Quack The Interaction of Egyptian and Aramaic Literature 2011

Originalverffentlichung 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
The Interaction of
Egyptian and Aramaic Literature
J O A C H I M FRIEDRICH Q U A C K
Institute of Egyptology-University of Heidelberg
While there h a s been considerable discussion on the question of

Egyptian influence on Old Testament literature, especially w i s d o m
texts such as the Teaching of Amenemope ( H u m b e r t 1929; Bruyce 1979;
R o m h e l d 1989; Laisney 2007) a n d Canticles (e.g., Fox 1985), t h e rela
tion b e t w e e n nonbiblical Jewish literature a n d Egyptian compositions
h a s b e e n m u c h less in t h e focus. The relevant compositions I i n t e n d
to discuss are w r i t t e n in Aramaic, a n d this entails t h e methodological
p r o b l e m to w h i c h extent they can b e classified as "Jewish"or Jehu
diteliterature a n d t h u s legitimately b e b r o u g h t into the scope of this
volume. I can point out that at least Ahiqar is archaeologically ascer
tained to come f r o m t h e g r o u p on Elephantine Island that stylized itself
as "Jews." Obviously, this will lead to the w i d e r question of w h a t it
m e a n t to b e a "Jew" d u r i n g t h e A c h a e m e n i d period.
As a point of comparison, Egyptian literary texts of the Late period
will be used. I restrict myself to those w r i t t e n in the vernacular d e m o t i c
l a n g u a g e because there is n o evidence that literary texts in classical
Middle Egyptian l a n g u a g e w e r e created a n e w d u r i n g t h e Late period.
A s a m a t t e r of fact, they even seem to have d i e d out d u r i n g that period;
t h e r e is n o single m a n u s c r i p t of a Middle Egyptian literary composition
later t h a n the Sai'tic period (26th Dynasty; Q u a c k 2003a). This restric
tion still leaves us w i t h a fairly large Egyptian c o r p u s (Quack 2005a).
In o r d e r to u s e this corpus to the full, w e have to keep in m i n d the
chronological question. At first, it seems a p p r o p r i a t e to limit ourselves
to cases of Egyptian texts f r o m the A c h a e m e n i d period, in keeping
w i t h t h e focus of this v o l u m e . However, w i t h a closer look, this raises
a n i m p o r t a n t methodological issue: w h a t exactly is an Egyptian text
f r o m t h e A c h a e m e n i d period? M a n y Egyptologists t e n d to base their
text chronology mainly on actual attestations of m a n u s c r i p t s . Thus,
while avoiding t h e pitfall of fanciful early d a t i n g that h a s s o m e t i m e s
p l a g u e d Egyptology, they incur the even greater risk of m i s t a k i n g t h e
r a n d o m preservation for a s t r u c t u r e of d e v e l o p m e n t (von Lieven 2007:
375
376
JOACHIM FRIEDRICH QUACK
223-54). Specifically for t h e d e m o t i c l i t e r a t u r e , w e h a v e t o r e c k o n w i t h

t h e fact t h a t t h e r e a r e h a r d l y a n y p r e s e r v e d d e m o t i c literary m a n u
scripts f r o m t h e Persian p e r i o d a c t u a l l y k n o w n n o w a d a y s . 1 By far, t h e
g r e a t e s t n u m b e r of d e m o t i c literary f r a g m e n t s d a t e f r o m t h e R o m a n
p e r i o d . H o w e v e r , in m a n y cases t h e r e a r e i n h e r e n t a r g u m e n t s f o r a t
t r i b u t i n g t h e original d a t e of c o m p o s i t i o n to p r e P t o l e m a i c times. 2
T h u s , I feel justified in u s i n g c o m p o s i t i o n s w h o s e a c t u a l m a n u s c r i p t s
a r e p o s t A c h a e m e n i d as long a s t h e r e a r e g o o d r e a s o n s f o r c o n n e c t i n g
t h e m w i t h I m p e r i a l A r a m a i c texts.
T h e b e s t k n o w n case of a t r a n s l a t i o n f r o m A r a m a i c to E g y p t i a n is t h e
Story and Wisdom of Ahiqar. Set at t h e N e o A s s y r i a n c o u r t a n d t h o u g h t
b y several scholars a c t u a l l y to reflect A s s y r i a n c o u r t m i l i e u (Fales 1994;
K o c h W e s t e n h o l z 1995: 63; Dalley 2001: 15354; P a r p o l a 2005; Weigl
2010: 691703), t h e oldest p r e s e r v e d m a n u s c r i p t , w r i t t e n in I m p e r i a l
A r a m a i c , w a s f o u n d at E l e p h a n t i n e a n d d a t e s f r o m t h e 5 t h c e n t u r y
B.C.E.3 It h a s b e e n l o n g k n o w n t h a t this c o m p o s i t i o n w a s , b e s i d e s r e n
d e r i n g s in m a n y o t h e r l a n g u a g e s , 4 also t r a n s l a t e d i n t o d e m o t i c E g y p
tian. 5 U p to n o w , o n l y t w o d e m o t i c E g y p t i a n f r a g m e n t s of t h e n a r r a t i v e
f r a m e (manuscripts dating f r o m the Roman imperial period) have been
p u b l i s h e d ; several m o r e in t h e s a m e h a n d a n d p r o b a b l y f r o m t h e s a m e
scroll r e m a i n u n p u b l i s h e d , as well a s several f r a g m e n t s f r o m w i s d o m
i n s t r u c t i o n s in t h e s a m e h a n d t h a t a r e likely to c o n s t i t u t e t h e m a x i m s of
Ahiqar in d e m o t i c E g y p t i a n f o r m . T h e 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 p a s s a g e s a s w e l l as t h e b y f a r largest f r a g m e n t of t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s
(P.Berlin 15658) a r e n o w a d a y s at Berlin, a n d s m a l l e r f r a g m e n t s of t h e
w i s d o m s a y i n g s a r e a t Vienna. 6 T h e p r o v e n a n c e is n o t certain, b u t f r o m
t h e style of t h e h a n d it is likely to b e S o k n o p a i o u Nesos.
1. T h e r e e x i s t s a v e r y s m a l l f r a g m e n t of c e r t a i n l y literary (probably narrative)
n a t u r e n o w in Berlin (P.Berlin 23504); s e e J a s n o w (1992: 40 n. 63).
2. I h a v e a r g u e d o n t h i s l i n e in s e v e r a l c a s e s ( Q u a c k 2005a). For t h e early h i s t o r y
of d e m o t i c literature, s e e f u r t h e r H o f f m a n n (2009).
3. Last, s e e L i n d e n b e r g e r 1985; K o t t s i e p e r 1991; P o r t e n a n d Yardeni 1993: 2 3 - 5 3 ;
C o n t i n i 2005; N i e h r 2007; W e i g l 2010. T h e relative p o s i t i o n of t h e i n d i v i d u a l f r a g
m e n t s c a n n o w b e a s s u r e d b y t h e traces of t h e tax a c c o u n t that w a s first w r i t t e n in
t h e scroll.
4. T h e s t a n d a r d e d i t i o n still r e m a i n s C o n y b e a r e , Harris, a n d L e w i s (1913); for a
m o r e recent t r e a t m e n t , s e e C o n t i n i a n d Grottanelli (2005); a n d t h e o v e r v i e w of t h e
t e x t u a l h i s t o r y in B r i c q u e l C h a t o n n e t (2005).
5. Z a u z i c h (1976); Betro (2005). S e e f u r t h e r K u c h l e r (1979: 3 3 3 3 7 ) , w h e r e a l s o
t r a n s l a t i o n s of s o m e e x c e r p t s of the w i s d o m s a y i n g s ( b a s e d o n a p r o v i s i o n a l transla
t i o n b y Z a u z i c h ) are g i v e n ; Ryholt (2004: 4 9 7 9 9 ) .
6. Berlin: R e l e v a n t n u m b e r s of f r a g m e n t s p o s s i b l y b e l o n g i n g t o A h i q a r are
P.Berlin 23730, 23829, 23830, a n d 23831. Vienna: A c t u a l l y u n d e r P.Vienna A e g n u m
b e r s 6 3 3 2 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) F r a g m e n t Cairo 7
x + 1 . . . ] Egypt(?) 8 [ . . .
x + 2 ...]' the father [...
x + 3 . . . ] all [ . . . ] w h i c h t h e y . [ . . .
x + 4 ...] misery . . . [ . . .
x + 5 . . . ] w h o m ( ? ) ? 1 0 1 will give y o u a p a l m - b r a n c h ( ? ) [ . . .
x + 6 . . . ] t h e . . . w h i c h is m e n t i o n e d above totally, 11 so t h a t it h a p p e n s t h a t
she [ . . .
x + 7 . . . ] . council a m o n g them(?). 1 2 T h e y said: "Let [ . . . ] give [ . . .
x + 8 . . . ] w e [ . . . ] , w e failed, w e w e r e s t u p i d . [ . . .
x + 9 . . . ] t h e a r m y w h i c h h a d rebelled is it w h i c h h a s g o n e to Ni[niveh(?) 1 3
x + 10
x + 11
x + 12
x + 13
. . . ] in it [ . . . ] H e f o u n d A k h i q a r at t h e place [ . . .
. . . ] . G o a w a y to y o u r districts 1 4 a n d your 1 5 c [ i t i e s ( ? ) . . .
. . . ] . to t h e a r m y w h i c h t h e chief A k h i q [ a r . . .
. . . t h o u j g h t a b o u t t h e evil t h i n g w h i c h h a d h a p p e n e d [ . . .
7. Original publication by Sobhy (1930: pi. VII, 2: without closer study), identi
fied as a fragment 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 d a m a g e to the papyrus, the best visible sign seems to be rather an m with a
horizontal line above. I propose to read r Kmy\
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 compli
cated groups for cr are attested also in other manuscripts f r o m 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
( 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]ike17 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 for us. You h a v e n o t s o u g h t sorrow18
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 . . . ] chief. N o b o d y o n e a r t h could discover w h a t h a p p e n e d to h i m .
x + 5 . . . ] m a n like A k h i q a r w h o h a s
x + 6 . . . ] " hastened to the place w h e r e Akhiqar
x + 7 . . . ] all [ . . . ] . H a s t e n t o t h e chief w h e n h e s e e k s
x + 8 ...] the Assyrian
x + 9 ...] to her [...]
In spite of the very unsatisfactory state of preservation, w e can m a k e

s o m e guesses a b o u t the original setting. A s a l r e a d y p r o p o s e d b y Z a u zich (1976) a n d Betro (2005: 178), they w o u l d fit v e r y well w i t h t h e
situation w h e n Assyria w a s challenged b y the king of E g y p t to a d u e l
of riddles, a n d the Assyrian king w a s looking for a c o m p e t e n t a d v i
sor to d e a l w i t h t h e m . Alternatively, Ryholt (2004: 49899) h a s b r o u g h t
f o r t h the (equally possible) proposal t h a t t h e y are f r o m t h e section
w h e r e A h i q a r w a s tricked into s e e m i n g l y revolting against the king
a n d w h e r e h e w a s saved f r o m execution. It is of s o m e i m p o r t a n c e for
m y f u r t h e r discussion that t h e sections a b o u t t h e d u e l of riddles are
not a t t e s t e d a m o n g the imperial A r a m a i c f r a g m e n t s f r o m Elephantine,
even t h o u g h w e c a n n o t base too m u c h o n this fact, given t h a t those
f r a g m e n t s are only very partially p r e s e r v e d , w i t h several p a g e s b e i n g
completely lost. 20
I will go into f e w e r details a b o u t t h e f r a g m e n t s f r o m the section of
t e a c h i n g s because they are not yet published. At t h e outset, I s h o u l d
stress t h a t the a t t r i b u t i o n of t h e w i s d o m f r a g m e n t s to a d e m o t i c E g y p
tian translation of Ahiqar c a n n o t b e strictly p r o v e n at t h e m o m e n t . A n
initial suspicion is b a s e d on the similarity of t h e h a n d s , w h i c h points
to the w o r k of a single scribe for t h e w i s d o m f r a g m e n t s a n d for the
n a r r a t i v e sections m e n t i o n i n g Ahiqar. Of course, o n e scribe could have
16. E d i t e d b y Z a u z i c h (1976: 1 8 3 8 4 ) . 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
merit a translation.
17. H e r e a n d i n 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 B e t r o (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 i k e l y t o b e m
t h a n s. F o r 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 '; s e e 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 e a r l y 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
( 2 0 0 5 : 1 9 0 n o t e b).
19. A c c o r d i n g t o 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). S e e 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 s o t h a t m o r e l e a v e s t h a n o n l y t h o s e w i t h t h e
taxaccount could have been glued together.
379
copied d i f f e r e n t m a n u s c r i p t s . There is even one n o t e w o r t h y difference:

all f r a g m e n t s of the n a r r a t i v e sections have a n u n i n s c r i b e d verso, w h i l e
t h e f r a g m e n t s w i t h w i s d o m sayings have o n t h e verso a hieratic copy of
t h e Book of the Temple.21 But it w o u l d not b e too s u r p r i s i n g if only a p o r
tion of the verso w a s ever u s e d for w r i t i n g (Ryholt 2005: 27). In a n y case,
one interesting f o r m a l aspect should b e n o t e d . In all of the later Ahiqar
traditions, b u t not in t h e imperial A r a m a i c f r a g m e n t s , each saying is
i n t r o d u c e d in a r a t h e r dull way, w i t h " m y son." The d e m o t i c E g y p t i a n
f r a g m e n t s in question d o not s h o w a n y s t r u c t u r i n g of this sort, even
t h o u g h they contain several probable b e g i n n i n g s of n e w sayings.
U n f o r t u n a t e l y , the incomplete preservation of p h r a s e s typically h a s
a g r e a t e r i m p a c t on the u n d e r s t a n d a b i l i t y of w i s d o m discourse t h a n o n
a straight narrative; a n d in the actually k n o w n p a r t s of t h e m a n u s c r i p t ,
t h e r e is h a r d l y a n y complete sentence. Still, it seems u s e f u l to m e n t i o n
s o m e p h r a s e s t h a t w e r e q u o t e d b y Kiichler (1979: 33637) f r o m a p r e
liminary translation b y Z a u z i c h b e c a u s e they served to s u p p o r t the idea
that these w e r e p r e c e p t s h o w subjects should b e h a v e t o w a r d a prince.
T h e p r o b l e m is t h a t in a large m e a s u r e this i n t e r p r e t a t i o n seems d u e to
a n e l e m e n t a r y m i s r e a d i n g . W h a t is really w r i t t e n as pty=k " y o u r " w a s
m i s r e a d as pi wr " t h e prince." T h e r e m a i n i n g cases, m a i n l y involving
t h e w o r d hri, "chief, superior," are h a r d l y characteristic for a prince a n d
could as well refer to behavior w i t h i n a n y hierarchical situation at the
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e level; as a m a t t e r of fact, advice for situations of this sort
is q u i t e c o m m o n in E g y p t i a n w i s d o m texts (Quack 1994:152 a n d 184).
O n e specific passage certainly m e r i t s discussion because it goes s o m e
w a y t o w a r d establishing t h e a t t r i b u t i o n of the f r a g m e n t s to Ahiqar. We
h a v e the text "I have e a t e n gall" (2, x + 2) followed b y a lacuna. In spite
of t h e shortness, I can note that this is a fairly u n u s u a l f o r m u l a t i o n for
a w i s d o m text. H o w e v e r , it h a s a very g o o d attestation in the Ahiqar
t r a d i t i o n ( N o l d e k e 1913: 41). Already, t h e Imperial A r a m a i c p a p y r u s
h a s a saying t h a t Porten translates as "I h a v e tasted the bitter m e d l a r
a n d the [taste] is s t r o n g b u t t h e r e is not (anything) w h i c h is m o r e bitter
t h a n poverty," w h e r e a s Kottsieper u n d e r s t a n d s it as "I h a v e tasted the
m e d l a r a n d the gall, a n d the taste w a s strong, b u t t h e r e is not a n y t h i n g
w h i c h is m o r e bitter t h a n p o v e r t y " (col. 6 , 1 1 = Sachau pi. 45, ll). 2 2 Lin
d e n b e r g e r (1985: 501), on the basis of a slightly d i f f e r e n t restoration of
a lacuna, even u n d e r s t a n d s it as "I have t a s t e d e v e n t h e bitter m e d l a r ,
a n d have eaten endives, b u t t h e r e is n o t h i n g m o r e bitter t h a n 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
These slight d i s a g r e e m e n t s on the precise philological i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of

t h e m a n u s c r i p t d o not have a n y repercussions o n its similarity w i t h the
d e m o t i c E g y p t i a n phrase. A m o n g t h e later Ahiqar traditions, one of the
Syriac m a n u s c r i p t s h a s it as "I have e a t e n bitter t h i n g s a n d s w a l l o w e d
viscous m a t t e r b u t I d i d not find a n y t h i n g m o r e bitter t h a n p o v e r t y "
( N a u 1919: 153 a n d 159, saying 42). In the Slavonic version, w e h a v e "I
h a v e tasted gall a n d bitterness, a n d it w a s not m o r e bitter t h a n p o v
erty"; in the A r m e n i a n w e h a v e "I h a v e e a t e n e n d i v e a n d I h a v e d r u n k
gall, a n d it w a s not m o r e bitter t h a n poverty." The Arabic version h a s "I
have e a t e n a colocynth, a n d s w a l l o w e d aloes, a n d I h a v e f o u n d n o t h i n g
m o r e bitter t h a n p o v e r t y a n d scarcity" (Conybeare, H a r r i s , a n d Lewis
1913: 6, saying 54; 32, saying 69; 63, saying 72; 136, saying 40).
I will f u r t h e r m e n t i o n one point t h a t h a s b e e n b r o u g h t u p p r e v i o u s l y
(Quack 2002: 340; Betro 2005:18081). T h e r e is one passage t h a t invites
a restoration in line w i t h t h e later Syriac tradition. T h e p r e s e r v e d d e
motic text gives: " D o not love to gird 2 3 to [ . . . ] occur. If beating 2 4 [...]." It
is at least t e m p t i n g to restore the text as " D o not love to gird to s[trife!
If strife occurs, b e a t i n g will] occur. If b e a t i n g [occurs, killing will oc
cur]." This is, o n the one h a n d , a t t e s t e d similarly as a saying in the
Syriac Ahiqar tradition (but not in t h e p r e s e r v e d f r a g m e n t s of t h e i m
perial A r a m a i c version). T h e r e are slight d i f f e r e n c e s in f o r m u l a t i o n .
O n e m a n u s c r i p t h a s " D o not s t a n d a m o n g those w h o quarrel. For f r o m
l a u g h t e r t h e r e comes quarrel, a n d f r o m q u a r r e l t h e r e comes fighting,
a n d f r o m fighting comes killing" ( N a u 1919:154 a n d 159). A n o t h e r h a s
" D o not s t a n d in the h o u s e of those w h o are on strife. For f r o m a w o r d
t h e r e comes a quarrel, a n d f r o m a q u a r r e l is stirred u p vexation, a n d
f r o m vexation comes killing." 25
O n the other h a n d , w e h a v e a very similar f o r m u l a t i o n in a n
other d e m o t i c E g y p t i a n w i s d o m composition, namely, t h e Teachings of
Khasheshonqy (normally b u t w r o n g l y called " O n k h s h e s h o n q y " in m o d
e r n scholarship). 2 6 There it r u n s as " D o not insult the c o m m o n m a n . If
insult occurs, b e a t i n g will occur. If b e a t i n g occurs, killing will o c c u r "
(22, 2123). T h e Khasheshonqy saying h a s b e e n connected w i t h 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 ramifi
cations 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 G e r m a n translation is H o f f m a n n and Quack (2007: 27399, 36568).
381
a l r e a d y b y Lichtheim (1983: 14-17), even w i t h o u t k n o w l e d g e of t h e

P a p y r u s Berlin 15658.1 will take u p the tricky question of t h e relation
b e t w e e n Ahiqar a n d Khasheshonqy later on.
In s u m m a r y , f r o m w h a t c a n b e a s c e r t a i n e d at t h e m o m e n t , t h e
c o n t e n t of t h e d e m o t i c E g y p t i a n f r a g m e n t s of Ahiqar is closer in
c o n t e n t to t h e m a i n s t r e a m r e d a c t i o n of Ahiqar (as a t t e s t e d , e.g., in
Syriac) t h a n to t h e I m p e r i a l A r a m a i c v e r s i o n , a f a c t t h a t e n t a i l s c o m
plex q u e s t i o n s of t h e a c t u a l h i s t o r y of r e d a c t i o n a n d t r a n s m i s s i o n as
w e l l as t h e d a t e of t h e d e m o t i c t r a n s l a t i o n . S e v e r a l q u i t e d i f f e r e n t
p o s s i b i l i t i e s rise u p . First, t h e E g y p t i a n v e r s i o n c o u l d b e b a s e d o n
s o m e later, c o n s i d e r a b l y r e w o r k e d version of Ahiqar. In t h a t case, w e
w o u l d lose t h e relation to the A c h a e m e n i d period. The other option is
that, in the early times, several q u i t e d i v e r g e n t versions of Ahiqar w e r e
in circulation, a n d the Egyptian translation is b a s e d o n o n e t h a t w a s
r a t h e r d i f f e r e n t f r o m the only p r e s e r v e d imperial A r a m a i c copy ( f r o m
Elephantine) w i t h o u t necessarily b e i n g chronologically younger. 2 7 O n e
point in favor of this supposition is t h a t the d e m o t i c f r a g m e n t s of t h e
teachings, even if t a k i n g into account possible f u r t h e r a d v a n c e s in
r e a d i n g a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g , are also certainly m o r e d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h e
m a i n s t r e a m redaction of Ahiqar t h a n the o r d i n a r y divergences w i t h i n
t h a t g r o u p (e.g., b e t w e e n the Syriac a n d t h e A r m e n i a n versions). Thus,
I w o u l d p r o p o s e to i n t e r p r e t the d e m o t i c E g y p t i a n translation as tes
t i m o n y of a second f r e e a n d "uncanonical" early redaction of Ahiqar,
even if it is p e r h a p s closer to t h e later Syriac version in s o m e respects
(especially t h e f r a m e story) t h a n to t h e Imperial A r a m a i c one. 28
T h e options can p e r h a p s be n a r r o w e d d o w n a bit if w e take t h e
Greek Life of Aesop29 into consideration, because the sections it took over
f r o m the Ahiqar tradition (chaps. 10123) a l r e a d y contain t h e n a r r a t i v e
e l e m e n t of the riddle d u e l w i t h the E g y p t i a n king. T h u s , it p r e s u p p o s e s
a state of the f r a m e story similar to the Syriac tradition. The G r e e k text
is n o r m a l l y considered to d a t e f r o m the R o m a n imperial time, e v e n 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 con
sidered 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
t h e r e h a s not b e e n m u c h i n - d e p t h discussion (Holzberg 2003). A f r a g

m e n t of a Greek p a p y r u s f r o m t h e late second or early t h i r d c e n t u r y C.E.
(P.Berlin 11628) containing p a r t s of t h e text p r o v i d e s a secure t e r m i n u s
a n t e quern. Besides, in its content it gives a n additional t e r m i n u s a n t e
q u e r n non. By n a m i n g the E g y p t i a n king N e c t a n e b o as t h e o p p o n e n t in
t h e d u e l of riddles, it cannot b e earlier t h a n his reign (360342 B.C.E.). 3 0
In a n y case, t h e r e n d e r i n g of the n a m e of the E g y p t i a n k i n g is in
favor of a milieu t h a t w a s k n o w l e d g e a b l e of Egypt (if not actually b e
ing in Egypt); 31 a takeover directly f r o m A r a m a i c w i t h o u t a n y E g y p t i a n
participation w o u l d h a v e p r o d u c e d a m o r e g a r b l e d r e n d e r i n g . To s o m e
d e g r e e , this m i g h t even b r i n g u p the question w h e t h e r this p a r t i c u l a r
section of t h e Life of Aesop w a s taken over f r o m a n A r a m a i c version of
Ahiqar at all a n d not via the i n t e r m e d i a r y of a d e m o t i c E g y p t i a n one. I
c a n n o t elaborate this point here, given its complexity a n d the fact that
n o b o d y u p to n o w h a s ever explored a possibility s u c h as this. But in
Egypt d u r i n g the R o m a n p e r i o d , a d e m o t i c E g y p t i a n text w o u l d h a v e
h a d a m u c h w i d e r circulation a n d t h u s b e e n a m o r e logical c a n d i d a t e
for influence t h a n a n A r a m a i c one. 32
S o m e evidence concerning the direction a n d s o m e t i m e s even t i m e of
loans can b e g a i n e d f r o m the phonetic f o r m of t h e n a m e s . T h e n a m e of
t h e protagonist a p p e a r s as Ihykl or ihygl in the d e m o t i c E g y p t i a n v e r
sion. W i t h the laryngeal h, a f o r m of this sort goes back to a Semitic
p r o t o t y p e , excluding the possibility of a G r e e k intermediary. Besides, it
s h o u l d h a v e come a b o u t at a t i m e w h e n t h e distinction b e t w e e n t h e t w o
s o u n d s h a n d h in A r a m a i c , a l t h o u g h not i n d i c a t e d in t h e w r i t i n g , w a s
still m a i n t a i n e d in speech. 3 3 F u r t h e r m o r e , w e have t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of
a n original Semitic velar k to a d e m o t i c E g y p t i a n k or g. This spelling is
typically u s e d w h e n a n E g y p t i a n s o u n d w a s realized w i t h a p r o n u n c i a
tion like t h e Coptic 6 (Quack 2005c: 32324). T h e s o u n d shift 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 f o 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 c a s t l e in t h e a i r t h a t w o u l d a l s o 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 e a s 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 s o
t h e i m p o r t a n t r o l e of Isis a s a h e l p e r of A e s o p ; M u l l e r (1974: 8) a l s o p o i n t s o u t t h e
r o l e 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 i n t h e e p i s o d e of t h e w h i p p e d c a t t h e
Aesop romance ( c h a p . 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 ( t h e o l o g i c a l l y c o r r e c t ) i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of t h e c a 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 B u b a s t i s .
32. T h e J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y i n 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
during this time.
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 , s e e , e.g., B e y e r (1984: 1 0 1 1 1 ) ,
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.
383
a 6 is q u i t e r e g u l a r for earlier loans f r o m Semitic l a n g u a g e s (Peust 1999:

107, 109 a. 112-13; 307-10) b u t seems to have ceased at s o m e t i m e d u r
ing the Late Period. Both points speak against a very late (i.e., R o m a n
p e r i o d ) d a t e of t h e E g y p t i a n version. In principle, it is m u c h m o r e likely
t h a t a n A r a m a i c text w a s taken over b y the E g y p t i a n s at a t i m e w h e n
A r a m a i c w a s relatively p r o m i n e n t b y b e i n g a n official a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
l a n g u a g e . Thus, given t h e phonetic evidence as well as t h e i n h e r e n t
likelihood, I w o u l d still s u p p o s e a n early, probably A c h a e m e n i d , d a t e
for t h e a d o p t i o n of the Ahiqar text b y t h e Egyptians.
O n e f u r t h e r issue m u s t arise: in the m a i n s t r e a m redaction, Ahiqar re
gains the favor of the Assyrian king b y b e i n g able to t h w a r t a n i n t r i g u e
of the E g y p t i a n king a n d t r i u m p h a n t l y overcome the E g y p t i a n s in a
d u e l of w i s d o m / t r i c k e r y , b r i n g i n g their t r i b u t e for t h r e e y e a r s back to
Assyria. While t h e r e is a clear tradition of d u e l s of sorcery in d e m o t i c
E g y p t i a n tales, e.g., in Setne II or the tale of Djoser a n d I m h o t e p against
t h e A s s y r i a n s (Quack 2005a: 27 a n d 3940), it is h a r d to i m a g i n e t h a t
t h e E g y p t i a n s w o u l d h a v e liked a story telling of their o w n defeat, 3 4 so
w e m u s t ask w h e t h e r they m a d e some drastic alterations to the plotline
to b r i n g it into c o n f o r m i t y w i t h their o w n predilections. But o n e point
to consider is t h a t in t h e a d a p t a t i o n of this section w i t h i n t h e Greek
Life of Aesop, the E g y p t i a n king is N e c t a n e b o . This last king of the 30th
D y n a s t y eventually lost his k i n g d o m to t h e Persians. There is at least
one d e m o t i c E g y p t i a n n a r r a t i v e text dealing w i t h h i m , t h e Dream of
Nectanebo (Ryholt 2002; Q u a c k 2005a: 6465). Even t h o u g h t h e e n d of
t h a t composition is not p r e s e r v e d , it can h a r d l y h a v e c o n c l u d e d w i t h
a n y t h i n g other t h a n t h e d o w n f a l l a n d flight of the king ( p e r h a p s cou
pled w i t h a p r o m i s e of r e t u r n b y one of his sons). It is possible t h a t h e
w a s chosen b y t h e E g y p t i a n s as the one u n d e r w h o m a d e f e a t against
s u p e r i o r foreign w i s d o m w a s a n option.
To c o n f o u n d m a t t e r s e v e n f u r t h e r , s o m e scholars h a v e s p e c u l a t e d
a b o u t possible E g y p t i a n influences in the Story of Ahiqar. Already, Dal
ley (2001: 155) h a d seen a m i x i n g of E g y p t i a n a n d A k k a d i a n literary
e l e m e n t s in t h e text. H e r m a i n point w a s t h a t t h e n a r r a t i v e w a s a u t o
biographical a n d t h u s in a g e n r e m u c h en v o g u e in Egypt. She p o i n t e d
o u t the Tale of Wenamun, in w h i c h , according to her, this b e c a m e a lit
e r a r y f o r m . By contrast, in M e s o p o t a m i a f u n c t i o n a r i e s w e r e not u s e d
to w r i t i n g autobiographical texts, a n d t h u s t h e r e are n o literary p r e
decessors for Ahiqar in this respect. 3 5 I m u s t a d m i t t h a t I d o 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
very confident a b o u t a n a r g u m e n t such as this. First, o u r k n o w l e d g e of

literary traditions in N o r t h w e s t Semitic l a n g u a g e s for the first millen
n i u m B.C.E. is so limited that ideas a b o u t w h a t is " u n u s u a l " a n d t h u s
in n e e d of explanation b y foreign influences are q u i t e risky; a n d t h e r e
actually seems to be sufficient evidence t h a t , in first m i l l e n n i u m Syria,
h i g h r a n k i n g p e r s o n s other t h a n the king could also u s e t h e f o r m a t of
f i r st p e r so n b i o g r a p h i e s (Niehr 2007:12). Second, e v e n in Egypt it is far
f r o m n o r m a l to h a v e a firstperson n a r r a t i v e in a literary tale. Wenamun
(using the o u t w a r d f o r m of a n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e report, not a n a u t o b i o g
raphy!) is as m u c h a n exception in this as t h e M i d d l e E g y p t i a n Tale of
Sinuhe (using t h e o u t w a r d f o r m of a f u n e r a r y a u t o b i o g r a p h y ) . All tales
f r o m Egypt attested d u r i n g t h e first m i l l e n n i u m B.C.E. are t h i r d p e r s o n
narratives.
Besides, even for a w i s d o m text Ahiqar w o u l d not q u i t e c o n f o r m to
a n E g y p t i a n m o d e l . W h e r e a s it is n o r m a l to give a specific n a m e a n d
situation to a w i s d o m teacher in E g y p t i a n teachings (as well as in
N e a r Eastern texts), 36 a n d w i t h i n the teaching h e can speak in the first
person, 3 7 t h e r e is n o single attestation that the f r a m e story is c o u c h e d as
a n autobiography. Normally, a n E g y p t i a n w i s d o m text does not h a v e a
long n a r r a t i v e introduction, a n d t h e best case in w h i c h it d o e s h a v e one
(the Teachings of Khasheshonqy) is stylized in t h e third person. So I a m
reluctant to see in this f o r m a l trait a n y e v i d e n c e of E g y p t i a n influence.
O t h e r s , especially Betro (2000: 2831; 2005: 18487) a n d Contini
a n d Grottanelli (2005: 8488), h a v e also p o i n t e d o u t specific m o t i v e s in
t h e n a r r a t i v e that t h e y s a w as E g y p t i a n a n d p r o p o s e d that t h e Story of
Ahiqar g a i n e d its s t a n d a r d f o r m in Egypt. I m u s t a d m i t t h a t the ele
m e n t s t h e y have b r o u g h t u p fail to convince m e , b e c a u s e t h e y t e n d to
b e too unspecific. T h e f e i g n e d d e a t h of Ahiqar is c o m p a r e d to the Late
E g y p t i a n Story of Truth and Falsehood. For the rehabilitation of a courtier,
t h e M i d d l e E g y p t i a n Tale of Sinuhe is invoked. The riddle d u e l b e t w e e n
kings is seen as similar to an episode in the d e m o t i c Tale of Setne II, as
well as a n episode r e p o r t e d b y Plutarch, Banquet of Seven Sages a b o u t a
d u e l b e t w e e n A m a s i s a n d a n Ethiopian king. T h e m o t i v e of a n impossi
t h e t h e o r y of L u z z a t t o (1992), w h o h a d a r g u e d for a n A k k a d i a n o r i g i n a l text; e f f o r t
at d e f e n d i n g h e r t h e o r y in L u z z a t t o (1994).
36. For t h e N e a r East, s e e the S u m e r i a n Instruction of Shuruppak a n d t h e Teachings
of Shupeawilim; s e e t h e e d i t i o n s in A l s t e r (1974), a n d K a m m e r e r (1998). T h e i d e a s of
B e r g m a n (1979: 99) a b o u t s p e c i f i c E g y p t i a n r e a s o n s for g i v i n g a n a m e to t h e t e a c h e r
are h a r d l y p e r t i n e n t .
37. T h e b e s t c a s e for this is t h e i n s t r u c t i o n p r e s e r v e d in P.Insinger w i t h i s o l a t e d
i n s t a n c e s of the first p e r s o n w i t h i n t h e text a s w e l l a s a l o n g " n e g a t i v e c o n f e s s i o n " in
t h e first p e r s o n at t h e b e g i n n i n g a n d t h e e n d of t h e text ( Q u a c k 2005a: 99 a n d 104).
385
ble challenge c o u n t e r e d w i t h a n even m o r e impossible o n e is also f o u n d

in t h e Late E g y p t i a n Story of Apophis and Seqenenre. C o n c e r n i n g h e l p
ing birds, the d e m o t i c Tale of Hi Hor is invoked. The p u n i s h m e n t of the
c a l u m n i a t o r can b e f o u n d also in the Late E g y p t i a n Tale of Two Brothers
(Ed'Orbiney). In all cases, the similarities r e m a i n in a very b r o a d a n d
unspecific way. It s h o u l d not b e difficult to point out equally similar
ideas in m a n y other cultures, a n d it w o u l d b e b a d m e t h o d o l o g y to base
a n y conclusions a b o u t literary contacts on t h e m .
Besides the direct translation, t h e r e is also the m u c h d e b a t e d q u e s
tion of possible influence of Ahiqar on other E g y p t i a n w i s d o m texts,
especially the Teachings ofKhasheshonqy. Some similarities b e t w e e n say
ings in the texts h a v e b e e n i n t e r p r e t e d , especially b y Lichtheim (1983:
1321), as proof of actual influence. She singled o u t a b o u t eight or n i n e
sayings in the Khasheshonqy text t h a t s e e m e d , to her, to indicate t h a t
t h e d e m o t i c E g y p t i a n composition w a s d e p e n d e n t on the A r a m a i c one.
N o w a d a y s , opinions are still d i v i d e d a m o n g Egyptologists (Houser
W e g n e r 2001: 8192 a n d 191208). I have a l r e a d y m e n t i o n e d o n e case
above because it w a s likely to b e p r e s e n t also in the d e m o t i c translation
of Ahiqar. Of the other cases, t h e o n e w i t h t h e closest c o r r e s p o n d e n c e
in w o r d i n g is the saying "Better is small w e a l t h g a t h e r e d t h a n large
w e a l t h s c a t t e r e d " ( K h a s h e s h o n q y 23, 9). In t h e Syriac Ahiqar text, this
can b e f o u n d in a f o r m u l a t i o n that is n o r m a l l y t r a n s l a t e d as "better
is p o v e r t y that g a t h e r s t h a n w e a l t h that scatters" (Lichtheim 1983: 18;
C o n y b e a r e , H a r r i s , a n d Lewis 1913:107 a n d Syr. *45, s a y i n g 51). But as
f a r as I see, t h e r e is n o cogent reason w h y the participles of t h e Syriac
text m u s t be considered active voice. 38 Thus, a translation "Better is a
p o v e r t y t h a t is g a t h e r e d t h a n large w e a l t h that is s c a t t e r e d " s e e m s pos
sible for the Ahiqar text as well. F u r t h e r m o r e , also the d e m o t i c E g y p t i a n
text is a m e n a b l e to t w o d i f f e r e n t interpretations, given t h a t the w r i t i n g
of the verbal f o r m s could i n t e n d t h e infinitive (with active m e a n i n g )
as well as the qualitative (with passive m e a n i n g ; the o n e t h a t h a s b e e n
p r e f e r r e d u p to now). In a n y case, complete a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n Ahiqar
a n d Khasheshonqy is attainable.
Equally g o o d is t h e c o r r e s p o n d e n c e b e t w e e n " D o not p r e f e r o n e of
y o u r children to a n o t h e r ; you d o not k n o w w h i c h of t h e m will b e k i n d
to y o u " ( K h a s h e s h o n q y 13,11) a n d "Treat not y o u r slave better t h a n his
fellow for y o u k n o w not w h i c h of t h e m y o u will n e e d in t h e e n d " (Lich
t h e i m 1983:1819; C o n y b e a r e , Harris, a n d Lewis 1913:106 a n d 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 in
dication of vowels, the difference between active and passive would not show in
writing.
386
saying 34), especially considering t h a t the Ahiqar t r a d i t i o n of this say

ing h a s some fluctuation b e t w e e n "child" a n d "slave." A relatively close
similarity in f o r m u l a t i o n can also b e f o u n d b e t w e e n "You m a y t r i p over
y o u r foot in the h o u s e of a great m a n , y o u s h o u l d not t r i p over y o u r
t o n g u e " (Khasheshonqy 10, 7) a n d "Release not y o u r w o r d f r o m y o u r
m o u t h until it is e x a m i n e d in y o u r h e a r t ; for it is b e t t e r for a m a n to t r i p
w i t h his foot t h a n to t r i p w i t h his t o n g u e " (Ahiqar P.Berlin 165, no. 54)39
w i t h m a n y v a r i a n t s w i t h i n t h e Ahiqar tradition (Lichtheim 1983:19; Co
n y b e a r e , Harris, a n d Lewis 1913: 107 a n d Syr. *46 s a y i n g 53). I will re
f r a i n f r o m discussing the cases of m o r e b r o a d similarity in conception.
H e r e also, if t h e connection h o l d s t r u e , the relation to t h e later Syriac
a n d other traditions w o u l d b e m u c h m o r e obvious t h a n to t h e Imperial
A r a m a i c copy. 40 C o m p a r e d to t h e total a m o u n t of text in the composi
tion, the n u m b e r of direct parallels is r a t h e r small, a l t h o u g h this c o m e s
h a r d l y as a great surprise. 4 1
H o u s e r W e g n e r (2001: 195208) h a s tried to disprove Lichtheim's
conclusions b y p o i n t i n g out t h a t t h e concepts in t h e cases in question
can b e illustrated in other E g y p t i a n texts. In m y opinion, a n a r g u m e n t
s u c h as this is insufficient. Even if t h e concept in itself is not u n a t t e s t e d
e l s e w h e r e in E g y p t i a n literature, the fact of the closely similar f o r m u l a
tion in Khasheshonqy a n d Ahiqar s h o u l d b e explained, a n d t h e r e is n o t h
ing i n h e r e n t l y implausible in u s i n g f o r m u l a t i o n s f o u n d in foreign texts
to illustrate concepts that as such are also at h o m e in Egyptit w o u l d
e v e n m a k e m o r e sense to take over ideas t h a t are compatible w i t h
E g y p t i a n t r a d i t i o n s t h a n totally s t r a n g e ideas. For m e , the similarity in
t h e specific f o r m u l a t i o n is still a plausible indication t h a t Khasheshonqy
h a s t a k e n over some sayings of Ahiqar, e v e n if t h e y d o not a m o u n t to
a d o m i n a t i n g influence in his w o r k . F u t u r e discoveries concerning t h e
d e m o t i c translation of Ahiqar m i g h t h e l p to gain m o r e clarity in this
area. Provisionally, w e can a g a i n n o t e t h a t h e r e s o m e version of Ahiqar
w a s available t h a t w a s n e a r e r to the later versions t h a n to t h e E l e p h a n
tine m a n u s c r i p t . To e v a l u a t e this fact, it w o u l d b e u s e f u l to fix the d a t e
of the d e m o t i c E g y p t i a n Teachings of Khasheshonqy. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , t h e r e
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 knowl
edge 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 argu
ment against Lichtheim. See, e.g., Quack (1994: 194205), in which even for inner
Egyptian dependencies, the number of close parallels is usually quite limited.
387
a r e some p r o b l e m s in this. While small f r a g m e n t a r y m a n u s c r i p t s con

t a i n i n g sayings paralleled b y the m a i n m a n u s c r i p t of Khasheshonqy are
a t t e s t e d b e g i n n i n g in t h e early Ptolemaic t i m e (Quack 2005a: 111), the
m a i n m a n u s c r i p t itself is late Ptolemaic. The parallels themselves b e a r
w i t h e s s to a very fluctuating, unstable state concerning the s e q u e n c e
(and probably also n u m b e r ) of individual sayings. Thus, t h e sayings
section of Khasheshonqy is so m u c h a n "open" text that a n y single d a t e
for its composition is h a r d l y m e a n i n g f u l , a n d the f r a m e story is also at
tested in a r e w o r k e d second m a n u s c r i p t (Ryholt 2000). While I myself
h a v e p r e s e n t e d a r g u m e n t s for w h y t h e original composition of the text
should b e d a t e d to the late Sai'tic or Persian t i m e (Quack 2002: 33642),
this can in n o w a y b e u s e d as a fixed t e r m for all of its individual say
ings, a n d t h u s the d a t e w h e n sayings f r o m the Ahiqar tradition w e r e
t a k e n u p in a n E g y p t i a n w i s d o m text r e m a i n s o p e n b u t at least t h e r e
a r e n o cogent a r g u m e n t s against a n early date. 4 2
Besides similarities in s o m e sayings, the general situation of the
f r a m e s t o r y w i t h a n incarcerated sage h a s b e e n c o m p a r e d (Betro 2000:
29), even t h o u g h t h e r e are obvious differences in the details. For m e m
ory, I will recapitulate the m a i n points of t h e E g y p t i a n text: A priest
called K h a s h e s h o n q y , himself living in r a t h e r h u m b l e a n d u n s a t i s f a c
tory conditions, is visiting his old f r i e n d Ramose, w h o h a s m a d e a great
career a n d b e c o m e chief physician of t h e P h a r a o h . But h e b e c o m e s in
volved in a m u r d e r o u s complot against t h e king. K h a s h e s h o n q y tries
to d i s s u a d e h i m f r o m this, b u t to n o avail. Because one m e m b e r of
t h e royal b o d y g u a r d o v e r h e a r s t h e m , t h e conspiracy is revealed a n d
t h w a r t e d b y the king. Ramose is c o n d e m n e d to d e a t h . K h a s h e s h o n q y ,
b e c a u s e h e d i d not w a r n the king, is placed in prison in a fortress, w i t h
out h o p e of amnesty. In this situation, h e w r i t e s teachings o n ostraca in
o r d e r to instruct his son, w h o m h e c a n n o t teach personally.
While t h e r e are s o m e slight, general resemblances to t h e Story of
Ahiqar, w e s h o u l d not overlook the d e e p s e a t e d differences. A h i q a r is
not c o n d e m n e d to prison b u t sentenced to d e a t h (and only saved b y a
trick); a n d even t h o u g h his h i d i n g place m i g h t b e as tight as a prison
cell, it is f u n c t i o n a l l y different. K h a s h e s h o n q y , in contrast to Ahiqar,
is n e v e r p a r d o n e d or rehabilitated. A h i q a r delivers his teachings not
in w r i t t e n f o r m a n d at a distance b u t directly to his n e p h e w N a d i n .
A h i q a r is completely blameless a n d only tricked into a situation w h e r e
h e seems to b e a rebel, w h e r e a s K h a s h e s h o n q y ' s guilt in not d e n o u n c i n g
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
a conspiracy is real. If t h e r e is a n y influence of one text o n t h e other, it

can only h a v e b e e n very d i s t a n t a n d m i t i g a t e d .
P e r h a p s m o r e i n t r i g u i n g is a G r e e k - l a n g u a g e p a p y r u s f r a g m e n t
w i t h a h e r o called Tinuphis, w h o is h i d d e n in connection w i t h a f e i g n e d
execution (Haslam 1991; Q u a c k 2005a: 121). It h a s b e e n p r o p o s e d b y
Kussl (1992) to reconstruct the f r a g m e n t a r y text in a w a y similar to a n
episode of the Aesop tradition, w h i c h in t u r n for this e p i s o d e is b a s e d o n
t h e Ahiqar tradition. To m a k e m a t t e r s e v e n m o r e complicated, t h e n a m e
of Tinuphis is the s a m e as that of the f a t h e r of K h a s h e s h o n q y indicated
in the f r a m e story to the E g y p t i a n instruction; a n d it is not one of the
most f r e q u e n t E g y p t i a n n a m e s at t h a t time. 43 T h u s , w e possibly h a v e
a n a r r a t i v e motif that is very similar to t h e Story of Ahiqar b u t w i t h a n
E g y p t i a n setting. This can b e seen as a n indication t h a t t h e f r a m e story
of Ahiqar w a s k n o w n in s o m e f o r m in R o m a n Egypt; a n d t h u s it con
f i r m s t h e direct evidence of the d e m o t i c translation ( w h e r e this section
is not preserved).
I feel m u c h less confident concerning a relation p r o p o s e d recently
b y Betrb (2000) a n d accepted b y C o n t i n i a n d Grottanelli (2005: 8084)
b e t w e e n the f r a m e story of Ahiqar a n d a f r a g m e n t a r y E g y p t i a n tale
t r a n s m i t t e d o n a jar of t h e R o m a n period. To s o m e d e g r e e , this is b a s e d
o n a s u p p o s e d similarity of t h e n a m e of t h e E g y p t i a n hero, u n d e r s t o o d
as H i h o r w h i c h could b e u n d e r s t o o d as a n effort in a n E g y p t i a n p s e u
d o e t y m o l o g y for t h e actual n a m e of Ahiqar, especially b e c a u s e " H i "
does not h a v e a m e a n i n g as a f o r m a t i v e p a r t of a n E g y p t i a n n a m e .
H o w e v e r , t h e o r t h o g r a p h y of t h e text 44 p e r m i t s the r e a d i n g "Hi, son of
Hor," a n d a close parallel to the composition in a n o t h e r d e m o t i c text h a s
t h e h e r o as " H e n u , son of H o r " (with a clear o r t h o g r a p h y for "son"); 45
t h u s , t h e s u p p o s e d similarity in n a m e m a y b e a n illusion"Hi" as a
short f o r m of a n a m e is a t t e s t e d in E g y p t (Ranke 1935: 233, no. 18).
T h e content of the E g y p t i a n tale s h o w s a wise m a g i c i a n incarcerated at
Elephantine. H e s e n d s out t w o b i r d s t h a t carry scrolls to the royal court,
w h e r e t h e y d r o p t h e m p r o b a b l y to i n f o r m t h e king of his problematic
situation a n d to justify h i m against u n j u s t accusations. There m i g h t be
43. R a n k e (1935: 387, 9 - 1 0 , a n d 388, 13) g i v e s a f e w e x a m p l e s . L i i d d e c k e n s a n d
T h i s s e n (2000: 1350) h a s 11 w r i t t e n f o r m s ( i n c l u d i n g t h e literary a t t e s t a t i o n in the
w i s d o m of K h a s h e s h o n q y ) , of w h i c h 3 are f r o m t h e s a m e p a p y r u s r e f e r r i n g to o n e
p e r s o n , a n d p e r h a p s e x a m p l e no. 2 ( T h e b a n , f a t h e r of a w i t n e s s c a l l e d ct-hr) a l s o
r e f e r s to t h e s a m e p e r s o n a s t h o s e t h r e e e x a m p l e s (all a b o u t t h e p o s s e s s i o n r i g h t s for
a T h e b a n t o m b of ct-hr, s o n of cU-nfr).
44. S e e S p i e g e l b e r g (1912: 29, no. 30) for a n o t h e r c a s e o n this jar in w h i c h t h e
filiation s i g n is n o t w r i t t e n out.
45. P . H e i d e l b e r g 736 recto; e d i t e d b y S p i e g e l b e r g (1917); s e e Q u a c k (2005a: 78).
389
some b r o a d similarities to t h e t h e m e of Ahiqar, b u t t h e y are far f r o m

close a n d convincing: A h i q a r is not i m p r i s o n e d b u t sentenced to d e a t h ,
a n d b i r d s or scrolls d o not play a n y role in his rehabilitation (even if
t r a i n e d eagles c a r r y i n g b o y s are u s e d b y h i m in the riddle d u e l w i t h the
E g y p t i a n king).
A n o t h e r A r a m a i c f r a g m e n t , u n f o r t u n a t e l y of u n c e r t a i n origin (Porten a n d Yardeni 1993: 54-57; Porten 2004), contains p a r t of a story w i t h
H o r son of P w e n e s h as the hero. While it is long k n o w n t h a t t h e r e are
demotic Egyptian papyrus fragments from the Roman time showing
t h e s a m e h e r o (Zauzich 1978: 36), t h e y h a v e not yet b e e n p u b l i s h e d ;
t h u s , a closer discussion is h a r d l y possible. At least w e can see that t h e
text is a b o u t t h e a d v e n t u r e s of a magician, w h i c h is a well-attested
E g y p t i a n literary motif. W i t h some likelihood, however, t h e h e r o can
b e identified also w i t h a certain H o r u s , son of Pneshe, a t t e s t e d as a
m a s t e r m a g i c i a n w i t h i n the second Setne story (Quack 2005a: 40 a n d
62; V i t t m a n n 2006: 583). We can s u p p o s e t h a t a case of translation or
at least f r e e a d a p t a t i o n is involved. Given t h e clearly E g y p t i a n setting
w i t h n a m e s a n d places, the direction of t h e b o r r o w i n g is not in d o u b t ;
a n d this can p r o v i d e a n additional s u p p o r t i n g a r g u m e n t concerning the
p r o b l e m s w i t h the d a t e of the E g y p t i a n Ahiqar tradition: e v e n w h i l e
direct evidence f r o m p r e - R o m a n t i m e is lacking for the E g y p t i a n side,
t h e A r a m a i c d o c u m e n t a t i o n m a k e s it clear t h a t t h e E g y p t i a n e l e m e n t s
w e r e a l r e a d y p r e s e n t in the A c h a e m e n i d time.
The verso of t h a t s a m e p a p y r u s contains a p r o p h e t i c text giving d i r e
p r o g n o s e s of lawlessness a n d social upheaval. While t h e r e is n o obvi
o u s indication that it belongs to t h e s a m e story as the recto text (and
i n d e e d , t h a t can b e considered highly unlikely), 4 6 it is also, f r o m the
details it m e n t i o n s (e.g., the city of Tanis), set in Egypt a n d possibly
a translation f r o m a n E g y p t i a n text. Given its relatively early d a t e , it
m i g h t have s o m e b e a r i n g on the early history of compositions s u c h as
t h e socalled Lamb of Bokchoris (preserved in a p a p y r u s f r o m t h e t i m e
of A u g u s t u s ) , w h i c h I have a r g u e d on internal reasons goes back to a n
early (Sai'tic) p r o t o t y p e m o d i f i e d in later t i m e s (Quack f o r t h c o m i n g b).
In a f u n e r a r y cave n e a r Sheikh Fadl, t h e r e is p r e s e r v e d a long n a r
rative w r i t t e n in ink on p a n e l s of the wall (Lemaire 1995; Porten a n d
Yardeni 1999: 28698; H o l m 2007). While t h e r e is n o p r e s e r v e d direct
parallel in the E g y p t i a n d o c u m e n t a t i o n , the m a i n characters h a v e
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
JOACHIM FRIEDRICH 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 Egyp
tian composition.
Besides the translations, we have also the more curious case of pho
netic renderings in the other script. This also went in both directions.
There is an Aramaic leather fragment at Berlin coming from Elephan
tine (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 fa
mous papyrus Amherst 63, written in demotic script but Aramaic lan
guage 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 Aramaic 49 bring up the question of local communities whose
linguistic affiliation was no longer coeval with their graphic one. Es
pecially for the very long Papyrus Amherst 63 (about 23 columns pre
served), 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 se
mantic information in the conventional sense, that is, as making state
ments 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). Pre
liminary 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 Vitt
mann (2003: 119).
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 Aramaicspeaking 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 languagethere would be modern paral
lels 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 Papy
rus Amherst 63, which is way too long to be a normal case of recitation lit
erature; 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 num
ber of groups actually used in the text is limited enough to make the
writing system not much more difficult to learn than ordinary Ara
maic 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
fill a d e m a n d while not containing religious specialties t h a t w o u l d limit

its usability to one single religious g r o u p . O n the other h a n d , w e h a v e
to face the t h o r n y question of w h o one deity i n v o k e d in t h e text a c t u
ally is. The original idea t h a t it w a s t h e E g y p t i a n god Horus 5 1 has b y
n o w b e e n laid to rest for good. T h e r e h a s b e e n a t h e o r y t h a t t h e w o r d
in question should b e u n d e r s t o o d as a r e n d e r i n g of Yahwe, 5 2 w h i l e a n
other u n d e r s t o o d it as El. The last solution, f a v o r e d m a i n l y b y Kott
sieper (1988: 22427; 1997: 5455), w o u l d leave m a n y possible religious
affiliations, b u t in m y opinion, it is e x c l u d e d b y the actual writing. 5 3 T h e
second one, p r o p o s e d b y Z a u z i c h a n d e n d o r s e d w i t h slight m o d i f i c a
tions b y Rosel (2000: 9394), w o u l d point to a specifically Jewish i d e n
tity, b u t in m y opinion it is equally e x c l u d e d b y t h e actual writing. 5 4
This specific deity, h o w e v e r , seems only a d d r e s s e d w i t h i n a r a t h e r short
section of t h e text (mainly cols. 12 a n d 13 in t h e n u m b e r i n g of Wesselius
a n d Vleeming), w h e r e a s o t h e r w i s e Mar or Adonai for " l o r d / m y lord"
are t h e m o s t f r e q u e n t w o r d s .
Even t h o u g h t h e r e is n o direct attestation f r o m t h e A c h a e m e n i d p e
riod, it s e e m s u s e f u l to b r i n g u p also the question of the relation of a
section in t h e W i s d o m of Jesus Ben Sira to passages of the Satire of the
Trades (Jager 2004: 30517). In t h a t section, d i f f e r e n t c r a f t s m e n p r o f e s
sions are d e r i d e d , o f t e n w i t h striking similarities in f o r m u l a t i o n . Be
cause t h e r e is n o certain attestation f r o m Egypt t h a t classical M i d d l e
E g y p t i a n compositions c o n t i n u e d to b e copied d u r i n g t h e Ptolemaic
a n d R o m a n periods, w e m u s t , if w e accept the influence of the E g y p t i a n
text on the Jewish one, reckon w i t h the possibility t h a t t h e r e w a s a (lost)
i n t e r m e d i a r y d a t i n g f r o m the Sai'tic or Persian p e r i o d , w h e r e either the
M i d d l e E g y p t i a n composition w a s a d a p t e d in d e m o t i c E g y p t i a n or (less
likely) directly t a k e n over into a Semitic l a n g u a g e . This p r o b l e m s h o u l d
b e tackled in connection w i t h t h e c u r r e n t l y 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 sys
tem 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 preposi
tion 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).
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 discus
sions 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 at
tested 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 bet
ter 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 re
ligious) 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 tra
dition was highly relevant. This led to a bilingual situation in which
the indigenous elites learned Greek and read these texts in their origi
nal 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 impe
rial administrative communication.
55. Lichtheim (1983:12287). Denied by Houser Wegner (2001: 24561).

56. Administrative texts: There is one unpublished letter written in hieratic script
b u t demotic language that indicates explicitly that it was translated f r o m the Greek.
Literature: This direction of translation only becomes relevant with Coptic literature,
which is to a large degree a literature of translations f r o m the Greek.
394
Bibliography
Alster, B.
1974 The Instructions ofSuruppak: A Sumerian Proverb Collection. M e s o p o t a
m i a 2. C o p e n h a g e n : A k a d e m i s k Forlag.
B e r g m a n , J.
1979 G e d a n k e n z u m T h e m a " L e h r e T e s t a m e n t G r a b N a m e . " Pp. 73104
in Studien zu altiigyptischen Lebenslehren, e d . E. H o r n u n g a n d O. Keel.
O B O 28. Freiburg: U n i v e r s i t a t s v e r l a g / G o t t i n g e n : V a n d e n h o e c k &
Ruprecht.
Betro, M. C.
2000 La storia del M a g o H i H o r : Variazioni e g i z i a n e sul t e m a d i Ahiqar.
Pp. 2335 in Donum Natalicum: Studi presentati a Claudio Saporetti in
occasione del suo 60. Compleanno, ed. P. N e g r i Scafa a n d P. Gentili.
Rome: Borgia.
2005 La t r a d i z i o n e d i A c h i q a r in Egitto. Pp. 17791 in C o n t i n i a n d G r o t
tanelli 2005.
Beyer, K.
1984 Die Aramdischen Texte vom Toten Meer samt den Inschriften aus Palcistina, dem Testament Levis aus der Kairoer Genisa, der Fastenrolle und
den alten talmudischen Zitaten: Aramaistische Einleitung, TextUbersetzungDeutung, Grammatik/Wdrterbuch. Deutsch-aramdische Wortliste.
Register. G o t t i n g e n : V a n d e n h o e c k & Ruprecht.
B r i c q u e l C h a t o n n e t , F.
2005 L'histoire et la sagesse d'Ahiqar: F o r t u n e litteraire d e la vie d ' u n d i g n i
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, e d .
J.L. B a c q u e G r a m m o n t , A. P i n o a n d S. Khoury. L e u v e n : Peeters.
2006 C o n s t r u i s m o i u n c h a t e a u d a n s le ciel: R e m a r q u e s s u r u n motif d e
conte, d A h i q a r a T h o m a s . Harp 20: 5564.
2007 D e TAhiqar a r a m e e n a TAhiqar syriaque: Les voies d e t r a n s m i s s i o n
d ' u n r o m a n . Pp. 5 1 5 7 in Der christliche Orient und seine Umwelt, e d .
S. G. Vashalomidze. S t u d i e s in O r i e n t a l Religions 56. W i e s b a d e n :
Harrassowitz.
Bruyce, G. E.
1979: A Legacy of Wisdom: The Egyptian Contribution to the Wisdom of Israel.
L o n d o n : Bucknell University Press.
C o n y b e a r e , F. C.; H a r r i s , J. R.; a n d S m i t h Lewis, A.
1913 The Story of Ahikar. C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e University Press.
Contini, R.
2005 II testo a r a m a i c o d i Elefantine. Pp. 11339 in C o n t i n i a n d Grottanelli
2005.
Contini, R., a n d Grottanelli, C , eds.
2005 II Saggio Ahiqar: Fortuna e trasformazioni di uno scritto sapienziali. II te
sto piii antico e le sue versioni. Brescia: Paideia.

Dalley, S.
2001 A s s y r i a n C o u r t N a r r a t i v e s in A r a m a i c 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. A b u s c h
et al. Bethesda, M D : CDL.
Daly, L. W.
1961 Aesop without Morals: The Famous Fables, and a Life of Aesop. N e w York:
Yoseloff.
Eshel, E.; P u e c h , E.; a n d Kloner, A.
2007 A r a m a i c Scribal Exercises of t h e Hellenistic Period f r o m M a r e s h a .
BASOR 345: 3962.
Erichsen, W.
1954 Demotisches Glossar. C o p e n h a g e n : M u n k s g a a r d .
Fales, F. M.
1993 Storia d i A h i q a r tra O r i e n t e e Grecia: La p r o s p e t t i v a d a l l ' a n t i c o O r i
ente. Quaderni di Studia 38:14366.
1994 Riflessione s u l l A h i q a r di E l e p h a n t i n e . Orientis antiqui miscellanea 1:
3960.
Fox, M. V.
1985 The Song of Songs and the Ancient Egyptian Love Songs. M a d i s o n , WI:
U n i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin Press.
Glanville, S. R. K.
1955 Catalogue of Demotic Papyri in the British Museum, vol. 2: The Instruc
tions of Onkhsheshonqi. L o n d o n : British M u s e u m .
Grottanelli, C , a n d Dettori, E.
2005 La Vita Aesopi. Pp. 16775 in C o n t i n i a n d Grottanelli 2005.
Hallo, W. W., e d .
1997 The Context of Scripture, vol. 1: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical
World. Leiden: Brill.
H a s l a m , M. W.
1991 N a r r a t i v e a b o u t T i n o u p h i s in P r o s i m e t r u m . Pp. 3 5 ^ 5 in Papyri Greek
and Egyptian in Honour of Eric Gardner Turner. L o n d o n : EES.
Heinen, H.
2007 A g y p t e n im R o m i s c h e n Reich. B e m e r k u n g e n z u m T h e m a A k k u l t u r
ation u n d Identitat. Pp. 186207 in Agypten unter fremder Herrschaft
zwischen persischer Satrapie und rbmischer Provinz, ed. S. Pfeiffer. Oi
k u m e n e 3. F r a n k f u r t : Verlag Antike.
H o f f m a n n , F.
2009 Die E n t s t e h u n g d e r d e m o t i s c h e n E r z a h l l i t e r a t u r : B e o b a c h t u n g e n
z u m u b e r l i e f e r u n g s g e s c h i c h t l i c h e n Kontext. Pp. 35184 in Erziihlen
in friihen Hochkulturen, I. Der Fall Agypten, ed. H . Roeder. M u n i c h :
Fink.
H o f f m a n n , E, a n d Q u a c k , J. F.
2007 Anthologie der demotischen Literatur. E i n f i i h r u n g e n u n d Q u e l l e n t e x t e
z u r A g y p t o l o g i e 4. Berlin: Lit Verlag.
395
3 9 6 JOACHIM FRIEDRICH QUACK

H o l m , T. L.
2007 T h e Sheikh Fadl Inscription in Its Literary a n d Historical Context.
Aramaic Studies 5:193-224.
Holzberg, N.
2003 Novel-like W o r k s of E x t e n d e d Prose Fiction I I C . Fable: Aesop. Life of
Aesop. Pp. 633-39 in The Novel in the Ancient World, e d . G. Schmeling.
Rev. ed. Leiden: Brill.
H o u s e r 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.
N e u c h a t e l : Secretariat d e l'Universite.
Jager, S.
2004 Altdgyptische Berufstypologien. L i n g A e g SM 4. G o t t i n g e n : S e m i n a r f u r
A g y p t o l o g i e u n d Koptologie.
Jasnow, R.
1992 A Late Period Hieratic Wisdom Text (P. Brooklyn 47.218.135). S A O C 52.
Chicago: University of C h i c a g o Press.
K a m m e r e r , T. R.
1998 Sima milka: Induktion und Reception der mittelbabylonischen Dichtung
von Ugarit, Emar und Tell el-Amarna. M u n s t e r : Ugarit-Verlag.
K o c h - W e s t e n h o l z , U.
1995 Mesopotamian Astrology: An Introduction to Babylonian and Assyr
ian Celestial Divination. C N I Publications 19. C o p e n h a g e n : M u s e u m
Tusculanum.
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 G r u y t e r .
1991 Die Geschichte u n d d i e Spriiche d e s 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: U n i v e r sitatsverlag / G o t t i n g e n : V a n d e n h o e c k & R u p r e c h t .
Kussl, R.
1992 Achikar, T i n u p h i s u n d Asop. Pp. 23-30 in Der AsopRoman: Motivge
schichte und Erzahlstruktur, ed. N . H o l z b e r g . T u b i n g e n : N a r r .
Laisney, V.
2007 L'enseignement dAmenemope. S t u d i a Pohl SM 19. Rome: Pontifical
Biblical Institute.

L e m a i r e , A.
1995 Les inscriptions a r a m e e n n e s d e C h e i k h - F a d l (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. O x f o r d : O x f o r d University Press.
Lichtheim, M.
1983 Late-Egyptian Wisdom Literature in the International Context: A Study
of Demotic Instructions. O B O 52. Freiburg: Universitatsverlag / G o t tingen: V a n d e n h o e c k & Ruprecht.
Lieven, A. v o n
2007 The Carlsberg Papyri 8: Grundrifl des Laufes der Sterne. Das sogenannte
Nutbuch. C N I Publications 31. C o p e n h a g e n : M u s e u m T u s c u l a n u m .
L i n d e n b e r g e r , J. M.
1985 Ahiqar. Pp. 479-507 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. J. H .
C h a r l e s w o r t h . Vol. 2. G a r d e n City, NY: Doubleday.
Liiddeckens, E., a n d Thissen, H.-J.
2000 Demotisches Namenbuch. Vol. 1. W i e s b a d e n : L u d w i g Reichert.
L u z z a t t o , M. J.
1992 Grecia e vicino O r i e n t e : Trace della "Storia d i A h i q a r " nella c u l t u r a
greca tra VI e V secolo a.C. Quaderni di Studia 36: 5-84.
1994 A n c o r a 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 m a n u s c r i t d e Berlin Sachau
162, fol. 86 sq. ROC 21:14860.
Niehr, H.
2007 Aramaischer Ahiqar, jiidische Schriften aus hellenistisch-rdmischer Zeit
NF 2/2. Giitersloh: G u t e r s l o h e r Verlag.
N i m s , R, a n d Steiner, R. C.
1983 A P a g a n i z e d Version of Psalm 20:26 f r o m t h e A r a m a i c Text in D e
motic Script. J AOS 103: 26174.
N o l d e k e , T.
1898 Kurzgefafite Syrische Grammatik. Leipzig: Tauchnitz; repr. D a r m s t a d t :
W i s s e n s c h a f t l i c h e Buchgesellschaft, 1977.
1913 Untersuchungen zum Achiqar-Roman. Berlin: W e i d m a n n .
P a p a t h o m o p o u l o s , M.
1990 O bios tou Esopou: I paralagi G. Kritiki ekdosis me isagogii ke metafrasis.
Ioannina: P a n e p i s t e m i o I o a n n i n o n .
Parpola, S.
2005 II r e t r o t e r r a assiro d i Ahiqar. Pp. 91112 in C o n t i n i a n d Grottanelli
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. U r b a n a :
U n i v e r s i t y of Illinois Press.
397
398
Peust, C.
1999 Egyptian Phonology: An Introduction to the Phonology of a Dead Lan
guage. G o t t i n g e n : Peust & G u t s c h m i d t .
Porten, B.
2004 T h e P r o p h e c y of H o r b a r P u n e s h a n d t h e D e m i s e of Righteousness:
A n A r a m a i c P a p y r u s in t h e British Library. Pp. 427-66 a n d p l s . x x x v xxxvi in Res severa verum gaudium: Festschrift fur KarlTheodor Zauzich
zum 65. Geburtstag am 8. Juni 2004, e d . 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 University Press.
1999 Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt. Vol. 4. Jerusalem:
H e b r e w University Press.
Q u a c k , J. F.
1994 Die Lehren des Ani: Ein neudgyptischer Weisheitstext in seinem kulturellen
Umfeld. O B O 141. Freiburg: U n i v e r s i t a t s v e r l a g / G o t t i n g e n : V a n d e n hoeck & Ruprecht.
1996 cw G r 6 S e " u n d ( Z u s t a n d , A r t " : Z w e i v e r w e c h s e l b a r e d e m o t i s c h e
W o r t e r . Enchoria 23: 6275.
2000 D a s 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 C h r o n o l o g i e d e r d e m o t i s c h e n Weisheitsliteratur. Pp. 32942 in
Acts of the Seventh International Conference of Demotic Studies, Copenha
gen, 2327 August 1999, ed. K. Ryholt. C N I Publications 27. C o p e n h a
gen: M u s e u m T u s c u l a n u m .
2003a A u s einer spatzeitlichen literarischen S a m m e l h a n d s c h r i f t , ZAS 130:
18285 a n d pi. xlv.
2003b Ich b i n Isis, H e r r i n d e r b e i d e n L a n d e r " : Versuch z u m d e m o t i
schen H i n t e r g r u n d d e r m e m p h i t i s c h e n Isisaretalogie. Pp. 31965 in
Egypt: Temple of the Whole World. Studies in Honour of Jan Assmann, e d .
S. Meyer. N u m e n Book Series 97. Leiden: Brill.
2004a O r g a n i s e r le culte ideal: Le M a n u e l d u Temple E g y p t i e n . BSFE 160:
925.
2004b R e v i e w of V i t t m a n n 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 Q u e l l e n t e x t e z u r
A g y p t o l o g i e 3. Miinster: LIT Verlag. (2nd ed., Miinster: LIT Verlag,
2009).
2005b Die U b e r l i e f e r u n g s s t r u k t u r d e s Buches v o m Tempel. Pp. 10515 in
Tebtynis und Soknopaiou Nesos: Leben im romerzeitlichen Fajum, e d .
S. Lippert, M. Schentuleit. W i e s b a d e n : H a r r a s s o w i t z .
2005c Z u d e n v o r a r a b i s c h e n semitischen L e h n w o r t e r n d e s Koptischen.
Pp. 30738 in Studia semitica et Semitohamitica: Festschrift fur Rainer
Voigt anldfilich seines 60. Geburtstages am 17. Januar 2004, e d . B. Bur
399
tea, J. Tropper, a n d H . Y o u n a n s a r d a r o u d . AOAT 317. Miinster:

Ugarit-Verlag.
2007 Die Gotterliste d e s Buches v o m Tempel u n d die g a u i i b e r g r e i f e n d e n
D e k o r a t i o n s p r o g r a m m e . Pp. 213-35 in 6. Agyptologische Tempeltagung.
Funktion und Gebrauch altdgyptischer Tempelraume, Leiden 4.-7. Septem
ber 2002, ed. B. H a r i n g a n d A. Klug, W i e s b a d e n : H a r r a s s o w i t z .
2010 E g y p t i a n W r i t i n g for N o n - E g y p t i a n L a n g u a g e s a n d Vice-Versa: A
Short O v e r v i e w . Pp. 317-25 in The Idea of Writing: Play and Complexity,
ed. A. d e Voogt a n d L Finkel. Leiden: Brill.
F o r t h c o m i n g 1st d e r M e d e r an allem Schuld? Z u r Frage d e s realhistorischen H i n t e r g r u n d e s d e r g r a k o a g y p t i s c h e n p r o p h e t i s c h e n Literatur. In Agypten zivischen innerem Zwist und dufierem Druck: Die Zeit
Ptolemaios' VI. bis VIII., ed. A. J a r d e n s a n d J. Q u a c k . W i e s b a d e n :
Harrassowitz.
Ranke, H.
1935 Die Agyptischen Personennamen. G l u c k s t a d t : A u g u s t i n .
R o m h e l d , D.
1989 Wege der Weisheit: Die Lehren Amenemopes und Proverbien 22,1724,22.
BZAW 184. Berlin: d e G r u y t e r .
Rosel, M.
2000 Israels P s a l m e n in A g y p t e n ? P a p y r u s A m h e r s t 63 u n d d i e P s a l m e n
XX u n d LXXV. Vetus Testamentum 50: 81-99.
Ryholt, K.
2000 A N e w Version of t h e I n t r o d u c t i o n to t h e Teaching of O n c h S h e s h o n q y (P. C a r l s b e r g 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 Miscel
lany of Demotic Texts and Studies, ed. P. J. F r a n d s e n a n d K. Ryholt. C N I
Publications 22. C o p e n h a g e n : M u s e u m T u s c u l a n u m .
2002 N e c t a n e b o ' s D r e a m or t h e P r o p h e c y of Petesis. Pp. 2\2A\ in Apoka
lyptik und Agypten: Line kritische Analyse der relevanten Texte aus dem
griechischromischen Agypten, ed. A. Blasius, B. U. Schipper. O L A 107.
L e u v e n : Peeters.
2004 T h e A s s y r i a n Invasion of E g y p t in E g y p t i a n Literary Tradition: A
S u r v e y of t h e N a r r a t i v e 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 I n s t i t u u t v o o r h e t N a b i j e Oosten.
2005 The Carlsberg Papyri 6: The Petese Stories II (P. Petese II). C N I Publica
tions 29. C o p e n h a g e n : M u s e u m T u s c u l a n u m .
Sobhy, G. P. G.
1930 Miscellanea. JEA 16: 3 5 a n d pis. iiiviii.
Spiegelberg, W.
1912 Demotische Texte aufKrugen. D e m S t 5. Leipzig: Hinrichs.
1917 D e r d e m o t i s c h e P a p y r u s H e i d e l b e r g 736. ZAS 53: 3 0 3 3 a n d pi. vii.
1930 A c h i k a r in e i n e m d e m o t i s c h e n Texte d e r r o m i s c h e n Kaiserzeit. OLZ
33: 961.
400
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. V i e n n a :
Hollinek.
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
Festival I m p o r t e d f r o m Bethel t o S y e n e b y Exiles f r o m R a s h . JAOS
111: 3 6 2 - 6 3 .
1995 P a p y r u s A m h e r s t 63: A N e w S o u r c e f o r t h e L a n g u a g e , L i t e r a t u r e ,
Religion a n d H i s t o r y of t h e A r a m a e n s . Pp. 1 9 9 - 2 0 7 in Studia Aramaica: New Sources and New Approaches, e d . 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 U n i v e r s i t y Press.
2001 T h e S c o r p i o n 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: 2 5 9 - 6 8 .
S t e i n e r , R. C , a n d N i m s , C. F.
1984 You C a n ' t O f f e r Your Sacrifice a n d Eat It Too: A P o l e m i c a l 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: 8 9 - 1 1 4 .
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 T w o B r o t h e r s
f r o m t h e A r a m a i c Text in D e m o t i c Script. Revue Biblique 92: 6 0 - 8 1 .
S t r u g n e l l , J.
1999 P r o b l e m s i n t h e D e v e l o p m e n t of t h e A h i q a r Tale. Eretz-lsrael 26
(Cross Volume): 204*-ll*.
V i t t m a n n , G.
2003 Agypten und die Fremden im ersten vorchristlichen Jahrhundert. M a i n z :
Zabern.
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 i m s p a t z e i t l i c h e n A g y p t e n . Pp. 5 6 1 - 9 5 in Altertum und
Mittelmeerraum: Die antike Welt diesseits und jenseits der Levante. Fest
schrift fur Peter W. Haider zum 60. Geburtstag, e d . R. R o l l i n g e r a n d
B. T r u s c h n e g g . O r i e n s et O c c i d e n s 12. S t u t t g a r t : Steiner.
V l e e m i n g , S. P., a n d W e s s e l i u s , 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: 5 0 1 - 9 .
1 9 8 3 - 8 4 Betel t h e S a v i o u r . JEOL 2 8 : 1 1 0 - 4 0 .
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 P a l a c h e
Instituut.
1990 Studies in Papyrus Amherst 63: Essays on the Aramaic Texts in Ara
maic/Demotic Papyrus Amherst 63. Vol. 2. A m s t e r d a m : J u d a P a l a c h e
Instituut.
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 Stylistic P a t t e r n s in t h e 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: 2 9 4 9 .

Z a u z i c h , K.-T.
1976 D e m o t i s c h e F r a g m e n t e z u m A h i k a r - R o m a n . Pp. 180-85 in Folia
Rara Wolfgang Voigt LXV. diem natalem celebranti db amicis el catalogorum codicum orientalium conscribendorum collegis dedicata. W i e s b a d e n :
Steiner.
1978 N e u e d e m o t i s c h e literarische Texte in d e m o t i s c h e r Schrift. Enchoria
8,2: 33-38.
1985 Der G o t t d e s a r a m a i s c h - d e m o t i s c h e n P a p y r u s A m h e r s t 63. GM 85:
89-90.
Zevit, Z.
1990 T h e C o m m o n O r i g i n of t h e A r a m a i c i s e d P r a y e r to H o r u s a n d of
Psalm 20. JAOS 110: 213-28.
401

Quack The Interaction of Egyptian and Aramaic Literature 2011

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Quack The Interaction of Egyptian and Aramaic Literature 2011

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Originalverffentlichung in: Oded Lipschits/Gary N. Knoppers/ Manfred Oeming (Hg.

While there h a s been considerable discussion on the question of

JOACHIM FRIEDRICH QUACK

223-54). Specifically for t h e d e m o t i c l i t e r a t u r e , w e h a v e t o r e c k o n w i t h

The Interaction of Egyptian and Aramaic Literature

In order to give an objective impression of the factual basis, I will

JOACHIM FRIEDRICH QUACK

In spite of the very unsatisfactory state of preservation, w e can m a k e

The Interaction of Egyptian and Aramaic Literature

copied d i f f e r e n t m a n u s c r i p t s . There is even one n o t e w o r t h y difference:

JOACHIM FRIEDRICH QUACK

These slight d i s a g r e e m e n t s on the precise philological i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of

The Interaction of Egyptian and Aramaic Literature

a l r e a d y b y Lichtheim (1983: 14-17), even w i t h o u t k n o w l e d g e of t h e

JOACHIM FRIEDRICH QUACK

t h e r e h a s not b e e n m u c h i n - d e p t h discussion (Holzberg 2003). A f r a g

The Interaction of Egyptian and Aramaic Literature

a 6 is q u i t e r e g u l a r for earlier loans f r o m Semitic l a n g u a g e s (Peust 1999:

JOACHIM FRIEDRICH QUACK

very confident a b o u t a n a r g u m e n t such as this. First, o u r k n o w l e d g e of

The Interaction of Egyptian and Aramaic Literature

ble challenge c o u n t e r e d w i t h a n even m o r e impossible o n e is also f o u n d

JOACHIM FRIEDRICH QUACK

saying 34), especially considering t h a t the Ahiqar t r a d i t i o n of this say

The Interaction of Egyptian and Aramaic Literature

a r e some p r o b l e m s in this. While small f r a g m e n t a r y m a n u s c r i p t s con

JOACHIM FRIEDRICH QUACK

a conspiracy is real. If t h e r e is a n y influence of one text o n t h e other, it

The Interaction of Egyptian and Aramaic Literature

some b r o a d similarities to t h e t h e m e of Ahiqar, b u t t h e y are far f r o m

The Interaction of Egyptian and Aramaic Literature

tic understanding of the text? The second solution would be easier to

fill a d e m a n d while not containing religious specialties t h a t w o u l d limit

The Interaction of Egyptian and Aramaic Literature

55. Lichtheim (1983:12287). Denied by Houser Wegner (2001: 24561).

JOACHIM FRIEDRICH QUACK

The Interaction of Egyptian and Aramaic Literature

3 9 6 JOACHIM FRIEDRICH QUACK

The Interaction of Egyptian and Aramaic Literature

JOACHIM FRIEDRICH QUACK

The Interaction of Egyptian and Aramaic Literature

tea, J. Tropper, a n d H . Y o u n a n s a r d a r o u d . AOAT 317. Miinster:

The Interaction of Egyptian and Aramaic Literature

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen