Nanay and Her Lover: An Aramaic
Sacred Marriage Text from Egypt
Tawny L. Holm, Pennsylvania State University*
Introduction1
The topos of “sacred marriage” became a produc-
tive literary trope in the ancient Near East,1whose
* I would like to thank the staff at the Sherman Fairchild Read-
ing Room of the Morgan Library in New York, both for permit-
ting multiple visits to read and study P. Amherst 63 in person, and
for graciously providing me with photographs to use in publica-
tion. I would also like to express my deep appreciation to Brendan
Haug, Archivist, and Monica Tsuneishi, Manager, of the Papyrol-
ogy Collection at the University of Michigan, for kindly allowing
me to read the fragments of the papyrus there (P. Amherst 43b),
and for also providing me with photographs. I am very grateful as
well to the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago for sup-
plying me with the oldest photographs of the papyrus from 1901.
Furthermore, I am indebted to the National Endowment for the
Humanities for a fellowship supporting this work. Finally, I would
like to thank the anonymous readers for their valuable advice, and
Christopher Woods, editor of JNES, for accepting this article for
publication.
1
The following abbreviations for languages will be used: Akk.
= Akkadian; Arb = Arabic; BA = Biblical Aramaic; BH = Biblical
Hebrew; CPA = Christian Palestinian Aramaic; DA = Deir ʿAlla; JBA
= Jewish Babylonian Aramaic; JPA = Jewish Palestinian Aramaic;
NAss = Neo-Assyrian; OA = Old Aramaic; OfA = Official Aramaic;
OSArb = Old South Arabic; QA = Qumran Aramaic; Sam = Samari-
tan Aramaic; Ug. = Ugaritic. For Assyriological abbreviations, see
The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University
of Chicago (CAD) (Chicago, 1956–2010). For Biblical and other
abbreviations, see B. J. Collins et al., The SBL Handbook of Style,
[JNES 76 no. 1 (2017)] © 2017 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 022–2968–2017/7601–001 $10.00. DOI: 10.1086/690602
symbolism and purpose has been subject to much
modern discussion.2 Whether or not there was ever
an actual ritual in which human proxies played the
roles of deities, there are several ancient Near Eastern
texts that describe some sort of union between either
a god with a goddess (theogamy), or of a goddess
with a human king (hierogamy).3 One thinks first
of all of the “sacred marriage” texts from early and
late Mesopotamia in Sumerian and Akkadian, but a
limited number of compositions in this genre or re-
lated genres (e.g., love poems that play on the divine-­
human sexual metaphor) are also found elsewhere in
ancient Near Eastern literature. There has been some
discussion of the evidence for sacred marriage in New
2nd ed. (Atlanta, 2014). For specific abbreviations of dictionaries
and reference works cited throughout this article, see the list at the
end of this article.
2
E.g., M. Nissinen and R. Uro, eds., Sacred Marriages: The
Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early Christianity
(Winona Lake, IN, 2008).
3
The terms “theogamy” and “hierogamy” were used in this
way already by J. Renger, “Heilige Hochzeit. Philologisch,” RlA 4
(1972–1975): 257. See also B. Pongratz-Leisten, “Hieros Gamos,”
RGG 4/3 (2003): 1730–31, and “Sacred Marriage and the Trans-
fer of Divine Knowledge: Alliances between the Gods and the King
in Ancient Mesopotamia,” in Sacred Marriages, 44. A third term,
“cosmogamy,” denotes the concept of the union of the cosmic ele-
ments, Heaven and Earth.
1
2 F Journal of Near Eastern Studies
Kingdom sources from Egypt,4 and within some writ-
ings from Syria-Palestine. Two of the most relevant
compositions from Ugarit include the ritual text RS
24.291 (KTU 3 1.132), which gives brief instructions
for the preparation of the goddess Pidray’s bed using
the king’s bedcovers (but few other particulars),5 and
the work commonly called “The Birth of the Goodly
Gods” (RS 2.002=KTU 3 1.23), whose precise genre
is unclear.6 With regard to Emar, one ritual text con-
cerning the installation of a priestess (Emar 369) uses
a few terms that are reminiscent of sacred marriage
texts elsewhere—for instance, the preparation of a
bed and bedclothes—although there is nothing par-
ticularly sexual in the ritual.7 One could also mention
various love poems in Northwest Semitic texts, such
as the Song of Songs in the Hebrew Bible, that may
not concern “sacred marriage” per se, but which are
often read with the metaphor of divine love as their
backdrop.8
4
On the possibility of a sacred marriage ritual in Egypt, see: M.
Rikala, “Sacred Marriage in the New Kingdom of Ancient Egypt:
Circumstantial Evidence for a Ritual Interpretation,” in Sacred
Marriages, 115–44; and E. F. Wente, “Hathor at the Jubilee,” in
Studies in Honor of John A. Wilson, September 12, 1969, ed. E. B.
Hauser, SAOC 35 (Chicago, 1969), 90. However, the texts with
evidence give very few and ambiguous details, and furthermore
seem to emphasize the birth of children after the union, rather than
the union itself.
5
D. Pardee, Ritual and Cult at Ugarit, SBL WAW 10 (At-
lanta, 2002), 96–116; M. Dietrich and W. Mayer, “Festritual für die
Palastgöttin Pidray. Der hurro-ugaritische Opfertext KTU 1.132,”
UF 28 (1996): 165–76; M. Dijkstra, “The Myth of Astarte, the
Huntress (KTU 1.92): New Fragments,” UF 26 (1994): 121; and
H. J. Marsman, Women in Ugarit and Israel: Their Social and Re-
ligious Position in the Context of the Ancient Near East, OTS 49
(Leiden, 2003), 528–31.
6
Smith concludes that sexual relations are subordinate to the
alimentary elements in ll. 30–76. Moreover, neither the first part of
the text (ll. 1–29, the rituals) or the mythic narratives (ll. 30–76)
“provide evidence for a ritual practice”; M. S. Smith, “Sacred Mar-
riage in the Ugaritic Texts? The Case of KTU/CAT 1.23 (Rituals
and Myths of the Goodly Gods),” in Sacred Marriages, 93–113.
7
Emar 369 describes the ritual installation of the entu-priestess
at Emar, which includes the direction: “On that bed they will lay
out one Akkadian blanket of her pure bedroom” (ll. 70–71); D. E.
Fleming, The Installation of Baal’s High Priestess at Emar: A Win-
dow on Ancient Syrian Religion, HSS 42 (Atlanta, 1992), 57, 116.
As Fleming notes, however, bedrooms are a standard feature of
palaces and temples in Mesopotamia, and a separate bīt urši has
been found at both Amarna and Ugarit.
8
See M. Nissinen for a review of this scholarship; “Song of
Songs and Sacred Marriage,” in Sacred Marriages, 173–218. The
existence of love poems in Ugaritic literature is likely, although no
The sacred marriage text in col. xvii of P. Amherst
63 is an important addition to the discussion, in that
it is in a Northwest Semitic language (Aramaic), but
the product of a culturally-diverse Aramaic-speaking
community in Egypt, whose members seem to have
come from elsewhere at some point in the past. The
papyrus demonstrates their connections to regions as
far away as southern Mesopotamia or even the Zagros
region, and to Syria-Palestine. The twelve-foot long
papyrus with twenty-three columns was purchased in
Egypt in the 1890s by Lord Amherst of Hackney, and
is now owned mostly by the Morgan Library in New
York, with fragments of columns iv, v, and xxiii in the
possession of the University of Michigan (P. Amh.
43b). It was first identified as written in Aramaic, but
in Demotic script, by Raymond Bowman in 1944,
but it took nearly another forty years before certain
sections were edited in the 1980s.9 With regard to
collection as such has been found as of yet; Marsman, Women in
Ugarit and Israel, 76, 703.
9
This was primarily done by two teams of scholars: S. P. Vlee­
ming and J.-W. Wesselius in the Netherlands, and R. C. Steiner
and C. F. Nims in the United States. See S. P. Vleeming and J.-W.
Wesselius, “An Aramaic Hymn from the fourth century B.C.” BiOr
39 (1982): 501–509, “Betel the Saviour,” JEOL 28 (1983–1984):
110–40, and Studies in Papyrus Amherst 63, vols. 1–2 (= SPA I-II;
Amsterdam, 1985). For C. F. Nims and R. C. Steiner, see their
“A Paganized Version of Ps 10:2–6 from the Aramaic Text in De-
motic Script,” JAOS 103 (1983): 261–74; “You Can’t Offer Your
Sacrifice and Eat it Too: A Polemical Poem from the Aramaic Text
in Demotic Script,” JNES 43 (1984): 87–115; and “Ashurbanipal
and Shamash-shum-ukin: A Tale of Two Brothers from the Aramaic
Text in Demotic Script, Part 1,” RB 92 (1985): 60–81. See also
Steiner, “The Aramaic Text in Demotic Script: The Liturgy of a
New Year’s Festival Imported from Bethel to Syene by Exiles from
Rash,” JAOS 111 (1991): 362–63; “Papyrus Amherst 63: A New
Source for the Language, Literature, Religion, and History of the
Aramaeans,” in Studia Aramaica, ed. M. J. Geller et al. (Oxford,
1995), 204–207; and “The Aramaic Text in Demotic Script,” in
COS 1.99 [1997]: 309–27. For a full transliteration and translation,
with notes, see T. L. Holm, Aramaic Literary Texts, SBL WAW
(Atlanta, forthcoming). A few scholars have done work on other
small portions of P. Amh. 63, especially the one psalm on the pa-
pyrus (xii 11–19) that is a variant of the biblical Psalm 20: e.g.,
R. Heckl, “Inside the Canon and Out: The Relationship Between
Psalm 20 and Papyrus Amherst 63,” Semitica 56 (2014): 359–79;
three works by I. Kottsieper: “Anmerkungen zu Pap. Amherst 63:
I: 12, 11–19,” ZAW 100 (1988): 217–44; “Anmerkungen zu Pap.
Amherst 63: Teil II–V,” UF 29 (1997): 385–434; and “El–ferner
oder naher Gott?: Zur Bedeutung einer semitischen Gottheit in
verschiedenen sozialen Kontexten im 1. Jtsd. v. Chr.,” in Religion
und Gesellschaft, Bd. 1, ed. R. Albertz and S. Otto, AOAT 248
(Münster, 1997), 25–74; also M. Rösel, “Israels Psalmen in Ägyp-
ten? Papyrus Amherst 63 und die Psalmen XX und LXXV,” VT 50
 Nanay and Her Lover: An Aramaic Sacred Marriage Text from Egypt
P. Amh. 63 as a whole, R. Steiner produced a provi-
sional translation with a short introduction in 1997
for The Context of Scripture (COS), edited by W. Hallo
and K. Lawson Younger, Jr., but this lacks a scholarly
apparatus of any sort (notes, commentary, or tran-
scription). About half of the columns of P. Amh. 63
have been edited in some way; the others have only
appeared to the public in Steiner’s translation.
The papyrus has no archaeological context, as it was
purchased along with nineteen other papyri all said
to have been found in a jar near Thebes.10 The other
documents are in Demotic and Greek, and are the per-
sonal records and accounts of a family of choachytes
(libation priests) dating to 150–112 bc.11 In contrast,
Amherst 63 contains only literary compositions, and
its paleography would seem to place it at an earlier
date than the other documents in the jar.12 Further-
more, the place of origin or composition for P. Amh.
63 is not mentioned on the papyrus. Steiner and some
others suggest it may well have come from Aswan, but
the place of origin can only be ascertained from the
contents and not so much the script.13 However, an
(2000): 81–99; K. van der Toorn, “Celebrating the New Year With
the Israelites: Three Extra-Biblical Psalms from Papyrus Amherst
63,” JBL (forthcoming); Z. Zevit, “The Common Origin of the
Aramaicized Prayer to Horus and of Psalm 20,” JAOS 110 (1990):
213–28. See also translations of some poems in TUAT: vii 1–13
and xii 11b–xiii 17 (J.-W. Wesselius, “Gebete aus dem demotisch-
aramäischen Papyrus Amherst 63,” TUAT II/6 [1991]: 930–35);
and xi 16–20 and xviii 1–4 (I. Kottsieper, “Zwei aramäische Texte
aus dem Papyrus Amherst 63,” TUAT Ergänzungslieferung [2001]:
200–202).
10
P. E. Newberry, The Amherst Papyri, being an account of the
Egyptian Papyri in the Collection of the Right Hon. Lord Amherst of
Hackney F.S.A., at Didlington Hall, Norfolk (London, 1899), 55.
11
P. W. Pestman, The Archive of the Theban Choachytes: A Sur-
vey of the Demotic and Greek Papyri contained in the Archive, SD 2
(Leuven, 1993), 12–13.
12
The script of the papyrus was first described as “Persian
demotic” (R. Bowman, “An Aramaic Religious Text in Demotic
Script,” JNES 3 [1944]: 219); but has since been dated later: late
second century bc (Nims and Steiner, “Paganized Version of Psalm
20:2–6,” 261); fourth century bc (Vleeming and Wesselius, “Ara-
maic Hymn,” 501, and SPA I: 7–8); and the beginning of the third
century bc (Steiner’s adjusted view in COS 1: 310). The Demoticist
Kim Ryholt observes that giving a definitive date is difficult, because
in Demotic “ ‘alphabetic’ signs do not change a great deal . . . the
orthographies and ligatures are much more diagnostic and in their
absence we are deprived of important dating criteria.” However,
he believes a fourth century bc date is more likely than the second
century (pers. comm.).
13
E.g., Steiner in COS 1: 310; B. Porten, “Settlement of Jews at
Elephantine and Arameans at Syene,” in Judah and the Judeans in
the Neo-Babylonian Period, ed. O. Lipschits and J. Blenkinsopp (Wi-
F 3
indication in favor of the Aswan hypothesis is that the
Demotic word for “Elephantine” (yb), used once on
the papyrus as a multi-consonantal sign, is spelled with
an aleph (as ybꜢ), an unusual spelling apparently found
only in a few Demotic texts from Aswan.14
The first seventeen columns are cultic in nature,
and contain a collection of poems, hymns, blessings,
and prayers, representing a unique amalgam of re-
ligious motifs, deities, and literary traditions from
Mesopotamia and Syria-Palestine, and perhaps also
from Egypt to a far lesser extent.15 There are hymns
to Mesopotamian and Syrian-Aramean deities, and
at least three psalms to Yahu (the local form of the
biblical Yahweh).16 The papyrus also contains com-
positions of typically Mesopotamian genres, such as
laments and the “sacred marriage” text in col. xvii,
which concludes the liturgical portion of the papyrus.
The final six columns contain a narrative about the his-
torical seventh-century rivalry between the two royal
nona Lake, IN 2003), 451–70. Kim Ryholt’s opinion is that there
is not “anything that points specifically to Syene or Elephantine” in
the script (pers. comm.). Note that Nims and Steiner first suggested
Edfu (“Paganized Version of Psalm 20:2–6,” 271–72), and there
were many Aramaic-speaking communities in Egypt in the second
half of the first millennium bc.
14
Cf. Aswan 1057: 1 & 6; P. Berlin 15518 vo: 3; P. Berlin
23556: x+1 (CDD Y [01.1]: 8–9). For the suggestion that YbꜢ
reflects a local pronunciation, see J. D. Ray’s edition of Aswan 1057
(“A Pious Soldier: Stele Aswan 1057,” JEA 73 [1987]: 174).
15
The numbering used here for col. v onward is one higher
than that in COS 1.99, since Steiner’s cols. ivA and B are really two
separate columns iv and v, as Vleeming and Wesselius first observed
(“Betel the Saviour,” 114–15; SPA I 7).
16
Reading the fixed spelling ʾḥr2w2/w3 as yhw has been subject
to some debate, but it is probably correct. The Demoticist K.-Th.
Zau­zich paved the way for this reading (ʾ=y and ḥr2=h) in “Der Gott
des aramäisch-demotischen Papyrus Amherst 63,” GM 85 (1985):
90, and has been followed in this by Vleeming and Wesselius (for
discussion, see SPA I 39–42), and Rösel (“Israels Psalmen in Ägyp-
ten?,” 81–99), amongst others. (But note that Rösel reads it as ʾḥr2d,
reflecting the shortened form Yah.) Moreover, the Demotic sign ḥr
here (which I designate ḥr2) can not indicate Demotic ḥr, “Horus”
(EG 319, and see Appendixes below). Unfortunately, Steiner in all his
publications retains the reading Ḥorus (so too in COS 1.99), while
Kottsieper reads ʾEl (Kottsieper, “Anmerkungen zu Pap. Amherst
63: Teil II–V,” 399–406, and “El–ferner oder naher Gott?”, 51–55),
and K. A. D. Smelik suggests that the deity is a heretofore unknown
Akhru (Smelik, “The Origin of Psalm 20,” JSOT 31 [1985]: 75–81).
The name only appears in viii 7 and the so-called “Canaanite” or
“Israelite” psalms in cols. xii 11b–xiii 17, but probably appears as the
shortened form, Yah, in xvi 14 (written ʾḫr; see EG 265 for the sign
ḫr—Demotic hr, “under”—as Demotic h). In cols. xii and xiii, it is
opposite the very familiar biblical term ʾdny, “Adonai,” which only
appears there and nowhere else on the papyrus.
4 F Journal of Near Eastern Studies
brothers in Mesopotamia, Assurbanipal of Assyria and
Shamash-shum-ukin of Babylon (cf. Diodorus ii.27).
The deities who appear on the papyrus are of great
variety as well, with the most prominent being a divine
pair called Mar (mār, “Lord”) and Marah (mār(ʾ)ā,
“Lady”).17 While Marah is expressly an epithet for
Nanay or Nanaya,18 the identification of Mar in the
papyrus is more difficult. It is possible that “Mar” is
a theonym by analogy with deities from the Roman
and Parthian periods who are called Marnā or Māran,
“our Lord,” such as Marnas of Gaza described by Por-
phyry, or Māran of Hatra, who belongs to a divine
triad with his spouse Mārtan “our Lady,” and a son
Barmārēn “Son of our Lord.”19 Another possibility
is that it is an abbreviated form of a theonym, such
as Mār-bīti.20 However, it is more likely to be simply
the epithet “Lord,” and the question then is whether
or not this epithet had taken on the status of a name
for predominantly one deity, just as bʿl (also meaning
“Lord”) had become an alternate name for the storm-
god Hadad.21 In cols. ix–x of P. Amh. 63, the term is
an epithet clearly used for the Aramean god Bethel,
17
The other deities on the papyrus include these Mesopotamian
deities: Nanay/Nanaya, Nabû, Nanay from Ayyaku, Bel from Baby-
lon, Belit from Esangila, Mami(?), Marduk, Šamaš(?), and Sîn(?);
these Syro-Palestinian deities: Bethel, Yah/Yahu, Adonai, Baʿal and
Baʿalšamayn, Baʿalat, Had/Hadad, ʾEl, Pidray, Marah from Šwr[.],
ʾAšim-Bethel, Ḥerem-Bethel, Śahr, and ʿAnat; and from the Egyp-
tian realm, possibly Osiris.
18
But note in col. viii that Marah from Šwr[.] (ln. 2) and Nanay
from Ayakku (ln. 6) appear in the same list. They likely designate
different manifestations of Nanaya.
19
On Marnas of Gaza, as described by Porphyry of Gaza, see
G. Mussies, “Marnas God of Gaza,” ANRW 18 (1990): 2412–57.
Note also the PN ʿbdmrʾn on a fourth-third century bc ostracon
from near Raphia; J. Naveh, “ ‘PLḤṢ’ in a New Aramaic Ostracon”
(Hebrew), Lešonenu 37 (1972–1973): 270–74; see also Nims and
Steiner, “Paganized Version of Psalm 20:2–6,” 107. On the divine
triad Māran, Mārtan, and Bārmārēn in Parthian Hatra (and prob-
ably Assur); see C. Ambos, “Nanaja - Eine ikonographische Studie
zur Darstellung einer altorientalischen Göttin in hellenistisch-
parthischer Zeit,” ZA 93 (2003): 238–43. While Māran is probably
the sun-god, the other two in the triad are hard to identify; but see
ibid. for the suggestion that Mārtan “our Lady,” is Nanaya.
20
Mār-bīti, “Son of the Temple,” was a deity in the first mil-
lennium who was intimately associated with Nanaya Ehuršaba in
the ērib-bīti documents from Borsippa, and who is elsewhere called
the “great vizier” of Nabû, Nanaya’s spouse in the first millennium
bc (M. Krebernik, “Mār-Bīti,” RlA 7 [1987–1990]: 355–57). On
the two manifestations of Nanaya at Borsippa (Nanaya the spouse
of Nabû, and Nanaya Eḫuršaba), see C. Waerzeggers, The Ezida
Temple of Borsippa: Priesthood, Cult, Archives, Achaemenid History
15 (Leiden, 2010), 22, 26–27.
21
Steiner in COS 1: 310.
but also for Nabû, Yahu, Baʿalšamayn, and possibly
other gods elsewhere, so a case could thus be made
for any of them as the chief god on the papyrus.22 One
must even admit the possibility that the confusion over
the identity of “Mar” is due to the composite nature
of the papyrus itself.
The sacred marriage text in col. xvii is the last com-
position in the cultic section of the papyrus, and key
to understanding its liturgical arch. It has not been
published before, although a translation of it is avail-
able and some comments on its contents are found
elsewhere.23
The Sacred Marriage Text in Column xvii
Column xvii of P. Amh. 63 contains nineteen well-
preserved lines with only a few small lacunae, mostly in
the first two lines (see Figure 1 and Appendixes 1–4).
This study is based on the author’s personal collation
in the Morgan Library in New York City, as well as
photos from the Morgan and the earliest photos from
the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago.
In what follows, I have included both a transcrip-
tion of the Demotic and a rendering of that into
Aramaic. An underline is used to designate Demotic
multi-consonantal signs that are actually used multi-
consonantally in the papyrus.24 However, Demotic
22
So far, a case has been made for Bethel by Vleeming and
Wesselius (SPA I 8); for ʾEl by Kottsieper (“Anmerkungen zu Pap.
Amherst 63: Teil II–V,” 410–11, 430, and “El-ferner oder na-
her Gott?,” 51–55); and for Baʿalšamayn by Niehr (Baʿalšamem:
Studien zu Herkunft, Geschichte und Rezeptionsgeschichte eines
phönizischen Gottes, OLA 123, [Leuven, 2003], 97–101). Against
Kottsieper’s proposal, see C. Maier and J. Tropper, “El - ein ar-
amäischer Gott?,” BN 93 (1998): 77–88 (cf. Kottsieper’s reply
in, “El - ein aramäischer Gott? - Eine Antwort,” BN 94 [1998]:
87–98). Rösel very pertinently observes that the main problem with
Kottsieper’s reading of Demotic ʾḥr2w3 (or ʾḥr2d) as ʾEl, is that the
DN “ʾEl” elsewhere on the papyrus is not complicated at all, since
it is spelled phonetically as Demotic ʾr• (e.g., see ll. 14, 17 below);
Rösel, “Israels Psalmen in Ägypten?,” 91.
23
For the translation, see Steiner, COS 1: 321–22. For com-
ments, see Steiner’s “Aramaic Text in Demotic Script,” and “Papy-
rus Amherst 63.”
24
Underlining is also used for Demotic multi-consonantal signs
that on the papyrus are multi-use and whose reading is dependent
on context; that is, they are used to indicate either more than one
Aramaic consonant or a single consonant. For example, Demotic
mn seems to be used to indicate Aramaic /m/ sometimes, but
Aramaic /mn/ elsewhere. The use of underline and subscript num-
bering used here generally follows the practice of Vleeming and
Wesselius (SPA II: 110–12), but there are some important differ-
ences in the interpretation of phonetic values; see Appendixes 1–4.
 Nanay and Her Lover: An Aramaic Sacred Marriage Text from Egypt
multi-consonantal signs that are only used for a single
Semitic segment are rendered by one consonant, and
when more than one multi-consonantal sign stands for
the same segment or set of segments, subscript numer-
als will be used. So, for instance, Demotic rꜢ (mouth)
is rendered as r2 while Demotic iri is designated r3,
since both of these are only used consonantally (for
/r/).
I also assume that most of the ubiquitous alephs
represent a vowel sound,25 but behave as a consonant
with certainty only at the beginning of a word.26 How-
ever, it is clear that these alephs were used somewhat
capriciously, in that some words have no alephs at all.
There are other peculiarities to the Demotic writing
system and its interface with Aramaic, most notably
that the Demotic system does not distinguish between
voiced, voiceless, and emphatic consonants like /d/,
/ṭ/, and /t/; or between /g/, /k/, or /q/; and it
frequently does not distinguish between /l/ and /r/
(when r1 is used). It does distinguish /ġ/ and /ʿ/,
and /ḥ/ and /ḫ/, however. Furthermore, Demotic
determinatives are rendered as superscript characters,
with the exception of the ubiquitous man-with-hand-
to-mouth sign, which is rendered as a dot (•) here. It
is used (not always consistently) as a word-divider on
this papyrus.27 See Appendixes 1–4. Finally, note that
^ on either side of a letter indicates that it was written
above the line by the scribe.
Demotic Transliteration
1 [. . .]⸢t5⸣ʾ• ʿrt• br. . .[..]⸢t⸣ky• bʾnn2ʾ[      b]trty•
ʿyny• qʾ⸢y⸣[ʾsʾ]•
2 s[ʾ]⸢k⸣y• ty• nš s[yʿ]⸢ʾ⸣t• šʾm•r2⸢r2⸣[y]ʾn• kšt• bʾmr
mrk[ʾ]•
3 mn⸢ʾn⸣ʾ ʾ3 ḫrmʾ• mnʾn[ʾ ʿ]mʾ mrrkʾ• ʾ2ʾ[n] ⸢mn2⸣
[y]hw3t ʾty• ʾ2ḫy• mn šʾmry⸢n⸣ʾ•
4 m2my⸢t•⸣ pkʿt• ʾ2tm ⸢m⸣sk• ʾ2ḫty• myʾr3w2šʾrrm⸢ʾ•⸣
ḫ2ʾr rkʾ• ḫrmʾ• ʾ2ʾnḥʾnʾ n•
25
This follows SPA I: 23–24.
26
Cf. Steiner and Nims, “You Can’t Offer Your Sacrifice,” 91.
27
For the only other possible example of an Aramaic text in
Demotic script so far, see R. C. Steiner, “The Scorpion Spell from
Wadi Ḥammamat: Another Aramaic Text in Demotic Script,” JNES
60 (2001): 259–68. For an introduction to Demotic language and
script, see J. H. Johnson, Thus Wrote ʿOnchsheshonqy - An Introduc-
tory Grammar of Demotic, 3rd ed, SAOC 45, (Chicago, 2000). On
Demotic paleography, see O. el-Aguizy, A Palaeographical Study
of Demotic Papyri in the Cairo Museum from the Reign of King
Taharka to the End of the Ptolemaic Period (684–30 B.C.), MIFAO
113 (Cairo, 1998). For Demotic dictionaries, see EG and CDD.
F 5
5 ʾ2r2ḫʾk• kʾb• ⸢ḥ⸣mtm sʾ• bʾkʾ⸢t⸣pk• yrt• n2tʿʾ• ʿm kr•
nysʾ•
6 ʿr p2ptw3rk• ysʾmp y⸢k⸣ʾnt wmn qr• mʿy⸢wn⸣ ywn•
yknt• w2mn qr• mnnʾ• mnt3 šʾpr•
7 nnʾ• ʾty• ʾ2ynt⸢y⸣• mntʾt• sʾw2ry ⸢ʾ2ḥʾ⸣tw2 nḫry bsmʾ•
rʾmt2ʾ2w2rʾky•
8 ʾrtn tynsy• mn2rw2t3ʾ ⸢ʾr⸣ yqrqy• sʾbrkʾ⸢n•⸣ ʾr yqr•
bkʾnʾnky• šʾr• qʾmr•
9 nny2 ʾry qrb• spʾ2wtky• mrn bʾmt⸢k⸣ʾn• n2šrdet brmšʾ•
r2mšt• ʿymk•
10 ʾp2 ḫrmʾ• bḥr ʾ2tʾ• yr2m⸢š⸣ʾk• kr• bʾ⸢ʾ2⸣tʾrn m⸢ʾ⸣ḥr
yty• mn2ʾ t•
11 y⸢r2ʾ⸣mšk• nb⸢ry⸣ bʾqbr• t3sb⸢b⸣• ʿny ⸢y⸣r2mšʾk• kr•
knry ⸢mn⸣ qb⸢r⸣•
12 r3ḥmtty ḫ2ʾrʾk• tr⸢t⸣ʾ• bʾbytʾn• b⸢p2•⸣ymʾ• ⸢š⸣ʾkr•
t2mrn yšʾkʾ⸢k⸣•
13 ⸢w⸣ʾsr• ʾ2ʾn• w4ḫr• bʾ⸢n⸣• nḫr2y• tʿrb• ʾ2ʾt nḫr• sʾtr•
mʾ•bsmp
14 ymʾk• ybʾ^r^k• ʿr r2⸢b⸣ytʾ• ḥrb⸢y⸣trd ʿr rr3kmn• ʾr•
bšmwhy•
15 yʾbr2q• mr mn ršʾw mr b2r3qʾ• ^q^ʾ⸢t⸣m• bytrd t3ʿt•
t2ʾ2ʾ ʿrm•
16 | ʾ2ʾḫʾ•t2 mrt b2r3yk ʾnt• hw2y• ʾr2ḫ2 mrʾtn• b2r3yk
ʾnt• hw2⸢y⸣•
17 hʾt• b2r3k• kty2y ʾr• b2r3yk ʾnty• ⸢b⸣ʿšmynd bʾnʾn•
ʾ2tmmʾ•
18 ʾr•p2 r3q rt• ʾ2bʾn⸢y⸣• kryt• npʾrn• ⸢b⸣ny ʿr yt• rʾ•
ḥmbʾnʾn•
19 ʾrk• rbʾ• ḥʾyr⸢•⸣ rʾ• m2m⸢y⸣skn• b⸢ʾr•⸣ ⸢ʾ2 ⸣tm mk• sp
Aramaic “Normalization”
1 [. . .]⸢t⸣ ʿrt br. . .[..]⸢t⸣ky bnn[        b]trty ʿyny
g⸢y⸣[s]
2 s⸢k⸣(h) (ʾ)t(h) ʾnš s[yʿ]t šmr{⸢r⸣}[y]n gšt bmr(y) mlk[ʾ]
3 mn⸢ʾn⸣ ʾ<t>28 ġlmʾ mnʾn [ʿ]m (m)mllk ʾ[n(h)]
⸢mn⸣-[y]hwd ʾt(h) ʾḫy mn-šmry⸢n⸣
4 m{m}y⸢t⸣(y) pkʿt ʾdm ⸢m⸣sq ʾḫty myrwšl{l}m ġl-lk
ġlmʾ ʾnḥn n-
5 ʾrḫk qb ⸢ḥ⸣mtm s(y) bk⸢t⸣pk yld nṭʿ<m> ʿm(k) kl nys
6 ʿl p{p}twrk ysm ʾ⸢g⸣nt(ʾ) wmn kl mʿy⸢n⸣ yyn ʾgnt(ʾ)
wmn kl mn mnt špr
7 nnʾ ʾty ʾynt⸢y⸣ mṭt śwry(ʾ) ⸢ʾḥ⸣tw nḫry bsmʾ
lmd{ʾ}wrky
8 ʾl(h?)tn tnsy mlwt(h) ⸢ʾl⸣ yqrky ysbl(w?)k⸢n⸣ ʾl-yqr(ʾ)
bgnnky šʾr kmr
9 nny ʾly qrb(y) sp{ʾ}wtky mrn bmt⸢q⸣n nšr(y) brmšʾ
rmšt ʿymk
10 ʾp ġlmʾ bḥr(ʾ) ʾt(h) yrm⸢š⸣k(y) ql bʾtrn mḥl(y) y(ʾ)ty
mn-d(y)
11 y⸢r⸣mš(w)k(y) nb⸢ly⸣(ʾ) bqbl(ʾ) dsb⸢b⸣ ʿny ⸢y⸣rmšk(y)
ql knry(ʾ) ⸢mn⸣-qb⸢l⸣(ʾ)
28
Or ʾ3 is to be taken as y(h) “O,” see translation and commentary.
6 F Journal of Near Eastern Studies
12 rḥmty ġl(y)-(l)k(y) dl⸢t⸣ʾ bbytn b⸢p⸣ym(h) ⸢š⸣gl dmrn
yšq⸢k⸣(y)
13 ⸢w⸣ʾzl ʾn(h) wġl(l) b⸢n⸣{n}ḫry tʿrb ʾt(y) nġl str mbsm
14 ymk yblk(y) ʿl rbydʾ ḥr(m)-b⸢y⸣t(ʾ)l ʿl r{r}qmn ʾl bšmwhy
15 ybrk mr mn-ršʾ mr brk(h) q⸢d⸣m byt(ʾ)l dʿd-dy-ʿlm
16 | ʾḫt(y) mrh bryk(h) ʾnt(y) hwy ʾrḫ mrʾtn bryk(h)
ʾnt(y) hw⸢y⸣
17 hd brk(h) kdy ʾl bryk ʾnt(h) bʿ(l)-šmyn bn(y)-n(y)
ʾdmʾ
18 ʾlp(y) (ʾ)rq l(y)ṭ(h) ʾbn⸢y⸣ qryt np(y)ln ⸢b⸣ny ʿl-yd
lḥmbnn
19 ʾrq rb(h) ḥyl lm{m}⸢y⸣skn b⸢r-ʾ⸣dm mk sp
Translation
1
⸢I ⸣ . . . , I awoke/was agitated/went up in . . . your/
my . . . in/between . . .
[with] my own two eyes a tr⸢oo⸣[p] 2 [I] was
wa⸢tch⸣ing;
people were coming;
a b[an]d of Samar[i]ans sought out my lord [the]
king.
3
“Where are y<ou> from, young man (OR: From
where, O young man),
from where are the [peo]ple of your speech?”
“I come ⸢from⸣ [J]udah,
my brother from Samar⸢ia⸣ 4 has been brought,
and now, a man ⸢is br⸣inging up my sister from Jeru-
salem.”
“Enter, young man—we 5 will host you.
Pick up a kab of ⸢wh⸣eat on your sho⸢ul⸣der.
We will fee<d> your people, every refugee. (OR: Let us
know your people, every refugee.)
6
On your table one will place bowls,
and from every fountain wine;
bowls, and from every vessel an excellent portion.”
7
(Lover:) Nanā, y⸢o⸣u are ⸢my⸣ wife.
A bed of reeds/rushes they [have l]aid down,
wafts of perfume for your abode.
8
(Chorus:) Our goddess, may you be carried,
escorted to your precious one;
may you be brought unto the precious one.
In your bridal chamber sings a priest.
9
(Lover:) Nanay, offer your lips to me.
(Goddess:) Our lord, in a prepared ⸢pla⸣ce we will
dwell;
in the evening, I stay late with you.
10
(Chorus:) The chosen young man is also coming;
music will serenade you.
Into our sanctuary, he will [c]ome adorned,
while 11 harps serenade you.
In the darkness that surro[unds]—a song;
the music of the lyres will serenade you from the
darkness.
12
(Lover:) My beloved, enter the doo⸢r⸣ into our
house.
(Chorus:) With his ⸢mo⸣uth, ⸢co⸣nsort of our lord, let
him kiss ⸢you⸣.
13
(Lover or goddess:) ⸢As⸣ I go and enter, in my nos-
trils it is sweet.
Come, let us enter a perfumed hideaway.
14
(Chorus:) Ḥer(em)-Bethel will lower,
will bear you onto the bedspread;
El, onto embroidered sheets.
In his heavens, 15 may Mar from Rash bless,
Mar, a blessing, before Bethel everlasting.
16
(Lover:) “My sister, Marah, blessed be you;
Cow, our Lady, blessed be you.”
17
(Goddess:) “Had, a blessing worthy of El;
blessed are you, Baʿal of Heaven/Baʿalšamayn.”
Rebuild, man, 18 Ellipi a cursed land;
rebuil⸢d⸣ a city of ruins, (OR: the stone⸢s⸣ of the city
are ruins)
⸢reb⸣uild beside the Ḥambanites 19 a great land,
a rampart for the c⸢om⸣moner,
so⸢n⸣ of a lowly man. End.
Commentary
Line 1
[. . .]⸢t5⸣ʾ• ʿrt• br. . .= [. . .]⸢t⸣ ʿrt br. . .
The first visible sign in this line seems to be t5, and so
possibly the end of a Perfect 1cs verb (e.g., [kʾm]⸢t5⸣ʾ•
= [qm]⸢t⸣ “⸢I⸣ [arose]”?). The first complete word of
this line is read here as the verb ʿrt, “I awoke/was
agitated,” or ʿlt, “I went up” (spelled defectively). It
is possible but not likely that this is ʿl-br[. . .], that
is, ʿl with a Demotic walking-legs determinative (the
usual combination for indicating Aramaic ʿl, “upon,”
in this papyrus), awkwardly followed by a second de-
terminative (the hand-to-mouth sign), before a word
beginning br-. Also possible but, because of the word
division, less desirable, is the reading ʿlt• br[. . . ]=
ʿl-dbr[. . .], “concerning . . .” The reading ʿrt would
be Peal Perfect 1cs ʿy/wr, “to awake,” or “to be dis-
turbed”; cf. BA *ʿyr, “to wake up” (HALOT 1946);
QA Ith. “to wake up” (DQA 176); JPA ʿwr, Aph. “to
awaken” (DJPA 400); etc. Cf. BH ʿwr, “to awake”
(HALOT 802–803); Ug. G/N-Stem ʿr, “to become
agitated,” or “ to wake up” (DULAT 175); Ar. ʿāra,
ʿayyara (Lane 2207ff., cf. ġāra, “be jealous”); Akk.
êru, “to be awake” (CAD E 326). The reading ʿlt in-
 Nanay and Her Lover: An Aramaic Sacred Marriage Text from Egypt
stead of ʿrt is possible instead, although verbal forms
of the root ʿly in Aramaic are rare before Syriac or
other late dialects. But see Teima Stela 27: 3, hʿly “he
exalted” (Haph. Perfect 3ms ʿly).29
[b]trty• ʿyny• qʾ⸢y⸣[ʾsʾ]• = [b]trty ʿyny g⸢y⸣[s]
The reading of [b]trty ʿyny, “[with] my own two
eyes,” seems certain. The restoration of qʾ⸢y⸣[ʾsʾ]•
(Aramaic g⸢y⸣[s] , “army, troop”) seems plausible in this
context. Although this word appears elsewhere in Ara-
maic only in late dialects (e.g., JPA gyys, “ army, band
of troops” [DJPA 127]; JBA gyysʾ, “ band of marauders
or robbers” [DJBA 279]; Syriac gysʾ, “army, troop,” etc.
[LS 2 230]; cf. Arabic jayš, “army”), it appears again on
this papyrus in xxi 17 as Demotic q⸢ys⸣[•].
Line 2
s[ʾ]⸢k⸣y• ty• nš = s⸢k⸣(h) (ʾ)t(h) ʾnš
The end of the ⸢k⸣ in s[ʾ]⸢k⸣y• is clearly visible
upon close examination and in the Morgan photos (it
is obscured in the Oriental Institute photos). Demotic
s[ʾ]⸢k⸣y• is either to be considered together with the
ty• that follows it as one word, resulting in Aramaic
skyt{y}, “I watched” (Peal Perf. 1cs of sky), or as a
single word sk(h). It seems preferable to take both
s[ʾ]⸢k⸣y• and ty• as separate words—Aramaic s⸢k⸣(h)
and (ʾ)t(h) —since this would give nš (Aramaic ʾnš,
“person, people”) its own verb: (ʾ)t(h) ʾnš, “People
were coming.” Both sk(h) and (ʾ)t(h) are Peal ms act.
participles, although the subject of the sk(h) must be
assumed to be “I” based on context (note the preced-
ing ʿyny, “my eyes” in l. 1). Note also that the final
-ē(h) in both skh and ʾth is represented in the script
with Demotic y (cf. ʾty• = ʾt[h] in l. 3).The beginning
aleph in Aramaic ʾth is not represented in the Demotic;
for another example of an elided aleph in this position,
see the words (ʾ)b, “father” (x 17), and (ʾ)bhy “fathers
of ” (xix 8). The Aramaic verb sky appears otherwise in
late Aramaic dialects (JBA Pael sky, “to wait” [DJBA
809]; JPA Peal sky, “to look, expect,” Pael “to wait,
hope” [DJPA 377]; Syriac Pael sky, “to wait for” [LS 2
1008; J. Payne-Smith 2623]; cf. skwy, “watchman” in
some late dialects); but note the Peal mp act. participle
skyʾ, “the watchmen,” in the “Tale of Two Brothers”
in cols. xviii–xiii of this papyrus (xx 9, 10; xxii 1 [bis]);
Steiner-Moshavi 1261. Demotic nš on this papyrus
29
F. M. Cross, “A New Aramaic Stele from Taymāʾ,” CBQ 45
(1986): 390.
F 7
seems to be a fixed spelling for Aramaic ʾnš, although
its components can be written in different orders.30
s[yʿ]⸢ʾ⸣t• šʾm•r2⸢r2⸣[y]ʾn• = s[yʿ]t šmr{⸢r⸣}[y]n
Aramaic syʿh, “crowd, group, band” appears in JBA,
JPA, Sam, and Syriac; DJBA 807; DJPA 376; Tal Sam
584; LS 2 1006. The Demotic spelling šʾm•r2⸢r2⸣[y]ʾn•
seems to indicate the gentilic or toponym familiar from
Egyptian Aramaic papyri, šmryn. Cf. Akk. samerīna
(Neo- and Late-Babylonian šamaraʾin), Elamite
*samerinā (RGTC 7/1: 209–11); BH šōmĕrôn and
Hebrew Kuntillat ʿAjrud šmrn; HALOT 1586–88.
kšt• bʾmr mrk[ʾ]• = gšt bmr(y) mlk[ʾ]
Aramaic gšt must be either Peal or Pael Perf. 3fs of
gšš (Peal: “to explore, spy out,” or “feel, touch”, etc.;
Pael: “to grope,” or “to seek, spy”; DJBA 306; DJPA
137); cf. BH gšš (Piel “to grope”; HALOT 206). The
verb appears in the Story of Aḥiqar (TAD C1.1: 139)
as either Haph. “to spy out”; DNSWI: 237; or as
Peal, “to spy out,” with interrogative he-. The word
for “lord” (mr/mrʾ) on this papyrus can be spelled
variously when it is not the title “Mar” for the main
deity of the papyrus, which employs the fixed spelling
mr. (For a discussion of the divine epithet, “Mar/
lord,” see above.) The Demotic spelling behind the
term mār(ī) “(my) lord,” like the divine epithet mār,
does not represent the aleph that would be there at
the end in a historical spelling of the word mrʾ, “lord”
(cf. l. 12 below, t2mrn = dmrn “of our lord,” with no
aleph).31 Since mr(ʾ) on the papyrus does not ever end
in Demotic -y except to occasionally indicate a 1cs suf-
fix, there is no clear evidence of the final /ʾ/>/y/ shift
(mrʾ>mry) apparent in Egyptian Aramaic (cf. TAD
A3.10:2 mryh, “his/its lord”).32 In OA, the form is
usually mrʾ, even before suffixes (but see the Assur
ostracon l. 6: lm⸢r⸣y, “to my lord”).
Line 3
mn⸢ʾn⸣ʾ ʾ3 ḫrmʾ• = mn⸢ʾn⸣ ʾ<t> ġlmʾ OR mn⸢ʾn⸣ y(h)
ġlmʾ
The interrogative mnʾn “whence?” or “from
where?” (mn “from” + ʾn “where”) is found in QA
as mnʾn or mnʾyn (DQA 143); as mnn in JPA (DJPA
30
For discussion, see SPA II: 87.
31
For apocope of word final aleph in QA, see T. Muraoka, A Gram-
mar of Qumran Aramaic, ANESSup 38 (Leuven, 2011), 14–15.
32
T. Muraoka and B. Porten, A Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic,
2nd ed., HdO 32 (Leiden, 2003), 24–25.
8 F Journal of Near Eastern Studies
318); and as mnʾ in JBA (DJBA 685). The interpre-
tation mnʾn is preferred to mn, “who?”, because the
word is spelled twice in this line with an intervening
aleph between Demotic mn and n. If mn, “who?”,
were meant, the n complement after mn would typi-
cally have been immediately after mn. Moreover, in
the first part of this line there is no room or trace
for any Demotic t in the phrase to indicate Aramaic
ʾt or ʾnt, “you,” pace Steiner’s translation in COS 1:
“Who/From where are y⸢ou⸣, lad? Who/From where
is your . . .?”33 This may simply be scribal error, and
the phrase should be emended to mn⸢ʾn⸣ ʾ<t> ġlmʾ,
“Where are y<ou> from, young man?” Another op-
tion is that the Demotic ʾ3 sign (the prosthetic aleph
that looks exactly like the sign for Demotic iw “to
be”) represents the Aramaic vocative interjection,
y(h), “O,” instead (DNSWI 430; cf. DA y in Deir
ʿAllā ii 10, and OfA yh). In the latter case, this would
result in a parallelism with the next phrase, but with
ellipsis of subject in the first clause. Taken together
the parallel clauses would read: mn⸢ʾn⸣ʾ ʾ3 ḫrmʾ•
mnʾn[ʾ ʿ]mʾmrrkʾ• = mn⸢ʾn ⸣ y(h) ġlmʾ mnʾn [ʿ]m
(m)mllk: “From where, O young man, from where
are the [peo]ple of your speech?”
Note that the Demotic script is able to distinguish
Aramaic /ġ/ from /ʿ/ in ġlm, “boy” (cf. ʿlym in OA,
BA, QA, etc.; ʿlm in Palmyrene but plural ʿlymyn, see
PAT 396; frequently ʿwlm in JBA, see DJBA 847).
mnʾn[ʾ ʿ]mʾ mrrkʾ• = mnʾn [ʿ]m (m)mllk
The Demotic m in [ʿ]m, “[peo]ple,” is probably
doing double duty for the first m of mmllk, because
the aleph following it indicates that the scribe heard
a vowel, yet ʿm is in the construct form and so the
aleph cannot indicate definite article. However, if the
aleph is instead meaningless here (which is sometimes
the case on this papyrus), the word after [ʿ]m could
be mllk. Both mmll and mll mean “speech,” but the
former is far more common than the latter. Aramaic
mll is only otherwise attested in the Targums, Man-
daic, or other later dialects; see DJPA 311; DJBA 682;
Drower-Macuch 243.
ʾ2ʾ[n] ⸢mn2⸣ [y]hw3t ʾty• = ʾ[n(h)] ⸢mn⸣-[y]hwd ʾt(h)
Demotic ʾty• represents the Peal act. ms Participle
ʾt(h); the final -y in the Demotic indicates final -ē(h).
The response by the young man to the king involves
three participles (ʾt[h], my⸢t⸣[y], and ⸢m⸣sq), the first
two indicating the historic present best translated by
33
Steiner in COS 1: 321.
the past tense, while the third, which is preceded by
pkʿt, “and now,” must indicate action in progress.
Lines 3–4
ʾ2ḫy• mn šʾmry⸢n⸣ʾ• m2my⸢t•⸣ = ʾḫy mn-šmry⸢n⸣
m{m}y ⸢t⸣(y)
The Demotic spelling of the first word in line 4:
m2my⸢t•⸣, must indicate the Hephal ms participle
myt(y) of the verb ʾty. The double m in the begin-
ning is an example of the “resumptions” common to
the scribe on this papyrus (i.e., the scribe would write
a consonant with one Demotic sign, then again with
another sign, sometimes but not always to clarify am-
biguity). The final vowel of myt(y) is not represented
by either a Demotic y or aleph, which is not unusual
on this papyrus.
pkʿt• ʾ2tm ⸢m⸣sk• ʾ2ḫty• myʾr3w2šʾrrm⸢ʾ•⸣ = pkʿt ʾdm
⸢m⸣sq ʾḫty myrwšl{l}m
Aramaic pkʿt poses no problem; this is the con-
junction p, “and,” followed by kʿt, “now” (cf. kʿnt;
HALOT 1901).34 The noun ʾdm, “man, human,”
may seem odd here since it is a common lexeme in
the Ugaritic and Canaanite subgroups of Northwest
Semitic, but it is not an Aramaic word. Outside of this
papyrus, it seems not to appear elsewhere in Aramaic
until well into the Common Era (mostly in JPA), and
it often refers to “Adam” rather than “humankind”
generally; cf. Syriac and Samaritan (J. Payne-Smith 3;
Tal Sam 8). However, it occurs frequently in P. Amh.
63, and even three times in this very column (ll. 4, 17,
and 19); see Steiner-Moshavi 1252. The verb msq here
is the Haph./Aph. ms abs. ptc. of slq; Steiner-Moshavi
1261. The assimilation of the /n/ of Aramaic mn
(“from”) in myrwšlm is rare in Aramaic before JBA;35
but note in BA: miṭṭûrāʾ, “from the mountain,” in
Daniel 2:45; miṣṣad, “from the side of, concerning,”
in Daniel 6:5; etc.
ḫ2ʾr rkʾ• ḫrmʾ• ʾ2ʾnḥʾnʾ n• = ġl-lk ġlmʾ ʾnḥn n-
ġl-lk is the Peal Imper. ms of ġll, “to enter” (cf. ʿll
in Aramaic script), followed by the lamed of the ethical
dative + 2ms pron. suff. The final word of this line is
34
On the distribution of kʿt, kʿn, and kʿnt in OfA, see M. L.
Folmer, The Aramaic Language in the Achaemenid Period: A Study
in Linguistic Variation, OLA 68 (Leuven, 1995), 661–67.
35
M. Sokoloff, “Jewish Babylonian Aramaic,” in The Semitic
Languages: An International Handbook, ed. S. Weninger et al.,
HSK 36 (Berlin, 2011), 667.
 Nanay and Her Lover: An Aramaic Sacred Marriage Text from Egypt
probably not ʾnḥn{n} with a superfluous n, but the 1cs
independent pronoun ʾnḥn followed by the beginning
of nʾrḫk, a word completed in the next line.
Line 5
n• / ʾ2r2ḫʾk• = nʾrḫk
Taking the last n of line 4 as the beginning of this
line’s first word, we read nʾrḫk, a Haph./Aph. imper-
fect 1cs of the root ʾrḫ with a 2ms pron. suffix, having
the meaning “we will host you,” or “we will take you
in.” The verb ʾrḫ appears in the Peal (“to travel”), Pael
(“to depart” or “to visit, lodge with”), and Hithpael
(“to dwell as a visitor”) in late Aramaic dialects; DJBA
166; LS 2 97; Jastrow 118; cf. Akkadian arāḫu A, “to
hasten, hurry, come quickly, promptly” (CAD A/2:
221–22); and BH ʾāraḥ, “to be on the road” (HALOT
86). Cf. the common Semitic word for “road” or
“path”: Proto-Semitic *urḫ- (DRS 32); Samʾalian ʾrḥ
(KAI 215:18); OA, OfA ʾrḥ (DNSWI 106); Syriac
ʾūrḥā (LS 2 21–22); Akk. urḫu/arḫu A (CAD U-W
218–19; AHw 63); and BH ʾōraḥ (HALOT 86–87);
cf. OSArb ʾrḫ, “military expedition.”36
kʾb• ⸢ḥ⸣mtm sʾ• bʾkʾ⸢t⸣pk• yrt• = qb ⸢ḥ⸣mṭm s(y)
bk⸢t⸣pk yld
The word for wheat here, ḥmṭm, is the equivalent
of ḥnṭn, the plural of ḥṭh/ḥnṭh, “wheat”; Steiner-
Moshavi 1256; DRS 892. Both the singular ḥṭh/
ḥnṭh and the plural ḥnṭn/ḥṭn have the same collec-
tive meaning.37 Here, the unusual plural ending /-m/
must have prompted regressive assimilation of the /n/
in ḥnṭh. With regard to Demotic bʾgʾ⸢t⸣pk•, Steiner is
probably right to translate “lift on your sho⸢ul⸣der.”38
However, the sign after ⸢t⸣ may be either Demotic ʾ or
p (they often look similar), so it may also be possible
to read bʾkʾ⸢t⸣ʾk• rendering Aramaic bk⸢d⸣k, “in your
ja⸢r⸣,” rather than “on your sho⸢ul⸣der.” The verb sy
here is the Peal Imper. ms of nsy, “to lift, carry.” Forms
of the verb nsy are always spelled with Demotic s on
this papyrus, and never with š.
n2tʿʾ• ʿm kr• nysʾ• = nṭʿ<m> ʿm(k) kl nys
36
N. Rhodokanakis, “Zur Interpretation altsüdarabischer In-
schriften I,” WZKM 43 (1936): 33.
37
The same word is found in Egyptian spelled as ʿa=di=na on
the Louvre Leather Roll ii 9, presumably representing *ḥiṭṭīna, an
instance wherein Egyptian ʿayin corresponds to Semitic ḥ; see J. E.
Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and
Third Intermediate Period (Princeton, 1994), 85.
38
Steiner in COS 1: 321.
F 9
Steiner leaves this half of line 5 untranslated.39 The
reading here is tentative, because the Aramaic options
for interpreting the Demotic are multiple. Among
them, those that do the least violence to the word di-
vision as marked by the hand-to-mouth determinative
are two: first, to take the first word as Aramaic ndʿ, “let
us know” (Peal Impf. 1cp of ydʿ); or second, to assume
that the scribe skipped writing the final Demotic m
for Aramaic nṭʿ<m> (Pael Imperfect 1cp of ṭʿm, “to
feed”), perhaps occasioned by homoeoteleuton (cf.
nṭʿm and the next word, ʿm, “people”). The second
option, restoring nṭʿ<m>, “we will fee<d>,” may make
better sense in this context. (One could also speculate
that the scribe did not skip an m but doubled the ʿayin
instead: nṭʿ{ʿ}m kl nys, “we will feed every refugee,”
although this ignores the word divider.) The object
phrase after the verb could also be read in various
ways; preferred here is ʿm(k) kl nys, “your people, ev-
ery nys” (with Demotic k doing double duty). Aramaic
nys could be the noun for “island, colony,” a Greek
loanword (νῆσος) that is otherwise only known in later
dialects of Aramaic (DJPA 350; DJBA 752; DCPA
264); but the option preferred here is that it is the Peal
ms pass. ptc. from nws, “to flee” (cf. BH Qal nws; con-
tra Syriac, where the Peal means “to tremble”), and
would mean “refugee, immigrant.” (An emendation
of the text to plural nys<y>’, “[all of] the refugee<s>,”
could also be considered.) Verbs in the Aphel stem
of nws, meaning “to remove,” are frequently found
in OA warnings on funerary monuments, e.g., KAI
202B:20, KAI 225:6, KAI 226:8, 9 and the Bukân
stela 1.40 The Aphel participle mns, “refugee, fugitive,”
appears in OfA (Hermopolis 2:3 = TAD A2.2: 3).
Line 6
r p2ptw3rk• ysʾmp = ʿl p{p}twrk ysm
ʿ
The word for ptwrk, “your table,” is spelled with a
resumptive p1 after p2. Demotic ysʾmp is taken here as
the Aramaic verb ysm, the Peal Impf. 3ms impersonal
of sym, “to place” (cf. śym in OA, OfA, BA, etc.)41 It
could also be a Peal Passive form, “to be placed,” or
39
COS 1: 321.
40
See A. Lemaire, “Une Inscription Araméenne du VIIIe S. av.
J.-C. trouvée à Bukân (Azerbaïdjan Iranien),” Studia Iranica 27
(1998): 16–17; M. Sokoloff, “The Old Aramaic Inscription from
Bukân: A Revised Interpretation,” IEJ 49 (1999): 107.
41
Demotic p is the plant or herb determinative. In Demotic, it
appears after /sm/ (Demotic sm means “greens”; see CDD S [13:1]
207; EG 430).
10 F Journal of Near Eastern Studies
even 3mp instead of 3ms, since the Demotic does not
always reflect a final -w in verbal forms on this papyrus.
If it is an active form, whether singular or plural, the
sense is impersonal.
y⸢k⸣ʾnt wmn qr• = ʾ ⸢g⸣nt(ʾ) wmn kl
Demotic y⸢k⸣ʾnt wmn qr• appears twice in this
same line, but with a word-divider between yknt and
w2mn qr the second time. Steiner in COS translates
the entirety of line 6 as: “On your table will be placed
lap⸢is la⸣zuli – from every dovelet grain, lapis lazuli; and
from every mina a vessel of beauty.”42 While Demotic
y⸢k⸣ʾnt may well render an Aramaic word for “lapis
lazuli,” such as yqnt (ʾiqnātā), with Demotic y indicat-
ing a short vowel (cf. Akk. uqnû, iqnû, qunû; CAD
U-W 195ff.; or Ug. iqnu; DULAT 90), one wonders if
something edible or potable, or else a container, would
be more likely. Here we take the first word as ʾgnt(ʾ),
“bowls, basins.” The noun ʾgn “basin, bowl,” is com-
mon in Aramaic and several other Semitic languages,
where the first vowel is variously /a/ or /i/; cf. He-
brew, Phoenician ʾgn (HALOT 11; DNWSI 9–10);
Ug. agn (DULAT 26);43 Akk. agannu, fp agannātu
(CAD A/1 142–43; AHw 41); Arabic ʾijjāna (Lane
26); Egyptian *ʾaguna, *ʾaganna, “large vessel” (a
loanword from Semitic44). In the Aramaic cuneiform
incantation from Warka, it is written in cuneiform as
ag-gan-nu (ll. 5, 9)45 and in the Amarna letters as a-
ku-nu (EA 14 iii, 36; EA 148:12, in the latter as a-ku-
ni, gen.). The form here in this text must be feminine;
cf. Syriac and JPA ʾgnh (LS 2 8; Jastrow 13), and the
Akk. plural agannātu. (However, one must note that
ix 6 has an ms form, ʾgn; Steiner-Moshavi 1252).
Demotic wmn qr• may alternatively be read as
mqr(yʾ), “pitchers,” or the like; cf. Ug. mqrt, “con-
tainer, pot” (DULAT 561); Akk. maqartu (CAD
M/1 240). However, the reading wmn kl is preferred
here, since mqrt in Semitic is feminine (but masculine
in Egyptian *maqūrû).46 It is also true that this scribe
likes to use Demotic q when spelling Aramaic kl, “all.”
mʿy⸢wn⸣ ywn• = mʿy⸢n⸣ yyn
Steiner seems to read the Demotic sequence
mʿy⸢wn⸣ ywn• as two words that he translates as
Italics are Steiner’s; COS 1: 321.
42
See also W. G. E. Watson, Lexical Studies in Ugaritic, AuOr-
43
Sup 19 (Barcelona, 2007), 76, 147.
44
Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts, 42, contra Watson,
Lexical Studies in Ugaritic, 76.
45
M. J. Geller, “The Aramaic Incantation in Cueniform Script
(AO 6489=TCL 6,58),” JEOL 35–36 (1997–2000): 132.
46
Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts, 167.
“dovelet” and “grain.”47 The same phrase (represented
by Demotic mʾʿʾ•ywn yʾwn) appears again in xvi 10,
also in the context of a meal. The multiconsonan-
tal sign wn seems to represent either w+n or y+n on
the papyrus (cf. iv 9: wnʾnḥʾnʾ, Aramaic wʾnḥn, “and
we”), but here, as the preceding Demotic y in each
word would hint, the sign represents /yn/ in both
Aramaic mʿyn, “fountain,” and yyn, “wine.” This read-
ing of wn (the Demotic verb wn, “to be,” Coptic
ⲟⲩⲟⲛ; CD 481) fits well the historical fluidity of the
semiconsonantal glides /w/ and /y/ in Demotic,
which probably often marked vowels.48 For instance,
Hebrew and Phoenician ʾy, “island,” are probably
loanwords stemming from Egyptian iw.49 On the
other hand, with regard to Egyptian and Semitic cog-
nates, one notes that the cognate of Hebrew ʾebyôn,
“poor, needy,” was ebyēn in Coptic.50 Outside of this
phrase, elsewhere on the papyrus yyn is always spelled
with the Demotic consonants y+y+n.
yknt• wmn qr• mnnʾ• mnt3 šʾpr• = ʾgnt(ʾ) wmn kl
mn mnt špr
The phrase ykʾnt• wmn qr• is a repeat (see above),
and we take it with the rest of this phrase to mean:
“bowls, and from every vessel, an excellent portion.”
For the same sequence, Steiner has: “lapis lazuli, and
from every mina, a vessel of beauty,”51 presumably
reading mnnʾ• as mnʾ, “mina,” whereas it is taken
here as either the singular mn or m(ʾ)n, “vessel.”52
Aramaic mnt špr, “excellent portion,” is literally “por-
47
Steiner in COS 1: 321.
48
C. Peust, Egyptian Phonology: An Introduction to the Phonol-
ogy of a Dead Language, MAS 2 (Göttingen, 1999), 217. On the
shift of the Egyptian vowel /u/ to /e/ by the time of late Egyp-
tian (sometimes even /i/ in Coptic), see A. Loprieno, Ancient
Egyptian: A Linguistic Introduction (Cambridge, 1995), 38; Peust,
Egyptian Phonology, 223–24. This shift is confirmed in cuneiform
transcriptions of Egyptian words, and supported by Meroitic and
Nubian evidence as well.
49
Wb I.47.4ff.; and see also Y. Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names
and Loanwords in North-West Semitic, SBL Dissertation Series 173
(Atlanta 1999), 239.
50
CD 39; Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords,
236, 280. Note that, contra T. O. Lambdin (“Egyptian Loan Words
in the Old Testament,” JAOS 73 [1953], 145), Hebrew ʾebyôn is
probably not a loanword from Egyptian, given the existence of abyn
(“poor, wretch, insolvent”) already in Ugaritic in the second mil-
lennium bc (DULAT 15).
51
Steiner in COS 1: 321.
52
The aleph on mnnʾ• may be meaningless, or it is here because
mn is followed by mĕnat (“portion of ”), a word which begins with
a consonant + šewa; see SPA II: 57, 85.
 Nanay and Her Lover: An Aramaic Sacred Marriage Text from Egypt
tion [mnh] of beauty [špr]”), vs. Steiner’s “vessel of
beauty” (mn dšpr?).
Line 7
nnʾ• = nnʾ
The composition shifts here in line 7, and turns
from the conversation in the prologue between the
king and the young Judean to a dialogue poem fea-
turing Nanay, an unnamed lover, and a chorus. The
name of the goddess “Nanay” has no fixed spell-
ing on this papyrus, nor is it followed by a divine
determinative, as is the case with a few other DN’s
(e.g., Nabû). It is variously spelled in Demotic on
the papyrus, for instance n2ʾny; nʾny•; n2ʾnʾ•; n2ʾnʾ;
n2ʾn•; nʾny; nny•; and nny2. These spellings prob-
ably represent either Nanāy (since Demotic aleph
sometimes represents Aramaic yod) or an alternation
between Nanā and Nanāy, but likely not Nanāya
(note that both ny and ny2 are ⲛⲁⲓ in Coptic). In
Aramaic elsewhere, the name is spelled nny, nnʾ, and
nnʾy (nnʾ and nny were common at Assur, at Dura,
and in Babylonia);53 cf. Sumerian dna-na-a; Akkadian:
d
na-na-a-a (phonetically represented by scholars var-
iously as Nanâ, Nanāy, Nanāya, and Nanaya); and
Greek Ναναια, Νανα, Νανια, etc.54 Nanay appears in
a few theophoric names as nny in the Elephantine
documents, but since the divine name does not ap-
pear on its own in Egyptian Aramaic texts outside of
this papyrus, her worship among Arameans in Egypt
is little understood (but see analysis below).
ʾty• ʾ2ynt⸢y⸣• = ʾty ʾynt⸢y⸣
Aramaic ʾ ⸢t⸣y here is ʾnty, the fs independent pro-
noun “you,” with apparent assimilation of the nun;
DNSWI 85–86; Steiner-Moshavi 1253. The noun
ʾynth, “woman, wife,” here has the 1cs suff.; Steiner-
Moshavi 1253. In OfA, the usual form is ʾnth (de-
termined state ʾnttʾ), but occasionally ʾth, and in the
Hermopolis letters ʾnšh (TAD A2.1 verso ln. 4; TAD
A2.4 recto ln. 3); DNSWI 117. However, it regularly
appears as ʾynttʾ or ʾyttʾ in JBA (DJBA 128) and ʾyth
53
See, for example, F. M. Fales, Aramaic Epigraphs on Clay Tab-
lets of the Neo-Assyrian Period, DSOSS 2 (Rome, 1986), 225 (no.
46:4), 236 (no. 51:R.4), 237 (52:2, 3); PNA 2: 924–25; R. Zadok,
On West Semites in Babylonia during the Chaldaean and Achaeme-
nian Periods: An Onomastic Study (Jerusalem, 1977), 75–76.
54
Greek Νιναια at Dura may be either a transcription of the
name Nanaya or a lallative (G. F. Grassi, Semitic Onomastics from
Dura Europos: The Names in Greek Script and from Latin Epigraphs,
HANE/M 12 (Padua, 2012), 238.
F 11
or ʾth in JPA (DJPA 56); cf. Syriac ʾnttʾ (LS 2: 66) and
CPA ʾttʾ (DCPA 33). The statement “You are my
wife,” is comparable to Nabû’s statement to Tašmētu
in “Assurbanipal’s Hymn to Tašmētu and Nabû,” ḫi-
ir-ti-i na-ra-am-te at-ti, “you are my beloved wife”
(VAT 10593=SAA 3 6, l. 15).55
mntʾt• sʾw2ry ⸢ʾ2ḥʾ⸣tw2 = mṭt swry(ʾ) ⸢ʾḥ⸣tw
The word for “bed” here, mṭt- (construct form of
mṭh), is from the root nṭy, “to incline, bend,” whose
verbal form is common in later dialects of Aramaic;
DJPA 348; DJBA 744. The noun may be a Hebrew
borrowing, however; DJPA 304. Cf. BH mṭh, “couch,
bed” (HALOT 573) and Ug. mṭt, “bed” (DULAT
595). Here, it is in the construct state before an un-
certain noun that is probably in the plural determined
state: mṭt s/zwr/ly(ʾ). For this phrase, Steiner suggests
translating “the bed of rushes.”56 Demotic w4ʾsʾrrʾ•wkg
in vi 9 may be this same noun, although seemingly
from a geminate root rather than a root II-w/y. Per-
haps this is an Aramaic word related to Akk. šūru A,
“reed bundle” (CAD Š/3 368–69). The Aramaic verb
⸢ʾḥ⸣tw is the Aphel Perfect 3mp of nḥt, “to deposit,
lay down.” The preparation of a bed is a common
feature in Mesopotamian poetry of divine love, and
many temples had a bed chamber (bīt erši).57 In a
hymn to Mar in ix 13 of the papyrus, Mar’s bed is
to be brought down “in the month of Epiph” (the
Egyptian equivalent to Tišri).
nḫry bsmʾ• rʾmt2ʾ2w2rʾky• = nḫry bsmʾ lmd{ʾ}wrky
Aramaic nḫry is the mp construct of the noun
“snort, pant”; cf. Syriac nḥr (LS 2 908) and fs nḫrh
on this papyrus in viii 8, the latter in the plural with
a 2ms suff.: nḫrtk (Steiner-Moshavi 1261). Aramaic
bsm means “perfume”; Steiner-Moshavi 1254 (OfA
bśm; DNSWI 203; JPA/JBA bws/śmʾ; DJBA 191;
DJPA 106). Cf. BH noun bōśem, “balsam tree, bal-
sam oil, perfume” (HALOT 163). The end of the
55
A. Livingston, Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea, SAA 3
(Helsinki, 1989) 17.
56
Italics his, COS 1: 322.
57
See M. J. H. Linssen, The Cults of Uruk and Babylon: The
Temple Ritual Texts as Evidence for Hellenistic Cult Practices, CM
25 (Leiden, 2004), 70, 72, 192. On the archaeology of bed cham-
bers, see N. Postgate, “The bīt akīti in Assyrian Nabû Temples,”
Sumer 30 (1974): 51–74; and B. Pongratz-Leisten, Ina Šulmi Īrub:
Die kulttopographische und ideologische Programmatik der akītu-
Prozession in Babylonien und Assyrien im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr.,
Baghdader Forschungen 16 (Mainz am Rhein, 1994), 98, 152–54,
171. On actual beds, see B. N. Porter, “Feeding Dinner to a Bed:
Reflections on the Nature of Gods in Ancient Mesopotamia,” SAAB
15 (2006): 307–31, esp. 313.
12 F Journal of Near Eastern Studies
line is difficult, in that some signs are badly written
or smashed together. The decision here is to read it
as rʾmt2ʾ2w2rʾky• = lmd{ʾ}wrky, “for your abode”
(mdwr), rather than rʾmnʾ2ḫrʾky• = lmn{ʾ}ḫr(y)ky,
“for your nostrils.”58 While the letter that is either t2
or n is oddly written and could reasonably be either,
the letter that Steiner reads as ḫ is really a w2, in that it
consists of one long smooth stroke without the three
short but sharp angles of the typical ḫ. The Demotic
ʾ2 before w in this word may be marking the II-w root
dwr of mdwr (cf. line 9, where the appearance of ʾ2
before w may mark the consonantal function of w in
spʾwtky, “your lips”).
Line 8
ʾrtn tynsy• = ʾl(h ?)tn tnsy
ʾrtn must represent ʾltn or ʾl(h)tn, the construct
form of ʾlh (or ʾlhh), “goddess,” with the 1 cp pron.
suffix -n. The word only appears with pronominal suf-
fixes on the papyrus, and is never spelled with a conso-
nantal -h- (ʾlht-), as one might expect. Aramaic tnsy is
a Peal Passive Imperfect 2fs of nsy, minus the final -n
since it is jussive.59 This is a rare case on the papyrus
where Demotic ty seems to represent only t and not ty.
mn2rw2t3ʾ ⸢ʾr⸣ yqrqy• = mlwt(h) ⸢ʾl⸣ yqrky
Demotic mn2rw2t3ʾ represents mlwt(h), the Ho-
phal fs participle of lwt, which in the Haph./Aph.
means “to accompany, join.” Aramaic yqrky is the ad-
jective yaqqīr, “heavy, important, dear, precious” +
3fs pron. suff.; cf. yqyr in OfA to CPA. The escorting
of the goddess to a sanctuary or garden is a typical
feature of divine love poetry (see below).
sʾbrkʾ⸢n•⸣ ʾr yqr• = ysbl(w ?)k⸢n⸣ ʾl-yqr(ʾ)
The Imperfect marker y- on the beginning of
ysbl(w?)k⸢n⸣ is probably provided by the Demotic y
at the end of yqrky doing double duty. The Demotic
⸢n⸣ at the end of the word is quite clear in the oldest
photographs from the Oriental Institute (the right
side of the ⸢n⸣ is broken away now), so the pronomi-
nal suffix k⸢n⸣—2fp or 2mp—here is a mistake by the
scribe; one expects the fs suffix -ky. The Peal Imperfect
verb is either 3ms or 3mp (from sbl, “to carry”), but
is impersonal either way.
bkʾnʾnky• šʾr• qʾmr• = bgnnky šʾr kmr
Pace Steiner-Moshavi 1260 and Steiner in COS 1: 322.
58
Muraoka and Porten, A Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic, 104,
59
§24k.
Aramaic gnwn, “bridal chamber” or “bridal canopy,”
appears in Aramaic elsewhere from QA onward (e.g.,
1QapGen 20:6); DQA 45; DJBA 296; DJPA 133; etc.
Cf. Akkadian ganūnu A, “living quarters,” in a private
house, temple, or palace.60 The verb šʾr is the Peal act.
ms ptc. of šyr; Steiner-Moshavi 1265. The noun kmr/
kwmr is the common word indicating a pagan priest,
found in Old Aramaic onward (spelled defectively as
kmr also in KAI 225:1, KAI 226:1; and NTA.2461);
DNSWI 515–16 and Steiner-Moshavi 1258. It begins
to have the plene spelling kwmr in Aramaic from the
Parthian era onward.62 Cf. BH *kōmer (“priest [of for-
eign gods]”; HALOT 482); and Akkadian kumirtu/
kamiru “priestess/priest” (AHw 505–506).
Line 9
nny2 ʾry qrb• spʾ2wtky• = nny ʾly qrb(y) sp{ʾ}wtky
Nanay is spelled uniquely here, as Demotic nny2,
that is, as n plus either Demotic nꜢy, “this,” or De-
motic n-y (dative preposition n with 1cs suffix), with
overline; EG 196. Since “Nanay” is addressed here,
the verb qrb(y) must be a Pael Imper. fs, although the
final -y is not represented in the Demotic script.
Demotic spʾ2wtky• represents Aramaic sp{ʾ}wtky,
“your lips” (sph plural with a 2 fs pron. suff.); Steiner-
Moshavi 1262. The fs noun sph, sptʾ in the plural is
*śptyn in OA (Sefire 3: B.1.11: 15 [bis] and 16; KAI
224: 14, 15, 16); but it is later spwn (sepwān). In OfA,
see TAD C 1.1: 132 and 151 (Proverbs of Aḥiqar: śpwth,
“his lips,” and ś  ⸢pw⸣t fp constr.); DNSWI 1181. Later
dialects exhibit a back-formation in forms such as s/
śypwwtʾ or śypttʾ in the JBA determined plural (DJBA
1188) and sypwtyh in the JPA determined plural (DJPA
376). Demotic ʾ2 before w is probably used to mark
the consonantal function of Aramaic waw in this word.
mrn bʾmt⸢k⸣ʾn• n2šrdet = mrn bmt⸢q⸣n nšr(y)
Aramaic bmtqn means “in a prepared place,” con-
sisting of the preposition b- and the noun mtqn from
the root tqn. The verb, which is “to be firm, estab-
lished” in the Peal, and “to prepare, arrange” in the
Pael, appears in BA, QA, Palmyrene, etc.; HALOT
2009; DQA 257; DNWSI 1228; DJPA 589; DJBA
60
CAD G 42–43 mng. 2; S. A. Kaufman, The Akkadian Influ-
ences on Aramaic, AS 19 (Chicago, 1974), 51.
61
A. Lemaire, Nouvelles tablettes araméennes (Geneva, 2001),
115, fig. 24a-b.
62
Note l. 1201 in an inscription from Hong-e Kamalwand, in W.
Hinz, “Zwei neuentdeckte parthische Felsreliefs,” IrAnt 3 (1963):
171.
 Nanay and Her Lover: An Aramaic Sacred Marriage Text from Egypt
1228 (cf. Akk. taqānu; CAD T 197–199). The noun
mtqn, “place,” appears in Syriac; while mtqnh, “proper
thing,” occurs in JBA, and the adjective mtqn, “suit-
able,” in CPA and JBA. The group I read here as n2šrdet
is mysterious, but I take the first large sign under n2
in n2šrdet as Demotic šr rather than ḫm (Egyptian šr
and ḫm both mean “small”).63 The sign after šr may
be an unknown determinative.64 Aramaic nšr(y) is the
Peal Impf. 1cp of the root šry, “to dwell.”
brmšʾ• r2mšt• ʿymk• = brmšʾ rmšt ʿymk
The root rmš is used as both a noun (“evening”)
and a verb (Pael “to do at evening”) here and in the
lines to follow. The noun is also found in QA and later
dialects (DQA 224; ATTME 414–15; DNSWI 1078);
and the verb is found in Syriac and JPA (DJPA 526;
LS 2 1475; J. Payne-Smith 544). The Aramaic verb
rmšt is the Pael Perfect 1cs of rmš. The preposition
ʿym, “with,” clearly demonstrates the use of /y/ to
indicate a short vowel; see also pym in line 12.
Line 10
ʾp2 ḫrmʾ• bḥr ʾ2tʾ• = ʾp ġlmʾ bḥr(ʾ) ʾth
Aramaic bḥr(ʾ) or bḥ(y)r(ʾ) is a Peal Pass. Ptc. ms
of the root bḥr, “to choose,” in the determined state
used adjectivally. Aramaic ʾth is the Peal Perfect 3ms
or Peal act. Ptc. ms of ʾty.
yr2m⸢š⸣ʾk• kr• = yrm⸢š ⸣k(y) ql
Aramaic yrm⸢š ⸣k(y) is Pael Imperfect 3ms + 2fs suf-
fix, with the subject ql, “voice, sound,” and in this case,
“music.” One should note that the verbal forms of
rmš here and in l. 11 are technically jussives (without
-n- before the suffix), and the suffix in each case could
be either 2ms -k or 2fs -k(y), with final -y unmarked.
The assumption here is that they are 2fs, since Nanay
is the central focus of this poem, and it is she who is
most frequently addressed by the chorus.
bʾ⸢ʾ2⸣tʾrn m⸢ʾ⸣ḥr yty• mn2ʾ t• = bʾtrn mḥl(y) y(ʾ)ty
mn-d(y)
Aramaic ʾtr (OA ʾšr; cf. Samʾalian, Deir Allā ʾšr)
generally means “place” (DNSWI 125–27), but means
“sanctuary” in JPA, Palmyrene, etc.; DJPA 81; PAT
63
For šr in Demotic, see B. H. Stricker, “De Wijsheid van Anch-
sjesjonq,” OMRO 39 (1958): n. 93; and H. J. Thissen, Die Lehre des
Anchscheschonqi (P. BM 10508) (Bonn, 1984), 122; against CDD Š
[10:1]: 190. Cf. Coptic ϣⲓⲣⲉ (CD 585), and see also the use of šr
in the spelling of Demotic gl-šr, “kalasiris” (EG 588).
64
Or is it an r complement? See the oval- or mouth-shaped
forms of the consonant r in EG 236.
F 13
344 (cf. ʾšrh, “sanctuary”; DNWSI 129). A tenta-
tive suggestion for reading mḥl(y) is that it is a Pael
ms Pass. Ptc. (mĕḥallay) from the Semitic root ḥly,
“to adorn”; DRS 868. Cf. Hebrew ḥălī, “ornament”
(HALOT 318); Arb ḥilya, “decoration,” ḥaly, “orna-
ment” (Lane 635), and ḥalā(y) in stem I and II, “to
decorate with jewelry” (Lane 634). It can not be the
common Aramaic mḥr (*mḫr), “tomorrow,” because
/ḫ/ and /ḥ/ are clearly distinguished on this papy-
rus. As for mn2 ʾt•, this could also be mn ʾt(h), “who
is coming?,”65 but the reading mn-dy, the conjunction
meaning “since, after, because” (lit. “from that”) is
preferred here.
Line 11
y⸢r2ʾ⸣mšk• nb⸢ry⸣ = y⸢r⸣mš(w)k(y) nb⸢ly⸣(ʾ)
Steiner in COS emends the text to read “<a sound
of> harps” (adding <ql>?) to parallel “a sound of lyres”
further in the line, which is possible but not neces-
sary.66 The first y⸢r⸣mš(w)k (Pael Imperfect 3mp rmš)
does not have a Demotic w to indicate the Aramaic -w
plural, but that is occasionally the case on this papyrus.
Aramaic nbl, “harp,” appears frequently on this papy-
rus (Steiner-Moshavi 1260), but otherwise in Aramaic
only in late dialects (e.g., JA & Syriac); cf. Hebrew
nbl (HALOT 664).
bʾqbr• t3sb⸢b⸣• ʿny = bqbl(ʾ) dsb⸢b⸣ ʿny
Instead of taking qbr as “grave” or “tomb” as Steiner
does in COS, the reading qbl, “darkness,” is preferred
here, as befits the repeated use of rmš (both verb and
noun) in this section to describe activity in the eve-
ning, a typical setting for a love poem. Both the verb
qbl, “to become dark,” and the noun qblʾ, “darkness,”
are known in QA; DQA 203 (the noun only once and
in broken context: 11QtgJob 8:6). Furthermore, one
can see the faint outlines of b on either side of the
lacuna in dsb⸢b⸣, “that surro[unds]” (Peal ms Ptc.), a
phrase describing bqbl(ʾ), “in the darkness,” instead
of Steiner’s translation “in the grave of my ancestor.”
ʿny is here understood as “song” from the root ʿny
(Steiner’s “dirge”); cf. BH ʿny, “to sing” (HALOT
854); Ug. G/D ʿny, “to sing, praise” (DULAT 169–
70); Deir Alla 1:10 ʿny, “to emit sound” (the sound of
an animal);67 Arb. ġannā (Lane 2302f.). In Aramaic,
65
See Steiner in COS 1: 322.
66
Steiner in COS 1: 322.
67
J. Hoftijzer and B. van der Kooj, Aramaic Texts from Deir
ʿAlla, DMOA 19 (Leiden, 1976), 202.
14 F Journal of Near Eastern Studies
nominal forms of this root meaning “song,” are fre-
quent in late dialects: cf. ʿinnûyāʾ in Targums (Jastrow
1072); Syriac: ʿinyān, ʿanyū, “responsive chant,” or
ʿnāy, “reply” (LS 2 1117).
⸢y⸣r2mšʾk• kr• knry ⸢mn⸣ qb⸢r⸣• = ⸢y⸣rmšk(y) ql
knry(ʾ) ⸢mn⸣-qb⸢l⸣(ʾ)
knr, “lyre,” appears also in OA (Sefire 1.a29);
­DNWSI 520. Here it is in the plural determined state.
Line 12
r3ḥmtty ḫ2ʾrʾk• tr⸢t⸣ʾ• bʾbytʾn• = rḥmty ġl(y)-(l)k(y)
dl⸢t⸣ʾ bbytn
The Demotic indicates Aramaic rḥmty, “my be-
loved,” which is definitely feminine (rḥmh in the abso-
lute state + 1cs pron. suff.; cf. ms rḥm in OfA onward;
DNSWI 1069–70). For the Demotic sign ḥmt (De-
motic ḥm.t, “wife”), see EG 306. The command to
enter must thus be said to Nanay, the female lover:
ġl(y)-(l)k(y) (Peal Imperative fs of ġll with the ethical
dative l- + 2fs suffix).
This form of the word for “door,” dlt, is common
in Canaanite languages (cf. Phoenician and Hebrew
dlt), but rare in Aramaic, which usually has dš (daš,
pl. daššā, but pl. dššyn in OfA); DNSWI 262. The
common Aramaic form is assumed to come from Neo-
Assyrian *dassu [daššu] (Akk. daltu > NAss. *dassu
[daššu]).68 The NAss form *dassu, however, does not
seem actually attested in syllabic spellings, as this word
is normally written with a Sumerogram in the singu-
lar (giš.ig). A syllabic spelling of the plural form, in
which there is no sequence /-lt-/, does occur: ēdilāte
or īdilāte.69 This plural is likely connected to the word
ēdiltu, which appears in one NAss synonym list.70 The
situation is further complicated by the fact that the
Neo-Assyrian shift /-lt-/>/-ss-/ (realized as [šš]) is
by no means regular.71 Thus, the appearance of dlt
68
See Kaufman, Akkadian Influences, 45; DJBA 355.
69
A. Y. Ahmad, “The Archive of Aššur-mātu-taqqin Found in
the New Town of Aššur and Dated Mainly by Post-canonical Epo-
nyms,” Al-Rāfidān (1996): 236.
70
AHw 187; CAD E 33; see also AHw 364 for translating i-dal-
taš as “his door” in BWL 54: 33.
71
See K. Deller, Lautlehre des Neuassyrischen, (Ph.D. diss.,
Univ. Vienna, 1959), 224–25; J. Hämeen-Antilla, A Sketch of Neo-
Assyrian Grammar, SAAS 13 (Helsinki, 2000), 21–22; and GAG 3
§34d. Noting that some Neo-Assyrian words, such as biltu “tal-
ent,” do not exhibit—or are alleged not to exhibit—the shift /-lt-/
> /-ss-/ (/-šš-/), von Soden questioned the reason to postulate
NAss dassu for daltu; W. von Soden, “Review of S. Parpola, The
here in col. xvii may not be so strange; note also that
the second century ad house sale deed from Kefar
Baru (IEJ 36 206:3)72 has the construct of dlt in this
phrase: [wld]lt t⸢rʿ⸣h ⸢d⸣byth dy zbnt “[and the d]oor
of the g⸢at⸣e ⸢of⸣ the house that I bought”; see also
DNSWI 250. Otherwise, dlt seems to occur only in
some Targums as a translation of BH delet; Jastrow
311.
b⸢p2•⸣ymʾ• ⸢š⸣ʾkr• t2mrn yšʾkʾ⸢k⸣• = b⸢p⸣ym(h) ⸢š ⸣gl
dmrn yšq⸢k⸣(y)
The key to reading the end of this line is the final
verb. Since it is written yšʾkʾ⸢k⸣•, the line cannot eas-
ily be read as the lover speaking: “with my mouth,
consort of our lord, let me kiss you,” as Steiner would
have it, but as “with his mouth, consort of our lord,
let him kiss you”: yšq⸢k⸣(y) as the Peal Impf. 3ms of nšq
with 2fs suff. (Steiner possibly takes this as an instance
when Demotic y indicates an Aramaic aleph.)73 As for
the possessive suffix at the end of bpym, it is only in-
dicated by a Demotic aleph (which suggests that the
scribe heard a vowel sound) so it might reasonably be
-ī (“my”), -a(h) (“her”), or e(h) (“his”); however, if
we read “he will kiss you (fs)” at the end of the line,
only pym(h), “his mouth,” makes sense.74 Note that
Demotic t2mrn (Aramaic dmrn) indicates no room
for an aleph in Aramaic mrʾ, “lord.” See above com-
ments to line 1.
Line 13
⸢w⸣ʾsr• ʾ2ʾn• w4ḫr• = ⸢w⸣ʾzl ʾn(h) wġl(l)
The two verbs whose subject is ʾn(h), “I,” are Peal
ms active participles from the roots ʾzl and ġll, respec-
tively, “⸢As⸣ I go and enter.”
bʾ⸢n⸣• nḫr2y• tʿrb•= b⸢n⸣{n}ḫry tʿrb
The word for “my nostrils,” nḫry, is the plural of
nḫr + 1cs pron. suff. The singular form is written nḥyr
in later Aramaic dialects; LS 2 907; DJPA 346; DJBA
741; Tal Sam 514. The verb tʿrb• (Aramaic tʿrb) is the
Pael Imperfect 3fs from ʿrb, “to be pleasing” (DJPA
Correspondence of Sargon II, Part 1 (SAA 1; Helsinki, 1987),” WdO
20/21 (1989/90): 272.
72
M. Broshi and E. Qimron, “A House Sale Deed from Kefar
Baru from the Time of Bar Kokhba,” JNES 36 (1986): 201–14.
73
Steiner in COS 1: 322.
74
On Aramaic pym, with yod as a mater lectionis indicating short
e, and thus a Palestinian form pem instead of OfA and Eastern Ara-
maic pum; see Vleeming and Wesselius, “Betel the Saviour,” 121.
 Nanay and Her Lover: An Aramaic Sacred Marriage Text from Egypt
417); cf. BH ʿrb “to be pleasant, pleasing” (HALOT
877).
ʾ2ʾt nḫr• sʾtr• mʾ•bsmp = ʾt(y) nġl str mbsm
Demotic ʾ2ʾt represents Aramaic ʾt(y), the Peal Im-
perative ms of ʾty, “to come.” The sign designated ʾt
here is the Demotic sign for iwt, “without” (EG 25;
CDD I [11:1]: 75; see also xiv 1 and xvi 5 for this
sign). Aramaic nġl is the Peal Imperfect 1cp of ġll.
The noun str means “secret place” or “hideaway” in
OfA (Aḥiqar=TAD C1.1 111, 183; DNSWI 805).
The participle mbsm is a Pael Pass. Ptc. ms abs., from
the root bsm meaning “to perfume”; Steiner-Moshavi
1254. Cf. Peal bsm, “to smell sweet” and Pael “to
perfume” in later Aramaic dialects such as Syriac; LS 2
165. See also above comments to line 7.
Line 14
ymʾk• ybʾ̂  rˆ   k• ʿr r2⸢b⸣ytʾ• = ymk yblk(y) ʿl r⸢b⸣ydʾ
Two Imperfect 3ms verbs (ymʾk• and ybʾ̂  rˆ   k•)
begin this line. The first must be the Aphel Imperfect
3ms of mkk, “to lower” (“to be low” in the Peal; the
Haphel appears at Qumran in the Targum of Job:
11QtgJob 2.6=19:17; DQA 138). The second is the
Peal of ybl, “to bring, bear.” The two verbs are perhaps
taken as an asyndetic complement clause by Steiner in
COS, who translates “Ḥorus-Bethel will lay you on a
bedspread.”75 Note that the usual walking-legs deter-
minative is missing after Demotic ʿr (Aramaic ʿl), or
it overlapped with the beginning of r2.
Demotic r2⸢b⸣ytʾ• reflects Aramaic r⸢b⸣ydʾ (Steiner-
Moshavi 1264, under rbd), a noun from the Semitic
root rbd, “to layer, spread”; cf. Hebrew rbd, “to pre-
pare a couch” (HALOT 1176) and mrbd, “cover”
(HALOT 631); Ug. G/N rbd, “to prepare, get (a
bed) ready” (DULAT 720), and fs noun mrbd, “bed-
spread, counterpane” (DULAT 565–66); Punic Qal/
Piel rbd, “to pave” (DNSWI 1052); Akkadian mar-
badu, “blanket, bedcover” (in VAB 2, 120, 21; AHw
1573). The noun pattern in Aramaic rbyd would seem
to be either qaṭīl or qaṭṭīl, representing the object of
a passive verb, here “(something) spread out.”76 The
verb rbd appears in the Ugaritic ritual text involving
Pidray’s bed, KTU3 1.132 (RS 24.291); ll. 1–2 state:
btšʿ ʿšrh trbd ʿrš pdry bšt mlk, “on the nineteenth of
75
Steiner in COS 1: 322.
76
J. Fox, Semitic Noun Patterns, HSS 52 (Winona Lake, IN,
2003), 192, 195.
F 15
the month you are to prepare the bed of Pidray with
the king’s bedcovers.”77
ḥrb⸢y⸣trd = ḥr(m)-b⸢y⸣t(ʾ)l
The name Ḥerem-Bethel seems to appear only
here on the papyrus. The Ḥerem- element is spelled
without a mem, as is true for ʾAšim- in the name
Ashim-Bethel on this papyrus (ʾšbytrd in xvi 1 and
15; and ʾšʾbytrd in xvi 14). The omission of the mem
“may indicate either a development in the spoken
Aramaic underlying the papyrus (assimilation of mem
to beth), or be taken as a hitherto unexplained part
of the encoding procedure.”78 Steiner reads the name
as “Horus-Bethel,” taking the Demotic ḥr to be read
exactly as he reads the sign group ʾḥr2w3,79 a group
that is read by others, including myself, as the divine
name Yahu (the name only appears in cols. xii:11b–xiii
17, the Canaanite/Israelite psalms and in viii 7; and
possibly in xvi 14).80
In the fifth-century Elephantine documents, ḥrm
appears as a theophoric element in personal names,
and possibly in TAD B7.3:3, an oath text, in which the
oath-taker swears “by Ḥe[rem], the [god]” (bḥ [rm
ʾlh]ʾ, in broken context), and two other entities. The
compound designation “Ḥerem-Bethel, the god”
(ḥrm-btyl ʾlhʾ) occurs only once, in TAD B7.2:7–8.
That ḥrm was not a deity but a designation for a sa-
cred space or cult object upon which someone would
take an oath has been suggested by more than a few
scholars.81 Here, however, Ḥerem-Bethel is not an
object but clearly a divine participant in the activ-
ities, and along with ʾEl, seems to serve as a kind of
77
See, for instance, D. Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, RSO 12 (Paris,
2000), 738–44, and Ritual and Cult at Ugarit, 96–99; Smith, “Sa-
cred Marriage in the Ugaritic Texts?”, 102.
78
SPA II: 11–12.
79
Steiner in COS 1: 322.
80
In xvi 14, the Demotic spelling ʾḫr is unique. If it is not an
error for ʾḥr2w3 (“Yahu”), then I would suggest the sign group in
xvi 14 represents Yah (yh), the shortened form of Yhw or Yhwh
also found in the Hebrew Bible (HALOT 393) and at least once
in Egyptian Aramaic in Aramaic script (TAD B3.4: 25). This seems
reasonable, since Demotic aleph may indicate Semitic yod on the
papyrus (Zauzich, “Der Gott des aramïsch-demotischen Papyrus
Amherst 63”: 89–90), and since the sign that represents Demotic
hr, “under” (EG 385), also represents Demotic h (EG 265).
81
E.g., K. van der Toorn, “Herem-Bethel and Elephantine Oath
Procedure,” ZAW 98 (1986): 282–85; A. Rohrmoser, Götter, Tem-
pel und Kult der Judäo-Aramäer von Elephantine: Archäologische
und schriftliche Zeugnisse aus dem perserzeitlichen Ägypten, AOAT
396 (Münster, 2014), 149; and now C. Cornell, “Cult Statuary in
the Judean Temple at Yeb,” JSJ 47 (2016): 16–19.
16 F Journal of Near Eastern Studies
wedding attendant or susapinnu (Akk. “friend of the
bridegroom”).82 Malul has shown that the susapinnu
in Mesopotamia was always the bride’s best-man and
not the groom’s.83 This companion was always male
(except in the case where Inanna/Ishtar herself claims
to be one), and certain roles were assigned to him
with regard to the protection of the bride, the bring-
ing of gifts, and perhaps the verification of the bride’s
virginity.84 This intimate relationship with the bride
carried sexual overtones, an aspect to the official role
that was exaggerated in love poetry—one notes that
in some Sumerian love songs, Inanna is attended by
four or more paranymphs.85
ʿ
r rr3kmn• ʾr• = ʿl r{r}qmn ʾl
The spelling in Demotic of rr3kmn• again illus-
trates the practice of resumption; Demotic r3 was writ-
ten after r in order to clarify that this Demotic sign was
to be read as Aramaic /r/ and not /l/. Aramaic rqmn
is an mp noun in the undetermined state, meaning
something like “embroidered things.” The singular
rqm, “embroidery,” appears in OfA (AradOstr. 41:9;
DNSWI 1084). Cf. the Targum to Ezekiel 27:16 rqm
“embroidered garment” (Jastrow 1497); the BH verb
rqm, “to embroider,” and the noun rqmh, “colour-
ful weaving, something colourfully woven” (HALOT
1291); Punic Qal act. Ptc. rqm, “embroiderer”
(DNSWI 1084); Arb. raqama, “to decorate” (Lane
1138); Eth. raqama, “to embroider” (CDG 473).
The DN ʾl, “El,” is typically spelled phonetically
on the papyrus, as here, and without the divine deter-
minative. The Aramaic proper noun ʾlh is frequently
found throughout the papyrus (variously spelled in
Demotic). The earliest mentions of El in Aramaic texts
are from the eighth century bc: in the OA Sefire treaty
(KAI 222A:11), and in the Panamuwa I inscription
from Samʾal in Samʾalian (KAI 214:1, 2, 11, 18). In
Egyptian Aramaic, the DN appears in the Proverbs of
Aḥiqar several times (e.g., TAD C1.1 91, 97, 109).
CAD S 416. Cf. Aramaic šwšbyn “groomsman, best-man”;
82
Kaufman, Akkadian Influences, 94.
83
M. Malul, “Susapinnu: The Mesopotamian Paranymph and
His Role,” JESHO 32/3 (1989): 241–78; contra CAD S 416.
84
Malul, “Susapinnu,” 253–55, 259–60, 268ff.; P. Lapinkivi,
The Sumerian Sacred Marriage in Light of Comparative Evidence,
SAAS 15 (Helsinki, 2004), 73–75.
85
Malul, “Susapinnu,” 245–46, 256–57.
Lines 14–15
bšmwhy• yʾbr2q• mr mn ršʾw = bšmwhy ybrk mr
mn-ršʾ
With regard to bšmwhy• (Aramaic bšmwhy), the
multi-consonantal sign mw (the Demotic word for
“water”) is problematic on this papyrus,86 and may
occasionally indicate /mn/.87 Here its reading as -mw-
produces a good Aramaic form: šmyn, “heaven” + OfA
3ms pron. suffix for dual or plural nouns, -why. Ara-
maic ybrk is Pael Imperfect 3ms brk, “bless,” without
a suffix, or it is the same verb with a suffix hidden in
the Demotic spelling: e.g., ybrk(ky), “may he bless
you (fs).”
Rash is the most-often mentioned toponym on
the papyrus, and appears up to 30 times. The spell-
ing is not fixed, although it almost always appears
with the seated-woman determinative and with a final
aleph that probably indicates the presence of a vowel
(the final vowel in Akkadian spellings of the toponym
Rāši/u is short: e.g., kurRa-a-ši, kurRa-ši, etc.)88 The
spelling here (ršʾw) appears only four other times on
P. Amh. 63. Other spellings include rʾšʾw; r2ʾšʾw; rʾšw;
rʾšʾ; ršw; ʾ2ʾr2ʾšʾw; and ʾ2r2ʾšʾw (the last two spellings
represent the form Arāšu); not to mention other cases
where a preceding aleph may or may not be part of the
GN after an affixed preposition or conjunction, or in
other bound constructions.
Against the positions of Vleeming, Wesselius,89 and
Kottsieper90 that the “Rash” in question is to be lo-
cated on the coast of southern Lebanon, this may be
instead the Rāši/u east of Babylonia near Elam that
is well-known from Neo-Assyrian texts, as Steiner un-
derstood it early on.91 It was bordered in the north-
east by Ellipi, in the west by Dēr, and in the south
86
EG 154; Steiner and Nims, “Ashurbanipal and Shamash-
shum-ukin,” 65.
87
Vleeming and Wesselius designate it mn4 but note their dis-
cussion of the interpretation of the sign in SPA II: 35–36.
88
S. Parpola, “Rāši/u (Arāšu),” RlA 11 (2006–2008): 255.
89
Vleeming and Wesselius, “Betel the Saviour,” 111; and SPA
I: 9.
90
I. Kottsieper, “Papyrus Amherst 63 – Einführung, Text und
Übersetzung von 12,11–19,” in Die Königspsalmen: Die altorien-
talisch-kanaanäische Königstradition in jüdischer Sicht, ed. O. Lo-
retz (Münster, 1988), 68–69, and “Anmerkungen zu Pap. Amherst
63: Teil II-V,” 406–16.
91
Steiner and Nims, “You Can’t Offer Your Sacrifice,” 107–108;
S. Parpola, Neo-Assyrian Toponyms, AOAT 6 (Neukirchen-Vluyn,
1970), 23–24.
 Nanay and Her Lover: An Aramaic Sacred Marriage Text from Egypt
and southeast by the Aramean tribal regions Gambulu
and Yadburu, a territory roughly corresponding to
the piedmont of modern Kabir-Kuh [Kabīr Kūh] just
north of the present border between Iraq and Iran.92
The population was probably mostly Babylonian, with
a large number of Arameans, and was always heav-
ily influenced by Elam. It was conquered by Sargon
II in 710 bc, reconquered in 693 by Sennacherib,
and remained under Assyrian control until after the
death of Esarhaddon. During Assurbanipal’s battles
with his brother Shamash-shum-ukin (cf. P. Amh. 63
xviii-xxiii), it was on the side of the Babylonians with
the Elamites, and Assurbanipal conquered it in 647
and again in 645, after which the toponym disappears
from the historical record.93
There are several reasons to believe that Rash
(Rashi) on the papyrus is a trans-Tigridean and not a
Lebanese location. For instance, the papyrus seems to
reflect the two Neo-Assyrian forms of the name: the
original short form, Rāši/u, and the long form, Arāšu,
which became the standard in Neo-Assyrian texts af-
ter the time of Sargon.94 Moreover, this papyrus also
associates Rash with the land of Ellipi (see comments
to l. 18), and col. xi mentions a town in Rash called
“Ellipi-Pait/Piat” (perhaps meaning “Ellipi Border,”
see l. 18) which makes no sense if Rash is in Leba-
non. Additionally, line 18 in this column mentions the
Hambanites, the people of (Bīt-)Ḫamban, a land just
north of Ellipi and also in the Zagros region. Finally,
the general content of the papyrus exhibits many other
Mesopotamian features and concerns alongside Syro-
Palestinian ones as well. The former include: genres
(e.g., sacred marriage and lament), deities, other place
names (such as Elam in xi 18 and xvi 15), and the
narrative about the historical rivalry between Assur-
banipal of Assyria and Shamash-shum-ukin of Babylon
in cols. xviii–xxiii.
mr b2r3qʾ• ^q^ʾ⸢t⸣m• bytrd = mr brk(h) q⸢d⸣m byt(ʾ)l
Aramaic brk(h) is the fs noun “blessing.” The De-
motic spelling of Bethel on this papyrus is more often
bydrd (viii 13; ix 9, 13; × 9, and here), but ⸢b⸣[y]dʾrd
(vi 22) and bydʾr• (xii 18) elsewhere. Bethel (Ara-
maic Bayt-ʾEl, Hebrew Bēt-ʾEl, meaning “house/
92
Parpola, “Rāši/u (Arāšu),” 255.
93
Ibid., 255–56; P. D. Gerardi, Assurbanipal’s Elamite Cam-
paigns: A Literary and Political Study (Ph.D. diss., University of
Pennsylvania, 1987), 195, 200.
94
Parpola, “Rāši/u (Arāšu),” 255.
F 17
temple of god/El”) was a major Aramean deity who
is only known from the seventh century bc onward;
and was particularly worshiped by the Arameans at
Elephantine/Syene in the Persian period, where he
had a temple (TAD A2.1:1).95 Three other deities
in Egyptian Aramean religion are either hypostases
of Bethel, or separate deities with compound names:
Ashim-Bethel and Ḥerem-Bethel, and Anat-Bethel.
The first two appear on this papyrus—Ḥerem-Bethel
in the previous line (l. 14). Since Mar is asked to bless
Bethel in this line, then Mar cannot be Bethel in this
poem, even if he is identified with him elsewhere on
the papyrus, especially in the psalms to Bethel in cols.
viii–x.
t3ʿt• t2ʾ2ʾ ʿrm• = dʿd-dy-ʿlm
This expression for “everlasting” literally means ei-
ther “of perpetuity, which is eternity,” or (less likely)
“which/who is until eternity.” The former takes ʿd as
the noun, “perpetuity,” rather than the preposition,
“until,” while the latter would take ʿd-dy as the con-
junction “until” (preposition ʿd + relative pronoun
dy, with ʾ2 marking the Aramaic /y/), although that
should require a following verb. Both choices leave
ambiguous whether it is the blessing or Bethel that
is everlasting.
Line 16
| ʾ2ʾḫʾ•t2 mrt b2r3yk ʾnt• hwy• = | ʾḫt(y) mrh bryk(h)
ʾnt(y) hwy
This line begins with a stroke that must be a kind
of punctuation, and which may be a minimal form of
the sp section divider (cf. the large sp in line 19 that
concludes this column). Although such an abbreviated
form appears mid-line elsewhere on the papyrus (cf. ii
18, iii 6, iv 6, and ix 16, where it divides stanzas with
repeated refrains), nowhere else does it begin a line.
It probably indicates a stanza break here.
The Demotic spellings ʾ2ʾḫʾ•t2 and ʾnt• both lack
any sign indicating a final Aramaic yod: ʾḫt(y) and
ʾnt(y). In the case of the first word, the Demotic t2
(Aramaic -t-, marking the fs construct of ʾḫh) estab-
lishes that -y must follow ʾḫt-. Demotic mrt (Aramaic
95
See discussion in W. Röllig, “Bethel,” in DDD 173–75, and
S. Ribichini, “Baetyl,” in DDD 157–160. For a recent discussion
of the relationship between the DN Bethel and the object, betyl
(a sacred stone or maṣṣebah), see Rohrmoser, Götter, Tempel, und
Kult, 127–34.
18 F Journal of Near Eastern Studies
Mārʾāh/Mārāh) is the epithet with fixed spelling for
the goddess Nanay.96
hwy in the phrase bryk(h) ʾnt(y) hwy, “blessed be
you,” is probably the Peal Imperative fs, and not the
vocative particle hy=hwy (contra Steiner-Moshavi
1255). The Imperative of hwy occurs frequently on
funerary stelae in Egypt; cf. line 3 of the Carpentras
funerary stela, addressing the deceased Tabi, daugh-
ter of Taḥapi: qdm ʾwsry brykh hwy, “before Osiris be
blessed” (KAI 269:3=TAD D20.5:3).
ʾr2ḫ2 mrʾtn• = ʾrḫ mrʾtn
For Aramaic ʾrḫ “cow,” compare Ug. arḫ “cow,
heifer” (DULAT 98); Ammonite ʾrḫ (DNSWI 107);
Akk. arḫu (CAD A/2 263; AHw 67); Arb. ʾirḫ “bull
calf ”; Ethiopic (Tigrigna) ʾarḥi, “a cow that has not
yet calved” (DRS 32–33; SED II: 16–18). The epithet
is also found in xiv 5. Cow goddesses and goddesses
addressed with the epithet “cow” are known across
the ancient Near East. At Ugarit, Baʿal has sex with
cows to produce bovine offspring (KTU3 1.10 ii 28;
1.10 iii 1, 22), and Anatu is said to have “the heart of
a cow for her calf ” (1.6 ii 6–7, 27–28; 1.93:1; etc.).97
In Mesopotamia, Ninsun is the cow-goddess par excel-
lence, but Inanna was also frequently referred to as a
“cow,” especially in Sumerian laments. For example,
she is the “good cow of Enlil” in the canonical la-
ment called urú àm-i-ra-bi, “The City that Has Been
Pillaged.”98 She also lows “like a cow” in a few laments
where she is also called Nanâ/Nanaya.99 Moreover,
the Sumerian term sún or sumún (Akk. rīmtu), “ wild
cow,” is an epithet of Inanna in the great hymn of
Iddin-Dagan to Inanna from the early second millen-
96
On the difficulties of the spelling, see SPA I: 20; but note
that this cannot be marati, “my lady,” as Vleeming and Wesselius
would have it. What they see as a -ty ending is merely the Demotic
determinative, and the Demotic word mr(.t), “harbor, riverbank,”
was almost certainly pronounced without the fs /-t/ ending in the
first millennium anyway (Peust, Egyptian Phonology, 141).
97
There is also a group of goddesses to whom Baʿal provides
cows (1.4 vi 50). These are probably not “cow-goddesses” (as some
have suggested), but goddesses who are given cows; see D. Pardee,
“The Baʿlu Myth (1.86),” COS 1 (1997): 262; M. S. Smith and
W. T. Pitard, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle, vol. II, VTSup 114 (Leiden,
2009), 630–31.
98
M. E. Cohen, The Canonical Lamentations of Ancient Meso-
potamia (Potomac, MD, 1988), 536–603, esp. 597; and for similar
laments, see ibid., 604–39; 642–49.
99
J. Goodnick Westenholz, “Nanaya, Lady of Mystery,” in Su-
merian Gods and Their Representations, ed. I. L. Finkel and M. J.
Geller, CM 7 (Leiden 1997), 65; Cohen, Canonical Lamentations,
533–35, ln. 1, and 650–67, esp. 662–63.
nium bc100 and elsewhere; CAD R 359.101 In Egypt,
more than one goddess has cow imagery, including
Hathor and Isis, the latter of whom is called “a woman
with cowhorns” by Herodotus (Hist. II 41.2).102 Note
also the many depictions of Isis wearing a headdress
of cowhorns on two sides of a moon disk in her Ptol-
emaic-era temple at Syene.103 That Nanay is called
“Cow” here in this text may thus be due to her as-
sociation with either or both Inanna/Ishtar and Isis
(see below).
Demotic mrʾtn• may indicate either mrtn or mrʾtn
for “our lady.” The presence of an aleph in the Aramaic
would be a historical spelling not indicated by most
Demotic spellings of mr(ʾ), “lord,” and mr(ʾ)h, “lady,”
elsewhere on the papyrus (cf. the spellings for the
DNs: mr and mrt).
b2r3yk ʾnt• hw⸢y⸣• = bryk(h) ʾnt(y) hw⸢y⸣
Since a goddess is addressed in this line (“our
Lady”), but the Demotic lacks a marker for a vowel
after b2r3yk and ʾnt•, one must assume their respec-
tive feminine endings: bryk(h) (Pael Pass. Ptc. fs brk
“to bless”), and ʾnt(y) (fs pronoun, “you”).
Line 17
hʾt• b2r3k• kty2y ʾr• = hd brk(h) kdy ʾl
The abbreviated spelling of the storm god Hadad’s
name as hd instead of hdd occurs in Amorite as Addu,
in Ugaritic as Hd, and in Aramaic proper names (where
it sometimes also appears asʾd).104 Both hd and hdd
appear in xvi 3, in a strong parallel to this line: b2ʾr3yk
ʾt hʾtʾt• h⸢ʾ⸣t b2ʾr3k• kʾty2y ʾr• b2ʾr3⸢yk⸣ʾ⸢•⸣ ʾ2ty• bʿrd
šʾmynd = bryk ʾt hdd hd brk kdy ʾl br⸢yk⸣ ʾt(h) bʿl šmyn,
“Blessed are you, Haddad; Had, a blessing worthy of
El. Blessed are you, Baʿalšamayn.” The deity Hadad
100
Römer SKIZ 137; D. Reisman, “Iddin-Dagan’s Sacred Mar-
riage Hymn,” JCS 25 (1973): 186, l. 20.
101
On Mesopotamian herding gods, see T. Jacobsen, “Meso-
potamian Gods and Pantheons,” Toward the Image of Tammuz and
Other Essays on Mesopotamian History and Culture, by T. Jacobsen,
ed. W. L. Moran (Cambridge, 1970), 26–27. On other goddesses as
rīmtu, see S. Parpola, Assyrian Prophecies, SAA 9 (Helsinki, 1997):
xl, c, notes 187–89; and CAD R 359.
102
See also Parpola (Assyrian Prophecies, c) for comments on the
cow imagery shared by Mesopotamian Inanna/Ishtar and Egyptian
Isis.
103
E. Bresciani, “Il tempio tolemaico di Isi ad Assuan,” in
E. Bresciani et al., Assuan (Pisa 1978), 42, 54, 86, 88, 98, etc.
104
E. Lipiński, Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics
II, OLA 57 (Leuven, 1994), 53.
 Nanay and Her Lover: An Aramaic Sacred Marriage Text from Egypt
first appears as Adad in Old Akkadian texts.105 There is
a close relationship between the weather gods in Ana-
tolia and northern Syria (e.g., Teššub in Anatolia, and
Baʿal and Addu in Syria), whose cults spread outward
to Lebanon and the rest of Syria.106 Some scholars take
Hadad as the “real” name of the West Semitic storm
god, who is also known by the epithet baʿlu, “lord,”
while others take Baʿal and Hadad to be separate enti-
ties, with Hadad as a god of the Arameans, and Baʿal
a god of the Phoenicians and Canaanites.107 Hadad is
found only twice in the Elephantine documents, as a
theophoric element in personal names.108
On kzy/kdy (the preposition k- + dy) with a noun
or noun phrase, see DNSWI 317. One might have
expected l- before ʾl, “as/likewise to El”; cf. lrḥm<n>
. . . kdy lʿglbwl wmlkbl, “ to the merciful one . . . and
likewise to Aglibol and Malakbel”; CIS ii 398:1f., 6.
b2r3yk ʾnty• ⸢b⸣ʿšmynd = bryk ʾnt(h) ⸢b⸣ʿ(l)šmyn
The ms pronoun ʾnt(h), “you,” is spelled here with
a final Demotic y, which one would expect for the fs
form of the pronoun (ʾnty), and not the ms. This is
likely not an error, however; the y may instead indi-
cate the unstressed final long /ā/ vowel of the 2ms
independent pronoun ʾántā > ʾáttā.109 On the other
hand, that the scribe does make errors in pronouns is
demonstrated in this column by the use of the plural
suffix -kn in line 8 rather than the appropriate fs -ky.
Notice also the ʾnt for fs ʾnty twice in line 16 above,
which is either a scribal error or else merely a defec-
tive spelling, versus fs ʾty with assimilated nun in l. 7.
The name Baʿalšamayn (or beʿelšamēn; Phoenician
Baʿalšamēm) is here spelled without any representa-
tion for /l/, perhaps due to scribal error, or else as-
similation of /-lš-/ > /-šš-/ due to the laterality of
the /š/ after an /l/; cf. Neo-Assyrian a-ap-pa-aš-šu
< appal-šu, “I will satisfy him,” or a-ka-šu < akal-šu,
“his bread.”110 Note that at Hatra, the name could also
105
E. Ebeling, “Adad,” RlA 1 (1928): 26.
106
D. Schwemer, Die Wettergottgestalten Mesopotamiens und
Nordsyriens im Zeitalter der Keilschriftkulturen: Materialien und
Studien nach den schriftlichen Quellen (Wiesbaden, 2001), 443–
587; Niehr, Baʿalšamem, 28.
107
For the former position, see Schwemer, Die Wettergottgestalten,
504–11; and for the latter, W. Hermann, “Baal,” in DDD 132.
108
B. Porten, Archives from Elephantine (Berkeley, CA, 1968), 19.
109
For the view that Demotic y can represent a short /a/ vowel
at the end of a word, see SPA I: 76.
110
Hämeen-Anttila, A Sketch of Neo-Assyrian Grammar, 22; L.
Kogan, “Reconstructing Proto-Semitic and Models of Classifica-
tion,” in The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook, ed.
S. Weninger, HSK 36 (Berlin 2012), 77.
F 19
be spelled without /l/: bʿšmn/bʿšmyn.111 The name
is fully spelled in xii 18 and xvi 3 as bʿrd šmynd and
bʿrd šʾmynd, respectively. The earliest appearance of
Baʿalšamayn (literally “Lord of Heaven”) in an Ara-
maic text is the Zakkur inscription from Hamath, a
location where Baʿalšamayn was especially revered,112
and which is mentioned in col. ix. He does not ap-
pear in the Elephantine texts, but may be alluded to
in one proverb in Aḥiqar.113 Note that Niehr views
Baʿalšamayn as the main god on this papyrus, to be
identified with the epithet “Mār,” because, among
other reasons, Mar is described as living in heaven and
controlling various celestial phenomena.114
bʾnʾn• ʾ2tmmʾ• = bn(y)-n(y) ʾdmʾ
The command to “(Re)build!” (bny, Peal Imper.
ms) is accompanied by the precative particle n(y); see
Steiner-Moshavi 1261. The particle otherwise does
not seem to appear before QA, where it is spelled
both as nʾ and nh.115 Beyer suggests the particle was
pronounced nȩ̄, as in Syriac; ATTM 1 632. Cf. BH nʾ;
Amorite na; Akkadian -na; Ethiopic (Geez and Am-
haric) nā. Elsewhere on the papyrus it appears spelled
as here, or as Demotic ny (e.g., × 3; xxii 6).
Line 18
ʾr•p2 r3q rt• = ʾlp(y) (ʾ)rq l(y)ṭ(h)
Reading ʾlp(y) “Ellipi,” as the object of line 17’s
imperative bn(y)-n(y) seems reasonable, since the
other GN’s in this column—Rash and Ḥamban—
were also located east of the Tigris. The name “Ellipi”
appears twice elsewhere on the papyrus, both times
in col. xi (ll. 9–10 and 10–11), in a compound name
for a city in Rash called: ʾr• pʾ• pʾyt• = ʾlp(y)-pyt
“Ellipi-Pait/Piat,” perhaps meaning “Ellipi Border”
(cf. Akk. piātu, CAD P 358). Following Steiner’s lead
in the COS translation of this text, the description of
the land as “a cursed land”—(ʾ)rq lṭ(h) or l(y)ṭ(h)—
makes sense in the context of this passage. The De-
motic q in this phrase seems to have been written
over another letter, possibly a ḫ2; one wonders if the
scribe first wrote a representation of Aramaic ʾrġ, but
then changed this to ʾrq. Both spellings appear on this
111
W. Röllig, “Baal,” 150.
112
Niehr, Baʿalšamem, 89–96.
113
J. M. Lindenberger, The Aramaic Proverbs of Ahiqar (Balti-
more, MD, 1983), 68–70.
114
Niehr, Baʿalšamem, 98–101.
115
See ATTM 1: 632; Muraoka, Grammar of Qumran Ara-
maic, 96, §22i; DQA 151; cf. Samaritan Aramaic ny and Syriac nʾ.
20 F Journal of Near Eastern Studies
­papyrus.116 The noun is writtenʾrq in OA, as ʾrʿ in OfA
and later (cf. BH ʾrṣ, Ug. arṣ, Arabic ʾrḍ, OSAr. ʾrḍ,
and Akk. erṣetu; DNSWI 110–11), and in BA, ʾrʿ in
all cases except Jeremiah 10:11, where one finds ʾrqʾ
(det. state). Aramaic l(y)ṭ(h) is the Peal Pass. Ptc. fs
of *lwṭ, “to curse,” in the undetermined state. These
lines faintly recall Mesopotamian laments for fallen
cities. Moreover, while Ishtar is the main goddess in
the “lament” genre, Nanaya seems to have this capac-
ity as well. The Sumerian canonical lament entitled
urú hul-a-ke4, “She of the destroyed city,” was sung
to Nanaya, who is called therein a “lowing cow.”117 If
the sacred marriage text here depicts Nanaya as a god-
dess lamenting a ruined land and its city, this forges
a link with the narrative about the two royal brothers
Assurbanipal and Shamash-shum-ukin in cols. xviii–
xxiii that begins with another lament; however, there
the lament is for Nineveh.
Ellipi was in northern Luristan (Lorestān), north
of Rāši, and comprised a much larger area than Rāši.
I. N. Medveskaya has placed it in Piš-Kuh (Pīš-e Kūh),
“a small highland country to the east of the impassable
range of Kabir-Kuh [Kabīr Kūh] and limited on the
east by the Kuh-i Garin [Kūh-e Gārīn] range.”118 In
the first millennium bc, it was bordered on the west
and northwest by Bīt-Ḫamban, Ḫalman, and Tugliaš;
on the east and northeast by Araziash, Ḫarḫar, and
Media; and in the south by Elam. Ellipi appears in
cuneiform sources from Assurnaṣirpal II to the reign
of Esarhaddon, and various Neo-Assyrian kings from
Shalmaneser III in 842 bc onward took tribute or
plunder from it, since it was often allied with Elam,
an Assyrian foe.119 Sennacherib (who called it mātu
rapaštu, “a wide land”) marched against it in 702, and
took away some of its territory to incorporate into the
Assyrian province of Ḫarḫar.120 Still, in 691 it joined
the new anti-Assyrian coalition against Sennacherib
at the battle of Ḫalule on the Tigris. The last explicit
mention of Ellipi in cuneiform texts is “connected
116
On the Proto-Semitic lateral affricate /*ṣ́/ and its render-
ing on the papyrus, see most recently R. C. Steiner, Disembodied
Souls: The Nefesh in Israel and Kindred Spirits in the Ancient Near
East, with an Appendix on the Katumuwa Inscription, ANEM 11
(Atlanta, 2015), 154–61, esp. 158–59.
117
See Cohen, Canonical Lamentations, 650–67.
118
I. N. Medvedskaya, “Media and Its Neighbors I: The Lo-
calization of Ellipi,” IrAnt 34 (1999): 63; see also RGTC 8: 179.
119
L. D. Levine, “Geographical Studies in the Neo-Assyrian Za-
gros – II,” Iran 12 (1974): 104–106.
120
D. D. Luckenbill, The Annals of Sennacherib, OIP 2 (Chi-
cago, 1924), 28, ll. 11–32; E. König, “Ellipi,” RlA 2 (1938): 357.
with the Median rebellion under Esarhaddon.”121
Nevertheless, at least one key event of Assurbanipal’s
reign (the capture of the Elamite king Ummanaldash
III in c. 645 bc) seems to also have taken place in El-
lipi, in the city of Marubištu (also written Murubisu),
as described in a relief from Room M of Assurbanipal’s
North Palace at Nineveh and in duplicate inscriptions
(BM 124793).122
It is not clear why Ellipi is featured in col. xvii,
and not Rash (Rāši), which is the most frequently
mentioned toponym on the entire papyrus. Nostalgia
for the latter is most poignantly found in xi 8–11:
“In a/my dream I was (back) in my youth, I was in
the land of Rash. I was building a city; in Rash I was
constructing it. Its name was Ellipi-Pait/Piat. Rash
was supported; our lord kept watch over Ellipi-Pait/
Piat.” (Presumably this town was on the border with
Ellipi, but it is otherwise unmentioned in our sources.)
On the other hand, because they together constituted
a large part of the buffer zone between Assyria and
Elam, both Ellipi and Rāši are often found alongside
each other in Neo-Assyrian accounts of the wars with
Elam and Babylonia. In Sargon II’s “Display Inscrip-
tion” in Salon IV at Khorsābād, both lands are said to
have been conquered by Sargon along with Aramean
tribes on the Tigris.123 Moreover, both are also rep-
resented in depictions of Assurbanipal’s eastern cam-
paigns in the 640s bc.124
121
Medvedskaya, “Media and Its Neighbors I,” 54–55.
122
See R. D. Barnett, Sculptures from the North Palace of Ashur-
banipal at Nineveh (668–627 B.C.), (London 1976), pls. lx, lxi;
Gerardi, “Assurbanipal’s Elamite Campaigns,” 181–210; D. Nadali,
“Ashurbanipal against Elam: Figurative Patterns and Architectural
Location of the Elamite Wars,” Historiae 4 (2007): 67, 80, 88;
P. Dubovský, “Dynamics of the Fall: Ashurbanipal’s Conquest of
Elam,” in Susa and Elam: Archaeological, Philological, Historical
and Geographical Perspectives: Proceedings of the International Con-
gress held at Ghent University, December 14–17, 2009, ed. K. De
Graef and J. Tavernier, Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse 58
(Leiden, 2013) 455, 457.
123
A. Fuchs, Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad (Göt-
tingen, 1993), 195.
124
One notes that the reliefs in the throne rooms of Assurbani-
pal’s North Palace at Nineveh gathered “episodes chronologically
distant” in the same space to present an overview of the king’s great-
est achievements (Nadali, “Ashurbanipal against Elam,” 57–91, esp.
72). These included the defeat of his brother Shamash-shum-ukin
(648 bc); the submission of Elamite and other enemies throughout
the 640s; the final sack of Susa (647 bc); and even his campaign
to Egypt and the sack of Thebes (663 bc). Papyrus Amherst 63
demonstrates that some of these highlights of Assurbanipal’s reign
were still part of the collective memory of trans-Tigridean Arameans
living in Egypt almost 300 or more years later.
 Nanay and Her Lover: An Aramaic Sacred Marriage Text from Egypt
ʾ2bʾn⸢y⸣• kryt• npʾrn• = ʾbn⸢y⸣ qryt np(y)ln
The reading ʾbn⸢y⸣ qryt np(y)ln, “rebuil⸢d⸣ a city of
ruins,” is preferred, but it is possible to read instead
ʾbn⸢y⸣ qryt(ʾ) np(y)ln, “the stone⸢s⸣ of the city are
ruins.”125 The Aramaic noun qryt is the fs noun qryh in
the construct state, and np(y)ln is the Peal Passive Ptc.
mp absolute. Which city the author/s might have in
mind is unclear, but the Ellipian cities that were known
as royal residences were Marʾubišti and Akkuddu.126
Line 18–19
⸢b⸣ny ʿr yt• rʾ• ḥmbʾnʾn• ʾrk• rbʾ• = ⸢b⸣ny ʿl-yd
lḥmbnn ʾrq rb(h)
This is a rare occasion when ʿl is not spelled with the
Demotic walking-legs determinative, perhaps because
in Egyptian Aramaic generally the prepositional phrase
ʿl yd was often written as a single word: ʿlyd (see TAD
C3.12, Recto 2:11; TAD D1.34a:3; TAD D7.38:2,
etc.). The term ḥmbnn cannot refer to anything other
than the inhabitants of (Bīt-)Ḫamban, a region in the
Zagros mountains north of Ellipi and Rāši.127 Its exact
location is unknown, but it is probably “to be located
along the Great Ḫorasān Road either before it ascends
the Iranian plateau in the vicinity of Sar Pol-i-Zohāb
or in the vicinity of Šāhabād Ġarb, just W. of Sar-i-
Pol but on the plateau proper.”128 The region is first
mentioned in post-Kassite period documents when it
was under Babylonian control and disappears from
the historical record at the end of the Assyrian empire.
Tiglath-Pileser III annexed it to Assyria in 744,129 and
Sargon II (721–705 bc) captured one of its cities and
deported some of its people;130 the name also appears
in texts from the times of Esarhaddon, Assurbanipal,
and perhaps Assur-etel-ilani.131
ḥʾyr⸢•⸣ rʾ• m2m⸢y⸣skn• = ḥyl lm{m}⸢y⸣skn
The noun ḥyl, “rampart” (cf. JPA ḥêl; Jastrow 455)
is related to BH ḥēl, “outer rampart” (HALOT 312)
125
In the first option, the added aleph on ʾbny (Peal Imper. ms),
“(re)build!,” is there because the word begins with a consonant +
šewa; see SPA II: 57, 85.
126
König, “Ellipi,” 357. Or is this a reference to Ellipi-Pait/Piat
(“Ellipi Border”), which in col. xi is placed in the land of Rash (xi
8–11)?
127
E. Unger, “Bît-Ḫabban,” RlA 2 (1938): 41; L. D. Levine,
“Ḫamban,” RlA 4 (1972–1975): 71.
128
Levine, “Ḫamban,” 71.
129
Medvedskaya, “Media and Its Neighbors I,” 61.
130
J. A. Brinkman, A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia
1158–722 B.C., AnOr 43 (Roma, 1968), 259.
131
Levine, “Ḫamban,” 71.
F 21
and Ug. ḥl, “strength,” “fortress,” or “tower” (DU-
LAT 354), and is presumably from a root *ḥw/yl, “to
go around”; see also DRS 847. Cf. Arb. ḥāla, “he
whirled, shifted from one to the next,” and ḥawla,
“around” (Lane 673–78); BH *ḥwl, “to go round,”
mĕḥolāh and māḥōl, “round dance” (HALOT 297,
568–69), etc. Rabin has linked Hebrew ḥēl, meaning
“ring of fortifications surrounding a wall,” with Hittite
ḫila- or ḫela-,132 but the latter means simply “court-
yard” or “(lunar or solar) halo” (see HEG 128–29;
HED 305–13; EDHIL 342–43).133 Moreover, this
cannot be a form of the root ḫyl, “to strengthen,” since
Aramaic ḫ on this text is distinguished from ḥ, and ḫyl,
“army,” appears a few times on the papyrus, especially
in the “Tale of Two Brothers,” cols. xvii-xxiii. On the
other hand, the Demotic ḥʾyr⸢•⸣ rʾ•m2m⸢y⸣skn may
simply represent Aramaic ḥy{l} lmyskn, “keep alive the
pauper,”134 with ḥy as a Pael Imper. ms of ḥyy and the
Demotic sign used for the Aramaic lamed (marking
the direct object) mistakenly doubled.
The noun mskn, “poor man” (frequent enough
in Aramaic) is a loanword from Akkadian: muškēnu,
meaning “commoner” and “poor, destitute.”135 Cf.
BH miskēn, “poor” (only in Ecclesiastes); Syriac
meskên; Arb. miskîn, etc. The scribe seems to have
written the ambiguous n2/m2 sign, and then written
m1 to clarify. The Demotic y in m⸢y⸣skn must represent
an internal short vowel here: miskēn. Cf. pym in line
12 above; ʿym in xii 17; etc.
b⸢ʾr•⸣ ⸢ʾ2 ⸣tm mk• = b⸢r⸣-⸢ʾ⸣dm mk
The reading b⸢r⸣, “so⸢n⸣ of,” fits the sense of this
line, but is not certain—there may be space for one
character in the small lacuna between the ⸢r⸣ and the
hand-to-mouth determinative. Steiner declines to
translate anything for this word.136 The adjective mk,
“humble,” from the root mkk is in QA: 1QPapGen 0:7
(mkyʾ wšplyʾ, “the humble and the lowly”); see DQA
138. In Egyptian Aramaic, note mky, “bad condition”
in Hermopolis 2:9; DNSWI 623.
132
C. Rabin, “Hittite Words in Hebrew,” Orientalia 32 (1963):
120.
133
See EDHIL 342–43 for a discussion of the possibility that
Hittite ḫila- (cf. Akk. bīt-ḫilāni), may be an areal Wanderwort and
not from an alleged root “to surround.”
134
Steiner’s translation in COS 1: 322.
135
CAD M 2: 272–76; AHw 684; Kaufman, Akkadian Influ-
ences, 74. On the semantic field of the Akk. word, see F. R. Kraus,
Vom Mesopotamischen Menschen der altbabylonischen Zeit und seiner
Welt (Amsterdam, 1973), 95–117.
136
COS 1: 322.
22 F Journal of Near Eastern Studies
sp = sp
In Demotic, the word sp means “remainder” (EG
426–27; CDD S [13.1]: 183–85), but on the papyrus
the sign sp may represent Aramaic sôp, “end.” The sign
is used to divide some compositions or at least mark
the ends of some sections.137
Analysis
Overview
The prologue in lines 1–6 establishes the entry of
certain persons from Samaria, Judah, and Jerusalem as
a military troop into a new land, although this group
seems to include women as well, since the speaker
mentions his “sister” (cf. the foreign military colo-
nies in Egypt that included soldiers and their families,
such as that at fifth-century Elephantine-Syene). An
unnamed “king”—possibly the king of Egypt but per-
haps the same unnamed king addressed elsewhere on
the papyrus—asks the young Judean about himself,
and when told about his origins, the king welcomes
him and promises to host him in the new land. Since
the first line is hardly comprehensible, it is not clear
who the narrator is, i.e., the person who says, “[with]
my two eyes.”
Lines 7–17a contain a description of the union of
Nanay (who is “beloved”) with her lover (the “chosen
young man,” her “precious one”) that shares much
with ancient Near Eastern love poetry or so-called
sacred marriage texts elsewhere. This section has the
form of a dialogue between lovers and a chorus, and
includes erotic imagery invoking all sorts of sensual
devices (e.g., fragrances, music, embroidered sheets,
a nocturnal setting, kisses on the mouth); the proces-
sion of scenes through doors from a bed chamber
out to a garden; the possible adornment of a lover;
the presence of wedding attendants; and concluding
blessings. Similar features are also found in, for in-
stance, the Neo-Assyrian “Love Lyrics of Nabû and
Tašmetu” (SAA 3 14).138 There, the lovers dialogue
with each other and a chorus; the scent of juniper is
137
SPA I: 60 and SPA II: 43. For another interpretation of sp,
see Vleeming and Wesselius, “Betel the Saviour,” 136.
138
See E. Matsushima, “Le Rituel Hiérogamique de Nabû,”
ASJ 9 (1987): 131–75; M. Nissinen, “Love Lyrics of Nabû and
Tašmetu: An Assyrian Song of Songs?,” in Ünd Mose schrieb dieses
Lied auf ”: Studien zum Alten Testament und zum Alten Orient.
Festschrift für Oswald Loretz zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres
mit Beiträgen von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen, ed. M. Dietrich
and I. Kottsieper, AOAT 250 (Münster 1998), 585–634.
emphasized (ll. 8, 11a); a sanctuary is described (ll.
7–11b); and the lover is adorned (l. 15). Moreover,
attendants seem to be present (l. 20), and the setting
moves from a bedroom which has a door (l. 9a), to
a beautiful garden. Furthermore, the activity of the
text in P. Amh. 63 is set in the evening, similarly to
the Nabû and Nanaya marriage celebration described
in a Seleucid ritual calendar from Babylon (SBH 8 ii
12–32).139 In it, Nabû, clothed in a divine garment
and shining like the moon, proceeds from the Ezida in
Borsippa to the Ehuršaba in Babylon to wed Nanaya,
and the two lovers “lie night after night on the nup-
tial bed in sweet sleep.”140 The divine attendants in
P. Amh. 63 are the male gods Ḥerem-Bethel and El,
reminiscent of the susapinnu (Akk.) bridal attendants
who are almost always male in Mesopotamian texts
of different genres.141 The blessings of deities upon
deities recall “Assurbanipal’s Hymn to Tašmetu and
Nabû,” ll. 13–14, wherein Tašmetu asks her consort
Nabû to bless her and he does so.142
While the lover in P. Amherst 63 is unnamed, it is
tempting to read the final lines of blessings as mutual
statements by Nanay and her lover; if so, the lover is
the storm god, Hadad/Baʿalšamayn.143 This is because
the chorus, after describing the actions of the wedding
attendants Ḥerem-Bethel and El, asks for Mar (the
“Lord”) from Rash to give a blessing. The next one
to speak must then be Mar, who blesses Marah, and
who is then identified by the goddess as the storm god
in her reply. Furthermore, the concluding lines of the
poem, with the command to rebuild a ruined land,
invoke the common ancient Near Eastern tropes of
lament with the hope of renewal, and thus reinforce
the typical themes of rejuvenation also found in sacred
marriage texts. The combination of divine marriage
and lament is also found in a composition from the
OB period, in which the lovers and their shrine lament
the loss of the temple in which the “rites of marriage”
139
Matsushima, “Le Ritual Hiérogamique de Nabû”: 158–61.
140
M. E. Cohen, Festivals and Calendars of the Ancient Near
East (Bethesda, MD, 2015), 409.
141
Malul, “Susapinnu.” For examples of a divine susapinnu see,
for instance, SBH 69: 16f, where the deity is probably Enlil, and
SBH 56: 58f., where Ishtar herself is a susapinnu; apud CAD S
416. The word is borrowed as šwšbyn, “groomsman, best man,” in
Palmyrene and other late Aramaic dialects; DNWSI 1197; Kaufman,
Akkadian Influences, 94.
142
A. Livingston, Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea, SAA
3 (Helsinki, 1989), 17.
143
Steiner, “Papyrus Amherst 63: A New Source,” 206–207.
 Nanay and Her Lover: An Aramaic Sacred Marriage Text from Egypt
used to be performed (VAT 17107).144 While there is
no consensus on the purpose of the divine love poems
or sacred marriage texts in the ancient Near East, it
seems they were concerned with the “imagining and
reenactment of a gendered relationship between the
human and divine worlds.”145 Human proxies (e.g.,
the king and a high priestess) might have played the
roles of deities and enacted a divine union, but the
sexual intercourse may also have been symbolic, in
a “recitation of a text as part of a liturgy.”146 Such a
ritual would have had multiple functions: to achieve
or re-establish royal legitimation, renew the fertility of
the land and the royal family, and so forth.147
Nanaya and the Arameans
It is no surprise that Nanay(a), a love goddess with
many of the same characteristics as Inanna/Ishtar,
would be the main actor in this kind of composition,
even in Aramaic from Egypt. Nanaya was worshiped
in the Near East for about three thousand years, from
the end of the third millennium bc until around ad
1000, and was especially revered by Arameans, since
her cult spread across the Near East as they did.148 Like
144
W. G. Lambert, “Divine Love-Lyrics from the Reign of Abi-
ešuh,” MIO 12 (1996): 55–56.
145
Nissinen and Uro, ed., Sacred Marriages, 3.
146
P. Lapinkivi, “The Sumerian Sacred Marriage and Its After-
math in Later Sources,” in ibid., 27–28.
147
For more on “sacred marriage” as an ideological motif in the
articulation of Mesopotamian political theology, see: M. Nissinen,
“Akkadian Rituals and Poetry of Divine Love,” in Mythology and
Mythologies: Methodological Approaches to Intercultural Influences,
ed. R. M. Whiting, Melammu Symposia 2 (Helsinki, 2001), 110–
13; G. Rubio, “Inanna and Dumuzi: A Sumerian Love Story,” JAOS
121 (2001): 61–62; P. Jones, “Embracing Inana: Legitimation and
Mediation in the Ancient Mesopotamian Sacred Marriage Hymn
Iddin-Dagan A,” JAOS 123 (2003): 291–302; Pongratz-Leisten,
“Sacred Marriage and the Transfer,” 54ff.
148
W. Heimpel, “A Catalog of Near Eastern Venus Deities,”
Syro-Mesopotamian Studies 4/3 (1982): 9–22; T. L. Holm, Nanay
among the Arameans, forthcoming. For thorough studies of
Nanaya, see Goodnick Westenholz, “Nanay, Lady of Mystery,” and
“Trading the Symbols of the Goddess Nanaya,” in Religions and
Trade: Religious Fromation, Transformation and Cross-Cultural Ex-
change between East and West, ed. P. Wick and V. Rabens, DHR 5
(Leiden 2014), 167–98; Stol, “Nanea/Ναναία,” in DDD 612–14,
and “Nanaja,” RlA 9 (1998–2001): 146–151; M. P. and N. Wasser-
man, “More Light on Nanaya,” ZA 102 (2012): 183–201. On her
identification with Ishtar or other goddesses, see J. M. Asher-Greve
and J. Goodnick Westenholz, Goddesses in Context: On Divine Pow-
ers, Roles, Relationships and Gender in Mesopotamian Textual and
Visual Sources, OBO 259 (Fribourg, 2013), 104–31.
F 23
Ištar/Inanna, Nanaya was thought to have influence
over love encounters, and was closely linked with the
king, the authority of kingship, and the royal house.
Her identification with Inanna/Ishtar was “a basic
tenet of Babylonian theology from very early times.”149
Nanaya was always especially revered at Uruk (from
the Old Babylonian period onward), where she had an
important shrine, but she was worshiped too at other
sites in southern Mesopotamia, such as Nippur, Ur,
Isin, Larsa, Babylon, and Kish. There is early evidence
for her worship east of the Tigris between the Diyala
River and Elam as well,150 and her cult moved north
by the end of the second millennium bc. In the second
millennium her spouse was Muʾati, but was then Nabû
of Borsippa in the first millennium. Nevertheless, she
first appears with Nabû in a triad including his other
spouse Tašmētu, on a kudurru of Merodach-Baladan
I (1173–1161 bc).151 She was much revered by the
Neo-Assyrian kings, but they always related her to
their activities in southern Mesopotamia, and not in
Assyria. Furthermore, three successive neo-Assyrian
kings of the seventh century (Sennacherib, Esarhad-
don, and Assurbanipal) each claimed to have taken
back from Susa a cult image of Nanaya and returned
it to Uruk. Assurbanipal even claimed the image he re-
turned was originally taken in the reign of the Elamite
king Kutir-Nahhunte I (1730–1700 bc), a statement
which, if true, would indicate Nanaya’s long presence
in Elam.152
Nanaya’s popularity eventually expanded eastward
beyond Iran,153 and westward to Athens and Egypt.154
In the Parthian era, she was worshiped at Hatra, As-
149
P.-A. Beaulieu, The Pantheon of Uruk during the Neo-Bab-
ylonian Period, CM 23 (Leiden, 2003), 186; T. Richter, Unter-
suchungen zu den lokalen Panthea Süd- und Mittelbabyloniens in
altbabylonischer Zeit 2nd ed., AOAT 257 (Münster, 2004), 295–96,
303–306, 372–73; Asher-Greve and Goodnick Westenholz, On Di-
vine Powers, 104–31.
150
Goodnick Westenholz, “Nanaya, Lady of Mystery,” 60,
71–72, 80. Goodnick Westenholz even speculated that the name
“Nanaya” ultimately derived from the Elamite word for “day”:
nan(a) (ibid., 58).
151
See S. Page, “A New Boundary-Stone of Merodach I,” Sumer
23 (1967): 66, ll. 22–27; E. Matsushima, “Problèmes des Déesses
Tašmētum et Nanaia,” Orientalia 16 (1980): 137.
152
D. T. Potts, “Nana in Bactria,” Silk Road Art and Archaeol-
ogy 7 (2001): 28–30.
153
Stol, “Nanea/Ναναίᾳ,” 612, and “Nanaja,” 613.
154
A short inscription on a small basis of Hymettian marble
found in Piraeus (near Athens) reads: “Axios and Kleio made an
offering to Artemis-Nana (Ἀρτέμιδι Νανᾱι) in fulfillment of a vow”
(CIA II, 3, 1613 = III, 1, 131).
24 F Journal of Near Eastern Studies
sur, Palmyra, Susa, and Elymais, and at Dura-Europos,
where she was identified with Artemis. She reached
Bactria, as is evidenced by both Kushan coins,155 and
a second century ce inscription found at Rabatak
(modern Afghanistan) in 1993, in which the Kushan
emperor Kanishka cites Nana as the source of his king-
ship.156 Yet the farthest eastern reach of Nanaya’s cult
was into Sogdiana and Transoxiana in the seventh-
eighth centuries.157 Moreover, in the Christian world,
Jacob of Sarug (521 ce) named her as a goddess of
the Assyrians, and in the Syriac Acts of Mar Muʿain,
King Shapur II tells this saint from the town of Shigar
(in the diocese of Nisibis) to make sacrifices to Zeus,
Nanay, Bel, and Nabû.158 In Aramaic and Mandaic
incantations, Nanaya is both a deity and a demon.
One of the last appearances of the name of Nanaya in
Mesopotamia is on a Syriac magic bowl from Nippur
in about 600 ce, where the deity is masculine nnʾy.159
The final mention of Nanaya in the Near East overall
is by Bar Bahlul, a Christian scholar from Baghdad in
around 1000 ce, who describes her as Venus in his
Syriac-Arabic lexicon.160
The earliest evidence for Nanaya’s cult in Egypt
dates to about 515 bc, in the appearance of a male
witness called Nanay (nny) in the Aramaic Bauer-
Meissner joint-venture agreement from the nome of
Oxyrhynchus (TAD B1.1).161 Only two other personal
names with nny occur elsewhere in Egyptian Aramaic
155
See, for instance, H. Loeschner, “The Stūpa of the Kushan
Emperor Kanishka the Great, with Comments on the Azes Era and
Kushan Chronology,” Sino-Platonic Papers 227 (2012): 6–11; Am-
bos, “Nanaja.”
156
“Kanishka the Kushan, . . . who has obtained the kingship
from Nana and from all the gods,” ll. 1–2; N. Sims-Williams and
J. Crib, “A New Bactrian Inscription of Kanishka the Great,” Silk
Road Art and Archaeology 4 (1995/96): 98; and N. Sims-Williams,
“The Bactrian Inscription of Rabatak: A New Reading,” Bulletin of
the Asia Institute 18 (2008): 55.
157
G. Azarpay, “Nanâ, the Sumero-Akkadian goddess of Tran-
soxiana,” JAOS 96 (1976): 536–42.
158
A. Salvesen, “The Legacy of Babylon and Nineveh in Aramaic
Sources,” in Legacy of Mesopotamia, ed. S. Dalley (Oxford, 1998),
139–61.
159
J. A. Montgomery, Aramaic Incantation Texts from Nippur,
Publications of the Babylonian Collection 3 (Philadelphia, 1913),
238–40, no. 36; see also M. Moriggi, A Corpus of Syriac Incanta-
tion Bowls: Syriac Magical Texts from Late-Antique Mesopotamia,
Magic and Religious Literature of Late Antiquity 3 (Leiden, 2014),
56–59, no. 8.
160
H. Bar Bahlule, Lexicon Syriacom, ed. R. Duval, 2 vols. (Paris,
1901), 1253.
161
H. A. Szubin and B. Porten, “An Aramaic Joint Venture
Agreement: A New Interpretation of the Bauer-Meissner Papyrus,”
BASOR 288 (1992): 67–84.
documents, and they both belong to people from Sy-
ene: nnyḥm, “Nanaiḥem” (BK 2:4=TAD A2.2:4 and
BK 4:1, 15=TAD A2.1: 1, 15), and nnyšwry, “Nanai-
shuri,” who is specifically said to be “an Aramean of
Syene” (Segal 35:1=TAD B4.7:1).
In Egyptian religion, the native Egyptians iden-
tified the Aramean goddess Nanaya with Isis. Isis-
Nanaia or Isis Sononais appears in inscriptions such
as the dedication on a black stone from Cleopatra
III and her son, Ptolemy Alexander, in 104 bc which
reads: [Ἴ]σιδι Σονονάει θε[ᾶι] μεγίστηι, “to Isis So-
nonais the great goddess.”162 Moreover, Nanaya
is identified with Isis in various hymns. The poet
Isidorus of the Fayum famously mentions her in a
poem to Isis from second or first century bc Egypt,
in which he writes “the Syrians call you Astarte, Ar-
temis, Nanaya” (Ἄστάρτην Ἄρτεμίν σε Σύροι κλῄζουσι
Ναναίαν; Hymn 1, l. 18).163 The claim that Isis is
Nanaya to the Syrians is also apparently found in an
unpublished first-century ce hymn from Soknopaiu
Nesos in the Fayum.164 Moreover, the “Invocation of
Isis” from the early second century bc calls Isis “the
Nania in Susa” (ἐν Σούσοις Νανίαν; Papyrus Oxyrhyn-
chus 1380: 105–106).165 There were at least a few
Egyptian temples dedicated to her: e.g., shrines of
Isis-Nanaia or Isis Sononais located in the village of
Nabla in the Fayum;166 and a major temple in Alexan-
162
É. Bernand, Recueil des inscriptions grecques du Fayoum, I. La
“Méris” d’Hérakleidès (Leiden, 1975), 126–131, text no. 69, l. 4.
For other Greek evidence, see W. J. R. Rübsam, Götter und Kulte in
Faijum während der griechisch-römisch-byzantinischen Zeit (Bonn,
1974), 124–25; and G. Ronchi, Lexicon theonymon rerumque
sacrarum et divinarum ad Aegyptum pertinentium quae in papyris
ostracis titulis Graecis Latinisque in Aegypto repertis laudantur (Mi-
lano, 1974–1977), vol. IV, 736.
163
V. F. Vanderlip, The Four Greek Hymns of Isidorus and the
Cult of Isis, ASP 12 (Toronto, 1972), 18.
164
See the announcement in M. A. Stadler, “Spätägyptische
Hymnen als Quellen für den interkulturellen Austausch und den
Umgang mit dem eigenen Erbe – drei Fallstudien,” in Orakel
und Gebete: Interdisziplinäre Studien zur Sprache der Religion in
Ägypten, Vorderasien und Griechenland in hellenistischer Zeit, ed.
M. Witte and J. F. Diehl (Tübingen, 2009), 160. Preliminary re-
ports will appear in Stadler’s “New Light on the Universality of
Isis (­pVienna D. 6297 + 6329 + 10101),” in Entangled Worlds:
Religious Confluences between East and West in the Roman Empire:
The Cults of Isis, Mithras and Jupiter Dolichenus, ed. S. Nagel et
al. (Tübingen, forthcoming), and also Théologie et culte au temple
de Soknopaios: Études sur la religion d’un village égyptien pendant
l’époque romaine (Paris, forthcoming).
165
B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, vol.
11 (London, 1915), 11, 198, 202, 216.
166
S. Pasek, Hawara: Eine ägyptische Siedlung in hellenistischer
Zeit (Berlin 2007), vol. 1: 133–34. On Nabla, see A. Calderini,
 Nanay and Her Lover: An Aramaic Sacred Marriage Text from Egypt
dria, called the Nanaîon (ἡ τοῦ Ναναίου βιβλιοθήκη),
which is mentioned in Egyptian papyri as a place
where official documents were deposited. 167
On the other hand, outside of personal names,
Nanay is hard to locate among the Arameans who
may have brought her cult to Egypt.168 Her Babylo-
nian spouse, Nabû, by contrast seems very prominent;
he had a temple at Syene, and, in the Elephantine
documents, there are more personal names bearing
the theophoric element nbw than those for any deity
but Yahu.169 One solution to Nanaya’s seeming near-
invisibility among Egyptian Arameans is that we have
looked past her all along; perhaps she is the deity be-
hind the epithet Banit (bnt), the goddess who had a
temple at Syene mentioned in TAD A2.2:1, 12 and
A2.4:1, and whose name is a theophoric element
in several personal names; e.g., Makkibanit (TAD
B1.1:17 etc.); Banitsar (TAD A2.2:5, 2.6:3, 8); etc.
The name Banit means either “Beautiful One” (Akk.
banītu; CAD B 81) or “Creatress” (Akk. bānītu; CAD
B 94), and scholars of Egyptian Aramean religion have
often paired her with Nabû.170 Previous proposals for
the identity of Banit at Syene have suggested that she
is a consort of Ninurta,171 a consort of Nabû (perhaps
Nanaya, but more likely Tašmētu),172 or Ishtar, which
is the most popular option by far.173 However, while
the name bānītu, “creatress,” was given to many god-
desses in Mesopotamia,174 it was especially an appella-
1966–. Dizionario dei nomi geografici e topografici dell’Egitto greco-
romano, with Supplemento by S. Daris (Milano, 1966–), 3.314 and
Suppl. 2, 106 and 129.
167
E.g., P. Fam. Teb. 29, 10; W. E. H. Cockle, “State Archives
in Graeco-Roman Egypt from 30 BC to the Reign of Septimius
Severus,” JEA 70 (1984): 117; Ronchi, Lexicon Theonymon re-
rumque sacrarum, vol. IV, 812–13.
168
Neither Porten’s invaluable Archives from Elephantine from
1968, nor the most recent book on religion at Elephantine by
Rohrmoser (Götter, Tempel und Kult in 2014), have an entry for
Nanay in their indices.
169
F. Pomponio, “Nabû. Philologisch,” RlA 9 (1998–2001): 23.
170
E.g., K. van der Toorn, “Anat-Yahu, Some Other Deities, and
the Jews of Elephantine,” Numen 39 (1992): 86.
171
Deller 1983: 142; E. Matsushima, “Les Rituels du Mariage
Divin dans les Documents Accadiens,” ASJ 10 (1988): 124–25.
172
Van der Toorn, “Anat-Yahu,” 86, 92.
173
See, inter alia, E. Kraeling, The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic
Papyri: New Documents of the Fifth Century B.C. from the Jewish Col-
ony at Elephantine (New Haven, CT, 1953), 86 n. 9; and Botta, “Ar-
ameans Outside of Syria,” 369. J. T. Milik even suggested that bnt,
“creatress,” was a generic designation, which could substitute for
the name of any goddess; “Les papyrus araméens d’Hermoupolis et
les cultes syro-phéniciens en Égypte perse,” Biblica 48 (1967): 558.
174
For a goddess Banit in the Levant, note the inscription from
Taurus recently identified by Lemaire with a PN Ṣilbanit (“under
F 25
tive of Ishtar,175 and it was applied to Nanaya as well.176
Furthermore, Nanaya’s counterpart Isis was important
at Aswan, as is attested by the two temples of Isis in
the area during the Hellenistic period.177
Since it is Nanaya who was especially revered among
Arameans, and since Nanaya was worshiped in Egypt
by even native Egyptians as Isis-Nanaia, it makes sense
that Banit at Syene would be Nanay/Nanaya. Further-
more, if one thinks the goddess called Banit in Egypt
must be Nabû’s spouse, it is more likely that Nanaya
would be that spouse rather than Tašmētu, who had
no footprint in Egypt. It is noteworthy to add that
the authors of P. Amherst 63 seemed to have viewed
Nanay and Nabû as a couple in at least one poem; in
viii 5–6, Nabû from Borsippa and Nanay from Ayakku
are placed together in a series of mostly male-female
pairs (see below).
Banit is also included in a list of deities imported
with the deportees sent to Samaria by an unnamed
Assyrian king (possibly Sargon II) in 2 Kings 17:24–
34, esp. 30–31:
The people from Babylon made ‘the image of
Banit,’178 those from Cuthah made Nergal, and
the protection of Banit”), dating to c. 700 bc; A. Lemaire, “Arame-
ans Outside of Syria: Anatolia,” in The Aramaeans in Ancient Syria,
ed. H. Niehr, HdO 106 (Leiden, 2014), 321.
175
Parpola, Assyrian Prophecies, xviii; lxxx n. 6; ic n. 183. For
instance, Ishtar of Nineveh (AkkGE 70–71; CAD B 94), and Ishtar
of Arbela in the Nanaya/Ishtar hymn published by E. Reiner, “A
Sumero-Akkadian Hymn of Nanâ,” JNES 33 (1974): 224–26; see
also Asher-Greve and Goodnick Westenholz, Goddesses in Context,
116–17.
176
Nanaya is also called banītu, “beautiful,” in BA 5 628 iv 14
(SAA 3 4, “Nanaya Hymn of Sargon II”), ln. 13: šurriḫa ba-ni-
i-tu šurbâ ruṣṣuntu, “exalt the beautiful one (Nanâ), magnify the
resonant one”; Livingston, Court Poetry, 14. Bresciani and Kamil
noticed this passage, but preferred Ishtar as the identity of Banit,
following Kraeling; see E. Bresciani and M. Kamil, “Le lettere ara-
maiche di Hermopoli,”Atti della Academia Nazionale dei Lincei,
Memorie, Classe di Scienze morali, storiche e filologiche (VIII, 12) 5
(1966), 366 n. 11; and Kraeling, The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic
Papyri, 86 n. 9.
177
For a description of her small temple at Syene, see J. H. F.
Dijkstra, Syene I. The Figural and Textual Graffiti from the Temple
of Isis at Aswan, Beiträge zur Ägyptische Bauforschung und Alter-
tumskunde 18 (Mainz am Rhein, 2012), 13–19; and Bresciani, “Il
tempio tolemaico di Isi ad Assuan.” For her large temple at Philae,
see E. Vassilika, Ptolemai Philae, OLA 34 (Leuven, 1989), 27–36.
178
As Lipiński suggested, sukkôt bĕnôt (the MT’s misanalyzed
vocalization) is not a reference to the Babylonian goddess Zarpa-
nitu, spouse of Marduk in Babylon, but is better interpreted as the
“image of Banit” (reading a common noun skn/sknt; cf. Ugaritic
skn “stela,” DULAT 747–48); see E. Lipiński, “SKN et SGN dans
le sémitique occidental du nord,” UF 5 (1973): 202–204. Cf. also
26 F Journal of Near Eastern Studies
those from Hamath made Ashima; the Avvites
made Nibhaz and Tartak, and the Sepharvites
burned their children in the fire as sacrifices
to Adrammelek and Anammelek, the gods of
Sepharvaim.
A case has been made that all of these toponyms were
located in Babylonia, and two may be east of the Ti-
gris in the Babylonian-Elamite borderland (Hamath/
Amatu and Awwah/Ama).179 A deportation of Baby-
lonians and Elamites to Samaria is also mentioned in
Ezra 4: 9–10, where the king is Assurbanipal and the
deportation in question matches one described for
647 bc.180 One observes that such descriptions pro-
vide a background not only for possibly the goddess
Nanay/Nanaya, but also for some of the Arameans
who produced P. Amh. 63, at least those who con-
sidered their ancestral home to have been east of the
Tigris or in the Zagros region.181 It is important to
Akk. šiknu, but at Mari and Emar Akk. /sikkānu/, /sikkānātu/,
/sikkānētu/ (CAD Š 2 436–439); D. Charpin, “Le bétyle au pays
de Sumer,” N.A.B.U. (1987): 77; J. M. Durand, “Le nom des Bé-
tyles à Ebla et en Anatolie,” N.A.B.U. (1988): 8.
179
G. R. Driver, “Geographical Notes,” EI 5 (1958): 18–20; R.
Zadok, “Geographical and Onomastic Notes,” JANES 8 (1976):
117–123; N. Na’aman and R. Zadok, “Sargon II’s Deportations to
Israel and Philistia (716–708 B.C.),” JCS 40 (1988): 44–45. While
it is certainly possible that the Hamath here is the one in Syria, it
may well be the Amatu (both a tribe and a town) from Sargon II’s
texts instead. In these texts, both Amatu and Ama/Awa seem to
have been situated on the Uqnū River. The relationship of Amatu
on the Uqnū to the town of the same or similar name (­uru­Am-mat)
in the Nippur region is unclear; see E. Lipiński, The Aramaeans:
Their Ancient History, Culture, and Religion, OLA 100 (Leuven,
2000), 469; G. Tolini, “From Syria to Babylon and Back: The
Neirab Archive,” in Exile and Return: The Babylonian Context, ed.
J. Stökl and C. Waerzeggers, BZAW 478 (Berlin, 2015), 62–63,
65–66; R. Zadok, “West Semitic Groups in the Nippur Region
between c. 750 and 330 B.C.E.,” in Exile and Return, ed. Stökl and
Waerzeggers, 99; and RGTC 8: 22–23. With regard to Sepharvaim,
Zadok identifies it with the Babylonian toponym Sipirani (from a
putative Aramaic Siprayn), south of Nippur; Zadok, “Geographical
and Onomastic Notes,” 115–17.
180
Steiner in COS 1: 310.
181
For evidence of Aramaic speakers in the region of ancient
Ellipi, note, for instance, the Aramaic inscriptions from Luristan
found on three objects from tombs, dating from c. 750 to about
600 bc (A. Dupont-Sommer, “Trois inscriptions araméennes in-
édites sur des bronzes de Luristan,” IrAnt 4 (1964): 108–18, pls.
XXXIII–XXXVII); TSSI vol. 2, nos. 11 and 12 (pp. 57–59), and
the eighth-century astral bowl also from Luristan, which depicts
constellations that are captioned by eight tiny Aramaic inscriptions;
A. Lemaire, “Coupe astrale inscrite et astronomie araméenne,” in
Michael: Historical, Epigraphical and Biblical Studies in Honor of
Prof. Michael Heltzer, ed. Y. Avishur and R. Deutsch (Tel Aviv/
note, however, that not all trans-Tigridean Arameans
or Aramaic speakers who found themselves on the
Nile would have made their way there after a stay
in Syria-Palestine. Some may have been deported
there by the Assyrians directly; e.g., along with the
inhabitants of Qirbitu, a town in the Zagros moun-
tains on the northern border of Rāši (RGTC 8: 256),
which Assurbanipal plundered in about 668 bc and
whose inhabitants he removed to Egypt immediately
thereafter.182
Nanaya’s Sacred Marriage and
the New Year’s Festival
Since Nanaya was a goddess of love in Mesopotamia,
she was frequently mentioned in both secular and sa-
cred love poems. For instance, in an Old Babylonian
dialogue love poem, the male lover swears by Nanaya
and King Hammurabi.183 Moreover, there are at least
two divine love poems featuring Nanaya, in which a
king either takes part or is blessed: the Old Babylonian
sacred marriage text between Nanaya and Rīm-Sîn of
Larsa,184 and the love dialogue between Nanaya and
god Muati (VAT 17347), where blessings are invoked
upon king Abiešuḫ of Babylon (1711–1684 bc).185
Furthermore, one notes the description of Nanaya
and Nabû’s wedding found in the ritual text from
Babylon, SBH 8 (mentioned above), which takes place
in Ayyaru, the second month. Finally, the last mention
of a sacred marriage between Nanaya and a lover in
the ancient Near East is in 2 Maccabees 1:13–17. In a
fictional letter dated to 124 bc, Antiochus IV’s death
on around the twenty-fifth of Kislev (Akk. Kislīmu,
Jaffa, 1999), 195–211; K. L. Younger, “Another Look at an Aramaic
Astral Bowl,” JNES 71 (2012): 209–30.
182
Assurbanipal’s Prism E, BIWA 180f.; K. Lämmerhirt, “Qir-
bitu,” RlA 11 (2006–2008): 179–80; R. Zadok, “Zur Geographie
Babyloniens während des sargonidischen, chaldäischen, achämeni-
dischen und hellenistischen Zeitalters,” WO 16 (1985): 48–49.
183
Si. 57, Istanbul Museum IV, 6: at-ma-ki-im dNa-na-a-a
ù Ḫa-am-mu-ra-bi šarram “I swear to you by Nanaya and King
Hammurabi”; M. Held, “A Faithful Lover in an Old Babylonian
Dialogue,” JCS 15 (1961): 9. See also W. G. Lambert, “Devotion:
The Languages of Religion and Love,” in Figurative Language in
the Ancient Near East, ed. M. Mindlin (London, 1987), 26.
184
YOS 11 24; M. Sigrist and J. Goodnick Westenholz, “The
Love Poem of Rim-Sîn and Nanaya,” in Birkat Shalom: Studies in
the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism
Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birth-
day, ed. C. Cohen et al. (Winona Lake, IN, 2008), vol. 2, 667–704.
185
Lambert, “Divine Love-Lyrics from the Reign of Abi-ešuh,”
41–56.
 Nanay and Her Lover: An Aramaic Sacred Marriage Text from Egypt
the ninth month) in 164 bc, is falsely attributed to
certain priests of Nanēa, who cut him to pieces when
he came to her temple in Persis (Persia) to plunder it,
under the pretext of carrying out a marriage ceremony
with her.
Richard Steiner interpreted P. Amh. 63 as a New
Year’s festival liturgy (akītu) for several reasons, includ-
ing the presence of the sacred marriage text at the end
of the liturgical section in col. xvii, which is the culmina-
tion of the papyrus’s liturgical arch.186 Moreover, Epiph
(the Egyptian name for Tishri) is mentioned at least
once on the papyrus (ix 13, when a bed is to be brought
down), and may indicate a New Year’s celebration in
the seventh month of the liturgical calendar, in the au-
tumn, like the Jewish Rosh Hashanah. Futhermore, col.
v mentions a “beginning” or “beginning<s> of years”
(rš šnn or rš<y> šnn, perhaps a reference to New Year’s
festivals), and the second Canaanite/Israelite psalm on
the papyrus in xiii 4 asks for Adonai to accept “your
annual liturgy” (sdrt šntk). With regard to cult and
personnel, various sacrifices are offered throughout, a
priestess is chosen in col. ix, and an unnamed king is
indeed mentioned several times.
On the other hand, col. xvii’s sacred marriage poem
cannot be taken as a typical culminating ritual for a
New Year’s festival, which was celebrated in the first
(Nisannu/Nisan) and seventh month (Tašrītu/Tishri)
of the year in Mesopotamia. For one, the evidence for
such a ritual during the akītu is limited. For instance,
in the many Sumerian Dumuzi-Inanna love songs, the
timing for a divine union is only specified twice: in
Iddin-Dagan A and Dumuzi-Inanna D1, where it is
set on the “day of the disappearance of the moon,
at the New Year.”187 Moreover, the Old Babylonian
“Love Poem of Rim-Sîn and Nanaya” is set in Ni-
sannu as part of a New Year’s celebration at Larsa
(YOS 11 24).188 However, the only explicit evidence
for an actual celebration of some sort of sacred mar-
riage rites (parṣī ša ḫašādu) during the New Year akītu
festival is from Hellenistic Babylon (in Nisannu) and
Uruk (in Tašrītu).189 In Babylon, according to SBH 8,
the wedding festival (ḫadaššūtu) of probably Marduk
and Zarpanītu is celebrated on day eleven of Nisan-
186
Steiner, “The Aramaic Text in Demotic Script: The Liturgy
of a New Year’s Festival,” and COS 1: 310.
187
Lapinkivi, “The Sumerian Sacred Marriage,” 28.
188
Sigrist and Goodnick Westenholz, “The Love Poem of Rim-
Sîn and Nanaya.”
189
Linssen, The Cults of Uruk and Babylon, 70–71.
F 27
nu.190 In Uruk, according to TU 39 obv. 4–5, the rites
are said to take place “in the Ehilikuga-chapel, the
bed-chamber of Ehilianna, the temple of Nanāya,” in
Tašrītu days 1–8, and the divine participants seem to
be Anu and Antu.191
In general, however, the chronological setting of
divine marriage rites in Mesopotamian texts varied
greatly,192 but they were said to be celebrated mostly
in five months of the year: Nissanu and Tašrītu, as
mentioned, but also Ayyaru (the second month),
Ulūlu (the sixth month), and Šabāṭu (the eleventh
month). For instance, the love rituals of Nabû and
Tašmetu in Kalḫu took place in Ayyaru,193 as did the
Late Babylonian rituals of Nabû and Nanaya in Bor-
sippa or Uruk in the Nanaya temple Ehuršaba,194 and
those of Shamash and Aya in Sippar.195 A wedding
ceremony for (probably) Ishtar seems to take place
in the month of Ulūlu/Elul in Hellenistic Uruk.196
The eleventh month, Šabāṭu, was the time for the
love rituals of Mullissu in Assur, those of Marduk and
Zarpanitu in Babylon, and further rituals at Sippar.197
The month of Kislīmu (the ninth month) may also
warrant mention. Babylon and Borsippa’s ritual cycle
in the late periods included offerings made to Nanay in
Babylon and Nanay in Borsippa on the twenty-fifth of
Kislīmu—incidentally, the same timing for the death
of Antiochus IV when he went to Persia pretending
to wed Nanēa in 2 Maccabees.198
Therefore, if Steiner is correct in reading the litur-
gical portions of P. Amh. 63 as a New Year’s liturgy,
190
Ibid., 71; contra Matsushima (“Les Rituels du Mariage
Divin,” 98), who says the participating male deity is Nabû.
191
AO 6459:1–5 in F. Thureau-Dangin, Rituels Accadiens
(Paris, 1921), 66, 89, 93–94. See Matsushima, “Les Rituels du
Mariage Divin,” 110–15; and Nissinen “Akkadian Rituals and Po-
etry of Divine Love,” 2001: 108–109.
192
Lapinkivi, The Sumerian Sacred Marriage in Light of Com-
parative Evidence, 81–91, esp. 83–86; Nissinen, “Akkadian Rituals
and Poetry of Divine Love,” 110.
193
This is according to Neo-Assyrian letters, a love song, and a
hymn of Assurbanipal. See Matsushima, “Le Rituel Hiérogamique
de Nabû”; and Nissinen, “Love Lyrics of Nabû and Tašmetu,”
592–95.
194
Matsushima, “Le Rituel Hiérogamique de Nabû,” 158–63.
195
Matsushima, “Les Rituels du Mariage Divin,” 98–99; Nis-
sinen, “Akkadian Rituals and Poetry of Divine Love,” 2001: 106–
107.
196
Linssen, The Cults of Uruk and Babylon, 70–71.
197
Matsushima, “Les Rituels du Mariage Divin,” 99–109; Nis-
sinen, “Akkadian Rituals and Poetry of Divine Love,” 110.
198
Ibid., 110; see also D. R. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, CEJL (Ber-
lin, 2008), 147–50.
28 F Journal of Near Eastern Studies
this would suggest that the timing of Nanay’s marriage
on the papyrus may have been consciously placed in
Epiph (Tishri), because, while her temple was the lo-
cation for the sacred marriage ceremonies of Anu and
Antu in first-millennium Uruk, as far as we can tell
from the evidence listed above, her own wedding cer-
emonies were more likely to be celebrated in Ayyaru
and perhaps Kislīmu. It is only in the Old Babylonian
“Love Poem of Rim-Sîn and Nanaya” (YOS 11 24)
in the first half of the second millennium bc that her
divine union is set at the New Year—but that was
the New Year festival in Nisannu. Moreover, Karel
van der Toorn has recently proposed that the annual
rites mentioned in P. Amh. 63 xiii 4 (one of the three
Canaanite or Israelite poems on the papyrus) reflect
a New Year’s festival that can further be connected to
a new-moon festival with wine in xiii 7.199 He looks
to the biblical sacrifices of the new moon that usher
in the new year, and the evidence in ritual texts from
Ugarit describing several new-moon festivals, espe-
cially one which concerns a new-moon festival after
the twelfth month (in the autumn at Ugarit), called
Raʾšu-yêni, “First-of-the-wine.”200 On the other hand,
whether the papyrus represents a New Year’s liturgy
or not (and the evidence is far from conclusive), the
sacred marriage text still concludes the cultic portion
of the papyrus with a unifying theme for a mixed com-
munity of Arameans: it looks toward the past (the
entry into a new land, the loss of an old), but also
toward the future in its hope for a rebuilt homeland
as a refuge for the destitute (xvii 19).
Conclusion
Arameans or Aramaic speakers from multiple origins
arrived in Egypt from the eighth or at least the sev-
enth centuries onward.201 The contents of col. xvii 1–6
seem to indicate that some of those who produced P.
199
Van der Toorn, “Celebrating the New Year With the Israelites.”
200
Pardee, Ritual and Cult, 56–65. It is noteworthy that the
bilingual sacrificial ritual from Ugarit for the bed of Pidray (RS
24.291; which may have nothing to do with a sacred marriage) is set
in the period of a full-moon festival, beginning on the nineteenth of
an unnamed month; ibid., 96–99.
201
See now A. Fitzpatrick-McKinley, “Preserving the Cult of
YHWH in Judean Garrisons: Continuity from Pharaonic to Ptol-
emaic Times,” in Sibyls, Scriptures, and Scrolls: John Collins at Sev-
enty, ed. J. Baden et al., SJSJ 175/1–2 (Leiden, 2017), 375–408,
esp. 396–406. On “Aramean” as an ethnic-administrative term in
Egypt during the Persian period that encompassed Jews, see Botta,
“Arameans Outside of Syria,” 368–69; and for another perspective,
Amherst 63 had come most immediately from Judah
and Samaria, but other sections of the papyrus seem
to claim connections to Hamath or Arpad in Syria or
Mesopotamia east of the Tigris, especially the land of
Rāši/Arāši between Babylonia and Elam.202 In terms
of these latter associations, some Arameans in Egypt
may have had ancestors who came directly from the
Zagros region in Assurbanipal’s deportations of the
town of Qirbitu, on Rāši’s northern border, in 668
bc (see above). While a nostalgia for Ellipi is evident
in col. xvii, a sentimental longing for Rāši/Rash (the
most frequently mentioned toponym on the papyrus),
is most clearly expressed in the dream of Rash and
its city Ellipi-Pait/Piat in xi 8–11 (see comments to
l. 15 above).
P. Amh. 63, dating to the fourth century bc, kept
alive the traditions of the diverse Aramean community
who eventually came to Egypt. The liturgical section
of the papyrus constituted an attempt to draw this
community together by referencing renewal and re-
building, and in doing so, generated a cultural and re-
ligious mixture of their various traditions. This would
explain the incredible diversity of deities, places, and
genres on the papyrus, such as: the occasional refer-
ences to a “Lord (of) Bethel” and his sacred bulls or
calves in presumably Samaria (col. vi); the importance
of Hamath in col. ix; the Canaanite/Israelite psalms in
xii 11b–xiii 17 (which praise Yahu foremost, but place
him alongside Śahar, Bethel, and Baʿal); the hymns to
Ashim-Bethel in col. xvi; and so on. Most remarkable
is the “Hymn to All the Gods” in col. viii 1–7, which is
astounding in its breadth, invoking deities from Rāši/
Arāši to Egypt:
. . . your blessing/s.
⸢(As for) all⸣ the g[ods, may they] bless you.
May Mar from Rash bl⸢ess you⸣;
Marah from Šwr[.] should bless you.
May Baʿal from Saphon bless you;
Pidra⸢y⸣ from Raphiaḥ should bless you.
May Bel from Babylon bless you;
Belit from Esangila should bless you.
May Nabû bless you from Borsippa;
Nanay from Ayakku should bless you.
see K. van der Toorn, “Ethnicity at Elephantine: Jews, Arameans,
Caspians,” Tel Aviv 43 (2016): 147–64.
202
Steiner in COS 1: 310; Porten, “Settlement of Jews at Ele-
phantine and Arameans at Syene.” On the theory that the Jews
and Arameans of Aswan originated predominantly from Northern
Israel, but were ultimately from Northern Syria, see van der Toorn,
“Anat-Yahu” and “Ethicity.”
 Nanay and Her Lover: An Aramaic Sacred Marriage Text from Egypt F 29

May the Throne [Demotic qrs] of Yahu ATTME K. Beyer, Die aramäischen Texte vom
and Asherah/Osiris [wʾsʾr2ʾ•] from the South bless Toten Meer, Ergänzungsband (Göttin-
you.203 gen, 2004)
CD W. E. Crum et al., A Coptic Dictionary
Nevertheless, the leading role of Nanaya on the (Oxford, 1939)
papyrus as well as her “sacred marriage” in col. xvii CDD Chicago Demotic Dictionary
argue for a community that, however varied its origins CDG W. Leslau, Comparative Dictionary of
Geʿez (Classical Ethiopic) (Wiesbaden,
were or how diverse its pantheon, was unified in its
1991)
positive view of its hosts in the welcoming new coun- CIA Corpus Inscriptionum Atticarum (Ber-
try (xvii 1–6) as well as its strong identification with lin, 1873–97)
“elsewhere”—even if that “elsewhere” had been long COS W. Hallo and K. L. Younger, Jr., eds.
destroyed or abandoned centuries before, as was the The Context of Scripture: Canonical
case with Rāši and Elippi. The papyrus demonstrates Compositions, Monumental Inscriptions
and Archival Documents from the Bibli-
an effort to maintain an identity at a point in time cal World. 3 vols. (Leiden, 1997)
when Aramean identity was in crisis. With the end DCPA M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Christian
of the Persian empire, Aramaic had ceased to be a Palestinian Aramaic (Leuven, 2004;
bureacratic language in Egypt and little stock could trans. of F. Schulthess, Lexicon Syropal-
be placed on the label associated with the use of this estinum [Berlin: 1903])
DJB A. M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish
language (Aramaic, Aramean). While the Aramaic lan-
Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic
guage would continue to be used in isolated areas in and Geonic Periods (Ramat-Gan, 2002)
Egypt until the mid-second century bc, the contents DJPA M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish
of Papyrus Amherst 63 were probably written down Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine
as the use of Aramaic was waning. Arameans of differ- Period, 2nd ed. (Ramat-Gan, 2002)
ent geographical origins living in an Egyptian world DQA E. Cook, Dictionary of Qumran
Aramaic (Winona Lake, IN, 2015)
needed to transcribe their language into Demotic Drower-Macuch E. S. Drower and R. Macuch, A Man-
characters so that they could keep their texts and tra- daic Dictionary (Oxford, 1963)
ditions alive a little longer within their community. DRS D. Cohen. Dictionnaire des racines
The “sacred marriage” of Nanay that concludes the sémitiques ou attetées dans les langues
liturgical portion of the papyrus unifies this diverse sémitiques (Leuven, 1994–)
DULAT G. del Olmo Lete et al., A Dictionary
set of Arameans with its themes of renewal and divine
of the Ugaritic Language in the Alpha-
blessing. betic Tradition, 2 vols., 3rd ed., HdO
112 (Leiden, 2015)
Author’s note: For another interpretation of xvii EG W. Erichsen, Demotisches Glossar (Co-
7–14, see the following article which appeared when penhagen, 1954)
the present manuscript was in proofs: K. van der EDHIL A. Kloekhorst, Etymological Diction-
Toorn, “Eshem-Bethel and Herem-Bethel: New Evi- ary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon
(Leiden, 2008)
dence from Amherst Papyrus 63,” ZAW 128 (2016): HED J. Puhvel, Hittite Etymological Diction-
668–80.” ary (Berlin, 1984–)
HEG J. Tischler et al., Hethitisches etymolo-
gisches Glossar, IBS 20 (Innsbruck,
Abbreviations 1977–)
ATTM K. Beyer, Die aramäischen Texte vom J. Payne-Smith J. Payne Smith, ed., A Compendi-
Toten Meer, 2 vols. (Göttingen, 1984, ous Syriac Dictionary (Oxford, 1902;
1994) based on R. Payne Smith, Thesaurus
Syriacus [Oxford, 1879])
Jastrow M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Tar-
gumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerush-
almi, and the Midrashic Literature
203
Note that the Esangila was Marduk/Bel’s temple in Babylon, (London, 1903)
and the Ayakku was the Eanna temple of Ishtar in Uruk, the central Lane E. W. Lane, An Arabic-English
location for Nanaya’s cult in Mesopotamia. For observations on Lexicon, 8 vols. (Beirut, 1968)
the grammar of ll. 2–6, see I. Kottsieper, “Zum Hintergrund des LS 2 C. Brockelmann, Lexicon Syriacum
Schriftsystem im Pap. Amherst 63,” DS-NELL 5 (2003): 92–95. (Halle, 1928), trans. by M. Sokoloff
30 F Journal of Near Eastern Studies
as A Syriac Lexicon (Winona Lake, IN,
2009)
PAT D. R. Hillers and E. Cussini, Pal-
myrene Aramaic Texts (Baltimore,
1996)
SED A. Militarev and L. Kogan, Semitic Ety-
mological Dictionary, 2 vols., AOAT
278/1–2 (Münster, 2000–2005)
SPA S. P. Vleeming and J.-W. Wesselius.
Studies in Papyrus Amherst 63, I–II
(Amsterdam, 1985–90)
Steiner-Moshavi R. C. Steiner and A. M. Moshavi,
“A Selective Glossary of Northwest
Figure 1—Col. xvii. The Pierpont Morgan Library, New York. Amh. Egy. Pap. 63.5. Purchased by J. Pierpont Morgan (1837–1913)
in 1912.
Semitic Texts in Egyptian Script,” in
DNWSI, 1249–66
TAD B. Porten and A. Yardeni, Textbook
of Aramaic Documents from Ancient
Egypt. Newly Copied, Edited and
Translated into English. 4 vols. (A–D)
(Jerusalem, 1986–99)
Tal Sam A. Tal, A Dictionary of Samaritan
Aramaic, HdOS 50 (Leiden, 2000)
Wb. A. Erman and W. Grapow, Wörterbuch
der ägyptischen Sprache, 6 vols. Berlin,
1926–61
 Nanay and Her Lover: An Aramaic Sacred Marriage Text from Egypt F 31

Appendix 1—Demotic to Aramaic Monoconsonantal Signs204

ʾ (Demotic aleph) ʾ, vowel, y (in DN yh/yhw)

ʾ2 (Demotic ε, or prosthetic aleph) ʾ, y

ʾ3 (Demotic prosthetic aleph, or variant of iw, “to be”) ʾ, y

ʿ (Demotic ʿ) ʿ

b (Demotic b) b

b2 (Demotic b) b

h (Demotic h) h

ḥ (Demotic ḥ) ḥ

204
The Demotic transliteration intends to reproduce the original accurately, yet in a manner that allows the reader to entertain more
than one possible Aramaic interpretation. Thus, in my transliteration of Demotic, I keep separate k and q, since they are represented dis-
tinctly in Demotic (even though in this text, both signs can represent any of the Aramaic velars g, k, q), but I use Demotic t with subscript
numerals 1–5 since Demotic had lost its voiced dentals (even though Demotic t1-5 can represent any of the Aramaic dentals d, t, and ṭ on
this text). The voiceless s is employed for the Aramaic sibilants s/z. Likewise, for the velar fricatives ḫ/ġ, the transliteration uses the voiceless
ḫ, and for the approximants r/l, the dental r. The charts here contain only consonants and signs discussed in this article.
32 F Journal of Near Eastern Studies

ḫ (Demotic ḫ) ḫ, ġ

ḫ2 (Demotic h) ḫ, ġ

k (Demotic k) g, k, q

m (Demotic m) m

m2 (= n2) m

n (Demotic n) n

n2 (Demotic n) n

p (Demotic p) p

p2 (Demotic pꜢ, ms def. article) p

q (Demotic q) g, k, q

r (Demotic r, l) r, l
 Nanay and Her Lover: An Aramaic Sacred Marriage Text from Egypt F 33

r2 (Demotic rꜢ, “mouth”) r

r3 (Demotic ı͗ r , “to do”) r

s (Demotic s) s, z

š (Demotic š) š

t (Demotic t) d, ṭ, t

t2 (Demotic t) d, ṭ, t

t3 (Demotic tꜢ, fs def. article) d, ṭ, t

t5 (Demotic tw.w) d, ṭ, t

w (Demotic w) w

w2 (Demotic w) w
34 F Journal of Near Eastern Studies

w3 (Demotic w) w (also serves as divine

 determinative)

w4 (Demotic wʿ.t fs, “one”; Coptic ⲟⲩ[ⲉ]ⲓ) w (always consonantal)

y (Demotic y) y, vowel

Appendix 2—Aramaic to Demotic Monoconsonantal signs

ʾ ʾ, ʾ2, ʾ3, ∅ (often not represented) l r
b b, b2 m m, m2
g k, q n n, n2
d t, t2, t3, t5 s s
h h ʿ ʿ
w w, w2, w3, w4 ġ ḫ, ḫ2
z s p p, p2
ḥ ḥ ṣ Not in col. xvii, but t+s or t3+s elsewhere
ḫ ḫ, ḫ2 q k, q
ṭ t, t2, t3, t5 r r, r2, r3
y y, ʾ2, ʾ3 š š
k k, q t t, t2, t3, t5

Appendix 3—Demotic Multi-consonantal Signs with Usual Aramaic Correspondences

ʾt (Demotic iw̭t, “without”; Coptic ⲁⲧ) ʾt

ʿr (Demotic ʿr/ʿl, “go up”) ʿl, ʿr

ḥmt (Demotic ḥm.t, “wife”; Coptic ϩⲓⲙⲉ) ḥm(t)

 Nanay and Her Lover: An Aramaic Sacred Marriage Text from Egypt F 35

ḥr (Demotic ḥr, “Horus”) ḥr, ḥl

ḥr2 (Demotic ḥr, “upon”; Coptic ϩⲓ) h (only appears in the DN

ʾḥr2w2/w3 = yhw, “Yahu”): See
  Zauzich, “Der Gott.”

ḫr (Demotic hr, “under”; Coptic ϩⲁ) ḫr, ġr, ḫl, ġl, h (only in the DN
 ʾḫr = yh, “Yah”)

mn (Demotic negative, etymological bn) mn, m

mn2 (Demotic DN mn, “Min”) mn, m

mr (Demotic mr, “to bind”; Coptic ⲙⲟⲩⲣ) mr, fixed spelling for DN “Mar”
  or title “Lord”

mrt (Demotic mr(.t), “harbor, shore”; ⲙⲣⲱ) mrh, fixed spelling for DN
  “Marah” or title “Lady”

mw (Demotic mw, “water”) mw, occasionally mn (SPA II:

 35–36)

nš (Demotic nꜢy+ʾ3+š•; or ʾ3+nꜢy+š•) ʾnš, nš

36 F Journal of Near Eastern Studies

ny (Demotic n=y; i.e., n [dat. prep.] +1cs suff.) ny

ny2 (extended Demotic n=y, “to me” or nꜢy, ny

  “this, that”; both are ⲛⲁⲓ in Coptic)

ry (Demotic ry.t, “room”; Coptic ⲣⲓ) ry, ly

rn (Demotic rn, “name”) rn, ln

sp (Demotic sp, “remainder”) sp: Aramaic “end”?; a common

  divider between sections on
  the papyrus

šr (Demotic šr, “small”) šr

tm (Demotic tm, “not”) dm, ṭm, tm

ty (Demotic tꜢy, “this”) dy, ṭy, ty, t?

ty2 (Demotic ty, “here; there”) dy, ṭy, ty

 Nanay and Her Lover: An Aramaic Sacred Marriage Text from Egypt F 37

wn (Demotic wn, “to be”) wn, yn

Appendix 4—Independent Determinatives

• = Demotic hand-to-mouth sign, serves as word divider on this papyrus (sometimes inaccurately)

d
= divine determinative

det
= unknown determinative; it occurs in sequence with šr

p
= plant or herb, used on this papyrus especially but not solely after words ending in /sm/ (Demotic sm means
“plant”)

w
= seated woman with emblem, in Demotic designates a person of respect. It is used on this papyrus
especially after the toponym “Rash” and words that are associated with that toponym (e.g., ʾlh, ʾlhn),
but also occasionally after other words, e.g., those ending in -š or -hn.