 ​114, 117, 130 A6.3:5 ​39n16 A6.3–16 ​127 A6.7 ​118 A.6.7:7 ​42 A6.9 ​118 A6.15 ​41–43, 118 A6.15:5–6 ​41 A6.15:6 ​38–39 A6.15:6–17 ​39n16 A6.15:8 ​39n16 A6.15:8–9 ​39, 41 A6.15:9 ​42, 39n16 A6.15:9–10 ​39n16 TAD B (Legal Documents) B1.1 ​113, 127 B1.1:2 ​132n29 B1.1:9 ​39n16 B1.1:11–12 ​132n29 B2.1 ​114, 129n17 B2.1:2–3 ​111 B2.1:3 ​143 B2.2 ​17, 18, 111, 114, 116, 129n17 B2.2:2–3 ​144 B2.2:3 ​107n2, 132 B2.2:3–4 ​143–44 B2.2:16–17 ​144 B2.2:17 ​114n28 B2.2:19 ​111n18, 144 B2.3 ​18–19, 29, 62, 116, 129n17, 145 B2.3:1–2 ​143 B2.3:1–3 ​62 B2.3:15 ​39n16 B2.3:17 ​39n16

B2.3:2 ​27 B2.4 ​19, 24, 29–30, 129n17, 145 B2.4:1–2 ​143 B2.4:1–4 ​62 B2.4:9 ​39n16 B2.4:11 ​39n16 B2.5:2 ​39n16 B2.6 ​19, 22n9, 24, 24n1, 62, 111, 129n17 B2.6:2–3 ​143 B2.6:3 ​26 B2.6:4 ​26 B2.6:5 ​28 B2.6:6 ​28 B2.6:6–14 ​28 B2.6:17–18 ​33 B2.6:17–20 ​32, 32n10 B2.6:20–21 ​33 B2.6:35–36 ​29 B2.7 ​19, 114, 117, 129n17 B2.7:1–2 ​143 B2.7:3 ​24 B2.7:4–6 ​32 B2.7:7–8 ​33 B2.7:13–14 ​109n10 B2.7:14 ​46n8, 137n47 B2.7:16 ​33 B2.8 ​20, 76n22, 129n17, 145 B2.8:2 ​26 B2.8:2–3 ​143 B2.8:5 ​115 B2.8:13 ​119 B2.9 ​129n17 B2.9:3 ​26, 30 B2.9:6 ​39n16 B2.9:7 ​41 B2.10 ​19, 114, 129n17 B2.10:2 ​143 B2.10:3 ​24, 26, 30, 108n3 B2.10:13 ​19n7 B2.10:16–17 ​19n7 B2.11 ​21, 30, 114, 129n17 B2.11:2 ​143 B3.1 ​129n17 B3.1:2 ​26, 27 B3.1:9 ​39n16 B3.1:13 ​39n16 B3.1:17 ​39n16 B3.2 ​129n17 B3.2:3 ​25–26 B3.2:3–4 ​26 B3.2:14 ​149

175

B3.3 ​20, 22n9, 24, 24n1, 25–26, 28, 129n17 B3.3:2 ​58, 137n47 B3.3:3 ​26, 27 B3.3:4–7 ​28 B3.3:9 ​20 B3.3:10–11 ​32 B3.3:11–13 ​32 B3.3:16 ​28 B3.4 ​117, 129n17 B3.4:2 ​144 B3.5 ​18, 32n10, 129n17 B3.5:2 ​27 B3.5:3 ​32 B3.5:3–4 ​144 B3.5:16–22 ​33 B3.5:18 ​30, 32 B3.6 ​21–22, 31, 129n17 B3.6:2 ​27 B3.6:2–4 ​27 B3.6:11 ​31 B3.6:11–15 ​31 B3.6:12 ​31 B3.6:16–17 ​116, 144 B3.7 ​29, 30, 32 B3.7:2–3 ​27 B3.7:11–12 ​33 B3.8 ​21, 22n9, 24, 24n1, 129n17 B3.8:1–2 ​143 B3.8:3 ​26, 27 B3.8:4 ​26 B3.8:4–5 ​28 B3.8:6 ​28 B3.8:6–15 ​28 B3.8:13–19 ​28 B3.8:27–30 ​32 B3.8:28–29 ​33 B3.8:33–34 ​30 B3.8:34–35 ​33 B3.8:35–37 ​32n10 B3.8:36–37 ​30 B3.8:37–40 ​29 B3.8:41–42 ​21 B3.9 ​31, 119, 129n17, 145 B3.9:9 ​31 B3.10 ​21, 29, 32, 129n17 B3.10:2 ​27 B3.10:17 ​32 B3.10:26 ​24 B3.11 ​21, 29, 129n17 B3.11:2 ​27 B3.11:8 ​24 B3.11:9 ​29, 33 B3.11:22 ​27

176

Ancient Sources Index

TAD B (Legal Documents) (cont’d) B3.12 ​18, 129n17 B3.12:1 ​27 B3.12:1–2 ​25, 27 B3.12:2 ​25, 58, 109n13 B3.12:2–3 ​143 B3.13 ​114, 129n17, 145 B3.13:2 ​115n28, 144 B3.13:10 ​39n16 B4.2 ​129n17 B4.2:1 ​132n29 B4.3 ​129n17, 132n29 B4.3:1 ​132n29 B4.3:12 ​132n29 B4.4 ​129n17 B4.6 ​129n16 B4.6:2 ​143 B4.7 ​127n11 B4.7:1 ​144 B5.1 ​55, 114, 129n16 B5.1:1–2 ​26 B5.1:2 ​26, 108n3 B5.1:3–6 ​132n29 B5.2:2 ​144 B5.5 ​114 B5.5:2 ​24–25, 115n28 B5.5:3–4 ​32 B5.5:7–8 ​32 B6.1:3–4 ​26 B6.3 ​24 B6.3:10 ​27 B6.4 ​24 B6.4:1 ​30 B7.1 ​145 B7.1:3 ​131 B7.2 ​40, 43, 76n22, 112n22, 145 B7.2:2–3 ​143 B7.2:3 ​112 B7.2:4 ​42 B7.2:4–5 ​41 B7.2:5 ​39n16, 41–42 B7.2:6 ​38, 39n16 B7.2:8 ​41–42 B7.2:9 ​39n16, 41–42 B7.3 ​76n22, 110n15, 112n22 B7.3:3 ​61 B8.1–4 ​127n11 B8.4 ​42 B8.4:2 ​43 B8.4:4 ​39n16, 41 B8.4:5 ​42

B8.5 ​67n2 B8.6–12 ​127n11 B8.6:10 ​42 TAD C (Literature, Accounts, Lists) C1.1 (Aḥiqar) ​67n1, 86n3, 95n34, 125, 131 C1.1:51–52 ​71 C1.1:84–92 ​74 C1.1:108 ​39n16 C1.1:132–35 ​78 C1.1:138–40 ​74 C1.1:156–58 ​78 C1.1:170 ​132 C1.1:171 ​132 C1.2 ​67n3, 86n1, 127 C2.1 (Bisitun) ​67n1, 86n1 C2.1:64–73 ​77–78 C3.3 ​125 C3.7 ​118, 125, 132 C3.7 E col. i:15 ​132 C3.7 E col. ii:6 ​132 C3.9 col. i:6 ​27 C3.9 col. ii:12 ​27 C3.12:29 ​113 C3.13–15 ​125 C3.14 ​113, 145 C3.14:3 ​145 C3.14:32 ​145 C3.15 ​26, 60, 76, 76n22 C3.15 col. i ​26 C3.15 col. i:2 ​26 C3.15 col. i:5 ​30 C3.15 col. i:6 ​30 C3.15 col. ii:12 ​30 C3.15 col. ii:15 ​30 C3.15 col. iv:5 ​30 C3.15 col. v ​26 C3.15 cols. v–vi ​27 C3.15 col. v:101 ​27 C3.15 col. vi ​26 C3.15 col. vi:107 ​156 C3.15 col. vii ​26 C3.15 col. vii:126–28 ​ 110, 110n14 C3.15 col. vii:127–28 ​61 C3.28:85 ​58 C3.28:113 ​58 C3.33:45 ​58 C3.33:48 ​58 C4.4–8 ​125

TAD D (Ostraca and Assorted Inscriptions) D1.15 ​127n10 D1.16 ​127n10 D2.12:2 ​117 D2.12:2–3 ​144 D2.29–34 ​127n11 D2.32:2 ​42 D2.32:4 ​42 D3.39 frag. b, line 3 ​116 D3.39:4–5 ​153 D3.40:1 ​153 D7–D11 ​142 D7.1–52 ​131n24 D7.2 ​45n3 D7.5 ​45n3 D7.6:9–10 ​47, 59 D7.7 ​45n3 D7.10 ​45n3, 108n5 D7.10:5 ​59 D7.12 ​47, 108n7 D7.12:9 ​47, 59 D7.16 ​45n3, 108n7 D7.16:2 ​47 D7.18 ​109n10 D7.20 ​46n5 D7.21 ​45n3, 49n12, 76n22 D7.21:3 ​46n7 D7.24:5 ​47, 59 D7.28 ​108n7 D7.28:4 ​47, 59 D7.29 ​109n8 D7.29:3 ​109, 136n44 D7.30 ​45n3, 76n22, 110 D7.30:2–3 ​111 D7.33:14 ​48 D7.35 ​45n3 D7.35:7 ​59 D7.38–40 ​50n14 D7.41 ​50n14 D7.44 ​45n3, 48 D7.48:5 ​47, 59 D8.4:25 ​156 D9.6 ​142 D9.7 ​142 D9.8 ​142 D11.5:3 ​155 D18.1:1 ​58 D18.18 ​127n8 D19.7 ​127n8 D20.1:2 ​156 D21.2 ​58 D21.17:2 ​58 D23.1 ​86n1, 127n11

Ancient Sources Index Other Achaemenid-​Period Aramaic Inscriptions Asia Minor (References according to Schwiderksi 2014) no. 34 ​127n7 no. 71 ​127n7 no. 191 ​127n7 no. 195 ​127n7 no. 202 ​127n7 no. 291 ​127n7 no. 293 ​127n7 no. 294 ​127n7 no. 295 ​127n7 no. 364 ​127n7 no. 408 ​127n7 Carpentras Stela CIS no. 141 ​125n2 Idumean Ostraca TAOI 2, no. A33.7 ​153 TAOI 3, no. 229.1 ​153 North Saqqara (References according to Segal 1983) no. 26 ​127n9 Persepolis Fortification Texts PF 81 ​118n34 PF 412 ​118n34 PF 489 ​118n34 PF 1858 ​118n34 Wadi ed-​Daliyeh Seal Impressions no. 22 ​63 Old Aramaic KAI no. 202 B:23–24 (Zakkur) ​88n8 KAI no. 214:29 (Hadad) ​ 137n50 KAI no. 222A:8 (Sfire) ​ 93n28 Aramaic Neo-​Assyrian Period Assur Ostracon Gibson 1975, no. 20:10 ​ 155 KAI no. 233 ​127n9

Hebrew Inscriptions Lachish no. 2:9 ​47, 137 Lachish no. 6:12 ​47, 137 Lachish no. 12:3 ​47, 137 Lemaire and Yardeni 2006, no. 16 ​48n9 Phoenician/Punic Inscriptions KAI no. 65:11 ​155 RES no. 1311 ​155 RES no. 1336 ​155 RES no. 1337 ​155 West Semitic Seals (References according to Avigad and Sass 1997) no. 133 ​155n10 no. 166 ​155n10 no. 312 ​155n10 no. 602 ​155n10 no. 963 ​155n10 Ugaritic RS 94.2284:12–13 ​ 137n50 Akkadian Texts Babylonian AbB 12, no. 69:20, 32 ​ 40n22 AbB 13, no. 12:9 ​42 BE 6/1, no. 103:19 ​41 BBS no. 10 r. 5 ​40n22 BBS no. 10 r. 34 ​40n22 BBS no. 36 vi 41 ​40n22 BBS no. 37:10 ​91n21 BIN 7 41:18 ​92n22 DB Akkadian line 9, §8 ​ 77 DB Akkadian lines 97–98 ​ 78 DB Akkadian lines 102–3 ​ 78 DB Akkadian lines 105–6 ​ 78 Gilgamesh epic X v 24–26.30 ​91n20 Hh 18:2 ​93n28 Hh 18:11–14 ​93n28 Hh 18:14 ​93n28 JEN 6, no. 662:38 ​41 K. 256 (4IV R17):9 ​92 Kt Hahn no. 3:18 ​42

177

Ludlul Bēl Nēmeqi 1:87 ​ 89n11 Stolper 1985, no. 62 ​ 149n4 Assyrian ABL no. 177:9 ​40, 40n22 Oriental Institute Publication 2, no. 83:47 ​ 40n22 RIMA 2 A0.89.7 iv 22 ​ 91n20 RIMA 2 A0.101.1.2:37 ​ 91n20 SAA 1.77 obv. 5 ​91n20 SAA 1.78 obv. 6 ​91n20 SAA 1.140 obv. 4 ​91n20 SAA 3.11 rev. 14 ​92n25 SAA 3.14 obv. 9–11 ​ 92n22 SAA 19.20 obv. 11ʹ ​147 SAA 20.55 obv. 3 ​91n20 Egyptian Texts Demotic Hughes 1958, line 5 ​40 P. Berlin 13543 ​37 Hieratic P. Turin 188737 ​37 Old Persian Texts A2Pa ​117 DB §6 ​116–17 DB §11 line 19 ​40 DB §12 col. i:47 ​39 DB §36 col. iii:4 ​39n21 DNb ​77 DNb col. i:23 ​77 DNb lines 50–60 ​78 DNe ​117 DSf §10 ​116 Hebrew Bible and Apocrypha Genesis 29:33 ​156 31:27 ​38 36:38 ​154 Exodus 23:8 ​37n3 34:11–16 ​25

178

Ancient Sources Index

Leviticus 16 ​61 23:15–21 ​60 23:23–25 ​60 23:26–32 ​61 23:33–43 ​61 23:34–36 ​61 23:39–43 ​61 23:40 ​61 Numbers 29:1–6 ​60 Deuteronomy 7:1–3 ​25 10:17 ​37n3 16 ​61 16:9–12 ​60 16:13–15 ​61 16:19 ​37n3 23:9 ​25 25:17–19 ​25 27:25 ​37n3 Judges 9:8–15 ​96 9:15 ​96n37 1 Samuel 8:3 ​37n3 2 Samuel 2:16 ​41 8:18 ​117n32 15:18 ​117n32 19:3 ​38 20:23 ​117n32 2 Kings 11:4 ​117n32 11:19 ​117n32 14:8 ​96 14:9 ​96 18:17–37 ​128 22–23 ​50 22:12 ​154 Ezra 1–6 ​55, 56 1–7 ​55 1:2–4 ​56 2:13 ​153n9 3:2 ​58

3:4 ​61 3:7 ​56 3:10 ​56 4 ​56 4–6 ​56, 64 4:1 ​64 4:4 ​64 4:6 ​55 4:7 ​55 4:9–10 ​64n8 5–6 ​56 5:3 ​135n37 5:9 ​135n37 5:14 ​41 6:5 ​41 7–10 ​58, 64, 65 7:17 ​135n37 7:18 ​135n37 7:21 ​135n37 7:24 ​135n37 8:13 ​153n9 9–10 ​64– 65 9:1–2 ​64 9:2 ​64 9:11 ​64 10:2 ​64 10:10 ​64 10:18 ​64 10:31 ​157 10:44 ​64 Nehemiah 1:1 ​70n11 2:12–16 ​64 4 ​63 4:1–8 ​63 6 ​63 6:1–4 ​63 6:10–14 ​64 6:17–19 ​64 7:18 ​153n9 8–9 ​61 8–10 ​64 8:1–12 ​60 8:14–18 ​61 10:17 ​153n9 12:22 ​55 12:23–28 ​64 13:28 ​58 2 Chronicles 8:13 ​61 19:7 ​37n3

Psalms 15:5 ​37n3 26:10 ​37n3 Proverbs 6:35 ​37n3 10:1–22:16 ​101 14:28 ​101 14:35 ​79, 101 15:33–16:15 ​100, 101 16:10–15 ​79 16:12–15 ​101n50 17:8–23 ​37n3 19:12 ​79, 101 20:2 ​101 20:8 ​101 20:26 ​101 20:28 ​101 21:1 ​101 22:11 ​101 22:17–24:22 ​101n51 22:19 ​101n51 22:23 ​101n51 22:29 ​101n51 23:1 ​101n51 23:23–34 ​100 24:18 ​101n51 24:21 ​101n51 24:21–22 ​79 25–29 ​101n51 25:1–6 ​101n51 25:25–27 ​101n51 28:15 ​101n51 29:4 ​101n51 29:12 ​101n51 29:14 ​101n51 29:16 ​101n51 29:19 ​101n51 Job 15:34 ​37n3 39:5 ​96 Isaiah 1:23 ​37n3 1:31 ​41 5:23 ​37, 37n3 33:15 ​37n3 Jeremiah 26:22 ​154 36:12 ​154

Ancient Sources Index Ezekiel 13:11–14 ​92n24 22:12 ​37n3 31:6 ​96

Zechariah 7:5 ​61 8:19 ​61 14:16–19 ​61

Daniel 1–6 ​80 2:37 ​41 4–5 ​80n30 4:30 ​41 5:2 ​41 5:3 ​41 5:21 ​96

Tobit 1:21–22 ​81n33, 86 2:10 ​81n33, 86 4 ​81 11:18 ​86 11:18–19 ​81n33, 14 ​81 14:10 ​81n34, 86

Micah 3:11 ​37n3

Other Jewish Texts Letter of Aristeas §13 ​50

Nahum 3:8 ​145 Haggai 1:2–8 ​64

Qumran Texts 1QapGenar col. x:16 ​ 136n45

179

1QapGenar col. xxi:2.20 ​ 136n45 4Q242 (Prayer Nabonidus) ​70n11, 80n30 Targum Neofiti Lev 20:2 ​90n17 Greek Texts Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 1.15.69.4 ​87n6 Herodotus, Histories 2.30:1–3 ​117 2.154:1 ​117 3.92–93 ​117 4.191 ​119n36 Vita Aesopi Chs. 101–23 (G) ​87n6

Subject Index

Achaemenid Empire. See Persian Empire Adon (king of ​Ekron), letter by, 127n9 adoption. See under children: duties; handmaiden; slave Aḥiqar (figure), 69–70, 119. See also Luqman in the book of ​Tobit, 80–82 Aḥiqar, Words of. See also Aḥiqar Narrative; Aḥiqar Proverbs composition of, 69 redaction of, 69n10, 87n4, 88n9 for scribal education, 119 Aḥiqar Narrative, 69–73, 119, 124, 131–32 Aramean Aḥiqar, 71, 81 as literature, 67–69, 73, 79, 86–87 political loyalty in, 78 redaction of, 69n10 title of, 69, 69n10, 70n11 Aḥiqar Proverbs, 69, 73–76, 78, 88, 119, 124, 131–32 Canaanite influence on, 88, 93, 93n27, 94n29 collections, 98–102 dialect, 88 loyalty to gods in, 78 Mesopotamian background of, 87n6 order of proverbs, 73 provenance of proverbs, 73, 88, 88n8, 93 realia in, 90, 91n19 reconstruction of, 74n18, 86n1 redaction of, 69n10, 98–100, 100n48, 101–2 spelling, 88n9 Aḥiqar Story. See Aḥiqar Narrative Ahuramazda, 77–78, 113 Akhvamazda (satrap of ​Bactria), 46, 127, 127n9, 130 Bagavanta correspondence, 46 letter orders, 130

official letters, 126–27 Amasis, 13, 114 Anani (son of Azaryah). See Ananyah Ananyah (son of Azaryah, temple servant), 17, 20, 58, 65 archive of, 10–11, 17, 125 house of, 10 Anat-​Bethel consort of yhw, 61 at Elephantine, 61–62, 65, 76, 110, 112 hypostasis of yhw, 61 Anat-​Yahu, 61, 76, 110, 112 consort of yhw, 61 hypostasis of yhw, 61 antipolygamy. See marriage Arabia, 106, 126 Arabians, 119 Arabs, 92–94, 119 Aramaic (Persian period) as administrative language, 128, 133–34 dialects, see under dialects diversity of, 126, 131, 133 Elephantine Aramaic, 124 Imperial Aramaic, 87–88, 90, 126, 130, 133n30 as language of communication, 128, 132 oral, 131 private, 131 written, 110–11, 128, 130–31 as lingua franca, 115, 133 Official Aramaic, 126, 128, 130–34, 136 in the Persian Empire, 126–33, 135–36 relation to Hebrew, 136–37 spelling, 88n9, 129 archaic, 134 in book of ​Ezra, 135 conservative, 134

181

182

Subject Index

Aramaic (Persian period) (cont’d) spelling (cont’d) influence of spoken language on, 130 uniformity of, 130 yhh, 46n8, 137n47 as standard language, 129–30 as vernacular, 45, 50, 111, 128, 129, 131, 137 Aramean deities, 75, 111–12. See also specific divine names Arameans, 106, 111–12, 129n19. See also under names, personal of ​Elephantine (ʾrmy zy yb), 64, 111, 142–45 as label for Judeans, 17n2, 68, 107, 111, 143–44 relation to Judeans, 64, 68, 76 of Syene (ʾrmy zy swn), 17n2, 111, 143–45 Aramean scribes, 144–45 archives (Elephantine), 19, 20. See also Mibṭaḥyah; Tabi; Tapmet; Yedanyah communal archive, 37, 125, 130, 135 family, 17 private, 17 Aršama (satrap of ​Egypt), 25, 56, 59, 114, 118, 130 correspondence, 38–40, 42, 46, 126, 128 letter orders, 130 official letters, 127 Artaxerxes I, 114 Artaxerxes II, 114 Assurbanipal, 64n8, 145 Aswan. See Syene Avastana, 56 Baal-​shamayn, 75, 88n8. See also Hadad Babylonian, 64, 108, 111n18, 113, 144 Bactria, 117, 126–27, 127n7, 128, 130 Bactrians, 106, 117, 129n19, 144 Bagavahya (governor of Judah/Yehud), 66 petition to, 50, 56, 58, 63, 72, 109–10 Bagavanta (governor in Khulmi), 46 Bar Puneš, 86n1, 127 bear (db), 91, 94 Bel, 49, 111, 113 bequest, 19, 21, 24–25, 27, 29–34. See also inheritance Bethel, 50n50, 61–62, 76, 110n16. See also Anat-​Bethel; Herem-​Bethel; Eshem-​Bethel Bethel-​stones, 110 temple of, 112 Bisitun inscription (Darius the Great), 39, 77–78, 113 Aramaic copy of, 113, 124 as literature, 67–69, 78, 86n1

personal integrity in, 78 political loyalty in, 78 as propaganda, 77, 86n1 for scribal education, 49n13, 113 bride-​price (mohar), 20–21, 25, 28. See also under handmaiden Cambyses, 50, 55, 72, 108, 113 Carians, 106, 117 Caspians, 106, 116–17, 144. See also names, personal: Iranian cedar, 91, 94, 96, 97 children (sons and daughters), 18, 30. See also bequest; inheritance adoption of, 24, 31–33, 119 daughter, 18, 23, 34 “daughter of,” 26–27, 33 protection (material) of, 32–33 duties (filial) of, 31–34 natural children, 19 natural father, 20–21, 23 natural filiation, 31 Cilicians, 106, 117–18 common people (ʿmm), 89–90 comrade (knh), 89 contact (languages), 88, 129, 135 Damascus, 93–94, 102 Daniel, book of, 73n16, 80n30, 135n35, 136 loyalty to God in, 80 Daniel (figure), 71, 79 Dargamana (son of ​Xvaršaina), 144 house of, 10, 18, 116 Darius, 56, 117 Darius I (the Great), 55, 57, 77, 113–14, 116– 17. See also Bisitun inscription Darius II, 59, 73, 77, 114 dating system Babylonian, 113 Egyptian, 113 Persian, Old, 114 Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), 61 Day of ​Trumpet Blasts, 60 deities. See specific divine names Delayah (governor of Samaria[?]), 50n16, 56, 63. See also Bagavahya Delayah and Šelemyah (sons of Sanballat), 50, 56, 63 delicts, 36. See also punishment bribes, 37 burglary, 42 injury (to inflict), 42 misappropriation, 38, 41, 42 theft, 36, 38–41

Subject Index demotic language, 114–15, 128, 130 script, 86n1, 127n12 dialects, 87–88, 124–26, 128, 132–34 Biblical Aramaic, 126, 128, 135 classification of Aramaic, 124–26, 133 diversity of, 126, 133 Elephantine Aramaic, 124 Imperial Aramaic, 87–88, 90, 126, 130, 133n30 Middle Aramaic, 133–34 Nabatean Aramaic, 134 Neo-​Aramaic, 126, 134, 135n35 Neo-​Assyrian Empire, in 127n9, 128, 133 Neo-​Babylonian Empire, in 127n9, 128, 133 Official Aramaic Old Aramaic, 88n9, 90, 126, 131, 132–33 Qumran Aramaic, 136, 136n40, 136n45 diaspora (Egypt), 69, 80 divorce (Elephantine), 27–28, 28n9, 30, 30n7 law of ​hatred, 20, 29, 30 right to divorce (wife), 20, 22, 25 divorce (Ezra–Nehemiah), 62, 65 eagre (qp), 93, 93n28 Egypt (under Persian rule), 72, 108, 113, 115–16 Egyptians, 106, 114–15 relation to Judeans, 25, 29, 64, 115. See also marriage: intermarriage El, 75, 78, 88n8 Elephantine “Aramean quarter,” 6, 8, 13–14 town layout, 2–4 Esarhaddon, 70, 72, 81, 145 Eshem-​Bethel, 61–62, 65, 110, 110n16, 112 Esḥor (son of ​Djeḥo, second husband of ​ Mibṭaḥyah), 19, 20, 24, 25, 33, 41–42, 62 Esther, book of, 73n16 Esther (figure), 71, 79 ethnic groups, 63, 106–7, 119–20, 142, 144. See also ethnicity Arameans, 111 interaction between, 106, 111, 120 Judeans, 50, 76, 110, 111 ethnicity, 17, 76, 106–7, 110, 111, 115, 119, 129n19 everyday life, 45–46, 116 Ezra–Nehemiah, 55, 63–66, 73n16, 80, 135– 36, 153 authenticity of documents in Ezra, 55, 80n31 conflicts, 63–65



183

divorce of ​“foreign” wives in, 62, 65 Ezra mission in, 48 loyalty to God in, 80 priests in, 58, 65 promulgation of the Torah in, 58 rebuilding of the temple in, 55–56, 63–65 reforms in, 25 Sanballat, 55–56, 63–66

fables, 94–98 Aḥiqar Proverbs, 94–98 dispute-​fables, 94n29, 97 Fable of Jotham, 96 Fables of Aesop, 73 family, 106. See also Mibṭaḥyah; Tabi; Tapmet archive, 17. See also under Mibṭaḥyah; Tabi; Tapmet bonds, 24, 28, 31 estate (patrimony), 32–33 name, 19, 33 unit, 20, 22, 24, 27, 30, 31 festivals, 59, 60–61 Festival of ​Tabernacles (Sukkot), 61, 65 Festival of ​Weeks, 60 Passover (Pesach) (psḥ), 47–48, 59–60, 65, 108, 136 Unleavened Bread festival (Mazzot), 48, 108 formulas, 131. See also oath legal, 26, 30–31, 33, 127, 130–31 letter, 130n21 address, 46, 49 Biblical Aramaic, 135 blessing, 46, 49. See also syncretism, religious greeting, 45–46, 49, 76, 106 fortress Elephantine, 2, 6 Syene, 2, 4, 5, 7 garrison at Elephantine (Judean), 4 at Syene (Aramean), 143, 145 gentilic, 118, 129n19, 144, 152–53. See also under specific ethnica gift. See marriage: exchanges gôlâ community (Judah), 64, 64n8 Golden Rule, 71 Hadad, 75, 111 handmaiden, 24–25, 27, 29, 31. See also divorce adoption of, 21, 24, 31–33

184

Subject Index

handmaiden (cont’d) bride-​price (mohar) for, 21, 25, 28 document of wifehood for, 17–22, 24, 26–28, 32–33 dowry, 13, 20–21, 28–29 guardian of, 21 manumission of, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 31, 32n10, 33 marriage of, 20–21, 25 title, 27 hanpana (protection wall), 13 Hebrew decline of, 136 at Elephantine, 50, 110, 136–37 inscription, 15 loanwords in Aramaic. See under loanwords onomasticon, 25, 62 personal names. See under names, personal spoken, 137, 137n50 static form (from Hebrew), 136–37 written, 137, 137n50 Hebrew Bible, 69 Aramaic literature in, 136. See also Daniel, book of; Ezra, book of Aramean deities in, 112 Elephantine and, 68–69, 78–79 fables and, 96–97 in legal traditions, 36 Yahwism in. See Yahwism Heqaib, sanctuary of, 3, 12 Herem, 61 Herem-​Bethel, 76, 110, 112 Hermopolis letters (papyri), 71, 126–28, 132, 133 high priest. See under priest houses (Elephantine Persian period), 4, 6–8, 10 courtyard house, 7–8 three-​room (tripartite) house, 8 tower house, 8 identity (religious), 68, 106–7, 119. See also specific ethnica Arameans, 111–12 Judeans, 107 Yehudites, 107–10 ideology, 88n9, 102 Persian imperial, 77, 80 (im)purity, 48 inheritance (transfer of goods and real estate to heirs), 19–22, 32 of children, 19–20, 30, 32–33 clauses, 30, 33

of daughters, 18–19, 23, 34 of ​heirs, 13, 18, 32–33 of slave (as property), 21, 23 of sons, 18, 23 of widowed men, 32 of widows, 32 of wives, 32 integrity, 71, 73, 78 intermarriage. See under marriage Iranians, 6. See also Persians Israelite religion, 79. See also Yahwism Israelites, 61, 64, 80, 81 Jerusalem, 11, 62–64, 66, 108 temple, 11, 58, 64, 65 Jews. See Judeans Jezirah, 91, 93, 94n29 Job (figure), 71, 79 Joseph (figure), 71, 79 Josiah (king of Judah), 50 Judah, 25, 50 Judaism biblical. See Yahwism early, 106, 109, 120 from nonbiblical to biblical, 79–80 rabbinic, 106 from Yahwism to, 107, 120 Judeans, 47, 68, 71, 73, 76, 79–80. See also Yehudites of ​Elephantine, 17n2, 64, 111, 142–45 origin of ​Elephantine, 50, 108, 137 relation to Arameans, 64, 68, 76 relation to Egyptians, 25, 29, 64, 115 yhwdy as label for, 50, 107 Khnum, 3, 50n14, 56, 60, 76, 115 in blessing, 46, 49 cult of, 64 precinct of, 2, 9, 12–13 priests of. See under priest temenos of, 9, 13, 14 temple excavation, 1–2, 4, 6, 9, 11–14 papyri, 60, 114–15 “way/town of,” 10, 12 Khwarezmians, 116, 144–45 lady, great, 25, 27, 30 law, biblical, 25, 58, 62, 65, 79 law (Elephantine), 50, 58 Lebanon, 88, 91, 91n19, 92, 94, 96 legal documents, 17, 33, 125–27, 129, 130–32 dating system in, 113–14 leopard (nmr), 90, 91n20, 94

Subject Index letters. See also under Akhvamazda; Aršama; formulas; Hermopolis letters; Yedanyah copies, 124 correspondence, official, 127n9. See also under Akhvamazda; Aršama; letters: official drafts, 124, 131 letter orders, 130 ostraca, 45, 131, 137, 137n47 private, 127, 131. See also Hermopolis letters linguistics, 124, 129, 134 bilingualism, 137 code-​switching, 137 genitival cosntruction, 134 grammaticalization, 135n35 infinitives, 88, 131, 132n28, 134, 136 nota objecti, 134 semantic domain, 137 static form, 136 structure of noun phrases, 134 suppletive verbs, 132 verbal system (participle), 134 word order, 39–40, 131, 134 lion (lbʾ), 93 literacy, 49 literature (Aramaic). See also Aḥiqar Narrative; Aḥiqar Proverbs; literary genre; wisdom literature Aḥiqar, 67–69, 73, 79, 86–87 Bisitun inscription, 67–69, 78, 86n1 genre, 127 Ḥor son of ​Puneš, 86n1, 127 P. Amherst 63, 79n26, 127n12 Sheikh Fadl, 127n12 loanwords (in Aramaic) Akkadian, 27, 87–89, 93n27, 93n28 Egyptian (demotic), 12, 25, 89 Hebrew, 136–37 Persian, 77, 113, 130 loyalty, 80, 119 to God (biblical concept), 80 to god(s), 76–78, 81 political, 71–78, 81, 119 Luqman (Surah), 69, 82 Lybians, 106, 118–19 Maḥseyah (father of ​Mibṭaḥyah), 10, 17–19, 29, 63, 111, 116, 143–45 Marduk, 113 Maresha, 90 marriage. See also under Mibṭaḥyah; Tabi; Tapmet; Yehoyišmaʿ

185

antipolygamy, 22 assent, 25, 33 bride, 22n9, 23–24, 26, 28–29 bridegroom, 26, 28 bride’s father, 26, 28 bride’s representative, 28 cohabitation, 29, 29n6, 33 conjugal duties, 29, 33 dowry, 13, 20–21, 28–29 endogamy, 24 exchanges, 28–29, 33 exogamy, 24–25 “foreign wife,” 64–65 husband, 18–30, 32–33, 62 intermarriage, 22–23, 62, 76, 106 marriage document, 17–22, 25–29, 33 material protection (of wife), 28, 30, 33 matrilocal, 19 monogamous, 22, 30 non-​Jewish husbands, 65 palingamy, 30n7 patrilocal, 19 polygamy, 22 proposal, 26, 28 wife, 17–18, 25–33, 57–58, 62, 65 marzeaḥ (religious guild), 109–10, 136n44 Mazzot. See under festivals: Unleavened Bread festival Medes, 116, 144 Mediterranean Sea, 93 Meshwesh, 106, 119 Mešullam (son of ​Zakkur, master of ​Tapmet), 20–21, 25, 27–28, 31, 32n10 Mibṭaḥyah (daughter of ​Maḥseyah), 22, 24, 26, 28–30, 32–33, 62, 143, 145 archive of, 10, 17, 19, 24, 116, 125 house of, 10 family of, 17–20 slaves of, 21–22, 114 monotheism, biblical, 80, 81 Murashu archive, 118n34, 149 Nabu (deity), 49, 93n28, 113 names, personal, 6, 119, 142 Akkadian, 145–46 Arabian, 49, 145 Arabic, 119 Aramaic, 116, 145, 148, 156 Aramean, 62, 111, 119, 157 Assyrian, 142, 145–49, 157 Babylonian, 62, 142, 151, 157 Egyptian, 24, 114–15, 118, 140, 145–46, 157 Hebrew, 24–25, 62, 112, 127n8, 137n50, 146, 153, 155–57

186

Subject Index

names, personal (cont’d) Iranian, 117 Judean, 19, 24–25, 59, 62, 142 Luwian, 118 Northwest Semitic, 49 Persian, 40, 62, 112, 114, 116, 119, 146, 157 Phoenician, 118, 142, 146, 153, 155–57 scribal, 129 West Semitic, 142 Yahwistic, 19, 111 Nectanebo II, 12–14 Nehemiah (figure), 63–66 Nergal, 49, 76, 111, 113 New Year. See under festivals Nisa, 151–52 oath, 18, 40, 42–43, 46, 116, 137 by gods other than yhw, 20, 76, 110, 112 ostraca (Aramaic) Assur, 127n9 Elephantine, 45. See also Aramaic: vernacular; festivals: Passover; letter formulas; letters: letter ostraca; oath: by other gods; Sabbath: ostraca Elephantine; yhh; syncretism, religious from Idumea, 128 from Palestine, 126 from Syene, 6, 7, 118, 142 paganism. See syncretism, religious Passover. See under festivals Passover Papyrus, 48, 59–60 patronymic, 62–63, 129n18, 142, 151, 154 Persepolis Fortification Archive, 126, 128 Persian, Old, 113, 128, 130 calque (in Aramaic), 39 loanwords (in Aramaic), 77, 113, 130 Persianisms (in Aramaic), 113 syntax (influence on Aramaic), 130, 135 Persian Empire, 10, 55, 76, 86n1, 112, 116–17, 124, 128 Persian period, 1, 17, 60, 62, 66, 107, 115 Judah, 64 transition period, 107 Persians, 106, 112–14 Pesach. See under festivals: Passover Pherendates (satrap), 60, 115 Phoenicians, 6, 92–93, 106, 115, 118, 155. See also Sidonians; see also under names, personal Pilṭi, 20, 26, 30, 32–33 pluralism, religious. See syncretism, religious

polygamy. See under marriage polytheism, 76. See also specific divine names; syncretism, religious priest high (Jerusalem), 50, 55–56, 58 of ​Khnum, 56, 58, 60, 65, 109, 115 pagan (kmr), 58, 65 of yhw (khn), 38, 58, 64, 65 protection (legal), 21, 28 Proverbs, book of collections, 100–102 God and king in, 100–102 redaction, 100–102 Proverbs of Aḥiqar. See Aḥiqar Proverbs Psametik II, 14 punishment, 29, 31, 38, 42–43 Queen of ​Heaven, 112 reference outside reference, 107n2 self-​reference, 107n2 Sabbath (šbh), 47, 58, 59, 61, 65, 79, 108–9, 136 Samaria, 80, 94n29, 108 as seat of governor, 50, 55, 63 Samarians, 64 Sanballat (governor of Samaria), 55, 56, 63–66 sons of, 50, 56, 63, 65 Satet, 20, 76, 115 temenos, 3, 14 temple, 3, 13 scribal education, 49n13, 76, 113, 119 scribal exercise, 49 seal, 6, 63 Sennacherib, 70, 72, 80 Shamash, 49, 76, 75, 88n8, 102, 111, 113 Sidonians, 92, 94, 106, 118, 152–53, 155 slave, 20–22, 25, 27, 62, 114. See also handmaiden; see also under Mibṭaḥyah adoption, 21–22, 24, 31–33 Egyptian, 62, 114 manumission of, 21, 23, 24, 31, 33 mark, 22 “by name,” 25, 27 natural father of 20–21, 23 sales (Wadi ed-​Daliyeh), 126–27 wife, 20–21 status, 17, 19, 23, 25–27, 30, 37 legal, 17, 21–23 manumitted slave, 21, 23 slave, 20–23, 25, 26, 28

Subject Index socioeconomic, 17, 21–22 storm (šhyn), 92, 92n23, 92n24, 92n25 Syene, town and fortress layout of, 4–7 Syenians, 57, 144–45 syncretism, religious, 49, 50, 80–81 Syrians, 106. See also Arameans Tabernacles, Festival of. See under festivals Tabi (Egyptian handmaiden of ​Mibṭaḥyah), 21–22 Tamet. See Tapmet Tapamet. See Tapmet Tapmet (Egyptian handmaiden), 18, 20–21, 22, 24–31, 33, 58, 65 Tell Tayinat, 11 temenos. See under Khnum; Satet temple. See under YHW; Khnum; Satet Tobiah (friend of Sanballat), 64, 66 Tobit, book of, 69, 80–82, 86 Torah, 58, 65, 79 traditions, legal in Elephantine legal documents, 131n23 in Hebrew Bible, 36 Unleavened Bread festival. See under festivals usufruct 19, 29, 32–33 virtues, 71–73, 78–79. See also loyalty Wadi ed-​Daliyeh, 63, 126–28 wall, protection (hnpnʾ), 13 wine, 91, 94, 118 wisdom in Aḥiqar, 67, 88n9 Narrative, 87 Proverbs, 86, 94, 94n29, 102 ancient Near Eastern, 119 biblical, 71, 94, 97, 102 literature, 71 Mesopotamian, 71, 87n6, 94 woman bride. See under marriage daughter, 18–19, 21, 23, 24, 29, 31–34 freed woman, 27 free woman, 20, 25–28, 28n4 handmaiden. See handmaiden status of, 19–23, 25–28

187

widow, 19, 32 wife. See under marriage written document (spr), 131 Xerxes I, 114 Yaho, 46. See also yhh Yahu. See yhw Yahwism, 50, 77, 107, 109, 120 Yeb. See Elephantine Yedanyah (son of Gemaryah, communal leader), 58, 63, 67n4, 109–10 archive of, 37, 58, 77, 125, 130, 135 letters, 77, 135 Yehoḥanan (high priest Jerusalem). See Yoḥanan Yehoyišmaʿ (daughter of ​Tapmet, handmaiden), 20–22, 24–25, 27–33 Yehud, 66, 72, 108, 110, 156 Yehudites, 106–11, 114n28, 120 origin of ​Elephantine, 50, 108, 137 Yezanyah (son of Uriyah, first husband of ​ Mibṭaḥyah), 18–19, 24, 29–30, 62 yhh. See also yhw in oath, 46–47, 137 spelling, 46n8, 137n47 Zebaoth (yhh ṣbʾt, lord of the armies), 47, 137 yhw (Elephantine) cult, 56, 60, 110 temple of archaeological identification of, 2, 10–11, 13–14 authorization for rebuilding, 56, 57 destruction of, 11, 14, 58, 60, 109 petition for rebuilding, 108, 131 rebuilding of, 56–57, 63, 72, 109 temple servant (lḥn/lḥnh), 58. See also Ananyah; Tapmet yhwh, 46, 61, 65, 79, 137 Yoḥanan (high priest Jerusalem; Yehoḥanan), 50, 55–56 Yom Kippur. See Day of Atonement Zakkur (son of ​Mešullam), 22, 28, 31. See also slave: adoption; slave: manumission