Journal of Near Eastern Studies The Literary Dynamic of Loyalty and Betrayal in the Aramaic Ahiqar Narrative SAUL M. OLYAN, Brown University* Introduction The Aramaic Ahiqar narrative fragments from Elephan- tine have not infrequently received attention from schol- ars, with many noting that fidelity and treachery are pivotal themes in the story and that Ahiqar demands re- ciprocation from Nabusumiskun for saving Nabusumis- kun’s life years before. 1 Few scholars, however, have pro- vided a detailed analysis of the technical terminology of loyalty and betrayal in the tale and fewer still have investi- gated the story’s tacit presuppositions about these central issues. Yet, in order to analyze the literary dynamic of fi- delity and treachery in the Aramaic Ahiqar narrative, the pertinent technical vocabulary and the tale’s implicit assumptions about these matters must be considered along with Ahiqar’s explicit expectation that Nabusu- miskun reciprocate Ahiqar’s past actions. The narrator’s use of the technical term t ̣ btʾ,*t ̣ a ̄ ba ̄ ta ̄ (ʾ), “the good things,” to refer to loyalty, and verbal forms of the root h ̣ bl, “to destroy,” with respect to acts of betrayal, will be one focus of this study; the other will be the narrative’s implied and explicitly stated assumptions about faithful- ness and duplicity, which are no less important. 2 A de- tailed study of the dynamic of fidelity and betrayal in * I am indebted to Seth A. Bledsoe, Larry Wills, and the anony- mous reviewers for their helpful suggestions regarding the penulti- mate version of this essay. All errors of fact and judgment, however, are my responsibility alone. Porten and Yardeni, Textbook of Aramaic Documents I (1986) and III (1993) are occasionally abbreviated, pas- sim, as TAD: TAD A4.7.23–24 is to be found in TAD I; TAD C 1.1.9, 24, 51, 56–63, 64–78, and 87 are all to be found in TAD III. 1 E.g., Vanderkam, “Ahiqar” (1992): 119; Bledsoe, “Conflicting Loyalties” (2015), 250, 252, 253–54, who emphasizes loyalty and disloyalty to the king specifically but also notes the contrast between Nabusumiskun’s faithful conduct and the betrayal of Nadin. Note also Bledsoe’s observations about fidelity and treachery in “Ahiqar and Other Legendary Sages” (2020), 289, 294. (I thank Seth Bledsoe for this reference.) The sayings attributed to Ahiqar, originally a com- position separate from the narrative that precedes it, have received much more scholarly attention than has the narrative. On the relation- ship between the narrative and the sayings and the issue of prece- dence, see, e.g., Weigl, Achikar-Sprü che (2010), 12–13, and Kott- sieper, “Aramaic Tradition” (2008), 111, 120, among others. Some have observed the parallel with the book of Job, as Job is also a wis- dom work that combines narrative with non-narrative materials [JNES 79 no. 2 (2020)] © 2020 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0022-2968/2020/7902-0007$10.00. DOI: 10.1086/710223 (Niehr, Aramä ischer Ahiqar [2007], 12; Bledsoe, “Ahiqar and Other Legendary Sages” [2020], 295). For an extensive bibliography of sec- ondary works that address the Aramaic narrative text from various per- spectives, see the items listed in Contini and Grottanelli, Il saggio Ahiqar (2005), 278–80; see also Bledsoe, “Ahiqar and Other Leg- endary Sages” (2020), 308–309 for an up-to-date, although briefer, bibliography. 2 The vocalization of t ̣ btʾ as *t ̣ a ̄ ba ̄ ta ̄ (ʾ) in Aramaic Ahiqar reflects the loss of the consonantal value of the aleph of the definite article in Imperial Aramaic and resulting compensatory lengthening of *a; contrast *t ̣ a ̄ ba ̄ taʾ in the Sefire inscriptions, in which the aleph of 261