Papyrus Amherst 63: Shifting between the Heavenly and Earthly Spheres

Abstract

Van der Toorn’s 2018 edition of Papyrus Amherst 63 paved the way for a fresh examination of this difficult Demotic–Aramaic text. This article first examines the literary structure of the text and suggests a revised internal arrangement of its constituents, in particular those of Section IV. The revised arrangement serves as the basis for the ensuing discussion. The article discusses the designation ‘Rash’, a term that is key for an understanding of the many episodes related in the papyrus, and suggests that it designated the heavenly abode of the gods, from where they operated in heaven and earth. It then examines the few references to the earthly seats of the gods, and in particular passage viii 1–7a, which relates the heavenly or earthly realms of the gods and their seats in the sanctuaries. The final part of the article examines the way the author of Section II tried to resolve the theological problem of the impotence of god in the face of defeats, destructions and deportations. The author explains god’s silence by his slumber in his heavenly abode. Surprisingly, the theological solution of sin and punishment is absent from the papyrus, in contrast to its frequent appearance in many ancient Near Eastern texts and, above all, in the biblical literature.

Keywords:

• Papyrus Amherst 63
• Rash
• Bethel
• Nanay
• Yaho
• Siyan
• Zaphon

Notes

1 For the earliest publication, see Bowman 1944. For the history of research, see Holm 2017: 2–4; van der Toorn 2018: 3–5.

2 For a recent discussion of Papyrus Amherst 63 in the context of the Elephantine documents, see van der Toorn 2019: 61–88, 149–187, 217–228.

3 The fifth section, ‘the Tale of the Two Brothers’ (cols. xviii–xxiii), is not discussed here.

4 For the goddess Nanay at Borsippa, see Goodnick Westenholz 1997: 71–75; Scurlock 2006: 456–463. On Nanay in general, see Stol 1999, with earlier literature.

5 For details of these rites, see van der Toorn 2018: 91–113.

6 For Tiglath-pileser III’s campaign to north Syria, see Hawkins 1972–1975: 68b–69a; Tadmor 1994: 58–63 (Ann. 19*), 88–89 (Ann. 22 and 26); Tadmor and Yamada 2011: 42–43, ll. 1–12a; 74, ll. 1–5; 76, ll. 1–8.

7 The name Rakib-Bel was mentioned previously in a damaged passage (vi 18).

8 Cf. Baʿal’s epithet ‘rider clouds’ (rkb ʿrpt) in the Ugaritic texts.

9 Throughout this article I use the term ‘author’ in reference to the original scribe who composed the text, regardless of whether he is identical to the scribe who wrote Papyrus Amherst 63.

10 Van der Toorn (2018: 10, 161–165) connected this fragment to the Israelite psalms and identified the city as Samaria.

11 For recent discussions, see van der Toorn 2017, with earlier literature; 2018: 66–68, 165–175.

12 Van der Toorn (2018: 177, 181) translated the speaker’s words in col. xiv 8 as follows: ‘I will watch over you, a watch that will not grow weak. And I satiate myself with your presence. I will get my fill, my sister (<₂<ḫty), of your features.’ However, it is unlikely that a mortal would have called a deity ‘my sister’. Should we transcribe the text n^?ḫty (rather than < <ḫty) and translate it ‘I will satiate my satisfaction^? of your features’? For this rendering, see Jastrow 1950: 903–904, s.v. אתוחינ ,אחינ.

13 Bethel was originally an Aramaic north Syrian god. His name is first attested in Esarhaddon’s treaty with Baʿal, King of Tyre (ca. 676 BCE). Due to the Assyrian mass deportations, Bethel’s cult spread thoughout the ancient Near East, from south Egypt to south Babylonia. For recent discussion and bibliography, see Röllig 1999; Zadok 2020. For the list of names that are compounded with Bethel, see Porten 2014; van der Toorn 2019: 47–48, 208–209; Zadok 2020: 63–64.

14 Van der Toorn (2018: 71, 186–188) named him Mar-Bol (‘Lord Bol’) and considered him to be Nabu.

15 On Pidray in the texts from Ugarit, see Wiggins 2003.

16 For a reconstruction of the turbulent history of Nanay’s statues at Uruk and Borsippa, see Scurlock 2006: 456–463.

17 Van der Toorn (2018: 79, 215) defined Section V as an Appendix.

18 My discussion of this passage follows the transcription and translation of van der Toorn (2018: 211–214). For a different rendering and interpretation, see Holm 2017: 5–6, 16–22.

19 The list of references includes i 14; iv 10, 13; vi 12 (twice); vii 7, 11, 13; viii 2, 8 (twice), 15, 16; ix 3, 14, 16 (twice), 18 (twice), 20 (twice); x 1; xi 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 14; 16; xii 13; xiv 2, 18; xvi 4, 17; xvii 15.

20 For references, see Holm 2017: 16–17 and van der Toorn 2018: 13, n. 33.

21 Ellen van Wolde (2019) recently dismissed the idea that sullam means ‘ladder’ or ‘stairway’, and suggested translating it ‘a descent road built from the top downwards, leading from the city of gods to the earth’. Unfortunately, she ignored all the studies that pointed out the Babylonian background of the story of Jacob at Bethel in Gen 28:10–22 and the many Babylonian motifs included in this story (see Hurowitz 2006: 436–445). As observed by Hurowitz (2006: 437 n. 4), ‘[e]ven if the Hebrew word [sullam] is not related etymologically to the Akkadan word [simmiltu] … there is no doubt they can act as synonyms and function identically in their literary uses’. For recent discussions, see Koch 2018: 69–71, with earlier literature.

22 For the city of Siannu, see Astour 1979; Bagg 2007: 217–218; Belmonte-Marín 2001: 240–241, with earlier literature.

23 For the tradition that the cedar forest in Mount Lebanon was the seat of the gods, see Stolz 1972; Ayali-Darshan 2017: 187–190, with earlier literature.

24 Note the existence of another toponym called Baʿal Zaphon, which was located near the northern border of Egypt (Exod 14:2,9; Num 33:7). Thus, the idea of a first-millennium BCE new identification of Zaphon, originally located at the far remote site of Jebel el-ʿAqra, may be supported by its second identification near the Egyptian border.

25 For a different interpretation, see Ayali-Darshan 2014: 409–414, with earlier literature; cf. Venter 2005.

26 Kottsieper (2003: 92) rendered it <l/ršmḥ.

27 Rash is rendered r š<. Should we transliterate it r<šā and translate ‘to Rash’?

28 Ayakku was the name of the Eanna temple of Ishtar in Uruk, but in the present context the temple’s name probably refers to Nanay’s temple at Borsippa. See Stol 1999: 613, with earlier literature.

29 Note the many references to YHWH in conjunction with the Cherubim throne (e.g., 1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2; 1 Kgs 6:23–28; 8:6–7; 2 Kgs 19:15; Isa 37:16).

30 The goddess Anat mentioned in the next passage (viii 9) alongside Nabu and Nanay is probably the consort of Bethel.

31 In his pioneering study of Papyrus Amherst 63, Bowman (1944: 227, 229 n. 29) already suggested the reading Ayakku. Indeed, ‘The Lady of the Ayakku’ is the standard epithet for Nanay in the papyrus. For discussion of the epithet and further literature, see Holm 2017: 23–26; van der Toorn 2018: 92–93.

32 For the motif of the sleeping god in ancient Near Eastern texts, see Batto 1987; Mrozek and Votto 1999.

33 For the text and detailed philological discussion, see van der Toorn 2018: 58–59, 133–134, 138–140.

34 I interpret the opening statement as a call to god to rise up (verb nsy), paralleling the call to god in x 1 (‘Our Crescent, you slumber in [lit.: from] Rash’).

35 Van der Toorn rendered dmm in the sense of ‘to moan, wail’ and translated the sentence, ‘And the Lord is wailing’. The depiction of god as wailing, however, is unlikely. The very dmm is better interpreted in the sense of ‘to be silent’ (Jastrow 1950: 314).

36 Van der Toorn (2018: 140) interpreted the verbs yll (‘howl’) and dmm (‘moan’) as imperatives. I prefer rendering them as 1st pers. sg. (cf. x 15, 22; xi 14).

37 Van der Toorn (2018: 29, 123, 140, 244) interpreted bʿl as a name of a deity (Bol). I prefer to interpret it as a noun in the sense of ‘Lord’, parallel to Akkadian bēl. Indeed, the name of the Babylonian god Bel is also rendered with an identical transcription: viii 4 (bʿl) and xv 7 (mr bʿl, ‘Lord Bel’).

38 In contrast to the motif of god’s sleep in Psalm 44, Chapter 121:4 declares that god never sleeps(‘Behold, he who keeps Israel will neither slumber nor sleep’).

39 For discussions of Psalm 44, in addition to the commentaries see Human 1998; Rom-Shiloni 2008, with earlier literature; Maré 2014.

40 The comparison made between the ritual of Melqart’s revival and coming to life (egersis) and Elijah’s words in v. 27 (‘Perhaps he is asleep and will wake up’) is hotly debated among scholars. See De Vaux 1972: 246–249; Bonnet 1988: 141; Briquel-Chatonnet 1992: 307–309; Beck 1999: 257–258.

41 See above, n. 28.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Nadav Naʾaman

Nadav Naʾaman: Department of Jewish History, Tel Aviv University, Israel