The Interaction of Egyptian and Aramaic Literature

JOACHIM FRIEDRICH Q U A C K Institute of Egyptology-University of Heidelberg

While there has been considerable discussion on the quest ion of Egyptian influence on Old Testament l i terature, especially wisdom texts such as the Teaching of Amenemope (Humber t 1929; Bruyce 1979; Romheld 1989; Laisney 2007) and Canticles (e.g., Fox 1985), the rela­tion between nonbiblical Jewish l i terature and Egyptian compositions has been m u c h less in the focus. The relevant compositions I in tend to discuss are wri t ten in Aramaic, and this entails the methodological problem to which extent they can be classified as "Jewish"—or Jehu­di te—literature and thus legitimately be brought into the scope of this volume. I can point out that at least Ahiqar is archaeologically ascer­tained to come f rom the group on Elephantine Island that stylized itself as "Jews." Obviously, this will lead to the wider quest ion of w h a t it mean t to be a "Jew" dur ing the Achaemenid period.

As a point of comparison, Egyptian l i terary texts of the Late period will be used. I restrict myself to those wri t ten in the vernacular demotic l anguage because there is no evidence that l i terary texts in classical Middle Egyptian l anguage were created anew dur ing the Late period. As a mat te r of fact, they even seem to have died out dur ing that period; there is no single manuscr ip t of a Middle Egyptian l i terary composition later than the Sai'tic period (26th Dynasty; Quack 2003a). This restric­tion still leaves us with a fairly large Egyptian corpus (Quack 2005a).

In order to use this corpus to the full, w e have to keep in m i n d the chronological question. At first, it seems appropr ia te to limit ourselves to cases of Egyptian texts f rom the Achaemenid period, in keeping with the focus of this volume. However , wi th a closer look, this raises an impor tan t methodological issue: what exactly is an Egyptian text f rom the Achaemenid period? Many Egyptologists t end to base their text chronology mainly on actual attestations of manuscr ipts . Thus, while avoiding the pitfall of fanciful early dat ing that has somet imes plagued Egyptology, they incur the even greater risk of mistaking the r andom preservat ion for a s t ruc ture of development (von Lieven 2007:

375

Originalveröffentlichung in: Oded Lipschits/Gary N. Knoppers/ Manfred Oeming (Hg.), Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Age. Negotiating Identity in an International Context, Winona Lake 2011, S. 375-401

376 JOACHIM FRIEDRICH QUACK

223-54). Specifically for t he demot ic l i te ra ture , w e have to reckon wi th t he fact tha t the re are h a r d l y any prese rved demot ic l i terary m a n u ­scripts f r o m the Persian per iod actual ly k n o w n nowadays . 1 By far, t he grea tes t n u m b e r of demot ic l i terary f r a g m e n t s d a t e f r o m t he R o m a n per iod. However , in m a n y cases t he re are i nhe ren t a r g u m e n t s for a t ­t r ibu t ing the original da te of composi t ion to pre­P to lemaic t imes.2

Thus , I feel just if ied in us ing composi t ions w h o s e ac tua l m a n u s c r i p t s are p o s t ­ A c h a e m e n i d as long as the re are good reasons for connec t ing t h e m w i t h Imper ia l Arama ic texts.

The b e s t ­ k n o w n case of a t rans la t ion f r o m Arama ic to Egypt i an is the Story and Wisdom of Ahiqar. Set at t he Neo­Assy r i an cour t a n d t hough t b y several scholars actual ly to reflect Assyr ian cour t milieu (Fales 1994; Koch­Wes tenholz 1995: 63; Dalley 2001: 153­54; Parpola 2005; Weigl 2010: 691­703), the oldest prese rved m a n u s c r i p t , w r i t t e n in Imper ia l Aramaic , w a s f o u n d at Elephan t ine a n d d a t e s f r o m the 5th cen tu ry B.C.E.3 It has been long k n o w n tha t this composi t ion was, bes ides r en ­de r ings in m a n y o the r languages , 4 also t r ans la ted in to demot ic Egyp­tian.5 U p to now, only t w o demot ic Egypt i an f r a g m e n t s of t he nar ra t ive f r a m e (manuscr ip t s d a t i n g f r o m the R o m a n imper ia l per iod) have been publ i shed ; several m o r e in t he s a m e h a n d a n d probab ly f r o m t he s a m e scroll r e m a i n unpub l i shed , as well as several f r a g m e n t s f r o m w i s d o m ins t ruc t ions in the s a m e h a n d tha t are likely to cons t i tu te t he m a x i m s of Ahiqar in demot ic Egypt ian fo rm. The u n p u b l i s h e d f r a g m e n t s of n a r r a ­tive passages as wel l as the b y ­ f a r largest f r a g m e n t of t he ins t ruc t ions (P.Berlin 15658) are n o w a d a y s at Berlin, a n d smal ler f r a g m e n t s of the w i s d o m sayings are at Vienna.6 The provenance is not certain, b u t f r o m t he style of t he h a n d it is likely to be Soknopaiou Nesos.

1. There exis ts a very smal l f r a g m e n t of certainly l iterary (probably narrative) nature n o w in Berlin (P.Berlin 23504); see Jasnow (1992: 40 n. 63).

2. I have a r g u e d o n this l ine in several cases (Quack 2005a). For the early history of d e m o t i c l i terature, see further H o f f m a n n (2009).

3. Last, see Lindenberger 1985; Kotts ieper 1991; Porten a n d Yardeni 1993: 23-53; Cont in i 2005; N i e h r 2007; Weigl 2010. The relative pos i t ion of the ind iv idua l frag ­m e n t s can n o w be assured b y the traces of the tax account that w a s first wri t t en in the scroll.

4. The s tandard ed i t ion still remains Conybeare , Harris, a n d L e w i s (1913); for a m o r e recent treatment , see Cont in i and Grottanel l i (2005); a n d the o v e r v i e w of the textual history in Bricque l ­Chatonnet (2005).

5. Z a u z i c h (1976); Betro (2005). See further Kuchler (1979: 333­37) , w h e r e also translat ions of s o m e excerpts of the w i s d o m s a y i n g s (based o n a provis ional transla­t ion by Zauz ich) are given; Ryholt (2004: 497­99) .

6. Berlin: Relevant n u m b e r s of f r a g m e n t s poss ib ly b e l o n g i n g to Ahiqar are P.Berlin 23730, 23829, 23830, and 23831. Vienna: Actua l ly u n d e r P.Vienna A e g n u m ­bers 6332 a n d 6659.

The Interaction of Egyptian and Aramaic Literature 377

In order to give an objective impression of the factual basis, I will present the two published fragments of the narrative section in English translation, regardless of their bad preservation.

(a) Fragment Cairo7

x + 1 . . . ] Egypt(?)8 [ . . . x + 2 . . . ] ' the fa the r [ . . . x + 3 . . . ] all [ . . . ] which they . [ . . . x + 4 . . . ] misery . . . [ . . . x + 5 . . . ] whom(?)? 1 01 will give you a palm-branch(?) [ . . . x + 6 . . . ] the . . . which is ment ioned above totally,11 so tha t it h a p p e n s tha t

she [ . . . x + 7 . . . ] . council a m o n g them(?).12 They said: "Let [ . . . ] give [ . . . x + 8 . . . ] w e [ . . . ] , w e fai led, w e w e r e s tup id . [ . . . x + 9 . . . ] the a r m y which h a d rebelled is it which has gone to Ni[niveh(?)13

x + 10 . . . ] in it [ . . . ] H e f o u n d Akhiqa r at the place [ . . . x + 11 . . . ] . Go a w a y to your districts14 and your1 5 c [ i t i e s (? ) . . . x + 12 . . . ] . to the a r m y which the chief Akhiq[ar . . . x + 13 . . . t h o u j g h t about the evil th ing which h a d h a p p e n e d [ . . .

7. Original publication by Sobhy (1930: pi. VII, 2: without closer study), identi­fied as a f ragment of the Ahiqar tradition by Spiegelberg (1930). Philological edition by Zauzich (1976:182­83).

8. Reading not secure, unfortunately. Read as . . . nti by Zauzich, but in spite of the damage to the papyrus, the best visible sign seems to be rather an m with a horizontal line above. I propose to read rKmy\

9. According to the determinative, a foreign name. 10. I would read n[m]e rather than ntm, "agreeable," proposed by Zauzich. Betro

(2005: 188 note b) has already argued correctly that the word ncm, "agreeable," is written differently in the P.Berlin 15658, but her own reading nmh fails to convince me.

11. I read only (r=f where Zauzich had proposed tr=s iw gm=f. Similarly compli­cated groups for cr are attested also in other manuscripts f rom Soknopaiou Nesos; see, e.g., the form in P.Vienna 12006 recto (Stadler 2004: 329).

12. I propose iwt=w instead of Zauzich's ni.w sm=w; see the somewhat similar form in P.Vienna D. 12006 recto (Stadler 2004: 281).

13. The alternative translation "N[adin] came" proposed by Betro (2005: 188­89 note f) is excluded by the word order that would have to be fcffj N[..] iyi, not v.iri iyi N[. .].

14. I propose to read nty=tn ts.[w], as is already held to be possible by Zauzich. 15. The n=tn is likely to be an unetymological writing for niy-tn. I suppose that

the formulation was analogous to, e.g., P.Krall 8, 18 and even more 9, 21. The traces at the end of the line would fit with the form of tmy, "city," attested in line x + 3 of the Berlin fragment.

378 JOACHIM FRIEDRICH QUACK

(b) F r a g m e n t B e r l i n (P.23729), c o l u m n l 1 6

x + 1 . . . a m a n l ] ike 1 7 m y f a t h e r . . . x + 2 . . . w h i c h ] y o u h a v e s o u g h t f o r u s . Y o u h a v e n o t s o u g h t s o r r o w 1 8

x + 3 . . . ] o u t of o n e c i t y o r t h e o t h e r , [ . . . ] . . . x + 4 . . . ] c h i e f . N o b o d y o n e a r t h c o u l d d i s c o v e r w h a t h a p p e n e d t o h i m . x + 5 . . . ] m a n l i k e A k h i q a r w h o h a s x + 6 . . . ] " h a s t e n e d t o t h e p l a c e w h e r e A k h i q a r x + 7 . . . ] al l [ . . . ] . H a s t e n t o t h e c h i e f w h e n h e s e e k s x + 8 . . . ] t h e A s s y r i a n x + 9 . . . ] t o h e r [ . . . ]

In spite of the very unsat isfactory state of preservat ion, we can m a k e some guesses about the original setting. As already proposed by Zau-zich (1976) and Betro (2005: 178), they would fit very well wi th the si tuat ion w h e n Assyria was chal lenged by the king of Egypt to a duel of riddles, and the Assyrian king was looking for a competen t advi ­sor to deal wi th them. Alternatively, Ryholt (2004: 498­99) has brought for th the (equally possible) proposal tha t they are f r o m the section w h e r e Ahiqar was tricked into seemingly revolt ing against the king and w h e r e he was saved f r o m execution. It is of some impor tance for m y fu r t he r discussion that the sections about the duel of r iddles are not at tes ted a m o n g the imperial Aramaic f r agmen t s f r o m Elephant ine, even t hough we cannot base too m u c h on this fact, given tha t those f r agmen t s are only very partial ly preserved, with several pages being completely lost.20

I will go into f ewer details about the f r a g m e n t s f r o m the section of teachings because they are not yet publ ished. At the outset , I should stress tha t the at t r ibut ion of the w i s d o m f r agmen t s to a demotic Egyp­tian t ranslat ion of Ahiqar cannot be strictly proven at the momen t . An initial suspicion is based on the similarity of the hands , which points to the work of a single scribe for the w i s d o m f r a g m e n t s and for the narra t ive sections ment ion ing Ahiqar. Of course, one scribe could have

16. E d i t e d b y Z a u z i c h (1976: 183­84) . T h e p i t i f u l f r a g m e n t s of c o l u m n 2 d o n o t m e r i t a t r a n s l a t i o n .

17. H e r e a n d in x + 5 , 1 w o u l d r e a d m 'y i n s t e a d of t h e r e a d i n g s'y p r o p o s e d b y Z a u z i c h ; a l r e a d y Bet ro (2005: 190 n o t e a) a d m i t s t h a t t h e s i g n is m o r e l ike ly t o b e m t h a n s. For t h e m e a n i n g , I t a k e t h i s t o b e a v a r i a n t of t h e e x p r e s s i o n m '; see Q u a c k (1996).

18. Z a u z i c h s r e a d i n g th' is c l ea r ly c o r r e c t a g a i n s t t h e p r o p o s a l iv' ' b y B e t r o (2005 :190 n o t e b).

19. A c c o r d i n g to t h e d e t e r m i n a t i v e , t h e n a m e of a f o r e i g n p e r s o n . 20. P o r t e n a n d Y a r d e n i (1993: 23). See S t r u g n e l l (1999), w h o a r g u e s f o r t h e o r i g i ­

n a l i t y of t h i s e p i s o d e , p o i n t i n g o u t a l so t h a t m o r e l e aves t h a n o n l y t h o s e w i t h t h e t a x ­ a c c o u n t c o u l d h a v e b e e n g l u e d t o g e t h e r .

The Interaction of Egyptian and Aramaic Literature 379

copied dif ferent manuscr ip ts . There is even one no tewor thy difference: all f r a g m e n t s of the narra t ive sections have an uninscr ibed verso, while the f r a g m e n t s wi th wisdom sayings have on the verso a hieratic copy of the Book of the Temple.21 But it would not be too surpr is ing if only a por ­tion of the verso was ever used for wri t ing (Ryholt 2005: 27). In any case, one interest ing formal aspect should be noted. In all of the later Ahiqar t radit ions, bu t not in the imperial Aramaic f ragments , each saying is in t roduced in a ra ther dull way, wi th "my son." The demotic Egypt ian f r agmen t s in quest ion do not show any s t ruc tur ing of this sort, even t hough they contain several probable beginnings of n e w sayings.

Unfor tunate ly , the incomplete preservat ion of phrases typically has a greater impact on the unders tandabi l i ty of wisdom discourse t han on a straight narrat ive; and in the actually k n o w n par ts of the manuscr ip t , there is hard ly any complete sentence. Still, it seems usefu l to ment ion some phrases tha t were quoted by Kiichler (1979: 336­37) f r o m a pre­l iminary t ranslat ion by Zauzich because they served to suppor t the idea that these were precepts h o w subjects should behave toward a prince. The problem is tha t in a large measure this in terpre ta t ion seems due to an e lementary misreading. What is really wri t ten as pty=k "your" was misread as pi wr " the prince." The remain ing cases, mainly involving the w o r d hri, "chief, superior," are hard ly characteristic for a prince and could as well refer to behavior within any hierarchical si tuat ion at the adminis t ra t ive level; as a mat te r of fact, advice for si tuat ions of this sort is qui te common in Egypt ian wisdom texts (Quack 1994:152 and 184).

O n e specific passage certainly meri ts discussion because it goes some w a y toward establishing the at t r ibut ion of the f r a g m e n t s to Ahiqar. We have the text "I have eaten gall" (2, x + 2) fol lowed by a lacuna. In spite of the shortness, I can note that this is a fairly unusua l formula t ion for a w i s d o m text. However , it has a very good at testat ion in the Ahiqar t radi t ion (Noldeke 1913: 41). Already, the Imperial Aramaic p ap y ru s has a saying tha t Porten t ranslates as "I have tas ted the bit ter medla r and the [taste] is s t rong but there is not (anything) which is more bit ter t han poverty," whereas Kottsieper u n d e r s t a n d s it as "I have tasted the medla r and the gall, and the taste was strong, bu t there is not any th ing which is more bitter than pover ty" (col. 6 ,11 = Sachau pi. 45, l l ) .2 2 Lin­denberger (1985: 501), on the basis of a slightly dif ferent restorat ion of a lacuna, even u n d e r s t a n d s it as "I have tas ted even the bit ter medlar , and have eaten endives, bu t there is noth ing more bit ter t han poverty."

21. For preliminary reports of this text see Quack (2000; 2004; 2005b; 2007). 22. Porten and Yardeni (1993: 36­37); similar also are Contini (2005:123­24) and

Niehr (2007: 43); see also Kottsieper (1990: 20) and the discussion of this saying by Yona (2007: 37­39); Weigl (2010: 157­60).

380 JOACHIM FRIEDRICH QUACK

These slight disagreements on the precise philological in terpre ta t ion of the manuscr ip t do not have any repercussions on its similarity wi th the demotic Egypt ian phrase. A m o n g the later Ahiqar t radi t ions, one of the Syriac manuscr ip t s has it as "I have eaten bit ter th ings and swal lowed viscous mat te r but I did not f ind any th ing more bi t ter t han pover ty" (Nau 1919: 153 and 159, saying 42). In the Slavonic version, w e have "I have tasted gall and bit terness, a n d it was not more bitter t han pov ­er ty"; in the Armen ian w e have "I have eaten endive a n d I have d r u n k gall, and it was not more bit ter t han poverty." The Arabic version has "I have eaten a colocynth, and swal lowed aloes, and I have f o u n d noth ing more bit ter t han poverty and scarcity" (Conybeare, Harr is , and Lewis 1913: 6, saying 54; 32, saying 69; 63, saying 72; 136, saying 40).

I will fu r t he r ment ion one point tha t has been brought u p previously (Quack 2002: 340; Betro 2005:180­81). There is one passage tha t invites a restorat ion in line wi th the later Syriac t radi t ion. The preserved de­motic text gives: "Do not love to gird23 to [ . . . ] occur. If beating2 4 [ . . . ] ." It is at least t empt ing to restore the text as "Do not love to gird to s[trife! If strife occurs, beat ing will] occur. If beat ing [occurs, killing will oc­cur]." This is, on the one h a n d , at tes ted similarly as a saying in the Syriac Ahiqar t radi t ion (but not in the preserved f r a g m e n t s of the im­perial Aramaic version). There are slight differences in formula t ion . O n e manuscr ip t has "Do not s tand a m o n g those w h o quarrel . For f r o m laughter there comes quarrel , and f r o m quarre l there comes f ighting, and f r o m f ighting comes killing" (Nau 1919:154 and 159). Anothe r has "Do not s tand in the house of those w h o are on strife. For f r o m a w o r d there comes a quarrel , and f r o m a quarre l is st irred u p vexation, and f r o m vexation comes killing."25

O n the other h a n d , w e have a very similar formula t ion in an­other demot ic Egypt ian w i s d o m composit ion, namely, the Teachings of Khasheshonqy (normally but wrongly called "Onkhsheshonqy" in m o d ­ern scholarship).26 There it runs as "Do not insult the common man. If insult occurs, beat ing will occur. If beat ing occurs, killing will occur" (22, 21­23). The Khasheshonqy saying has been connected wi th Ahiqar

23. Against the translation "amare la disputa" (mr mlh) of Betro (2005: 180), it should be stressed that the orthography of the manuscript shows mr{ ml.

24. The reading hpr mhy given by Betro (2005: 180 n. 3) is in need of correction. The actual reading of the manuscript is hpr in-'nV.w mhy [...].

25. Conybeare, Harris, and Lewis (1913: 35 and 100, saying 8). For the ramifi­cations of this motive from the third millennium B.C.E. onward, see Quack (1994: 215­17).

26. For the text, first edited by Glanville (1955), see Quack (2005a: 111­19); a complete German translation is Hoffmann and Quack (2007: 273­99, 365­68).

The Interaction of Egyptian and Aramaic Literature 381

already by Lichtheim (1983: 14-17), even withou t knowledge of the Papyrus Berlin 15658.1 will take u p the tricky quest ion of the relation be tween Ahiqar and Khasheshonqy later on.

In s u m m a r y , f r o m w h a t can be asce r t a ined at t he m o m e n t , t h e con ten t of t h e d e m o t i c Egyp t i an f r a g m e n t s of Ahiqar is closer in con ten t to t h e m a i n s t r e a m r edac t i on of Ahiqar (as a t t e s t ed , e.g., in Syriac) t h a n to t h e Imper i a l A r a m a i c vers ion , a fact t ha t enta i l s com ­plex ques t i ons of t he ac tua l h i s to ry of r edac t i on a n d t r ansmis s ion as wel l as t h e d a t e of t h e d e m o t i c t r ans la t ion . Several q u i t e ­ d i f f e r e n t possibi l i t ies r ise up. First , t h e E g y p t i a n vers ion could be based on s o m e later , cons ide rab ly reworked version of Ahiqar. In tha t case, w e would lose the relation to the Achaemenid period. The other option is that , in the early t imes, several qui te ­d ivergent versions of Ahiqar were in circulation, and the Egyptian t ranslat ion is based on one tha t was ra ther dif ferent f r o m the only preserved imperial Aramaic copy ( f rom Elephantine) withou t necessarily being chronologically younger.27 O n e point in favor of this supposi t ion is tha t the demotic f r a g m e n t s of the teachings, even if taking into account possible fu r t he r advances in read ing and under s t and ing , are also certainly more dif ferent f r o m the mains t r eam redact ion of Ahiqar t han the ordinary divergences within tha t g r o u p (e.g., be tween the Syriac and the Armen ian versions). Thus, I would propose to in terpret the demot ic Egypt ian t ranslat ion as tes­t imony of a second f ree and "uncanonical" early redact ion of Ahiqar, even if it is pe rhaps closer to the later Syriac version in some respects (especially the f r a m e story) than to the Imperial Aramaic one.28

The options can perhaps be na r rowed d o w n a bit if w e take the Greek Life of Aesop29 into consideration, because the sections it took over f r o m the Ahiqar t radi t ion (chaps. 101­23) al ready contain the narra t ive element of the r iddle duel wi th the Egypt ian king. Thus, it presupposes a state of the f r a m e story similar to the Syriac t radit ion. The Greek text is normal ly considered to da te f r o m the Roman imperial t ime, even if

27. Fales (1994: 51-60) has stressed the differences between the Elephantine version and the later traditions, but his arguments have to be taken with caution, given the incomplete preservation of the Elephantine manuscript and especially the proof by Porten and Yardeni that several pages from it are completely lacking. See Bricquel-Chatonnet (2005: 28; 2007).

28. Unfortunately, the wisdom sayings published by Eshel et al. (2007) are too short and fragmentary to allow a judgment regarding whether they might be con­sidered still another early uncanonical tradition of Ahiqar.

29. Edited by Perry (1962: 1­208); Papathomopoulos (1990). English translation in Daly (1961: 29­90); German translation by G. Poethke in Miiller (1974); Italian translation of the section taken over from Ahiqar by Grottanelli and Dettori (2005: 167­75).

382 JOACHIM FRIEDRICH QUACK

there has not been m u c h i n -dep th discussion (Holzberg 2003). A f r ag ­men t of a Greek papyrus f r o m the late second or early th i rd century C.E. (P.Berlin 11628) containing par t s of the text provides a secure t e rminus ante quern. Besides, in its content it gives an addi t ional t e rminus ante quern non. By n a m i n g the Egypt ian king Nectanebo as the opponent in the duel of riddles, it cannot be earlier t han his reign (360­342 B.C.E.) .3 0

In any case, the render ing of the n a m e of the Egypt ian king is in favor of a milieu tha t was knowledgeable of Egypt (if not actually be­ing in Egypt);31 a takeover directly f r o m Aramaic withou t any Egypt ian part icipat ion would have produced a more garbled render ing. To some degree, this might even br ing u p the quest ion w h e t h e r this part icular section of the Life of Aesop was taken over f r o m an Aramaic version of Ahiqar at all and not via the in te rmedia ry of a demotic Egypt ian one. I cannot elaborate this point here, given its complexity and the fact that nobody u p to n o w has ever explored a possibility such as this. But in Egypt dur ing the Roman period, a demotic Egypt ian text would have h a d a m u c h wider circulation and t hus been a more logical candida te for influence t han an Aramaic one.32

Some evidence concerning the direction and somet imes even t ime of loans can be gained f r o m the phonet ic f o r m of the names . The n a m e of the protagonis t appears as Ihykl or ihygl in the demotic Egypt ian ver­sion. With the laryngeal h, a f o r m of this sort goes back to a Semitic prototype, excluding the possibility of a Greek in termediary. Besides, it should have come about at a t ime w h e n the distinction be tween the two sounds h and h in Aramaic , a l though not indicated in the wri t ing, was still main ta ined in speech.33 Fur thermore , we have the deve lopment of an original Semitic velar k to a demotic Egypt ian k or g. This spelling is typically used w h e n an Egypt ian sound was realized wi th a pronuncia ­tion like the Coptic 6 (Quack 2005c: 323­24). The sound shif t f r o m a/c to

30. B r i c q u e l ­ C h a t o n n e t (2006) h a s p o i n t e d o u t p a r a l l e l s fo r o n e e p i s o d e of t h e r i d d l e d u e l i n v o l v i n g t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of a cas t l e in t h e air t h a t w o u l d a l so i n d i c a t e t h a t t h i s p a s s a g e w a s k n o w n a t l eas t b y t h e e a r l y t h i r d c e n t u r y c.E.

31. A l r e a d y , P e r r y (1962: 2) h a s a r g u e d t h a t t h e G r e e k Life of Aesop w a s c o m ­p o s e d b y s o m e o n e l i v i n g in E g y p t a n d a d d u c e d , b e s i d e s t h e n a m e of t h e k i n g , a l so t h e i m p o r t a n t ro le of Isis as a h e l p e r of A e s o p ; M u l l e r (1974: 8) a l so p o i n t s o u t t h e ro le of s t r a t e g e s a n d n o m a r q u e s , w h i c h a r e e l e m e n t s of t h e H e l l e n i s t i c E g y p t i a n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e . I c o u l d a d d t h a t in t h e e p i s o d e of t h e w h i p p e d ca t t h e Aesop romance (chap . 117) g o e s b e y o n d a n y of t h e a t t e s t e d Ahiqar v e r s i o n s b y m a k i n g t h e ( theo log ica l ly co r r ec t ) i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of t h e ca t a s s a c r e d a n i m a l of t h e g o d d e s s of Bubas t i s .

32. T h e J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y in E g y p t w a s l a r g e l y u s i n g G r e e k a s t h e i r l a n g u a g e d u r i n g t h i s t i m e .

33. O n t h e d a t e of t h e c o a l e s c e n c e of t h e s o u n d s , see , e.g., Beye r (1984: 101­11) ,

w h o d a t e s t h e c o a l e s c e n c e of t h e t w o s o u n d s t o a b o u t t h e s e c o n d c e n t u r y B.C.E.

The Interaction of Egyptian and Aramaic Literature 383

a 6 is qui te regular for earlier loans f r o m Semitic languages (Peust 1999: 107, 109 a. 112-13; 307-10) bu t seems to have ceased at some t ime d u r ­ing the Late Period. Both points speak against a very late (i.e., Roman period) da te of the Egypt ian version. In principle, it is m u c h more likely tha t an Aramaic text was taken over by the Egypt ians at a t ime w h e n Aramaic was relatively prominen t by being an official adminis t ra t ive language. Thus, given the phonet ic evidence as well as the inherent l ikelihood, I would still suppose an early, probably Achaemenid , date for the adopt ion of the Ahiqar text by the Egyptians.

O n e fu r t he r issue m u s t arise: in the mains t ream redact ion, Ahiqar re­gains the favor of the Assyrian king by being able to t hwar t an in t r igue of the Egypt ian king and t r i umphan t ly overcome the Egypt ians in a duel of wisdom/ t r ickery , br inging their t r ibute for three years back to Assyria. While there is a clear t radi t ion of duels of sorcery in demotic Egypt ian tales, e.g., in Setne II or the tale of Djoser and Imhotep against the Assyrians (Quack 2005a: 27 and 39­40), it is ha rd to imagine tha t the Egypt ians would have liked a story telling of their o w n defeat,3 4 so w e m u s t ask whe the r they m a d e some drastic alterat ions to the plotline to br ing it into conformity wi th their o w n predilections. But one point to consider is tha t in the adapta t ion of this section within the Greek Life of Aesop, the Egypt ian king is Nectanebo. This last king of the 30th Dynas ty eventual ly lost his k ingdom to the Persians. There is at least one demot ic Egypt ian narra t ive text deal ing wi th him, the Dream of Nectanebo (Ryholt 2002; Quack 2005a: 64­65). Even t hough the end of tha t composit ion is not preserved, it can hard ly have concluded wi th any th ing other t han the downfa l l and flight of the king (perhaps cou­pled wi th a promise of r e tu rn by one of his sons). It is possible tha t he was chosen by the Egypt ians as the one unde r w h o m a defea t against super ior foreign w i s d o m was an option.

To confound mat te r s even fur ther , some scholars have speculated about possible Egypt ian inf luences in the Story of Ahiqar. Already, Dal­ley (2001: 155) h a d seen a mixing of Egypt ian and Akkad ian l i terary elements in the text. Her main point was tha t the narra t ive was au to­biographical and t hus in a genre m u c h en vogue in Egypt. She pointed out the Tale of Wenamun, in which, according to her, this became a lit­e rary form. By contrast , in Mesopotamia funct ionar ies were not used to wri t ing autobiographical texts, and t hus there are no l i terary pre­decessors for Ahiqar in this respect.35 I mus t admi t tha t I do not feel

34. It took conversion to Christianity to have Egyptians take pleasure in the drowning of Pharaoh and his army in the Red Sea (Heinen 2007: 203-4).

35. The question of autobiographies in Akkadian texts was also taken up by Fales (1993: 144), who used its absence in cuneiform texts as one argument against

384 JOACHIM FRIEDRICH QUACK

very confident about an a r g u m e n t such as this. First, our knowledge of l i terary t radi t ions in Nor thwes t Semitic l anguages for the first millen­n i u m B.C.E. is so l imited that ideas about w h a t is "unusua l" and t hus in need of explanat ion by foreign inf luences are qui te risky; and there actually seems to be sufficient evidence that , in first mil lenn ium Syria, h igh­ rank ing persons other t han the king could also use the fo rmat of f i rs t ­person biographies (Niehr 2007:12). Second, even in Egypt it is far f r o m normal to have a f i rs t ­person narra t ive in a l i terary tale. Wenamun (using the o u t w a r d fo rm of an adminis t ra t ive report , not an autobiog­raphy!) is as m u c h an exception in this as the Middle Egypt ian Tale of Sinuhe (using the o u t w a r d fo rm of a f u n e r a r y autobiography) . All tales f r o m Egypt at tested dur ing the first mil lenn ium B.C.E. are th i rd ­person narrat ives.

Besides, even for a wisdom text Ahiqar would not qui te conform to an Egypt ian model . Whereas it is normal to give a specific n a m e and si tuat ion to a w i s d o m teacher in Egypt ian teachings (as well as in N e a r Eastern texts),36 and with in the teaching he can speak in the first person,37 there is no single at testat ion that the f r a m e story is couched as an autobiography. Normally, an Egypt ian w i s d o m text does not have a long narra t ive introduct ion, and the best case in which it does have one (the Teachings of Khasheshonqy) is stylized in the third person. So I a m reluctant to see in this formal trait any evidence of Egypt ian influence.

Others , especially Betro (2000: 28­31; 2005: 184­87) a n d Contini and Grottanell i (2005: 84—88), have also pointed out specific motives in the narra t ive that they saw as Egypt ian and proposed that the Story of Ahiqar gained its s t anda rd f o r m in Egypt. I m u s t admi t tha t the ele­m e n t s they have brough t u p fail to convince me, because they t end to be too unspecific. The fe igned dea th of Ahiqar is compared to the Late Egypt ian Story of Truth and Falsehood. For the rehabil i tat ion of a courtier, the Middle Egypt ian Tale of Sinuhe is invoked. The r iddle duel be tween kings is seen as similar to an episode in the demotic Tale of Setne II, as well as an episode repor ted by Plutarch, Banquet of Seven Sages about a duel be tween Amasis and an Ethiopian king. The motive of an impossi­

the theory of Luzzat to (1992), w h o h a d a r g u e d for an A k k a d i a n original text; effort at d e f e n d i n g her theory in Luzzat to (1994).

36. For the N e a r East, see the S u m e r i a n Instruction of Shuruppak and the Teachings of Shupeawilim; see the ed i t i ons in Alster (1974), and K a m m e r e r (1998). T h e ideas of B e r g m a n (1979: 99) about specif ic Egypt ian reasons for g i v i n g a n a m e to the teacher are hardly pert inent .

37. The best case for this is the instruct ion preserved in P.Insinger w i t h i solated ins tances of the first person w i t h i n the text as wel l as a l ong "negat ive confess ion" in the first person at the b e g i n n i n g and the e n d of the text (Quack 2005a: 99 a n d 104).

The Interaction of Egyptian and Aramaic Literature 385

ble challenge countered wi th an even more impossible one is also f o u n d in the Late Egypt ian Story of Apophis and Seqenenre. Concerning help ­ing birds, the demotic Tale of Hi Hor is invoked. The pun i shmen t of the calumniator can be f o u n d also in the Late Egypt ian Tale of Two Brothers (Ed'Orbiney) . In all cases, the similarities remain in a very broad and unspecific way. It should not be difficult to point out equally similar ideas in m a n y other cultures, and it would be bad methodology to base any conclusions about l i terary contacts on them.

Besides the direct translation, there is also the m u c h ­ d e b a t e d ques­tion of possible influence of Ahiqar on other Egypt ian wisdom texts, especially the Teachings ofKhasheshonqy. Some similarities be tween say­ings in the texts have been in terpre ted , especially by Lichtheim (1983: 13­21), as proof of actual influence. She singled out about eight or nine sayings in the Khasheshonqy text tha t seemed, to her, to indicate tha t the demot ic Egypt ian composit ion was dependen t on the Aramaic one. Nowadays , opinions are still divided a m o n g Egyptologists (Houser Wegner 2001: 81­92 and 191­208). I have al ready ment ioned one case above because it was likely to be present also in the demotic t ranslat ion of Ahiqar. Of the other cases, the one wi th the closest correspondence in word ing is the saying "Better is small weal th gathered t han large weal th scat tered" (Khasheshonqy 23, 9). In the Syriac Ahiqar text, this can be f o u n d in a formula t ion that is normal ly t rans la ted as "bet ter is pover ty that gathers t han weal th that scatters" (Lichtheim 1983: 18; Conybeare , Harr is , and Lewis 1913:107 and Syr. *45, saying 51). But as far as I see, there is no cogent reason w h y the participles of the Syriac text m u s t be considered active voice.38 Thus, a t ranslat ion "Better is a poverty tha t is ga thered t han large weal th that is scat tered" seems pos­sible for the Ahiqar text as well. Fur thermore , also the demotic Egypt ian text is amenable to two dif ferent interpretat ions, given tha t the wri t ing of the verbal fo rms could in tend the infinitive (with active meaning) as well as the quali tat ive (with passive meaning; the one tha t has been pre fe r red u p to now). In any case, complete agreement be tween Ahiqar and Khasheshonqy is attainable.

Equally good is the correspondence be tween "Do not prefer one of your children to another ; you d o not k n o w which of t hem will be kind to you" (Khasheshonqy 13,11) and "Treat not your slave bet ter t han his fel low for you k n o w not which of t hem you will need in the e n d " (Lich­the im 1983:18­19; Conybeare , Harris , and Lewis 1913:106 and Syr. *43

38. See Noldeke (1898: 104­5). Because the Syriac text as edited by Conybeare, Harris, and Lewis (1913: Syr. *45) as well as Nau (1919: 154) does not have any in­dication of vowels, the difference between active and passive would not show in writing.

386 JOACHIM FRIEDRICH QUACK

saying 34), especially considering tha t the Ahiqar t radi t ion of this say­ing has some fluctuation be tween "child" and "slave." A relatively close similarity in formula t ion can also be f o u n d be tween "You m a y t r ip over your foot in the house of a great man, you should not t r ip over your t ongue" (Khasheshonqy 10, 7) and "Release not your w o r d f r o m your m o u t h unti l it is examined in your hear t ; for it is bet ter for a m a n to t r ip wi th his foot t han to t r ip wi th his t ongue" (Ahiqar P.Berlin 165, no. 54)39

wi th m a n y var iants within the Ahiqar t radi t ion (Lichtheim 1983:19; Co­nybeare , Harris , and Lewis 1913: 107 and Syr. *46 saying 53). I will re­f ra in f r o m discussing the cases of more broad similarity in conception. Here also, if the connection holds t rue , the relation to the later Syriac and other t radi t ions would be m u c h more obvious t han to the Imperial Aramaic copy.40 C o m p a r e d to the total a m o u n t of text in the composi­tion, the n u m b e r of direct parallels is ra ther small, a l though this comes hard ly as a great surprise.41

Houser Wegner (2001: 195­208) has t r ied to disprove Lichtheim's conclusions by point ing out tha t the concepts in the cases in quest ion can be i l lustrated in other Egypt ian texts. In my opinion, an a r g u m e n t such as this is insufficient. Even if the concept in itself is not una t tes ted elsewhere in Egypt ian l i terature, the fact of the closely similar fo rmula ­tion in Khasheshonqy and Ahiqar should be explained, and there is noth­ing inherent ly implausible in us ing formula t ions f o u n d in foreign texts to i l lustrate concepts that as such are also at h o m e in Egypt—it would even m a k e more sense to take over ideas tha t are compatible wi th Egypt ian t radi t ions t han totally s t range ideas. For me, the similarity in the specific formula t ion is still a plausible indication tha t Khasheshonqy has taken over some sayings of Ahiqar, even if they d o not a m o u n t to a domina t ing influence in his work. Future discoveries concerning the demotic t ranslat ion of Ahiqar might help to gain more clarity in this area. Provisionally, w e can again note tha t here some version of Ahiqar was available tha t was nearer to the later versions t han to the Elephan­tine manuscr ip t . To evaluate this fact, it would be usefu l to fix the date of the demotic Egypt ian Teachings of Khasheshonqy. Unfor tunate ly , there

39. Nau (1919: 154 and 159 [no. 54]). This manuscript, giving "foot," is closest to the demotic Egyptian text. Other Syriac manuscripts have "heart"; see Noldeke (1913:42), who has already seen the superiority of this version even without knowl­edge of the Egyptian text.

40. Houser Wegner (2001: 192) adduces this fact as a problem for Lichtheim's analysis.

41. Thus, this fact cannot be used, contra Houser Wegner (2001:194), as an argu­ment against Lichtheim. See, e.g., Quack (1994: 194­205), in which even for inner­Egyptian dependencies, the number of close parallels is usually quite limited.

The Interaction of Egyptian and Aramaic Literature 387

are some problems in this. While small f r agmen ta ry manuscr ip t s con­ta ining sayings paralleled by the main manuscr ip t of Khasheshonqy are at tes ted beginning in the early Ptolemaic t ime (Quack 2005a: 111), the main manuscr ip t itself is late Ptolemaic. The parallels themselves bear withess to a very f luctuat ing, unstable state concerning the sequence (and probably also number ) of individual sayings. Thus, the sayings section of Khasheshonqy is so m u c h an "open" text that any single date for its composit ion is hard ly meaningfu l , and the f r a m e story is also at­tested in a reworked second manuscr ip t (Ryholt 2000). While I myself have presen ted a r g u m e n t s for w h y the original composit ion of the text should be da ted to the late Sai'tic or Persian t ime (Quack 2002: 336­42), this can in no w a y be used as a fixed t e rm for all of its individual say­ings, and t hus the da te w h e n sayings f rom the Ahiqar t radi t ion were taken u p in an Egypt ian w i s d o m text remains open—but at least there are no cogent a r g u m e n t s against an early date.42

Besides similarities in some sayings, the general si tuat ion of the f r ame­s to ry wi th an incarcerated sage has been compared (Betro 2000: 29), even t hough there are obvious differences in the details. For m e m ­ory, I will recapi tulate the main points of the Egypt ian text: A priest called Khasheshonqy, himself l iving in ra ther humble and unsat is fac­tory conditions, is visiting his old f r iend Ramose, w h o has m a d e a great career and become chief physician of the Pharaoh. But he becomes in­volved in a m u r d e r o u s complot against the king. Khasheshonqy tries to dissuade h im f r o m this, but to no avail. Because one m e m b e r of the royal b o d y g u a r d overhears them, the conspiracy is revealed and t h w a r t e d by the king. Ramose is condemned to death . Khasheshonqy, because he did not w a r n the king, is placed in prison in a fortress, wi th ­out hope of amnesty. In this situation, he wri tes teachings on ostraca in order to instruct his son, w h o m he cannot teach personally.

While there are some slight, general resemblances to the Story of Ahiqar, w e should not overlook the deep­sea ted differences. Ahiqar is not condemned to prison bu t sentenced to dea th (and only saved by a trick); and even t hough his hid ing place might be as t ight as a prison cell, it is funct ional ly different . Khasheshonqy, in contrast to Ahiqar, is never pa rdoned or rehabil i tated. Ahiqar delivers his teachings not in wri t t en fo rm and at a distance bu t directly to his n e p h e w Nadin . Ahiqar is completely blameless and only tr icked into a si tuat ion w h e r e he seems to be a rebel, whereas Khasheshonqy 's guilt in not denounc ing

42. Lichtheim's (1983: 24­28) efforts at a later dating are mainly based on her supposition of an influence of Greek Gnomologia on the text, but there I fail to see convincing proof.

388 JOACHIM FRIEDRICH QUACK

a conspiracy is real. If there is any influence of one text on the other, it can only have been very dis tant and mit igated.

Perhaps more in t r iguing is a Greek- language p ap y ru s f r agmen t wi th a hero called Tinuphis, w h o is hidden in connection wi th a fe igned execution (Haslam 1991; Quack 2005a: 121). It has been proposed by Kussl (1992) to reconstruct the f r a g m e n t a r y text in a w a y similar to an episode of the Aesop t radi t ion, which in t u r n for this episode is based on the Ahiqar t radit ion. To make mat te r s even more complicated, the n a m e of Tinuphis is the same as that of the fa ther of Khasheshonqy indicated in the f r a m e story to the Egypt ian instruction; and it is not one of the most f r equen t Egypt ian n a m e s at tha t time.43 Thus, w e possibly have a narra t ive motif that is very similar to the Story of Ahiqar bu t wi th an Egypt ian setting. This can be seen as an indication tha t the f r a m e story of Ahiqar was k n o w n in some f o r m in Roman Egypt; and t hus it con­f i rms the direct evidence of the demot ic t ranslat ion (where this section is not preserved).

I feel m u c h less confident concerning a relation proposed recently by Betrb (2000) and accepted by Cont ini and Grottanell i (2005: 80­84) be tween the f r a m e story of Ahiqar and a f r a g m e n t a r y Egypt ian tale t r ansmi t t ed on a jar of the Roman period. To some degree, this is based on a supposed similarity of the n a m e of the Egypt ian hero, under s tood as Hihor—which could be under s tood as an effort in an Egypt ian pseu­doetymology for the actual n a m e of Ahiqar, especially because "Hi" does not have a mean ing as a format ive par t of an Egypt ian name . However , the or thography of the text44 permi t s the read ing "Hi, son of Hor," and a close parallel to the composit ion in another demotic text has the hero as " H e n u , son of H o r " (with a clear or thography for "son");45

thus , the supposed similarity in n a m e m a y be an i l lusion—"Hi" as a short f o r m of a n a m e is at tes ted in Egypt (Ranke 1935: 233, no. 18). The content of the Egypt ian tale shows a wise magician incarcerated at Elephantine. He sends out t w o bi rds tha t carry scrolls to the royal court , w h e r e they d r o p them—probably to in form the king of his problematic si tuat ion and to justify h im against unjus t accusations. There might be

43. Ranke (1935: 387, 9-10 , and 388, 13) g i v e s a f e w examples . Li iddeckens a n d Thissen (2000: 1350) has 11 wri t t en f o r m s ( inc lud ing the l iterary attestat ion in the w i s d o m of Khasheshonqy) , of w h i c h 3 are f r o m the s a m e p a p y r u s referring to o n e person, a n d perhaps e x a m p l e no. 2 (Theban, father of a w i t n e s s cal led ct-hr) also refers to the s a m e person as those three e x a m p l e s (all about the p o s s e s s i o n rights for a T h e b a n t o m b of ct-hr, son of cU-nfr).

44. See Spiege lberg (1912: 29, no. 30) for another case o n this jar in w h i c h the f i l iation s ign is not w r i t t e n out.

45. P.Heidelberg 736 recto; e d i t e d b y Spiege lberg (1917); see Q u a c k (2005a: 78).

The Interaction of Egyptian and Aramaic Literature 389

some broad similarities to the t heme of Ahiqar, bu t they are far f r o m close and convincing: Ahiqar is not imprisoned bu t sentenced to death , and bi rds or scrolls do not play any role in his rehabil i tat ion (even if t ra ined eagles carrying boys are used by h im in the r iddle duel wi th the Egypt ian king).

Another Aramaic f r agmen t , unfor tuna te ly of uncer ta in origin (Por-ten and Yardeni 1993: 54-57; Porten 2004), contains par t of a story wi th Hor son of P w e n e s h as the hero. While it is long k n o w n tha t there are demotic Egypt ian papy rus f r a g m e n t s f r o m the Roman t ime showing the same hero (Zauzich 1978: 36), they have not yet been publ ished; thus , a closer discussion is hard ly possible. At least w e can see that the text is about the adven tu res of a magician, which is a well-a t tes ted Egypt ian l i terary motif. With some l ikelihood, however, the hero can be identif ied also wi th a certain Horus , son of Pneshe, at tes ted as a master magician with in the second Setne story (Quack 2005a: 40 and 62; Vit tmann 2006: 583). We can suppose tha t a case of t ranslat ion or at least f ree adapta t ion is involved. Given the clearly Egypt ian set t ing wi th n a m e s and places, the direct ion of the bor rowing is not in doubt ; and this can provide an addi t ional suppor t ing a r g u m e n t concerning the problems wi th the da te of the Egypt ian Ahiqar t radit ion: even while direct evidence f r o m p r e - R o m a n t ime is lacking for the Egypt ian side, the Aramaic documenta t ion makes it clear tha t the Egypt ian elements were already present in the Achaemenid t ime.

The verso of tha t same papyrus contains a prophet ic text giving dire prognoses of lawlessness and social upheaval . While there is n o obvi­ous indication that it belongs to the same story as the recto text (and indeed , tha t can be considered highly unlikely),46 it is also, f r o m the details it ment ions (e.g., the city of Tanis), set in Egypt and possibly a t ranslat ion f r o m an Egypt ian text. Given its relatively early date , it might have some bear ing on the early history of composit ions such as the so­called Lamb of Bokchoris (preserved in a papy ru s f r o m the t ime of Augustus) , which I have a rgued on internal reasons goes back to an early (Sai'tic) proto type modif ied in later t imes (Quack for thcoming b).

In a f u n e r a r y cave near Sheikh Fadl, there is preserved a long nar ­rative wri t ten in ink on panels of the wall (Lemaire 1995; Porten and Yardeni 1999: 286­98; Holm 2007). While there is n o preserved direct parallel in the Egypt ian documenta t ion , the main characters have

46. Porten (2004: 452­53) has speculated to which degree the appearance of the texts on two sides of one papyrus might be not coincidental. Given my experience with Egyptian papyri written on both sides with literary texts, I would say that the likelihood of a close internal relationship is not very high, even if the two texts are likely to have been used in the same milieu.

390 J O A C H I M F R I E D R I C H Q U A C K

Egyptian names and the action is set in Egypt. Mentioning the kings Taharqa and Nekho, as well as the hero Inaros,47 this composition is likely to be based on an Egyptian model and set at about the middle of the 7th century B.c.E. Inaros is well known as main figure in a cycle of tales (Quack 2005a: 44-61), and there is even some possibility that the ongoing work of reconstructing the Inaros epic might turn up some positive proof for the relation between the Aramaic text and the Egyp­tian composition.

Besides the translations, we have also the more curious case of pho­netic renderings in the other script. This also went in both directions. There is an Aramaic leather fragment at Berlin coming from Elephan­tine (Porten and Yardeni 1999: 137) that Vittmann (2003: 118­19) has convincingly identified as Egyptian language (Quack 2004b). It seems to contain invocations to deities of Elephantine and mentions Philae. Unfortunately, the fragment is small, with no single complete line, and a good part of the text is still not clearly understood.

Even more challenging, and going in the opposite direction, is the fa­mous papyrus Amherst 63, written in demotic script but Aramaic lan­guage and containing, inter alia, the well­known "paganized" version of Psalm 20 as well as the tale of Ashurbanipal and Shamash­Shumukin.48

These two cases as well as a possible but less­certain case involving a spell against scorpions written in demotic Egyptian but linguistically perhaps Aramaic49 bring up the question of local communities whose linguistic affiliation was no longer coeval with their graphic one. Es­pecially for the very long Papyrus Amherst 63 (about 23 columns pre­served), it has to be stressed that its dimensions go far beyond the usual case of short spells (only a few lines) transmitted in Egyptian script and foreign language in other cases, mostly from the New Kingdom (Quack 2010). The interpretation of compositions of this sort must first deal with a basic distinction: were these texts used as carriers of se­mantic information in the conventional sense, that is, as making state­ments about gods, history, and so on, or were they carriers purely of phonetic information containing a power of recitation regardless of what they actually said and potentially used by people without seman­

47. For the reading of the name, I follow Lemaire (1995) and Vittmann (2003: 104-5). Porten and Yardeni (1999: 290) read Snhrw.

48. Among the many publications on this text, I will mention only Nims and Steiner (1983); Steiner and Nims (1984, 1985); Steiner (1991, 1995); Vleeming and Wesselius (1982,1983-84,1985,1990); Kottsieper (1988,1997); and Rosel (2000). Pre­liminary translation of the whole text by R. C. Steiner are in Hallo (1997: 309­27).

49. Proposed mainly by Steiner (2001), with a slightly reserved reaction in Vitt­mann (2003: 119).

The Interaction of Egyptian and Aramaic Literature 391

tic understanding of the text? The second solution would be easier to understand, because then only the legibility of the writing would be important for the user. We could imagine, for example, an Aramaic-speaking person at Elephantine making use of what he knew to be a powerful spell of protection without bothering very much with the finer linguistic details of the spell, as long as he could read it in his own Aramaic script. Or the script could be a question of identity for him even if he knew the foreign language—there would be modern paral­lels such as, for example, Turkish written in Greek script or German written in Hebrew script. If an Aramaic­speaking user of the Aramaic leather fragment understood the semantics of the text, we would of course have to ask to what degree he can be understood as a Jew, given the number of Egyptian deities invoked in the text, even if there are some attestations of a coexistence of the Jewish god and the indigenous Egyptian gods, as in one greeting formula, "I have blessed you by Jaho and Khnum," on an Aramaic ostracon from Elephantine (Porten and Yardeni 1999:172 no. D7.21).

The main problem for an interpretation such as this is of course Papy­rus Amherst 63, which is way too long to be a normal case of recitation lit­erature; and besides, the story of Ashurbanipal and Shamash­Shumukin is not even a recitation genre.50 But the obvious Near Eastern affiliation of the content would make it equally strange to think of the demotic Egyptian script as a marker of cultural identity. And while the num­ber of groups actually used in the text is limited enough to make the writing system not much more difficult to learn than ordinary Ara­maic writing, it has the drawback of not clearly differentiating between voiced, voiceless, and emphatic consonants, a distinction fundamental for Semitic languages. Thus, the writing system is hardly an objective advantage in making the text easier to understand. I must confess that I still lack a cogent explanation for the choice of the writing system in this case, but at least it evidently shows the cultural imprint of Egypt on the users of the text.

Concerning those users, one important question must be asked: were they Jews or influenced by Jewish traditions? On the one hand, one of the texts of the papyrus is a variant form of the text known as Psalm 20; thus, a Jewish background looks convincing. However, I would not give too much credit to argumentation such as this. The text could have circulated in the Levantine/Syriac region quite independently of the specific religious affiliation because as a prayer for protection it would

50. Still, it should be noted that Steiner (1991: 362­63) considers the text to be liturgical.

392 JOACHIM FRIEDRICH QUACK

fill a d e m a n d while not containing religious specialties tha t would limit its usabili ty to one single religious group. O n the other h a n d , w e have to face the thorny quest ion of w h o one deity invoked in the text actu ­ally is. The original idea tha t it was the Egypt ian god Horus5 1 has by n o w been laid to rest for good. There has been a theory tha t the w o r d in quest ion should be under s tood as a render ing of Yahwe,52 while an­other under s tood it as El. The last solution, favored mainly by Kott­sieper (1988: 224­27; 1997: 54­55), would leave m a n y possible religious affiliations, but in my opinion, it is excluded by the actual writing.53 The second one, proposed by Zauzich and endorsed wi th slight modif ica­tions by Rosel (2000: 93­94), would point to a specifically Jewish iden­tity, bu t in my opinion it is equal ly excluded by the actual writing.54

This specific deity, however , seems only addressed with in a ra ther short section of the text (mainly cols. 12 and 13 in the n u m b e r i n g of Wesselius and Vleeming), whereas otherwise Mar or Adonai for " l o r d / m y lord" are the most f r equen t words .

Even t hough there is no direct at testat ion f r o m the Achaemenid pe­riod, it seems usefu l to br ing u p also the quest ion of the relation of a section in the Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sira to passages of the Satire of the Trades (Jager 2004: 305­17). In tha t section, di f ferent cra f t smen profes­sions are der ided , of ten wi th str iking similarities in formula t ion . Be­cause there is no certain at testat ion f r o m Egypt tha t classical Middle Egypt ian composit ions cont inued to be copied dur ing the Ptolemaic and Roman periods, w e mus t , if w e accept the influence of the Egypt ian text on the Jewish one, reckon wi th the possibility tha t there was a (lost) in te rmedia ry da t ing f r o m the Sai'tic or Persian period, w h e r e either the Middle Egypt ian composit ion was adap ted in demot ic Egypt ian or (less likely) directly taken over into a Semitic language. This problem should be tackled in connection wi th the current ly controversial thesis of re­

51. Nims and Steiner (1983: 265); still used in Zevit (1990: 217­18). 52. Zauzich (1985). Tentatively accepted by Vleeming and Wesselius (1985: 39­

42), even while they point out some problems. 53. Some arguments are already brought forth by Zauzich apud Rosel (2000: 92

n. 82). Additionally, it has to be said that the demotic writing of the preposition r before a suffix always uses r or I as the first element, never 1.

54. While an original Egyptian ? could develop into a y, the demotic writing sys­tem always handles these cases phonetically, i.e., it actually has y, while a demotic writing with the one­consonantal sign i never stands for a phonetic y. The preposi­tion hr as a writing for the consonant h would be most surprising in a text from the fourth century B.C.E. Erichsen (1954: 322), to whom Zauzich refers for the use of hr for h, is based on a misunderstanding; what we have there is a specific paleographic form of h attested in some Fayyumic manuscripts from the Roman period (and even there it is quite different from the form of hr).

The Interaction of Egyptian and Aramaic Literature 393

lations between Ben Sira and the demotic Egyptian wisdom text best preserved in Papyrus Insinger.55 While some similarities in formulation are evident, the direction of any contacts was in doubt due to discus­sions about the date of the Egyptian text. The Ben Sira composition is safely anchored in the second century B.C.E. due to the exact dates given in the colophon and historical indications in the text itself, but for the demotic Egyptian wisdom book, we are on less­safe ground. The at­tested manuscripts are all younger than Ben Sira, none of them going back before the first century B.C.E. But the date of the original text is quite a different matter. I have argued elsewhere from language and writing, as well as content, that we should reckon with a rather early, probably Sai'tic original (Quack 2002: 332­36). Thus, if there really are cases in which the formulation has specific similarities, we should bet­ter suppose that the Egyptian side was the lender.

In summary, the contact between Aramaic and Egyptian literature must have been quite intense. There is hardly any Aramaic literary fragment from the Achaemenid period from Egypt (except the copy of the Behistun inscription) that is not, in one or the other direction, relevant for contacts or even direct translations. We must ask for the reasons, especially because this phenomenon is rather distinct from the Greco­Roman period when there was translation of literary (mainly re­ligious) texts from Egyptian into Greek (Quack 2003b: 330­32), but on a comparatively smaller scale and more unidirectional. While we do have translations from Egyptian into Greek, the opposite case is attested for administrative texts but not for literature.56

One possible reason could be the different status of the respective languages and communities. The Greeks became the rulers of Egypt, and for prestige literature, the Greek literary and philosophical tra­dition was highly relevant. This led to a bilingual situation in which the indigenous elites learned Greek and read these texts in their origi­nal language. On the contrary, the Jews (and other Aramaic­speaking groups) were one of many subject people groups of the Persian Empire, and their literature did not have any particular status, in spite of the fact that their language and writing was the official medium of impe­rial administrative communication.

55. Lichtheim (1983:122­87). Denied by Houser Wegner (2001: 245­61). 56. Administrative texts: There is one unpublished letter written in hieratic script

but demotic language that indicates explicitly that it was translated f rom the Greek. Literature: This direction of translation only becomes relevant with Coptic literature, which is to a large degree a literature of translations f rom the Greek.

394 JOACHIM FRIEDRICH QUACK

Bibliography

Alster, B. 1974 The Instructions ofSuruppak: A Sumerian Proverb Collection. Mesopota ­

mia 2. Copenhagen : Akademisk Forlag. Bergman, J.

1979 G e d a n k e n z u m Thema "Lehre ­Tes t amen t ­Grab ­Name . " Pp. 73­104 in Studien zu altiigyptischen Lebenslehren, ed. E. H o r n u n g a n d O. Keel. OBO 28. Freiburg: Univers i ta tsver lag / Gott ingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht .

Betro, M. C. 2000 La storia del Mago Hi­Hor : Variazioni egiziane sul t ema di Ahiqar.

Pp. 23­35 in Donum Natalicum: Studi presentati a Claudio Saporetti in occasione del suo 60. Compleanno, ed. P. Negr i Scafa a n d P. Gentili . Rome: Borgia.

2005 La t radiz ione di Achiqar in Egitto. Pp. 177­91 in Cont in i a n d Grot­tanelli 2005.

Beyer, K. 1984 Die Aramdischen Texte vom Toten Meer samt den Inschriften aus Palci-

stina, dem Testament Levis aus der Kairoer Genisa, der Fastenrolle und den alten talmudischen Zitaten: Aramaistische Einleitung, Text—Uberset-zung—Deutung, Grammatik/Wdrterbuch. Deutsch-aramdische Wortliste. Register. Gott ingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht .

Bricquel ­Chatonnet , F. 2005 L'histoire et la sagesse d'Ahiqar: For tune l i t teraire de la vie d ' u n digni­

taire a r a m e e n a la cour assyrienne. Pp. 17­40 in D'un orient Vautre: Actes des troisfemes journees de ['Orient Bordeaux, 2-4 octobre 2002, ed. J.­L. Bacque ­Grammont , A. Pino and S. Khoury. Leuven: Peeters.

2006 Cons t ru i s ­moi u n cha teau d a n s le ciel: R e m a r q u e s sur u n motif d e conte, d A h i q a r a Thomas . Harp 20: 55­64.

2007 De TAhiqar a r a m e e n a TAhiqar syriaque: Les voies d e t ransmiss ion d ' u n roman . Pp. 51­57 in Der christliche Orient und seine Umwelt, ed. S. G. Vashalomidze. Studies in Orienta l Religions 56. Wiesbaden: Harrassowi tz .

Bruyce, G. E. 1979: A Legacy of Wisdom: The Egyptian Contribution to the Wisdom of Israel.

London: Bucknell Univers i ty Press. Conybeare , F. C.; Harr is , J. R.; a n d Smith Lewis, A.

1913 The Story of Ahikar. Cambr idge : C a m b r i d g e Univers i ty Press. Contini , R.

2005 II testo aramaico di Elefantine. Pp. 113­39 in Contini a n d Grottanel l i 2005.

Contini , R., a n d Grottanell i , C , eds. 2005 II Saggio Ahiqar: Fortuna e trasformazioni di uno scritto sapienziali. II te­

sto piii antico e le sue versioni. Brescia: Paideia.

The Interaction of Egyptian and Aramaic Literature 395

Dalley, S. 2001 Assyr ian Cour t Narra t ives in Aramaic a n d Egyptian: Historical Fic­

tion. Pp. 149­61 in Historiography in the Cuneiform World, Proceedings of the XVL Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Part I, ed. T. Abusch et al. Bethesda, MD: CDL.

Daly, L. W. 1961 Aesop without Morals: The Famous Fables, and a Life of Aesop. N e w York:

Yoseloff. Eshel, E.; Puech, E.; a n d Kloner, A.

2007 Aramaic Scribal Exercises of the Hellenistic Period f rom Maresha . BASOR 345: 39­62.

Erichsen, W. 1954 Demotisches Glossar. Copenhagen : M u n k s g a a r d .

Fales, F. M. 1993 Storia di Ahiqar tra Orien te e Grecia: La prospet t iva dal l 'ant ico Ori­

ente. Quaderni di Studia 38:143­66. 1994 Riflessione su l lAh iqa r di Elephant ine . Orientis antiqui miscellanea 1:

39­60. Fox, M. V.

1985 The Song of Songs and the Ancient Egyptian Love Songs. Madison , WI: Univers i ty of Wisconsin Press.

Glanville, S. R. K. 1955 Catalogue of Demotic Papyri in the British Museum, vol. 2: The Instruc­

tions of Onkhsheshonqi. London: British M u s e u m . Grottanell i , C , a n d Dettori , E.

2005 La Vita Aesopi. Pp. 167­75 in Cont in i a n d Grottanel l i 2005. Hallo, W. W., ed.

1997 The Context of Scripture, vol. 1: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World. Leiden: Brill.

Has lam, M. W. 1991 Narra t ive about Tinouphis in Pros ime t rum. Pp. 3 5 ^ 5 in Papyri Greek

and Egyptian in Honour of Eric Gardner Turner. London: EES. Heinen , H.

2007 A g y p t e n im Romischen Reich. Bemerkungen z u m Thema A k k u l t u r ­at ion u n d Identi tat . Pp. 186­207 in Agypten unter fremder Herrschaft zwischen persischer Satrapie und rbmischer Provinz, ed. S. Pfeiffer. Oi­k u m e n e 3. Frankfur t : Verlag Antike.

H o f f m a n n , F. 2009 Die Ents t ehung de r demot i schen Erzahl l i teratur : Beobachtungen

z u m uber l ieferungsgeschicht l ichen Kontext. Pp. 351­84 in Erziihlen in friihen Hochkulturen, I. Der Fall Agypten, ed. H. Roeder. Munich: Fink.

H o f f m a n n , E, and Quack , J. F. 2007 Anthologie der demotischen Literatur. Einf i ih rungen u n d Quel len texte

zu r Agyptologie 4. Berlin: Lit Verlag.

396 JOACHIM FRIEDRICH QUACK

Holm, T. L. 2007 The Sheikh Fadl Inscript ion in Its Literary a n d Historical Context .

Aramaic Studies 5:193-224. Holzberg , N.

2003 Novel- l ike Works of Extended Prose Fiction I IC. Fable: Aesop. Life of Aesop. Pp. 633-39 in The Novel in the Ancient World, ed. G. Schmeling. Rev. ed. Leiden: Brill.

Houser Wegner, J. 2001 Cultural and Literary Continuity in the Demotic Instructions. Ph.D. diss.

Yale University. H u m b e r t , P.

1929 Recherches sur les sources e'gyptiennes de la litterature sapientale d'lsrael. Neuchate l : Secretariat d e l 'Universi te .

Jager, S. 2004 Altdgyptische Berufstypologien. LingAeg SM 4. Got t ingen: Seminar f u r

Agyptologie u n d Koptologie. Jasnow, R.

1992 A Late Period Hieratic Wisdom Text (P. Brooklyn 47.218.135). SAOC 52. Chicago: Univers i ty of Chicago Press.

Kammere r , T. R. 1998 Sima milka: Induktion und Reception der mittelbabylonischen Dichtung

von Ugarit, Emar und Tell el-Amarna. Muns te r : Ugari t-Verlag. Koch-Westenholz , U.

1995 Mesopotamian Astrology: An Introduction to Babylonian and Assyr­ian Celestial Divination. CNI Publicat ions 19. Copenhagen : M u s e u m Tuscu lanum.

Kottsieper, I. 1988 Anmerkungen zu Pap. Amherst 63,1. 12, 11­19: Pine aramaische Version

von Psalm 20. ZAW100: 217-^4. 1990 Die Sprache der Ahiqarspriiche. BZAW 194. Berlin: d e Gruyter . 1991 Die Geschichte u n d die Spriiche des Weisen Achiqar. Pp. 320^17 in

TUAT 3/2. 1997 A n m e r k u n g e n z u Pap. A m h e r s t 63. Teil II-IV. UF 29: 3 8 5 ^ 3 4 .

Kiichler, M. 1979 Fruhjiidische Weisheitstraditionen: Zum Fortgang weisheitlichen Denkens

im Bereich des friihjudischen Jahweglaubens. O B O 26. Freiburg: Univer -si tatsverlag / Gott ingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht .

Kussl, R. 1992 Achikar, Tinuphis u n d Asop. Pp. 23-30 in Der Asop­Roman: Motivge­

schichte und Erzahlstruktur, ed. N. Holzberg. Tubingen: Narr . Laisney, V.

2007 L'enseignement dAmenemope. Studia Pohl SM 19. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Inst i tute.

The Interaction of Egyptian and Aramaic Literature 3 9 7

Lemaire , A. 1995 Les inscript ions a r a m e e n n e s d e Cheikh-Fadl (Egypte). Pp. 77-132 in

Studio Aramaica: New Sources and New Approaches, ed. M. Geller. JSS S u p p l e m e n t 4. Oxford: Oxford Univers i ty Press.

Lichtheim, M. 1983 Late-Egyptian Wisdom Literature in the International Context: A Study

of Demotic Instructions. OBO 52. Freiburg: Universi ta tsver lag / Got-t ingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht .

Lieven, A. von 2007 The Carlsberg Papyri 8: Grundrifl des Laufes der Sterne. Das sogenannte

Nutbuch. CNI Publicat ions 31. Copenhagen : M u s e u m Tusculanum. Lindenberger , J. M.

1985 Ahiqar. Pp. 479-507 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. J. H. Char leswor th . Vol. 2. G a r d e n City, NY: Doubleday.

Liiddeckens, E., a n d Thissen, H.-J. 2000 Demotisches Namenbuch. Vol. 1. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert.

Luzzat to , M. J. 1992 Grecia e vicino Oriente : Trace della "Storia di Ahiqa r " nella cul tura

greca t ra VI e V secolo a.C. Quaderni di Studia 36: 5-84. 1994 Ancora sulla "Storia di Ahiqar." Quaderni di Studia 39: 253-77.

Miiller, W„ ed. 1974 Das Leben Asops. Leipzig: Dieterich.

N a u , F. 1919 Histoire et sagesse d A h i q a r d ' a p r e s le manusc r i t de Berlin «Sachau

162», fol. 86 sq. ROC 21:148­60. Niehr , H.

2007 Aramaischer Ahiqar, jiidische Schriften aus hellenistisch-rdmischer Zeit NF 2/2. Giitersloh: Guters loher Verlag.

Nims , R, and Steiner, R. C. 1983 A Paganized Version of Psalm 20:2­6 f r o m the Aramaic Text in De­

motic Script. J AOS 103: 261­74. Noldeke , T.

1898 Kurzgefafite Syrische Grammatik. Leipzig: Tauchnitz; repr. Darms tad t : Wissenschaf t l iche Buchgesellschaft , 1977.

1913 Untersuchungen zum Achiqar-Roman. Berlin: W e i d m a n n . Papathomopoulos , M.

1990 O bios tou Esopou: I paralagi G. Kritiki ekdosis me isagogii ke metafrasis. Ioannina: Panepis temio Ioanninon.

Parpola, S. 2005 II re t roterra assiro di Ahiqar. Pp. 91­112 in Cont in i a n d Grottanel l i

2005. Perry, B. E.

1962 Aesopica: A Series of Texts Relating to Aesop or Ascribed to Him or Closely Connected with the Literary Tradition That Bears His Name. Urbana: Univers i ty of Illinois Press.

398 JOACHIM FRIEDRICH QUACK

Peust , C. 1999 Egyptian Phonology: An Introduction to the Phonology of a Dead Lan­

guage. Gott ingen: Peust & Gutschmid t . Porten, B.

2004 The Prophecy of Hor bar Punesh a n d the Demise of Righteousness: A n Aramaic Papyrus in the British Library. Pp. 427-66 a n d pls .xxxv-xxxvi in Res severa verum gaudium: Festschrift fur Karl­Theodor Zauzich zum 65. Geburtstag am 8. Juni 2004, ed. F. H o f f m a n n a n d H. J. Thissen. StDe 6. Leuven: Peeters.

Porten, B., a n d Yardeni, A. 1993 Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt. Vol. 3. Jerusalem:

H e b r e w Univers i ty Press. 1999 Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt. Vol. 4. Jerusalem:

H e b r e w Univers i ty Press. Quack , J. F.

1994 Die Lehren des Ani: Ein neudgyptischer Weisheitstext in seinem kulturellen Umfeld. OBO 141. Freiburg: Univers i ta tsver lag / Got t ingen: Vanden-hoeck & Ruprecht .

1996 cw „Gr6Se" u n d ( „ Z u s t a n d , Art" : Zwei verwechse lbare demot i sche Worter . Enchoria 23: 62­75.

2000 Das Buch v o m Tempel u n d v e r w a n d t e Texte: Ein Vorbericht. ARG 2: 1­20.

2002 Z u r Chronologie der demot i schen Weisheits l i teratur . Pp. 329­42 in Acts of the Seventh International Conference of Demotic Studies, Copenha­gen, 23­27 August 1999, ed. K. Ryholt. CNI Publicat ions 27. C o p e n h a ­gen: M u s e u m Tuscu lanum.

2003a A u s einer spatzei t l ichen l i terarischen Sammelhandschr i f t , ZAS 130: 182­85 a n d pi. xlv.

2003b „Ich bin Isis, Her r in de r beiden Lander" : Versuch z u m demot i ­schen H i n t e r g r u n d der memphi t i s chen Isisaretalogie. Pp. 319­65 in Egypt: Temple of the Whole World. Studies in Honour of Jan Assmann, ed. S. Meyer. N u m e n Book Series 97. Leiden: Brill.

2004a Organise r le culte ideal: Le Manue l d u Temple Egypt ien. BSFE 160: 9­25.

2004b Review of Vi t tmann 2003. JAOS 24: 360­61. 2005a Einfilhrung in die altdgyptische Literaturgeschichte III: Die demotische

und grdko­dgyptische Literatur. E i n f u h r u n g e n u n d Quel len texte zu r Agyptologie 3. Miinster: LIT Verlag. (2nd ed., Miinster : LIT Verlag, 2009).

2005b Die Uber l i e fe rungss t ruk tu r des Buches v o m Tempel. Pp. 105­15 in Tebtynis und Soknopaiou Nesos: Leben im romerzeitlichen Fajum, ed. S. Lippert , M. Schentulei t . Wiesbaden: Harrassowi tz .

2005c Zu d e n vorarabischen semit ischen L e h n w o r t e r n des Koptischen. Pp. 307­38 in Studia semitica et Semitohamitica: Festschrift fur Rainer Voigt anldfilich seines 60. Geburtstages am 17. Januar 2004, ed. B. Bur­

The Interaction of Egyptian and Aramaic Literature 399

tea, J. Tropper, a n d H. Younansardaroud . AOAT 317. Miinster: Ugarit-Verlag.

2007 Die Gotter l is te des Buches vom Tempel u n d die gaui ibe rgre i fenden Dekora t ionsprogramme. Pp. 213-35 in 6. Agyptologische Tempeltagung. Funktion und Gebrauch altdgyptischer Tempelraume, Leiden 4.-7. Septem­ber 2002, ed. B. H a r i n g a n d A. Klug, Wiesbaden: Harrassowi tz .

2010 Egypt ian Writ ing for Non-Egyp t i an Languages a n d Vice-Versa: A Short Overview. Pp. 317-25 in The Idea of Writing: Play and Complexity, ed. A. d e Voogt a n d L Finkel. Leiden: Brill.

For thcoming 1st der Meder an al lem Schuld? Z u r Frage des realhisto-rischen H i n t e r g r u n d e s der grakoagypt i schen prophet i schen Litera-tur. In Agypten zivischen innerem Zwist und dufierem Druck: Die Zeit Ptolemaios' VI. bis VIII., ed. A. Jardens a n d J. Quack. Wiesbaden: Harrassowi tz .

Ranke, H. 1935 Die Agyptischen Personennamen. Gluckstadt : Augus t in .

Romheld , D. 1989 Wege der Weisheit: Die Lehren Amenemopes und Proverbien 22,17­24,22.

BZAW 184. Berlin: d e Gruyter . Rosel, M.

2000 Israels Psa lmen in Agypten? Papyrus A m h e r s t 63 u n d die Psa lmen XX u n d LXXV. Vetus Testamentum 50: 81-99.

Ryholt, K. 2000 A N e w Version of the In t roduct ion to the Teaching of O n c h -

Sheshonqy (P. Carlsberg 304 + PSI Inv. D 5 + P. CtYBR 4512 + P. Berlin P. 30489). Pp. 113-40 a n d pis. 16-22 in The Carlsberg Papyri 3: A Miscel­lany of Demotic Texts and Studies, ed. P. J. Frandsen a n d K. Ryholt. CNI Publicat ions 22. Copenhagen : M u s e u m Tusculanum.

2002 Nectanebo 's D r e a m or the Prophecy of Petesis. Pp. 2\2­A\ in Apoka­lyptik und Agypten: Line kritische Analyse der relevanten Texte aus dem griechisch­romischen Agypten, ed. A. Blasius, B. U. Schipper. OLA 107. Leuven: Peeters.

2004 The Assyr ian Invasion of Egypt in Egypt ian Literary Tradition: A Survey of the Narra t ive Source Material . Pp. 483-510 in Assyria and Beyond: Studies Presented to Mogens Trolle Larsen, ed. J. G. Dercksen. Leiden: N e d e r l a n d s Ins t i tuu t voor he t Nabi je Oosten.

2005 The Carlsberg Papyri 6: The Petese Stories II (P. Petese II). CNI Publica­t ions 29. Copenhagen : M u s e u m Tusculanum.

Sobhy, G. P. G. 1930 Miscellanea. JEA 16: 3 ­ 5 and pis. iii­viii.

Spiegelberg, W. 1912 Demotische Texte aufKrugen. DemSt 5. Leipzig: Hinrichs. 1917 Der demot i sche Papyrus Heide lberg 736. ZAS 53: 30­33 a n d pi. vii. 1930 Achikar in e inem demot i schen Texte de r romischen Kaiserzeit . OLZ

33: 961.

4 0 0 J O A C H I M FRIEDRICH Q U A C K

Stadler , M. 2004 Isis, das gbttliche Kind und die Weltordnung: Neue religiose Texte aus dem

Fayum nach dem Papyrus Wien D. 12006 recto. M P E R n.s. 23. Vienna: Hol l inek .

Steiner , R. C. 1991 T h e A r a m a i c Text in D e m o t i c Script : T h e L i t u r g y of a N e w Year's

Fest ival I m p o r t e d f r o m Bethel to Syene b y Exiles f r o m Rash . JAOS 111: 362-63.

1995 P a p y r u s A m h e r s t 63: A N e w Source for t h e L a n g u a g e , Li te ra tu re , Religion a n d His to ry of t h e A r a m a e n s . Pp. 199-207 in Studia Ara-maica: New Sources and New Approaches, ed . J. Geller. JSS S u p p l e m e n t 4. O x f o r d : O x f o r d Unive r s i t y Press.

2001 T h e Scorpion Spell f r o m W a d i O a m m a m a t : A n o t h e r A r a m a i c Text in D e m o t i c Script . JNES 60: 259-68.

Steiner , R. C , a n d N i m s , C. F. 1984 You C a n ' t O f f e r Your Sacrif ice a n d Eat It Too: A Polemical P o e m f r o m

t h e A r a m a i c Text in D e m o t i c Script . JNES 43: 89-114. 1985 A s h u r b a n i p a l a n d S h a m a s h - s h u m - u k i n : A Tale of Two Bro the r s

f r o m t he A r a m a i c Text in D e m o t i c Script . Revue Biblique 92: 60-81. St rugne l l , J.

1999 Prob l ems in t he D e v e l o p m e n t of t he A h i q a r Tale. Eretz-lsrael 26 (Cross Volume): 204*- l l* .

V i t t m a n n , G. 2003 Agypten und die Fremden im ersten vorchristlichen Jahrhundert. Mainz :

Z a b e r n . 2006 Z w i s c h e n I n t e g r a t i o n u n d A u s g r e n z u n g : Z u r A k k u l t u r a t i o n v o n

A u s l a n d e r n im spa tze i t l i chen A g y p t e n . Pp. 561-95 in Altertum und Mittelmeerraum: Die antike Welt diesseits und jenseits der Levante. Fest­schrift fur Peter W. Haider zum 60. Geburtstag, ed . R. Roll inger a n d B. Truschnegg . O r i e n s et O c c i d e n s 12. Stu t t ga r t : Steiner.

V l e e m i n g , S. P., a n d Wessel ius , J. W. 1982 A n A r a m a i c H y m n f r o m t h e F o u r t h C e n t u r y B.C. BiOr 39: 501-9.

1983-84 Betel t h e Saviour . JEOL 28 :110-40 . 1985 Studies in Papyrus Amherst 63: Essays on the Aramaic Texts in Ara­

maic/Demotic Papyrus Amherst 63. Vol. 1. A m s t e r d a m : J u d a Palache Ins t i t uu t .

1990 Studies in Papyrus Amherst 63: Essays on the Aramaic Texts in Ara­maic/Demotic Papyrus Amherst 63. Vol. 2. A m s t e r d a m : J u d a Palache In s t i t uu t .

Weigl , A. 2010 Die aramaische Achikar­Spriiche aus Elephantine und die alttestament­

liche Weisheitliteratur. Berlin: d e G r u y t e r . Yona, S.

2007 S h a r e d Stylist ic P a t t e r n s in t he A r a m a i c P r o v e r b s of A h i q a r a n d H e ­b r e w W i s d o m . Ancient Near Eastern Studies 44: 29­49.

The Interaction of Egyptian and Aramaic Literature 401

Zauzich , K.-T. 1976 Demot ische Fragmente z u m Ahika r -Roman . Pp. 180-85 in Folia

Rara Wolfgang Voigt LXV. diem natalem celebranti db amicis el catalogo-rum codicum orientalium conscribendorum collegis dedicata. Wiesbaden: Steiner.

1978 N e u e demot i sche l i terarische Texte in demot ischer Schrift . Enchoria 8,2: 33-38.

1985 Der Gott des a ramaisch-demot i schen Papyrus A m h e r s t 63. GM 85: 89-90.

Zevit , Z. 1990 The C o m m o n Origin of the Aramaicised Prayer to H o r u s a n d of

Psalm 20. JAOS 110: 213-28.