'. '

■ViV

•ii il ■" j

?™|

'til c%f

mmmmg

mm.m

	^H ' ^H »«	i '■■■ ■ '^^^V ' vi
	Ifjj!	1 ' ?i)lk ^
	1 f l ' lA ■''''■■ •
	1 ^ ^	1 ■ JT;

i :i

K*

■

	■ :l:	■J ■ • -)
V

i

■■		■	■ . 1
.		»•:,:	•
1-			'
	-
		$	■
-		vy

t

ARAMAIC PAPYRI

OF THE

FIFTH CENTURY B.C.

UcLAra m

ARAMAIC r PYRI

OF THE

FIFTH CENTURY B.C.

EDITED, WITH TRANSLATION AND NOTES.

BY

A. COWLEY

522357

M - s s'

OXFORD AT THE CLARENDON PRESS

1923

Oxford University Press

London Edinburgh Glasgow Copenhagen

New York Toronto Melbourne Cape Town

Bombay Calcutta Madras Shanghai

Humphrey Milford Publisher to the UNIVERSITY

Printed in England

PREFACE

No apology need be made for re-editing these texts, for every fresh examination sheds fresh light on them, and in spite of the very extensive literature to which they have given rise, much still remains to be done. Moreover, it is obviously convenient to have them all collected in one volume and arranged as far as may be chronologically. Professor Sachau himself suggested to me in 19 12 that we should collaborate on a new edition, and in 19 13, with this object in view, I began to make a careful study of the facsimiles and of the articles and reviews which had appeared up to that time. During the war I continued the work, with many interruptions, as far as the anxieties of the time allowed. It no doubt shows many inconsistencies for that reason. I had originally intended going to Cairo and Berlin when the work was more advanced, to verify some of the readings on the originals, and to discuss difficulties with Professor Sachau. As this was impracticable, the present edition has been finished without that advantage. Fortunately, however, the previous editions contain such excellent facsimiles of all the texts (except nos. 79, 80, 83) that it was possible to work on them with confidence, and it was unnecessary to re-issue facsimiles with this volume.

As a first result of the revision of the texts, I published in 1919 translations of thirty-six of the most important of them, together with the ' Words of Ahikar ' and the fragments of a version of the Behistun inscription {Jeivish Documents of the time of Ezra, London, SPCK., 1919). The present volume contains the Aramaic texts from which these translations were made, together with others, and a commentary in support of

2699

vi PREFACE

the readings and interpretations adopted. Consideration of expense has obliged me to restrict the commentary so that many interesting questions have been left undiscussed. Further treatment of many of these will, however, be found in the special articles to which reference is made.

I acknowledge gratefully the help obtained from Sachau's original edition, and from Ungnad's small edition, though often differing from both of them. I also wish to thank Mr. F. LI. Griffith for help in matters relating to Egypt, Professor Langdon and Mr. G. R. Driver for help in Assyriological questions, and the staff of the Clarendon Press for the care they have bestowed on the production of the book.

A. COWLEY.

Magdalen College, Oxford, January, 1923.

CONTENTS

PAGE

LIST OF BOOKS AND ARTICLES . . viii

TABLE OF THE PAPYRI . xi

INTRODUCTION xiii

ARAMAIC PAPYRI: TEXTS i

INDEX OF WORDS AND NAMES . . 273

LIST OF BOOKS AND ARTICLES

The following are some of the books and articles which have been consulted, besides those mentioned in the notes : Anneler, Zur Geschichte d. Juden in Elephantine. (Diss.) Bern, 1912 (with

bibliography). Arnold, Journal of Biblical Literature 1912, p. I (on pap. 21). Barlh, Jahrbuch d. Judisch-Literarischen Gesellschaft 1907, p. 323 (on

Sachau's Urei aramaische Papyrus).

Revue Semitique 1907, p. 522 (on no. 15) ; 1909, p. 149 (on njx or 1JX).

Zeitschrift f. Assyriologie 1908, p. 188 (on pap. 30).

Orientalistische Litcraturzeitung 1912, p. 10.

Blau, Ma^yar-zsido Szemle 19 12 p. 41 ; 1 921, p. 44.

in Festschrift H. Cohen. Berlin, 1912, p. 207.

Bornstein in Festschrift Harkavy. St. Petersburg 190S, p. 63 Heb. (on dates).

Boylan, Irish Theological Quarterly 1912, p. 40.

Bruston, Revue de Theologie et de Philosophic 1908, p. 97.

Biichler, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 1912, p. 126 (on pap. 26).

Burney, Expositor 1912, p. 97.

Church Quarterly Review 74 (1912), p. 392.

Chabot, Journal Asiatique 14 (1909), p. 515 (on dates). Clermont-Ganneau, Recueil d'Archeologie Orientale vi (1905), pp. 147, 221.

Revue Critique d'histoire 1906 (2), p. 341.

Cook (S. A.), American Journal of Theology 191 5, p. 346.

Expositor 1912, p. 193.

Cooke (G. A.), Journal of Theological Studies 1907, p. 615. Daiches, Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie 1909, p. 197.

Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 1912, p. 17.

Desnoyers, Bulletin de Litterature Ecclesiastique 1907, pp. 138, 176; 1908,

P- 235- Doller, Theologische Quartalschrift 1907, p. 497. Eerdmans, Theologisch Tijdschrift 1908, p. 72. Elhorst, Journal of Biblical Literature 1912, p. 147.

Epstein (J. N.), Jahrbuch d. Judisch-Literarischen Gesellschaft 1909, p. 359. Zeitschrift d. Alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft 1912, pp. 128, 139; 1913,

p. 138. Fischer (L.), Jahrbuch d. Judisch-Literarischen Gesellschaft 191 1, p. 371

Heb. (on legal forms) ; 191 2, p. 45.

LIST OF BOOKS AND ARTICLES ix

Fotheringham, see Introduction, p. v, note 5.

Journal of Theological Studies 14 (1913), p. 570 (on dates).

Frankel, Zeitschrift f. Assyriologie 1908, p. 240.

Freund, Vienna Oriental Journal, or Wiener Zeitschrift f. d. Kunde d.

Morgenlands 1907, p. 169 (on pap. 15). von Gall, Yortrage d. theologischen Konferenz zu Giessen 1912, no. 34. van Gelderen, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 1912, p. 337. Ginzel, Handbuch d. Chronologie ii, p. 45 ; iii, p. 375. Gray (G. B.) in Studien Wellhausen, Giessen 191 4, p. 163 (on names). Grimme, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 191 1, p. 529, (on Ahikar) ; 1912,

p. 11. Guillaume, Expository Times 32 (192 1), p. ^yj. Gunkel, Expositor 191 1, p. 20.

Gutesmann, Revue des Etudes Juives 53 (1907), p. 194 (on dates). Halevy, Journal Asiatique 18 (1911), p. 658 ; 19 (1912), pp. 410, 622.

Revue Semitique 1911, p. 473 ; 1912, pp. 31, 153, 252.

Holtzmann, Theologische Literaturzeitung 191 2, p. 166 (on Sprengling,

AJSL 1911). Hontheim, Biblische Zeitschrift 1907, p. 225 (on dates). Jampel, Monatschrift f. d. Geschichte d. Judentums 1907. p. 617. Jirku, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 1912, p. 247. Knobel (E. B.), see Introduction, p. v, note 4. Knudtzon, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 1912, p. 486 (on VT). Koberle, Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift 1908, p. 173. Lagrange, Revue Biblique 1907, p. 258; 1912, p. 575. Leander, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 1 91 2, p. 151 (on j,-p). Levi (Isr.), Revue des Etudes Juives 54 (1907), pp. 35, 153; 56 (190SI,

p. 161 ; 63 (1912), p. 161. Lidzbarski, Ephemeris ii (1906), p. 210; iii (1909), p. 70; (1912), p. 23S.

Deutsche Literaturzeitung 1906, p. 3205 ; 1907, p. 3160; 191 1, p. 2966.

Mahler, Zeitschrift f. Assyriologie 1912, p. 61 (on dates). Margolis, Jewish Quarterly Review, new series ii (1911-12), p. 419. Meyer (Ed.), Sitzungsberichte d. k. Preussischen Akademie 191 1, p. 1026.

Der Papyrusfund von Elephantine. Leipzig. 1912.

Mittwoch in Festschrift A. Cohen. Berlin, 1912, p. 227.

Montgomery, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 19 1 2, p. 535 (on Ahikar).

Nau, Journal Asiatique 18 ( 191 1 ), p. 660.

Revue Biblique 1912, p. 68.

Noldeke, Zeitschrift f. Assyriologie 1907, p. 130 ; 1908, p. 195 (on pap. 30).

Literarisches Zentralblatt 191 1, p. 1503.

Peiser, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 1907, p. 622 ; 190S, pp. 24, 73 (on

Staerk). Perles, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 1908, p. 26; 1911, p. 497! 1912,

p. 54. Peters, Die judische Gemeinde von Elephantine . . . Freiburg i. Br. 1910.

x LIST OF BOOKS AND ARTICLKS

Pognon, Journal Asiatique 18 ( 1 91 1 ), p. 337 (on dates). Poznanski (S.)j Zycie Zydowskie 1907 (nos. 13, 14), p. 219.

Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 192 1, p. 303.

Prasek, Orientalistische Litcraturzeitung 1912, p. 168 (on Sprengling AJSL

1911). Pritsch, Zeitschrift 1. Assyriologie 1911, p. 345 (on pap. 20). Sachau, Drei Aramaische Papyrusurkunden. Berlin, 1908.

in Florilegium de Vogue. Paris, 1909, p. 529 (on pap. 35).

Sayce, Expositor 191 1, pp. 97, 417.

Schultess, Gottingische Gelehrte Anzeigen 1907, p. 1S1.

Schiirer, Theologische Literaturzeitung 1907, pp. 1, 65.

Schwally, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 191 2, p. 160.

Seidel, Zeitschrift d. alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft 1912, p. 292.

Sidersky, Journal Asiatique 16 (1910), p. 587 (on dates).

Smyly, see Introduction, p. xiii, note 6.

Spiegelberg, Orientalistisclie Literaturzeitung 1913, p. 15: 1912, p. 1 (on

names). Sprengling, American Journal of Semitic Languages 27 (191 1), p. 233.

American Journal of Theology 1917, p. 411 ; 1918, p. 349.

Staerk, Die jiidisch-aramaischen Papyri ... in Kleine Texte, nos. 22, 23.

Bonn, 1907, and no. 32, 1908.

Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 1908 (Beiheft).

Torczyner, Zeitschrift d. Deutschen Morgenliindischen Gesellschaft 1916,

p. 288 (bibliography).

Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 191 2, p. 397.

Ungnad, Aramaische Papyrus . . . kleine Ausgabe. Leipzig, 191 1.

de Vogiie, Comptes Rendus de l'Academie des Inscriptions 1906, p. 499.

Wensinck, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 191 2, p. 49 (on Ahikar).

TABLE OF THE PAPYRI

AS ARRANGED IN PREVIOUS EDITIONS, SHOWING THEIR NUMBERS IN THIS EDITION.

	Sayce and	Cowley			This	edition
		A				no	5
		B					6
		C					9
		D					8
		E					13
		F					14
		G					15
		H					20
		J					25
		K					28
		L	I L'ngnad.	no. 88)		1 1
Sachau			Ur	ignad	This	edition
Plate	Papyrus
1,2	1			no	. 1	no. 30
3	2				2		3i
4	3				3		32
4	5				4		33
5	4				5		17
6	6				6		21
7	7				7		16
8,9	8				8		26
IO	9				9		36
1 1	10				10		37
12	11				11		38
15	12				12		39
13	14				13		40
14	13				14		41
'5	15				16		34
l5	29				IS		29
16	16				17		42
17	17				18		12
17-20	18				19		22
21, 22	19				20, 21		24
23	20				22		23
23	21				23		19
23	23				24		51
24	22				25		52
24	24				26		53
25,26	25				27		2
26	27				28		7

xii TABLE OF THE PAPYRI

s	achau			Ungnad This	edition
Plate		Papyrus
27		26		no	. 29 no	1 3
28, 29		28			30	10
30		30			31	I
31		31			32	46
32		32			33	44
32		36			34	45
		33			35	43
33		34			36	18
34		35			37	j5
35		37			38	47
35		38			39	48
36		39			40	54
36		40			41	55
36		41			42	4
37		42			43	58
37		43			44	56
38		44			45	49
38		45			46	57
38		46			47	5o
39		47			48	60
39		47			49	59
40-50		49-59			50-63	Ahikar (pp. 212-20)
51		60			64	69' '
52, 54-	57	61, 62 &c.		65-68 D	Behistun (pp. 251-4,
53		61 rev.			69	63
55 col.	*■>				67, ii	61
56 rev.					68 E	62
57					70 15	64
58					71	65
59					72	66
60					73	67
61					74	68
75 (Euting's	papyrus)			2a	27
	CIS	. ii. 1, no.	144 145 146 147 148			70 71 72 73 74
			149 (Un	gnad, no. £4)	69
			150			75
			151			76
			152			77
			153			78
	Un	gnad, no.	89 90			79 80
	PSBAI907, p.	260			81
		1915, P-	217			82
	Harrow Papyrus			83
	Giron's Papyrus			Appendix, p. 316.

265-9)

INTRODUCTION

The present volume comprises all the legible pre-Christian Aramaic papyri known to me.1 The best preserved and the most important are nos. 5, 6, 8, 9, ] i, 13-15, 20, 25. 28, published by Sayce and Cowley in Aramaic Papyri Discovered at Assuan (Condon, 1906); no. 27 published by Euting in Me" moires pre1 scute's . . . a V Acctdimie des Inscriptions (Paris, 1903) ; and many of those published by Sachau in Araindische Pafiynts . .-. (Leipzig, 191 1). The rest are fragments from Sachau, some much mutilated texts from the Corpus Iuscriptionum Semiticarum ii, 1, two others published by me in PSBA 1907, p. 263 (with notes by Sayce), and 1915, p. 217, and one fragment of accounts, not previously published, which was brought to my notice by Mr. F. LI. Griffith, in the Harrow School museum.2 The genuineness of the papyri published by Sayce-Cowley and Sachau has been questioned :! on the ground that the double dates in some of them do not seem to be consistent. I do not propose to deal with the dates, because they have been discussed by such competent authorities as Mr. Knobel,4 Dr. Fotheringham,5 and Dr. Smyly,0 and the possible errors are not a sufficient ground for condemning the texts. A more serious attack has been made by Prof. Margo- liouth,7 whose opinion deserves every consideration. His argu- ments however have not gained acceptance, and a careful study

1 For a bibliography of the texts known up to 1906 see Seymour de Ricci in Sayce and Cowley, p. 25. Some post-Christian pieces were published in the Jewish Quarterly Review, xvi 1903% p. r.

■ The late Mr. B. P. Lascelles kindly procured photographs of this for me.

:! By L. Belleli in An Independent Examination . . . 1909, and by G. Jahn in Die Elephantiner Papyri, 1913 ; reviewed by Rothstein in ZDMG 1913. p. 718, to whom Jahn replied in ZDMG 1914, p. 142.

• Monthly Notices of the R. Astron. Soc., March 1908, p. 334, and Nov. 1908, p. 8.

5 Ibid., Nov. 1908, p. 12; March 1909, p. 446; June 1911, p. 661, against Ginzel's Handbuch der . . . Chronologie ii (1911), p. 45.

c Proc. R. Irish Academy 1909, C, p. 235.

7 Expositor 1912, p. 69.

\iv INTRODUCTION

of the texts will furnish the unprejudiced reader with answers to them.

The collection consists of letters, legal documents, lists of names, accounts, and three literary pieces. Some of these are complete, others are more or less fragmentary. A large propor- tion of them are dated, unmistakably, and these have been arranged here chronologically, so as to form an historical sequence. In many cases the date is given both in the Egyptian and the Jewish reckoning, and there may be errors in these equations (see above, p. xiii). Some texts which are not dated can be fitted into the sequence from their contents : others, which give no certain clue as to date, are put at the end. The dated texts cover practically the whole of the fifth century B.C., and on palaeographical grounds the undated texts (with a few exceptions) may be assigned to the same century. They thus confirm the brilliant discovery of Mr. Clermont-Ganneau1 that the similar texts in the CIS (which were all he had to go upon) belong to the period of the Persian rule in Egypt. The exceptions are nos. tfi-83, in a much later style of writing. Since, however, it is unlikely that Aramaic continued in popular use in Egypt long after the time of Alexander the Great, we may with some con- fidence date these before or about 300 B.C.

The interest of documents such as these is that they are con- temporary with the events to which they relate. They present therefore a trustworthy picture of their surroundings, not dis- torted by lapse of time, nor obscured by textual corruption. These particular documents have the additional interest that they were written by Jews. They are therefore the earliest Jewish texjs_ we possess, with the exception ofjhe Siloam inscrip- tion and the ostraka from Samaria, and (with those exceptions) the only Jewish literature of so early a date, outside the Old Testament. The literary pieces, it is true, are evidently of non- Jewish origin, but they show nevertheless the kind of litera- ture which was current in the community. And their interest consists not only in what they say but in what they omit : in

1 'Origine perse des monuments arameens d'figypte', in the Rev. Archeol. New Series 36 (1878), p. 93, and 37 (1879), p. 21.

INTRODUCTION x\

the light they give and in the darkness in which they leave us (see below).

The language in which they are written is Aramaic, the same (with some reservations) as that of parts of the book of Ezra. Though there are Hebraisms in it and the names are Hebrew, ' there is no document in Hebrew, nor any direct evidence that Hebrew was used by the community for any purpose. (But see p. 119). As long as the Oriental empires continued to dominate the civilized world, Aramaic was the language of commerce and diplomacy, succeeded in Ptolemaic times by Greek. We have proof of its use in Assyria in the ' dockets ' written in ink on the edge of cuneiform tablets as early as the seventh century B.C.1 It was no doubt used even earlier, since Babylonian sculptures show scribes writing on scrolls, which would not be used for cuneiform, and it was not used only by Jews, nor (in this com- munity) because it was in any sense a Jewish language. Assur- banipal had Aramaean scribes in his employ, Darius apparently sent abroad an Aramaic version of his great inscription at Behistun, and (in no. 26) a Persian satrap sends his orders to an Egyptian boat-builder in Aramaic.2 It was evidently also an official language in the law-courts. It was only in Egypt, how- ever, that papyrus could survive. Early documents on any such material inevitably perished in the climate of Mesopotamia or Palestine. In Egypt Aramaic probably gave way to Greek by about 300 B.C. In the East it continued, gradually ^becoming more_corrupt among the Jewish schools down to mediaeval times. andJrLsome Christian communities to the present day.

The authors of most of these texts were Jews if names mean anything — not Samaritans, as argued by Hoonacker 3 — nor Israelites. They call themselves K'lVT 'the Jews', and their community JPIIiV N^n 'the Jewish force'. Sometimes the term ^"ux is used, but no other designation is found, and the name

' See Clay, ' Aramaic Indorsements ', in O. T. Studies in Memory of IV. R. Harper 1908 , p. 285, and Delaporte, lipigraphes aram/etts, 1912, &c.

2 In Ezra 62 the official record of the decree of Cyrus was on a HPJJO (a scroll; which probably implies Aramaic writing.

3 In his Schweich Lectures for 1914 | Une CommunauteJ udeoArameenne . . . , London, 1915).

xvi INTRODUCTION

Israel does not occur. These Jews seem to have been domiciled specially in Elephantine. Other western Asiatics were settled in Sycnc under the general name Aramaean. But 'Aramaean' might also include Jews,1 so that we sometimes find a man described in one place (correctly) as a Jew of Elephantine, and in another (more loosely) as an Aramaean of Syene when he had in some way become connected with that station. Three times (252, &c.) we find an 'Aramaean of Elephantine', where the man is evidently a Jew, but the description may be due to mere carelessness. See on 52.

How did they get there? The Jewish force, or garrison, can only have been a military settlement, and there was no doubt likewise an Aramaean garrison at Syene. They were therefore mercenaries in the employment of the Persian king. This is corroborated by several indications. They were divided into pn ' companies ' or ' regiments ', each bearing a name, Baby- lonian or Persian, probably that of the commander.2 Another division was ntino ' centuria ' (2219-20), but whether larger or, more probably, smaller than the degel is not clear. They were under the supreme command of the nttgi ' commander of the garrison ', and they received rations (Nans, see e.g. 24s') and pay (D"id ii6, Sic.) from the government.

The writer of the Letter of Aristeas mentions (§ 13) that Psammetichus used Jewish mercenaries in his campaign against Ethiopia. If this means Psammetichus ii (cf. Herodotus ii, 30) their employment would have begun between 595 and 590 B.C. —therefore just before the fall of Jerusalem and the beginning of the Exile. They were afterwards apparently put in charge of the fortresses of Elephantine and Syene as a defence of the southern frontier of Egypt against Ethiopia, for when Cambyses came into Egypt, in 525, they were already settled in Elephan- tine (3013). With the passing of the government of Egypt, these mercenaries must also have passed under Persian control

When these papyri begin, early in the fifth century, the colony, while retaining its military organization, had become a settled community. Its members could buy and sell land and houses,

1 Cf. Deut. 266 "3N 13K WK.

2 But see note on n[P-|]V s82, and on i?n, 52.

INTRODUCTION xvii

they engaged in trade, they could go to law before the civil courts and they held civil posts under government. Moreover they had their wives and families, and the women could hold property and take legal action in their own right, and were even reckoned as belonging to the degel, whether through their rela- tion to the men, or independently, does not appear. We have thus the outline of a picture of a Jewish community, its life and manners, in the fifth (and sixth) century B.C., which is the more valuable because it is not an intentional description, and therefore need not be discounted as tendencieux. -r *»-/ ~-v*-vz- J^-*-vj \ 1,

They lived on equal terms with the Egyptians, transacted -^ business with people of various races, intermarried,1 and some- times bore alien names (cf. OT names in -baal). But they aroused anti-Jewish feeling, and suffered violence which they ascribed, as always, and probably with as little reason then as now, to hatred of their religion. No doubt their animal sacrifices offended Egyptian susceptibilities, but much is also to be ascribed to natural suspicion of a community with customs differing from those of its neighbours, holding aloof from the common pursuits of its fellow-citizens, and showing contempt or hostility to everything outside itself. The great pogrom described in nos. 27, 30-34 may have brought the colony to an end.

The internal affairs of the community were directed by a head-man with 'his colleagues the priests', very much as at the present day by the chief rabbi and his beth-din. In the latter part of the fifth century the chief man was Yedoniah b. Gemariah. It was to him that the edict of Darius (no. 21) was addressed in 419 ; it was he who received the contributions to the temple funds (22120121) in the same year; it was he who drew up the petition to the governor of Judaea (no. 30) in 408, and a similar petition (no. 33) about the same time , and he was one of the notable prisoners mentioned in no. 34 about 407 B.C. Whether ' he was a priest is not certain, but it is probable on general grounds, and also from his connexion with religious affairs (21, 22). At any rate he was politically recognized by the Persian government.

1 But cf. introduction to no. 14.

xviii INTRODUCTION

But to most students of this dark period the papyri will be chiefly valuable for the indications they give as to the state of Jewish religion in the colony. It would no doubt be still more interesting to have similar documents relating to Jerusalem in the fifth century, or indeed any early century, but the state of things in the colony may to some extent be taken to represent what had been in Judaea before the days of Ezra. The colonists were not better than their fathers —nor perhaps much worse. To begin with, they regarded themselves as specially devoted to the worship of the national God, whom they call in\ This name, as I have argued elsewhere,1 is not an abbreviation of TOW, but an earlier form, and only another way of writing the earliest form v. As the n seems to be a mere vowel-sign, or perhaps hamza, I have adopted here the transliteration Yau, as an approximate pronunciation, rather than the customary Yahn or Yeho, which are no forms. He is generally called, between Jews, simply ' Ya'u the God' (1314, 221, 25°); in dealings with Persians, ' the God of heaven ' or ' Ya'u the God of heaven ' (3021527 [but cf. 300-24-26], 323 [but cf. 33s] ), and often in letters. Yet we also find other gods mentioned besides Ya'u. The most explicit case of this is in 22123-125 where the temple-fund is to be divided between Ya'u and 'Anathbethel in nearly equal shares, and Ishumbethel who receives much less. In the law- courts they swear usually by Ya'u, but in 44s an oath is recorded ' by the temple and by 'Anathya'u ', and in f' a man is challenged to swear 'by Herembethel the god'. There are also personal names like Heremnathan and Bethelnathan (184), formed like the orthodox Jonathan and Elnathan. Whether other gods were recognized besides these, whether these were all distinct or e.g. 'Anathbethel was the same as 'Anathya'u, what was the meaning of the various compounds, and what relation the dif- ferent divinities bore to one another, the evidence does not show. It would seem that besides Ya'u they recognized 'Anath, Bethel, Ishum and Herem. There may have been others, but it is at least a coincidence that we have the names of five gods and that there were five gates to the temple (309).

1 JRAS 19*0. p. 175.

INTRODUCTION xix

Of these names 'Ajiath is known as that of a goddess in Syria A*q and elsewhere, so that it has been suggested that 'Anathya'u was intended as a consort of Ya'u — the Queen of heaven (Jer. 4417), as He was the God of heaven. Bethel has long been recognized 3? as an early Canaanite god (cf. Gen. $i13). These two therefore may well have been brought by the colonists with them from Judaea. It was not a case of falling away from a monotheistic ideal, but a continuation of the pre-exilic popular beliefs. Ishum £jT* (if that is the pronunciation of D"'N) may be the Babylonian demorL-of— that- name, but it is also worth while to remember the persistent tradition that the Samaritans worshipped a divinity called Ashima, to whom it has been thought reference is made in Amos 8U by a play on the word _not?M. If this was true in the time of Amos, the tradition continued long after it had ceased to be so, perhaps encouraged by the later Samaritan pronunciation of noc ' the name' (which they still read instead of nvr) as ashnia} Lidzbarski aiso_citesA fxojjTL_a_Iate__Syrian- Greek inscription a god Svjx^ervXpv, whose name .looks xery like Ishumbethel. Thus it seems probable that a god DBW was worshipped in Syria and was brought by the colonists to Egypt with the others.

As to Herem I have no_suggestion to make. ^e

Since these five gods are mentioned by name, there can be no question that the word 80ri7X used in these texts, and sometimes as subject to a verb in the plural, is to be taken as ' gods ' and not as God (Nn?K) on the analogy of Hebrew. It is most often found in the beginnings of letters : note especially 39/, and oddly enough 212 in the edict about the Passover, from one Jew to another. Further, in one place (145) a Jewess swears by Sati the Egyptian goddess, in a transaction with an Egyptian.

It is thus evident that the description in Jeremiah (44s8 &c.) of the religious practices of the Jews in Egypt in his time is in the main corroborated by what we find in these texts a century later, and the explanation is supplied by Jeremiah himself (4417). It was no new heresy that they invented for themselves — people do not invent much — but they did 'as we have done, we and our fathers ... in the cities of Judah.' They took with them in all

*

1 See Cowley, Samaritan Liturgy (1909), p. xli.

2 Ephemeris iii (1912), p. 247.

b z

xx INTRODUCTION

sincerity the old religion of pre-exilic J udah, and continued to practise it after the exile (and Ezra) had made it impossible in the mother-country. Thus, as a picture not only of their own time but also of pre-exilic Judaism — the religion against which all the prophets protested— these papyri are specially instructive.

Yet the national God was Ya'u. Whatever may have been their doctrine as to his relation to the other gods, there is no sort of doubt that he was pre-eminent. It was to him that the temple belonged, although it seems that other gods were also worshipped there. The temple of Elephantine was not a mere synagogue, but a considerable building, with an altar and all the appurtenances of sacrifice (309"12). It is called NIUs* (meeting-place?) and N*nD» (place of worship), and is first mentioned (1314) in 447. But it had been in existence at least as early as 525 (3013'14). This is a very surprising fact, quite contrary to the law of Deuteronomy (i25G &c). The case of . the Onias-temple, built at Leontopolis about 154 B.C., was on an altogether different footing. That was definitely schismatic, and in whatever way the supporters of it might defend their action, they knew at least that it required defence. The colonists ..of Elephantine had no such misgivings^.Aft.er their temple was j\/l/Mdestroyed in a riot ofvthe Egyptiansl^4ii^hey sent a petition ^to the High Priest at Jerusalem, asking for help to rebuild it. When this was disregarded (3o18-19), they appealed to the Persian governor at Jerusalem. There is no hint of any suspicion that the temple could be considered heretical, and they would surely not have appealed to the High Priest at Jerusalem if they had felt any doubt about it. On the contrary they give the impres- sion of being proud of having a temple of their own, and as pious devotees of Ya'u (no other god is mentioned in the petition) seriously distressed at the loss of religious opportunities caused by its destruction.

The explanation seems to be that in this respect, as in the worship of strange gods, their practice was a continuation of that of pre-exilic Judaism. It is now generally held that the book of Deuteronomy was first promulgated under Josiah (about 621 B.C.). Previously, as we learn from e. g. the books of Samuel,

INTRODUCTION xxi

sacrifice was habitually offered at various places, and indeed until the reign of Solomon no temple existed at Jerusalem l to mark it out as the place which the Lord had chosen. It cannot be sup- posed that the book of Deuteronomy was at once accepted everywhere, even in Judaea, or that it at once put a stop to popular practices which it condemned. Still less should we expect these colonists if they left the country soon afterwards, or perhaps were already abroad, to feel bound by the new and stricter enactments. The exile followed in 588, breaking all continuity, and Judaea was left without religious direction. We need not wonder then that in the complete collapse of religious institutions, the colonists, deprived of any central authority and despairing of its restoration, decided to work out their own salva- tion and naturally on the lines with which they were familiar. What was their attitude towards the changes in Judaea, or whether they knew of them, we cannot tell. They may even have taken the view of Rabshakeh (2 Ki. 1822; cf. Elijah in 1 Ki. 1910), regarding the abolition of local sanctuaries as an act of disrespect to Ya'u. But it is quite intelligible that the High Priest took no notice of their appeal. We can also understand why they afterwards wrote to the Persian governor, who had no interest in Deuteronomy, and to the Samaritans, who interpreted it in their own way, and that they received a reply.

On the persons concerned with the petition, and the difficulty of reconciling various accounts of the history, see the introduction to no. 30.

Before leaving the subject of the temple a word must be said about the difficult passage in Isaiah iy19*, ' In that day shall there be an altar to the Lord in i^tJiemidsLoXtheJanoLof Egypt, and a pilkarjnjVPj^at the border thereof to the Lord ', &c. This has generally been taken as a prophecy, before or after the event, of the Onias temple, that having been hitherto the only foreign temple known. It is dangerous to argue as if we knew all the facts, for the passage might equally well refer to the temple at Elephantine — on the border of Hyypt. Then the date of the prophecy may be put considerably earlier than has been sup- posed. It is in fact not unreasonable to suggest that it was

1 Ii must be remembered that the name dues not even occur in the Pentateuch.

xxii INTRODUCTION

written before the promulgation of Deuteronomy. If there was, say just before 621, any considerable migration of Jews to Egypt, the prophecy may have been intended as an encouragement to the emigrants. ' Though you are leaving your native land, you shall make a new home in Egypt and follow there the faith of your fathers (Is. 1921). It is a great opportunity for you '. Note also another strange coincidence, five gods, five gates of the temple, and five cities speaking the language of Canaan.

Thus there are several indications that the colonists in the fifth century B.C. remained at the same stage of religious develop- ment (if that is what we ought to call it) as their fathers in Judaea in the seventh century. It is consequently of particular interest to collect from these papyri all possible evidence as to their beliefs and practice, always remembering that in the course of two centuries some things may have changed for better or worse. Unfortunately the inquiry depends largely on an argumentum e silentio, which must not be unduly pressed, since we cannot be sure that what is not mentioned did not exist. Two thousand years hence if a part of English literature exists, it might well be a considerable part and yet contain no reference to King Alfred, or the Norman conquest, or the Reformation, or the doctrines of the Church, or to a number of questions which agitate us at the present day.

We have positive evidence that sacrifices, including animal sacrifices (mbjn ruoh nroD) were offered (30-1-528). This indeed was the express purpose of the temple with its altar (snmn). for when the temple was destroyed their chief complaint is that they can no longer offer sacrifice. One would suppose that such offerings would be the duty of the priests, the sons of Aaron, or at any rate of Levites. But although priests1 are frequently mentioned, they are nowhere called sons of Aaron, nor does the name Aaron ever occur, nor that of Levi or the levitical order. It seems difficult to explain away this omission and at the same time to maintain that the 'house of Aaron ' and the levites were recognized in the seventh century in Judaea as they were later. The question is too large to be discussed here. I will only call

1 lOJrD. For the priests of the Egyptians they use N'tM.as in the OT and elsewhere.

INTRODUCTION xxiii

attention to the fact that apart from the Hexateuch (de quo videant critici !) the name Aaron occurs only in Psalms, Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles, and once in Judges, twice (really once) in Samuel, and once in Micah. The passage in Micah (64) is pro- bably an addition, in i Sam. 1208 the name is certainly added as the natural accompaniment of Moses,1 and in Judges (2028) it is a gloss to complete the genealogy. That is to say, it does not occur for certain in any undoubtedly early writer, not even in Ezekiel ! There is an explanation of this, which I leave the reader to discover. It certainly looks as if the house of Aaron were a late post-exilic invention, and if so, the colonists would naturally know nothing of it.

What precisely constituted a kaheu at Elephantine does not appear. One of their prerogatives, we might suppose, would be to possess the Law of Moses and to administer it. Yet there is no hint of its existence. We should expect that in 3025 they would say ' offer sacrifice according to our law ', and that in other places they would make some allusion to it. But there is none. So far as we learn from these texts Moses might never have existed, there might have been no bondage in Egypt, no exodus, no monarchy, no prophets. There is no mention of other tribes and no claim to any heritage in the land of Judah. Among the numerous names of colonists, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Samuel, David, so common in later times, never occur (nor in Nehemiah), nor any other name derived from their past history as recorded in the Pentateuch and early literature. It is almost incredible, but it is true.

Again, that essentially Jewish (though also Babylonian) institu- tion, the Sabbath, is nowhere noticed. Even if there were no occasion for mentioning it explicitly, we should expect that it would sometimes interfere with the transaction of business when that involved the drawing up of a document. At the present day no practising orthodox Jew would write on the Sabbath. Dr. Fotheringham, in a note on the subject \x\JTS 14 (1913), p. 574, concludes from a calculation of the dates that ' they do not

1 The LXX in v. 8 has KarwKiatv, ' He (i.e. God) made to dwell', rightly, for Moses and Aaron did not go into the land. For • brought forth ' Cod. A has the singular (f('fyyaytv) as if of Moses alone.

xxiv INTRODUCTION

prove the existence of such a scruple, nor indeed the absence of it, for no document between Jews seems to be certainly dated on the Sabbath. There is in fact a complete silence on the subject. Another of these negative instances concerns the festivals. None of them is mentioned except, in one papyrus, the feast of Unleavened Bread and possibly the Passover. Even in the case of these it is difficult to explain the fact. No. 21 is an edict of Darius ordering 1 an observance of the feast of Unleavened Bread, and, if the proposed restoration is right, the Passover. This can only mean either that the festivals in question were unknown